A number of knowledgeable sources at NBC have confirmed rumors that Brian Williams will no longer host the Nightly News. Instead, sources say, Williams will be reassigned to a new “semi-regular” series of new specials for the network.
Meanwhile, a preliminary test segment, prepared for NBCUniversal executives and other decision makers within NBCUniversal News Group, has surfaced on the internet.
Just a week after the bloody attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris, a mostly unread blogger has posted a satirical cartoon that the blog’s own author says may have gone a step too far. (The cartoon is linked here. NOTE: This cartoon may be offensive to some viewers; it contains material that may be inappropriate for people who can’t guess what it looks like based on the photo of Charb right in front of you now. Really? Think like a twelve-year-old boy or a member of a college men’s Greek organization.)
“I insist it’s actually quite heroic because it’s really insensitive and is bound to cause pain to friends, colleagues, and family of Charb,” said the blog’s nominal owner, Hemlock Andashes, referring to Charlie Hebdo’s slain editor, Stéphane Charbonnier, known as “Charb”. ” Along with a lot of other folks who’ve probably experienced plenty of pain already,” he added.
The just-published cartoon appears to show Charb stimulating a large penis; the ambiguous sketch and dialogue suggest that the penis may belong to Mohammad. The cartoon also seems to inexplicably parallel a recently published picture of Charb holding up one of Charlie Hebdo’s controversial covers while giving a power-fist salute to the camera.
When asked to explain the cartoon’s point, Andashes said, “Well, it’s kind of complex in the way it uses meta-irony and stuff. I suppose by mirroring the Charb photo with the power-fist the artist wants to comment on the question of who actually holds power–so to speak–and how satire relates to undermining that power or not. You know, that sort of thing.”
Ashes bristled at the suggestion that a French reader or supporter “Je Suis Charlie” might argue that the cartoon is simply a dumb prank and that publishing it is a cowardly cheap shot and a transparent attempt to gain attention.
“Look! First off, people who object probably can’t understand American satire and the crucial role that cum-squirting dicks play in the proud American tradition of using vulgar, homophobic references to undermine the assumptions of power. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about solidarity with the French and shit, but your stereotypical French lefty doesn’t know shit about hardass American-style satire; Frenchy needs to grow a pair–and take a shower for christsake. And French left women? Calm down sisters–say it don’t spray it! And, by the way, you really need to shave your area if you expect any service from a real American man. Secondly, the cartoon works because it so precisely lampoons the low artistic and comedic value so brilliantly employed by the Charlie Hebdo ouevre itself. And on top of everything, it actually honors Charb and Charlie by using a pointlessly shocking image to call attention to itself while simultaneously insulating itself form ordinary norms of decency, taste, and intelligent commentary by defining itself as satire.”
“On questions of satire, taste, and public scorn from the PC left, I’m with Ted Rall,” he asserted, referring to the RFK Journalism Award-winnin satirical cartoonist who recently wrote in defense of Charlie’s controversial cartoons. “You either get it or you don’t,” he added. “And if you don’t, then it’s a sign that you’re no different than the rest of the authoritarian censor-happy right. Fuck off.”
 Ouevre is believed to be a French word, not easily translated into English, meaning roughly, somethimg small and gross, as in ouevre douvre: a small bite of something gross to eat. “Spit that fucking thing out, Justin…Emily just told me it’s an ouevre douvre!”
More on Charlie from A Paper Bird. This is everything I had hoped to say!
Originally posted on a paper bird:
There is no “but” about what happened at Charlie Hebdo yesterday. Some people published some cartoons, and some other people killed them for it. Words and pictures can be beautiful or vile, pleasing or enraging, inspiring or offensive; but they exist on a different plane from physical violence, whether you want to call that plane spirit or imagination or culture, and to meet them with violence is an offense against the spirit and imagination and culture that distinguish humans. Nothing mitigates this monstrosity. There will be time to analyze why the killers did it, time to parse their backgrounds, their ideologies, their beliefs, time for sociologists and psychologists to add to understanding. There will be explanations, and the explanations will be important, but explanations aren’t the same as excuses. Words don’t kill, they must not be met by killing, and they will not make the killers’ culpability go away.
To abhor what was done to the victims, though, is not…
View original 2,316 more words
Just a few days ago, in a thoughtfully argued Daily Beast posting criticizing the “Je Suis Charlie” phenomenon, Arthur Chu wrote:
“The public discourse isn’t between people who think they ‘asked for it’ and people who don’t—it’s entirely among people who agree that the violence was unacceptable, but some of whom feel that this obligates them to elevate Charlie Hebdo to heroes and to hold up ‘Je Suis Charlie’ signs, and others who don’t.”
