CNN= Coward News Network

Haha....Michael Medved mentioned about this (i.e., CNN blurring the face of Mohammed in televising one of the cartoons), so I poked around for a video clip. Found this in the meantime:

"I was watching CNN tonight and they ran a story and the cartoon that the Joint Chiefs of Staff objected too because is showed a quadruple amputee and Rumsfeld stating that he was listing the man as a battle hardened case. During the same program CNN showed one of the cartoons of Muhammad (peace be upon him) BUT they blurred Muhammad’s face. After a friend sent me a link to the original cartoons in question my opinion is that CNN et al are acting like a bunch of scared B****** (and yes I understand that the B word will offend some and I yes I illustrated the B word in the politically correct method to make a not so subtle point)."

So how is it that because a Danish newspaper originally published 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, subsequently republished by Norwegians and now others, that the whole of Denmark and these European nations are now held to account? What does banning Legos (a Danish product) have anything to do with cartoon depictions of Mohammed?

I understand the desire for sensitivity and understanding; but CNN bending over backwards (actually, more like turning around and just bending over) to appease indignant Muslims where political correctness is undeserved, is just frustrating. It's letting yourself get walked all over, when the proper response should be to hold your ground and stay true to the principles of freedom by which our society lives. Why be bullied because a segment of the world population can't distinguish between slander and honest criticism, where criticism is earned?

The cartoons themselves might be in poor taste. But like the cartoon recently published in the Washington Post depicting a military quadrapalegic amputee, a reasonable negative response to it is to criticize the cartoonist first; perhaps expand the criticism to the newspaper editor; perhaps the entire newspaper itself; ; write letters expressing your displeasure; and cancelling your subscription, at the more extreme end of it. But beyond that, what is reasonable? Death threats, and expanding culpability to include condemning the entire United States for something published by the Washington Post would be going to unreasonable extremes, wouldn't it?