Here in the Information Age, it is customary for a major
newspaper to regularly post its contents/articles on its web site.
However, it appears an exception has been made in the case of the Los
Angeles Times and some op-eds written by television host Bill
Maher. The paper has not made two of his recent articles available
for viewing outside the actual hard copy of the paper.
In the print edition of yesterday's Times
(Friday, September 1, 2006, page B13) was a piece written by Maher
entitled, "Praise Allah and pass the hair gel." (More on this below.)
However, the article is nowhere to be found at latimes.com or
anywhere on the internet. (For you suspicious types,
here's an image of the actual article from the paper.)
Lest one think that this episode is an anomaly, this is
not the first time we've noticed this. Back on November 4, 2005, the
Times published an op-ed by Maher entitled, "Is abortion finito with
Alito?" (image).
As we reported at the time
here at Newsbusters, the article began with the line, "President
Bush's new Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, must bomb an abortion
clinic." He then pondered, "Is Alito a decent man with Christian values?
Until he kills a nurse with a pipe bomb, there's no way to be sure."
That op-ed, also, has never been made available by the Times
for internet viewing.
What gives? Has the Los Angeles Times brokered a
special deal with Maher in order to deflect criticism of his more
indignant opinions? The Times has posted other op-eds from Maher
on its site, but why not the two we've cited? What ever happened to that good-ol' fashioned virtue
of "sharing"? Anyone?
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_
Here's some excerpts from Maher's article yesterday
("Praise Allah and pass the hair gel") that the Times apparently
doesn't want too many people to read (emphasis mine):
If converting to Islam is all it takes to get the
terrorists off our backs, then all I have to say is, if you can't
beat 'em, join 'em. This week, when two Fox News journalists
were released by their kidnappers in Gaza, I was shocked. Fox News
has journalists? No, the shocking part of it was that all these two
Westerners had to do to get the blade literally off their necks was
say they were now Muslims.
...
I know what you're thinking: "Bill, if we convert
to Islam, doesn't that mean the terrorists have won?" Well, sort of,
but it's a win-win, because they get to declare victory and we get
to take hair gel on the plane!
...
And the best part: Nothing would really have to
change ... I mean, look around, we don't care for the poor, or defer
to the meek, or avoid judging people - it's not like we're that
committed to Christianity. Seriously, is the Koran that different
from the New Testament? Sex is bad, women are inferior, and when in
doubt, blame the Jews.
...
We're a nation in thrall to religious fanatics
anyway; does it really matter which religion we're in thrall to?
Koran, Bible -- what's the diff? They're both full of moral pieties
and codes of conduct nobody follows anyway, so let's pick the one
that lets us take hair gel on the plane!
And who says liberals don't want to fight the war on
terror? Good grief.
