Hot Air has a couple of piquant observations on the cowardice of sanctimonious frauds, one example being a creepy leftardo at the Washington Post who earnestly explained last year about those pesky cartoons:
"They wouldn't meet our standards for what we publish in the paper," said Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, which ran a front-page story on the issue Friday, but has not published the cartoons. "We have standards about language, religious sensitivity, racial sensitivity and general good taste." ...
At USA Today, deputy foreign editor Jim Michaels offered a similar explanation. "At this point, I'm not sure there would be a point to it," he said about publishing the cartoons. "We have described them, but I am not sure running it would advance the story." Although he acknowledged that the cartoons have news value, he said the offensive nature overshadows that.
The Boston Globe, while acknowledging the right of newspapers to print material that may offend, argues that "newspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance."
Translation for the hopelessly unaware: "We don't want bombs exploding in our lobbies or lawsuits from enraged bearded maniacs..... But especially the bombs and [assassination, the invention of the hashish-maddened retardos of that troubled region] possible destruction of our property.
See, Christianity is a religion of [relative] tolerance while the foam-flecked kidnappers and self-exploders of the "Religion of Peace" may just blow up the cowardly craven kowtowing bastions of "Free Press" communications.
Cowards like Downie are aware that their reporters might be killed by the rabid dogs of the so-called "Religion of Peace" should the Post publish a cartoon or two of the Prophet of Peace, whose warlike nations still haven't developed an economy that doesn't run on fossil fuels---fitting for a fossil religion.
No comments :
Post a Comment