While I was driving back from lunch, that's what I heard Michael Medved describe, well, the great cartoon crisis of 2006. He particularly ripped CNN, for showing one of the offending Dutch cartoons depicting Muhammad, but with his face pixilated to protect Muslim sensibilities (not to mention, I guess, CNN's reporters' lives and their office towers' windows).

As I wrote in June after The Great Koran In The Can Crisis Of 2005:

If the media wants to claim that defacing the Koran in a POW camp full of captured terrorists is the crime of the century [or in 2006, that cartoons are worth threatening another 9/11 over], then it needs to follow its own logic to its natural conclusion: no more claiming that "art" such as Piss Christ is a bold artistic statement. No more episodes like this on Law & Order and other TV shows, unless they're roundly condemned by the press. An article such as Rod Dreher's "The Godless Party" should be a multi-part investigative feature in the New York Times. There should be regular articles condemning the attacks of the ACLU against religious Christians or Christmas celebrations.

Because without a similar tone to coverage of religion in the US, Koran abuse stories at Gitmo looks exactly like it is: grandstanding hypocrisy of the worst order.

So how 'bout it, MSM? We now know how ardently you'll defend a religion which is practiced by about three million Americans according to Daniel Pipes, and roughly double that from other sources. Ready to start defending the Judeo-Christian faiths practiced by--or at a bare minimum, respected by--the other 290 million people in this country?

Glenn Reynolds links to an astonishing piece of Neville Chamberlain-style appeasement by the State Department and quotes a letter from one of his readers, who asks, "I'm sorry. Did I miss the State Dept. analysis of 'Piss Christ?' Perhaps you could link to it". Glenn responds:

I'm sorry, but the lesson here is that if you want to be listened to, you should blow things up. That's a very bad incentive structure, but it's the one the allegedly responsible parties have created.

Or as Dr. Sanity wrote yesterday:

Not many people realize it yet--particularly on the left--but in the Danish Muhammed cartoon controversy that has inflamed the Muslim world, the multicultural /politically correct mindset has now been fully exposed as a fraud. The shocking consequences and deadly potential of that fraud are suddenly becoming all too clear.

Indeed^TM.

Update: Great soundbite from Cathy Seipp:

The left finds exposing the uglier aspects of the Muslim world offensive because to them it's an article of faith that the Christian right in George W. Bush's America is at least as dangerous as international Islamic radicals. Never mind that the latter are rather more prone to violence than the former.

And at least in Europe, they've been rewarded and appeased endlessly for their violence.

Meanwhile, Charles Johnson spots three different wire services attributing the State Department's memo condemning the Danish cartoons to three different people, and wonders "Is this story a hoax, or just hopelessly confused?"

Another Update: Shrinkwrapped believes that "The most interesting question concerns how this ends":

Will the Muslims settle for a non-apology apology that is the specialty of those schooled in the PC world? ("I am deeply sorry if my cartoon has offended anybody's feelings.") Or, will they continue to demand full obeisance to their skewed perception of what free speech involves?

If the Islamists feel that they are not yet ready to openly confront the Europeans on their home turf in Europe, prominent Imams will accept the proffered apology, the crowds will dissipate, and things will quiet down.

If the Islamists feel strong enough to confront and cow the West, the protests will escalate. If this occurs, I would suspect that the hands of al Qaeda and Iran will be found to be involved in increasing the agitation. And that would suggest that Iran indeed has the makings of a bomb. Ahmadinejad's increasingly violent rhetoric suggest he feels either desperate or powerful (and thus far he has not sounded like a desperate man); either way, the danger of a spark triggering widespread chaos in the setting of continuing Arabic rage, is all too real.

If I'm reading this correctly, here's someone reasonably positing that this could eventually lead to Iran's use of The Bomb.

From a cartoon published almost six months ago. Anybody get Ted Rall or Tom Toles' opinion on all of this?

Compare And Constrast: CNN pixilates the face of Muhammad in a cartoon to appease rioting Muslims.

Last year, the New York Times hired Andres Serrano, the artist behind "Piss Christ" to illustrate one of their articles.

One More: Michelle Malkin links to the Ironic Photo of the Day.

Update (2/4/06): Welcome InstaPundit readers, you'll find an update to this post, here.