corporate re-education is so fun!

cartoon bankrupts company

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=29239
Permalink Send private email FullNameRequired 
January 31st, 2006 6:51am
I think I feel a new nick coming on...
Permalink Send private email FullNameRequired 
January 31st, 2006 6:52am
links to cartoon, anyone?
Permalink Send private email Geert-Jan Thomas 
January 31st, 2006 6:56am
http://www.newspaperindex.com/blog/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/


fucking mad arabs.  christ its making me angry just thinking about it.
Permalink Send private email FullNameRequired 
January 31st, 2006 7:03am
Well they were never going to be buying a lot of Danish bacon.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
January 31st, 2006 7:08am
They are not scoring any points with me, that's for sure. My previous position was always the old "most Muslims are sane and normal, don't judge them all by what the fanatics are doing". This is cause for re-evaluation though. Sort of.
Permalink Eric Debois 
January 31st, 2006 7:31am
There was a time when you'd pick up something in the supermarket and say 'are we buying or boycotting these people'.  Before the end of apartheid we boycotted South Africa, now its an imperative (though waning because of its mishandling of Aids), to buy South Africa.  It was imperative to buy Israeli fruit in the 60's and 70's and now a fair number boycott them which could be why there's far less Israeli fruit around in the UK now.

I don't see why others can't also boycott buying goods for whatever reason even if you don't agree with the reason.

I'd be agreeable to a boycott of American goods, but apart from software we don't buy much that's american.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
January 31st, 2006 7:37am
Well, the boycott as such doesn't amount to much, but add in the death warrants on the artists and the appeals to the UN and I must conclude that they have their collective panties in a bunch.
Permalink Eric Debois 
January 31st, 2006 7:41am
1) I applaud the Danish government for not backing down. It is high time that Europe began to make a stand for its own values.

2) Then again, the fact that the Arab countries are using an economic boycott as opposed to yelling "kill all infidels!" is a sign of definite progress. The Palestinians are, naturally, using violence out of sheer inertia - they are unaware of any other tactics - but the fact that the Muslim world is using political means to work out its differences with the Western one is encouraging.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
January 31st, 2006 7:42am
I was under the impression that there is a fair amount of "kill the infidels" yelling going on too.
Permalink Eric Debois 
January 31st, 2006 7:44am
Oh yeah, I wonder if Denmark will boycott Arabian oil. :) They can switch over to North Sea/Norwegian/Russian/Latin American oil without seeing any major fall in supply...
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
January 31st, 2006 7:44am
"I was under the impression that there is a fair amount of "kill the infidels" yelling going on too."

Like I said, inertia. It'll keep happening for a long time, but the fact that they're even considering peaceful means is important.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
January 31st, 2006 7:45am
There's a rapidly diminishing amount in the North Sea.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
January 31st, 2006 7:47am
How rapidly? Can you give me figures? How much is there left? How much is left in Russia, Venezuela, West Africa, etc?
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
January 31st, 2006 7:49am
At current rates it will be completely exhausted by 2030 but the rate of decline is steep so that although the peak was in 2000 almost 30% less per day is extracted now compared to 2000.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
January 31st, 2006 8:18am
Right... so at the current, quickly growing rate of consumption, this relatively minor oil field will be depleted of viable assets in 25 years - according to scientists who admit all they have is guesstimates?

I'm not worried.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
January 31st, 2006 8:26am
No at the rate of reduction and the increased rate of use useful reserves will be down in ten years to the point where 80% of oil will need to be imported.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
January 31st, 2006 8:29am
I'd like to see actual figures.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
January 31st, 2006 8:30am
There's gazillions of figures.

http://www.iags.org/n0524043.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/northsea.htm
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
January 31st, 2006 8:39am
There are questionable bits in those articles, Simon, including the assumption that no new oil will be found in the North Sea and the inexplicable assumption that there will only be one working nuclear power plant in Britain by 2020; but even if it's so - this is a minor field (9% of world oil production at its peak, by the figures in that article) that happens to be in an accessible European spot. It says nothing about world oil reserves.

I found this article searching for pictures of depleted oil fields: http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

Anyway; I am a big supporter of biofuel and renewable tech, I agree that we need to be developing viable alternatives to fossil fuel. My point is, let's not get hysterical based on guesstimates.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
January 31st, 2006 8:52am
Naturally it doesn't say anything about world reserves when those links are about the North Sea.  It isn't too great a leap to consider that oil is disappearing and not being remade and if new fields are discovered they're going to be in more inaccessible places than the North Sea.

Not that the North Sea is that accessible nor that cheap to exploit.

For all the talk about building new nuclear plants coming out of the Very Reverend there's very real resistance to the idea.  After all all a nuclear power plant is is a way of making a steam turbine work and produces waste that's only fit for either burying in glass or making into bombs.  It isn't even that efficient at making the steam turbine work.

The possibility is that we would have two nuclear reactors online in 2020, the likelyhood is that we will have none.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
January 31st, 2006 8:58am
A newspaper drags one of the most sacred symbols of a billion people through the mud, all for a cheap joke and the victims are to blame?

Hypocritically, Danes then proceeded to whine when one of their own symbols, the flag, was desecrated.

Finally the prime minister, after four months of silence on the issue and only in the face of economic consequences, made a statement decrying the cartoons, making an ass of himself and his cabinet.

Yeah, real good run there.
Permalink Send private email jz 
January 31st, 2006 8:59am
Flasher, that "eugene block" story is the only one where they claim the resevoir refilled. Only one. It is also used as the basis for all the claims of an abiotic source of oil.

