Salon continues to circle the drain with poorly argued and evidenced pieces like this. This opinion piece is the lament of a likely very wealthy, very cloistered far-leftist who just can’t understand why average voters won’t respond to the politics of minority victimhood. Despite having absolutely security in her own existence, she just can’t fathom why the hoi polloi don’t want riots in Muslim neighborhoods, violence in their schools or fighting in train stations.

This article is just littered with comments painful in their lack of self-awareness.

“During the wave of violence that spread through France's banlieues -- the country's impoverished, largely immigrant working-class suburbs -- in the fall of 2005, he helped ignite the fire shortly after a police chase gone awry led to the death of two banlieue teenagers hidden in an electric facility. First he proclaimed the teens delinquents, then he proclaimed the police innocent prior to a full investigation. It was not long after he had called suburban youth ‘racaille,’ or ‘scum.’”

First of all the youth who got electrocuted were fleeing the police which is a crime in most countries (not to mention they were dumb enough to hide in generating station). To blame Sarkozy for igniting the riots is simply a morally bankrupt lie on the author’s part. His reference to the “suburban youth” as “racaille” came in response to a woman of North African origin who asked him when he would ‘get rid of these scum’. It would floor this author but a lot of people in the suburbs (like the young women being gang-raped for not wearing a hijab) might enjoy some law and order. Of course peace and security in the suburbs would weaken the socialist message and is thus politically untenable. Besides most sane people consider rioters to be scum. Only far-left wingnuts can celebrate violent means of protest. It is no different than conservatives secretly cheering Abu Gharib.

“In a recent interview with Philosophie magazine, he also stated his belief that pedophiles are ‘born that way.’”

Is that statement supposed rile us? I happen to not agree with that but mean that is a pretty standard view of mental illness.

“Sarkozy sparked yet more controversy by offering to create a Ministry of Integration and National Identity, with its nauseating whiff of Vichyism,”

Vichyism == Nazism. What a mature tactic by the author.

“and, in a snide reference to Muslim traditions, stated that anyone who would consider "slaughtering sheep in their bathtubs" was not welcome in France.”

Why is killing an animal for sacrificial purposes acceptable? Is this another example of reason and liberal values vanishing in order to patronizingly protect Islam from criticism? Research has shown halal/kosher slaughter to be inferior with regards to the animals length of cognizance and suffering; it makes perfect sense to condemn it and even ban it. For untrained private citizens to just be killing animals in such a manner ought especially to be criminal.

“Sarkozy was also, and still is, a vocal advocate for zero tolerance and has crusaded for tougher treatment of repeat offenders. He instituted a December 2005 law that, among other things, allowed for immediate imprisoning of convicted repeat offenders and instated the use of electronic monitoring bracelets, and also proclaimed that "up to 50 percent of crimes and misdemeanors are committed by 5 percent of delinquents, always the same ones.”

So is Sarkozy right or not? You breathlessly tell us what he did and yet fail to address whether he was factually correct. That is rank intellectual cowardice. Oh and being tougher on repeat offenders…what is this world coming to?

“All over Paris, his presidential campaign posters have been defaced by a Hitler mustache and a swastika. Royal has even hinted at possible ‘civil war’ were he to be elected.”

Note the author’s failure to condemn the crude leftist smear of Sarkozy as being somehow akin to Hitler; note the failure to comment upon Royal’s outrageous scare-mongering.

The writer of this piece is a typical pampered, immature leftist with scant ability to examine her own deep prejudices again the French and indeed Western leitkultur. She loathes Sarkozy precisely because he is in touch with your average person in France, who does not want to see Republican values eroded for the sake of appeasing Muslim ‘grievances’ in particular. Integration and less crime would threaten the far-left’s fantasy that it will make long-term political in-roads among Islamic immigrants, a delusion held by many here at Salon.

Weikuboy is indeed a fundamentally dishonest person in my experience. I caught him a few weeks ago condemning Catholic outrage over the chocolate Jesus, while claiming Muslim rage over the Mohammed cartoons, etc. was justified because Islamic art banned all depiction of living things. I then pointed out to him the countless examples of Muslims portraying animals, humans and even Mohammed himself in art. Weikuboy persisted nevertheless in stubbornly clinging to his unnuanced claims and of course attcked me for my efforts in calling him out. As thorough and detailed as your response was, I fear it will have no effect whatsoever. He is a typical Salonista who does not want consistency or even facts to get in the way of their politcal agenda.