Where To Find Opus On Sunday

Berkeley Breathed has a note up on his site: "Note to Opus readers: The Opus strips for August 26 and September 2 have been withheld from publication by a large number of client newspapers across the country, including Opus' host paper The Washington Post. The strips may be viewed in a large format on their respective dates at Salon.com.."

Without a comment...

[earnest murderer]

from Berkeley or the papers, what is there to discuss except conspiracy theories and baseless accusations.

I guess it's still news... even if it's a little under cooked.

Anyone have any facts. Not Fox news or Bill O'Riley brand facts but real information?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's facts for you.

The editors of the papers that will not be printing these cartoons are the same ones who regularly criticize the Bush administation, publish disgusting cartoons by Pat Oliphant, don't think twice about publishing information that might be damaging to national security and they do it all because they know they'll end up without a hair on their heads being harmed.

The editors of these papers regularly run articles informing us how Homeland Security is overreacting, how Islam is misunderst

Re:

[arth1]

But here's the deep down, bottom line fact:

The editors of these papers are not running the cartoons because they're afraid someone will blow up their offices or shoot them or simply cut their fucking heads off and post a video of it on YouTube.

That seems to me to be a very good reason not to run them?

Re:

[vidarh]

Really? Do you have a list of the papers refusing to run it and documentation to back of those claims? Or is it just hot air?

Re:

[oyenstikker]

This is America. They didn't publish it because they were afraid it would result in loss of revenue. If you thing a corporation's actions are based by anything other than money, you are wrong.

Oh, do please keep your fear and ignorance...

[Fantastic Lad]

to yourself.

Here's facts for you.

Bullshit. You have no facts. Produce a list of papers which have cut the strip and then you can begin to think around the word, "Fact". Produce non-isolated examples of the kind of liberal bias you are accusing of in those papers, and then you can begin to sell your point.

Since you can't do any of this, what we really have here is a typical example of Right Wing emotionalism. (The operative emotions being Fear and Hate, which the typical Right-Wing Bush supporter allows

Re:Without a comment...

[faloi]

The strip is not blasphemous in any serious way.

Says you. Keep in mind, after the Danish cartoons, people are likely to tread a little bit lightly rather than get some expert opinion on what might qualify as blasphemous. Throw in CAIR getting lawsuit happy [danielpipes.org] (whether the lawsuits have merit or not) and you've got a recipe for less backbone enhanced editors to exclude the comics. The flip side to the comic is that some papers [mediainfo.com] won't run it because of a tastless sex joke. No clear breakdown on why different papers are excluding it.

Re:Without a comment...

[exploder]

Right--this comic is making fun of America way moreso than Islam (Lola's list of things she's not going to be is the caricature of the silly self-absorbed American girl). It seems that simply mentioning Islam is too frightening these days. Not encouraging.

A story on the story

[faloi]

Here ya go [mediainfo.com]. It looks like, depending on your neck of the woods, editors won't run it because it either has a tasteless sex joke, or because it might offend Muslims.

Direct link to the first strip

[jesser]

http://www.salon.com/comics/opus/2007/08/26/opus/i ndex.html [salon.com]

The second "censored" strip is dated next Sunday, so I guess it isn't available yet.

Re:Direct link to the first strip

[earnest murderer]

So basically the first strip has been banned on context? That because the ideas are presented as satire they're offensive? I mean I understand the sensitivity. That having a corner stone of your religion trotted out and warped into an amusing caricature would be infuriating... But maybe you should review your dogma for things you weren't comfortable with in the first place before buying in.

It ain't like he's drawing pictures of Mohammed with bombs in his turban.

Re:

[Ender_Wiggin]

That's not honest to say that Christians are peaceful and Muslims are not. Christians blow stuff up too and vandalize and are just as intolerant etc.

The difference is how they're percieved in America. You have Christian neighbors, you see nice Christians on TV, Americans have a high opinion of Christians and good experiences and exposure to them. Muslims, in American context, are seen as the Other, the violent people on TV. You can show a violent christian on TV, but the stereotype won't change the same way

Re:

[brainburger]

I wont dispute the fact that Christians kill more people than Muslims, and blow a *lot* more stuff up, but they do it for different reasons than the Muslims. I am not aware of any Christian death-threats resulting from satire about Christianity. Even when Christian society did try to suppress comedy, they did it through legal means (eg asking cinemas not to show The Life of Brian, prosecuting punk-band Crass under the blasphemy legislation for Realityasylum etc). OTOH, the underlying reasons for Muslim aggr

Religion provides a mechanism

[Colin Smith]

It's a great way to dehumanise your opponents.

They're not like us, not human, they're infidels. They're not human, they're Jews. They're not human they're muslims/heretics/atheists. It makes mass murder much easier if you don't have to think of the people you're butchering as ordinary people, you can think of them as sub-human, animals to be slaughtered.

It's a pretty standard propaganda technique. It's been used for thousands of years. What saddens me is that it's still successful.

Re:Direct link to the first strip

[zoney_ie]

Trying to pretend religion is the cause of humankind's problems and that people would all get along merrily if it were not for religion is just as absurd. It's as absurd as those who decry the "intolerance" of the religious while themselves being intolerant of the religious.

Re:

[Reality Master 101]

Trying to pretend religion is the cause of humankind's problems and that people would all get along merrily if it were not for religion is just as absurd.

True, but trying to pretend that religion *isn't* a major cause of humankind's problems is just as absurd. People woudn't get along merrily if religion didn't exist, but a big source of large-scale organized violence would simply go away. There are a lot of people who hate other people solely for the reason of their religion.

