A Decade of Fear

An article by Mark Penn for Time (reprinted below and available here) makes the case that the decade since 9/11 has seen the US fall into a tailspin of pessimism and shaken confidence.  He based his assessment on the results of a poll which show the majority of Americans having very negative views on the present and future of the country.  Many believe another terrorist attack on our soil is likely.  Still other see economic worries threatening our future.

In all, Mark seems to be wanting the comparison to Carter's "malaise" speech (despite the fact that Carter never used the word "malaise") in order to create the assumption that we have a vacuum of leadership in the country.  In fact, I think the primary issue here is much simpler and direct.  We have had terrorist attacks before, we have had economic woes, and we have had uncertainty about the future.  During all those times, however, we also had Presidents and a Congress who stood up and reassured the American people that we would get through it.  We were tough and could take the heat.  President Obama pretty much ran his campaign on such Roosevelt-type of reassurances and to this day ends his speeches on a similar high note.

Contrast that to the 8 years of the Bush administration.  This is the administration that declared war on "terror", thereby solidifying "terror" into an entity for us.  He never said "don't be afraid, we got this".  He said continually "be afraid because they are coming to attack us and these Democrats hate our troops" (paraphrased).  He handed us a color coded chart which never, ever went below yellow in terms of caution.  He resurrected Cold War era fears of impending massive attacks using "suitcase nukes" or bio weapons or chemical agents.  People were actually buying hermitic bomb shelters again.

This shows the simple, singular difference between our previous national crises and that created by 9/11: the willing and rather open exploitation of fear for political advantage.

 

Read Mark's article:

 

The Pessimism Index

By Mark J. Penn

Just 10 years into a new century, more than two-thirds of the country sees the past decade as a period of decline for the U.S., according to a new TIME/Aspen Ideas Festival poll that probed Americans on the decade since the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden is dead and al-Qaeda seriously weakened, but the impact of the 9/11 attacks and the decisions that followed have, in the view of most Americans, put the U.S. in a tailspin that the country has been unable to shake during two administrations and almost 10 years of trying.

The poll confirms that the country is going through one of its longest sustained periods of unhappiness and pessimism ever. Today's teenagers hardly remember a time before 9/11, the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq and constant economic upheaval. Baby boomers, the generation known for continuous reinvention, are filled with worry and doubt about their future and the future of their children. (See TIME's cover story: "The Optimism Bias.")

It is hard to overstate what a fundamental change this represents. A country long celebrated for its optimism amid adversity is having trouble finding the pluck and the spirit that have seen it through everything from world wars to nuclear threats to space races. The U.S. usually bounces back after a few years of difficulty, such as the Vietnam War, Watergate or recessions. After two or three years of anxiety and worry, the electorate normally returns to its innate optimism. Yet the forces now aligned against the American people seem much more formidable to those we surveyed; the poll uncovered the kinds of attitudes we saw among Europeans during the decade after World War II.

According to the poll, only 6% of more than 2,000 Americans believe the country has completely recovered from the events of 9/11. Some of this pessimism can be tied to fears of more terrorist attacks. Despite the death of bin Laden, most Americans think another terrorist attack in the U.S. is likely. Americans generally supported the post-9/11 measures to secure the homeland, like those in the Patriot Act, and have confidence in the military to deal with terrorists — and yet they see an attack coming anyway. America's feelings of invincibility have been replaced by a new sense of inevitable vulnerability. Nearly 8 in 10 believe there will be a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the next decade. When asked which major city would most likely be the target of such an attack, 30% selected Washington and 27% chose New York City.

A startling 71%, including a majority of every major demographic group other than African Americans, see the U.S. as worse off now than it was a decade ago. Americans blame their leaders and politicians for the decade of decline. The Bush Administration takes the most heat — 23% named it as the cause — followed closely by the Obama Administration (20%) and the U.S. Congress (16%). In contrast, only 6% blame Wall Street. (See the case for optimism in TIME's special report: "10 Ideas That Will Change the World.")

