Rambling Rhodes

Huh. Wow.

So, there's this guy. He heads up a little known organization called Hezbollah. Hezbollah is known for its charitable worldwide work, most notably their sustained effort to provide beach transportation for Israeli Jews. Or, as they like to say it: "drive them into the sea."

Anyhoo, Nasrallah recently gave his opinion about the swirling controversy over the Muhammad cartoon story that's become an international dance sensation. So, what do you think? Do you think Nasrallah liked those cartoons?

Short answer: no.

Long answer:

"Today, we are defending the dignity of our prophet with a word, a demonstration but let Bush and the arrogant world know that if we have to, we will defend our prophet with our blood, not our voices."

Okay, well, that's pretty much your standard boilerplate angry Islamic fundamentalist rant. So that wasn't the part that made my antennae twitch. That came later:

"We want European parliaments to draft laws that ban newspapers from insulting the Prophet. If they don't do this, it means they intend to go on insulting our beliefs," he said.

WHA?! Laws. Banning. newspapers. From. Insulting. The Prophet. He actually said that. And meant it.

Silly Nasrallah, don't you know that newspapers already voluntarily ban themselves? They're one step ahead of you dude.

Cartoonish Logic

This is a longer, more thought out, version of the post I made late last night. Note that it's a combination of thoughts from when I was tired at around 1 a.m. and about five minutes of additional thought during my lunch break here at work, so I apologize if it reads like a competing narrative from Jekyl and Hyde at the same time.

Okay, so, media outlets nationwide are opting not to reprint the Muhammad cartoons that have caused, and are still causing, such a furor worldwide. Keep in mind, we're talking about CARTOONS here. Cartoons like:

And, more humorously:

More can be found online.com/sarticle.php?id=12146">here, if you're interested. They're all pretty tame, really.

Now, far be it for me to suggest bloggers might offer something that media such as newspapers don't or won't, but I just exercised more free speech and freedom of the press than SOME PEOPLE are willing to go.

At this point in the controversy, which began weeks ago, we think there's nothing to be gained by publishing the cartoons. Our wire service stories have described at least a few of the drawings, which are basically political caricatures of Muhammad and pointed commentary about Islamic terrorism.

You see, rather than provide you with a Snickers bar, they'd rather try and explain what a Snickers bar is like. Because they think they're more qualified to provide the Snickers experience. And, really, the expiration date on the Snickers is kind of questionable, so. . .

The cartoons themselves, which are easily accessible on the Web, aren't the story now — it's the violent reaction they've incited.

Oh, sure, the cartoons would PROBABLY give some context, and expose just how batcrap stupid the violent reaction is but, again, they don't think they're all that necessary for providing a complete story. A violent reaction to CARTOONS? Is such a thing possible? Man, could I see the cartoons? No? Why the hell not? IT'S AN IMPORTANT VISUAL PART OF THE STORY! GAH!

Some European newspapers republished the cartoons just to show that the rights of free expression and a free press, regardless of religious or political pressure, is alive and well.

Cool. So, some European newspapers understand freedom of the press better than most American newspapers. We're #2! We're #2!

As a journalist, I can admire that. I also think a strong front-page editorial (without the cartoons) would have made the same point.

Because, as stated, they're more qualified to explain the Snickers experience, apparently.

In any case, we don't see a need to publish the cartoons. If millions of people have been offended by them, or by news reports of them, it seems gratuitous to offend some more.

However, in the case of flag-draped coffins or Abu-Ghraib images, they'll publish those until the year 2067. Which, by the way, although the images of coffins and abuse make me uncomfortable, I believe in the right to publish them. I just object completely to the ridiculous double-standard on display here.

Later on, in response to my pointed commentary, I'm advised to:

see the Wall Street Journal editorial page column regarding the widely reported Muslim "prohibition" on Muhammad imagery.

Okay, so, I don't have acces to the WSJ, but I do understand the "prohibition" on Muhammad imagery, and I also understand it's a bit more complex than some would have you believe right now.

Further, I'm pretty sure the "prohibition" applies to, you know, people of the Islamic faith and not to the worldwide and nationwide news media in general. I certainly didn't see that caveat in the First Amendment. Perhaps we should tweak it to read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (unless it could potentially offend Muslims), or of the press (see Muslim canard in the previous free speech mention); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

All news organizations opting to not run with even one of those cartoons are pretty darned pathetic, in my opinion. If you're squeamish about running a cartoon because you think it could, maybe, possibly, but not very likely, give Achmed down the street the vapors to the point he starts mixing a bath tub molotov cocktail, you probably really need to grow a pair.

