Taibbi: MSM hypocrisy on Charlie Hebdo? 'Je ne suis pas Charlie!'

I'm gonna have to go ahead and kind of disagree with Taibbi on this one. And I'm gonna do it, first, by describing a Charlie Hebdo cartoon, not showing it to you, which is what annoys Taibbi in the first place:

So, imagine a cartoonish "congo" line of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (the latter depicted, quite humorously, I admit, as a Triangle with an All-Seeing Eye in it, a la the U.S. dollar), in that order, each sodomizing the one in front of Him. The cartoon was supposed to lampoon, I suppose, those Christians who were opposed to gay marriage.

Oh, OK, if you must see it, look here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/charlie-hebdo-front-covers#.ydRWyo7Rb

Besides that, Charlie Hebdo seems fond of depicting Arabs as big-nosed, towel-headed oafs and Jews as, well, pretty much the same, except with black hats and squiggly sideburns.  And black people as monkeys. This goes to show, says the lib'rul media, that CH are equal-opportunity offenders. Which not only gets them off the hook, but somehow exalts them. ... Wait, what?

My cultural bona fides: I am not a reverent person; and I possess an above-average sense of humor, even a love of dark and inappropriate jokes. But this stuff just isn't that funny. Still I doubt myself, because of cultural differences. Is it just me? Because all I keep hearing is how much of an institution this caricature magazine is in France; how it represents a quintessentially French irreverence that cuts across the political spectrum, class, education and age groups. It would be as if -- don't laugh! -- Mad Magazine were on every American's night stand. 

OK, if that's really the case, then I call a no-call. A truce. I won't judge Charlie Hebdo out of ignorance. But I'm certainly not going to say, "Je Suis Charlie." Because I'm not. I don't get it. Je ne comprends pas! I don't get this irreverent brand of 14-year-old fart and dick humor that is, the media assures me, in fact very clever, and very French. 

The medieval forebears of Charlie Hebdo?

And now on to Taibbi's main argument, that the Western press were hypocritical pussies for not publishing some offending Charlie Hebdo cartoons for their readers to give them a flavor of what they publish.

First, it's important to note: We don't know exactly which cartoons offended the alleged terrorist murderers. That's not a small detail. Were western editors supposed to select and publish a bunch (and how many?) of anti-Muslim or -Arab cartoons to, like, give their readers context? 

Second, related to that, the story here is not Charlie Hebdo's cartoons. If that were a story worthy of the Western press, we would have heard about them already. The story is how alleged Arab-Muslim terrorists allegedly murdered Charlie Hebdo staff and an Arab-Muslim police guard.  

Third, Taibbi cries "hypocrisy" and "double standard" that some U.S. papers once published (and have maintained in their archives) photos of the offensive-to-Christians Piss Christ art installation, but not any anti-Muslim Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Taibbi's assumed reasoning being, the media isn't afraid to piss off prudish Christians, (and probably enjoys it, too), but it is scared to offend scary hard-line Muslims who might shoot them.

So here's the difference: Piss Christ was a legitimate national news story; and whatever some obscure French caricature magazine published one week (certainly more of the same) is not. (I've seen similar cartoons in British lads mags -- NYT, get the republishing rights, and don't skip the tits!)  Back to point #2. The story is not the cartoons, it's the murders.

Fourth, in this age of the Internet, does Taibbi actually think that readers of the New York Times really can't find, in about 2 seconds, examples of Charlie Hebdo cartoons if they really want to? This isn't 1975 anymore, when the NYT and Washington Post held the keys to the nation's information. The NYT Ed's. simply decided they weren't going to be one of the ones to show us this stuff. Is that really so cowardly and hypocritical?   

Finally, I just don't agree that these cartoons are striking a blow against terrorism, or for freedom. Yes, Charlie Hebdo enjoys the right, the freedom to publish their puerile French fart humor... But an Aegis missile in the heart of global Islamism Charlie Hebdo is not. It's just not. I'm sorry.

On a personal note, even though he's wrong this time, it's good to see Taibbi back where he belongs, at Rolling Stone, after playing at media start-ups with dickhead billionaires.

UPDATE: Here's an op-ed saying much the same thing: "#JeSuisCharlie? No, I'm Really Not Charlie Hebdo--And Here's Why."  