To be fair, I'm not sure

Re:Direct link to the first strip

[Lemmy Caution]

There have been "secular" (or at least non-theist) martyrs in the past. Ancient Rome didn't really have a doctrine of the after-life, and honor-suicides were a part of the culture. The kamikaze pilots of Japan weren't particularly motivated by promises of virgins in the next life, but rather by a sense of duty and obligation in this one.

Re:

[Lemmy Caution]

Were the Columbine shooters motivated by religion when they did, essentially, the same thing?

I'm an atheist, by the way. I just find this argument against religion facile and specious.

Re:

[Shuh]

I hope we can reduce the practice of religion, just like we can reduce alcohol, drug addiction, HIV, spousal abuse, and illegitimacy, and I hope that, at the same time, we can remain tolerant of the people suffering from those afflictions.

In religious terms, this is known as "hate the sin, love the sinner." Or in more contemporay, urban terms as "hate the game, not the player."

You know, religion is one of the key institutions outside of jail and "public education" that encourage people to reduce alco

Re:

[Chris Mattern]

by far the most deaths have been caused by catholics and protestants over Northern Ireland, including a large number of bombings outside Northern Ireland such as the bomb aimed at taking out parts of the British cabinet back in '84. People have short memories.

No, people just know that "The Troubles" don't really have anything to do with Christianity. The root cause of this is an English/Irish hatred that goes back long before there even *was* Protestantism. We see a Protestant/Catholic split only because

Re:

[Teancum]

One huge difference here is that violence in the name of religion has official state support from Moslem countries and quasi-state organizations like the Palistinian Authority. I do not know of any predominantly Christian country that has as an official policy or through unofficial actions supporting and endorsing actions and policies encouraging violence in "the name of God".

I can name several countries that have offered bounties and cash rewards for those "martyrs" who blow themselves up in the name of A

Re:Direct link to the first strip

[c6gunner]

That's nowhere close to being an accurate comparison. As others have pointed out, the conflict with the IRA was more about nationality than religion. That's why it was called the Irish Republican Army, and not something like "The Avenging Sword of Christian Supremacy".

Moreover, their bombings were much more rare, and they tried to focus on political targets because they were attempting to achieve a political goal. I'm not excusing their actions, nor am I saying that they didn't kill hundreds of innocent bystanders, but they generally didn't go out of their way to blow up coffee shops, discos, and bus stations. Nor did they fly airliners into buildings.

And finally, their goal was to achieve freedom for Ireland. Whereas Muslim extremist groups continue to target western civilians despite the fact that there are dozens of Muslim nations which hold full authority over their own borders. And many of these lunatics make it quite clear that their ultimate goal is the Islamification (yes, I know it's not a real word) of the whole world. Off hand, I really can't think of any Christian groups which preach that religious warfare should be used to convert the world to Christianity. Can you?

Re:Direct link to the first strip

[soliptic]

they [the IRA] tried to focus on political targets because they were attempting to achieve a political goal. I'm not excusing their actions, nor am I saying that they didn't kill hundreds of innocent bystanders, but they generally didn't go out of their way to blow up coffee shops, discos, and bus stations.

WTF?!

I can't let this go uncorrected.

I'll take a wild guess that you're not British. I might even go further and guess that you're in America (where many people happily funded the IRA's regular bombing of civilians, until 9/11 there was a distinct lack of aversion to terrorism it seems).

Actually, they happily bombed shopping [manchester2002-uk.com] malls [metacafe.com] and city centres [bbc.co.uk] , offices [bbc.co.uk], pubs [wikipedia.org], restaurants [bbc.co.uk], public transport [bbc.co.uk]...

The IRA VERY MUCH systematically "went out of their way" to kill and injure hundreds of civilians.

Its in context for once

[Chlorus]

I, for one, don't welcome our Islamic overlords.

TF Link

[1u3hr]

So may inane links to blogs, why not direct links to the strips?

So after screwing around at Salon.com:
Today's strip is here [salon.com]. And all strips here [salon.com].

It's all too common now

[smallpaul]

Western publishers are self-censoring anything remotely offensive to Muslims. This is just evidence that threats, intimidation and terrorism work. Americans will go to any lengths to "fight terrorism" by invading countries basically uninvolved in terror, but given the chance to simply stand up and say: "we won't be intimidated by threats" the press folds like a three legged card table. Grow a pair!

Re:It's all too common now

[ConceptJunkie]

Yes, it's funny that they have no problems bad-mouthing other groups like Catholics or Jews (i.e., Israel) or Christian Fundamentalists because they know that those folks won't get violent.

I'm getting a little sick of people who, to quote Dennis Miller, "start strapping bombs on themselves when the pizza toppings are wrong". I'm getting a little sick of hearing about the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. And I'm really getting sick of slack-jawed, know-nothing, but ego-inflated press abandoning all their principles at the drop of a turban.

Re:

[ConceptJunkie]

The liberal press is generally very biased against Israel, which if it were a position taken by conservatives, would be considered anti-Semitic.

Re:

[Herbmaster]

Yes, now that I think about it, Osama bin Laden's publicly stated goals do go something like this:

1. Get US troops out of Saudi.
2. Discredit the US in the international community.
3. Raise the price of oil.
4. Increase sensitivity of the Western media to Muslim culture.

Oh wait, I always get this mixed up. Which one involved underpants and which one involved profit? Darn.

Re:

[Angst Badger]

It's not just Islam. The press goes out of its way to avoid direct offense to the other major religions as well, often to the point of actively pandering to them. How many times in the past several years has one of the newsweeklies had a cover story on Jesus? And Jesus is news exactly how? How often do we see articles on the "debate" over evolution?

It's distantly possible that there is some actual fear of terrorism at work, but I suspect that most of the time, the guiding principle is what will best serve t

U.S. media *thrive* on anti-Moslem rants

[ibn_khaldun]

Anyone who thinks that the U.S. media back down from anything offensive to Moslems has clearly never listened to talk radio or read conservative political commentators. These folks would have a great deal of dead air and missing prose if they couldn't offend Moslems in ever more creative ways (suggesting nuking Mecca is a popular one, for example...)

