Jack, Of Course the Obama Administration is Anti-Business.

Jack Welch is a retired American businessman, who was Chairman and CEO of General Electric from 1981 to 2001. Recently, Welch openly criticized President Barack Obama's administration. Welch said that Obama has an "anti-business" bias which manifests itself through intimidation, trade, taxes and regulation.  He also said that the Administration "doesn't have the foggiest idea about business."

In a telling exchange with Elizabeth Warren, the Administration’s pick to head the new federal Consumer Protection Agency, it seems clear that the Administration intends to tighten, not ease, credit. Welch asked, "Do you think credit will be easier to get or tighter?” Warren responded, "It will be more honest." Welch fired back, "More easier or harder?" Warren parried, "I think that's the wrong question." Welch concluded, "Oh I get it." It seems clear from Warren’s responses that she simply did not want to state openly that credit will be tighter and more difficult to get.  Implicit in Warren's part of this exchange is that Warren's concern does not lie in expanding the availability of financial credit, and as a result not in taking the steps in her baileywick that would help improve the economy.

Welch suggested that the new financial “regulations are crippling,” and are holding the financial industry back. He recommended that the government should make it easier for companies to invest and expand but instead it is hampering business. "I still maintain that the economy's been terrible and they have not done things to move the economy forward," he said. Headded, "He's there a month and he vilifies Las Vegas… he kills the hotel business.” Welch also noted that the Administration vilified automobile industry bondholders and "smashed [them] to pieces,” calling them “speculators.” Other examples included the lambasted British Petroleum and oil industry businesses, as well as the insurance industry which “gets killed” with the so-called “health care reform.”

Welch expressed his opinion that it would be better if the Republicans took control of Congress in November, because it is better for one party to control the legislature and the other party to control the executive branch. Welch cited Bush as an example: "President Bush misbehaved when he had all his boys in the House and the Senate. These guys don't know how to behave.” And, Welch noted that Clinton was much better when he had Newt Gingrich to contend with.

Welch also suggested that the Obama administration’s vilification of business and entrepreneurs in general is bad for the country and the economy. He said that the government should, “make heroes out of entrepreneurs…they can celebrate business.” He compared Europe to the United States, by noting that in Europe they often do not celebrate business people. As for the United States he said, “We have a culture that says, ‘I want to make a lot of money, I want to make good with my money”…that’s a hero, not a bum.”

Welch told the Obama Administration to, "stop it - you can't go industry by industry… through intimidation, business by business by business.”

I do not see why this kind of criticism would be surprising to anyone. I am sure that Obama supporters will react harshly, suggesting that Obama wants what is best for the country. I agree. I do not question Obama’s motives in relation to what he thinks is best for the county. Obama and someone like Jack Welch have, however, dramatically different views on what is in the country's long term best interest.

Obama does not want to expand business, heavy industry, technology, banking, etc. He does not want to expand the stock market, and let the free market function with minimal interference. Obama thinks that is bad for the country, and when addressing many of his positions Obama has come out and expressly or impliedly said so. From an environmental standpoint, Obama has said that the rates of United States economic expansion over the last few decades is “unsustainable” and needed to be curbed. He has stated that the economic advantage of the West, including the United States, over the rest of the world is not fair and should be remedied.  He has stated that business owners and executives make too much money, and should be forced to make less.

He has criticized business and industry for the money they make, for the environmental impacts they have, and for the difference in wealth among individuals in our society. He has stated that health insurance companies are the problem, and not the solution, that the coal industry needs to be destroyed, and that the oil industry needs to be reigned in.  He canceled the manned space program, and has eliminated military contracts like the F-22 Raptor, which has a detrimental impact on the high technology industries.

Of course Obama is anti-business. What is surprising to me is not that Jack Welch would say it, but that anyone would even attempt to dispute it. The reasonable argument is not whether Obama is anti-business, but whether his anti-business policies are good or bad for the country long term.

