Toss Another Idiot on the Fire

Glenn links to Michael Gorman's inane rant about the temerity of people who publish their opinions on the web. Gorman stakes his claim to relevance on the fact that he is the new president of the American Library Association (you remember, the guy who is against Google's plan to make books available to all in the digital realm).

He also complains about the quality of bloggers' writing:

It is obvious that the Blog People read what they want to read rather than what is in front of them and judge me to be wrong on the basis of what they think rather than what I actually wrote. Given the quality of the writing in the blogs I have seen, I doubt that many of the Blog People are in the habit of sustained reading of complex texts. It is entirely possible that their intellectual needs are met by an accumulation of random facts and paragraphs. In that case, their rejection of my view is quite understandable.

Funny that. Read the whole thing. Now, you tell me, doesn't his 'article' have the disjointed feel of over-delegation to Word's thesaurus tool? In the end, Gorman's piece is but another prissy rant from deep within the keep.

If you have time, write this guy (michaelg@csufresno.edu) and remind him it is far better for a man to keep his mouth shut and let the world think him an idiot than to open his mouth and remove all doubt. Now, as for prissy, you be the judge:


What a pretty fellow.

The Road to Respect

So, let's see if I have this straight. If a person objects to anti-christian artwork, say, PissChrist, because it is offensive to his religious beliefs, the museum has an obligation to continue the display in the name of art, expression and freedom. If a person objects to lewd artwork, say Maplethorpe, because it is offensive to community standards (i.e., the bluk of society doen't care to see what Maplethorpe can fit in his ass), the same cultural obligation obtains. The show must go on, the neanderthal objectors notwithstanding. Indeed, because they are neanderthal objectors, we'll rub it in their faces. And, importantly, while doing it the museum director will remain secure in the belief that the objectors will not hack her to pieces.

So, how to explain this? Reuters reports that "Museum removes erotic art after Muslim anger:"

A Swedish museum dedicated to world culture has removed an erotic painting plastered withverses from the Muslim holy book, the Koran, from an exhibition about AIDS after Muslims complained it was obscene.

Jette Sandahl, director of the World Culture Museum, which opened in Gothenburg a month ago, said on Wednesday thatthe painting by an Arab artist living in France was replaced by another less offensive one.

Why has Western society apparently determined that Muslims -- and only Muslims -- are entitled to have their dainty and delicate sensibilities protected from all vestiges of offense? How do Muslims rate an expression of dignity and respect that is not extended to any other religious group?

Here's a guess. Because it appears that Muslims will kill you in gruesome fashion (no, Mr. van Gogh? Family Armanious?) at the slightest hint of offense. In short, the Swedish museum director decided that all the liberal values in the world ain't worth shit when it came to keeping her head firmly attached to her neck. In short, society now respects the values of the group that is least entitled to that respect.

There's a lesson in all this somewhere, though I'm not quite sure for whom.

Allah Akbar!

Before last year's election I suggested that the terrorist thugs were sinking into insignificance in terms of their ability to lash out at the U.S. Well, today I stand corrected. Drudge reports that the thugs have managed to kidnap an true icon of American might, and are attempting to use that brave soldier's life as ransom for Iraqi prisoners (i.e., other terrorist thugs).

Please keep this American Hero in your thoughts and prayers. But, if I know this guy, he'll battle his own way out. After all, when I was small, G.I. Joe always beat the badguys!

How insignificant do you have to be to kidnap a bloody ACTION FIGURE? It's almost pathetic in an "I-feel-embarassed-for-them" way. Almost, but not quite. What jackasses. At least his pop-off head will facilitate the inevitable decapitation.

All together now -- Allah Akbar. If this is the best these bastard sons of Mohammed can do, we're just about there.