The March of Freedom.

I'll just start by mentioning my surprise today when, on Sky television I saw the often anonymous and unspectacular (except for the shoes) Teresa May of the British Conservative party being given a chance to make a case against Cannabis as a 'C class' (ie. minor, unmeriting legal action for users) drug. She did a bad job, as did the interviewer in examining her, but the striking thing was that she was there questioning whether the Blair Government hadn't made a big, big mistake in previously declassifying the drug. The Blair government? Mistakes? Shsssssshh!

My point is that for the first time in a long time it felt that we might have the decency to engage in democracy in the UK.

Returning to the May interview, it was noticeable that she was allowed to criticise the Home Secretary (and former Home Secretary) without being made to 'win' the argument over Cannabis-as-a-danger-to-society first, or being browbeaten with a barrage of 'I used it and I'm fine even though I used to be middle class and now I live on benefits in a broken down semi' type personal testimonies.

To me this felt like freedom, as it appears that finally journalists might be considering that good compos mentis people might not automatically approve of Blair, so that it would not be necessary to subject them to the third degree 'normalcy' test before they criticise him or his representatives. In fact, I think even the Blair-Brown heavyweigtitis virus may be losing its potency (another Sky journalist thought that Brown was laughing at Blair as he floundered while trying to fend off a hostile question at a recent photo-op they took together.)

Strangely enough, what seems to underlie this change of heart is the wake-up that we've experienced over Sinn Fein IRA. I think that Blair's dynamic 'Good Friday agreement dash' in the early part of his reign, and his post-modern declarations that Britain was a young country, were designed, and had the effect of, putting people's critical faculties to rest. His other half (certainly their tiff seems like a lover's one) Brown played out similar tactics in the economic sphere with his rhetoric of 'prudence'.


In reexamining Adams and co. we reexamine Blair and co (shame on Blair that there should be this connection; long may the reexamination continue, and let's kick Adams all the way into the Atlantic Ocean and Blair from his office). There's a lot to reexamine. I look at journalists today and I get a sense they no longer like the Blair government very much. For neo-Conservative Thatcherites like me the Blair government has always been a sham and a shambles, though apparently a functioning one, but I did consider that Blair was right about Iraq, which goes to show that his belief that he can act as a statesman has reality at some level. The trouble is it's a level of absurd hubris and self-regard, as he and his minions thought that very little existed that couldn't be spun into something else.

It's surely a fact that very many socialists are fantasists, and there are also very many fantasists in today's Britain, so there was a very good match going there for a while. But the fantasy fragments and the centre cannot hold, and the terrible truth for the Blairites, and the BBC, and the neo-socialists (those fantasists who held their noses while Blair got entrenched through spin) is that only those with the facts of life straight stay standing.

Looking into the Ireland issue recently have been Mark Steyn and Simon Jenkins. I mentioned their articles earlier as differing about apportioning blame for the appeasement of Irish terrorism between the US backers and apologisers for Sinn Fein (sometimes at the highest levels) and the British ones. Curiously enough there can be no argument that Blair and Clinton between them could resolve the Jenkins/Steyn argument- since they united in this policy, as Gerard Baker points out in an article selected by Real Clear Politics where he illustrates what a fine writer he is, and with what good sense.

When to disagree.

Ok, here's the scenario: You're a person who becomes loyal to a commentator or opinion-former, and the person in question is very incisive and persuasive. When, or how, do you bring yourself to disagree with them?

I was tuning in, metaphorically, to Melanie Phillips' excellent take on the international appointments recommended by W. recently. This was after reading Steyn's definitive take on John Bolton's appointment as ambassador to the UN in the Spectator, an excellent magazine judging from what I read of it.

I was just leaning towards Melanie's viewpoint that Bush's actions actually showed that the 'neo-cons'- as the BBC enthusiastically calls them- were being cleared out of the main centres of political power in the US, though I was resisting a little because, reading Steyn, I had become very enthused about the magnitude of Bolton's appointment. Then I remembered Max's tip about the New Sisyphus's powerful assessment of the progress being made at the United Nations by the US perspective on world affairs. While there, I came across this post. Don't miss it- it's a nugget. The outstanding point regarding Melanie's thesis:

'We recently heard a high-ranking member of the State Department announce to a group of assembled junior FSOs that whoever the President picks as the next Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs will be a strong indicator of the direction the President intends to take not only this crucial component of our Department, but the Department itself.