If there is widespread agreement that the U.S. is in bad shape, there is also a perception that not everyone has experienced the difficult decade in exactly the same way. Those surveyed say middle- and working-class Americans, followed by seniors and younger people, have borne the brunt of the decline — an ominous sign for any incumbent, regardless of political party. Yet those surveyed said some demographic groups were better off than they were a decade ago; they say the quality of life has improved most for gays and lesbians, the affluent, Hispanics and immigrants. And while overall the U.S. is seen as becoming more socially and politically tolerant in the past decade, the majority agreed that 9/11 set off a wave of suspicion against Muslim Americans.

Post-9/11 America is also a more isolationist country. Americans recognize that the election of President Obama brought with it a renewed sense of respect for the U.S. around the world. However, the effect of those improved relationships is overshadowed by the finding that most respondents have no desire to be more involved in global affairs. Almost two-thirds (62%) believe the U.S. today is too involved overseas. Americans are particularly impatient with U.S. policy toward Pakistan. With 69% believing that Pakistani officials knowingly harbored bin Laden, it is not surprising that 3 in 4 Americans — older Americans and Republicans especially — want the U.S. to cut back its military and nonmilitary aid to that country.

But whatever the U.S.'s worries about external forces, the biggest threats today are widely regarded as self-made. It's the enemy within that Americans register the most concern about: runaway deficits, political gridlock, skyrocketing health care costs and other structural problems. A full two-thirds of Americans see the greatest long-term threats to national stability as coming from within the U.S. This too is an enormous change from the days and months after September 2001. (See the U.S. optimism deficit.)

President Jimmy Carter — at the urging of his pollster — rather famously gave a speech in mid-1979 suggesting that a crisis of confidence had befallen America. It took several years and a new President to return the country to its optimistic ways. President Bill Clinton faced a similar moment in 1995 and turned the mood of the country around a year later. This poll suggests we are at another malaise moment, one even longer and deeper than the mid-1970s', presenting even greater challenges — and opportunities — for leadership.

Penn is CEO of Penn Schoen Berland, the strategic-research firm that conducted the TIME/Aspen poll. He was a pollster for six years under President Clinton.

 

Terrorist Watch

The killing of Osama bin Laden and the clues which led US forces to his doorstep provided a welcome and interesting contrast to the methods the Bush administration touted as being essential to investigating would-be terrorists.  Specifically, the fact that the clues leading to bin Laden weren't gathered via "enhanced interrogation" methods (AKA torture), but through normal interrogation and good old fashioned detective work.

Yet, one item from the Bush era and the Guantanamo Bay detainees illustrated just how petty and unfocused his team's approaches were:

If al-Qaida could learn anything from the latest classified documents released by WikiLeaks, it would be this: Lose the Casio watch. More specifically, lose the Casio F-91W — either the black plastic or silver bracelet version.

That particular watch came up nearly 150 times in the cache of Guantanamo prisoner assessments from the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo, which made up the bulk of the latest WikiLeaks release. It is clear from a review of those documents that if you have a Casio F-91 (selling for as little as $9.99 on Amazon.com), you're suspect.

Yes, merely having an inexpensive, durable, and basic watch like the Casio F-91W was enough to make you a suspect.  Which is precisely why I ordered mine the day I heard about this stupid story.

 

[caption id="attachment_1158" align="aligncenter" width="717" caption="Terror Watch! (hehe, get it? GET IT?!)"][/caption]

 

Whereas Bush's people were running around checking your clothing accessories, Obama's people followed a much more disciplined and methodical approach to tracking down bad guys, which paid off for Obama's administration far more than it did for Bush.  Maybe I will get added to this list of detainees making the fashion faux pas of wearing the same model watch?

 

 

STRATFOR Report on Egypt

The Egyptian Unrest: A Special Report

Created Jan 29 2011 - 16:07





[caption id="attachment_947" align="aligncenter" width="390" caption="Riot police and protesters clash at the Qasr al-Nil Bridge near Tahrir Square in Cairo on Jan. 28"][/caption]



PETER MACDIARMID/Getty Images

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak remains the lifeblood of the demonstrators, who still number in the tens of thousands in downtown Cairo and in other major cities, albeit on a lesser scale. After being overwhelmed in the Jan. 28 Day of Rage protests, Egypt’s internal security forces — with the anti-riot paramilitaries of the Central Security Forces (CSF) at the forefront — were glaringly absent from the streets Jan. 29. They were replaced with rows of tanks and armored personnel carriers carrying regular army soldiers. Unlike their CSF counterparts, the demonstrators demanding Mubarak’s exit from the political scene largely welcomed the soldiers. Despite Mubarak’s refusal to step down Jan. 28, the public’s positive perception of the military, seen as the only real gateway to a post-Mubarak Egypt, remained. It is unclear how long this perception will hold, especially as Egyptians are growing frustrated with the rising level of insecurity in the country and the army’s limits in patrolling the streets.