I’m among those who do not.
But with considerable ambivalence.
On the one hand, I believe deeply that radicals and dissidents especially need to take the principles of democratic free expression seriously and not ever acquiesce to the logic of the heckler’s veto wherein the most intolerant or the most violence-prone defenders of the status quo order determine the permissible range of discourse. Historically, radical dissent has always been the first speech to be repressed in such a setting.
On the other hand, of course, that commitment often entails defending the rights of idiots, goons, and bullies to express a lot of nonsense or worse. We should be able to criticize the contents of a publication without it being necessary to add that such criticism is not equivalent to a call for censorship (even of the self-imposed variety) let alone to an endorsement of the kind of hideous violence visited on the staff of Charlie Hebdo, but that’s sort of where the forced choice of the aftermath of this week’s act of barbaric violence has taken us.
So, consider all appropriate condemnations of cowardly terrorism and disclaimers about liberty of expression and so forth said. And thus said, can we move on and speak honestly about what the publication Charlie Hebdo was and was not before we all sign up for our Je Sui Charlie tee-shirts and wear them around with our chests all puffed out like little heroes of solidarity?
Charlie Hebdo is not all about Islam (much of it is French Leftist flatfooted satire of a disappointingly amateurish nature), but when it takes on religion—and Islam in particular, it reveals itself as a publication with all the unfunny anti-Islamic derangement of Bill Maher on a smug, self-satisfied tear.
Ranging from juvenile bathroom wall grafffandalsism to drooling hatespooge, calling this inkpuke material “satire” is like confusing Ayn Rand with a serious thinker.
Sure, no one who is not a believer should be made to feel like they are bound by the constraints of someone else’s religion (that’s one large point that is lost on the pro-life movement and supporters of Hobby Lobby). But, while I’m a big fan of lampooning the intolerance of religious fundamentalists, and I defend an atheists’ right to call religious faith stupid or dangerous (though I find such views silly and self-contradictory), I reserve the right to name extreme versions of such anti-religious expressions “hatespeech” when they cross the line into terrorizing discourse, especially when that discourse “punches down” rather than up (as Arthur Chu explicates the situation with Charlie Hebdo).
And make no mistake about it, but for the risk of violent reprisal from otherwise impotent, self-styled “Jihadist” nutcases, CH’s chimpish flinging of poop in the face of Muslims in a European, French-language periodical is hardly courageous, and in no case is it any sort of tweaking of entrenched power that satire was born to dare. Honoré Daumier this ain’t.
Moreover, more than a few cartoons in Charlie have been much more than giggly uses of the image of The Prophet; they have been unmistakably anti-Islamic—not anti-Islamist in the sense of mocking or defaming the ideology of revolutionary/radicalized jihadist Islamism– but rather mocking the religion itself. Or maybe Muslims.
CH makes constant, ambiguous use of turbaned, bearded figures that seem to deliberately blur the distinction between representing Muhammad and representing a stereotyped “Islamist”. The slyly unstated subtext is clearly that Islam is un-French. Indeed, much of CH’s anti-Islamist content could be easily mistaken for the kind of Muslim-bashing shit one might associate with the French National Front or some other European (or American) rightwing nationalist group. It is telling that the label “anti-Islamic” does not carry the same social bite in Europe or the U.S. as do “antisemitic “ or “racist”. I think the kind of self-congratulatory, Muslim-baiting shit Charlie engaged in could fairly be labeled “Euro-supremacist”. No kidding.
So, are the writers and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo guilty of provoking their own deaths? For the love of God, NO! We all understand that nothing they published was the motivation for behind these cult executions. They were targeted only because they worked at a high-visibility soft target of convenient shock-value. Like the hostages the terrorists killed at the Hyper Cacher grocery in Paris, the staff at Charlie were innocent victims of hideously intolerant religious fundamentalism used as a pretext for violent bloodlust.
But the impulse to mindlessly cry “Je Suis Charlie!” is no less absurd than acting as if watching “The Interview” is some sort of bold stroke for liberty or a defiant stance of solidarity with brave filmmaking independence.
I think we can and must mourn the tragedy of people being slain for pissing off intolerant monsters while refraining from uncritically beatifying juvenile, unfunny shockmongers as martyrs for liberal democracy. I mourn the death of this week’s victims of terrorism in Paris and I pray for comfort and healing for their families and friends. Victims, not martyrs.