But meanwhile, I completely agree with much of the previous commentary: this strip is making fun on two individuals, and is not remotely comparable to the Danish cartoons. Most Moslems would find it funny and the rest, well, some people don't find anything funny. And the stereotyping is mild compared to what the strip has done, for example, with New Age hippies, Leisure Suit Larry lounge lizards, penguins, and so forth.

[Usually not relevant but despite the Slashdot moniker, I'm neither Arab nor Moslem, though I've lived for a while in the Middle East. I just happen to like the theories of the dude [wikipedia.org] I've stolen the name from and he's like, sort of dead...]

Anyone remember the South Park issue with this?

[DigitalSorceress]

Anyone remember the South Park episode "Cartoon Wars", where the show was making fun of the western reaction, and itself was censored? The irony for me was that they had an episode maybe a year or two before that where Mohammed was clearly shown as one of the super heroes in the "Super Best Friends" episode. There hadn't been a blip back then. What's even funnier is that if you watch South Park reruns, the "Cartoon Wars" episode still has the controversial scene censored, but the "Super Best Friends" has been shown since with no alterations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park [wikipedia.org]

The Cartoon Wars episode was played uncensored in the UK, and the world failed to end - go figure.

Other Possibilities?

[Reluctant Wizard]

Maybe the editors were concerned about offending nudists or the Amish?

Re:Bizarro Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Opus is the descendant of what was once Bloom County. If you don't know what Bloom County was then I feel sorry for you. Missing that cartoon is like never having read Calvin & Hobbes or The Far Side. Great comics are few and far between. Usually we get left with crap like Cathy and Garfield that recycle jokes day after day.

Re:

[thrash242]

Except that Calvin and Hobbes and the Far Side are both funny.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Bizarro Slashdot

[kripkenstein]

Opus is the descendant of what was once Bloom County. If you don't know what Bloom County was then I feel sorry for you. Missing that cartoon is like never having read Calvin & Hobbes or The Far Side. Great comics are few and far between. Usually we get left with crap like Cathy and Garfield that recycle jokes day after day.

I agree 100% about Bloom County - a classic. Sadly 'Opus' isn't living up to the same standard, though. So all you young whippersnappers, if you read a few Opuses and think there is no reason to check out Bloom County, I urge you to give it a shot anyhow.

As for the censorism: I am sure Slashdot will be full of "we wouldn't censor stuff like this if it was about Christianity/etc., so why should we pander to Islam?". Now, technically that is correct - far worse material appears about Christianity than Islam; there is far more sensitivity towards Islam. However, I don't think that makes it wrong to do so. As I see it, there is a solid basis for attempting to not offend Muslims (whereas what I am about to say now is extremely offensive to them): They can't take a joke. Just like if you have a sensitive neurotic kid in your neighborhood, you wouldn't call him names in jest that you would call everyone else.

Some people deserve special treatment not because they are special in a privileged way, but because they are special in the 'Special Olympics' way.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot

[PopeRatzo]

Just like if you have a sensitive neurotic kid in your neighborhood, you wouldn't call him names in jest that you would call everyone else.

Brother, you didn't grow up in my neighborhood.

Re:

[Elemenope]

Just like if you have a sensitive neurotic kid in your neighborhood, you wouldn't call him names in jest that you would call everyone else.

Dude, I don't know what amazing utopian neighborhood you grew up in, but in most of the rest of the world, that kid you just described gets it the worst.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot

[ScrewMaster]

... but in most of the rest of the world, that kid you just described gets it the worst.

Yes he does, and he's also the one that eventually loads up on high-caliber firearms or high explosive. Generally speaking, taunting mentally unstable people is a bad idea.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

If they can't take the soft stuff when they're kids (and when you're a kid, that's all it is), how are you supposed to handle being an ADULT?

All this toned-down crap for kids is preparing them to fail when they become adults. In baseball for kids now they don't keep score and nobody wins or loses, everyone gets the same sized trophy. Well, in the real world it doesn't work that way.

I can understand a parent wanting to protect their child, but that goes too far. Everyone experiences failure, why not prepare your child for the first time a girl turns him down (or the 94th time), the first time he's fired from a job, the first time he gets robbed, and so on. Your child may be your beautiful perfect child, but they will experience loss and failure in the real world just like everyone else. By not preparing them for that you're only making it harder for them when they experience it for the first time.

Re:

[Lijemo]

Adults, if they feel their workplace is mentally, emotionally, physically, or sexually abusive towards them can quit and go someplace else. If it's bad enough, they can press charges or sue.

A kid in school can't leave. They just have to either put up with it, or lash out.

How the heck does that prepare someone for the real, grown-up world? The only part of the real-world where the bullying dynamic works the way it does in school is prison. And maybe, to a lesser extent, the army-- but nowhere else.

Re:

[Lijemo]

Actually, I HAVE been in a situation where I couldn't afford to quit. I could, however, begin looking for another job while still working. It's utterly exhausting and miserable to look for a job while still going to an unhealthy job at the same time-- but the option is there to at least TRY to get into a healthier situation. And in the long run, it is well worth it.

Re:

[Original Replica]

Contrary to your point, things like Columbine and VA Tech didn't happen 50 years ago when middle class school yards were a lot tougher than they are today. If everyone "plays nice" until high school and then suddenly you face being ostracized for the first time when you are 15 or 16 you will not have the skills to handle it well, but you will have the size and knowledge to let you rage do far more damage. I was picked on a lot in elementary school, and I used to get in a lot of fights (that were as vicious

Re:

[Adambomb]

acting like ticking time-bombs.

i really despise this term.

i'd say more "actually performing needlessly violent or stupid acts", "acting like a ticking time bomb" seems to be a label that gets attached to acting in any way deviates from the norm these days.

yes yes, tis ramblely, but i think you know what i mean heh.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot

[couchslug]

"Yes he does, and he's also the one that eventually loads up on high-caliber firearms or high explosive. Generally speaking, taunting mentally unstable people is a bad idea."

