Friday, September 29, 2006

More Stupidity, Thanks to the Federal Government

Sigh. More evidence that we live in a slightly over-regulated society...
A federal district court judge ruled Wednesday that a retailer may be sued if its website is inaccessible to the blind. The ruling was issued in a case brought by the National Federation of the Blind against Target Corp.

The suit charges that Target's website ( http://www.target.com ) is inaccessible to the blind, and therefore violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act. Target asked the court to dismiss the action by arguing that no law requires Target to make its website accessible. The Court denied Target's motion to dismiss and held that the federal and state civil rights laws do apply to a website such as target.com.
(hat tip: Patterico) For the record, I think Target should make its website accessible to blind people, because I'm guessing the costs would not be terrible and it would make good business sense.

But that's a guess, and that should be their decision -- not one made by a court forcing them to do it. Then again, perhaps we should have considered this when we passed the ADA. Of course, I doubt anyone in Congress wanted to stand up against a law helping the disabled. Or maybe we should consider that Congress has a disability in its inability to see the consequences of badly drafted legislation.

Something to Remember

Jonah Goldberg's column on whether Iraq has created more Jihadists is a must-read...
After 9/11, there were voices on the left warning that an attack on Afghanistan would only perpetuate the dreaded "cycle of violence." Today, Democrats tout their support of that "good" war as proof they aren't soft on terrorism. Fair enough, I suppose. But guess what? That war made us less safe too - if the measure of such things is "creating more terrorists." A Gallup poll taken in nine Muslim nations in February 2002 found that more than three-fourths of respondents considered the liberation of Afghanistan unjustifiable. A mere 9 percent supported U.S. actions. That goes for famously moderate Turkey, where opposition to the U.S. ran three to one, and in Pakistan, where a mere one in 20 respondents took the American side. In other words, before Iraq became the cause celebre of jihadists, Afghanistan was. Does that mean we shouldn't have toppled the Taliban?

...Every serious analysis of the Islamic world today describes a genuine tectonic shift in a vast civilization, an upheaval that cuts across social, religious and demographic lines. This phenomenon dwarfs transient issues such as the Iraq war. Are we to believe that once-moderate and relatively secular Morocco is slipping toward extremism because we toppled Baathist Saddam Hussein? Do we believe that the mobs who burned Danish embassies in response to a cartoon wouldn't have done so if only President Bush had gone for the 18th, 19th or 20th U.N. resolution on Iraq? Millions of young men yearning for meaning and craving outlets for their rage would have become computer programmers and dental hygienists if only Hussein's statue still towered over central Baghdad? Would the pope's comments spark nothing but thoughtful and high-minded debate from the Arab street if only Al Gore or John Kerry were in office?

Iraq is the excuse du jour for jihadists. But the important factor is that these are young men looking for an excuse. If you live your life calculating that it's a mistake to do anything that might prompt murderers and savages to act like murderers and savages, you've basically decided to live under their thumb and surrender your civilization in the process.
That last point is one too many people forget today. Freedom's too easy to sacrifice in the interests of being safe in the short-term. Those who argue against impositions to our civil liberties would do well to recall that, as would those who argue in favor of sacrificing civil liberties for more security. The balance is difficult to find, but Western society's trying to find it, while the extremists in the Middle East want to drag us back several centuries. The Bull Moose nails this point from the left...
The most reactionary force on the planet is Jihadist terrorism. While some liberals fear that the American religious right would return America to the 1950's, the Islamic fascists look to the seventh century as their model. All values, ideals and freedoms that are treasured by liberals would be repealed and eliminated.

Yet, it is the right that is usually identified as the most adamant opponents of the Jihadists. Indeed, the left has increasingly embraced an amoral realism that is more in the conservative tradition than that of liberal internationalism.

Opposition to the Iraq war has much to do with this role reversal. But, it is far from clear that the top priority of the left is the war against the Jihadists. The left even rejects the labeling them fascists even though they advance a totalitarian ideology that is animated by a nihilistic hatred of "the other". It is easy to rant and rail against the American religious right, but where is the sound and fury against the radical Islamists who once again attempted through their violence to intimidate reasoned debate in the West?

