No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Michelle says

"I don't agree with much of what Dershowitz espouses, but on many crucial
War on Terror-related issues he is dead-on--as he is here on the Cartoon Jihad and the
craven media."

So you read that line and you think that Dershowitz is going to have some great points about the whole cartoon controversy. I read the transcript that Michelle provided from his interview on Danish television, and I wish to counter some points that he made in that transcript.

[Responding to a question about his reaction to the Danish embassy torchings:]

"It's great hypocrisy on the part of those doing the burning, because these are some of the same people who read voraciously much worse cartoons directed at Christians and Jews and Americans and Israel. Deeply, deeply, offensive anti-Christian and anti-Semitic cartoons are a staple out of Gaza every week, and suddenly, when Mohammed is offended, they're prepared to burn down embassies and create this kind of havoc. It is extraordinary hypocrisy."

Let me start out by saying that Alan is making a lot of generalizations here, and a touch of hyperbole to make his point. He makes it sound like there are a lot of cartoons produced weekly that would offend us Westerners, and that everyone reads these papers like they are holy gospel. Would this be like someone from Islam saying that every Westerner has seen the Mohammed cartoons and believes that is how Islam works? My issue with his statement is that he is generalizing all the papers that come from Gaza, and how people respond to those cartoons that come from those papers. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Let's look at his next entry:

"...You can't have a story about a cartoon without seeing the cartoon. In fact, when you
see the cartoons published by the Danish newspapers, they are mild in comparison with
what's published every day in Islamic fundamentalists newspapers and in Syrian
newspapers, in Egyptian newspapers, in Saudi Arabian newspapers. So you have to see the
cartoon to get a sense of how outrageous these attacks on the Danish embassy [are] and
the hypocrisy across the Middle East is."

To me, this is where Alan is really missing the point. Understanding that, fundamentally, Christianity and Judaism are very different from that of Islamic religion. I am not even going to pretend to know what would offend other religions and what would not. I do know this though, I don't need to see an offending cartoon if people are
protesting it. To me, the cartoons were very mild, and I saw no reason to burn embassies based on those drawings. Then again, that is just me. I am not a follower of Islam, therefore I cannot speak for how this affects them. I certainly would not be able to justify publishing it even further to continue this cycle of anger. If Newspaper X were to publish a cartoon that thousands of people become incensed over and violence ensues, why on earth would Newspaper Y then print the cartoon again with the story "This cartoon pisses people off to the point of violence so we are going to show you what is causing the trouble." Does that make any sense at all? I don't think that by saying that newspapers publish much worse cartoons daily thus we have the right to publish this cartoon is even close to being right. I can honestly say I have never heard about a protest from Catholics about a cartoon printed in Syria. Ever. Why is this? Do Catholics not care? Are the cartoons secret so we can't see them? Or do we view such things with a much different eye? We as Westerners like to say "We don't protest those cartoons because we respect their right for free speech." Well guess what, not everyone in the world has adopted such a noble ideal. These cartoons have angered these people on such a deep level, they feel that they need to destroy property and for people to die to make their voices heard. And you do hear them, don't you?

As far as the people doing the damage, we need to talk about them, because Alan sure does. We will get to that in a moment, as Alan next wants to take some cheap shots at CNN:

"CNN has shown no courage. It claims it won't publish the cartoons because they're
offensive. But they have published previous cartoons that are offensive. The fact is,
they're frightened. The fact is, that this kind of religious and intellectual terrorism
is working. It is persuading journalists who would otherwise cover this story with the
cartoons to back away--not on ideological reasons or not for reasons of protecting or
preserving integrity or anything of that kind, but out of physical and economic fear.
This is economic, physical terrorism directed at journalists and it is working. They have succeeded in the United States. They have failed in parts of Europe, but they have
succeeded in the United States."

First of all, saying that CNN has the right to publish these cartoons now because they have published other offensive cartoons in the past is beyond absurd. Does Alan not understand how different these situations are? Did CNN publish cartoons of Mohammed in the past that have offended people? I am willing to bet not. Comparing previous cartoons to these cartoons is truly apples to oranges. I find it amusing that Alan calls these protests a form of "economic, physical terrorism". No Alan, these are people whose very core of religion has been violated (in their views) and they are not happy about it. Do you truly think that CNN feels that if they publish these cartoons that all of their offices will be blown up or burnt down? I think that is a bit excessive in those hopes. How about the simple fact that CNN understands that reprinting these cartoons is asinine, and serves no good purpose. The funny thing about Freedom of Speech is that one can automatically assume it to mean you have the freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want. How about the freedom to not say anything at all? By reporting on CNN that there are cartoons about Mohammed that are causing riots, they are doing their jobs, they are reporting the news. When asked "why aren't you showing us the offensive cartoons?" CNN replies: "Uh, because they are offensive?" Suppose, during the Super Bowl, a group of college students decide to go streaking across midfield. The next day CNN reports "Group of students from local college go streaking at Super Bowl." And then they are asked "Well why aren't you showing us pictures of streakers? How can you possibly report a story without showing us pictures of what happened?" It is possible to understand a story without adding fuel to the fire, so to speak. Don't worry though, the beauty of this country is that if you *truly* want to see the Mohammed cartoons, or you just had to see pictures of the streakers, there are plenty of websites that will provide you access. Don't believe me? Just talk to my friend Google, he will tell you.