Cartoons Are Worth Fighting For

By Matt Taibbi

January 8, 2015 | Rolling Stone

URL: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/yes-virginia-cartoons-are-worth-fighting-for-20150108

Can corporations become President or get married? (Ruductio ad ridiculum)

Ha-ha! I would venture even further into the absurd than Weingarten. For the same conservatives who granted corporations personhood and the same rights as people are the same ones who believe that all rights are inalienable (meaning, no man or government can take them away) because they come from God.

Well if that's true for corporations then... Can corporations go to heaven? I mean, can corporations be baptized, receive the sacraments and be redeemed by accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior? After all, the Supreme Court just established that corporations, as people, can practice religion.

Conversely, can corporations go to hell?  (If they can be damned, it's too bad that we can't even put a corporation in jail here on Earth.)

But wait, corporations already have the potential for eternal life -- a going concern. So what do they need heaven for? After all, the death of a corporation results from their economic failure -- something conservatives believe merits the "death penatly."  If dead corporations were nevertheless "good" before their dissolution, will they be resurrected by God on Judgment Day?

Furthermore, should corporations be allowed to carry firearms? After all, I'm sure that engineers could rig up robotic machine-gun turrets to the corporation's offices and other facilities that would operate independently of any er, human hand. Moreover, if a corporation "saw" with its camera "eyes" a suspicious man approaching its offices -- say, a black youth in a hoodie carrying some Skittles and a rotten egg to throw -- would the corporation be entitled to "stand its ground" and shoot him dead?

And shouldn't corporations also be allowed to vote? I mean, they have free speech (= political donation$), they can support political parties and candidates, and yet they don't have the most fundamental human right in a democracy, the right to vote!?  That seems illogical and unjust.

On the flip side, Weingarten's colleague at the Washington Post Catherine Rampell wondered why people can't enjoy some of the legal rights of corporations. I mean, we're all people, right? People are people. Therefore, said Rampell, people should be allowed to register their diploma (intellectual property) in Bermuda and and then claim their lifetime earnings -- thanks to said diploma -- for tax in Bermuda, even if they happen to live and work in the U.S. After all this is what Apple and other "American" corporations do with their patents.

In his piece, Weingarten wonders if corporations can have gay marriages and be charged with rape -- more good questions that will probably be decided by our absurdist Supreme Court soon!....

Gene takes the ‘corporations are people’ idea to a logical end: President Kraft Foods

By Gene Weingarten

July 25, 2014 | Washington Post

URL: http://wapo.st/WM4Nb5

New Putin laws crack down on free speech, assembly and Internet

Get used to these restrictions on your liberty and more to come, you Putin-loving Russians. 

Uncle Vova isn't going anywhere, and he knows what's best for you.

Putin Increases Penalties For 'Illegal' Street Rallies

July 22, 2014 | Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

URL: http://www.rferl.org/content/putin-penalties-rallies-law-bill/25466235.html

Russian law to ban 'foreign' words

So lemme get this straight:  It's not okay when Ukraine, the only country in the world where Ukrainian is spoken, wants to protect its national language -- in fact it's "Fascism;" but it's just dandy when Russia discriminates against other languages -- going so far as to exorcise "foreign words" from public speech and writing!

This is worse than days of the Soviet Union, folks.  

Looking deeper, the fact that many commonly used terms simply don't exist in Russian reflects that the world's cultural, scientific and commercial dynamism is centered in the West... and eventually makes its way to Russia, where it is transliterated naturally by Russian first adopters who find it simpler to use the original word than invent a tongue-twisting Russian equivalent.  

Indeed, the casual use of foreign words is a status symbol among Russians; it implies the speaker is cosmopolitan, liberally educated, well-read and -traveled.  However, these are not the kind of folks the Kremlin likes: it wants Russians (minus the very elite, of course) to be parochial, state-educated, monolingual and stay at home.

Russia's Cultural Committee Wants to Ban 'Foreign' Words

June 19, 2014 | Moscow Times

URL: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-cultural-committee-wants-to-ban-foreign-words/502202.html

Putin's blogger law to fight 'CIA project' known as 'the Internet'

Mr. Putin, calm down: everybody knows Al Gore invented the Internet, not the CIA!

Seriously though, the widely-made prediction is coming true that Russian militarism abroad will be accompanied by even more draconian, oppressive rule at home in the Motherland.