...America remains the great hope of liberalism in a world threatened by reactionaries who seek to repeal civilization and return us to the seventh century. For the sake of the soul of progressivism, it is time for liberals to speak these truths.
I'd love to see the Democratic Party re-emerge with voices similar to Cold Warriors like Truman, JFK and Scoop Jackson on foreign policy (and to be fair, I'd also like to see the GOP hew closer to the conservatism of Ronald Reagan on domestic issues). I don't doubt that I would have disagreed with policy proposals put forth by those Democrats during the Cold War, but I don't know that I would fear trusting them with our nation's security. In 2004, I feared trusting John Kerry with that job, and I definitely don't trust Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. Hopefully, that will have changed by 2008 -- I doubt that I would vote for a Democrat, but it would be nice to know that I can consider it.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Suggestions for Signs at the Eagles-Cowboys Game on October 8th

No, I don't have any comment about the alleged suicide attempt/accidental overdose/overhyped media story/ESPN orgy that took place surrounding a certain wide receiver who plays for the team affiliated with the Anti-christ.

But I can't help it if the following suggestions for signs for my fellow Eagles fans crossed my mind...

1. Hey, T.O. -- Can You Swallow a Loss?

2. T.O. -- 25 Million Reasons, 25 Million Lies

3. T.O. and Tuna Go Together Like Pain Meds and Supplements

4. Next Time, T.O., Just Borrow Michael Irvin's Meds

5. If I Lived in Dallas, I'd Be Depressed, Too

6. Dallas Sucks, T.O. Swallows... and Bledsoe Chokes

7. Hey Jerry -- Don't you Know the Rule About Keeping Drugs Away From Children?

Thank God Our Senate Race in Virginia is Focused on the Issues... Not

The Virginia Senate race continues to debate the issues that matter to Virginians -- after all, we're all interested to know which of our candidates used a derogatory racial slur first...
Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, said Tuesday in an e-mail to The Associated Press, "I didn't personally hear GFA (Allen's initials) say the n-word.

"My conclusion is based on the very credible testimony I have heard for weeks, mainly from people I personally know and knew in the '70s," Sabato wrote.

Sabato, a classmate of Allen's at the University of Virginia in the early 1970s, said Monday on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" that he knew Allen had used racial slurs, but declined to say whether he had witnessed them.

Allen, a Republican who had been mentioned as a presidential contender and is now fighting an unexpectedly difficult race for a second U.S. Senate term, had said through a campaign aide that Sabato's claim was inaccurate.

"We're obviously glad that Mr. Sabato clarified his comments," said Dick Wadhams, Allen's campaign manager. "We remain committed to trying to dispel these erroneous stories that have been out there."

Also Tuesday, Allen's Democratic opponent, Jim Webb, declined to say definitively whether he had ever used a racial slur to describe blacks.

"I don't think that there's anyone who grew up around the South that hasn't had the word pass through their lips at one time or another in their life," Webb told reporters.

Webb referred to his novel, "Fields of Fire," which aides said includes passages using the n-word as part of character dialogue. But he added: "I have never issued a racial or ethnic slur."

Asked for clarification of his original answer, spokeswoman Jessica Smith quoted Webb as saying, "I have never used that word in my general vocabulary or in any derogatory way."

She declined to say whether he had ever used the word apart from when he wrote his book.
I'm not sure how Webb's two statements above aren't contradictory, but maybe he's taking lessons from Bill Clinton or something.

As for the charges against Senator Allen, someone needs to explain to me why (a) the statements have never come up before, considering he's run for statewide office repeatedly in the alst decade, (b) why an overwhelming number of past associates and friends are backing him up as never using the term, and (c) whether the Allen campaign will pursue the best tack and aggressively defend itself against these charges.

The original article in Salon had one source who was quoted on the record, with two other quoted anonymously. The left-wing dishrag parrots the same identified source and adds an anthropology professor (and politically active Democrat) who claims he recalls the use of the term at a one-time meeting in the 1980's. Considering the second source's political affiliation and the first's farcical tale of Allen sticking a deer head into a mailbox, I'm apt to question their credibility a little bit. And I find it funny that the dishrag thinks it's important that Allen played a Confederate general in Gods and Generals, but fails to mention sitting U.S. Senator and former Klansmen Robert Byrd (also running for re-election, I believe) did the same thing. But hey, he's a Democrat.

And before someone asks, comparing this to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth doesn't fit. The Swift Boat Vets meticulously documented their charges and featured several people making the charges, a number of which could be easily checked out and confirmed (see Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia claims as an example). I'm still waiting for something that provides tangible proof that the accusations against Allen are anything more than mud-slinging.

