Attention, Hot Air Christmas shoppers
posted at 7:02 am on December 9, 2007 by Michelle
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Just arrived!
In addition to all our regular Hot Air gear and merchandise, we’re offering Christmas shoppers a new item: limited edition Mohammed Teddy Bears. Each cuddly Mo Bear costs $18.50, which includes shipping and handling. (Note: We can only accept domestic orders inside the U.S.)
They’d be great to pair up with an “I Will Not Submit” tee or bumper sticker. Treat yourselves.
Or send one to your favorite local CAIR official.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Pablo, please comment more at HA.
If you send the teddy to CAIR, carefully address it:
To: CAIR
c/o Public Relations
Also, might want to send one to KMart/Sears’ Customer Relations for the Holiday Trees dept.
Entelechy on December 9, 2007 at 1:50 PM
The point made about the opposition to the dung art is that s was “publicly funded” is germane.
I personally find that type of irreverent art to be crap physically and metaphorically.
However if a group of Christians started lopping off heads because of it, then I will side with the turd sculptors every time.
Freedom of expression must win over fanatical Isms.
Moreover we are at war with a people that would not hesitate to blow up an elementary school.
They are not restrained by the Geneva convention or even common decency.
They chop off heads on video for your entertainment pleasure.
They want to kill you, me, Rosie O’Donnell, and Sean Penn,
They abuse, mutilate, and subjugate their women.
They will use their own children as smart bombs and praise them for it.
Everything they stand for is 100% against freedom, the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers.
I support any type of torture technique that yields results. The only problem I see with water boarding is they should use pig urine instead of water.
TheSitRep on December 9, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Naming a cute Teddy Bear Mohammad could give impressionable little kids the idea that Mohammad was good.
I much prefer a Big Ugly Rat named Mo.
MB4 on December 9, 2007 at 1:57 PM
JiangxiDad on December 9, 2007 at 11:44 AM
I like your comments a lot JxD, but what’s the matter with you today? The Danish cartoons, a few, very few other gestures, and this Teddy, send a powerful signal, and ridicule the absurdity of 3rd century thinking/behaving. Above all they are an expression/support of Freedom of Speech, for which all of us should fight like crazy, from the left to the right.
TheSitRep on December 9, 2007 at 1:51 PM
All, except the last sentence!
Entelechy on December 9, 2007 at 1:59 PM
I’m in Canada, so I can’t order one, but… I have a sneaky feeling that Hooper’ll be getting a few of these, and other stuff along the same lines soon, if he hasn’t already. Of course, he’ll consider it to be “hate speech” and over-react accordingly.
Frozen Tex on December 9, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Heh, this Teddy is for big kids.
Entelechy on December 9, 2007 at 2:01 PM
The difference between this and the “Piss Christ” and “My Sweet Lord” outrages is simple. The latter two were intended to offend. The teacher naming a bear Mohammed is just about the most innocuous thing in the world. The line separating reasonable and unreasonable outrage lies somewhere between having your savior’s name associated with a cute teddy bear and having your savior dumped in excrement.
Plus, chopping off heads (or calling for chopping off heads) is never a reasonable form of outrage.
viking999 on December 9, 2007 at 2:09 PM
MB4 – “Naming a cute Teddy Bear Mohammad could give impressionable little kids the idea that Mohammad was good.”
That’s what I was thinkin’ too. When my daughter is old enough for Barbies, I’m gonna get her Barbie in a Marine Corps uniform.
Tony737 on December 9, 2007 at 2:24 PM
IF YOUR OPPONENT IS OF CHOLERIC TEMPER, SEEK TO IRRITATE HIM…Sun Tzu, Art of War, 1.22
Turn them into frothing Dervishes with a thousand teddy bear style stunts. They are stupid enough to blow their feet completely off in every first assault. And the PR is solid gold.
BL@KBIRD on December 9, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Very good points, every one of them true.
Just guess I was thinking that even though the general Sudanese reaction certainly wasn’t “a reasonable form of outrage,” and it does deserve to be made fun of, it would perhaps, for the sake of the “reasonable” Muslims–mostly here in the U.S.–be better not to appear to be intentionally directing ridicule at their views on what things they don’t like naming after their prophet, however silly we find those views. (I thought both the Jesus and the Mohammed bears were really cute.)
We have enough to condemn and criticize Islam over. Why purposely antagonize even moderate U.S. Muslims, I guess I was thinking, over their perception of reverence.