The oil industry bases all their drilling and exploration on a biologic basis of oil: because it works.
Permalink Peter 
January 31st, 2006 9:11am
Ow, someone got pricked when he wore the wrong shoe.
I feel so sad for him and his fellow brothers who cannot see beyond themselves.
Permalink Send private email Vineet Reynolds 
January 31st, 2006 9:15am
Yes, that makes sense.
Permalink Zoot 
January 31st, 2006 9:19am
The Danes should start exploring for oil in Greenland and its vast offshore.
Permalink bring in da punk 
January 31st, 2006 10:20am
And ut up some wind farms in Greenland too.
Permalink bring in da punk 
January 31st, 2006 10:21am
I'm sure there is some exploration off the coast of Greenland already.

As for wind farms, interestingly enough most Scandinavians I've talked to are against the idea.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
January 31st, 2006 10:25am
Yeah, Flasher, those Danes really hate wind farms.
Permalink bring in da punk 
January 31st, 2006 10:45am
I don't know what the consensus of most Danes is, but the Swedes and Norwegians I talk to say that they are very unpleasant to be around. Something about vibrations apparently.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
January 31st, 2006 12:37pm
And the buzz they generate.
It's like a housefly yelling at you from a distance.
And dont forget the torn umbrellas.
Permalink Send private email Vineet Reynolds 
January 31st, 2006 12:40pm
we aint breezing about swedes or finns. maybe they can't help but give blow jobs to the Oil Ahmeds of world. but danes loff their windy charms:

http://www.scandinavica.com/culture/nature/wind.htm
Permalink bring out da punk 
January 31st, 2006 2:35pm
Brits like Simon will no doubt be happy to know that in a week or two any British newspaper that publishes such cartoons would have its editor and cartoonist sentenced to up to seven years in jail, where they could share a cell with any file sharer of the "Life of Brian", and thus British sales of arms to Saudi will not be in the least affected.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
January 31st, 2006 2:48pm
>Brits like Simon will no doubt be happy to know that in a
>week or two any British newspaper that publishes such
>cartoons would have its editor and cartoonist sentenced to
>up to seven years in jail

You're wrong on several different levels. I think you should step back and think the next time you attempt to lecture somebody else about their own culture and laws.
Permalink Colm 
January 31st, 2006 3:25pm
I think this is a good sign precisely for its lack of governmental involvement. This is precisely the kind of difficulty that the free market will work the kinks out of.

Getting the state involved in will involve some ham-fisted attempt to curtail freedom of speech, whereas letting the economic boycott do the work will focus the newspapers onto concentrating on what kind of satire is acceptable to Moslems and what kind isn't.
Permalink Colm 
January 31st, 2006 3:29pm
Colm,

I am sure Stephen is not serious.
Permalink Rick Tang 
January 31st, 2006 3:31pm
I don't think he understands British law either and I think he may well believe what is said in editorials and/or on cable news.
Permalink Colm 
January 31st, 2006 3:35pm
Well, I haven't read the cartoon.

Nevertheless, I have confidence in Stephen's intelligence :)
Permalink Rick Tang 
January 31st, 2006 3:38pm
Credulity has little to do with intelligence.
Permalink Colm 
January 31st, 2006 3:42pm
Ok,

Having read Stephne's comments for a few years I think his intelligence and knowledge is good enough not to make such stupid mistakes.
Permalink Rick Tang 
January 31st, 2006 3:45pm
It's not stupidity to make mistakes like that! It's just the ability to believe what you see on cable news and/or read in editorials.
Permalink Colm 
January 31st, 2006 3:47pm
That's stupidity -- believing whatever is said by anybody.
Permalink Rick Tang 
January 31st, 2006 3:54pm
Dear Colm

Have you actually looked at the wording of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill which the Ayatony wished to pass through the Commons in a blatant selling freedom for votes operation.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/comment/0,,1698541,00.html

The breaking news is that the government has just been defeated in the Commons and has had to accept the Lords Amendments, which basically make the law a dead letter.

However as originally proposed the law would have penalized "a person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour". More importantly it would have crimizalized A person "reckless as to whether religious hatred would be stirred up", that is to say that there does not even need to be a criminal intent.

As originally proposed the law would have allowed prosecution of the Danish magazine, Monty Python (insults to Christianity) and Mel Gibson (recklessly stirring up religious hatred against the Jews). Of course in the time-honoured British fashion of only using the law to bully the weak, it is doubtful if such high profile cases would have been launched; instead a slew of low-profile presecutions would have been launched agaisnt unknown amateur cartoonists, dramatists and film makers, and it would only be after a few hundred ended up in jail, or they tried to prosecute somebody with name recognition, that the matter would come to anybody's notice.

In a country where you can receive a criminal conviction for, in the company of two other people, reading out a protest against the Iraq war at the Cenotaph, only the terminally naive believe the professions of Clarke that the law will only be used sparingly.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
January 31st, 2006 5:26pm
For added irony they lost at least one division by one vote and the Reverand failed to turn up.
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
January 31st, 2006 6:09pm
ROFL. That's priceless.

You mustn't censor cartoons. Just mustn't.
Permalink trollop 
January 31st, 2006 7:31pm
Errr, where did I say I supported censorship?

Let people boycott what they like, that isn't censorship.  I'm more than glad that the 'being nasty to moslems' law didn't get passed.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
February 1st, 2006 2:52am
Where did I say you did. Boycotting newspapers is anybody's right but locking up or fining Editors and cartoonists is censorship pure and simple.

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/a_sense_of_normality/

http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2006/01/revolting-ageds-cartoonist-scales-new.html

Blech. Utterly vile bile.
Permalink trollop 
February 1st, 2006 5:51am
That was aimed at Stephen :-).
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
February 1st, 2006 7:41am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics