Abu Graib Versus Muhammad's Turban Bomb

DISCLAIMER: The images below are graphic and vile in nature. They were originally published on www.salon.com. I have not posted these photos because I like them. They make me sick. I'm posting them because every day I read the news I have to look at myself and ask, "How much longer will I let my tax dollars pay the salaries of those who paint the walls of Abu Ghraib with Iraqi blood?"

Two controversial news items have been the talk of the town recently: the unified Muslim backlash against Western newspapers for depicting offensive images of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and the resurfacing of the photos depicting the deplorable activities at the American-run Abu Graib prison in Iraq.

Given America's tenuous position in the global atmosphere, many "concerned Americans" (a.k.a. neo-conservatives) have been declaring that the publication of more Abu Graib photos will only insight further backlash against American troops and civilians internationally, and many American press agencies have refrained from publishing them for fear of further tarnishing America’s reputation. And yet, the drawings of the prophet Muhammad are being republished in American newspapers with no negative address and a moral disregard for the consequences of reprinting them.


The message of hypocrisy this sends is that it’s okay to display negative portrayals of Muhammad and Muslims, but under no circumstances should you print anything that sullies the image of America, even when we are clearly in the wrong.

What’s that smell? It’s propaganda!

It’s funny how, rather than condemning the actions of the American military for torturing prisoners in the first place, the most vocal opinion of the American government is to turn the issue around and call instigators the rare media outlets (i.e. www.salon.com) willing to publish the graphic and ignominious photos.

The collection of Muhammad drawings has been made widely available by dozens of newspapers, websites, and independent college dailies. And the publication of these drawings is being touted as an exercise of "free press." But if “free press” were really the genuine interest of these media outlets, then they should equally exercise their freedom by publishing the newer Abu Graib photos, and they’re not.


While the two sets of images - the Muhammad drawings and the Abu Graib photos - are similar in their polemic nature, there are startling differences between them.

The drawings of Muhammad are an affront to Muslims because (among other reasons) of the negative stereotypes they enforce, namely that all Muslims are terrorists. These drawings are an "artistic" interpretation of Islam’s prophet, and their interpretation as either culturally ignorant or deceptively shrewd is what makes them politically controversial in the first place.


Conversely, the photos from Abu Graib, which show the systematic mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, many of whom (like the current residents of Guantanamo) will never be charged with any crime, are not politically controversial because they enforce negative stereotypes with questionable veracity; they are politically controversial because their truth is indisputable. Whereas the meaning extracted from the Muhammad drawings is “interpretive,” there is no room for interpretation behind the Abu Graib photos. The harsh reality is that Abu Graib prisoners were tortured and occasionally murdered by employees of the American government.

When Vice President Dick Cheney shoots an innocent man in the face, it makes front page news. The same should happen when other government employees shoot, punch, kick, rape, and murder men whose innocence has not yet been disproved.

The fact that one set of images is "representational" (the Muhammad set) and the others is "factual" (the Abu Graib set) should have a direct impact on the extent of media coverage each respectively receives. However, the intuitive conclusion that the "facts" should be given more coverage than "fictional" or "editorial" images has not followed. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred.

"Freedom of press" advocates have published the Muhammad images shamelessly, touting the reprinting of offensive materials as an "inherent right of the media" While I’m not for legislative censorship, I am in favor of self-censorship, especially when vitriolic reaction (worldwide protests, setting embassies on fire, death) has been provoked by ignorant action (the initial printing of the cartoons). Let me explain further.


It’s true that the Jyllands-Posten - the Dutch newspaper that originally called for and ran the Muhammad cartoons - has the "right" to publish these images, possession of a right does automatically mean that the exercising of that right is unconditionally warranted.

Rights need to be exercised appropriately and with a discretionary attitude, and sometimes the exercising of a right for a right's sake is more destructive than not exercising the right at all. For example, the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms. This means that the right to having a gun is protected in our most sacred document. However, there are situations where having a gun is completely inappropriate, i.e. into day cares, into lecture halls, into maternity wards, etc. Sure, the Constitution promises you the right to own a gun, but that doesn’t mean guns are systematically acceptable in all situations. The use of guns should be monitored with a discretionary attitude. This principle can be extrapolated to the press; freedom of press does not mean that every article/drawing, especially those of a close-minded nature, should be published simply because they can be published. Exercising a right for not other reason than to promote that right is, essentially, a form of political blind faith, and is premised on a failure to recognize that having a right does not grant you impunity from the consequences of performing it.