As a Matter of National Security, The U.S. Government Must Decrease Its National Debt

It does not matter what side of the political aisle one is on anymore. Left, right or in the middle, we must urge our elected leaders to cut spending, no matter how hard it hurts. And, we must raise revenue, even if that means raising taxes, no matter how hard that hurts either. It is not a matter of necessary versus unnecessary expenditures, or the fairness of the tax system. We are nearing the point where it just will not matter. The current ratio of spending to revenue is unsustainable, and it is getting worse.

The official United States’ national debt is in the neighborhood of $14.5 trillion dollars. This is somewhere around 92 to 95% of the entire United States gross domestic product (“GDP”). A country’s GDP is the total market values of all goods and services produced by workers and capital.

Thirty years ago, the United States’ national debt was around $900 billion, and was about 33% of GDP. Stating the obvious, the United States’ national debt is now about 14,500 times bigger than it was 30 years ago.

According to economist Laurence Kotlikoff, “[t]he Government is lying about the amount of debt. It is engaging in Enron accounting.” Kotlikoff is a co-author of The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know about America's Economic Future. Mr. Kotlikof is a professor of Economics at Boston University, a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a Fellow of the Econometric Society, a former Senior Economist, President’s Council of Economic Advisers,

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the national debt will rise to $16.5 trillion in two years, or 100.6 per cent of the GDP. Mr Kotlikoff has suggested that the debt is actually about $200 trillion, thirteen or fourteen times higher than the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Kotlikoff reaches his conclusion based on CBO data. See, Kotlikoff, Laurence, “The U.S. is Bankrupt and We Don’t Even Know It,” (Bloomberg, August 10, 2010). The discrepancy between “official” United States debt and actual net indebtedness reflects a slight-of-hand in accounting for debt. Congress has labeled most of its liabilities “unofficial” to keep them off the books and far in the future.

Kotlikoff has said, “We have to think about the fact that unless the government gets its fiscal act in order we’re going to have the government printing lots and lots money to pay these enormous bills that are coming due over time.” That means high inflation, which will sap the remaining wealth and savings from every American.

Kotlikoff has pointed out that the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) in July, 2010, effectively pronounced the United States bankrupt. Section 6 of the IMF’s July, 2010, Selected Issue Paper, stated, “The U.S. fiscal gap associated with today’s federal fiscal policy is huge for plausible discount rates.” It adds that “closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 percent of U.S. GDP.” The “fiscal” gap referred to here is, in Kotlikoff’s words, “the difference between projected spending (including servicing official debt) and projected revenue in all future years.”

What the IMF is saying is that the US needs to, in rough terms, double its income tax revenue immediately in order to keep up with projected spending.

The upshot of all this is that the United States is spending too much compared to the revenue it is collecting. Unfortunately, if Kotlikoff is right, then just cutting spending is not going to get the job done. We are in the unenviable position of having to raise taxes.

However, by the same token, the government cannot keep spending at the break-neck pace it has been. We must bite the bullet in two ways: cut spending, even where it hurts, and raise taxes, even though it hurts. That will be the only way to save the United States economy in the longer term, because that will be the only way to stave off the government’s necessity to print money on a grand scale, thus causing even more pain through massive inflation.

Unfortunately, we may need to see the “Bush tax cuts” expire at the end of this year. However, that is not for their own sake, in order to “make the rich pay their fair share.” Unfortunately, it is because the government simply does not have the money to continue down its current spending path. If Kotlikoff is correct, the Republicans are going to have to bite the bullet on that point, for the good of the country.

Likewise, spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave must also stop. We must abandon all hope in “stimulus” packages, and cancel all earmarks and pet projects. We must cut even so-called “necessary” benefits to the bone, and create a new climate of governmental stoicism and frugality. In that sense, the Democrats are going to have to bite the bullet, for the good of the country.

Is the United States able to do what is necessary to really endure this time of trouble? Do we have elected leaders with enough courage? Is the American citizenry stalwart enough to bear it?

I have my doubts on both counts.

Little Known Facts: Leonard Skinner Dies at 77.

Who knew that the name of the band Lynyrd Skynyrd was actually based on a real person?

