Sarko gets a bit of “The American" treatment

From today’s Guardian comes the usual tripe which is 180 degrees from the thoughts of the public. It amounts to saying that violence is not a choice:

«The violence has once more trained a spotlight on the poverty and lawlessness of France's rundown big-city suburbs and raises questions about an immigration policy that has, in effect, created sink ghettos for mainly African minorities who suffer from discrimination in housing, education and jobs.»

Poverty (the state’s responsibility) caused the hopelessness and racism (the state’s responsibility), leading to violence (the state’s fault.)
The BBC has parroted a similar line, implying (implying, mind you, and doing it hourly!) that Sarko’s tough line months ago caused this violence – as if thugs follow political dramas:

«Mr Sarkozy has caused controversy with his strong language, labelling the rioters as "scum" and saying many of the suburbs need "industrial cleaning". Mr de Villepin has preached a more conciliatory message, urging ministers not to "stigmatise" vast areas.»

In other words, it’s anybody’s fault except the people who did it, so please be extra nice to anyone of the same religion or skin color as the perps. How very Euro-touchy, flawed, and psychological doom to the listener who eventually “drinks the kool-aid” to think that regardless of guilt it has to do with appearances and not crime.

The VERY, VERY worst part of it is that there are activist-bots out there who are mad at Sarko’s pronouncements against social scum. The feelies in the social-commentary racket are angry that by this he means the non-native French, but the commentator does. High on the punch of simplisme, it’s the parasitic commentators who are implying that personal decision-making doesn’t matter, and that by “scum”, the non-native French come to their minds. Guilt by skin color – another immoral and uncivilized attribute of the life of the western leftist shows itself again. The enemy? Personal responsibility.

In the mean time, they are as high as a kite on the prospect of another prison-house love scene. BBC Security Correspondent Rob Watson actually had to correct a news-foil on the World Service today – and tell her that the “secret detention camp” story is only a POSSIBLE public relations scandal, but that it isn’t one yet. A girl can dream, can’t she? Watson, however sounded like he was pretty fed up with the broken record routine himself.

Flogging this story every hour is taking up quite a bit of their air-time, even as the idea that the Taliban wouldn’t dream of letting in the ICRC doesn’t even cross their minds.
Even the conspiratorially minded CBS 60 Minutes in covering the story nearly a year ago (recycled this week, I’m sure) finally admitted that all of this started under Bill Tiberius Clinton to avoid legal niceties, and that as such, Bush established Gitmo as a more ligitimate alternative. But what’s a spy to do? Work in public view and rebrand themselves as the “exo-spies”? Even the left couldn’t wash it. Once again we find the MSM giving us old wine in new bottles.
Further on the agenda today is that the Summit of the Americas will be overshadowed by a “rivalry” between Bush an Chavez. Sorry, Auntie – Chavez is the obsessed one. Bush is trying to do diplomatic business in spite of the yapping Shitzu, and the only people who think that this is a “rivalry” are the Ministry of Propaganda that is the mainstream European press who in imagining a “rivalry” are picturing two states that are equal in influence.