Viktor V. Yerofeyev, a Russian writer, told the New York Times, "On the one hand, the Russian government says the Russian people are the best. On the other hand, it doesn’t trust the people."

I can clarify. There's no contradiction. Putin trusts Russians in the abstract, collectively; he just doesn't trust them as individuals. Understand?  Similarly, Putin trusts Ukrainians, er, Novorrossiyans, but he's got 40,000 Russian troops on the border just to make sure no jackrabbits from Pravy Sector or Svoboda try to cross over and rape, pillage and burn their way to Moscow.

Seriously, it makes me sick that Putin is a guy many on the knee-jerk Left in the U.S. and Europe admire, simply because he stands up to Western "imperialism." If these outspoken lefties lived in Russia, Putin would have them breaking rocks and eating snow in Magadan.

P.S. -- My readership in Russia is second only to that in the U.S.  Does that mean I should register with the Russian gov't.?  Nah, I'm gonna stay anonymous.

Russia's New “Blogger Law” Forces Writers to Register With Government

By Taylor Berman

May 7, 2014 | Gawker

First curse words, now bloggers: On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a new law—referred to as the "blogger's law"—that will require online writers with more than 3,000 daily readers to register with the Roskomnadzor, Russia's media oversight agency.

Under the new law, which also affects microblogs and social networks, popular bloggers will no longer be able to remain anonymous and will be required to publish their names and email addresses.

From Reporters Without Borders:

[Bloggers] will be required to confirm the accuracy of the information they post, to respect the electoral law and to refrain from using swearwords. Using blogs and social networks to "hide or falsify information of general interest" or bring a citizen or group into disrepute will be forbidden. Such vaguely-worded bans are open to every kind of interpretation.

"This law will cut the number of critical voices and opposition voices on the Internet," Galina Arapova, director of the Mass Media Defense Center and an expert on Russian media law, told the New York Times. "The whole package seems quite restrictive and might affect harshly those who disseminate critical information about the state, about authorities, about public figures."

Putin signed the new law just weeks after denouncing the internet as a "CIA project."

Russian harbinger: 'Russian Facebook' founder flees country

I don't harbor any affection for the founder of Facebook knock-off VKontakte (VK, for short) Pavel Durov -- I noted back in May 2012 how he was a spoiled rich a-hole. Yet undoubtedly, Durov's fleeing Russia is a harbinger of an even more despotic rule to come under Russia's President Vladimir Putin.

VK, which largely resembles an older version of Facebook, attracts about 60 million users daily, primarily from countries in the former Soviet Union, vastly outstripping Facebook's reach in the region. It played an instrumental role in bringing hundreds of thousands of protesters into the streets in late 2011 in the wake of widely manipulated parliamentary elections, and it has played a part in drawing crowds to the Kiev protest movement that helped oust Ukraine's pro-Russian president in February.

As many others have predicted, Putin's strong-armed adventures abroad must certainly coincide with a stronger hand at home against Russian dissidents, journalists, academics, ethnic and other minorities, and entrepreneurs.  Putin simply cannot allow a version of reality that isn't his own.

As AP noted:

On Tuesday, the Russian parliament passed a law requiring social media websites to keep their servers in Russia and save all information about their users for at least half a year. The same law, which will go into effect in August if signed by Putin, gave bloggers the same legal status — and responsibilities — as media outlets, making them more vulnerable to accusations of libel or extremism.

Durov said "we held out for seven and a half years," meaning VK held some semblance of freedom despite Putin. But a threat to autocracy anywhere is a threat to autocracy everywhere; and threats cannot be tolerated.

Russian Social Media CEO Quits, Flees Country

By Laura Mills and Alexander Roslyakov

April 23, 2014 | AP

URL: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/russian-social-media-ceo-quits-flees-country

What's real corruption in Congress?

Teabaggers love to tell me about "corruption" in Congress. But what is the most direct form of corruption in Congress?

That's right, giving congressmen hundreds of thousands of dollar in campaign contributions in exchange for favorable legislation.

How come teabaggers don't talk about what's as obvious as the nose on their faces?  Because they have swallowed the conservative Republican Kool-Aid that "money = speech."

If they could just throw off that stupid mistruth, then their negative energy could be harnessed for good.

