Friday, January 27, 2006

Hamas the Governors.

My first reaction to the result of the Palestinian elections was 'oh no, another confrontation'. Now I begin to think that this writer is correct (an Oxford University academic, too, surprisingly), and we should see clarity before long. The fence now seems totally justifiable; the Israelis can punish the rulers for the actions of their militia (until the two 'split' that is).

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Brewing up

Things are definitely hotting up over Iran. I'm quite worried about it. If you pay careful attention to the Beeb you'll have noticed Iran accusing the UK of stirring unrest (the BBC probably agree), and the UK sending extra troops to Afghanistan (as per plan... but they're considering additions to the 4000 they're about to send). As it was things were already very bad.

All I can say is that the Iranian's noise over the last few months have been as much directed at the UK as at the US- we're the mothers of many evils, apparently. It makes me wonder if Chirac's gambit in threatening nukes may actually have been intended for the benefit of les Ros-bifs, after all.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Sorry for the lack of posts. I've been very regular over at B-BBC recently (any other B-BBC writers out there- feel free to post, really. I mean it.)

Anyhow, I'm loving Steyn in Macleans completely. Being a bit of a lit-crit cove it just covers all the bases for me. Today's article was reviewing a book about Michael Jackson. I read it all and enjoyed it before I looked up and noticed the headline summarising his review: 'Starts off dark, ends up very pallid'. Then I began to laugh.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

That Richard North's a miserable blogger. Seems like he's really getting into it.

Sunday Reading.

Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson may be among my standard reads, but today the reason for reading them is particularly compelling. Taken together, their very different approaches to the same issues help clear up a lot.

Steyn launches a typical yet especially well wielded double barrel at the Democrat party in the US (it's an essay from about 3 weeks ago in the NRO but only now widely available, and as relevant now as then).

VDH meanwhile tries making sense of confusion (again for the NRO), and distils the situation into four characteristic prejudices into which people retreat who've had their assumptions upset.

Politically, the link is that the Democrats in the US have become the sink into which the shell-shocked celebrants of a non-existent pre-9/11 peace have drained, and internationally the talking points of the Dems are the talking points (salted to taste) of those whose self-satisfaction has been compromised by events. Thus John Kerry (apparently) criticises people for pointing out that Osama Bin Laden and Michael Moore agree ideologically. Kerry seems to think that the fact that Moore has had no chance of relating to Bin Laden more practically is sufficient to require that they be seen as chalk and cheese, even when they say the same things. Unfortunately they are ideological twins; profiteers of their own sense of superiority.

Google Custom Search