In the case of Islam, the believers are not mentally unstable, and their goal is to use Political Correctness to stop any criticism of their beliefs.
It is working.

Slashdotters rage against government or business threats to freedom, but for some reason the most oppressive and backward (which given the competitiion is saying a lot!) religion in the world often escapes attack. Careful distinction is made between supposed religious theory and practice so that one avoids attacking the ideology. Odd since religion = political belief = superstition.

The freedom we enjoy today is not the result of religion. It is the result of freethinkers and the weakening of religions stranglehold on society. Islam in practice seeks to impose such a stranglehold. I therefore advocate attacking it, relentlessly and without apology. To defend religion is to endorse it. Ridicule is the best weapon against superstition.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot

[ScrewMaster]

I'd say education is the best weapon against superstition, but failing that (or when dealing with people that refuse to be educated) ridicule is a good choice. It's more difficult to gain followers for your particular brand of religious mindgrabbing when most of the potential candidates are laughing at you.

Re:

[Trailer Trash]

The freedom we enjoy today is not the result of religion. It is the result of freethinkers and the weakening of religions stranglehold on society.

Without arguing your point, I would simply like to know how you can reconcile that statement with the fact that an atheistic ideology (communism) was responsible for the death of 60M-100M in the last century and the enslavement of nearly half the world's population.

I would like to blame drug prohibition and such on my fellow Christians in this country, but it'

Re:

[notamisfit]

The culprit is not religion in and of itself, but the undertone that marks both religion and collectivism: the philosophy of altruism. By altruism, I do not mean simple generosity, but rather the belief that a man's standard of value should not be his own life and happiness, but rather his duty to others: God, the state, his brother-men. It is the ultimate dismissal of human life and values.

Re:

[jlarocco]

Without arguing your point, I would simply like to know how you can reconcile that statement with the fact that an atheistic ideology (communism) was responsible for the death of 60M-100M in the last century and the enslavement of nearly half the world's population.

Communist societies forced atheism to get rid of competition for "the party". Their killing lots of people had nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with their leaders being power hungry asshats.

Re:

[couchslug]

"Without arguing your point, I would simply like to know how you can reconcile that statement with the fact that an atheistic ideology (communism) was responsible for the death of 60M-100M in the last century and the enslavement of nearly half the world's population."

I view Communism as "blowback".
It only took root where decadent theistic societies failed so badly that the desperate populace wanted an alternate ideology to justify and focus their rage against those who exploited them.
The body count is merel

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

Probably impossible to verify, but it definitely seems plausible. Thank you for illuminating that for me... :)

Well, given that the American free press is afraid to publish a goddamn comic strip I'd say it's working rather well. And that's just disturbing.

Re:

[ArcherB]

As for the censorism: I am sure Slashdot will be full of "we wouldn't censor stuff like this if it was about Christianity/etc., so why should we pander to Islam?". Now, technically that is correct - far worse material appears about Christianity than Islam; there is far more sensitivity towards Islam. However, I don't think that makes it wrong to do so. As I see it, there is a solid basis for attempting to not offend Muslims (whereas what I am about to say now is extremely offensive to them): They can't take

Re:

[HockeyPuck]

Christians are taught to forgive. Muslims are taught to die in defense of Islaam. THAT is the difference

How is the parent modded "insightful" with a generalization like the above? I'm sure I could find an instance whereby "The Christians" didn't forgive.... let's see...

The Crusades.
WW2 (remember, the Germans were christians and they didn't forgive the Jews/athiests for being different).
Spanish Inquisition.

No one race/religion/group is perfect, so pull your head outta your ignorant ass.

Re:

[anothy]

i agree with your point overall - no organized religion has any historical claim at perfection - but your examples are poor.

• the crusades are, collectively, certainly a low point for organized Christianity, but they're also monstrously complex socio-military-political events. there were genuine territorial encroachments into the byzantine empire by muslims empires that at least the first crusade was (on the surface) a direct response to, and most christians don't translate "forgive" into "let them get awa

Re:

[edmicman]

Ummmmm...you just pretty much summed up everything that is *wrong* with the world today. If more people told others to fuck off, the world would be a much better place.

Re:

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

There are people who have invisible friends. Why is there a line in making fun of their belief? There really isn't. You don't get to draw lines in the sand when it comes to free speech. Once you put one restriction on it it is no longer free.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot

[Artifakt]

The problem with the invisible friends routine is it's simply stupid (Note I didn't say YOU are stupid, I said the routine's stupid).

What do you believe in?

Capitalists worship a giant invisible hand (and sacrifice people to it).
Socialists believe everyone will be honest and decent if they get elected.
Democrats believe in a 300% tax rate.
The NRA wants everyone to have their own Rocket Launchers.
The ACLU never defends anybody but Scum.
The French believe everybody is male (liberty, equality and fraternity - nothing about sorority there) (Yes, some English wags actually used this line in print discussing the revolution).
Quantum Physicists all keep cats locked up in boxes, how cruel.
People who believe in George Washington all think he was stronger than the Incredible Hulk (to throw a silver dollar across a broad river)...

      There's no real belief or opinion that can't be oversimplified to the point of looking absurd. Name a few beliefs of your own, and somebody will be glad to reduce everything you stand up for to a sound-bite and try to make you look like a fool too.
      Most Christians, Muslims, etc. believe that God is a spirit - what's so strange about believing that a spirit is invisible, it would be even stranger if they thought that it wasn't. Now you want something really silly, try the trinity. That three in one business is weird enough to be part of Scientology's schtick.