To be truthful, this entire exercise actually reminds me of the 1988 Democratic Presidential primaries, where the candidates first didn't want to discuss smoking pot, then jumped forward in a race to see who could admit to it first. This is the same thing in reverse, and it's getting sillier by the minute. Jonah Goldberg had the following apochryphal press release over at the Corner...
Democratic Senate candidate James Webb charged his opponent, Republican Sentor George Allen, of sinking to a "new low" in their increasingly bitter contest. Webb accused Allen of "grotesque immaturity" for calling the former Reagan Administration secretary of the Navy a "super-dooper poopy head."

Mr. Allen responded that "he started it." Adding, "I would never have dreamed of calling him a 'super-dooper poopy head' — though I stand by the factual accuracy of that statement — if he hadn't started with all that I'm-rubber-and-your-glue nonsense."

This latest chapter in the downward spiriling contest seemed to have been sparked by their most recent debate moderated by NBC Washington Bureau Chief, Tim Russert. While answering a question about social security privatization, Allen blurted out "Tim! He's touching me!" Russert told Mr. Webb "Please refrain from touching your opponent." Webb immediately responded "I did not, did not, did not!" and continued to repeat the phrase over and over again with his hands on his ears as Mr. Russert tried to change the issue to the war in Iraq.

An aide to Mr. Webb defended his candidate saying, "Look there's no denying this race has taken a sour turn. But it is a well established fact that it's all Allen's fault and the voters of the Commonwealth of Virginia know that he has cooties."

In a surprise turn of events University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato seemed to indicate that he has personal knowledge that Senator Allen in fact does have cooties, but he would not directly confirm or deny the allegation.
Sadly, that may be more intelligent than anything the press is reporting.

Why Am I Not Surprised?

Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann throw out a stat that makes the case for term limits pretty clear...
This Congress hit the ground stumbling and has not lifted itself into an upright position. With few accomplishments and an overloaded agenda, it is set to finish its tenure with the fewest number of days in session in our lifetimes, falling well below 100 days this year.

This new modern record is even more staggering when one realizes that more than 25 of those days had no votes scheduled before 6:30 p.m., making them half- or quarter-days at best. The typical workweek in Congress (when there is a week spent in Washington) starts late Tuesday evening and finishes by noon Thursday. No wonder satirist Mark Russell closes many of his shows by telling his audiences what members of Congress tell their colleagues every Wednesday: "Have a nice weekend."

This part-time Congress has other parallels to the famous "Do-Nothing 80th Congress" that Harry Truman ran against successfully in 1948. The output of the 109th is pathetic measured against its predecessors and considering its priorities, which included a comprehensive immigration bill, tax reform and the research and development tax credit, lobbying and ethics reform, healthcare costs and insurance coverage, trade agreements, procedures for the detention and trial of suspected terrorists, and regulations for the oversight of domestic wiretaps, among many others. With just days to go before Congress adjourns and the fiscal year begins, not a single one of the 11 appropriations bills that make up the range of government programs has been enacted into law.
Working less than 100 days... ye Gods. What's hysterical is the idea that anti-incumbent fever running wild will probably produce a turnover of less than 15%, no matter what happens. A sturctural change is necessary to clean out the cesspool.

Reasons I Don't Live in New Jersey...

Somewhere in South Jersey, the Lord of Truth is smiling...

U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez's closest political adviser was secretly recorded seven years ago boasting of political power and urging a Hudson county contractor to hire somone as a favor to Menendez, according to a transcript obtained by The Star-Ledger.

Tonight Menendez's campaign says he has severed his ties with the adviser, Donald Scarinci, after learning of the taped conversation.

Menendez and Scarinci were childhood friends and Scarinci, a prominent attorney with extensive contracts in state and local governments, has been a key fundraiser for the senator throughout his long political career.

Scarinci was recorded in 1999 by Oscar Sandoval, a Union City psychatrist who had contracts with the county jail and hospital in Hudson County, according to two people familiar with the tapes who requested anonymity because the recordings are evidence in a pending lawsuit.

A transcript of the recorded telephone conversation was obtained by The Star-Ledger and verified by the two sources. In it, Scarinci urged Sandoval to hire another physician, Vincente Ruiz, telling him: "Menendez will consider that a favor."

Matt Miller, spokesman for Menendez's campaign, said tonight: "If this transcript is accurate, then Scarinci was using Menendez's name without his authorization or his knowledge. That was a lapse in judgement on his part and because of it, he will no longer have any role in our campaign."