A gentleman by the name of Leonard Skinner died today, September 21, 2010. He died at the age of 77, in his sleep, while suffering from Alzeimer's disease.  Mr. Skinner was the band's Physical Education teacher in high school in the the late 1960's.  The story goes that Mr. Skinner was unhappy with the extended lengths of the boys' hair, so he sent them to the principal's office.

Thusly, Leonard Skinner the man, became Lynyrd Skynyrd the band.

Mr. Skinner died on a Tuesday, so a fitting tribute is Lynyrd Skynyrd - Tuesday's Gone.

Why Don't We Just Send All Our Money to the Government?

When it comes to high taxes, people have often joked that we may as well just send our paychecks in to the government, and they can tell us how much we should get back.  Well, in the United Kingdom, they may well opt for that system.  Britain’s tax authority is proposing that all employers send employee paychecks directly to the government.  The government would send what it deems appropriate to the employee, and keep the rest.  See, Wright, Robin, "UK Proposes All Paychecks Go to the State First," http://www.cnbc.com/id/39265847 (September 20, 2010).

The implications of this system are breathtaking to contemplate. It is somewhat disturbing to have the government act as a clearinghouse for income, having de facto power to simply retain all income for public use, if it perceived the need.  In addition, however, the state would also have the complete knowledge of all job-related incomes across the board, and be able to determine if people are being paid what the government deems fair.  On the bright side, this might eliminate the need to file tax returns.

For my American friends, this kind of thing may be closer to you than you think.  What happens across the pond is usually only a few years ahead of what happens in the States.  Cheerio!

This One Time, At Band Camp, I Had A Picnic On a Bloody Altar with A Satanic Witch.

Christine O’Donnell’s upset win during the Republican primaries in Delaware has been the subject of much debate and discussion over the last few days.  Democrats are generally elated, because they can not envision O’Donnell winning in November.  The reaction from Republicans has ranged the Karl Rove-esque, old-guard criticism, to ardent Tea Party applause.

I must admit, I never heard of her or her opponents until a few days ago when her stunning primary victory was announced.  A flood of reports about her has deluged the news, and I could not help but find myself curious about this young, attractive, upstart candidate from Delaware, famed for suggesting that male masturbation renders a woman unnecessary in a relationship.

One point that held my interest was a report that she had appeared on Bill Maher’s program “Politically Incorrect” in 1999 and had claimed to have dabbled in witchcraft.  Reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s admission that he had smoked marijuana, but never inhaled, Ms O’Donnell admitted to the dalliance with sorcery, but added the saving caveat that she “never joined a coven.”  The comments were made during a discussion of the celebration of Halloween, a holiday that Ms. O’Donnell vehemently opposes.

O’Donnell went on to tell Maher that, "I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do….One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's a little blood there and stuff like that," she said. "We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar."

The clip from Politically Incorrect raises many questions.  I can not help wondering, if the “picnic” on the altar was her first “date” with a Satanic witch, how many witches did she date?  She went to the movies and then went to a “midnight picnic” on an altar that had blood on it.  Did they bring sandwiches and root beer and have a snack?  What went on at this picnic?  Why did she continue to date witches once she found out that they were witches?  What were the things that they “told her” to do?  Were spells cast upon her? Where was this “altar,” anyway?  Perhaps a Satanic blood-soaked altar might have been of some interest to the New Jersey police.  Did she report it?  Even after 25 years, should the police not be directed to the bloody altar, in case Satanic rituals involving the loss of blood might provide evidence of crimes?

O’Donnell had been slated to appear on several Sunday morning news and commentary programs this past weekend, but she decided to cancel those appearances in favor of what she claimed to have been prior commitments to religious services and a Republican Party event.  At the GOP event, she addressed the witchcraft issue by making light of it.  She asked fellow Republicans, "How many of you didn't hang out with questionable folks in high school?”  And, she said, "There's been no witchcraft since. If there was, Karl Rove would be a supporter now.”

Honestly?  I can not recall any of the “questionable folks” in my high school being witches.  I know this not because I know what everyone in my high school did in their spare time, but rather because I know that there are no such things as witches or witchcraft.  There are people who pretend to be witches, and there are people who may believe that they are witches, but there are no real witches.

