From: TKeske@Comcast.net   
      
    CARTOON VIOLENCE   
      
   Should we be surprised that a seemingly trivial thing   
   like a cartoon should have all of Europe buzzing,   
   or prompting a statement by the President of the United States,   
   as is happening now, over cartoons that caricatured   
   the prophet Mohammed?   
      
   Long ago, if you had similarly lampooned Christianity,   
   it would have brought a similar reaction- instant   
   threat of death.   
      
   It is not entirely different today.  Portrayals of Jesus   
   as a gay man have been known to produce violent threats   
   and death threats.   
      
   Somehow, though, after centuries of religious conflict,   
   the Western world came to balance respect of religion   
   with respect of free expression.   
      
   Questionable humor is getting more plentiful, such as   
   right-wing writer Anne Coulter, "joking" that a Supreme   
   Court Justice should have "rat poison in his creme brulee",   
   so that conservatives could nominate more of their own.   
      
   The questionable humor ought to raise a question about   
   the nature of humor itself.    There is an old Chinese saying   
   that I coined-   
      
       "When a man says, 'I am only joking', he is not joking".   
      
   Patriotism is not the only refuge of scoundrels.   
   Religion is a  refuge.  Humor is a refuge.   
      
   Religion gives hatred the mask that   
   "This represents moral values, not hate".   
      
   Humor gives hatred the mask that  "I do not really mean it".   
      
   Humor and aggression are inextricably interleaved.  Much   
   of what we find amusing seems to be misfortune,   
   humiliation, and insult to others.   
      
   When you see someone like Ann Coulter, it is a wakeup-call.   
   She lies.  In her heart, she means exactly what she says.   
   As part of the context for that, look at someone like   
   right-wing columnist, and former Watergate felon,   
   Chuck Colson.  He openly opined on his own website,   
   in his own words, that use of open force against the   
   Supreme Court might be necessary.  He was not pretending   
   to be "joking".  He said that he "trembled at the gravity"   
   of what he was saying.   
      
   That is open fascism, speaking.  Why did the media,   
   totally ignore this, in a good friend of the Bush family?   
      
   It is all reason to take a second look, and be a bit   
   more alarmed, when left-leaning Justice Souter   
   is mugged, or a left-leaning New York Times columnist   
   gets murdered.   
      
   Even the Nazis gave a hint of their secret intentions,   
   in their sadistic version of "humor".   
      
   The family-values Fox channel seems to be pushing   
   the envelope ever-more, now with disgusting shows   
   where we can laugh at incompetent celebrity ice-skating,   
   with an ad showing a woman having her face hit   
   the ice, and a large gash resulting.   Are we heading back   
   to the days of the Roman Coliseum, or public executions,   
   as a form of entertainment?   
      
   The Boston Globe considered the Mohammed cartoon   
   flap important enough to merit an editorial, which   
   condemned the cartoon as something offensive, that   
   should not have been printed.   
      
   That is probably a reasonable viewpoint, as a bottom   
   line, but it seems somehow not to do justice to a   
   great range of mixed feelings.   How much do you want   
   to reward groups who are too fanatically trigger-happy   
   in rage over what would otherwise be a relatively minor   
   slight, or possibly even  a fully-justified criticism?   
      
   When cartoonist Lynn Johnston, author of "For Better or Worse"   
   had a short series dealing sensitively with a gay teen, she   
   received nothing less than death threats over it, as well.   
      
   Should the people who threatened her be humored   
   (pardon the pun) in their belief that this subject matter   
   should never be touched?   Should they be respected in   
   their murderous passions?  Should we allow them to force   
   everyone else to censor themselves?   
      
   Then, there is the matter of the double-standards.   
   After "Brokeback Mountain", gays were openly insulted,   
   repeatedly in cartoons.   This provoked not even a   
   "Letter to the Editor" to be published, much less an   
   editorial apology.   
      
   In the far-left "Boondocks", we were informed that   
   "Brokeback" was now black street slang to mean   
   "questionable masculinity".   
      
   Do you remember the civil-rights era images of black   
   men, feeling so compromised in their sense of manhood,   
   in a racist society, that they felt it necessary to hold up   
   signs saying simply, "I am a man"?   
      
   At one time, blackness was associated with images   
   of Amos-and-Andy, shoe-shuffling buffoonery, and   
   complete lack of masculinity.   
      
   If you published a similar "cartoon" today, implying   
   that black men were naturally lacking in masculinity,   
   it would probably cause a firestorm.   
      
   But hey, this is only gays- almost by definition something   
   less than men, giving the world  a natural birthright   
   to laugh openly in their faces.   
      
   Is that an obnoxious birthright that should be   
   robbed by threat of death?   Ha, Ha.  Just kidding.   
      
   In Prickly City, we were told that John Wayne   
   must be rolling over in his grave.   
      
   In Mallard Fillmore, we were told that Brokeback   
   Mountain was enough even to "gross out" a   
   liberal.   The very idea of a "gay community" deserving   
   to be called a "community", at all, is portrayed as something   
   laughable, like having a "community of people who spray   
   milk out their noses".   
      
   Not much concern for "community relations".   
      
   We have been deeply insulted, also.  Why the   
   double standard at the Globe, that one case gets   
   prominent mention, the other, not at all?   
      
   Is it the constant, infernal deference to religion   
   and its presumed preciousness, or is it simply   
   the fact that there is a minority of Muslims   
   who are not true to their own religion's teachings   
   of peace, and always ready for violence,   
   while the same is not expected of gays?   
      
   Brokeback was a movie portraying two men living a   
   tortured existence, in fear for their lives, eventually   
   leading to a grisly murder, of the kind that is all   
   too familiar to the gay community.   
      
   In the mind of the average heterosexual male, none of   
   that context seemed to register.  The only thing   
   worth mentioning was how completely disgusting,   
   to think of the kissing.   
      
   Reactions on a par with a high-school sex ed class,   
   where the boys cannot take anything seriously,   
   sitting there snickering and giggling at every other   
   word.   
      
   Our society is too much like high school   
   - Columbine High School- a story of bullying,   
   favored pets, name-calling and ridicule, sometimes   
   getting physical, divisions into cliques that got treated   
   very differently by each other and by authority.   
      
   It is easy to think that kids just take unimportant   
   things too seriously, but maybe adults do, too.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)