      Now as a Christian, I'll gladly defend your right to make fun of us. Yes, you should be able to make either jokes or serious and realistic criticisms of my beliefs. The real question is, are you, I or anyone else actually benefiting from making this particular criticism?

Re:Bizarro Slashdot

[Man On Pink Corner]

The real question is, are you, I or anyone else actually benefiting from making this particular criticism?

Absolutely. By making fun of Christians, the reality-based community makes it harder for you to impose your superstitions on the rest of us.

The difference between me and you is that once I convince you to keep your fractured, pathological myths out of the voting booth and out of my child's classroom, I'll go away and leave you alone.

Direct link

[Futurepower(R)]

Direct link to the cartoon [salon.com].

A cartoon that criticizes women's attempts to act superior and also discusses Islamic religious practices is too complicated for most newspapers.

Of course, banning it gives it publicity, too.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot

[Mark_in_Brazil]

Usually we get left with crap like Cathy and Garfield that recycle jokes day after day.

I liked all three of the strips mentioned in the parent post for some time, but please don't forget the important part of the history of Bloom County where it was as "pat," as recycled, and as predictable as Garfield raised to the Cathy power. In its last few years (I'd say from about early 1987 on), Bloom County was recycling a lot of crap jokes. At that point, the quality of the strip ranged, depending on the day, from a high of maybe-a-slight-chuckle to a low of oh-my-gosh-did-they-really-waste-paper-and-ink-on- such-a-heavily-rehashed-and-thoroughly-unfunny-str ip. That was sad, because that high had previously been the strip's low range, with some true classics. I have to wonder if Bill Watterson's decision to quit doing Calvin and Hobbes when it was enormously popular has something to do with Watterson not wanting the strip to utterly suck like Bloom County did in its last years. I bought and enjoyed Bloom County books in the 1980s, but I had completely quit reading the strip by mid-to-late 1987. I think I gave Opus a chance when it appeared, but saw no reason to read it. There was another Breathed comic between those two, but it also blew goats like late Bloom County. I admit I had started to get disappointed in the strip before that. In the early parts of Bloom County, Opus was drawn with a much smaller and penguin-like beak. There were comments about his ugliness. As the years wore on, Opus was made cuter and cuter, and his beak grew to be too big for a frickin' pelican, let alone a penguin. It was, however, much more suited to making cute and lucrative Opus stuffed toys. In the early strips, like during the "Cockroach Revolution," roaches were drawn as little lines representing bodies with littler lines representing legs. Later, the character of "Milquetoast," the cute cockroach (I shit you not) came along. Ugh.
Watterson was right, you know. As great as the moments were that Calvin and Hobbes gave us, it did get to the point where I would say things like "OK, another week of violently killed snowmen" when I read the Monday strip. Some of the new versions of old jokes could get a chuckle or even possibly even a snort out of me, but it was typically one in a week or so of strips.
Of the three strips cited in the parent, only The Far Side didn't appear to lose anything over the years. When Larson quit in the mid-1990s, the strip was still as funny and as bizarre as it had been when I first saw it in the early 1980s. It also holds a special place in my heart as one of the greatest mainstream outlets of nerd humor. Futurama has taken that to much higher levels of sophistication (I have a Ph.D. in physics and completed requirements for a B.S. in math, and some of the science and math jokes on Futurama have blown right over my head), but The Far Side did it first and probably better. The Far Side's influence in academic circles was so great that a joke term [wikipedia.org] from a Far Side panel in 1982 has been adapted for informal use by scientists in the field. There's something to be said for nerd "in jokes" so "in" that a trained theoretical physicist, one who happens to be known for how observant he is, can totally miss them, but there's also something to be said for a single panel on the comics page that brought nerd sensibilities to the larger public more effectively, which The Far Side did. I was a kid/adolescent for most of the 1980s, and I remember lots of non-nerd adults liking The Far Side. Larson brought "our" (nerd) culture to a wider audience in a more positive way than just about all portrayals of nerds in popular culture did before or have since.

Re:

[iapetus]

For today's comic for the nerd culture, incidentally, you could do a lot worse than xkcd [xkcd.com]...

Re:

[cosmocain]

you COULD have followed the link which would EVENTUALLY have led you to the comic. i really do hope you're doin' your job a little bit mor effective. i mean, it's weekend and such, so you really can waste your time doing searches.

on the other hand this is not really about a comic strip, but about religion and freedom of speech. it's about the climate of fear that's been constructed ever since 9/11. it's about the same as here [www.cbc.ca]. (first link i found, didn't want to waste MY time doing searches ;) )

Re:

[Xemu]

this is not really about a comic strip, but about religion and freedom of speech

Like water and oil, they don't mix.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot

[mutende]

Hot Air suggests this is the offending comic strip [imageshack.us]. Read the full story at Hot Air [hotair.com].

Re:

[arivanov]

The cartoon is quite tame. Just compare to some recent Spanish ones involving their royal family ...

Re:

[KillerCow]

you COULD have followed the link which would EVENTUALLY have led you to the comic.

Or they could have just linked to the comic. Because most of us are not going to bother to go looking in September for the other one.

comic [salon.com]

Re:

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Well, the comic creator's freedom of speech isn't really an issue here since the Federal Government didn't do anything to stop the comic. The individual newspapers said "We won't publish it because we're afraid of being murdered by the self-proclaimed Religion of Peace."

To answer you question...

[Mieckowski]

I assume you don't read newspapers much (niether do I), but it's one of the few national newspaper comic strips (and, according to Wikipedia, made by a pulitzer-prize winning cartoonist). It looks like the most recent strip has been censored for political reasons (which should be obvious from it's content).