Menendez, locked in a tight U.S. Senate election race against Republican Tom Kean Jr., is already facing political fallout from a federal investigation into a rental deal he had with a non-profit organization in Union City years ago.
I don't the Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid remembered to check with New Jersey before starting on their "Culture of Corruption" theme last spring.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Donuts -- Apparently, There IS Something They Can't Do

I'm still waiting for my Libertarian friends to take offense to the continued trend toward banning smoking everywhere. Of course, most people are very happy about the smoking ban in restaurants and bars, since they seem to believe the seemingly small infringement on the freedom of private businesses to decide if customers can use perfectly legal products while frequenting their establishment is okay, in light of the fact that it helps the comfort level of most people.

Hey, I can sympathize -- I suffer from asthma, for crying out loud. I still don't think it's a good idea to ban smoking in restaurants, let alone outdoors. I think we're better off letting private businesses make their own choices.

With that being said, look what New York City is thinking about banning now...
Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.

The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the city's 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil.

Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils and turn up in foods from pie crusts to french fries to doughnuts.

Doctors agree that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the restaurant industry said he was stunned the city would seek to ban a legal ingredient found in millions of American kitchens.

"Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable," said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the city's chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association.

He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves.

The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonald's french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin' Donuts.

Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for restaurants, but he said trans fats can easily be replaced with substitute oils that taste the same or better and are far less unhealthy.

"It is a dangerous and unnecessary ingredient," Frieden said. "No one will miss it when it's gone."
(hat tip: Ace of Spades) You know, no one will miss the right to eat Oreos, or Krispy Kremes, or beef. Let's bar those as well. And these restarants need to make omelets using egg beaters or egg whites, since real eggs have too much cholesterol. Let's also make sure everyone eats three meals a day at the appropriate times -- restaurants should close after 10 PM. And let's make certain that everyone's thin -- that's important too, so free liposuction for all.

Yes, I'm making a silly slippery slope argument. I generally hate those, but the parade of horribles does serve a purpose -- who are these bureaucrats to be making decisions for you about what you can and can't consume? Are trans fats so toxic that they're going to kill you tomorrow? And why can't they make other decisions for you? Where is the line?

To be fair, I don't have a problem with companies responding to public pressure to stop using ingredients like trans fats. And if the government wants to inform people about the dangers of eating this stuff, I can live with it. But this paternalistic crap is ridiculous.

Meanwhile, I'm having a donut later. If my wife lets me.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Another Take on Clinton-Wallace

I should just defer to Scrappleface...
The remark follows Mr. Clinton's vigorous defense of his administration's virtual assassination of al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden. Indeed, a spokesman for Mr. Bin Laden confirmed that during the Clinton administration, the al Qaeda leader felt "nearly threatened."
Or constipated. He's probably not sure which one it was.

Who's the AP Rooting For?

Michelle Malkin rips the Associated Press a new one for either willfully or ignorantly closing their eyes to the possibility of one of their photographers working with terrorists in Iraq. In the Boston herald over the weekend, Jules Crittenden asked some salient questions about the Bilal Hussein case and the AP's reporting...
In late 2004, as the U.S. military was moving to rid Fallujah of the terrorists who controlled it, the AP wanted some eyes inside the city. It hired Bilal Hussein. He gave the AP photos of insurgents setting up ambushes and firing at Americans. He gave them photos of terrorists posing with their freshly slaughtered victims. His pictures helped the AP win a Pulitzer Prize.

...Last week, the AP gave us a lengthy series on the U.S. detention of terrorism suspects. The AP’s opinion was evident. Bilal Hussein was the poster boy. The salient fact that Hussein was captured with an al-Qaeda leader was buried. Al-Qaeda has killed and abducted dozens of journalists, Iraqi, American and European. Mainly Iraqi. I wonder: What’s so special about this particular Iraqi journalist that he could associate freely with al-Qaeda?

I look at Hussein’s photos. Terrorists trying to kill Americans. Terrorists posing with dead civilians. Bilal Hussein knows things about these men, who they are, how they operate. I’m thinking, Bilal Hussein looks like an accessory to murder. I’m thinking, I hope the U.S. intelligence agents who have him are getting good information out of him. And I’m wondering, who does The Associated Press want to win this war?
(hat tip: Instapundit) I don't know if I can answer Crittenden's last question. Actually, I can, but I'll let you guess.

Why Does Clinton Matter?

