The Gaga Saga of Scott Adams, MAGA

 

The funny thing about Scott Adams is, he had a really good thing--he did satire about office politics and stuff that was mostly unstupid. Managers that didn't understand the technology or the mission, and rules that were made for the institution, not the individual workers, were very relatable, and made for a cool syndicated cartoon berth that also generated dollars from swag like mugs and calendars--the kind of things worker bees had in their cubicles. 

And he also got to write books about other stuff--like how he thought Donald Trump was a winner--and that's not a big deal. People can have their politics after all--big, free country. No one cancelled him for being a Trump fan. It's cynical to say Trump wins because facts don't matter to him and then like him for that very reason, but whatever. 

Scott Adams defended Trump regarding his apparent support for the white supremacists in Charlottesville, by claiming he never really said the thing everyone absolutely understands him to have said. Didn't get cancelled for that, though. 

He also was full of shit when he said that, because he also was mad at Trump for continuing to say it. 

This particular kind of thing is called "right-fighting". He'd rather people concede that he is right than actually get right. 

"When we were young...."

 

“When we were young, you could watch cartoons without having to worry.”

— Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) again baselessly claims Disney is injecting sexuality into cartoons while stumping for Nevada Senate candidate Adam Laxalt pic.twitter.com/7FrKGGjzLT

— The Recount (@therecount) April 28, 2022

I seriously had to check DeSantis' age twice on this, just in case my math was wrong, but DeSantis is 43 and was still a teenager in the 1990s. I get that we're rehashing all the right wing's greatest hits from Satanic panic to commies! (and any day now they'll tell us that teen suicide is really those dirty heavy metal records, probably). But its hilarious to hear someone younger than me go off like his childhood tv reminiscence is Leave it to Beaver and The Donna Reed Show and not Roseanne and Married with Children.  

Disney movies are not any raunchier or whatever than when Boomer-drag artist Ron Desantis was a kid. (I'd actually say the romance storylines are less sketchy, now, if anything.)  DeSantis is just mad because he's a prickly little fascist out over his skis and all because a major corporation has the temerity to....mildly disagree with him over an overtly homophobic bill when a good portion of their fanbase is LGBT people. 

DeSantis can say "when we were young" as if he didn't grow up in the tail-end of "We Didn't Start the Fire".  But given the way he talks, perhaps he never was young, just a premature fuddy-duddy who pines for a Golden Age we never ever had.

The Puppies Weren't Canceled, Kayleigh.

So, for one thing, of course not. And the doggos are not all cops. They do different things. And that's how I know she isn't even a real fan of the show, and isn't excited that there will be a feature movie next year.

Then, why claim cancel culture has taken the scalps of cartoon dogs like some liberal Cruella de Vil come to life? Because cancel culture is the imaginary enforcement arm of political correctness and if the bogeyman doesn't do bad things, how will you know to be scared? She's telling fairytales to kiddies.

Of course, there are real things to be afraid of out there in the real world.  But let's not dwell on that if you can get mad over, really, anything else. Like the images of TRUMP's America that the White House wanted us to see.

This is a White House press briefing. pic.twitter.com/bbzQKEX6MD

— Alexander Nazaryan (@alexnazaryan) July 24, 2020

Donald J. Coyote--Super Genius

The recent shutdown (the third of Trump's term in office, all three with Republicans in the majority for both houses of Congress) over Trump's desire for a big beautiful wall (or "Steel Slat Barrier", which is aesthetically more attractive, maybe, more politically correct, entirely as racist, and of course, see-through, which is important because Safety! and Transparency!) seems to have a lot to do with whether Trump is seen as weak in the eyes of such brilliants minds as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. He knows that if he disappoints them, he will never hear the end of it from his base, who largely exist because of the brain-tenderizing skills of people like Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham. He could have had some pretty sweet funding for his wall, a shutdown or two ago, if he only agreed to DACA, but his fear of pundit disdain killed that notion. And Dems caved, because they didn't want to be seen as the problem, here.

This difference this time around though, is Trump already took vocal ownership of the shutdown and can't re-gift that son-of-a-bitch for political Pollyanna. And unlike last time, the House of Representatives is going to change parties in literally a matter of days. He might be facing quite a different situation.

One thing is, it's Christmas and he's just told a couple hundred thousand federal workers they need to work through this thing without a paycheck, a few hundred thousand others they don't actually know when they will be working or seeing a paycheck again (and sure, they could, would, should get back pay, but your bills are due when they are due, and that can be a problem for working and middle class people who may be living paycheck to paycheck especially when expenditures have been made to celebrate a holiday). And he's done so over a wall that won't work and appeals to really just his base.