What that means is that the President's appointment of Karen Hughes to that position has effectively ended the mini-debate about whether Condoleeza Rice's appointment could mean either that the President intended to engage the foreign affairs establishment or shake it up. The appointment of Hughes can only mean that the President intends to shape and bend the bureaucracy of the Department to suit his needs.'

Impossible without the Internet, the inside view of shifting sands within the US government ecosystem provided by the Sisyphus helped me to make up my mind.

P.S. Speaking of when to disagree, here's Eursoc disagreeing with Steyn and siding with Sir Simon, a bit. Maybe I would too. Here's Jenkins' effort- worth reading.

P.P.S. Thanks to Mike in the comments I realise I messed up the Karen Hughes link, which was, well, more or less the whole point. Duh. Apologies, but it's fixed now, and I noticed one more lovely quote to point out from the clever fellows at Sisyphus:

'If this keeps up, we'll be forced to implement the foreign policy of the United States.'

Heaven (and the BBC) forbid!

Clear-sight.

President Bush's nominations for key international roles are both excellent choices. Paul Reynolds makes an apt allusion to Nelson and his lieutenants, when the proteges of the master were sent out to greater responsibility away from their mentor. A strange one too, though, partly because a militaristic one. And since when was Bush regarded as the father of the neo-cons? Is this a promotion for Bush or a demotion for Wolf-o-Witz in Reynolds eyes? The only other comparison he can come up with comes from the Reynolds' list for Father Christmas- that Wolf-o-Witz will be another such 'repentant' warmonger as there was after Vietnam.

Of course the Euros respond as Euros do, with condescension or rudeness masquerading as humour, a human quality which in the case of most of Western Europe is notable by its absence.

The clear-sight of these so-called neocons is exceptionally necessary in the current period.

Clear-sight.

President Bush's nominations for key international roles are both excellent choices. Paul Reynolds makes an apt allusion to Nelson and his lieutenants, when the proteges of the master were sent out to greater responsibility away from their mentor. A strange one too, though, partly because a militaristic one. And since when was Bush regarded as the father of the neo-cons? Is this a promotion for Bush or a demotion for Wolf-o-Witz in Reynolds eyes? The only other comparison he can come up with comes from the Reynolds' list for Father Christmas- that Wolf-o-Witz will be another such 'repentant' warmonger as there were after Vietnam.

Of course the Euros respond as Euros do, with condescension or rudeness masquerading as humour, a human quality which in the case of most of Western Europe is notable by its absence.

The clear-sight of these so-called neocons is exceptionally necessary in the current period.

Continuing Boyles.

It was Dennis who was labelled a menace after he decribed Europeans as cockroaches. Well, he had a point, in the metaphorical sense of them being practically intolerable and hard to expunge from the mind. Once again this can be illustrated- when you look at examples such as the recurrent anti-war demonstrations, presently (at this general time) taking place in European capitals and elsewhere to mark the injustice perpetrated by the US and allies in removing Saddam from his golden toilet seat, for instance. Anti-war even when there's no war to be anti.

Amir Taheri has a great article where he labels these people 'Pests in freedom's way'.

Taheri thinks that we should worry about what the symptom of anti-war derr-brain demos means for the health of the West, and Europe in particular.
'Why are so many Westerners, living in mature democracies, ready to march against the toppling of a despot in Iraq but unwilling to take to the streets in support of the democratic movement in the Middle East?', he asks.

The answer seems to be that their idotarianism is tolerated, condoned even, in a Europe without a heart for the stakes and without a serious brain for analysis- yet needing excuses for itself. Our politicians, unable to argue coherently for anything in particular, are forced merely to lie or pander to the mob desire to be morally or socially significant. This applied to the Blair argument that took as to war in Iraq, and applies as well to the Straw argument to take us deeper into Europe. Both quite deliberately emptied of true content and filled with less true, or downright false, content (although I knew what Tony meant about Iraq ;-} )

EURef exemplifies this with their fearsome 'we are more powerful' series of posts, inspired by the FO's man of Straw.