Re:

[vidarh]

Well, Bizarro is one of my most favorite comics, but Opus is higher up the list...

If you've missed Bloom County / Outland / Opus you owe it to yourself to catch up. There's a great collection called "Opus: 25 years of his Sunday best" that'd give you a good introduction, though you'd miss out on the daily strips of the early years (the current incarnation of the series is only Sunday panels)

Re:Terrible news!!!

[daveywest]

Opus is political and social issues satire comic. In other words, it appeals to people older than you.

Re:

[brainburger]

What country is it published in?
I have never heard of it (I am a UK person, so I am surprised to see mention of Doonesbury which I do know).

Who. Not "What"

[ctid]

Opus is an orphaned penguin who ends up living in a house with a lot of other misfits and weird people. He was one of the stars of "Bloom County", Berkeley Breathed's amazing cartoon strip which ran from 1980 to 1989.

Re:Um

[Anonymous Coward]

He's the beloved author of "Programming with Ack!" and "Configuring and using thpbbt on Unix systems". Learn your roots man.

Re:

[vidarh]

Seriously.... Opus / Outland is one of THE classics of American comics over the last 25 years, with some of the most biting satire (political and other) you'll find. Personally I'd rate is as the best US comic ever. But then I'm from a country where most people actually read comics (Norway - with 4.5 million people, our comic magazines regularly have larger circulations than most US ones could ever hope for, and even some newspaper strips like Ernie have their own monthly magazines)

Re:

[earnest murderer]

Oh my. Well, I guess I can see why the newspapers are nervous after the Danish cartoon thing with Muhammad a while back. Still, the Danes seem to have more backbone than the American newspapers, especially since Muhammad isn't depicted or even mentioned in the strip.

Berkley Breathed is usually a bit more clever. My money is on biting, accurate and funny.

This is usually made better by the hyper sensitivity of the target.

Re:

[iocat]

People love him when he's dishing out progressive/lib barbs, but if he takes on a more controversial subject than "George Bush is a dummy," suddenly a) no one can be bothered to stand up for him and b) people start bagging on the script.

Re:

[PingPongBoy]

muhammad a while back

Even more recently, Jesus with a cigarette [www.cbc.ca] had a newspaper in trouble. Wonder if Opus is messing around with this story?

Jesus advertises cigarettes one island away

[SL Baur]

Interesting, that's a Malaysian newspaper and Christians are a minority there. Next door in the Philippines, I've seen cigarette ads with Jesus and they're 90% Catholic. I'll try to get a picture when I'm there next week.

Actually, the most offensive thing I ever saw there was a shop with side by side posters on the wall, one of the blonde-haired blue-eyed Catholic Jesus next to Brittney Spears.

Offense is absolutely in the eye of the beholder.

Philadelphia Inquirer didn't pull it

[BShive]

I actually went back to Sunday to make sure it was the same one. Of course, we'll see about next week but you can't apply a blanket statement to all of them.

Course, I shouldn't be too surprised that Philly sez 'bring it'!

Re:Danes did it first...

[mmarlett]

I used to be the editor in chief of an alt-weekly in Wichita, Kansas. I ran all the Danish cartoons with a long editorial about how I got into the business as an editorial cartoonist and could never stand the cowardice of the establishment. There was little public outcry ... just a couple of people telling me I wasn't being sensitive to muslims, which I explained I was aware of doing in the column anyway.

A while later, I was reading a column in the major daily's newspaper about how they were not going to ever print "Opus" because when they ran "Bloom County" in the '80s and '90s it "didn't poll well with readers." Well, it just so happens that "Bloom County" is what inspired me to become an editorial cartoonist and therefore what got me into the newspaper business. It was incredibly popular with me and all my friends, so I guess it was just the newspaper wanting to hold on to the geriatric (dead and dying) readers. So I wrote the Washington Post Writers Group (the "Opus" syndicator) this story and asked them if I could get an affordable deal on running "Opus" in my alt weekly. They sold it to me for about $10 a week.

If I was still editor of that paper, I'd be running that cartoon this week. But they killed it as soon as I left. Of course, it's circulation and popularity has dropped like a rock because the new owner refuses to be controversial in any way. How can you run a weekly and not be an alt-weekly?

Re:Danes did it first...

[anaesthetica]

I used to be the editor in chief of an alt-weekly in Wichita, Kansas. I ran all the Danish cartoons... There was little public outcry...

You rebel you. What with Wichita being that seething hotbed of radical Muslim immigrants. I cannot imagine how awkward it was walking past the mosque after mosque in town with what must be virtually the entire Muslim diaspora of the U.S. glaring at you.

This isn't about Islam

[Simonetta]

This isn't about Islam, it's about the timidity of American newspapers. American newspapers exist mostly now to deliver advertisements to the people who still subscribe. And to provide a warm, old-fashioned 'newspaper reading experience' to their subscribers. They no longer are the primary news source or political support medium that they were 100-50 years ago. Most newspapers are owned by a handful of corporate chains who what the ad revenue flowing in from the local supermarkets and the columns filled with 'kittens stuck in trees' type of stories. The last thing that they want is biting social commentary in their comics sections.

    As you can imagine, newspaper readership is falling. Decades of boring trivia has decimated the numbers of intelligent readers. Plus the endlessly dumbed down writing style which makes every article read as if it were written for middle-school audiences (USA education level for 12-14 year olds). Bland, stupid, boring, and late with the breaking news, newspapers tend to focus on serving the needs of 'the upside of the bell curve' where few Slashdaughters are to be found.

    It's interesting to see that the local heavy advertisers are also developing web sites to showcase their newspaper ads so people with broadband can simply bookmark and download whatever ads that they used to watch in the newspapers. Plus Craig's List and eBay are removing the need for classified ads (along with the tendency of newspapers to put these ads up on their own websites ... I don't understand this).

