An informative and insightful, if somewhat problematic, commentary from Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly. Anjali Kamat argues that the cartoons are not merely "offensive" but propagandistic, and that leaving racism out of the simplistic "free speech/Islamic intolerance" equation is to miss the critical point:

A statement, apparently not yet posted elsewhere on the Web, from the UK branch of the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) and allied groups:

Civilised humanity must take a stand in defence of freedom of expression, against Islamists and racists
The recent controversy over some caricatures of Mohammed gave the Islamists an opportunity to wage a hysterical protest internationally. In many cases, this took a violent form and was clearly aimed at silencing those who dared to even portray Mohammed. In these demonstrations - across the world and in London, the very heart of Europe - many of the banners on show were emblazoned with shameful slogans. These included - "Those who insult Islam must be beheaded" and "Freedom go to hell" plus various other fatwas and threats against cartoonists and others who have the temerity to "insult" Islam.

Harsh new methods have been used in a successful bid to break the inmate hunger strike at the Pentagon's Guantanamo prison camp in Cuba. The methods reportedly included strapping detainees into "restraint chairs" for force-feeding, apparently to prevent the practice of deliberately regurgitating meals. Other strikers were placed in very cold air-conditioned cells, had "comfort" items like blankets removed and were placed in solitary confinement.

From the website of The Muslim Brotherhood [Ikhwan]:

Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Statement
by Khairat el-Shater, Feb. 7

"Rage spread all over the Islamic world over defaming caricatures of Prophet Muhammad PBUH published in a Danish newspaper. We emphatically believe that those who allowed this dispecable behavior on assumption of freedom of expression, are indeed tarnishing the concept of liberty, in whose name such repulsive and shameless acts are committed. We, however, appeal to Muslims not to let their furor drag them to attack properties, to expand the scope of protest, or to turn it into a clash between civilizations. Enraged Muslims should adhere to the Islamic ethics and principles in showing their outcry. Presently, the world suffers from an evil band that dedicates its capacities to ignite religion and civilization clashes, hoping to exercise further economical and political domination. We, in addition, express our hope that this mishap triggers an international initiative on passing a U.N. law that makes the respect of holy symbols of all nations and cultures binding. Therefore, such acts will not recur."

An ominous juxtaposition of two news items. First, the anti-immigrant vigilante group known has the Minutemen rallied at the Capitol Building in Washington as the Senate debates a get-tough immigration bill already passed by the House. The Minuteman rally was addressed by two lawmakers, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO)—who explicitly called for a military solution. "We are, in fact, being invaded," Tancredo said. "I'm asking the president to commit the military to this border." (Arizona Republic, Feb. 8)

Meanwhile, the Mexican army is already occupying the border city of Nuevo Laredo—and has failed to stem the gangland violence which has reached nearly paramilitary proportions. As the Minutemen rallied in DC, gunmen with assualt rifles shot up a newspaper office in Nuevo Laredo, leaving a journalist gravely wounded. From Reporters Without Borders:

A victory for free speech and historical memory was declared last month when charges were dropped against Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk, who had dared to invoke the World War I genocide of the Armenians, as well as more recent persecution of the Kurds. But, as we noted at the time, the real victory would not be until the law he was prosecuted under, Article 301 of the Turkish penal code, was overturned. Now, once again, it seems the victory was a Phyrric one as five more writers face charges under the same law. From the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists:

This is cute. Just as the cartoon controversy is being portrayed as evidence of Western values of "free speech" versus inherent Islamic intolerance, comes the conviction of Shiekh Abu Hamza al-Masri in Britain—on charges of, basically, expressing his opinions publicly. That he holds some pretty awful opinions is beside the point. The jihad fan club in the blogosphere will have a field day revelling in this irresistibly ironic display of Western hypocrisy, as Jihad Unspun does in the below blurb. Note that the Sheikh was acquitted of the charges which actually sound vaguely legitimate, "solicitation to murder" and "threatening behavior."

Brian Tokar reports for February's Z Magazine on the recently-concluded Montreal talks on global climate change, aimed at implementing the Kyoto agreement. What's really dangerous is that this agreement—which the Bush administration is refusing to join, of course—was already essentially gutted by pressure from the more insidious Clinton administration, which pushed through a program of free-market pseudo-solutions. So while Bush stands strong against Kyoto as an assault on American capitalism, what was largely discussed in Montreal was establishing guidelines for buying and selling the right to pollute...