 Owing in large part to radicalism’s methodological reliance on deliberately transgressive discourse to illuminate the stultified, power-laden nature of the status quo assumptions embedded within the range of “reasonable” discourse.
 Frankly, the offending Charlie Hebdo covers are so dull they don’t even really merit an angry letter.
 But without Bill’s informed sophistication and nuanced subtlety on matters of religion in public discourse. (Sarcasm alert!).
 That’s the fun of French satire! It’s so cleverly polysemous you just can’t pin down who or what is being satirized. But Charlie Hebdo is a lefty publication, so it couldn’t possibly be racist, could it? No. Just fiercely committed to pushing the limits! See?
 More of that clever, slippery polysemous French satire. Are we satirizing the dangerously stupid piece of shit American racist hatefilm? Or are we satirizing the stupid Islamic people who use violence in an intolerant and illiberal attempt to intimidate dumb (American, NOT French) would-be satirists? Who knows? So much anarchic fun!
 And please spare me any lectures about French laïcité; I not only admire France’s uncompromising commitment to a secular public square and the special separation of religious discourse from public debate, I believe it is precisely what that great American Francophile and Founder Thomas Jefferson had in mind for the meaning and purpose of the federal Constitution’s First Amendment version of his own Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. HOWEVER, neither secularism nor laïcité can legitimize anti-democratic bigotry against people of faith (as distinct from a pro-democratic insistence that people of any and all faiths must check the expression of their sacredly privileged religious beliefs at the door of public discourse.
PYONGYANG — After initial rumors circulated throughout the day suggesting the involvement of covert US counter measures in yesterday’s spate of widespread internet outages in North Korea, new reporting reveals that DPRK had recently switched their Internet service to Comcast.
Asked for official comment, one Obama Administration official who asked not to be named said, “Well, we certainly could have warned them. But then,” he continued, “why would we?”
According to sources with claimed connections to the small inner circle of North Korean military leaders, hourly attempts by a very upset Kim Jung Un to get an accurate status report and estimated time of service restoration were routed to the Comcast call center in the Philippines.
Sources say Comcast Service Specialist “Katie” repeatedly advised the frustrated Un that North Korea could easily resolve the issue on their own by simply “power cycling” the nation’s router.
However after a team of DPRK computer engineers followed “Katie’s instructions and unplugged the internet, waited 30 seconds, then plugged the internet back in and service was not restored, an outraged Un was told he would not be able to speak to “Katie’s” supervisor,
Comcast policy, the dictator was informed, requires that the Service Specialist draft a “service notice” which a supervisor would respond to by phone within 24 to 48 hours.
The red-faced dictator then anxiously explained that by that time he would have missed the crucial season finale of his favorite reality show: “Great Successor and Much Beloved Father of the Free and Joyful People of Our Wondrous Workers’ Paradise Creates Unparalleled Dishes of Sophisticated Cuisine Thereby Handily Defeating A Dozen Highly Touted Yet Decadent and Corrupt Western Chefs Using Only the Lush Abundance of Tender Meats and Hearty Produce from Korea’s Vast Garden-like Collective Farms (Season Six)”
“Katie” could only apologize for “any inconvenience” experienced by North Korea and asked if Un might be interested in hearing about several new money-saving internet and cable bundles being offered by Comcast.
As “Katie” began to explain the details and advantages of the “Sports Blast Plus” bundle, an angry Un slammed down the phone and demanded his team of elite covert hackers look into ways to cripple Comcast service in the US.
Unfortunately, his team informed him, computer science offers no means by which to degrade Comcast’s service beyond its current status of incompetence.
AMERICA’S UNWHOLESOME RELATIONSHIP WITH ITS ‘CORE VALUES’
As the text of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report was unfurling in yesterday’s media, a post from Senator Elizabeth Warren popped up on my Facebook newsfeed. While I am a Warren-for-President dreamer, and the post hit all the important talking points one would hope to hear at a minimum from national spokespersons regarding the report’s findings (“transparency”, “accountability”, “face our mistakes honestly”, “our nation’s core values to preserve our role as a moral leader in the world”, and so forth), the whole message seemed somehow pro-forma, boilerplate, platitudinous.
So I was moved to reply:
Dear U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren,
Here’s what you already know:
Under torture, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi told American interrogators lies about connections between Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and Iraq. But why did he choose that particular lie?
You also know the answer to that too.