    So basically newspapers are becoming the prime information source for those people who can't handle going on-line. And those people are fewer every year.

    Again, banning these comics has nothing to do with concern over offending Islam. It has everything to do with ensuring that the newspaper product will be as boring, sanitized, and removed from controversy as humanly possible.

Re:Danes did it first...

[ScrewMaster]

Conversely, part of being civilized is to acknowledge that not everyone thinks the way you do, and that the world is full of offensive people. It just is, it always has been and it always will be, unless you manage to kill anyone and everyone who disagrees with you. Going postal over every offense, imagined or real, will do nothing but making you even more enemies than you've already acquired. Of course, if that's your intent, fine ... but just remember that some people will cheerfully kill you without a second's thought, and for even less reason. That's particularly true if they are threatened by your behavior. Civilization only works when people develop the ability to tolerate each other, at least to the degree that they don't kill each other on sight.

I'm not picking on Muslims per se, either. I feel the precisely same way about the crowd of hypersensitive Christian assholes who go thermonuclear when somebody says something negative about Jesus. My answer to all of them is the same ... grow up and get a goddamn life. Just DEAL with it! To my way of thinking, everyone has the right to go to Hell in their own way. They'd best give me the same respect, though, because otherwise I will do my damnedest to see they get there first!

From my perspective, many of these people (and I don't care how educated or erudite they may be) come across as either powerhungry or just childish. Some people never get past the terrible twos, I swear.

Re:Danes did it first...

[M. Baranczak]

Why did the Ayatollah pronounce death to Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoon guys, but not to the literally thousands of other blasphemous publications out there?

Rushdie didn't just insult Mohamed, he insulted the Ayatollah Khomeini personally. The character in "Satanic Verses" known as The Imam was clearly based on Khomeini, and it ain't a flattering portrait. I'm surprised how few people noticed this.

Re:

[emarkp]

Muslims prohibit any depiction of Mohammad.

That's actually not true. There is a great body of artwork by Muslims depicting Mohammad. It's only a small part of Islam that forbids it. The same kind of nutjobs that blow up centuries-old statues for their crazy beliefs.

Re:

[halfcuban]

Except, it doesn't take being a Muslim to beat your wife. In fact, American men, whom demographically are not overwhelmingly Muslim, seem to be okay beating their wives to the tune of 22% of all women have been physically assaulted at some point in their lives.

This is not to suggest that Islamic countries, or the misogyny of Muslim men, should get a pass, but frankly I'm tired of this double standard passing around people in the West that we are a font of perfection. The Christopher Hitchen's of the worl

Re:Fuck all panderers and Muslims

[d3ac0n]

Except that you are completely and totally missing the point.

Nobody (and I mean NOBODY) is claiming that Western society is free of injustice and evil. We have our problems and we know it. However, unlike the societies that Islam is in total control of, Western Society generally abhors and works to eliminate those problems. Wife beating (or any form of domestic abuse) is one of these problems.

We here in the west find spousal abuse of be vile and disgusting, and work to eliminate it. Islam, on the other hand, actually ESPOUSES wife beating when one's wife is "Disobedient". IE: she doesn't act like the slave she is. See The Quran, Sura 4, verses 17-34, specifically verse 34:

004.034
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Contrast this to Christianity, where men are instructed to treat their wives with respect and kindness:

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

Ephesians 5:28
In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Colossians 3:19
Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

There are more, but the point is, that the contrast between Islam and the other great religions of the world could not be more stark. Western society, which is generally based around the Judeo-Christian ethos also stands in contrast to Islam.

Are we in the West perfect? Hell no! Does this mean that we should not then condemn the abject barbarism of a backwards and genocidal religion like Islam? Hell no.

Re:

[earnest murderer]

Yes, that is exactly what this news article is trying to imply.

Damnit. I totally missed that. So what is the rule about open/closed hands?

Correct Image Link to Cartoon

[giafly]

The Sunday cartoonist "Opus" is no conservative but he has just let himself go enough to joke a little about Islam. Bad move! A lot of papers that normally take it will not run this Sunday's cartoon. I have reproduced it above.

There is a full-size version [1] here [imageshack.us]

As you can see, it is not in fact laughing at Islam. It is laughing at his fellow Berkeleyites, if anything. - Stop The ACLU blog

I dislike censorship, so if you want offensive cartoons on this subject, visit 7chan, gaia online etc., (but no

Re:

[_Shad0w_]

Are you sure about that? I don't think I'd trust some of the more fundamental Christians not to do it.

Re:

[Guppy06]

"Christians aren't going to start murdering innocents if you make fun of them in a comic."

Does the phrase "Lord's Resistance Army" not ring a bell?

Ever seen the nanny?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Yeah yeah, commercial sitcom, we are above that. Sure but in that show plenty of jokes are made about jews. No problem. Other entertainment makes fun of religion as well, and apart from a few protests and boycots it just goes by. Life of Brain made fun of jesus, how many people were killed in the following riots?

In "the west" in modern times we have more or less come to an understanding that it is NOT okay to inflict your believes upon everyone else. It is also acceptable to be made fun off, even if you do not like it because freedom of speech is more important then your hurt feelings. Because sooner or later everything is going to hurt someone.

And suddenly the west finds itself with a group that seeks to go back to the dark ages. I am NOT talking about islam here, I am talking about religous fundementalists who once again seek to enforce their worldview upon everyone else, through force if need be. These fundies exist among ALL religions right now, jews in Israel voicing opions that would make hitler blush, christian fundies seeking to censor all media, india got its share of religious extremist and offcourse there is a sub-group of muslims seeking to make sharia the law worldwide.