They also link to an excellent blog intended to cut through the obfuscation of European thought. The Transatlantic Intelligencer inspired this current post. Its latest post exposes the 'pests' or 'cockroaches' (yes, these are the kind of Europeans Boyles had in mind) for what they are: dumb irritants scratching at the very surface of our culture, yet drawing everyone's energies and attention, not to mention the panderous activities of the politicians. The really amazing thing is just how ignorant, just how contentless, these people are. One keeps imagining that to shout so loud somewhere in their morassed consciouness there must be a clear idea, some kind of reality beyond their reflexive (insect-like, swarming and making noise) anti-Americanism. But no. 'Argument weak- shout loud', as a friend of mine liked to say.

These are the kind of people which media organisations like the BBC- which claims to be an intelligent broadcaster- unquestioningly admires, or of which it asks admiring questions, or to which it offers admirable representation.

Too Rude to the French?

No, you never can be. Once you start down that road you know they'll be taking l'avantage at every turn. It's France's fault that democracy in Europe is so stunted, and that Europe's idea of enterprise involves smoke-filled rooms and corruption.

That's why I welcome a new book by Dennis Boyles, who, having lived in France for several years, and with great experience of the world at large, is well placed to tell it like it is. Says Boyles in his blurbing effort:

'"What we mistakenly see as a craven, anti-Semitic, insecure, hypocritical, hysterically anti-American, selfish, overtaxed, culturally exhausted country, bereft of ideas, fearful of its own capitulation to Islam, headed for a demographic cul de sac, corrupted by lame ideologies, clinging to unsupportable entitlements, crippled by a spirit-stomping social elite and up to its neck in a cheesy soufflé of multilayered bureaucracy is actually worse than all that. It’s vile." '

In case that seems just a little OTT, consider this latest episode in France's proud history- their cosying up to China by attempting to open ways to sell arms to them and putting the frighteners on Taiwan. Never mind that they fail to offer any support for democracy's rise in the Middle East, they go looking for more shame to heap upon themselves, as the Taipei Times opines magnificently:

'when those who have influence can persuade the government to do their bidding, the result may quite possibly be terrible - France conniving at the destruction of a liberal democracy simply to enrich its "merchants of death" and their politician friends.'

(thanks to the moderately Franco-sceptical blog EUReferendum for the link.)

Got to mention Nicholas Vance. Talk about talking sense. He was linked at B-BBC just today but not for this. Nicholas has been pursuing the BBC in his own way at all sorts of levels for well over a year online, and getting better and better. The depth to which he has taken the argument is really a great example for people like me to follow.

Back to Ireland, and events are developing hearteningly. Powerline, most anglophile of US blogs (well, one of them does support Everton FC) reports George Bush's contempt for Irish terrorists (it is, sadly, necessary to make that distinction) and describes Gerry Adams as 'head of the IRA's political puppet group, Sinn Fein'

They also link to this timely Mark Steyn article (Steyn who has an ancestor for every occasion) about St. Paddy's day. It's about time for the full rhetorical broadside to be unleashed on the IRA/Sinn Fein, driving them into the political ocean.

Not forgetting of course that Teddy Kennedy has taken a tactical step away from the gangster group. It's all good.

Let's hope for more of the same, and some greater understanding than this demonstrates:

'"It's hard to understand how a European country in the year 2005 can have a private army associated with a political party," said Mitchell Reiss, the US envoy on Northern Ireland.'

Well, not really. Too many unquestioning friends for too long, not enough enemies, and an incurable nostalgia for a defunct fantasy called 'nationalism'.

One year early: you 'retire' or you're 'ousted'.

When Dan Rather left CBS one year before he had been due to because his vendetta against the Bush admin. had been exposed by bloggers, he 'stepped down', or 'retired' according to the BBC. They even found space to report that his last show increased CBS' ratings to their highest point since 2000.

However, when Michael Eisner of the Disney Corporation left his job a year before he was scheduled to, he was, apparently, according to the BBC, 'ousted'. Naturally this is what should happen to all fiendishly exploitative capitalists, in an ideal world. And since we don't have an ideal world I guess I'll just have to accept the BBC's pretence that there is one.

Of course, there's always a fly in the ointment: 'Mr Eisner is to remain on Disney's board till 2006. Under his contract, he is eligible for up to $18m in severance pay over three years, the Wall Street Journal reported.' the BBC report briefly, at the end.