Finally, Alan goes to talk about the people who are protesting and burning down embassies.

"...When the burning down of embassies and the fear of fatwas and physical and economic
retaliation are what determines the policy, it means that the terrorists have won."

Whoa whoa whoa. I have to interrupt Alan at this point. The terrorists have won? Is he saying that every single person who is protesting this cartoon is a terrorist? All across the Middle East protests are being waged against these cartoons. Did all of these people go to terrorist camps? Do they go grocery shopping with AK-47s strapped to their backs and belts with explosives around their waists? This is such a horrible generalization
that it is really sad. Alan would have you believe that every protest over this cartoon involves violence. Granted, within the general population there are terrorists. Of any population, that is. Doesn't matter what country or race you are talking about. But what about the rest of the protestors? Normal, average, every-day citizens that get up, go to work, come home, eat, pray, and then go to bed. These people are suddenly "terrorists" because they are expressing their deep anger at what is going on? How many cities in America have had issues with torching when an important sports team wins a national championship? When the University of Maryland won its national title in 2002 the campus was a literal war zone that night. Cars overturned and on fire, vandalism galore, and police in riot gear on campus. So by Alan's definition, all the students that partook in the celebration are terrorists. Please. Thank goodness that was just a celebration and not a protest. You should have seen what happened on Indiana University's campus, the team that lost the national championship to Maryland. It wasn't pretty, I can assure of that. They must have imported people from Gaza to help burn down buildings.

Could you imagine what would happen if the New York Times published on it's front page a cartoon of Jesus having relations of a personal nature with Hitler? What kind of uproar would that cause? Then do you think any other main media outlet would then re-print that cartoon just so people could see how terrible it was? Of course while the controversy over this cartoon is tearing America apart, someone on the West Bank would see the cartoon and shrug. "Doesn't look that bad to me."

Let's get back to what Alan is saying:

"And the United States and other European countries have a policy: Never give in to
terrorism. Well, they're now giving in to terrorism by not publishing these cartoons--not because they're offensive, they publish plenty of offensive cartoons, but because they
are frightened and because they lack the courage to confront this kind of terrorist
threat."

Wow. I mean, wow. Did he really say that? What truly annoys me about this whole situation is how America, yet again, gets dragged through the mud for something we had no control over. Did we create the religion that was offended? We did not. Did we create and publish the cartoons that offended that religion? We did not. In case Alan hasn't been paying attention, but America has got its hands full in the Middle East, and we have been trying to actually make progress in public relations over there. Does he think that by us standing up and saying "Why yes, newspapers over the world should print offensive material to Islam, it is their god-given rights" is going to endear us to those we have been trying to make not hate us so much? As I stated earlier, it is a choice to not publish these cartoons, and this is a choice that, as Americans, we are allowed to have. Some are scared to publish them, others feel that it is wrong, and others realize that if they do publish them they will actually lose business because of doing so. Does it make sense that cartoons are having such an affect? No, to us, it does not. But the reality of the situation is that they are having a huge effect, and to ignore this effect truly makes us no better than those who make offensive cartoons of any nature. To say that we are giving in to terrorism because we are not going to publish these cartoons is wrong. Plain and simple. We do things every day that will invoke retaliations from terrorists (have you been to Baghdad lately?) so saying that we are scared because of cartoons just
doesn't make sense. Last time I looked, here in America there are plenty of places that have printed or electronically published the cartoons. You can't swing a dead metaphor at a blog without having one of the Mohammed cartoons pop up. I am sure there have been newspapers here that have printed them as well. So you can't say that all of America is giving into his "terrorism". Far from it, I would gather.

Please understand, I myself am a huge fan of America, and of Freedom of Speech. I am also a fan of understanding and reason, and these two ideals need to be applied in this situation. These cartoons are angering not one, not five, not one hundred people. Thousands are angered at this. Can you literally tell that many people that they are
wrong and to sit down and shut up? I always thought that the policy of America was to be tolerant of religion, no matter who worships who and where. If you publish the cartoons of Mohammed, even just to tell the story of how they are wrong, you are offending people's religions, pure and simple.

So to Alan Dershowitz and Michelle Malkin, I kindly ask that you take a look at this situation from both sides, and while I strongly agree that burning down anything in a form of protest is not the way to go, perhaps they should be asking why things are being burned down. Please don't lay the blame at America's doorstep, and please don't ask us to make things worse.