Curiously, in a controlled environment not subject to unwelcome questioning, she addressed the witchcraft issue short and sweet:  “there has been no witchcraft since.”   But does this really answer the important question?  The important thing, to me, is not some 25 year old adolescent sex romp she had in a graveyard, but rather whether she thinks that witchcraft is real, today, in the present.  Does she know that witchcraft is not real?  Or, does she think it is real, but to be avoided?

The idea of people really believing in witchcraft may sound comical to most people in this supposedly enlightened age.  But, it is not as uncommon as most of us might hope.  Many Christians believe in witches.  The Bible has passages about witches which clearly evince the Biblical notion that witchcraft is real.  The King James (Authorized) Version of the Bible says, “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”  Exodus 22:18.  Another example is Galations 5:19-21 which states, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft….they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Other passages can be cited to demonstrate the Biblical position that witchcraft is real, however, the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry regarding witchcraft summarizes as follows, “In the Holy Scripture references to sorcery are frequent, and the strong condemnations of such practices found there do not seem to be based so much upon the supposition of fraud as upon the abomination of the magic in itself.”  In other words, the Bible expresses opposition to witchcraft because it is real, not because witches are frauds.

If she believes that witchcraft is real, and she believes she “dabbled” in it and was told to do certain witchy things, how can she assure the public that she is not still under the influence or even control of witches or warlocks/  Has she been exorcised, or has she been otherwise cleansed of the actual or potential evil influence?  How was that accomplished?  As citizens, are we not entitled to know?

Ms. O’Donnell’s religious views are relevant to her political ambitions.  She is running for the United States Senate, not city council of Dover, Delaware.  On certain occasions, she has advocated the teaching of Christian “creationism” in public schools. She, a theater major who attended Farleigh Dickinson University in the late 1980’s, and received a B.A. in English Literature in 2010 after completing unfinished coursework, has been critical of the biological theory of evolution, asserting that it is merely “a theory.”   Clearly, her religious views are going to inform her decisions on education, and we can reasonably surmise on a variety of other issues as well.

My guess is that her cagey answer, explaining that there has been no more witchcraft, was carefully worded to allow two conflicting interpretations.  One is that witchcraft is not real, and her association with it is just ancient history, something to be laughed at as juvenile indiscretions often are.  Another interpretation is that she had a close brush with witchcraft, which she of course believes is real, and she has avoided ever since.

So, Ms. O’Donnell, on the subject of witches:  which is it? 

Good Without God?

A very common question from religious people is, “So, if you don't believe in God, where do you get your morals from?” The suggestion is that without God there can be no moral decision making.

At bottom, it is not an unfair question.

So, just where do atheists get their morality?

The answer is deceptively simple: the same places everyone else does.

Atheists get their sense of right and wrong from several sources. We are born with an innate sense of right and wrong, fair and unfair, pain and pleasure, happiness and sadness, goodness and badness. We are born with some degree of empathy, and some degree of sympathy toward others. However, what we are born with varies across the population, like hat and shoe sizes. Some folks have a governor in their brains that make them extremely prone to doing “good.” Others, like sociopaths, are born with little or no regard for whether they are doing good or bad.

In addition to what we are born with, we add to that a learned sense of right and wrong. We learn from parents, from family, from friends, from teachers, from clergy and from independent life experiences. We take all of the information that we gather and form a general sense of when a thing is right, and when a thing is wrong. Some of us go further and study philosophies and religions, seeking greater insight into what constitutes right and wrong in given situations, and what systems can be devised for gleaning right and wrong from general principles.

None of this pleases a person who demands an objective morality, and places their deity in the role of final arbiter, decreeing right and wrong from on high. They see the idea of innate and learned aspects of right and wrong to be too mushy. They say God is necessary to be an umpire, otherwise what one person thinks is a strike is just as easily called a ball.

That is true, of course. One atheist can say that killing a man under given circumstances is wrong. Another atheist can say that it is right. Neither has any basis to claim an inherent superiority. But this is no different whatsoever from the moral conundrum faced by the religious person. One theist might say that killing a man in given circumstances is wrong, because he thinks his god decreed it so. Another theist, however, can be just as sure that their god has decreed the same action right and just.

Quakers, for example, believe that God requires nonviolence in all circumstances,that the death penalty is wrong, and killing in self-defense is wrong. Many other Christians, however, would take the position that the Biblical admonition against “murder” does not extend to defense of self or others, killings for punishment for crime, or killings in war. They say their God finds some killings wrong, and others right.

If a person says they believe in a god, that provides no answer to the moral questions in life. That believer must still puzzle out just what their god supposedly wants. How does the believer make this determination? The reality is that the believer has only the same tools with which the atheist hammers out his moral decisions. The believer is left with searching his own feelings, his own innate sense of right and wrong, his own understanding of religious and philosophical writings, and his own understanding of what he was taught by parents, family, friends, teachers and clergy.

The end result is that there are just as many differences of opinion regarding the morality of most actions among religious people and among religions, as there are among nonbelievers and secular philosophies. We all get our morality from the similar places, and through a similar processes.

The theist simply takes an extra step and attributes his own conclusion to the mind and will of a deity. In the words of Susan B. Anthony, “I distrust those people who claim to know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.”

The Pope: Warns of Danger to Your Children.

 Most people are aware of the Catholic Church’s scandals relating to the rape and other sexual abuse of children by its priests, and the cover-ups and obstruction of justice by church officials.  Today, however, the Pope has taken what he apparently believes is a step toward assuring children, and the world, that he and his organization have the best interests of the children at heart.

Pope Benedict spoke at St Mary’s University College, Twickenham today, September 17, 2010.  The Pope warned the audience that children should beware of the “celebrity culture” where “children are encouraged to model themselves on figures from sports and entertainment.”  The Pope also opined on the nature of success and money, and made clear that being successful is not a key to happiness.

The Pope’s criticism of “celebrity culture” and “career success” is curious, since he embraces both, and is head of one of the wealthiest organizations in the world.

The Pope is a celebrity.  Let us be clear.  The Pope was not referring to all celebrities when he warned against them. What he condemns is non-Papal celebrity culture.  Benedict has no quarrel with accolades, cheers, songs, screaming fans, thrown flowers, honorifics, parades, and widespread media coverage and adoration, when he is the beneficiary.  He welcomes and fosters that.

The Pope is also an ambitious, career oriented man.  What more career success can one man have than to be head of the Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Supreme Pontiff, head of the Holy See, Servant of the Servants of God, Patriarch of the West, leader of the Vatican City-State with all the trappings of diplomatic immunity and the ear of the United Nations?  He holds, literally, the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and has ascended to the height of infallibility which, per the Lumen Gentium (1964), “extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends” (i.e., as far as he says God says it should go).  If career success does not help people find happiness in life, then the Pope must be a very unhappy man indeed.

A true concern for the lives of children might well start with finally coming clean on the priestly child sex abuse scandal.  Perhaps a better use of the number one Catholic celebrity’s time could have been used truthfully, honestly, and openly addressing that issue.

During today’s Papal visit, many protesters urged the Pope to stop protecting pedophilic rapists, and cooperate with local authorities throughout the world in bringing criminals within the church to justice.  With all due respect to the Pope’s concern about celebrity cultures and career success, a good first step toward happiness in a child’s life would probably be the avoidance of sexual abuse and rape.  Failing that, some step toward healing for those who have already been abused would be a nice gesture.  Words alone, however, ring hollow.

The Church is not, at present, in a position of any moral authority to be warning children of dangers.  It has been a very visible source of those dangers.  Catholic priests have ruined more children’s lives than celebrity fandom or career ambition ever could. The Catholic hierarchy added insult to those injuries by protecting the abusers and shunning the abused.  Its “apologies” have thus far been too little, too empty, too soulless and too late.

I would venture to guess that most parents see more dangers in unwelcome priestly encounters, than in time wasted adoring Lady Gaga and bucking for a promotion.  The Pope, apparently, orders his concerns differently.