Of course none of my maybe foolish concern about reaching out to the “reasonable” ones, applies to the death threateners and that court who claimed that intent was supposed to make a difference in Sudanese law, then sentenced her anyway, and that farce of a “pardon” (of what crime?) when she shouldn’t have been formally charged in the first place.
I say “maybe foolish” cause how many of them came forward to protest the real outrage against the teacher?
inviolet on December 9, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Why not just live our lives exercising our freedom. That freedom that’s been bought and paid for with blood and sacrifice, indeed is still being paid for today. If others choose to be offended when offense is not meant then they need to change not us. I know the teacher was British but they fought for their freedom too. I still agree with JiangxiDad though, that she was a dumbass do gooder! And she was in a strange land without a clue.
Oldnuke on December 9, 2007 at 3:04 PM
True.
Isn’t that one of the intents of this bear, meant to offend the radicals? *sigh* I guess moderate Muslims (if there really is such a thing) are just collateral damage in this proper and well deserved protest against radicals.
Don’t mean to be disagreeable, and sure hope I’m wrong. From the reaction I’m hearing I suppose I am. Gotta go lead church youth group now; hope y’all have a good evening.
inviolet on December 9, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Speaking only for myself, I believe the intent was to ridicule the absurdity of the entire episode.
hillbillyjim on December 9, 2007 at 3:17 PM
I can’t believe that any truly moderate Muslim, (excluding the fake ones), would find the Mohammed bear the least bit offensive. No more than Christians would find the Jesus bear offensive. If “moderate” Muslims find the bear offensive then they’re being misclassified as moderate in the first place.
FloatingRock on December 9, 2007 at 3:47 PM
You’re not being disagreeable, you’re voicing a viewpoint. I just agree with hillbillyjim, I think the intent was to ridicule the absurdity of the issue, not Muslims or their religion. I could be wrong, maybe someone will clarify for us.
Oldnuke on December 9, 2007 at 6:02 PM
When you’re ready for a “C.A.I.R.” Bear…
http://msunderestimated.com/2007/12/03/ready-for-a-cair-bear/
oldleprechaun on December 9, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Cute teddy bear,Michelle you have fulfilled the little
Mohammed bear dream,so excellent.
The only Muslims that will take any offence to the jokes,
or ridiculing are the ones already past the point of no-return,have made their minds up to meet the Virgins,the ones that have already been schooled since birth,and
maybe through the grace of G!d,maybe one might see the
light!
The moderates,the fence sitters,don’t they usually go the way of opinion,and really it’s humour,nobody is going out
of their way to be malicious,and if your offended,sorry,
but don’t go overboard,and the only way to make it right
(in your own twisted mind)is to !urder someone.
The bottom line is if your going to snap at a percieved
slight,or think it’s an insult,or seek that honour back
(again warped thinking),at Mohammed bear,the Koran,then
your in the third century,and nothing will or could bring
you up to the speed of the 21ST century,those are the
Muslims that will forever be offended.
canopfor on December 9, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Nothing foolish about you, inviolet. You’re just thinking way ahead of our time.
RushBaby on December 9, 2007 at 8:49 PM
I think Michelle’s Mo Bear is cuter. If it wern’t for the fact that I’m too old for teddy bears and too young to pawn it off as having children, I’d get one. Have the picture saved. It really is adorable.
BKennedy on December 9, 2007 at 9:55 PM
I’m a neo-con who feels political correctness is probably the single greatest threat to our freedom, not to mention our will to decisively defeat foreign aggression. But I have to question making a sacrilege of another major religion your centerpiece. Sure, we need to forcefully reject radical Muslim intolerance. But why offend those of that faith generally? What useful purpose does it serve? Why paint with such a broad brush?
petefrt on December 9, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Behead those who insult Islam! Destroy the great Satan! Kill the Cartoonists!
Oh, and Islam is peace.
Please, no one made the idiots in Darfur riot in the streets over a Teddy bear. They deserve our utmost contempt. The only places moderate muslims could be found protesting the overreaction is in countries where Sharia is not the law of the land.
BKennedy on December 9, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Besides, this is easily the most adorable, kid friendly, “make the point softly” sacrilege to ever exist.
BKennedy on December 9, 2007 at 10:04 PM
BKennedy, are you suggesting all Muslims deserve our disrespect?
petefrt on December 9, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Because some of our countrymen volunteer to defend, armed with training, discipline, and weaponry, on the front lines. And those of us on the home front are left with the choices won by their sacrifice. One of those choices is to take up the splendid and potent weapon of mockery and scorn. Be proud to be in the ranks that deploy psychological warfare.
RushBaby on December 9, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Petefrt, are you a Monte Python fan by any chance?
FloatingRock on December 9, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Some who call themselves Christians dishonor the religion, just as some Muslims dishonor theirs, do they not? And these are minorities within both religions, I think, so why use them to bash the entire religion? It just seems to cloud the issues, rather than facilitating clear thought.
petefrt on December 9, 2007 at 10:24 PM
FloatingRock, not especially. Just a libertarian conservative agnostic. First a libertarian conservative.
petefrt on December 9, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Cloud the issues? No. Demand reasoned and thoughtful discussion of the issues, more like it. You have been a long time reader and commenter on HA, so you know it’s a pretty-much free-for-all. Any muslim commenter would be greeted here with intense interest — and scrutinization of their thoughts. Plus those who would defend his (/her) comments so they could be heard.
RushBaby on December 9, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Cloud the issues?
RushBaby on December 9,2007 at 10:33PM
RushBaby:Mega Megaton ditto’s,hey I see your posts
are getting bigger,excellent,and like you
said,everyone is welcome.
canopfor on December 9, 2007 at 10:44 PM
(((canopfor)))
RushBaby on December 9, 2007 at 10:49 PM
No matter, I assume you realize that much of their material is blasphemously hilarious. Offending religious people is a lot of fun because it’s such a simple thing to do and their reactions are so easy to predict! [Floatingrock dives behind a cement wall to avoid interception of a barrage of rotten tomatoes]
FloatingRock on December 9, 2007 at 10:51 PM
I’m cement-ish. I’ll defend you whenever I see you.
RushBaby on December 9, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Me too, JD.
petefrt on December 9, 2007 at 10:58 PM
FloatingRock seems to show little respect for individual integrity, a centerpiece of conservatism.
petefrt on December 9, 2007 at 11:07 PM
All set up and ready for the spike. FR, you wanna take it, or shall ?
RushBaby on December 9, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Individual integrity? A centerpiece of conservatism? Please explain.
I always thought that freedom, liberty, tolerance and responsibility were the centerpieces of conservatism, or at least some of the most important ones.
FloatingRock on December 9, 2007 at 11:25 PM
:)
Thanks, I’ll let you take the next one, I’m going to go watch Monte Python’s Life of Brian. I love the scene when the legion of Roman soldiers keep searching that guys home and never find the conspirators.
FloatingRock on December 9, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Respect for individualism, as contrasted to group identity, distinguishes us from them. Religion, one might speculate, goes to the core of individualism. Understand?
petefrt on December 9, 2007 at 11:41 PM
No, I don’t. Please explain it in context to the discussion at hand, and more importantly, how it relates to my comment above, which you were responding to. How is a cute little teddy bear a threat to individual integrity?
FloatingRock on December 9, 2007 at 11:49 PM
lolBear
Asher on December 9, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Or alternatively, how is Monte Python and/or humor a threat to individual integrity?
FloatingRock on December 9, 2007 at 11:56 PM
While it’s a cute little Teddy, it’s more than that. It’s a Mo bear. It’s an intentional slight on Islam, on the religion and its believers generally. Now I wouldn’t normally single out a matter like this for criticism, but it’s a shame to make it a HA centerpiece, IMO.
Conservatives value individualism. We guard the integrity of each individual. This would include religious belief, at the core of one’s individuality, provided it’s reasonable, honest and bona fide belief.
When we ridicule an entire religion on the basis of its radicals, especially a major world religion, we’re not just being unfair, but also impractical and unpragmatic. We’re clouding the issues and making decisions about diplomacy and warfare more elusive
It defies common sense to suggest that most Muslims, especially those in our country, are our enemies. Maybe in France. But not here. Not yet, anyway.
petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 12:26 AM
I’m sure you’re dog will just LOVE it! :)
FloatingRock on December 10, 2007 at 12:30 AM
I think you’re giving the teddy bear WAY to much credit.
FloatingRock on December 10, 2007 at 12:34 AM
I love what you said. But my point is we’d do better with a rifle, not a shotgun. Let’s take a sharp[er aim at our enemy.
petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 12:38 AM
I’m in favor of humor at the expense of any group or public figure whether they’re an enemy or not, but especially if they’re an enemy. The world would be a miserable place without humor. Screw rifles and shotguns, I prefer the steamroller approach.
FloatingRock on December 10, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Yes, a long time poster and also a fan of your comments usually.
