[dude1394]

You go boys, knock that circulation down.....

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...mmed-cartoons/

The NYT has published a photo of the virgin Mary “art” (you know, the “art” that depicts Mary with blotches of elephant dung all over it) in it’s arts section today, effectively signalling that their willingness to not offend Muslims does not extend to not offending Christians.

The headline on the piece?

A Startling New Lesson in the Power of Imagery

I think a revision of that headline to read A Startling New Lesson in the Power of Hypocrisy would be far more appropriate.

Here’s a refresher on the NYT’s policy regarding the ‘offensive’ Mohammed cartoons:

“On the one hand, we have abundant evidence that a significant number of people — some of them our readers — consider these cartoons deeply offensive and inflammatory,” Mr. Keller wrote. “Indeed, to publish them after seeing the outrage and violence across the Islamic world could be perceived as a particularly deliberate insult,” he said.

“On the other hand,” he continued, “we feel we can quite adequately convey the nature of the cartoons by describing them.” I quite agree. I doubt that the descriptions of the cartoons in Times articles over the past four days have left many readers with any major questions about why the drawings could offend Muslims or why some people might find humor in them.

In other words, descriptions of the cartoons are good enough to convey the image of what they look like. Strangely, this newfound policy not to offend did not extend to the virgin Mary in elephant dung “artwork” photo.