Having watched the Chris Wallace verbal skirmish with Bill Clinton, I can only conclude one thing -- Clinton is still Bubba, but he's increasingly less relevant to the world in which we live.

There's plenty of points to debate out of the interview. I can think of three main questions:

1. Did Clinton do an effective job fighting Islamic terrorists?
2. Did he get support or grief from the right for his efforts?
3. Was he unfairly hamstrung by his political opposition or was it his own peccadillos?

Here's the sad thing -- none of these questions is truly relevant or important to actually fighting the War on Terror.

Look, I don't think President Clinton did a good job against terrorism in the 1990's, but I consider most of his foreign policy to be feckless. But even that's not the point. It's fair to state that Clinton didn't do enough, but it's also correct to point out that neither did anyone else. Bubba gets the heat because he was the head chef, but the rest of the folks involved (the GOP Congress, the media, the American people) were barely more interested in the issue. Ed Morrissey says something similar here...
For five years, we have rehashed this long and embarrassing history of American cluelessness. It is a bipartisan history, with both Republicans and Democrats arguing at various times that administrations used terrorism as an excuse for their political benefit. All it does is poison the atmosphere and allow hyperpartisans to play gotcha games with political opponents.

The time has come -- it has long since come -- for that history to become just that: history. None of us can pretend that Bill Clinton could ever have declared war on al-Qaeda in the manner Bush did without having a 9/11-type event as a catalyst. Not only would the Left have screamed much as they do now, albeit without the Hugo Chavez-type conspiratorial thinking, Republicans would have never given Clinton the kind of support needed to send American troops into Afghanistan. The political climate had been thoroughly poisoned by the time of the African bombings and Congress would never have put aside its deathmatch with Clinton to unite in a war effort, especially against a band of terrorists most Americans didn't know existed.

All of this is prologue to 9/11, and none of the debate changes the fact that two decades of leadership dropped the ball on the rise of Islamist terrorism. Blaming one without blaming them all has solved nothing and teaches nothing. More to the point, it divides the nation for no purpose, and five years after 9/11, it's time we stopped allowing it.
I don't think we can stop allowing it, but we can stop engaging in it. Very few people were focused on the issue the way we needed to focus on it prior to 9/11. Think back to the 2000 election. Remember all those questions Gore and Bush fielded on terrorism in the debates? No, neither do I.

Of course, Clinton brought the tempest back with a vengeance with his response to Wallace. With most people, I'd say this just points to Wallace touching a nerve with a sensitive question, but I tend not to give a politician as gifted as Bill Clinton that little credit -- if this isn't Bubba having a calculated response, I'd be stunned.

However, as one must always note, he does get some crucial facts wrong. Jake Tapper nails the biggest mistake in pointing out the fact that the folks raising the "Wag the Dog" scenario were coming from the mainstream media far more than the right. Tapper points out that the missile attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan following the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania received full support from Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, National Review and Pat Buchanan. Even critical Republicans, like Dan Coats, caught flak for raising the "Wag the Dog" charge. The always informative Tom Maguire backs Tapper up.

Meanwhile, Jim Geraghty assails Clinton's claim that no one knew that Osama was at work in Somalia by noting that the Justice Department later issued an indictment to this effect and the media noted it as early as 1994 (and Maguire's piece noted the same). Contrary to Clinton's challenge that the Bush Administration never received these questions from Fox News, Patterico points out that Wallace asked Don Rumsfeld essentially the same questions more than two years ago; he also notes that Richard Clarke contradicted Clinton's assertion that a counter-terrorism plan was left in place for Bush by Clinton, and that Clinton is wrong to assert that Clarke was fired. And Andrew McCarthy points out that it's difficult to draw any conclusions if we don't know what papers Sandy Berger tried to purloin from the National Archives.

Does any of this matter? Not really. Clinton's efforts against terrorism in the 1990's weren't enough. But no one else was screaming about it being insufficient, left or right. Jonah Goldberg has it right...
Look: as far as I'm concerned nobody colored themselves in too much glory prior to 9/11. But al Qaeda rose to power in the 1990s largely in response to the Clinton administration's failure to take numerous provocations seriously enough. I honestly don't see how that can be denied. Republicans should have pushed Clinton to do the right thing, and didn't. I don't see how that can be denied. And when Bush came to office, he didn't do enough in those eight months prior to the attacks. That's undebiable too. Everyone deserves blame. The question is how should it be divided up.
I don't care how the blame gets divided. I want to know where to go from here. Rehashing the past doesn't accomplish much at this point. I guess it helps Clinton and his defenders to try to keep additional stains off his legacy (yes, sorry for the pun) or Clinton detractors to further tarnish him. But much like Bill himself, the issue is increasingly irrelevent. We can learn from the mistakes of the past, but obsessing over whose fault they were isn't going to give us an answer for the future.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Here's to South Park

It is stunning to realize that South Park is ten years old.

