headbomb 2

ok. on feb 2 i posted the headbomb cartoon, and obviously this stuff is all over the net. i showed the headbomb cartoon to my political philosophy class, and i was surprised that none of them had seen the actual image. flemming rose, the danish editor, has an op-ed in today's washpost defending his decision to publish the material. no (?) mainstream american paper or magazine has published the cartoons, but a couple of student newspapers did, including the daily illini. in my opinion, publishing is right. first of all, the fact that x is an iconoclast has no tendency to show that i shouldn't produce and experience images. i actually sort of defended the taliban for blowing up buddhas, but i certainly would have defended any remaining afghan buddhists had they been drawing little buddhas. second, the "we respect islam" chorus has gotten a little ridiculous, and you don't have to be a monstrous neo-fascist or  brownshirt christian coulterian to realize that islam is a deeply problematic religion in many respects, not least of which is a history of violence, repression, and militarism. obviously i've said the same of christianity, so why would i hesitate here? commentary on this should be perfectly frank and free-wheeling: images are a completely legitimate means to crystallize that commentary. third, i agree with rose that our public disourse is far too constrained. banning "nigger" from the pages of a newspaper is no blow for racial justice, just an enforcement of the mere appearance of racial justice. "cocksucker" is a word that can be perfectly legitimately used to express political opinions: there mayu be no better word, and the fact that people put their little hands over their ears just shows you that some folks are iconoclasts while others are verboclasts. i admire what rose did, and i say: let us all join him and weather the response.