Which would all by itself be a big old "whut?" that leaves us questioning his priorities and whether he gets what government is about at all. But when he also says things that makes us wonder if he knows that the "coyotes" we worry about on the border are not four-footed, then we are at the point where it is hard to parody Trump, because he is just so underprepared to fulfill the requirements of this job, even two years in, that it is hard to find the humor. He says he knows things, but he gets all his information, even after having gained access to the US' top intelligence, from goddamn Fox News. And Lou Dobbs has had brain worms for a very long time.

This could look like a situation to play solely for laughs, if we forgot that thousands of migrant children are held in US custody, and the head of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen can't say how many people have died in DHS custody, even though she should have intuited that this was sort of question she might have been asked in the wake of the death of a seven-year old girl, Jaklin Caal Maquin. The "wall" has become such an item of importance to DHS that they've lost their articles over it, because we needs wall, precious, and filthy libses thwarts us!

I have half a notion that if this wears on, instead of caving, Schumer and Pelosi should actually put DACA back on the table. Just give him the original $1.6 billion he originally rejected because he got his ass reddened by the RW talkers, and make a demand regarding how he even gets that much out of Dems. Because Trump's cards are all on the table. He wants his wall funding and he needs it to make his base happy. (His "art of the deal" is so terribly naked and on display here.)

Dems don't love a shutdown, but it might be really nice to see Trump's "My way or the highway" attitude get greeted with "Eat asphalt".  Because he is by no means a super genius. He's just, sadly, what the Republicans have got, and this is why they are sticking with him. And if what he wants is wall, well wall is just a major fucking concession to unracist our policies away. Let's leverage that shit.

Also wall will still not work and the separation policy is inhumane and Tornillo should be shut down.

I feel like there is a way to get better out of this schmuck. In spite of himself.

Free Speech Update: Bangladesh, India and Iran

I'm not sure how regular a feature this will become, but I do want to pay attention to the issue of free speech globally as a measure of human rights being recognized. Where journalists, cartoonist, authors, are silenced, we have a government in fear that people will understand what they are about through that disallowed speech, who in effect, find secrecy their security. That's why I find governments that act to dampen free speech--and also those who don't support those that might be SLAPPED or silenced through more violent means, because it indicates a sympathy with silence.

First, I mean to offer my congratulation to the writers and their supporters who had a Freedom of Speech rally in Bangladesh. They are standing up against extremism in the face of very real attacks, and I wish them all well.

I Stand with Atena Farghadani Even if I'm a Crap Artist

 

Twelve years is an awfully long sentence for a cartoonist to face for sketching out the truth as she saw it. The Guardian offers a means of solidarity--sharing one's own cartoon regarding the issue. Iran is supposedly a kind of democracy--but without free speech, this is a useless exercise. If political leaders can't be criticized, then anything they do is pre-emptively sanctioned.

I tooled about for five minutes in MS Paint, and I admit, I wouldn't have sketched much better. But my little contribution is to say that images don't hurt anyone--they might be a smidgen snarky, but that doesn't harm anyone or damage society.  But sentencing caring and eloquent and talented people because they care, because they are eloquent, because they have something to say--damages society in every way. This cartoonist should not lose such a chunk of her life. No. The political figures being mocked should understand that this criticism is a part of their job. They may not like it--who would? But if they do not like to be depicted as asses, the ideal solution would be to perform as less of an ass, not to punish the person who points it out.

Even Hate Speech is Protected Speech

So, there was a little "Draw Muhammed" free-speech thing held by Muslim-hater Pam Geller, and featuring Geert Wilders, so, really, what could go wrong?

Uh, what one might expect if one was impressed with the furor over the Jyllands-Posten cartoons and the fatwa against Lars Wilks, or the fairly recent Charlie Hebdo massacre?  There was a shooting, but a security guard was shot non-fatally, and both the suspects were killed. And this is a shitty thing to happen, but as outcomes go, it certainly could have been worse.

You know, I had been trying to work in a Charlie Hebdo post regarding the PEN Awards abstainers. It's not that I give a fig about whether Charlie Hebdo had great satire or good cartoonists, it's just that I don't think it makes sense to slag people when several of their number actually died, having even received threats, for doing the kind of commentary they believed in and which was understood by people who "got" the joke as actually anti-racist.

