right. What to wear? For Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne, here's the answer that came to mind: dress up as a German soldier, complete with army uniform and Nazi armband. Posted on 01/14/2005 5:29:22 AM PST by crushelits
LONDON, Jan. 13 -- Now surely we've all faced this problem: We've been invited to a costume party at someone's country estate and nothing in the closet is quite
Unfortunately for Harry, a redheaded 20-year-old with an ever-expanding reputation for bad judgment, someone at the party Saturday night took his photograph and sold it to the Sun, Britain's most carnivorous tabloid. The result was splashed across the front page of Thursday's paper: "Harry the Nazi," screamed the headline, superimposed upon a photo of Prince Charles's and the late Princess Diana's second son, sporting a cigarette, a drink and a swastika.
The spin machine at Clarence House, Charles's official residence, shifted into high gear, immediately issuing a brief statement of contrition in Harry's name -- "I am very sorry if I have caused any offense or embarrassment to anyone. It was a poor choice of costume and I apologize" -- and spending the rest of the day anonymously briefing the British press about (a) how very, very stupid Harry had been and (b) how very, very crushed he felt.
Still, the apology wasn't enough to head off a storm of criticism. Politicians weighed in, starting with the leaders of two of Britain's main political parties, who called on Harry to appear personally and apologize more fully. A former armed forces minister, Doug Henderson, went further and demanded that Harry resign from Sandhurst, the elite military academy where he is scheduled to begin an officer training course later this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
lol
That was funny.
I do think the best way to attack the Nazi's (and bigots at large) is by humour (tastefull humour though).
The kid made a very stupid mistake and should have known better, but to whom, exactly, does he apologize?
But the Sun on Friday reported that Prince Charles, "incandescent with rage," has ordered both of his sons to make a private visit to Auschwitz.
Sensible. I'd add a review of the Blitz and a sit-down with a certain ambulance driver from that era. Otherwise, I think a confession rather than an apology is in order...something along the lines of Harry saying 'I was incredibly stupid and I deserve the thumping that's being delivered.' Won't stop the sounding off from the press but would take the 'fun' out it. Not much pleasure in beating up on the bloodied & humbled.
I'm not sure I understand this:
It was a costume party, right?
If he'd dressed as a friggin' rabbit, the animal whackos would have gotten THEIR knickers in a wad...
Harry should apologize to the British people. They feed him, clothe him, house him, educate him, put endless sums of money in his pocket,(which is the problem...he should grow up, and nobody does that well on the dole). Probably every household lost at least one family member in WWII. A kick in the behind and a private visit to Dachau or Auchswitz would help.
And the best we can do is Randy Moss.
Harry and the rest of the royals aren't 'private people'. The deal is that they represent Britain...it's the family firm, according to the Queen. There is a downside of living high off the hog. You're accountable to those who pay the bills. Like any corporate employee, officer, the stockholders can vote you out or cut your bonuses. Parliament could cut his pocket money, or threaten to, and surely something's being done behind the palace walls to get Harry in line. He's already been through drug rehab once.
His, ahem...subjects?
When my brother was about his age, he wore a swastika and sometimes a replica of an iron cross. This aggravated my mother because one of her brothers had died during the Lutwaffe's bombing of Madrid (Spanish civil war). Did I mention that, at the same time, he considered himself a zionist? This kind of nonsense can only take place in Europe!!!
My spouse and I just had a big discussion on this very thing. Besides, Harry already apologized. Anyway, this will sell papers for a while. It's not over, yet.
Thank God for our Founding Fathers.
|
HOW THE ‘POST’ DOCTORS THE NEWS By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid There is a national controversy over the Boston Globe’s suspension of a conservative columnist for using historical material that had appeared elsewhere. At best, as John Fund of the Wall Street Journal puts it, the case is a misdemeanor. But we’ve got a case for you that falls into the category of journalistic felony. The Washington Post has been caught altering a quotation from a crime victim in order to conceal a hate crime that was committed against a white boy. The story involves the brutal slaying of an 8-year-old Alexandria, Virginia boy, Kevin Shifflett, who was stabbed to death in April in his great-grandparents’ front yard. The boy was white, and DNA and other evidence points to a black killer. It turns out the alleged killer also carried out a hammer attack on a white person seven years ago. For that crime, he was sentenced to prison and released just 12 days before the killing of Kevin Shifflett. He lived just five blocks from the house where Kevin was murdered. The Washington Post, which covers the Alexandria area, has gone out of its way to obscure the racist nature of these crimes. A July 4th article on the case waited until deep inside the article to mention that the suspect is black. A July 6th article didn’t mention his race. But in going back in history to report on the hammer attack seven years ago, the Post quoted the 29-year-old victim, Leonard Riddle, as saying his attacker came at him yelling, "What the [expletive] are you looking at?" Referring to the Shifflett and Riddle cases, the Post said, "In each case, an assailant lashed out at a stranger for no reason and then calmly walked away." But race was the reason. Riddle was white, and his attacker was black. But Post readers had no way of knowing that because the paper carefully doctored that quote from the attacker. The Post’s ombudsman now admits that the entire quote was "What the [expletive] are you looking at, whitey?" She says Post editors eliminated the word "whitey" because they were "not sure about the source or the relevance of race to the unfolding investigation." But the source was the victim who saw the attacker. And the relevance should be left to the readers. This is just plain dishonesty on the part of the Post. The paper never gave any hint in the original story that it had cut off the quote in mid-sentence. But those who watched the victim on local TV broadcasts using that term in describing what the attacker had said to him had to know that the Post was denying them critical information that was being reported elsewhere. Those readers bombarded the Post with complaints, forcing the ombudsman to address the matter. She basically defended the dishonest editing, calling it a "judgment call" which was overly cautious. It seems that the paper can’t seem to bear the thought of blacks committing hate crimes against whites. But one man had his head bashed in, and an 8-year-old boy is dead. Politically-correct reporting could result in more crime victims. |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.