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.