Let's look at another example. If the New York times were to print an editorial running the headline, "Al Sharpton Should Drop His Negro Crutch" or "Thieving Zionist Pigs Should Leave Israel in German Boxcars" the cultural backlash would be enormous. There would be riots in every major city in America (and probably Jerusalem) and people would assuredly get injured, and some may even die in the process of protesting the publication of such narrow views. This is exactly what’s happening in Muslim nations across the world. But because Muslims are looked down upon by Westerners (much like blacks were only a few decades ago) Western leaders claim that the publication of the Muhammad cartoons is protected by a “free press” and therefore should be accepted without question (If the Washington Post were to hold a contest to see who could come up with the funniest black slave cartoon, Americans from all ethnic backgrounds would react just as strongly as Muslims have been reacting in Libya and Afghanistan.) These same leaders also accuse Muslims across the world of overreacting to the West’s injurious attitudes toward them, and in turn all Muslims are typecast as angry, violent, embassy burners. The truth of the matter a great many Muslims are more offended by the West’s persistently unrealistic portrayal of Arabs and Persians as terrorists than they are the actual drawing of Muhammad.

The Abu Graib photos and the Muhammad drawings are similar in that they are both repugnant and abhorrent displays. However, because the Abu Graib photos are real and the Muhammad drawings only enforce questionable stereotypes of ire and ignorance, the Abu Graib photos should be more widely distributed than the Muhammad drawings, and not vice versa. Why? The media’s job is to expose the truth, not to encourage racial profiling.


The bottom line is that the Iraqi detainees at Abu Graib were and are still being psychologically tortured, sexually humiliated, bitten by poisonous snakes, murdered, degraded, attacked by ravenous dogs, beaten and sodomized. The acts at Abu Graib are literal atrocities. Iraqi detainees were literally treated like pieces of detritus. Does Muhammad literally wear a bomb as a hat? Not that I know of. Obviously the more pressing matter at hand is the question of which is of greater concern to the American people: literal or figurative offenses? Unfortunately, this is not the question being asked. The question being asked by the media is: Which story, Abu Graib or the Muhammad drawings, will sell more papers? And of course, nobody is going to buy a newspaper with the headline, “The American Army - Your Army - Is the New Nazi Party.”

And while it may be hard for many Americans to accept that the actions of our military are just as terrorizing as the actions of ethnic peoples too poor to have a structured armed forces (neo-conservative translation: terrorists), the atrocities committed by Americans in the name of America need to be brought to light.
The publication of offensive images and/or language that has no foundation in reality is reprehensible; but not publishing offensive images or language that is grounded in truth is more reprehensible.
Hiding the bankrupt behavior at Abu Graib from the world will not do us any good. In fact, sweeping the issues under the rug will only allow these offenses to continue. If the actions of the American military are made public, then perhaps prison guards will think twice before torturing their next victim. With the threat of exposure looming overhead, our military will act very differently, they will follow the laws instead of breaking them, and this will only support our cause, because the actions of a noble military will be supported both domestically and abroad.


Just as most media sources with 21st century sensitivities would never publish cartoons depicting Africa-Americans in black face and straw skirts, hate materials such as the Muhammad drawings should never have been published in the first place. And their republication should not have occurred. You might say that the photos from Abu Graib are a form of hate material too, and that in republishing them on my site I am committing the same “media crime” as those who republished the Muhammad drawings. I beg to differ. The Abu Graib photos are not hate materials; whereas the Muhammad drawings are depictions of hatred meant to inspire more hatred, the Abu Graib photos are evidence of acts of hatred meant to inspire awareness. This is a difference worth noting.

