Finally, after reading all the various articles and opinions regarding this cartoon situation. Some has actually nailed it. Well done Adesoto !!

Binkley,

Bzzt? You might want to get that bee before it stings you. It's been buzzing in two of your posts.

"How many buildings have the "Christian Right" burned down"?

Including the KKK? Scores. Just abortion clinics? Don't know the specific numbers, but quite a few. How many abortion clinics have the muslims blown up? See, I can play the silly, overspecific definition game too.

"How many newspaper editors have been thrown in jail for publishing an article?"

Don't know. How about I go look for some numbers on that while you tell me the number of women that have been harrassed, screamed at, tormented and manhandled because they were trying to get to an abortion clinic. We'll come back and compare numbers.

"How many of the Saudi embassies in "The West" have been burned down for their nations habit of burning bibles and imprisoning missionaries?"

So what, you're suggesting this is a good idea now? How about this, how many synogogues, black churches and mosques have been firebombed, burned down or vandilized in some way by "christians" that thought they knew better?

Hint: None of the answers are "zero".

Hmm, I can't remember any jokes, but I do remember a song from my rugby days about why Jesus couldn't play rugby. Unfortunately, the only verse I can remember is that Jesus couldn't play rugby because he was nailed to the fucking cross (complete with accompanying hand motions.)

Dear Editors,

Over the past few days you have published three articles on the ‘cartoon conflagration’, yet not the cartoons themselves. As many letters to the editor have pointed out, you published shots of Nick Berg's gruesome murder, (which I’m sure some found offensive) but you won’t show the cartoons. Why?

I’m going to take a wild guess and say that some panjandrum at Salon is worried about reprisals from elements in the global community if they were to publish the cartoons. To this is say please take your spine (the one laying on your desk) and put it back on. You have a responsibility to your readers and subscribers (I’m one) to put your coverage in context. How can we judge the content and accuracy of commentary without first seeing the primary sources of the controversy?

Besides just plain journalistic integrity and a little bit of courage, it would be nice if Salon would stand in solidarity with the Danish paper in question over the simple and cherished right to the freedom of expression—even if you don’t agree with the content of the cartoons or the reasons that the paper published them.

If you truly are afraid of possible violence or damage to the personnel or property of Salon, just say that I put a gun to your head and forced you to publish them. That’s language that the fundamentalists understand. Then Publish my name and my address (Chad Bagley, 601 Fuxing Rd., Shanghai) and I’ll take the heat.

Thanks,

Chad Bagley

Boy- I don't know if that's the correct term but in reading about the government there and their complicity in rendition and interrogation techniques that could make Abu Grahib (sp?) seem like a day trip to the spa (link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/13/214423/843) I don't imagine the powers that be in Morrocco would tolerate much dissent.

Rumey is visiting there this week and we have a long history with Morrocco in general so I would not expect any great demonstrations of disent.

Sure to be plenty of skeletons in the closet to discuss.

As the author of the article I have two comments.

One is that I was struck by the anger of the commenters; by the inability to separate the journalist from his journal, and by the tendency to cast these events and their telling as dialectics. And so the response to the publishing of the cartoons suggests that Muslims (the connotation here may be specifically Arab) are either savages or victims. The point of view of the writer is either relativist or what? Absolutist?

I've been living out of the country and have lost touch, but these national debates seem one more indication that the rise of blogs and the death of newspapers have left a weary and dazzled public more comfortable with just one point of view, their own. The notion of a daily newspaper offering differing points of view seems like such a luxury, such an anachronism.

My other comment is in reply to "Mike in Seattle." I agree. Morocco's democracy is more wishful thinking than fact. Despite reform in recent years the country is still beset by government corruption, the lack of a free press, weak political parties, a fragile civil society, and a pervasive, indestructible paranoia. It remains a 'culture of despair' and control is forever at issue. You can’t drive for half an hour on any primary, or even a secondary road, without passing a police check point. And even educated people fear political change, even if it's progressive, arguing that the poor couldn't adjust to it and chaos will result. In general, the notion of change is greeted warmly, then dismissed. And still now you learn from an early age not to oppose or criticize teachers, not to ask too many questions about the country's history since independence, not to question authority, and above all, never to criticize the king.

Mohammed VI, for his part, appears to be a good patriarch. He is sometimes referred to as the ‘king of the poor' and has backed many progressive programs, although genuine reform still comes more by fiat than vote or institutional inspiration. But criticism has been building that he’s too soft. This is ever the odd and frightening realization: Many Moroccans seem to prefer the authoritarian rule of Hassan II, the charismatic Cold War king who directed les annees de plomb, rather than his less charismatic, but gentler and more progressive son.

Meanwhile, if Morocco is not to the point where England was in 1832, as one academic told me, then what is the U.S. to do? How much pressure should it put on the palace to speed up reform — including a free press — without risking what's already been accomplished?

Earlier this week Secretary Rumsfeld was in the country talking about the role he hopes Morocco will play to aid NATO efforts against terrorists and organized crime. Apparently, there have also been talks about opening an FBI office in Rabat and building a new prison for those requisitioned from the war on terror.

For sure it is in America's interest, and perhaps Morocco's, to have a real democracy here — however that democracy may differ from a Jeffersonian model — but if Morocco's real value is part of a grander strategy, as a gateway to the fabulous raw-material treasures of the Sub Sahara, if that's the end game some suggest, then how are these interests to be reconciled, and by who and how and when, and on what basis?