Whenever I don’t listen to my gut, I get in trouble.
I admire Mike Adams’ lonely fight against political correctness in academia. Alas, his columns are only ok, not brilliant. Half the time, I find his stuff off-putting, even when the subject matter is something I’m interested in. Too often, he’s self-righteous and bitter without being particularly original or amusing.
However, I read his new column with special interest. After all, it was about the latest “cartoon controversy.”
Adams reported that the controversial art exhibit at Loveland also included a Mohammed cartoon. Which I had said, too, because of one of the drawings depicted a kneeling “holy” figure that looks a lot like ancient images of Mohammed, and two pig-prostitutes (pigs having very little to do with Jesus, except for this story.)
But: something told me there was something fishy about Adam’s column. But when I checked around, other people were citing it, and I stupidly let that be the last word.
He’s Mike Adams, right? The Townhall columnist? He wouldn’t just make shit up.
He just did the juvenile thing, took some mainstream reports on the exhibit, crossed out “Jesus” and substituted “Mohammed.”
The column is not marked “satire.” There is no punchline indicating that Adams was goofing around.
For the sake of some hamfisted, self-indulgent satire, Adams has muddied already troubled waters, without adding a single thing to the argument.
And as for that artist: I have to say again that that image he claims is “Persian depiction of Jesus” looks one **** of a lot like Mohammed. And there’s the small matter of the pig-hookers in the same panel.
I smell bullshit, and this time, I’m saying it.