My latest article at Real Clear Politics is here (link)
What should we call the vile killers of London, Manchester, Fort Hood, Boston, Nice, and Paris?
For years, our leading politicians have danced gingerly around that question, preferring to call them simply “terrorists.” No modifiers.
That, I think, is not only an evasion.
It blocks a serious, honest discussion of the problem and the best ways to stop it and stop the killing of innocents.
♦♦♦♦♦♦
Our language needs to distinguish clearly between those who murder in the name of Islam and those who follow the same religion peacefully.
Terms like Islamist, jihadi, Muslim extremist, or Muslim terrorist do distinguish. They are clear, accurate, and not overly broad.
They properly underscore the terrorists’ motives. They rightly exclude peaceful, law-abiding Muslims.
That separation is crucial because the fight to stop Islamic terror cannot be won without support from Muslim communities across Europe and North America.
It cannot be won with evasions and half-truths, either.
I loathe ad hominem attacks.
All Europe is facing a high threat from Islamic extremists, many (like the Manchester bomber) born in the very Western countries they are terrorizing.
I explain the MSM’s fecklessness, and illustrate it concretely, in a separate post, here.
Comment: 
Their demands managed to close the entire school for a day.
New York Times lead story is here
BC News, predictably, skips all mention of the Islamist motivations until it includes the quote, “This is for Allah,” in paragraph 9
SHAMEFUL: The Washington Post tops ’em, an impressive feat. 
Witnesses told Sky News and the BBC that the attackers shouted “This is for Allah.”
◆
The report said older people with lower income would disproportionately lose coverage. Over half of those becoming uninsured, 14 million people, would come from the bill’s $834 billion in cuts to Medicaid, which provides health coverage to poor and disabled people, over 10 years. –AP
◆
◆
When Prof. Paul Griffiths refused to attend the “Racial Equity Institute Phase I Training” (it must have been named by Orwell) and explained his reasons, the Dean of the Divinity school attacked with full fury. According to Griffiths, Dean Elaine Heath
◆
The headlines about Betsy DeVos’ speech focused on her promise that “more school choice is coming.” That’s big, if vague. 
Comment: 
◆
Wellesley is certainly not a place for racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech. Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. 
Ray Boshara, 
Well, Hillary’s 
Many thanks to Christopher Buckley for the Wellesley story
Why? First, they are probably trying to show how oh-so-sensitive they are to people who are “gender fluid” and who, as a personal preference, use other pronouns. I am happy for folks to use whatever pronouns they want. Honestly. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. So, why not simply let them include that “preferred pronoun” thingy in their letters, without everyone else having to follow them like lemmings? Because, of course, it is crucial to display how sensitive and politically correct you are. Or, perhaps you simply fear your “sensitive” boss, who effectively demands conformity from underlings. That is an all-too-familiar type on campus: sensitive-but-tyrannical.
Thanks to James Freeman for the article and David Herro for sharing it 
Chuck Berry, who helped create rock-and-roll, dead at 90. 
Here is how the Washington Post headlines that news. You be the judge if this is a fair headline: