Abu Ghraib <> Muhammad Cartoons

I would like for someone to explain to me why salon.com, and Australian Dateline feel the responsibility to publish more pictures of the disgrace at Abu Ghraib, and yet they do not feel the responsiblity to publish the Muhammad cartoons.

This level of hippocrisy is absolutely unbelievable to me! I still am not sure which side of the fence that I fall on in regards to the cartoons, to publish, or not to publish. However, there is absolutely no logical way that you can justify NOT publishing the Muhammad cartoons, and at the same time JUSTIFY publishing MORE pictures of Abu Ghraib!

I heard an editor at salon.com explain that she felt the pictures needed to be published in order to more fully describe how truly tragic and disgraceful the situation at Abu Ghraib actually was. Yet, this same outlet did not feel it necessary to publish the cartoon's causing all of the excitement in order to let their readers make their own opinion? How can this be?

Someone, please explain this to me.

Saddam's WMDs?

I'll be interested to see if ABC actually does air this and what they conclude.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\\Nation\\archive\\200602\\NAT20060215c.html

Cartoon Calamity a good thing?

Here's thinking that the continuing cartoon crisis (pardon my excessive alliteration) might actually be a good thing. Thinkers of all stripes are writing that it may actually restrengthen bonds in the West that had lately been frayed by the divergent political philosphies of the various alliances. Victor Hansen here ponders how this may actually play out.

A jet becomes a dinosaur...

http://www.slate.com/id/2133995/

Good article given to me by Ico...