Are they willing?

Do-Nothing Congress Gives Inertia a Bad Name

By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

April 26, 2013 | Moyers & Company

URL: http://billmoyers.com/2013/04/26/do-nothing-congress-gives-inertia-a-bad-name/

Reply to R. on the Arab 'movie' protests

What does this have to do with Bush?  Seriously.

You have countries in the Arab Spring who said they'd had enough of their current leaders.  What's so scary about it from the neocon/Bushites point of view is that we didn't instigate it.  But in fact the neocons were hoping that democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan would lead to a new wave of democratization in the Arab world. Remember?

Well, here it is, just not as we anticipated, not for our reasons, not on our timetable. And these people are not dumb: they realize that the U.S. gave $ billions to their oppressor in Egypt for decades because he kept the peace with Israel.  They realize that the U.S. didn't give a shit about human rights in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. They realize we were willing to tolerate their oppression for our own geopolitical aims.  

So now we expect them to see us as "allies" because we're all "democratic" brothers now. Not so fast.  In fact it's us that has to prove we give a shit about them and their democracy, and not vice-versa.  They've endured worse than we can ever impose on them.  They have no fear of U.S. power and we just have to get used to that; hence our threats, tantrums and condemnations don't mean shit to people who have endured torture and brutality for the past 2-3 decades.  

You want them all to put on their tri-cornered hats and start reading Jefferson and Hamilton and see us their allies?  Not so fast.  

Beyond that, they have no idea what "free speech" is about.  They all buy into Islam and Islamic rule.  They don't make the connection between tolerance for other religious beliefs and tolerance for other political beliefs, and the relation to their personal political liberty.  Why should they make that connection?  In many of these countries, religion was the only secret outlet they had to organize and express their discontent, allowed within certain boundaries by their oppressor.  They had no "civil society," as such.  If you know development like I do, then civil society is a prerequisite for a normally functioning democracy.  Elections are the veneer; human organization is the guts and the engine.  That was all killed and missing.  Religion was the only avenue of somewhat free expression in these countries.  And so through religion they have learned to express their political discontent.  Thus today the religious freaks have the bully pulpit, because everybody else was killed or jailed.  That's not going to change overnight.

We can't really begin to understand it; we can only admit that we we don't understand it.  We must keep the dialog open.  These people don't give two shits about our drones and our warships; they aren't afraid of anything because they have been through hell already.

These are the populations we're dealing with.  You can call them stupid or backward, but there are objective reasons for their attitudes.  To shake our finger at them and throw tantrums is useless at best, counter-productive at worst.  We need to start from zero with these people.  They are ignorant and brutalized populations with nothing but fundamentalist religious institutions allowed by their dead regimes through which to express their gripes.  They are about 400 years behind our political development.  We can't expect miracles from them.  Just like you wouldn't expect a torture victim with zero education to lead his country. 

Foreigners don't need Super PACs to buy U.S. elections

This expose is long but worth reading.  It should make you angry and sad.  

Take the Keystone XL pipeline, for instance.  Suddenly, last year Republicans all agreed that this pipeline just had to be built for the sake of U.S. jobs and "energy independence."  But would they have been so excited if their GOP Congressional puppet masters had told them that it was meant to pipe Canadian oil to a Saudi refinery to sell on the world market?  The Saudi-backed American Petroleum Institute (API) was mum on those details when it aired pro-pipeline TV ads and attacked unsympathetic Democrats.

Thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, foreign companies like Aramco from Saudi Arabia can influence U.S. public opinion and elections, spending undisclosed $ millions.  

"We gotta keep our corporate logo out of the bull's-eye," explained one GOP lobbyist. Don't forget the country's flag.

Thank God (and Dubya) for free -- and very secret -- speech!

Never Mind Super PACs: How Big Business Is Buying the Election

By Lee Fang 

August 29, 2012 | In These Times

URL: http://www.thenation.com/article/169639/never-mind-super-pacs-how-big-business-buying-election?page=full#

Western hypocrisy on Pussy Riot

Indeed, hypocrisy can be pretty hypocritical sometimes.  Britain has no constitution therefore no constitutional protection of free speech.  And even in the U.S., accredited journalists are arrested with impunity simply for doing their job.  Check it out here.