It just goes against my libertarian conservative grain to attack another person’s religion, especially another world religion, on the basis that it has a venomous component. I think we need to define that component, and target our attacks on it, rather than bashing the religion and its believers generally. To use the shotgun so early in the hunt is a mistake, I think.
petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Hey, FR, I’m with you! I prefer the steamroller too, if only we had one that would run.
PC says no steamrollers allowed in this war. Meanwhile our boys and our allies’ boys die. I hate the way that works.
petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 1:05 AM
My steamroller reference above was in regard to the targeting of humor; not that I’m apposed to employing steamrollers in the war as appropriate, so long as they’re supped up and supersonic. I’m sure there are plenty of other issues we probably agree on.
I just think that irreverence should be applied equally or it shouldn’t be applied at all, and without irreverence both humor and freedom cease to exist. Islam has most certainly NOT earned a special place in civilized society above that of all other groups, nobody has or ever should, and it is dangerous to pretend otherwise to appease the delicate sensibilities of the intolerant. Teddy bears are not going to offend truly moderate Muslims. Period. To suggest otherwise is insulting to truly moderate Muslims, of which there are plenty.
FloatingRock on December 10, 2007 at 1:55 AM
Yes, I’d agree with that.
I once tried to define my conservatism. Here are some, but only some of the keys that come presently to mind:
· Individual freedom (First Amendment stuff). That is to say, classic Western liberalism. Individual rights versus group rights, versus elitist rights and versus multiculturalist protected classes. There is no individual freedom without individual responsibility and respect for individual integrity.
· Economic/financial freedom. Free markets versus socialism and central control. Freedom to take risk in a free market, and freedom to fail.
· Political freedom. Limited government, the less the better, versus statism and nanny-statism. (Our rights come from God, NOT from the state… or in my case as an agnostic, my rights come from self-ownership!)
· Equal opportunity for all citizens (but not necessarily equal outcomes) within the meritocracy of traditional Western civilization (Judeo-Christian culture).
I must be really screwed up. Here am I, an agnostic complaining about Hitchens (one of my intellectual idols) about his anti-religion hang-up, and about Michelle (another of my intellectual idols) about her Mo Bears. Still tomorrow I’ll support the DRAFT CHENEY campaign. Woe is me.
petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Well put, FR. I couldn’t agree more.
Moderate Muslims aren’t usually offended by such? If so, then my criticism is clearly mistaken. How would I get to the facts on this?
petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 2:16 AM
Like I said, we probably have more in common than not.
Right on. I generally point out that while I don’t have a problem with people claiming that our rights are granted by God, he left us with the responsibility of defending them, thus the 2nd amendment is crucial to the continuation of our freedom and liberty. I’ll have to try to remember to incorporate “self ownership” next time I discuss the topic, which seems like the principle upon which most of our rights stem.
FloatingRock on December 10, 2007 at 2:41 AM
I guess in my case it was just personal experience. A cousin of mine is married to a black Muslim and she has a dog, so how bad can he be? He’s a good guy and I don’t have any concerns about him at all regarding radicalism. He doesn’t come to my extended families Christmas celebration, (probably because he’s a black Muslim and my family’s white Christian or non-religious), although he’s made an appearance once or twice over the years, but my cousin always brings their son and he’s a great kid. I have to admit, though, that I’m very glad that he goes to a public school rather than an Islamic one.
A co-worker friend of mine at one of my first jobs was named Jihad. Seriously, apparently it’s a common name in Palestine, (go figure, LOL), and he was of Palestinian origin. At the time I was naively sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and told him so when we started to get to know each other. I expected that he would reciprocate my opinion, him being Palestinian and all, but he didn’t. He told me he hated Palestinians and that most of the good ones have long since left the area, most of those that remain are bad people. He was very convincing but I didn’t buy it entirely. I thought maybe he was just trying to disassociate himself from them, but now I don’t think so.
Then some years ago another co-worker, a female who wore head/body covering but with her face exposed, expressed a very similar opinion of radical Muslims. This was a few years before 9/11. I expressed sympathy for the plight of Muslims and she practically castigated me.
There are plenty of good Muslims, I know there are because I’ve met them, and even though they all told me that there are a lot of bad Muslims it required 9/11 for me to see the light and finally believe them.
FloatingRock on December 10, 2007 at 3:15 AM
Jailing some well-meaning teacher for allowing a tot to name a teddy bear is in no way reasonable. Nor is running through the streets, machete in hand, calling for her head.
Thus the MoBear.
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2007 at 3:15 AM
Yup, I know we agree usually. And I’ll eat crow here and now when I’m convinced most moderate Muslims aren’t off-put put the Mo Bear. Believe it or not, I’m ready to be wrong on this. In fact, I’d prefer it. My concern is not with offending others per se, but with being counterproductive.