Update: Admittedly the resignation statements of people in business, as in politics for that matter, are banal and usually covering themselves against the worst interpretations of their departure. However, if the BBC can accept the politicians' claim that he needs to spend more time with his family, why does the BBC always make big business seem like it emulates the mafia? Why not reserve that for the next IRA/Sinn Fein resignation? Forbes offers a different spin, Eisner 'yielding' to pressure, or 'stepping down'. Also, it's important to mention here that the BBC stealth editor has been fast at work since the original post. Sounds more reasonable now, though the ousted Eisner is still ousted.

Great response by IraqtheModel to the Hezbullah march: 'bringing too many people by buses doesn't mean that you're right'. The bottom line is that only anti-democratic forces could have created a demo that big, and the boys from The Model know of what they talk. Lacking commonsense like that, of course, is what makes the BBC's view of things so hopelessly skewed (ItM quotes a BBC report which appears to be suffering from Assad's shock and awe 'em tactic.)

In other affairs, I'm glad to see that Myers thinks Bush is about to make clear that Adams is N.I.'s Arafat. (thx ATW)

As a sidenote, for which I can't offer a meaningful link, my University of York Alumni magazine-(received recently) -gave their verdict on the US general election just as the Guardian might have (say no more), and then ran an article alongside a large picture of Diane Abbot, New Lab. supporter of the Iraq War, shaking hands two-fistedly with the Yasser in 2003 (the article was about Abbot herself, her background, career etc). Trying indirectly to make amends with the Muslims in her constituency, perhaps, by spreading around as widely as she can a picture of her with the Islamofascists' chief saint? More New Lab two-faced behaviour concerning the WoT. They really don't get it (all that well(at all)).

But Universities are among the worst offenders when it comes to building prejudice though appearing rational, as Melanie Phillips reports once again

American journalists can be pompous, says Simon Jenkins (snigger, snigger), as he says that bloggers have put him on his mettle like never before (snigger, snigger). (ps. Scott knocks his p.o.v. beautifully)

Debunking and Debating.

Got to start with this outstanding pigeon-holing of Hunter S. Thompson and the cult which seems to enthrall many middle-aged and not-so middle-aged liberal Americans. Hugh Hewitt blasts thus:

'Ah yes, the Nixon wars –when journalists bravely stood tall against the machine guns and machetes of the death squads roaming D.C.

I don’t have access to Lexis-Nexis on the plane, so I can’t search “Hunter Thompson w/i 1000 Pol Pot,” but I don’t recall any “fearless” reporting on the Cambodian holocaust, or the trials of Bukovsky, Sharansky Sarkaroff and Solzhenitsyn. Just stream of consciousness paranoia brought on by too many drugs, and later idolized by mid-life-crisis-enduring salary men with editors and small expense accounts/'

If there is a 'stupid America', it's the sort that idolised the likes of Thompson. The whole 'great American Novel' thing is about as dated as flares in my view, and a massive distraction from America's real concerns.

Speaking of which, I notice a lot of floundering about concerning whether the events in Lebanon are good or bad. Syria withdraws- but with Hezbullah's endorsement for its influence in Lebanon. Syria withdraws with assurances that its power is not resented and its influence will be undiminished (notice how the BBC (above link) give a leading role in this withdrawal process to the UN's representative, Roed Larssen- he arrives, Syria withdraws, coincidentally. Just another of those little nuances about who is moving events and who has authority to do so. The BBC's transnationalism at work. Also note the way that the BBC is prepared to report the stage-managed withdrawal- 'government supporters were bussed to the frontier for a carefully stage-managed occasion',- but not so much the obviously stage-managed rally; here, they limit themselves to saying the kind of thing anyone deviously organising a vast propaganda effort would be happy with: 'Hezbollah officials handed out Lebanese flags and directed the men and women to separate sections, but the crowds were so large they spilled out of Riad al-Solh Square into surrounding streets.' . This is in keeping with its general presentation of Arab regimes and allegedly popular terrorist-entwined organisations as manipulative to some extent, but largely benign). Children were bussed in to fill the square for the Hezbullah rally, according to this report, but the level of organisation, just viewed by itself, which swamped the anti-Syrian demonstrators was clearly daunting, and intended to be daunting, to those who hope for a pro-Western democratic resolution to the Lebanon's powerplay.

In related stuff, the Economist believes that the neo-cons are on the rise again (I don't watch events in this microscopic way, but they do), which is code for saying that events in the Middle East have vindicated the neo-cons convictions about Iraq, but not completely and nor will they do so.