I don't celebrate Pam Geller's Muhammed to-do the same way. I think she is unnecessarily incendiary in her rhetoric, and I think she provokes.

Which still doesn't mean I condone a shoot-out as the answer to her rhetoric. I deplore the kind of single-minded dope who just added legitimacy to her rhetoric, by once again highlighting how some speech is deemed punishable by death by intolerant Islamists. (And yet, I can imagine even a similar event, where the threat of a distortion of the image of Jesus might at least garner death threats. Single-mindedness in the service of faith isn't any one creed's bugbear.) But would it not be much better to let the speech go, so as not to make Geller and her coterie able to claim martyrdom-status?

I believe in free speech. I think armed assault is not free speech, but terrorism. I can excuse one, even if I disagree with it. I can not condone the other. Shoot your mouth off all you like--just not guns and bombs.

Ecrasons L'Infame!

 

If I read the cover of the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo correctly, all is, actually, not forgiven, any crocodile tears regarding what happened from the usual intolerant suspects aside. And that is how the spirit of the magazine would have it, after all. If satirists can't roast the odd sacred cow, why not pack it in? It's hard to ignore that some of the leaders clasping arms in solidarity claiming "Je suis Charlie" pretty much are no such thing. 

 

I take issue myself regarding the curtailment of free speech--I am for countering speech with more speech, for having an argument, and for hearing out people I don't agree with so that I really know where they stand. There are hurtful words I don't use myself and would prefer others not use, but when I hear them said, it tells me something about the speaker.

 

This is why I take a little exception about what the Pope said regarding insulting or criticizing the faith of others. He says that one can not--or if one does, one should expect hurt feelings, if not reprisal. Andrew Sullivan beat me to the punch at picking a comparison of quotes from the current Pontiff, and a relevant section from the sayings of a certain Palestinian Jew of antiquity, who was, if Mark was right, sentenced to death for blasphemy.  To go a little further, I would say, the beliefs of the wide variety of people on the earth being what they are--one can't help sometimes offending or contradicting the beliefs of others. One man's heresy is another man's article of faith.

 

It also strikes me as a mistake to have some inviolate box that ideas we don't want criticized can be placed in with the label "religion" pasted on. What can't fall under religion's rubric? There's an amorphous quality to the idea that leaves it subject to the determination of whoever is in power. So to go beyond considering Raif Badawi, let's also consider his lawyer, Waleed Abu Al-Khair.  To the theocratic government of Saudi Arabia, simply being a human rights lawyer is a kind of heresy. Blasphemy laws are what gets Egyptian atheists thrown in jail. The question of how free speech should be, and whether blasphemy laws should really exist, must be considered--everywhere sooner or later. 

 

As for me, I am only interested in nailing up complaints, not people. Don't we wish everyone was?

Deranged Defenders

The shocking murder of twelve people at the Charlie Hebdo magazine office in Paris has generated many displays of sympathy for the victims and their families, and support for freedom of speech over disgusting acts of terror, many by fellow artists and colleagues. It's possible that the attack was planned by people who considered themselves defenders of their faith in some way, but they were hardly anything of the sort.

The cartoons that were likely the justification the perpetrators will use for their murder spree were often quite shocking, crude, and yes, offensive. This is hardly the point, though. Even crude and offensive speech should be protected--which is not to say it cannot be protested or criticized! But the standard that we have for freedom of speech, that enables the KKK or Westboro Baptist to have their say in public is the same standard that protects people of other, less noxious, but possibly threatened minority positions from being persecuted.  It is never acceptable that ideas, words, and images, be responded to with violence. To attempt to silence people in this brutal way is an affront to civilization itself.

Anwar al-Awlaki is an ironic idolator. No, I said that.

I just read over at Pharyngula (h/t) about how wacky al-Awlaki has decided to put out a hit on the cartoonist who sort of started "Draw Muhammed Day" (but then totally took it back!).

Let's get this completely straight, now. This smug instigator, who was supposedly the guy who counseled a handful of would-be jihadist screw-ups, is actually fatwa-ing the cancellation of the breathing-ticket for a person who was just playing around with the idea of mocking the religion of which he has made such a horrible example? Oh, please.

If I understand this taboo against the permitting of graven images of the Prophet, it is so that he is not inappropriately worshipped in the place of Allah, who is the actual deity. And yet, this al-Awlaki is such an idolator of the image of Islam's prophet, he is willing to suggest other people make their jihad over an image of Muhammed that doesn't even actually exist.