There is more to these demonstrations than meets the eye. The media will focus on the concept of reformers staging a revolution in the name of democracy and human rights. These may well have brought numerous demonstrators into the streets, but revolutions, including this one, are made up of many more actors than the liberal voices on Facebook and Twitter.

After three decades of Mubarak rule, a window of opportunity has opened for various political forces — from the moderate to the extreme — that preferred to keep the spotlight on the liberal face of the demonstrations while they maneuver from behind. As the Iranian Revolution of 1979 taught, the ideology and composition of protesters can wind up having very little to do with the political forces that end up in power. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB) understands well the concerns the United States, Israel and others share over a political vacuum in Cairo being filled by Islamists. The MB so far is proceeding cautiously, taking care to help sustain the demonstrations by relying on the MB’s well-established social services to provide food and aid to the protesters. It simultaneously is calling for elections that would politically enable the MB. With Egypt in a state of crisis and the armed forces stepping in to manage that crisis, however, elections are nowhere near assured. What is now in question is what groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and others are considering should they fear that their historic opportunity could be slipping.

One thing that has become clear in the past several hours is a trend that STRATFOR has been following for some time in Egypt, namely, the military’s growing clout in the political affairs of the state. Former air force chief and outgoing civil aviation minister Ahmed Shafiq, who worked under Mubarak’s command in the air force (the most privileged military branch in Egypt), has been appointed prime minister and tasked with forming the new government. Outgoing Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman, who has long stood by Mubarak, is now vice president, a spot that has been vacant for the past 30 years. Meanwhile, Defense Minister Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi (who oversees the Republican Guard) and Egypt’s chief of staff of the armed forces, Lt. Gen. Sami Annan — who returned to Cairo Jan. 29 after a week of intense discussions with senior U.S. officials — are likely managing the political process behind the scenes. More political shuffles are expected, and the military appears willing for now to give Mubarak the time to arrange his political exit. Until Mubarak finally does leave, the unrest in the streets is unlikely to subside, raising the question of just how much more delay from Mubarak the armed forces will tolerate.

The important thing to remember is that the Egyptian military, since the founding of the modern republic in 1952, has been the guarantor of regime stability. Over the past several decades, the military has allowed former military commanders to form civilian institutions to take the lead in matters of political governance but never has relinquished its rights to the state.

Now that the political structure of the state is crumbling, the army must directly shoulder the responsibility of security and contain the unrest on the streets. This will not be easy, especially given the historical animosity between the military and the police in Egypt. For now, the demonstrators view the military as an ally, and therefore (whether consciously or not) are facilitating a de facto military takeover of the state. But one misfire in the demonstrations, and a bloodbath in the streets could quickly foil the military’s plans and give way to a scenario that groups like the MB quickly could exploit. Here again, we question the military’s tolerance for Mubarak as long as he is the source fueling the demonstrations.

Considerable strain is building on the only force within the country that stands between order and chaos as radical forces rise. The standing theory is that the military, as the guarantor of the state, will manage the current crisis. But the military is not a monolithic entity. It cannot shake its history, and thus cannot dismiss the threat of a colonel’s coup in this shaky transition.

The current regime is a continuation of the political order, which was established when midranking officers and commanders under the leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasser, a mere colonel in the armed forces, overthrew the British-backed monarchy in 1952. Islamist sympathizers in the junior ranks of the military assassinated his successor, Anwar Sadat, in 1981, an event that led to Mubarak’s presidency.

The history of the modern Egyptian republic haunts Egypt’s generals today. Though long suppressed, an Islamist strand exists amongst the junior ranks of Egypt’s modern military. The Egyptian military is, after all, a subset of the wider society, where there is a significant cross- section that is religiously conservative and/or Islamist. These elements are not politically active, otherwise those at the top would have purged them.

But there remains a deep-seated fear among the military elite that the historic opening could well include a cabal of colonels looking to address a long-subdued grievance against the state, particularly its foreign policy vis-à-vis the United States and Israel. The midranking officers have the benefit of having the most direct interaction — and thus the strongest links — with their military subordinates, unlike the generals who command and observe from a politically dangerous distance. With enough support behind them, midranking officers could see their superiors as one and the same as Mubarak and his regime, and could use the current state of turmoil to steer Egypt’s future.

Signs of such a coup scenario have not yet surfaced. The army is still a disciplined institution with chain of command, and many likely fear the utter chaos that would ensue should the military establishment rupture. Still, those trying to manage the crisis from the top cannot forget that they are presiding over a country with a strong precedent of junior officers leading successful coups. That precedent becomes all the more worrying when the regime itself is in a state of collapse following three decades of iron-fisted rule.

The United States, Israel and others will thus be doing what they can behind the scenes to shape the new order in Cairo, but they face limitations in trying to preserve a regional stability that has existed since 1978. The fate of Egypt lies in the ability of the military to not only manage the streets and the politicians, but also itself.

Draw a cartoon of Muhammad Day

For Draw a Cartoon of Muhammad Day, I used an app on my iPad to quickly sketch out how I imagined Muhammad living way back in his time.  I like to give him the benefit of a doubt.  I like to think he was trying to come up with a way to unite his people, maybe end some mistreatment or another.  Maybe even try and prompt them into a new era of learning and unity.

I like to think he would be appalled and disgusted by the modern adherents of the religion he created.  He might be horrified to learn that people have been threatened and even killed over depictions of him.  It was a different culture and time and if we could somehow transport him to the modern era, I strongly believe he would be as foreign to modern believers as any historical Jesus would be to Christians.

My contribution:

In memory of Theo van Gogh.

The Cowardice of Conservatives

Over the weekend, the usual faces showed up on the usual Sunday talk shows.  Among them was Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who appears to be following in her dad's footsteps, both politically and ideologically.  Politically, she appears to be in grooming to make a run for some office in the next few years.  Ideologically, she is a liar and a coward.  She managed to display both during a Fox News (naturally) interview.  Let's start with the lies:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWlOvU-6SbQ

When you look at the question over whether the US tax payer ought to be contributing to bailing out Greece, I think you also got to say wait a second at the same time that we are looking to put $7 billion to bail out Greece… we’ve got the same types of policies being put in place here in the United States that frankly are much more likely to lead us down the path that we see Greece on.

The US isn't contributing to bailing out Greece.  The IMF is, via a package of loans made by other member countries who use the Euro.  The US is a member of the IMF and one of its top contributors, as we have been for decades, but the Greek bailout is coming specifically from individual packages approved by Euro countries.

Further still, the problems Greece is facing have more to do with their inability to address their debt, due to contraction of their economy and their own inability to control their currency.  The value of their money is dependent on the rest of the Euro-using EU, unlike the US, which issues and controls its own money.  In fact, due to the problems Greece is facing and the Euro loan they are receiving, the US dollar is growing in strength and will continue to do so for years to come.  The US economy is also growing, unlike the Greek economy which will shrink massively under the weight of their austerity measures.

The Greek problem is one of financial mismanagement and conservative approaches to economic management.  The Greek leadership have always favored conservative approaches to managing their economy (even as they fattened themselves on it) and are now paying the piper as the problem spreads to the rest of Europe.

But Cheney wasn't finished in her diatribes, and went on to display the cowardice of the right wing in addressing things like our justice system, due process, and the rights of citizens:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkivDbZbJyY

When the administration captures a terrorist and their first instinct is to inform him that he’s got the right to remain silent, that is exactly the wrong way to win this war. When we capture a terrorist, our first instinct has got to be: How do we understand the networks to which this terrorist is connected? How do we understand where he was trained? How do we understand who the leadership is?

