"The fake concept of "sensitivity" is being used to hammer a very specific philosophy and worldview down people's throats and obliterate even the concept of alternative ideas. Orwell knew what he was talking about."

Don't know that I can see a plot to "hammer down a very specific philosophy", etc., but it does look like one to avoid any. Tehy don't seem to be advocating, they seem to be sanitizing and negating.

Sort of like making curry without spices.

Regarding Orwell: evolution has struck.
Ari Fleischer: Beyond spin.

"What Fleischer does, for the most part, is not really spin. It's a system of disinformation--blunter, more aggressive, and, in its own way, more impressive than spin. Much of the time Fleischer does not engage with the logic of a question at all. He simply denies its premises--or refuses to answer it on the grounds that it conflicts with a Byzantine set of rules governing what questions he deems appropriate. Fleischer has broken new ground in the dark art of flackdom: Rather than respond tendentiously to questions, he negates them altogether.”

Beyond Orwell. I thought I was the only one to notice that. Kind of like Trent Lott on Fox News Sunday.

Saw Brit Hume do everything but lick Ashcroft's boots last Sunday, asked Ashcroft the tough questions, then let him ramble, wander, roam, and obfuscate without interruption. Not the artful dodger Fleischer is, same tricks. Hume watched Ashcroft with doe-like eyes as Ashcroft discussed everything and nothing, then wet himself thanking the AG for coming by.

Then Hume absolutely, in his snotty way, hammered the female Pakistani ambassador to the US. Didn't even pretend to be polite. The answers to his questions were in the questions, and if she didn't agree interrupted her to repeat the answer he wanted for her.

Quite a contrast.

Arf