Yesterday around noon I was meeting a friend while trying to navigate the very noisy lobby of the Museum of Modern Art, which was packed to the gills with a very wet crowd of loud people on Easter Break who had ventured in the cold rain. The place felt like an airport the day before Thanksgiving, only with no departures, just arrivals.
My friend and I finally found each other and since the MoMA was mobbed with the crowd we decided to have lunch across the street at Gattopardo. We rushed out of the noisy MoMA across the noisy and rainy cold street, walked into the restaurant and were warmly greeted into a sanctuary of elegant quiet and excellent food.
I had a most excellent plate of prawns that must have come from Paradise. They were that good.
To make a long story short, I had a wonderful afternoon and was totally unaware of anything in the news until evening, when I was reading this post from Siggy (who’s as fond of Bond as I am of Bryn). Siggy said,
Mahmoud Ahmadenijad’s ‘pardon’ and release of those 15 British sailors and marines is no more a gesture of Iran’s inherent ‘goodness’ than were Adolph Hitler’s displays of affection for his dog – and it is important that we understand that.
Until then I had not heard that Mahmoud Ahmadenijad had been saying that he had pardoned the hostages.
Shortly after, the BBC newscast showed Tony Blair talking about “how much he respects the Iranians”.
I couldn’t believe my ears.
Yes, the hostages were not yet out of Iran, but for Blair to stoop down to praising a culture of shame with his respect was beyond belief. The same culture of shame who for two weeks publically paraded and humiliated IN COMPLETE DISREGARD OF GENEVA CONVENTIONS PROTOCOL fifteen members of the British forces.
Make no mistake, the hostages were political prisoners and as such were humiliated. For an explanation of this point, listen to the Sanity Squad, and listen to what Siggy had to say about the videos of the hostages.
Margaret Thatcher would have “pardoned” Ahmadenijad’s grubby little butt into the ground from the get-go.
But we live in different times.
While we stand on the shoulders of giants like Thatcher and Reagan and are able to feast on prawns while we still can, undoubtedly because of the sacrifice of people like the hostages, the Democrats have ended the war on terror by banishing the term, because the
Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.
Mind you, I don’t like the term either, and would definitely prefer to call it the war on Caliphate Islam. But that won’t suit the Democrat mindset, whose delicate sensibilites has them doing anti-terror drills against Christians (during Lent, no less), just a few miles away from here. Because of course we don’t want to upset Muslims
The real story is that it has become acceptable to discriminate against Christians with bigoted characterizations that portray them as gun wielding psycho killers. Such bigotry is a common occurrence in film, on TV and the internet, in schools and in city halls across America. Newspapers cover such stories with zest and a certain sense of shoulder shrugging normalcy.
Instead of the war on terror, we now have ‘The War That Must Not Be Named’.
That way we can digest our prawns with ease. While my friend and I found temporary shelter from the daily grind at a lovely restaurant, the Dems are seeking permanent shelter from reality through a linguistic trick. This has become part and parcel of their grab for power.
The Dem’s grab for power at any price includes having Nancy playing pretend at being Secretary of State, making new friends with our enemies, lying about our friends, and veiling herself with an Hermes scarf,
The Reform Party of Syria, which is not playing pretend because it can not afford to, explains what’s really behind the veil:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was seen roaming the streets of Damascus flaunting a Hijab. The Hijab worn by women across the Muslim world has come to symbolize either one of three things: 1) a symbol that men control women by forcing piety, or 2) a return to religiosity because of oppressive rulers, or 3) a fashion statement. If you ask any expert on the Middle East, you would get any one of three answers. The ones who usually claim it is a fashion statement are the political rulers who usually oppress people in general. A Hijab is NOT a confirmation of the rights of women in the Middle East but rather a symbol of their suppression.
At least Siggy was able to look at the bright side,
she could have been photograped wearing a Palestinian keffiyah.
Because a pawn is a pawn is a pawn no matter how expensive a scarf she wears.