The torture program was not ineffective. Dick Cheney put pressure on the CIA to get the goods on Iraq. Al-Libi and others were tortured not to get information. They were tortured for the same reason North Korean military agents tortured American GIs–to force them to confess.
They wanted confessions they could use for propaganda.
[An additional few hundred words belaboring the point removed…]
Let’s not pretend we can’t connect the dots just because we don’t like the picture […]
Hollywood fictional scenarios aside, torture is never used to gain information. In actual practice, torture always works. It gets results. The North Koreans weren’t after information but they got what they wanted: confessions. Torquemada got confessions. Dick Cheney got confessions. And like Torquemada and the North Koreans, Cheney used the confessions for propaganda—to sell the American people on war with Iraq.
Call for prosecution. Support ICC indictments for war crimes. We must do so, or we will all be as complicit in this rancid rot as the Staten Island grand jury is in the cover up of police execution.
We already know the truth. We’ve known it all along.
On the surface, the point of this unhinged raving was about the need for the Senator to act, not simply sermonize.
On a more fundamental level, I was angry about her agreeing to play the game of referring to the torture program run out of Cheney’s office, legally sanitized by a bogus Justice Department memo, and implemented under the direction of head of the CIA and CIA officers as a “mistake”. All of which is to suggest that this episode of American abuses of human rights and violations of international law is (1) historically anomalous, and (2) a dastardly, aberrational betrayal of our real selves, our core values—chief among them the ever insisted upon Rule of Law® Made in America and Endorsed by Every American Since Washington! 
The first proposition is just historically unsupportable.
The second raises some serious questions about who we “really” are and what actually are our core values. Do we in fact have any actual commitments to democracy and a system that upholds the rule of law?
I was in this returned-to-my-sophomore-year-as-a-government-and-politics-student frame of mind when this Facebook blog-link headline from The Concourse caught my attention: “The American Justice System Is Not Broken” .
The article, which was about the pattern of police shootings of black Americans, included this resonant observation:
If the institutions of white American power taking black lives and then exonerating themselves for it is understood as a failure to live out some more authentic American idea, rather than as the expression of that American idea, then your and my and our lives and lifestyles are distinct from those failures. We can stand over here, and shake our heads at the failures over there, and then return to the familiar business, and everything is OK. Likewise, if the individual police officers who take black lives are just some bad cops doing policework badly, and not good cops doing precisely what America has hired and trained them to do, then white Americans may continue calling the police when black people frighten us, free from moral responsibility for the whole range of possible outcomes […] There is no virtuous innermost America, sullied or besmirched or shaded by these murders. This is America. It is not broken. It is doing what it does.
It’s hard to look at but when it’s stated that clearly, it’s equally hard to just ignore.
No question, this has been a bad year for America’s self-perception. And it’s about time, for sure.
The thing is though, there’s no assurance that honest confrontation with the real implications of what we can no longer deny will lead to some better America.
What is beyond doubt, however, is that getting right with history will necessarily involve scary upheaval.
SCARY UPHEAVAL will be the subject of Part 2, soon to follow…
 And outsourced, just by the way, for literal execution to (you guessed it) Halliburton through its subsidiaries KBR and Blackwater. Name the next government “report” Torture for God and Profit: Dick Cheney’s Walk on the Darkside.
 Recall, for example, W’s many red-faced, table –pounding, cowboy-speak fulminations about our duty to enforce the rule of law on Iraq and Sadam Hussein. For that matter, recall Barack Obama’s almost worshipful Rule of Law incantations even as he (not so) secretly carried out hostile “signature” drone executions within the borders of sovereign foreign nations.
 Okay, so it didn’t just catch my eye. It was pointed out to me by a family member who knows both the blog’s author and me. I don’t wish to be cryptic (well, yeah, actually I do), but my sense is that the author is not entirely comfortable with cross-commenting on each other’s stuff. So, I’ll half respect his unstated (and only surmised on my part) preference.
OR WE’LL HAVE TO KILL YOU.
Seriously. That’s what an article in police journal, Law Officer says.
Also, Eric Garner was a fat, unhealthy nuisance. Stop hurting policemen’s feelings.
And the comments from the “law enforcement” community and their fans are worse. Here’s one typical example from Law Officer Top Commenter,Janice Sonntag:
“…he would have died sooner than later with all of the medical problems he has,but how many times police hear, you are hurting me, the cuffs are to tight… if he would have comply with the police officers he would still be alive…and it can’t be racist because their was a black Sargent there over seeing the arrest.”
Brilliant, Ms. Sontag!
More comments here.