Saturday, April 01, 2006

Jill Carroll, The New York Times, and Our Militant Islamist Friends

Do you remember Jill Carroll? We last mentioned her two months ago, upon her being kidnapped in Iraq. And if you recall, her kidnapping was not broadcast on television because it was too disturbing.

And although Ms. Carroll was released two days ago, my interest here is not in her, but instead is in the honest and objective coverage of her story in The New York Times.

As you know, I get all of my daily news from The Times because of their integrity and unbiased reporting. Which is why I was pleased to see that instead of joining in the mass right-wing Islamophobic hysteria, The Times saw fit to state things as they are:

Through her captivity, Ms. Carroll struck a chord in the Arab world as well as in the West, perhaps in part because of her passionate attachment to Iraq and its people. Conservative Islamist politicians in Iraq issued emotional pleas for her release, as did some of the most militant anti-American groups in the Middle East, like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

From that one paragraph alone, we learn that:

A) “Islamists” are “conservative”, and respond to emotional pleas.

B) Hamas and Islamic Jihad also respond to emotional pleas.

C) These groups’ goals and tactics are best summarized by the word “militant”.

D) Their only political position worth mentioning is that they are Anti-American.

E) If you display a passionate attachment towards a People of Color, you will gain the respect of everyone – conservatives and militants.

And from the above, we see why the morals of The Times are my morals:

A) Emotion is superior to so-called “reasoned” arguments.

B) Being anti-American is consistent with being compassionate towards others.

C) Islamists, Hamas, and The Muslim Brotherhood are our friends.

D) Zionism is the cause of every problem; it is a curse on humankind.


A.C #1 said...


This may be off-topic but read this link

He may be one of your students...

Professor Peter Kurgman, PhD, PhD, PhD said...

I am very concerned when I read things like this. Specifically, why does Professor Pianka actively advocate for the survival of 10% of the human species? Earth's delicate biosphere cannot exist with 650,000,000 people raping it repeatedly. Perhaps a class-action suit against the University of Texas, on behalf of the members of the ecosystem, would help.

Regarding tenure, it happens to be the only barrier that stands between free professorial expression and Christianist oppression. Eliminating it is akin to sending the world into a theocratic extermination camp.

You can read more about human extinction here:

Palestine Blogs - The Gazette Subscribe in Bloglines