Overall it looks like a soft-shoe shuffle between Iran-supported Hezbullah and a tactically-minded Syria. Its the old case that among despotic mentalities, faced with a democratic superpower like the US, there is no need to even mention the saying that my enemy's enemy is my friend. All the same, I'd say the pro-democracy, anti-Syria rallies are a staging post in the power struggle that will one day- one day soon, given the spontaneous vigour of the democratic impulse in the region- produce democratic revolution, and wipe Hezbullah off the map entirely.

(Good info for the above post came from Austin Bay and Real Clear Politics)

I was going to comment on this BBC article by Justin Webb about Dan Rather, well-picked up by USS Neverdock, but I think I'll just leave you the links and the thought that this article illustrates very nicely why the words 'Right Wing'- rather than 'Left Wing'- and 'dirty tricks' have been made into a commonly known collocation. Because, I would venture to answer, the legacy media, of which the BBC is chief bastion, decrees it so.

Andrew Bowman looked at other aspects of the BBC's coverage of Rather at Biased BBC.

Webb is just too secure in his bias, almost like some Eastern European aparachik (anyone help with the spelling?) of the 1970's. (I've observed this before, I know, but it's Webb's almost brusque self-assurance, only feasible in such a cosseted organisation as the Beeb, which seems to bring this observation on).

Meanwhile, speaking of Eastern Europe, Tomas Kohl has a an opinion of Leftists in his own country of the Czech Republic which seems to ring true:

'Reagan's contribution notwithstanding, the pinkos could barely wipe their ass in 1989.'

Sometimes an opinion that has relevance for BBC journalists with anti-conservative or anti-US (same thing really) authorial diarrhea, unfortunately. They leave the blogosphere to wipe it for them. However, to summarise what both Kohl and Marc of Neverdock are saying (loosely), those who won't wipe their politicised journalistic arses will get them whipped well and truly.

Frum draws the right conclusion from the big Hezbollah march through Lebanon. It just shows what you're up against.

Instapundit pondered some viewpoints on the demo, with links (surprisingly!). At one, interesting, link, a commenter to the post came up with a criticism of the BBC which seemed very typical (right down to the misspelling of Orla Guerin's name):

'The crowd was obviously predominantly male and angry. But the BBC report by Orna Gheiron (sp?) went out of its way to show a lot of women, including mostly uncovered ones. The BBC were clearly doing a little propaganda, as usual.'

Casual observers and seasoned ones all think twice before trusting BBC reporting.

Meanwhile, The Belmont Club has a more in-depth survey and analysis of what the march means.

Seems like the below post caught something of a wave amongst the Nionist brigade. Scott Burgess assesses the Indy's effort. Verdict? Halfbaked too, unsurprisingly. (via Instapundit)

Meanwhile, Melanie Phillips, eye to the big picture via Daniel Pipes vision, shows what serious thinkers might be doing at the moment.

The ever shrewd (I've given up calling him deceitful, it doesn't pay any) Paul Reynolds has come up with an exit strategy for the BBC. Just like those who are covering their backsides regarding the unresolved but politically dangerous issue of WMD, Mr Reynolds turns round and says, 'it wasn't just me, others believed it too' when it comes to the anti-war fervour which has mastered the BBC's coverage for so long. For the French and Italian, Russian and so on Intelligence services in this analogy, you have to substitute Fareed Zakaria, Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, and 'sceptics of American policy like Rosemary Hollis', who probably demonstrated different degrees of scepticism but were never a million miles from Reynolds himself in viewpoint. Throw in a disclaimer about things not being quite the same as the last time Reynolds was wrong about regime change, in 1989, and a little homily to the new entrants to the EU's grande projet, and you have a fine recipe known as 'Reynold's home baked (half-baked) climbdown'.

Of course we have to garnish with a little sideswipe at neo-con imperial hegemonistic attitudes, add a little detail about the role of the Prince of Darkness, and implicate the whole in an Israeli conspiracy theory, but after all that is completed you are about ready to eat your humble pie.

'Some are cynical about American attitudes and regard the policy of spreading "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East as a way of justifying intervention.

Khader Khader, an analyst with the Palestinian group the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center, traces US policy back to a document issued in 1996 by American neo-conservatives, led by Richard Perle, called Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.'

But not quite. First you have to retain your 'balance':

'Whether you regard American policy as benign or malign, something is going on which needs watching.'

