A Bug in My Ear Pt. 3
Thursday, October 12, 2006

Continued from

History lesson behind us (at least about the stamp), we move on. Due to self-imposed constraints and restraints, not to mention the largess {sic} of mine own comments and having compassion on the retinas of my humble readership and with regard to any stinkin’ copyrighted materials cited, from this point forward I will provide only the links to my resources followed by my commentary.

We are given a rehash of the USPS summary, points up one of my other “issues” with the added introduction to the original email, namely it’s a holiday stamp not a “Christmas” stamp and then gives five reasons why a boycott of the stamp would be questionable. My comments in italics.
1. The USPS gets the money from the sale, not “the Muslims”; it’s a “symbolic” boycott. – Really now, aren’t they all?
2. US Muslims represent a sizable, ergo significant, percent of the population. – Don’t piss them off: they are among us!
3. Other religions have gotten their own stamps. – If other religions drank a bunch of Kool-Aid or Vodka-barbitol, would you do it?
4. Hallmark already has EID cards. Well, if Hallmark said it’s okay…
5. The White House says it’s okay. Snopes obviously know who would be prone to believe a boycott is appropriate, believing this is a an important point to bring up.

BoycottWatch /
Boycott Watch likewise identifies this as a shadow boycott (see #1 above), boycotting an associated item rather a direct item; and then gives the obligatory history of the stamp. Things don’t get interesting until the second article. A series of short quotes make up the bulk of the article, notably one from the College Republicans at the University of Texas at Austin (an indirect link to Snopes’ White House?), which doesn’t break any new ground, but does pose the interesting question of who wrote the email. If you have an opinion and you want to organize a grassroots organization, why remain anonymous?

With Break the Chain we finally get to the idea that this is a chain letter, whose purpose is not to organize a boycott necessarily, but to spread the snake oil. The author is not trying to reach out to the main body of potential purchasers of the stamp, the Muslim community, so the effort is to “inform” and persuade those might buy the premise: in short, preaching to the choir. The article then lists three logical jumps of which the email is guilty.
1. That by commemorating one of Islam's most holy holidays, the U.S. Government is, in effect, validating terrorism;
2. That law-abiding Muslim-American citizens don't deserve such a stamp because of the actions of other Muslims; and
3. That the majority of Muslims support the acts of terrorism committed in their name against U.S. targets.
Although they are stated differently it’s all the same point really: there’s no difference between Islam and Terrorism; there’s no difference between Muslims; there’s no such thing as a good Muslim.

Urban Legends offers a concise comment covering no new ground but focusing on the “slap in the face” statement, along with two different versions of the email text.

Continued at



You must log in to post comments.