Skip to comments.ORIANA FALLACI & THE NEW YORKER -- The Liberal NY Establishment Has No Clothes!
Posted on 06/06/2006 8:11:00 AM PDT by Apolitical
Ever since 9-11 scared the hell out of this wordsmith class, the magazine has devoted itself to explaining that there is no real threat from totalitarian Islam, the misunderstood "other", but instead the danger to the world emanates from the person of President George Bush.
Like any shared delusional belief, the community of believers feels special, superior to the unknowing masses, and reassured. While radical Islam is battering at the gates, the New Yorker turns its collective gaze, every week, to the imaginary threats posed by the macho cowboy in the White House.
No reason to be concerned about an enemy who declares war on America and sets about annihilating the infidels. Hey, it's the evil Christian believer, the man who's clear about his gender, George Bush, who must be stopped.......
(Excerpt) Read more at iconoclast.ca ...
The New Yorker article wasn't quite as critical of Fallaci as I thought it might be. One magazine that's gone WAY left in the past few years is Harper's. It's verging into moonbat territory.
Hope Rush has this in his stack of stuff today!
Fallaci is great.
She speaks the truth. But who listens?
Certainly not the "enlightened" "liberals".
Virtually every issue of the New Yorker editorializes against President Bush. Every issue.
Fallaci is one of the few liberals who haven't been been rendered terminally stupid by anti-Bushism. Bruce Bawer ("While Europe Slept" - highly recommended) is another.
Oriana sounds like one of those who actually has a set of standards that she applies to human behavior, rather than one who simply embraces a set of attitudes and follows wherever they lead. That's quite rare. Particularly among leftists.
...Not just once, but several times - explicitly...no guess work involved...no reading into 'what is their intent?'...Hey, all you Leftists and democrats: The Islamofascist Jihadists want to kill us and destroy modernity. Period. President George W. Bush fought back, finally, after decades of just taking it in the chin without seeing any hope of improvement in Middle East politics. Today, there is a chance of change for the better in that part of the world.
One thing that distinguishes Fallaci from the Left is that she actually believes that Western Civilization is superior to other cultures. She appreciates our freedom, knows how fragile it is, and is not cynical about it, as the Left has become. Remember all those liberals who said that Elian Gonzales would be better off in Cuba? One reason that the Left is against the war in Iraq is that they simply no longer believe in freedom; a war for liberty sounds hollow to them.
I have no idea. She's got a helluvalot more patience than I have.
I agree about Harper's. At one time, there was a wide range of viewpoints expressed in the magazine: libertarian, liberal, conservative. Can you believe that Fred Reed and Tom Bethell were once Washington Editors for the magazine? Or that PJ O'Rourke wrote articles for it? Or George Gilder, Michael Novak, Paul Craig Roberts, Peter Brimelow, Jude Wanniski, Norman Podhoretz, Ben Wattenberg, and James Q. Wilson? No more. Such is Lewis Lapham's current influence on the magazine.
BTW, Lapham once wrote a Carter-bashing article for American Spectator
I just received two of her books and haven't had time to read them yet.
Europeans with the biggest balls:
1) Oriana Fallaci
2) Maggie Thatcher
3) Brigitte Bardot
Oriana: One of the last and greatest heroines ever.
It says something about today's Europe that the three persons with the biggest balls are all old women. But what can you expect when even their vaunted Formula 1 racers are protected by huge sand traps and run-off areas?