By the way, the punk performance in an Orthodox Church during services was not the first time one of the Pussy Riot girls, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, engaged in some shocking political theater in an unexpected and inappropriate place, as The Exiled reminds us.

Well, at least it was in a biology museum, not a church.

The west's hypocrisy over Pussy Riot is breathtaking

By Simon Jenkins

August 21, 2012 | Guardian

URL: http://gu.com/p/39qap

Max Blumenthal: Israel's 'fear society' criminalizes facts

The good news is that there are thoughtful, tolerant and informed liberal everywhere, including Israel.

The bad news is that liberal political speech that is dangerous to the powers that be almost everywhere, whether it's in Tel Aviv or Los Angeles, is easily quelled in so-called democratic, free-speech countries.  All police have to do is cite "potential to disturb the peace" to silence peaceful malcontents.  

FYI, the Nakba is the Palestinian name for the ethnic cleansing of formerly Palestinian lands in today's Israel of some 700,000 Palestinians in 1947-48.  So-called democratic Israel passed in 2009 a law banning discussion of the Nakba in its schools.  The Nakba is commemorated on May 15, the day after Israel's independence.  (It reminds me of another mass deportation of a Muslim people that occurred 4 years earlier and is commemorated on May 18....)

And FYI, the journalist behind this story, Max Blumenthal is an American Jew who usually writes very cutting and daring stories about the negative influence of money and religion on U.S. politics.

In a fear society, where some facts are crimes

By Max Blumenthal

May 11, 2012 | Maxblumenthal.com

URL:  http://maxblumenthal.com/2012/04/in-a-fear-society-where-some-facts-are-crimes/

IRS investigating Tea-Party 'social welfare' groups

I'm sorry, everybody knows that Tea Party-related 501(c)(4) groups are not "social welfare" organizations -- teabaggers deny the very concept of social welfare -- and so the IRS would be perfectly correct to investigate whether political activists are abusing the tax system to carry out their political activities.

So far, all the IRS is doing is investigating. In fact, "The only known previous action by the IRS came in July, when it denied C4 status to three units of Emerge America, a group that identifies and trains Democratic women to run for office."

So hey, teabaggers, cool your conspiracy jets for now.

IRS May Make Political Groups Pay Dearly for Keeping Donors Secret -- And Out Them

By Dan Froomkin

February 8, 2012 | Huffington Post

URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/irs-political-groups-501c4-_n_1333389.html

Israel to ban Nazi/Holocaust analogies?

Israeli Jews are only about 4 years behind me, when I first supported banning Nazi/Hitler comparisons (as well as Stalin/Lenin/Communist comparisons) in our democratic polity.

Such comparisons are like a very big and clumsy but powerful gun that nobody knows when to use or how to aim properly, so we'd be better off just leaving it.

Israel Nazi Comparisons Bill Proposed

By Eline Gordts

January 12, 2012 | Huffington Post

JERUSALEM -- A proposed bill would make it a crime in Israel to criticize people by comparing them to Nazis.

The draft legislation would impose penalties of up to six months in jail and a $25,000 fine for using the word "Nazi" or Holocaust symbols for purposes other than teaching, documentation or research.

The draft legislation passed its first hurdle Monday when Cabinet ministers approved it. It now goes to the full parliament for a vote.

The bill was proposed after ultra-Orthodox demonstrators set off a furor by dressing young boys as Nazi concentration camp inmates during a protest against what they said was incitement against their community. Protesters have also called police "Nazis."

The bill has been criticized by civil rights groups that see it as infringing on freedom of expression.

Epic words of those yearning to breathe free

"Poop": thank goodness they can still text it. Let freedom ring!

It's Still OK To Text 'Offensive' Words In Pakistan

By Mark Memmott

November 21, 2011 | NPR

URL: http://n.pr/s8Bjvo

'You gotta tell 'em, corporations are PEEEEE-OPLE!'

"Corporations are people, my friend."

Chilling words from a lifeless android whose hair never, ever moves.

Here's the rest of this revealing human-android interface at the Iowa State Fair:

"No, they're not!"

"Of course they are," replied android Model MR1. "Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?"

Checkmate. It's like Deep Blue vs. a novice: no chance.