Yet something really dangerous is occuring. The jews are far too small a group to be noticed, the christians are too corrupt, the hindoes barely matter in the western world but the muslims, now they seem to have gained a lot of control.

For instance, holland does not like the pope (catholic), not even the dutch catholic do. Any attempt by the pope to say that holland should do this or that is just laughed off. Yet if muslims speak, well, then the dutch quake in their boots. How come the catholic religous leader is safe to ignore but muslim religous leaders are not?

Offcourse there are differences, the pope doesn't even control his own country Italy much (see gay marriage and abortion laws), while entire countries are controlled by Islam. It is safe to make fun of a old guy in a silly dress, not so safe of the leaders who control your oil supply.

Your question is wether it would have been the same if this comic made fun of jews (why this religion and not say christianity, the majority religon in the US), then tell me this. When was the last time such a comic was banned? A movie? A play? A book? A song?

Judge the banned material on its own merits, then ask yourselve if the same reaction would have occured has another religion een involved.

You can either have freedom of speech or you can try to appease one group with long toes. But be aware, the first time you do that, another group will take notice, and will want to be protected as well. If you had your way, pretty soon you would no longer be able to publish anything anyone disapproved off.

That might suit you, afterall you call Opus, about as harmless a comic as you can get, tasteless. What next, censor garfield for walking around without pants?

Re:

[vidarh]

I assume you think that comic made fun of muslims.

But why? It did not ridicule their beliefs in any way. In fact, it started off by distinguishing "radical islamist" from even muslim fundamentalism. The only way it possibly made fun of anyone was in caricaturing the way some muslims dress. Is that not allowed? We caricature how non-muslims dress all the time. But it makes no fun of muslims beliefs.

The butt of the joke are two fictional white middle class characters - one whose chauvinistic tendencies sh

Re:

[Just Some Guy]

As a web developer, I have little sympathy for people who break site navigation and then complain that they can't navigate. There's no sin in using a session cookie to provide dynamic content.

Having said that, my browser supports cookies (Opera on a DS both with and without a cookie management proxy, HoTTProxy) and I still get that message. I'm not very sympathetic to that brokenness, either.

Re:

[QuickFox]

How can you not know Opus/Bloom County?

Some people live outside the United States. You know, the rest of the world? Other countries? The other...

*Sigh!* Never mind.

Nonsense

[ebcdic]

There seems to be a view in America that something is only censorship if the government does it. This is nonsense. It's just that in America the constitution *prevents* the government from doing it. It's still censorship even if it's legal.

Sarcasm is dead.

[Gary W. Longsine]

No need to have heard of this strip, nor Bloom County for it to be fairly amusing. You can tell with a name like "Lola Granola" and the fact that there are references in this strip to prior spiritual quests that this character is somewhat weak minded, always adopting some new life philosophy handed to her by people who, really, seek to control her (or people in general) for whatever their own desired gain happens to be.

• Cult leaders want money and blow jobs.
  
• Various religious nut jobs want enough bodies to win the last election, the one that votes in their particular flavor of nut job theocracy (i.e. the final one, as opposed to the prior one).
  
• Radical religious nut jobs want canon fodder, or bomb-belt fodder, or kill a doctor for Christ and spend the rest of your life behind bars fodder.
  

There are lots of different kinds of nut jobs, these are just some examples which will be familiar.

The punch line includes an element of irony. Steve's girlfriend will be submissive, and he likes that idea, until he realizes that he's also probably not going to get laid. It's a slapstick punch line to cap off what is really a more sophisticated sarcasm [wikipedia.org].

Of course, if you don't realize that this happens all the time, perhaps it's not so amusing. Stories of completely insipid "spiritual quests" like that of Lola Granola appear from time to time in the infotainment media. They always seem to be stories of weak minded people who must have a life philosophy handed to them on a platter, but somehow manage to reject one or two or three in a row before finding "the right one". The infotainment media inevitably dishes out these stories deadpan, like we're supposed to learn something from these people who clearly have demonstrated one overarching trait, which is a militant refusal to think critically.

Every time I see a story like this, I'm amazed that nobody ever points this out. Rational analysis, basic logic, and skepticism are not taught, and most people don't manage to acquire it on their own.

Here's the most recent example of a Lola Granola-style spiritual quest trumpeted as heroic in the media: Rejecting radical Islam -- one man's journey (Daveed Gartenstein-Ross ) [cnn.com]. Note the headline, then read the story. This dude didn't reject radical islam, he wandered aimlessly through major religions and dangerous philosophies, trying each on like a new shirt. Now he's apparently working for the FBI. I hope that this guy is closely and carefully supervised by somebody with stronger pro-democracy, free-thinking, free-living convictions. And for freedom's sake, don't give him a gun or access to any important secrets.

So, if you're aware that this stuff can happen in real life, the strip is really very amusing, subtle, and funny.

Re:

[808140]

To be fair, the comics that one was a response to -- the ones published in Denmark which were supposedly an affront to Islam -- weren't actually funny, either. Like this one, they were at best provocative for the sake of it, and at worst racist.

I think the Muslims in this case have a good point -- all cultures have their sacred cows. Islam feels very strongly about producing images of their prophet, which is why (unlike with the religious figures in most religions) you never see paintings of him in mosque

Here.

[Fantastic Lad]

When the middle east is outraged by the murder of a Christian or Jewish baby as much as they are outraged by a picture of Mohammad, then there might be some progress. Until then, muslims can go fuck themselves along with their pediphile pig fucking prophet mohammad.

Oh, come now. Unplug for a minute.

I did a quick (like five minute) scope around and found a ton of stuff. Here's a sampling. . .

Shaykh Muhammed Sayyid al-Tantawi, imam of al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, Egypt: "Attacking innocent people is not courag