Too Easily Offended; Too Afraid To Offend

LA Times critic Paul Brownfield is offended. What set him off? Seth MacFarlane's new show, American Dad. Since MacFarlane uses offensive gags as his stock in trade, I was intrigued to see what Brownfield considered "way out of bounds."

So here's the gag: two prisoners in Guantanamo Bay talk about cutting off a woman's hands for stealing a napkin. Yep, that's it, of all the hundreds of offensive gags MacFarlane, also creator of Family Guy, has attempted, this one finally got to Brownfield.

American Dad's central character, by the way, is a CIA operative who is borderline insane, and uses his patriotism as a cover to kill indiscriminately and without conscience. But why should that bother Brownfield? Heck, this sort of character is so common that millions across the world have no trouble believing ridiculous lies about America.

But making fun of those who would try to kill Americans--now MacFarlane's gone too far. How dare he use stereotypes against people who glory in blowing civilians to bits, beheading hostages, and killing their own daughters when they get out of line?

By the way, I love Family Guy. Check it out. I only hope the new episodes are as good as the old.

Meanwhile, in the National Post, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz argues against the obscene boycott of Israeli academics by the British Association of University Teachers. Now Professor Dershowitz is an experienced advocate, so he tries to convince people when he argues. In doing so, he ends up being far too nice to the Teachers.

First, he compares their actions to the American Left's bugbear, McCarthyism, but what the Brits are doing is worse. In McCarthy's time, communism was a threat, and there were members of the party operating within the U.S. McCarthy's fault was he went after the problem in the wrong way. On the other hand, Israel is not the evil state the Teachers' Union makes it out to be, and it's certainly not a threat to Britain.

Dershowitz then argues that now is a particularly bad time for a boycott since Israel has, of late, made important strides toward peace. One might infer, then, that a boycott would be acceptable at other times, just not at present.

I support Israel (as I believe Dershowitz does) because I feel it stands for democracy and freedom in a region where both are in short supply. While I may not approve of everything it does, I feel the lion's share of blame for what's happening belongs to its enemies. If there's to be a boycott, it should be against those who don't recognize Israel.

Perhaps we need moderate voices to solve the problems in the Middle East, but when allegedly rational people like the Teachers' Union are filled with irrational hatred, I prefer not to treat them with kid gloves.