The first instinct is to remind the SUSPECT that he has rights so that anything he then says is admissible in court?  Yes, that's how our justice system works and it works beautifully.  The suspect in the NYC Times Square attempted bombing is a US citizen, who is now being accused of a crime which could mean a lengthy prison sentence.  He indeed has rights and if the prosecutors seek to prove the charges against him in court, they will need to build a solid case, airtight, and fully admissible.

I honestly do not understand this hypocrisy and cowardice from conservatives.  The legal system is fully capable of prosecuting suspects even as it legally interrogates them to determine further information which could lead to a bigger investigation or which could yield intelligence the military could use in our wars.  Why the conservatives shrink back from liberty, from rights, from due process reveals only their cowardice and short-sighted thinking.  They don't believe the Constitution is strong enough to handle these situations, while plainly ignoring the fact that it handles them all the time.  The first WTC bombing?  The suspects were caught, Mirandized, interrogated, and eventually convicted.  They are in prison to this day.  Timothy McVeigh?  Caught, Mirandized, convicted, and eventually put to death.  The DC snipers?  The same.  Eric Robert Rudolph?  The same.

What's any different here?  Does Miranda GRANT rights to a suspect?  No.  It simply makes them aware of rights they already have, regardless of being told about them or not.

It's a little thing called "inalienable rights".  Liz Cheney and cowardly liars like her, might have read that phrase somewhere before.

Draw a Cartoon of Muhammad Day, May 20th

Several days ago, I took umbrage at the cowardice of Comedy Central for censoring South Park of any mention or depiction of Muhammad out of fear of the backlash by Islamic extremists.  I pointed out the hypocrisy of this given they had no problem with such a depiction years ago.

Others apparently felt the same way, especially in the still-simmering aftermath of the Dutch editorial cartoons which provoke outrage and violence among extremist Muslims.  Read the story below, but first let me say that I will be participating and posting my cartoon of Muhammad here, as

[caption id="attachment_560" align="alignleft" width="291" caption="Ironically enough, he has the power of "fire"."][/caption]

well as on the Facebook page set up to collect them.  I strongly, vehemently encourage everyone to participate, regardless of your artistic ability.  I, for one, certainly have no innate drawing skills, but I will indeed be putting my depiction of Muhammad for all to see, without fear and without bowing to the whims of a few extremist whackjobs.

From the Raw Story:

UPDATE: The Seattle cartoonist characterized as leading a movement against Comedy Central censorship says she didn't mean for her cartoon to go viral or "be the focus of any group."



In a statement, she said, "I make cartoons about current, cultural events. I made a cartoon of a 'poster' entitled "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" with a nonexistent group's name -- Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor -- drawn on the cartoon also. I did not intend for my cartoon to go viral. I did not intend to be the focus of any 'group'. I practice the first amendment by drawing what I wish. This particular cartoon of a 'poster' seems to have struck a gigantic nerve, something I was totally unprepared for. I am going back to the drawing table now!"

As a snarky response to Muslim bloggers who "warned" Comedy Central about an episode of South Park showing the Prophet Mohammed wearing a bear suit, one Seattle cartoonist, who calls laughter her form of "prayer," is asking artists all over the world to create depictions of Mohammed on May 20. A Facebook page has been set up to cache the images for all to see.

Speaking on a Seattle radio show on Friday, cartoonist Molly Norris said she announced her idea as a way of countering the fear exhibited by Comedy Central in censoring episode 201 of South Park.

At the South Park Studios website, a message was posted that notes, "After we delivered the show, and prior to broadcast, Comedy Central placed numerous additional audio bleeps throughout the episode. We do not have network approval to stream our original version of the show."

The New York-based Revolution Muslim group's Web site was largely unavailable Wednesday but a CNN report said the statement was posted alongside a graphic photo of slain Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered by a Muslim extremist in Amsterdam in 2004.

"In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind," outh Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone wrote on their Web site. "We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We'll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we'll see what happens to it."

"We have to warn [South Park creators] Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show," the group said. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality that will likely happen to them."

A spokesman for the group denied the statement was an incitement to violence.

The New York Police Department has since stepped up security at Comedy Central headquarters.

"I wanna water down the targets," Norris said. "I haven't really organized it yet. I posted it on Facebook and I have gotten a couple drawings of Mohammed. I guess I gotta follow through and put them on a deck of cards or something."

"As a cartoonist, I felt so much passion about what's happened and I wanted to kind of counter Comedy Central's message that they sent about being afraid," Norris continued. "That's a cartoonist's job, is to be non-PC."

In a statement to RAW STORY, Norris said she did not personally start either of large and growing Facebook groups on either side of the debate, but she did post her art to her personal page.

"I made a fictional poster and the information on it is also fictional," she said. "There is no Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor, etc. Although, I love the idea."

On her blog, Midnight Corndog, she further explains her motivations:

I really hope this sort of creative expression brings ALL people of our country together in dialogue. I am personally afraid of Muslims because the peaceful folks of that religion do not often come forward to differentiate themselves from any radical elements! I mean, if I do not hear from moderate Muslims then how am I supposed to KNOW that they, too, are not harboring ill intent toward non-Muslims?! Please if you are a non-radical Muslim tell people about yourselves. Write to newspapers. Have community round tables. When Americans don’t know what you really think or feel, we might stay mired in stereotypes. Offer us knowledge!

The post URL ends with, "please-send-drawings-of-any-religious-figure-by-may-20," though her other mentions of the idea solely focus on the Prophet Mohammed.

In a July, 2009 special to The Seattle Times, writer Rachel Shimp described Norris's work as carrying "[a] distinctly 'Seattle' identity-complex," that "imagines what's really going on behind the computer screens in coffee shops, or in the crowds at art galleries."

"Norris seems fascinated, as any restaurant server or cabdriver might, by the subtexts beneath cordiality," she wrote. "Consumerism is another favorite topic."

"I make people laugh and I think laughter is prayer," she told the Seattle city council's news service. Norris's regular strip, “Everyone is a Critic,” is published by City Arts magazine.

Her cartoon announcing "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is below. More of Norris's work can be viewed on her Web sites, here and here.

Comedy Central Hypocrisy

The last two weeks of South Park have featured a storyline in which the Islamic prophet Muhammed is the subject of various kidnapping plots by both a coalition of mocked celebrities from South Park's previous episodes and a group of angry "gingers" (red haired kids who, according to Cartman on the show, "have no soul").

In the second episode, airing April 23, 2010, any mention of Muhammed's name was bleeped out and any depiction of him was censored with a black bar.  This was in reaction to a posted warning on a website called "revolutionislam" which tacitly threatened the show's creators with the same death which befell a Dutch filmmaker who was critical of Islam.

They hypocrisy of Comedy Central is blatant, obvious, and disgusting.  Kowtowing to a group of extremist religionists, bowing to threats made by extremists, is cowardly and servile.  It's not in keeping at all with the free expression South Park has enjoyed in the past where they equally targeted any and all public figures for satire.  In the US, you have the right to say pretty much anything you want, but you do NOT have the right to not be offended.

Searching through the South Park archives, I found an episode from season 5, in July of 2001, called "Super Best Friends".  It freely depicts Muhammed as a super hero alongside Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tze, Krishna, Joseph Smith, and Seaman.  9/11 was obviously just a few months later and the world suddenly turned into a terrorized planet where even the mention of some illiterate, nomadic sheepherder from the Middle East of 1400 years ago was punishable by threats of violence.

Fuck that.

Here's Super Best Friend, Muhammed:

[caption id="attachment_560" align="alignright" width="291" caption="Ironically enough, he has the power of "fire"][/caption]

Also, here's the clip of the show itself:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEg-BKAVEzc

And just in case YouTube removes the video, here it is again on a different server:

sps5e4-1 This is a Quicktime file

sps5e4-1 Here is a Windows file

And if that video gets taken down, I'll find another server and another.  Want to display the video on your server?  Contact me.

*EDIT*  Some people are saying that Viacom is already blocking the YouTube video.  If that's true for you, simply use the secondary links for Quicktime or Windows.  More video uploads are happening now and I will post them here as I finish.

DailyMotion video link:  http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd25a3_south-park-depicting-muhammed-free already blocked

Vimeo:  http://vimeo.com/11179002

File download:

The following links contain a zipped file of both the Quicktime and Windows media formats:

MegaUpload

RapidShare