Anyway, limited government and self-ownership separates us from the left, doesn’t it? The left would have us believe all our rights derive from the state, meaning naturally that the state can revise, limit and delete them as expedient. In the view of the left, our rights are bestowed by the state, such that totalitarianism is a natural option of government. We, on the other hand, assert our rights are inalienable, deriving not from the state, but from our own self-ownership, and for those of us of faith, from God. In either instance, government derives its authority from the governed, individual rights are inherent in the people not granted by the government, and the Second Amendment is our last resort
petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 3:16 AM
We agree.
I wish I knew more Muslims, to be better informed about this. But I’m guessing you’re right. Most Muslims are willing to co-exist with others in this world without dominating them, and most Muslims in this country are honorable, productive Americans.
It’s the radicals who are our enemy.
petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 3:31 AM
Moderate Muslims should be off-put by the persecution of the teacher and the calls for her head.
Moderate Muslims should be off-put by the outrage exhibited by their louder co-religionists at every percieved slight.
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2007 at 3:35 AM
sp.) perceived
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2007 at 3:40 AM
Indeed they should. Probably most are. And probably it would help if they’d speak up more about it.
petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 3:41 AM
We’ll see, I’m not positive myself. I don’t think that the HA Mohammed Bear is going to offend moderate Muslims at all, although CAIR and leftist groups may try to score grievance points off it. If this turns into another cartoon jihad it will still be instructive. To be honest, I like to think that this sort of thing will help temper Islam and force it into the modern world, but that may be wishful thinking. Eventually they’re just going to get tired of getting all frenzied up and marauding through their streets.
I agree, this is what separates conservatives from liberals.
FloatingRock on December 10, 2007 at 3:49 AM
I agree, but I also believe that this is a problem with Islam and therefore it’s the responsibility of Muslims to solve it. They have an opportunity to do so right now and if they pass up that opportunity, (which for the most part is what they’ve been doing so far), and we are attacked again, they will relinquish that responsibility and will not have earned the right to complain when we do whatever we deem necessary to protect ourselves and solve their problems for them by force of necessity. In other words, although I realize that there are a lot of good Muslims in foreign lands, a share of them may end up dying if they don’t get off their collective butts and fix their own damn problems. While I will feel bad for any innocent Muslims that will be killed, such is the way the world works and there’s only so much we can do to prevent it.
FloatingRock on December 10, 2007 at 4:03 AM
The cartoon jihad was instructive, to say the least. So were last year’s riots in France. And the persistent terrorism in Britain.
The jihadists would use our freedoms against us, turn us against ourselves, and transform this country into their own vision. They may well succeed unless we keep the battle on their lands, not ours, and unless we fight them on our own terms, rather than theirs. We can count on the radical left in this country being their allies, and undermining our will for self-defense. PC may well be our downfall. We seem to lack clarity (or even seriousness) of thought and conviction. I must say, it doesn’t look good for the USA as we know it.
petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 4:11 AM
Hey, it was good talking with you. I enjoyed it.
After all this, I gotta crash now and rest my pea brain.
See ya tomorrow, FR, in the threads here at MM’s CHEERS. Thanks!
petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 4:20 AM
Goodnight
FloatingRock on December 10, 2007 at 4:24 AM
We’re being taunted by The French!
And come petefrt, Christians have sacrilege thrown in our faces all the time and many share a special hatred for the Catholic Church to which I belong. We don’t jail people for two weeks over it.
And again, the “no images of Mohammad” utterly fails the smell test when they name half of their children after the prophet. Damn you Mo bear, accurse you and your adorable cuddlyness, you are an insult to my religion! ALLAHU ACKB-*boom*
BKennedy on December 10, 2007 at 10:06 AM
That’s not right either, is it. Neither does it justify bad behavior from Christians.
But the important thing, IMO, is not whether we offend, but whether it advances or deters us in the fight. I’m suggesting it’s too broadly cast, somewhat counterproductive, and that we can defend our freedom in more efficient, more effective ways.
But again, if FR is correct in that moderate Muslims aren’t offended by Mo Bear, then the issue is moot and I’m barking up a wrong tree.
petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 10:42 AM
On the needlessly inflammatory front, when are we going to see Koranic verses on TP?
I have been waiting for a new Lenny Bruce.
drewmesq on December 10, 2007 at 10:55 AM
I guess that’s the next in the Koranimals product line.
James on December 10, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2