As my friends know, I am a huge Simpsons fan. It was a ground-breaking show, and it still has some of the best comedy on television (the "Kiss Kiss Bang Bangalore" episode last season was particularly hilarious). And it effectively launched the career of Conan O'Brien.

But South Park is the more important television show.

The Simpsons broke some taboos, but South Park smashes them. And does so with utter joy. And unlike with Family Guy (which is good, but a tad bit overrated and nowhere near as socially important as the other two hows), South Park retains the ability to smash taboos while presenting a clear and coherent storyline -- something that's even plagued The Simpsons on occasion.

There are times when Trey Parker and Matt Stone miss the boat completely and leave their audience wondering what the hell they were thinking. But there are too many moments of sheer brilliance where they mock and maim all manner of orthodox beliefs -- the moments that make the show worthwhile and offensive all in one glorious piece.

Quite honestly, this is one of the most educational shows in contemporary America -- it's a great teaching piece on free speech, religion and current events. I know there are plenty of people of conservatives who find the show offensive, but the best part of this show is that Parker and Stone have decided that nothing is sacred. As one example, they've mocked gay people (see Mr. Garrison and Mr. Slave), gay culture trends (see the episode where all the men become metrosexuals), gay marriage opponents (an episode where Mr. Garrison convinces the Governor to rely upon a study of same-sex marriage he's conducting, where two of the boys are being told to take care of an egg) and Tom Cruise (hehe). The best part is, they get it, as noted in this article by Jake Tapper...
"What we've stood behind for 10 years is: It's got to all be OK or none of it is," Parker told ABC's "Nightline." "Because as soon as you start picking, 'Well, OK, we won't do this,' then all of a sudden the ones you did about that shouldn't be OK either. So we were starting to say, 'I don't know that this is a world that 'South Park' can live in.'"

"South Park" has been vilified as crude, disgusting and nihilistic, and the eagerness of Stone and Parker to impale every sacred cow they can reach is a major reason for its success. After all, in the fictional town of South Park, Colo. — home to third-graders Kenny, Kyle, Stan and the evil Cartman — everything is fair game. Even the Prophet Mohammed, who appeared as a superhero in a July 2001 episode called "The Super Best Friends."

"People told us at the time, 'You can't really draw an image of Mohammed,'" Parker says. "And we were like, well, we can. We're not Muslim, so it's OK."

In 2006, however, when Stone and Parker wanted to depict Mohammed in an episode, Comedy Central wouldn't let them. After all, Muslims worldwide had rioted over insulting depictions of Mohammed in a newspaper in Denmark.

It seemed odd to the creators of "South Park," who had been and were still allowed to depict Jesus in any number of profane ways. In fact, the episode in question, "Cartoon Wars," shows a cartoon (supposedly created by al Qaeda) in which Jesus defecates on President Bush.

"That's where we kind of agree with some of the people who've criticized our show," Stone says. "Because it really is open season on Jesus. We can do whatever we want to Jesus, and we have. We've had him say bad words. We've had him shoot a gun. We've had him kill people. We can do whatever we want. But Mohammed, we couldn't just show a simple image."

During the part of the show where Mohammed was to be depicted — benignly, Stone and Parker say — the show ran a black screen that read: "Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network."

Other networks took a similar course, refusing to air images of Mohammed — even when reporting on the Denmark cartoon riots — claiming they were refraining because they're religiously tolerant, the South Park creators say.

"No you're not," Stone retorts. "You're afraid of getting blown up. That's what you're afraid of. Comedy Central copped to that, you know: 'We're afraid of getting blown up.'"

"At the same time, just like we always do, we managed to get something on and say something about how we can't say something about Mohammed," Parker says.

...The two offer mock-apologies to anyone offended by their show.

"Part of living in the world today is you're going to have to be offended," Stone says. "The right to be offended and the right to offend is why we have a First Amendment. If no speech was offensive to anybody, then you wouldn't need to guarantee it."
Damn right. Thanks for ten great years, guys. We hope there are many more.