Friendly Fire? or Only Shoot the Naughty Parts

Earlier today, Vice President Dick Cheney shot his 78-year old hunting buddy Harry Whittington in the face with a shotgun. When asked why he fired upon his friend, Cheney had this to say:

"When Congress passed the Patriot Act they essentially gave the president and myself the power to secure American safety by any means necessary. Recent reports from the intelligence community indicated that Mr. Whittington's face was a covert al'Qaeda agent, and it was my civic duty as vice-president to rid America of this epidermal terror. Fortunately for the rest of Mr. Whittington's body and the American public, the insidious half of Mr. Whittington's face, more specifically the right half, was successfully terminated."

Doctors reported that little or no damage was incurred by Mr. Whittington's more loyal anatomy.

Mr. Cheney said he was at first skeptical of the intelligence indiciting Mr. Whittington, as he had been the vice president's friend for years. "I'd known his face a long time and, save for a wandering mole, always found it agreeable and staunchly pro-American," Mr. Cheney said.

However, when Mr. Whittington said he was considering following his doctor's advice to eat less pork, the vice president became convinced his friend's face really had turned to the dark side of Islam. It was then that Mr. Cheney discharged his weapon.

A photo of Mr. Whittington's face, second from left, enjoying a three-piece meal and slaw with known terrorists.

When questioned about specific ties linking Mr. Whittington's face to al'Qaeda, Cheney stated that the British intelligence had satellite photos of Mr. Whittington's face dining with senior al'Qaeda member Ayman al-Zawahiri at a KFC in 2003, and more recently the NSA had intercepted phone calls where Mr. Whittington's face had discussed the possibility of bombing numerous GAP and Banana Republic stores in the Baltimore-D.C. area. According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, this plan, referred to as Operation Well-Dressed Menace in the official transcripts of Mr. Whittington's telephone conversations, was thwarted thanks to the NSA's recent, and constitutionally questionable, wire-tapping program. When pressed further by members of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Gonzales could not confirm that it was, in fact, the right half of Mr. Whittington's face that had made the calls and not the more patriotic left. However, Gonzales also noted that Mr. Whittington's face had been spotted eating falafel on more than one occassion

In related news, France's Isabelle Dinoire, the world's first recipient of a face transplant, is concerned that her new cheeks, lips, and nose may similarly retaliate against her own politics. When questioned about the issue, Ms. Dinoire's doctors assured her, and the global community, that the selection process for potential donors insisted that qualified candidates be either apolitical or sympathetic to the Western bastardization of all things sacred.

To read the full Yahoo report, click here

Atlas, Scratch That Itch

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Above is small section of Eisenhower's presidential farewell address, which he delivered on January 17, 1961. Since that time, many contend that the military-industrial complex Eisenhower spoke of has become a reality, and that because of a bloodlust and colonial spirit that makes Alexander the Great look like a child winning marbles on the playground, America has alienated itself from the nobler nations and cultures of the world.

Most would agree that the military-industrial complex is fueled by an officious nature and, much like Superman, an unwarranted need to judge right from wrong and attempt to remedy situations where our presence is neither invited nor wanted. America views the world with eyes that see the globe as a map riddled with bull's eyes, and underneath these bull eye's are dollar signs that demand excavating.

With shocking chutzpah, America has morally over-extended itself and become entangled in wars that were none of our business (i.e. Vietnam), insighted political conflagration where none existed before (i.e. Panama and Iran), and masterminded infrastructural overhauls by strategically directing the attention of the global community to minority intelligence while burning the towering stacks of relevant and more accurate information in furnaces that heat the mansions of the American elite (i.e. Iraq). However, the military-industrial complex is the least of our worries, because the military is not an autonomous, self-governing branch; even the highest ranking military officials must follow the mandates set forth by our constitution and our representatives. The military does not have the authority to send itself into war; when checks and balances are in place, our soldiers and the firing of their bullets are mediated by the discretion of our governing bodies.

The military-industrial complex is a tool, a tool wielded by an even more insidious hand.

More threatening than the military-industrial complex is an underlying American mentality - embodied by an insatiable lust for acquisition - that I like to call the horde-and-devour complex. In this sense, I use the word "complex" to mean a) a pathological disorder; and b) a bureaucratic institution premised on an uneven distribution of power.

When phrases like "conquer or be conquered," "might makes right," "bigger is better" permeate American culture, material and terrestrial wealth are glorified, and the self-idolatry associated with the corruption power is legitimzed, it comes as no surprise that America has a long-standing tradition of devouring other countries whole, a bestial trend that manifests itself in the form of economic enslavement, financial dependence, and strategic manipulation. We build up countries (particularly those of the third world) by making deals to "modernize" these indigent lands, only to later tear them down again and built them back up and tear them down again, acquiring possession of all their natural resources and lending aid in the form of domestic firms that "help" repair the very things we've been blowing up for years.

I hate do admit it, but the novel Atlas Shrugged is probably the most demonstrative novel addressing American thirst for power that has ever been written.

Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged indirectly addresses the economic theory that all economic progress will ultimately benefit all the workers of its economy (symbolized by the obstinate/technocratic heroes Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart [propagandized as entrepreneurs cum philanthropists through their sheer audacity]). This is an idea that America has sold to other countries and to itself for years. Through their gall, Hank and Dagny change the world by defying the powers that be and, in turn, the two pismires cause the god Atlas to twitch, thereby sending a shock wave through the rest of the world. ("Look at us!" Hank and Dagny shout, "We did it! Everyone said our greed wouldn't benefit society, but we've made the world a better place because we wanted everything to be bigger, better, and faster! Greed works! Three cheers for greed!")

But though Rand's novel make reference to Greek mythology, the vagaries expressed in her "philosophy of self" (her work is about as philosophical as a midnight pee) are distinctly non-Greek while being quintessentially American; in the end, greed helps everyone, even those who were skeptical of its benevolence.

The more likely scenario involving Hank, Dagny, and Atlas, and one that truly echoes the Greek gods' willingness to punish those with elephantine egos, is such: when Atlas shrugs he dislodges Hank and Dagny, and the entire United States for that matter, from their positions of privilege and lets them fall from the earth, where they suffocate in the oxygen-depletion of space. And I'm not entirely sure the revisions I've just made to Rand's novel wouldn't be the best thing for the rest of the world.

So shrug away, Atlas. Shake off American greed and corporate capitalism. Let the thrust of your paroxysm fling off all the adherents of economic jingoism and Wal-Street colonialism. Cast the military-industrial and horde-and-devour complexes into deep space, and if they still crave the bittersweet taste of hubris, let them try to conquer the stars and suffer the fate of Icarus in the process.

This diatribe of disgust was inspired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' ugly face and duplicitous arrogance, John Perkins' gripping memoir Confessions of an Economic Hitman, and my own desire to see Hugo Chavez do something to really drastic.


"I don't understand what the big deal is...I outsourced two million jobs but I created a million new jobs, so you can clearly see that we're making great strides to secure our economic future...there's progress in Iraq. I hear there's a McDonald's there now and McRibs are selling like hot cakes, and next year we'll hold democratic elections to see if Halliburton should build the Iraqi people a drive-thru...I cut taxes with my judo-chop legislative abilities...and whatever else you don't like, blame the liberals. If those pesky long hairs didn't throw the book at me every time I broke the law I'd be able to get a whole lot more done, but I'm always having to defend myself, and that takes time. All this speachifying makes my head hurt. I set up a cot in the Oval Office so I can nap between lunch and recess. Where's my blanky? Tell me about Little Red Riding Hood and the big, bad Iranian wolf again, Dick, only this time have grandma be Patrick Leahy so he can get gobbled up."

Things Are Shackles

Being free is not about having an abudance of stuff that allows you to do whatever you want, being free is about possessing the will to pursue all the things you don't already have at the risk of never getting them.

When Leaps of Faith Are a Matter of Choice

A man walks into a bar, sits down, and orders a drink. The bartender, noticing the frown on the man's face, says, "I can either serve you a drink or tell you how to be as happy as you were when you were a child." The disheartened fellow scoffs at the bartender and leaves the tavern, preferring to drink where the bartender is a little less imposing. Later that night the man drinks so much he decides to jump off a bridge. He breaks his legs and several ribs upon impacting the water, thusly incapacitating his ability to save himself.