I think Mike Godwin needs to add a corollary to his famous law, we just need a name for it:

1) As an online discussion involving Islam grows longer, the probability of someone bringing up Ward Churchill – the least important (and relevant) person in the universe – approaches one.

2) The first person to bring up Ward Churchill (as some sort of representative of any major group or set of ideas in the U.S.) immediately forfeits the argument, exposing himself as an absolute ass.

Churchill's corollary? Hmmm.

Our “civilization warriors” have worked themselves up into such a frenzy that they perceive almost anything as evidence of how close we are to the imposition of “Sharia Law” in the U.S. – including how our cowardly Commander Guy has backed down in the face of Islam, speaking in hushed, “politically correct” terms required by that Islamofascist-loving Karen Hughes. Seriously.

Here’s Diana West from her “Just Shut Up” column in The Jewish World Review:

Or, to put it more elegantly, as did Daniel Pipes: "The Muslim uproar has a goal — to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby impose Shariah norms in the West. Should Westerners accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. Retaining free speech about Islam, therefore, represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order."

The question is, Will we retain our free speech about Islam? Speaking at the United Nations this week, Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf asked the international community to ban the "defamation of Islam" — a rendition of "shut up" that's a constant refrain at the UN — but it looks like mum's already the word. Just read through George W. Bush's address to the world body. "Islamic fascists" are out. "Extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear" are in.

We probably have presidential pal and roving ambassador Karen Hughes to thank for Mr. Bush's discreet-to-the-point-of-incomprehensible talk. "Diplomats say that Muslims hear [the phrase "Islamic fascists"] as an attack on their religion, thereby validating the extremists' false charge that the United States is at war with Islam," writes Morton Kondracke, explaining Mrs. Hughes' semantic sentiments, which he says have put the kibosh on administration straight talk.

So, according to Pipes, if we don’t insult all Muslims (instead of just the radical, extremist ones) then we giving in to the “Islamic Fascists” and losing the war for our civilization.

Got that? If we don’t insult all Muslims, then criticism of Muslims is “prohibited” and free speech no longer exists.

In Daniel Pipes’ world, Bush should’ve referred to Sattar Abu Risha (the head of the Anbar Salvation Council who he credited for ushering in the “bottom-up reconciliation” in Anbar) as an “Islamic Fascist.”

Yup, I’m sure that would’ve helped.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0906/west092606.php3

Cancellation of that play -- twice -- provoked no outrage from any of our right-wing Free Expression Crusaders.

It’s a good thing that the term “politically correct” is slur trademarked, copyrighted and wholly owned by the right-wing arbiters of what is or is not acceptable.

Otherwise the “left” could accuse them of ....no, wait, we can’t say “politically incorrect” ...that’s their term, their insult and they – and they alone - can use it.

Apparently they also have a complete monopoly on patriotism, morality, religion, virtue, decency, courage, bravery, manliness and all that is good, wholesome and worthwhile.

Why don't Fox News' rating suffer after airing obvious propaganda? In such an environment, what can you really expect from any other news organizations? They should produce quality news that nobody watches, I suppose. That's the disturbing mystery, no?

Most people who watch Fox News watch it for the propaganda, they don’t want an accurate picture of “reality” they want their right-wing fantasies reinforced.

They want a simple black and white world where our leaders are good, our policies are sound, and our wars, justified. They don’t want facts, journalism or real reporting - they want to feel good about their bigotry, their hate, their intolerance and bellicosity. Fox News presents a friendly environment for their extremist views.

Just because there is a market for Fox News doesn’t mean that all other news organizations need to emulate them, far from it, but too often that’s the case.

I expect real reporting from other news organizations, and especially in this “Faux News” environment there is a market for it. Fox News viewers are in the minority, and their viewers are older too, not the most desirable audience for marketing products.

Fox News is not all powerful – considering what they produce, they have a disturbing number of viewers, true; but let’s pretend that their “minority” market should set the standards of what “news” is going to be in this country. I think you’re giving them way too much credit.

This isn't clear to me. Are viewers who are so blind that they willingly partake of obvious propaganda suddenly going to wake up because they hear Fox News criticized by their main competitor CNN? Probably not.

What Glenn is complaining about is that Fox News’ Brit Hume is praised by ABC’s Charlie Gibson and the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz for his journalistic integrity and portrayed as not being a “partisan brawler” when, indeed, that’s what he is.

By doing so, they drag the very concept of journalistic “integrity” into a miasma of meaningless mush and legitimize obvious partisan propaganda.

Hume is no less a partisan brawler than Sean Hannity and pretending he isn’t is completely dishonest, serving to give “cover” for Fox’s obvious partisanship.

Fox’s defenders can then say, see – even “leftys” like Gibson and Kurtz agree that Fox is “fair and balanced.”

That’s the problem.