This week's column

"Comparison Shopping? What's That?" c. Ryan Rhodes, Feb. 2, 2006

Many moons ago, I asked you, my valued readers, to e-mail in your own
silly anecdotes or column topic suggestions. This, I reasoned, would
serve two purposes. First, it would make this column an interactive
experience between myself and my readers. Second, it would mean that I
could reproduce your e-mails and still say I "wrote" a column.

Well, I waited. And I waited some more. And then I grew a beard. And
then I shaved it off. Daylight savings time came and went. . . twice.
Naturally, I started to wonder if maybe, just maybe, I didn't have any
readers. I started to think that maybe my dream of becoming a
nationally syndicated humor columnist and finally meeting Salma Hayek
was maybe a tad too pie in the sky.

Then, a couple of weeks ago, as I stared forlornly at Internet
pictures of Salma Hayek, I saw that I received an e-mail. FROM A
READER! NAMED LYNNE BENEDICT!

"I have a seventh grade son currently enrolled in a required FACS
(Family and Consumer Science) class. He has struggled all year and the
area that tripped him up the most is one for which he is not
genetically predisposed – comparison shopping. I thought you could
have some fun with that."

What Lynne fails to realize is that the comparison shopping gene is,
in fact, a result of the melding of two "X" chromosomes. When two "X"
chromosomes come together to form an XX, it produces a human being
capable of comparison shopping. These human beings are often referred
to as "females."

Alternatively, there is the "Y" chromosome which, when it pairs with
an "X" chromosome, only results in bringing to the table half of the
required genetic instructions for producing a comparison shopper.
These "XY" human beings, also known as "males," are basically slightly
disabled when it comes to shopping in general, to say nothing of
comparison shopping.

I know what I'm talking about here because—although this isn't
something I like talking about, because it's painful—for 30 years now
I've carried the dark secret that I, too, am an XY human being. There,
I said it. Cast your stones if you will, people! I can't comparison
shop! I know the sharp sting of shame Lynne's son feels in his
discriminatory FACS class, where not only is the microscope focused
cruelly on his disability, he's actually graded on it!

The comparison shopping disability manifests itself in different ways
for different XY human beings. When I go into a mall to buy a pair of
jeans, for example, I'll walk right into one store, find a pair of
jeans, and buy them. I know, I know. . . most XX human beings can't
believe it either.

"But Ryan," they'll say. "Don't you know the exact same pair of jeans
is on sale on the other end of the mall for $2 less? Think about what
you're doing! Think of the children!"

Okay, that's an approximation of what I think they say, because,
thanks to my disability, what I actually hear is "But Ryan, don't you.
. . man, she's cute. I could sure go for a cheeseburger right now. I
wonder what time it is. I wonder what Salma Hayek is doing right now."

In an attempt to coach myself out of this shameful disability, I
turned, as I often do, to the Internet, where there are roughly 23
gazillion Web sites that advertise they take the challenge out of
comparison shopping. Some sites even claim to comparison shop
completely for you. Or, at least I think that's what some sites claim,
because I'm always distracted by ads telling me I can win an iPod. And
really, who DOESN'T want to win an iPod?

What was I talking about again? Oh, right, comparison shopping Web
pages, which are. . . hey, is that a picture of Salma Hayek? It IS!
She's hot!

At any rate, I'm still hoping beyond hope that other readers, like
Lynne Benedict, take the initiative and send an e-mail my way at
yossarian9@hotmail.com. And I don't care if you're an XX or an XY
human being, either. I don't discriminate.

My Own Personal Islamic Cartoon

UPDATE: To the e-mailer who stated simply: "Worst. Stickman. Ever.," I can only say that I'm a really sucky artist, and that Microsoft Paint doesn't exactly work in my favor in that regard. I realize turbans aren't supposed to resemble a stack of pancakes. . .

ANOTHER UPDATE: A couple of ACTUAL cartoons that made me laugh.

Of course, my house will probably be torched to the ground when I get home tonight, but I just can't help myself when it comes to freedom of speech.