Despite the New York Times' refusal to publish the controversial Mohammed cartoons, they today published the picture to the left, which depicts just such a collage. Why did they do this? Anyone's guess. Was it newsworthy? No. It was newsworthy SEVEN YEARS ago. The only purpose of publishing it now is to make a statement, namely: anti-Christian art can be controversial, too. No shit, sherlock! They're making another statement, as well, something like: hey, we're not afraid of controversy! We have balls! We'll even print a picture of the Virgin Mary made from dirty pictures and elephant poop! So there! Yeah, you've got balls. You can weather a few hundred angry letters from little retired old ladies in Brooklyn like the best of 'em. You oughtta join the special forces. I'll bet they'd let you guys in without boot camp, since you're all so fucking brave. You can even stand being denounced by Jerry Falwell. Some balls. I wonder... would the Times' editors be as quick to re-print this old archive photo today if they thought printing it was likely to get the Times' offices firebombed by crazy religious fundamentalists?
Grow some real balls, chickenshits.