UPDATE II:

In a classic example of why we should ignore the cartoons and the reactions to the cartoons Michelle Malkin has an example from Ohio where some a poke at CNN riled up a way too sensitive Muslim organization (CAIR). Folks, we should all know by now not to feed the trolls! This is such a vapor-filled issue. No need to join the food fight. Note: the first update is at the end.

END UPDATE

Is it me or did the entire world just lose its mind? Before you think I am on my own soap box here I was told a long time ago by a physicist friend, who is smarter than most people on the planet, that to be the lone voice usually means you are the wrong voice. So I sincerely ask the question – why are we worried about these dumb cartoons?

I read all over people want them printed here and printed there, like you can’t find these cartoons all over the web? I see a calculated program to incite the Muslim street which is best dealt with through a news blackout instead of continuing their cause through our attention and emotion. They are cartoons! The Muslims we want on our side will understand they are not a reflection of their view of Mohamed, and that they will reflect the best of Mohamed through their lives.

The political cartoonist is not something worth getting worked up over. Most are just angry people lashing out at others it seems. The good ones point out our foibles and follies in a way we can laugh at ourselves. The worst are out to hurt others. Mark Steyn today has a piece that illustrates how stupid this discussion has come by pointing out the new outrage from Muslim over blow up Mohamed (not the suicide murderer type, the sex shop type). I am surprised he even wasted his time to write about it. And I am trying to grasp why any of us would care about the blow up doll or the overly sensitive Muslims who are so insecure about their religion.

Jack Kelley has a piece out that explores all the misuse of political cartoons at their worst – angering people over nothing. I do agree with Kelley on this – if you are going to defend the right to insult Christians and Jews and Conservatives, you better not fold up when a mad terrorists instigator comes at you. The media should be out of the hate and hurt business anyway – but to insult so many people here in the US and then wimp out with these terrorist demonstrates who the true chicken hawks are. Remember Ted Rall’s disgusting piece about Pat Tillman? Seems the US media is all talk and no spine.

Everyone seems to be missing the point. The media should never have been used to hurt others, demean them, and denigrate their causes or beliefs. What has the conservative blogosphere in an uproar is the media has been used for this purpose for a long time – on conservatives. We should not be calling for the media to export it’s worst features, we should be pointing out what is a responsible use of their resources.

Because the real concern is not cartoons, it is people who deny we are at war at all. The clowns on the left are trying to pretend 9-11 never happened, was a Bush-Cheney run operation or was the fault of the US and not the poor Muslims. And they too get too much play in serious publications. Just because a Kucinich or a McKinney exist in the Congress who might buy into these nutty ideas doesn’t mean they deserve voice.

Those who deny our state of danger are much more dangerous to us than the terrorists sympathizers whining about cartoons and blow up dolls. We are discussing in Congress the option of securing communications for terrorists here in the US. We cannot let this kind of Orwellian mind washing take root in America’s psyche:

Having survived ludicrous color-coded terror alerts and intermittent videograms from Osama bin Laden, the country is growing too jaded to panic. But Bush is still batting .500. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, continue to paralyze Democrats, who can’t get beyond ”no” as their official national security policy.

The Democrats’ paralysis began immediately after 9/11. Spurred by patriotism, a desire to look nonpartisan and a fear of looking weak on terror, they bought into the Bush response.

Emphasis mine. I hope too many people do not believe the Democrats did not take the 9-11 threat seriously and look at how exposed we are as an open society and work to find ways to protect us. I seriously too many were as jaded as this sad lady and simply made decisions based on their appearance to the media at the time. But this denial is the mind washing of history made so famous in Orwell’s book 1984 – which so many on the left say they fear as the practice it. Now that is an Orwellian trait!

During the 2004 presidential election, John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, tried but failed to separate his campaign from policies he previously embraced. Over the past year, Democrats in Congress noisily challenged the president on issues ranging from war to torture and wiretapping. Each time, the White House pushed back with the usual formula of scare and dare.

I am sorry to say this, but this person is one simple minded fool. Democrats never had an answer to the risk or Bush’s solution. While liberals claimed Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 the rest of us knew it represented a host of possible future 9-11s. The fact the left could not see the potential risk is why they were deemed unprepared for these dangerous times. The liberals only have one person claiming to have been violated by the wire taps, a self confessed Al Qaeda operative who was attempting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. The torture claim turned out to be aggressive interrogations. Abu Graihb turned out to be some immature and sick individuals and not the policies of the United States.

Time and time again the liberals not only got it wrong, their positions always ended up strengthening the terrorists’ case. Be factually wrong and on the wrong side tends to help lose elections. What this poor person does not appreciate is how accurately she described herself and all those on the marginal far left

Then, Coretta Scott King’s funeral intervened. Four presidents attended — Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and the Republican father and son, George H.W. and George W. Bush. Carter used the platform to allude to the Bush administration wiretapping controversy. He mentioned the difficulties that Mrs. King and her husband, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., endured as they became the target of secret government wiretapping; he failed to mention that attorney general Robert F. Kennedy, a Democrat, authorized the King wiretapping. In their funeral remarks, the Bushes took the gracious approach, leaving the Democrats to look tastelessly partisan.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…..

UPDATE:

Mac Ranger found some dangerous clowns over at Newsweak.