Then you have to remind yourself (before eating) that you were wrong about Eastern Europe, so that requires that you have to blame someone else for it. Find a nice anecdote to use over dinner:

'Shortly after the Berlin Wall was breached, there was agitation for the reunification of Germany. The question was when this might happen.

On a visit to East Berlin, I and other correspondents met a rather dishevelled British diplomat who seemed to spend most of his time on the streets.

He predicted that East Germany would collapse within the year.

His boss the ambassador, a rather grand man who seemed to spend most of his time in the embassy, would have none of that.

Guess who was right?'

Yes, just guess. It wasn't Paul. Bon Appetit, cher Paul.

BTW, I think I should mention that I do believe Reynolds is right about something: it isn't like Eastern Europe. It'll be much more successful than that. See Steyn on the timeline for the MidEast winds of change. (thx ATW)

Can someone tell me who on earth the BBC are quoting at the beginning of this article (maybe friendly Mr S. Editor will reveal all later)? It just seems like the Beeb breathlessly wanted to get the message out that this guy Bolton is a nutcase *BEWARE* before anyone started to complain about the 'hardliner' tag. Hardline on what anyhow? Could be one of their nameless 'correspondents', I suppose- there are plenty of candidates for anti-US paranoid outbursts out there.

Update: Ah, the quotemarked 'hardliner' has become a hardliner in fact. So the BBC is saying now they know for sure a hardliner is coming to the UN.

Ongoing BBC violence- to the notion of fairness.

They're still trying to nail this one. They're losing. But it won't stop them.

According to this report, 'Six in 10 Italians now think the war was wrong.'

'Now' compared to what, exactly? Has the death of a Communist's saviour changed the whole equation? Would they have bothered to drop this in without it carrying the implication of another in a serious of ultimately significant blunders (filed among notes for chapt. 1007, entitled 'alienating key allies', of John Simpson's fantasised epic work of history, 'How the US got it wrong in Iraq and lost their world superpower status')on the way to one of history's famous military disasters (yes, they mean the US war on Saddam, really)? Who do they think they're kidding?

They may like to talk about how 'Iraq insurgents seize initiative' but they don't talk about the gradual lessening of US troops deaths (probably due to troop tactical changes, but still specifically noteworthy). They even happily contradict their headlines with such general, deliberately vague- almost coy- phrases as 'Although figures can be misleading, the general level of attacks since the 30 January elections is thought to have dropped a little from the highs recorded in the run-up to the poll.' Initiative? What initiative? the point is that having set the tone they can afford to let their anti-war guard drop a a little. It's known at the BBC as 'balance'.


When they present the violence they decline to mention that terrorists using terrorist tactics are targeting their fellow muslims. Rather than be specific and consistent they frequently change the nature of the descriptions of violent acts and casualties to foster a sense of Iraq as they would like us to see it. They sew together a pastiche of violence- 'Violence also continued in Baghdad'- with which they seek to cloak events. You may say, 'where in Baghdad, that huge city?', or 'exactly when?', but they won't tell you. 'Violent place, Baghdad', you can almost hear the colonial broadbrush being swished from the comfort of the hotel bar.

Of course they don't think that the US invasion of Iraq will prove to have been the miliary disaster that many hoped it would be (I can recall many a journalist of all stripes hoping that the American people would 'learn a lesson' over this). What they think is that its their job to make it harder for the US, to make it painful, to make them feel that pain and us to feel they feel it. It's not. There are already people who dedicate themselves to do that, and they're Islamofascists- for whom the BBC are emotional siphons. It's my definition of being on the 'the other side'.

And of course that's what the BBC are, in the long run. Whistling anti-US tunes while waiting for the transnational cavalry to be called in, the so-called 'insurgents' will do for entertainment in the meantime.

A Statement of Intent:

Helen from EURef lays out the philosophy of her blog- which with a snappier title would already be more successful than even its current high visitor numbers suggest. But, in that case, it would be less the kind of intelligent and respectworthy effort that it is.

Euroscepticism is misnamed too: it is actually a vision for the world. A real one, and the only one of substance (substance doesn't have to be large, just reliable). Never judge the book by its cover. The Commission has no purpose (that it can admit to), the Parliament is not democratic, the Constitution is a list of rules for bureaucrats, and so on. Presented with such a can of worms I would simply head toward the nearest bin and throw it away.

