Horseeathers has some thoughts on the New Yorker's profile of Orianna Fallaci:

Ever since 9-11 scared the hell out of this wordsmith class, the magazine has devoted itself to explaining that there is no real threat from totalitarian Islam, the misunderstood “other”, but instead the danger to the world emanates from the person of President George Bush. Like any shared delusional belief, the community of believers feels special, superior to the unknowing masses, and reassured. While radical Islam is battering at the gates, the New Yorker turns its collective gaze, every week, to the imaginary threats posed by the macho cowboy in the White House. No reason to be concerned about an enemy who declares war on America and sets about annihilating the infidels. Hey, it’s the evil Christian believer, the man who's clear about his gender, George Bush, who must be stopped. Soothing the anxieties of its readers is accomplished, not only by flattering their sense of moral superiority, but by applying childhood utopian fantasies to real dangers. Multicultural leftism is such a balm to the worried. No reason to fear a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; after all, he is simply articulating a belief system shared by many. We have our own shared liberal faith, and its devil is W. and the Neo-Cons, not totalitarian Islam. Multiculturalism is a form of self flattery, a 'We are the World' incantation, designed to calm the frightened upper west side liberal.

Once upon a time, Orianna Fallaci was a heroine of the very same utopian left that now despises her. She wrote scathing assessments of Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon. Now however, she has become a Churchillian voice warning of the threat posed by totalitarian Islam, and has therefore become the target of former leftist allies. She has been especially scathing towards the appeasing, and cowardly politically correct responses of Western governments, media and intellectual elites. The New Yorker perfectly articulates every P.C. cliche, the denial of reality, the multicultural, appeasing attitudes she fears will lead to defeat of the West. This week the magazine sent its critic, Margaret Talbot, to interview Fallaci. While it is very interesting to hear Ms. Fallaci’s views, they are by now pretty familiar. The interview is most revealing though, of the status anxieties of the interviewer and her left-liberal assumptions. In place of thought, we have attitude, stance, tone. It is shot through with the interviewer’s smug condescension, as if she is engaged with a fascinating lower form of life, a curious specimen, full of animal spirits but lacking in proper attitudes, good taste and politesse. Ultimately it is Margaret Talbot trying to reassure herself that all is well in the insulated world of the New Yorker.