People across the internet offered ironically-labeled stick figures and cartoons and in some cases, make cutting remarks about the substance of the religion that the Prophet Muhammed founded. I would guess all of them were unbelievers in the creed of Islam, and therefore felt no particular compulsion religion-wise to refrain from this act. Their intent was not to mock the entire Ummah of one billion believing Muslims, so much as to say that there are about five billion people who aren't Muslim, and there are many people who do not believe that an infraction of that religion's laws should be a death sentence for anyone.

But poor prickly al-Awlaki is taking this so personally. His idol--his unassailable religion that should not ever be criticized or maybe should not even be submitted to an honest ijtihad, where the sources of the thought of historic Islam are considered before being a knuckle-dragging ass who issues nonsensical jihadi propaganda, to cause weak minds to further make fools of themselves and the religion he thinks he's defending--is still alive, still practiced, still reveres the Prophet. So--no harm done?

Except: he so very much wants to be this big Mahoff (as we say here in Philadelphia) in the terrorist jihad movement. Does he get donations for it? Do people go out of their way to kiss his thuggish ass for talking so tough? And this Internet business was so big that Facebook got blocked in Pakistan. Whoo. Front-page news.

Does al-Awlaki want to make the non-existent, ironic, fake representations of Mohammed engendered by a protest against exactly his particular form of stupidity the idol he sends some mentally distraught or even immature person to possibly die over? Or is the idol he wants people to respond to his own dogmatic self? It seems he doesn't want to defend Islam, but his own murderous and retributive, and might I add, attention-seeking version of it--the precise thing the "Draw Muhammed" protests were about.

Instead of worrying that Islam is being mocked by outsiders, perhaps he should consider what mockery he himself makes of it by representing the worst, least thoughtful, and most reactionary elements of it.

Cartoonist attacked.

(Repost story to correct incoherent post of last night.)




I did some "freedom of speech"-based indignant rambling, but after a good think, linking to various offensive pictures and labeling them "Muhammed" or whatever, or toothless proclamations of "I ain't scairt of no Islamic soreheads!" or whatever knee-jerk cranky atheist crap I was on about wasn't really the response that this sort of crap merits.

The proper response would be to maturely express sorrow that some people feel so insecure that they need to answer a satire or criticism not even directed at them personally, with violence. An attack against someone who has offered offense is an act of rage, not a rebuttal, and it is weak. Religions and cultures are human--and humans aren't above criticism. The criticism is either just, or it isn't, and while it is true that tone matters, especially if one is meaning to persuade, sometimes an image, even a provacative or offensive one, can have the effect of jarring the viewer into a new understanding of a relationship--accomplishing the same effect with a sharp edge. If a person is offended, they should ask themselves what they find offensive--is it that the criticism itself in unfair or inapt? Or is it just that they don't like being criticized or the tone of it.

It's more mature and healthy, I think, to just say "Fuck you" when something deliberately offends.

So fuck these people who want to see people hurt or dead just because they have hurt feelings about pictures. Fuck them very much.

Comedy Central killed the whole episode--you bastards!

This is Parker and Stone's comment on the whole thing:

"In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We'll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we'll see what happens to it."

Intimidation and fear? Sounds like there was a moral there that got "eated". Too bad.

AC360: South Park Creators Face Death Threats over Mohammed Depiction

I like what Ayaan Hirsi Ali expresses towards the end--if more people speak out, it will become increasingly difficult for radicals to target individuals for blasphemy--because who should they target?

The problem with answering criticism, or even ridicule, or especially ridicule, with violence, is that it really isn't an "answer", it's just a bloody reaction. One could be pissed off over being corrected for one's....grammar, and shoot the would-be language instructor, but still be absolutely wrong about when to use "whom." And when the shot is over a joke?

SCENE:

"Say, what did that guy shoot Bob over?"

"Oh, some satire...."

"Really--how *good* was it?"



Because really, who's shot over a flop?

Or for any bit of art, this idea might apply. I read Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses specifically because of the fatwa, in rather the way I'm drawn to any book banned somewhere else. I also viewed Van Gogh's Submission for the same reason--to see what the controversy was about. It's not just murderous and immoral to attack people over such criticism, it's terribly counterproductive.

(Also I'm rather glad they never did get around to Rushdie. I finished reading Shalimar the Clown yesterday and it was about as good a novel as I've ever read.)

Danish Politiken: We're Sorry You Were Offended

Via HuffPo:

COPENHAGEN — A Danish newspaper on Friday apologized for offending Muslims by reprinting a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban, rekindling heated debate about the limits of freedom of speech.

Danish daily Politiken said its apology was part of a settlement with a Saudi lawyer representing eight Muslim groups in the Middle East and Australia.

It drew strong criticism among Danish media, which previously had stood united in rejecting calls to apologize for 12 Muhammad cartoons that sparked fierce protests in the Muslim world four years ago.

Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen expressed surprise at Politiken's move, saying he was worried that Danish media no longer were "standing shoulder to shoulder" on the issue.

Apologies are like a social lubricant. Sometimes they are required to keep the moving parts of society running smoothly. But at other times, an apology is unnecessary--like a lubricant that prevents you from grasping a necessary tool in order to use it. To my eye, social criticism is a valid and necessary part of any national discourse, and sometimes, it will offend.

To use an example relevant here in the US, let's say there was a hypothetical journalist who embraced the possibly racially-biased work of a reputed bigot. He might be offended if he were called out on it--objecting to the word "racist" as being highly inflammatory--

But what are you supposed to call it?

So, if a cartoon calls out some Muslims as embracing extremism--and some of them do--is that offensive for no reason? Or is it reasonable to express what the cartoonist sees as a harmful truth? I find that I question both the need for the apology (even though it was apparently accepted to an extent) and the sincerity, since it does seem to be an "I'm sorry you were offended" apology.

(Sometimes I sincerely wonder if I'm turning into one of those cranky New Atheists I've been hearing about in faitheist Op-Eds....)

Danish cartoonist threatened by axe-weilding doofus

The cartoons that raised such an uproar a few years back might not be much news to most of us in the West who saw them and moved on, but they are apparently still a big deal to the Islamist folks who want revenge on being made to feel....momentarily uncomfortable and a little insulted...so the matter of a bit of ink on paper was matter enough for a 28-year old Somali man to enter the home of one of the dangerous cartoonists with an axe and a knife. I'll let the Mail Online pick up the meat of the story:

The police said the 28-year-old man, who allegedly has links to Al Qaeda, was shot after he broke into the home of Kurt Westergaard on Friday night, wielding an axe and a knife.

Mr Westergaard, 74, whose five-year-old granddaughter was in the house at the time, locked himself in a specially designed safe room and used an emergency alarm

Police who arrived at his bungalow in the Danish city of Aarhus said the suspect was shot in the knee and left arm after threatening an officer trying to arrest him.

The man was treated in hospital and was yesterday carried into court on a stretcher. He was charged with attempted murder and remanded in custody. He denied the charge, but reportedly did admit being at the scene.
The Danish security service PET said the intruder was linked to Somali terror organisation al Shabaab as well as Al Qaeda leaders in East Africa.

Now, regarding the interesting business about his being connected to terrorist groups elsewhere, like al-Qaeda and al Shabaab:

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, Jan. 3 (UPI) -- A man charged with trying to kill a Danish cartoonist was arrested last year in an alleged plot to harm U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, officials said.

The 28-year-old Somali suspect, whose name has not been released, was arrested late Friday for allegedly breaking into the home of Kurt Westergaard, a cartoonist in Aarhus, Denmark.

Westergaard, 74, had angered many Muslims with a series of cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, including one with a bomb sticking out of a turban.

The suspect was one of four people arrested last summer in Nairobi in an alleged plot to harm Clinton during her tour of African countries, the newspaper Politken reported.

When I look at guys like this and the "Undie-Bomber", I seriously begin to wonder if these extremist groups mostly recruit amongst the seriously foolish and possibly mentally unwell.

But anyway, the point is that a bit of ink on paper was possibly worth the lives of an old man and his little granddaughter. That is so wrong. wrong enough that I absolutely have to reprise the Westergaard cartoon in question:



Why would anyone ever depict the prophet as incendiary when his followers are so mild, hmm? It is the actions of extremists that are a defamation upon the character of the faith--and the cartoons would be forgotten in an instant if they had not such notoriety. I am well-pleased to reprise them, as is any atheist blogger, if only to show that threatening people doesn't actually silence what they have said. And that might doesn't make right, nor violence make righteousness.

And if they wanted to put these cartoons to bed--they should stop being what they depict! If Islam is a religion of peace--so be it! But embassies have burned and death threats have been made--each step only shows the cartoons were right! And Islam is made a cartoon of itself by its supposed staunch practitioners.

It would be better to let the matter drop-- the violence only gives the memes more currency.

(Although as far as I'm concerned, people can certainly show themselves to be whatever they will. If murder-minded censors, let them admit it--and be the targets for disapprobation they should.)