The Spectacle Blog
If you missed Brit Hume's broadcast last night, you missed the otherwise unreported story about the EUnuchs' latest descent into dhimmitude in the form of restricting free speech. Here's the money quote from "The Political Grapevine":
The European Union says it will no longer use the phrase "Islamic Terrorism" to describe attacks carried out by Muslims. Instead, EU press releases will use the phrase "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam."
The words "Islamist," "Fundamentalist," and "Jihad" will also be banned, as part of a new "lexicon" that seeks to avoid offending Muslims.
The EU's counter-terrorism chief says the government is taking great pains to use language that "makes clear that we are talking about a murderous fringe that is abusing a religion and does not accept it."
The EUnuchs are also considering a "non-binding" code of conduct for the press to prevent future incidents such as the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.
Wlady: Applebaum's description of how confident and controlled Rice is around "ordinary mortals" brought to mind the nervous and off-balance Rice at the 9/11 hearings in 2004, where she more than once seemed flustered, even intimidated. For me that was the moment in time when the Rice image of imperviousness came crashing down for good, and I've never been able to put it back together again. Reading this month's Spectator isn't going to help, either, not after coming across Angelo Codevilla's view of Rice: "A daughter figure, a pleasing mediatrix, intellectually insecure, whose career consisted of Bush family favors." If the shoe fits ...
Anne Applebaum, the Pulitzer Prize winning author who is currently a Washington Post columnist and editorial board member, recently penned a profile of Condoleezza Rice for the Spectator of London's April 1 issue. It includes this delicious anecdote, which you probably would have never read in the Post itself:
To my earlier post on the situation in France, a reader ID'd as "GMS" came up with a comment so good it bears repeating here: "The French have reached a state perfection of sorts. They have surrendered to themselves." Now THAT'S funny, and insightful. And it gives me the chance to urge more readers to use our "submit a comment" option, which is in red at the bottom of each blog entry, and to check out the "view comments" option, also in red at the bottom of each blog entry box -- because we can get some good give-and-take going in that manner! Meanwhile, thanks to GMS for making my day.
That is, at least, a polite term for it. Rush was talking about Sen. Jeff Sessions's statement on it. You can -- no, darn well should -- read the whole thing here. Sessions, a pretty cool head, has it dead bang right. Anyone who votes for this travesty should be held accountable at the voting booth.
Gee, who here is surprised that the French government has surrendered again, this time to a bunch of whiny young brats who are misidentified either as students (spoiled navel-gazers is more like it) or as "workers" when what they have really been demonstrating for is the "right" to be shirkers on the job without getting fired? I don't know that I've ever seen such a pathetic ccause for which to demonstrate, nor such a pathetic, spineless, feckless and incompetent reaction to it as the one by Jacques-a$$ Chirockhead, the purported French president and noted mollycoddler of crooked investors in Iraq. So this useless government of France continues to exacerbate the outrageous weakness of the French economy, with double-digit unemployment and virtually nonexistent growth.Somebody please explain to me again why this third-rate nation has a veto on the U.N Security Council. (?)
The Honorable Mr. Barr is correct in his post below. The two key words are "law" and "sovereignty." We can have all the compassion in the world, and all the openness in the world, to people who will obey our laws, come here legally, and learn our language and our civics. But that doesn't mean we have to accept people who break our laws by their very entry -- and who, often as not, make no efforts to assimilate. Such people deserve nothing from us but spirited and active opposition to their very presence among us -- and a determination to send them home.
President Bush defends his lack of initiative for an effective border security program by appealing to "America's decency" and reminding us we are first and foremost a "nation of immigrants." He's wrong. It is neither indecent nor inappropriate to protect our borders against those who would diminish our sovereignty and enter or remain in America in violation of our laws. And America is first and foremost a "nation of LAWS"; at least we used to be.
Despite, or maybe because of, the film's unpalatable message, reviews of "CSA" have been overwhelmingly positive. One harshly critical exception appeared last month, predictably, on the website of the hard-right American Spectator. Shawn Macomber expressed shock that any director would, as Willmott has done, portray an America that oversees an empire of "puppet democracies," launches an unprovoked, preemptive attack on another nation (Japan, in the film), tolerates Hitler's racial theories and outlaws all non-Christian religions. Macomber seems to regard such policies as inconceivable in the good old USA.