I wonder if Frank Zappa knew how wise and prophetic he was, three decades ago, when he said, “My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can”  Amen, brother.

Pope Ironically Compares Atheism With Nazism

It takes a lot of nerve to be the Pope of the Catholic Church and toy around with Godwin's Law.  Godwin's Law is the informal debate rule that an argument is over when one side or the other invokes Hitler or the Nazis as an argument against his opponent.  The reason is that under normal circumstances nothing anyone is arguing about is fairly comparable to the monstrousness of Nazis and Hitler.

The Pope has seen fit, however, to say, "We can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews...As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society."

This is a statement coming from the head of a church which in 1998 formally apologized to the millions of Jews murdered by the Nazis in World War Two for the Church's own conduct.   The Church itself stated that its actions and inaction in relation to the Holocaust required not only an apology, but an "act of repentance."

Immediately after the Nazis took power, the Vatican wasted no time at all in reaching a treaty or "Reichsconcordat" with Adolf Hitler. Hitler had not even been Chancellor of the Third Reich for six months at the time, and the Vatican rushed to preserve its own authority.  The Reichsconcordat with the Nazis began the Catholic Church's complicity with the Nazis, entered into for the not-so-Christian reason that the Church wanted to save itself.  That, of course, is the primary concern.  The mere lives of non-Catholics was secondary.

And the Catholic Church did not just kowtow to fascists in Germany, it also actively supported them in Spain.  Shall the Pope explain how the church entered into a "modus vivendi" with Generalissimo Francisco Franco, followed by a later formal concordat?  And, has the Pope any concerns about the church having gotten into bed with a dictator for the purpose of securing for itself a religious monopoly along with control of Spanish education and of the press, and eventually state funding and official recognition of church dogma?  In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "The [Catholic] church, as far as I know, has not endorsed any war as just since it supported General Franco's invasion of Spain to destroy the Spanish Republic with a Muslim mercenary army in the 30's..."

The Catholic Church similarly entered into favorable treaties with Mussolini's fascist government in Italy in 1929 and the early 1930's.  The church took the opportunity to solidify and expand its own power and primacy by dealing, gladly, with all of the fascist dictators of the time.

When the Vichy French government introduced "Jewish laws" (which parroted the notorious "Nuremberg Laws"), French Catholic Bishops wrote to the Pope asking for assistance and guidance in opposing them.  The Pope responded to the appeals by stating that Nuremberg Laws, and their equivalents, were not in conflict with Catholic teaching. The British, Americans and Poles also tried to persuade the Vatican to publish condemnations of the Nazi extermination of the Jews.  The Vatican flatly refused.

Let us not forget that the only member of Hitler's High Command to be excommunicated was Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels.  He was not, however, excommunicated for being a Nazi, murdering Jews, issuing hateful propaganda lies, or otherwise participating, leading or authorizing the horrors of the Holocaust or World War Two in general.

Why was Goebbels excommunicated?

For marrying a Protestant.

Atheists are like Nazis?  How dare you, Mr. Ratzinger?  How dare you?

Freedom Under Seige

Artists, writers and filmmakers are on the run, and free people everywhere should take notice.

The latest victim of a decades-old wave of violent intolerance and hate is the artist formerly known as Molly Norris, against whom a "death fatwa" was issued on July 12. Sadly, on September 15, 2010, many news outlets announced that the former Ms. Norris went into hiding under an assumed name at the urging of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Her offense against Islam? The former Ms. Norris had drawn a satirical cartoon in the spring of 2010, purporting to announce a "Draw Muhammed Day." As a result, she will be in what amounts to a witness protection program (at her own expense). She has cut all ties with her former life and family in order to avoid being murdered. Norris is the latest artist to be placed on the "Islamic Hit (List) Parade," put there by the al Aqaeda connected cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Awlaki was linked to the Fort Hood, Texas, massacre and the failed bombing in New York City's Times Square.

The former Ms. Norris has joined Islam's "roll of honor," her only consolation being that she is in some very good company.