So you see, the logical criteria of personhood is whether something makes money for somebody. That somebody could be a shareholder in Saudi Arabia, Syria, or China, or another corporation which bought shares in that corporation which is owned by another corporation which is... owned by people. It doesn't matter. People are people. And we should not raise taxes on people, because taxes discourage people from investing -- they won't buy more shares in the corporation!

Of course... according to the cyborg's logic a vending machine is also a person, because everything it earns ultimately goes to people. So the next time that Coke machine won't give you your change -- don't curse at it and don't you dare kick it! That's a person in front of you! It has thoughts and feelings and Constitutional rights just like you do. Even vending machines and corporations are allowed to have bad days once in a while.

Of course, we cannot put a vending machine or a corporation in jail for breaking the law. And people, unlike corporations, cannot have citizenship in dozens of countries. But those are just details. The point is that corporations are people too. Oh, and unlike some people, corporations put their money where there mouth is. I mean, they don't actually have mouths, not physically; instead of mouths they have money which = speech, constitutionally. Get it? But again, details, just details. Corporations still = people. OK, moving on now....

Mitt Romney says 'corporations are people' at Iowa State Fair

By Philip Rucker

August 11, 2011 | Washington Post

URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-says-corporations-are-people/2011/08/11/gIQABwZ38I_story.html

Israel passes law to restrict free speech

While Glenn Beck was over there last week fluffing Israel's Knesset (Parliament) with all manner of praise, they went and passed a law to restrict Israelis' free speech.

Which is hypocritical, because conservatives like Beck say money = speech.

Israel Boycott Ban Passes House

By Mark Lavie

July 11, 2011 | Huffington Post

URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/israel-boycott-ban-passes_n_895104.html

Gallup poll: Egyptians don't want theocracy

Of course Egyptians don't want theocracy... they want socialism and Marxist communism! Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh already warned us!....

Poll: Egyptians Don't Want Theocracy

By Adelle M. Banks

June 8, 2011 | Religion News Service

[...]

About seven in 10 Egyptians said clerics should advise national leaders on legislation. In comparison, 14 percent said religious leaders should have full authority in creating laws and 9 percent said they should have no authority.

The findings, announced Tuesday (June 7), come from the United Arab Emirates-based Abu Dhabi Gallup Center, which monitors attitudes of Muslims worldwide.

Even as they seek a limited advisory role for clergy, most Egyptians (67 percent) want religious freedom as a provision in a new constitution. A much higher percentage (92 percent) say freedom of speech should be included, and slightly more than half want a new constitution to include freedom of assembly.

Big media lies: Public-union membership, political contributions NOT mandatory

Must-read article!  This is an especially salient observation:

The irony here is that while unions can't compel workers to fork over a penny for political campaigns, corporations can donate unlimited amounts of their shareholders' equity to do so – they are, in fact, in the 'unique position' to elect pliant lawmakers. 'What the right-wing and the business community always try to portray is that you have these union bosses that are forcing helpless employees to give them money,' says Gold, 'when the reality is that these are their members who chose to be in a union and then elected their officers democratically, in sharp contrast to corporations, none of whose officers are elected democratically unless you count shareholders voting at an annual meeting as a real democratic system.'

And conservatives have long held that voluntary donations to political campaigns are a high form of free speech. The double standard is clear-- 'money equals speech' unless it's money freely donated by working people to advance their own economic interests.

Public Employee Unions Don't Get One Penny from Taxpayers and Can't Require Membership, But the Big Lie That They Do Is Everywhere

By Joshua Holland

March 5, 2011 | AlterNet

URL: http://www.alternet.org/economy/150130/public_employee_unions_don't_get_one_penny_from_taxpayers_and_can't_require_membership,_but_the_big_lie_that_they_do_is_everywhere/?page=entire

What do Egypt and U.S. have in common?

What media outlet do both autocratic Egypt and the freedom-loving U.S. try to shut down?

I'll give you a hint: it starts with an 'Al-' and ends with a '-zeera.'


Al Jazeera Becomes Chief Media Target Of Egyptian Government
By Ryan Lucas
February 10, 2011 Huffington Post

URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/10/al-jazeera-becomes-chief-_n_821216.html

Al Jazeera English Blacked Out Across Most Of U.S. [UPDATED]
By Ryan Grim
February 4, 2011 Huffington Post

URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/al-jazeera-english-us_n_816030.html