Logan: in my redneck,trailer park, chicken eatin, anti Obammy view, the red dot in my Leupold 13 x 30 doesn't know the difference of the sects either and frankly I don't care to. If they come over here they are all targets.

That would be a somewhat accurate summary of my post, yes. Except that only one of those things is actually self-censorship. And there's the small fact that this wasn't a case of giving in to threats; this is about self-censorship that arose from fear one might get threatened sometime later.

Good point. Didn't Churchill say something about the only thing to fear is fear itself?

And what I see underlying acts such as this is a callow, self-absorbed culture that's getting to a place where it no longer cares if it survives.

I disagree. What I see is a dominate culture under assault. From within and out. As with many successful civilizations, need has been removed from the ruling class. Instead of worrying about from where food and shelter will come, the leading class idly thinks about how to perfect their society. They are the new vanguard of the proletariat. They see suffering elsewhere and sympathize with the vocal self-proported representatives. And they acquiesce.

Their lives are not threatened, their livelihood guaranteed - they feel magnanimous and they want to be loved. And they will spend your dollars, and lives, to attain their peculiar nirvana.

Our culture is not exhausted. It is overwrought with self-indulgence - nihilists so consumed with the perfection of their manicure they can not see the world beyond their hand. Beyond their hand however is the real world, a vibrant world, a world where millions of folks aspire to success. They yearn for the dream promised, and will work tirelessly to ensure that, if not they, their children will be beneficiary of those efforts.

Herein lies the fundamental difference between left and right. The left wants to give folks what they want. The right wants to allow folks to earn what they deserve. Our society is not going to die of exhaustion - it likely will die by suicide.

Eventually, underground circulation created a market that fed the sort of roaring decadence you see in mainstream media today.

I believe we're at this stage: There are a few instances of works being supressed, but not enough to create an underground channel for proscribed works.

When the underground channel comes, criticism of Islam will be unrestrained, widespread, and completely beyond anyone's ability to influence it. The current censorship -- whether by threat, lawsuit, or spinelessness -- is horribly self-defeating. You won't just see gentle stories like "Jewel of Medina" circulated underground, you'll also see a brisk trade in the as-yet unwritten equivalent of "The Turner Diaries."

And then it'll go mainstream.

Dodd, Lord Clark said that civilizations die out of exhaustion or lack of confidence.

I'd say folding in the face of violence qualifies as the latter, wouldn't you?

That would be a somewhat accurate summary of my post, yes. Except that only one of those things is actually self-censorship. And there's the small fact that this wasn't a case of giving in to threats; this is about self-censorship that arose from fear one might get threatened sometime later.

Lord Clark said that civilizations die out of exhaustion or lack of confidence. I am reluctant to pronounce the death rattle of Western Civilization yet, but it is a war in which the news from the front is not always good.

And that would be quite an accurate summary of my post. I view my culture with a heavy dose of Heinlein. And what I see underltying acts such as this is a callow, self-absorbed culture that's getting to a place where it no longer cares if it survives. In a word: exhausted.

As to the decision to pull back out of fear, well, art has been dead in Western Civilization for quite some time now. This is just another indication of the lifelessness of its corpse. Imagine artists yielding to the state or moneyed interests they way they do Islamist extremists and yet boldly talking about shock and awe and speaking truth to power. More like schlock and awful.

BTW, there's a huge difference between self-censorship because you don't think the book in question doesn't have value, and giving in to threats. If they didn't think the book had literary value, presumably they would have rejected it on its own merits.

Instead, you bring up stupid Dem talking points. People vote for, or against a candidate for many reasons. You want to vote against McCain because he muffed a question about Sunni/Shia Muslims? Fine, you do so. But to use that in your attempt to persuade others... I find that vacuous.

No, not in the strictest sense of the word -- a government agency preventing one's words from being published. Obviously that isn't the point, which is self-censorship motivated by fear of barabarism. Clearly RH thought Ms. Jones book was saleable or they wouldn't have decided to publish it and plan an 8 city book tour for her. So none of those other books are relevant, either.

Random house saw this opportunity long before "press time" and they are certainly NOT driven by some altruistic notion of principle

I'm afraid I cannot figure out what this is supposed to mean in the context of this thread. Altruism, or the lack thereof, most decidedly has nothing to do with it.

When it comes to duking it out with Muslim extremists, I'll take my chances with the candidate who knows the difference between various Muslim sects. (Hint: That's not John McCain)