For twenty-two years, Salman Rushdie has been subject to a price on his head for publishing a novel called "The Satanic Verses." His book was the subject of violent protests in many countries, most notably the "fatwa" imposed against him by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran. The "fatwa" of course was merely a euphemism for suborned murder. The death threat continues to this day, having been reaffirmed, for example, in 2005 by the Ayatolla Ali-Khameini. Rushdie has confirmed that he receives an annual message from Iran reaffirming the call for his murder.

In 2004, a Dutch filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh, great grandson of the brother of Vincent Van Gogh, was murdered in cold blood in response to a film he produced with Ayaan Hirsi Ali called "Submission." The film was critical of the treatment of women in Islamic countries. Theo Van Gogh was shot eight times, knocking him off of his bicycle and killing him. His attacker then attempted to decapitate him with one knife, and stabbed him in the chest with a second knife. Two knives were left sticking out of his chest, through a note containing a five-page screed full of threats against western countries, Jews, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and referencing a Muslim terrorist organization.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali apostate to Islam, worked on the film "Submission" with Theo Van Gogh.  She rose from meager origins in Somalia, emigrated to Holland, and was elected to the Dutch Parliament. As a result of the note stuck in Theo Van Gogh's chest and other threats leveled against her, she was forced into hiding.  She has lived in fear for the last six years under armed guard.

In 2005, an small Danish newspaper called the Jyllands-Posten produced a satirical series of cartoons depicting the the Muslim Prophet Muhammed. As a result, riots and threats of violence erupted worldwide, Danish and Norwegian embassies were set on fire, and 139 people were killed. The various cartoonists who drew the offending parodies were forced into hiding under numerous threats of death. On several anniversaries of the cartoons' original publication, there have been violent reenactments of the original cartoon riots.

In 2008, Kurt Westergaart (the artist who drew the famed "Mohammed with a bomb in his turban" cartoon) was the target of an assassination plot. In 2009, Yale University Press published a book about the Danish cartoons, and censored the images from the book out of fear of violent reprisals.

Geert Wilders, a Dutch Member of Parliament, produced a film in 2008 called "Fitna" which was critical of Islam. As a result, death threats were issued against Wilders and he has been forced to live under armed guard ever since.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of the American cartoon television show "South Park," were subjected to death threats in 2010 as a result of an episode satirizing the Muslim Prophet Mohammed. The incident was the subject of controversy due to the decision to censor the image of Mohammed. The threats against Parker and Stone specifically referenced the murder of Theo Van Gogh, and warned them in not-so-veiled terms that they would be next.

Lesser known victims are legion. In 1985, the 80 year old Mahmoud Muhammad Taha was hanged in Khartoum, Sudan for the crime of writing a book on the history of Islam which suggested that Mosque and State should be separate. In 1987, 80,000 books that were accused of "attacking Islam" were burned at Isfahan University in Iran. In February, 1989, several Iranian writers and poets, Amir Nikraiin, Manouchehr Behzadi, Djavid Misani, Abutorab Bagherazdeh, Said Soltanpur and Rahman Hatefi, were executed for publishing material critical of Islam. In 2004, the musician and poet Ahmad Bayat Mokhtari was kidnapped and murdered (by being run over with a car) for publishing material offensive to Islam. In January, 2006, Journalist Elham Afrotam was arrested and jailed for writing an article critical of the Ayatollah Khomeini's rise to power. These are only some examples of the nearly endless list of Islamic outrages against freedom of thought and expression.

One would think the media and artistic communities in the free world, who make their livings and hone their crafts by pushing the limits of parody, satire, and comedy, not to mention serious journalism, writing, and film-making, would stand shoulder-to-shoulder against this barbarity. Ironically, however, the protestations in this instance seem oddly muted.

When an unknown and irrelevant pastor from a small, rural, 30-parishioner church in central Florida threatened to burn a few copies of the Koran, everyone of note up to and including the President of the United States came rushing to defend the honor of Muslims who cherish  that book.

Burning a Koran warranted Presidential attention because it might "lead to" violence.  So why is there little attention given to actual, real-life, violence?

Who stands with the former Molly Norris, wherever she may be - and whoever she is - now?