Condescending, Lazy, Ignorant- that'll be the media, the judiciary and the political classes of the UK, amongst other folk. I suppose that would qualify as basically the entire edifice of the opinion forming class of this country. Academics, though often corresponding to the above description, do not exclusively so- there are always clever men and women, the world over, who spend a lot of time in small rooms effectively burrowing into various media, which is very nice for them and occasionally invaluable for us.

So what brought that little barney on? Well, one thing is Melanie Phillips' indictment of the court case presented by that muslim girl (you know, the one flanked by wannabe Islamic heavies, chest heaving with the excitement of crusading for Allah). I saw her on Sky giving her little peroration to her fellow jihadis and rebuking us poor dhimmis, and it was no surprise to find from the ever alert Melanie that there was more to the case than ever came out in court. [Matter of fact I was recently involved in a court case myself (I defended myself actually), and I firmly walloped the pompous prosecuting counsel in my minor case by introducing a few simple facts and a little logic to accompany my self-belief. It was quite funny to see. The judges seemed ok, but waiting to be led. It was a very minor case, but I think it gave me some major insights. One was never to follow the advice of a London Barrister, even a friend, without thinking it through for yourself.]

As Melanie says, 'In the great row over Home Secretary Charles Clarke’s draconian control orders, the argument is that the judiciary should take control of anti-terror procedures in order to protect our fundamental liberties from untrustworthy politicians. But the terrible truth is that the English judiciary can no longer be trusted to safeguard us.'

But what really pains me about the hijab case, what really disturbs me and points out to me the incredible darkness at the heart of our ruling classes, is the fact that the Prime Minister's wife, QC Cherie Blair/Booth, was the legal representative for this girl's case (why Melanie passes this by is an interesting question, given her obvious interest in the case). Andrew Bowman rightly pointed this out on Biased BBC, since the BBC had ignored it (surprise) in their coverage, but it shows that our Prime Minister who supposedly 'gets it' about the War on Terror really doesn't get it at all (and yes, yes, it's only his wife etc, but honestly!). This may only be a cultural victory for those concerned, and a cultural concession of a much lower order weighed in our current scales, but who can weigh it in the scales of significance over the longer term? Melanie rightly points out that the hijab is significant within Islam, not merely in contradistinction to the dhimmis outside that religion. It's a tool of radicalism amongst young people.

You may have, and I might have, considered this a small cultural item, but why, if so, are people so determined to fight the battle and so triumphant when they win? It's because it sets a cultural battle raging, it creates a point around which religious fervour can pivot and exclude others so as to embellish its power over its adherents and recusants. And the French understand this- read and weep. The French establishment may be appalling and ultimately hellbent, but at least people who join it have to have some intellectual rigour (and be able to lie through their teeth). The British lot can provide the part in brackets only.

All of which brings me to Steyn, a beacon on a hill of his own creation it sometimes seems. In his latest effort for the Spectator (and doesn't it need some?), he gets to the keywords as he surveys the unending idiocy of certain people in the fourth estate and beyond it. 'Lazy', 'condescending', 'reductive'- all are applied during the finale of his dissection of the defeat of a whole body of viewpoints.

My only quibble is that Steyn has no need to defend himself by pointing to 'I told you so' phrases. The only thing I can recall him being wrong about (apparently) is the vital signs of Osama Bin Laden. This Steyn may have called wrongly, but it was always an 'either/or' with little to assist the judgement. Compared with being absolutely right about Saddam's hole in the ground abode when everyone else had grander notions this is no evidence of Steyn's insight, which is almost invariably remarkable.

Not so what Steyn calls 'the Nionists'. They've been wrong about everything, and the one thing they claim to be right on without question, the WMD issue, will never make a definite cross in their wilted collumn of correct judgements. They could still be wrong about that one and it will probably always be an undetermined issue, unless it falls the way of the 'neocons'.

But as for their willingness to condemn others to oppression at the hands of dictators, the Nionists will always smell of death because of that, and their nihilistic idiocy lives on to bear that at the centre of the establishment.

See also Steyn on Hotel Rwanda for articulate, artistic compassion.

Whatever your view on the current situation in Israel, we can be sure that this is where it's at. The American Thinker again provides a treatment of an issue with uncommon depth. This time it's a head-to-head between Neuwirth and Baehr, expressed through several propositions and rebuttals. I'm with Baehr, as Baehr is with Sharon; to put it in Neuwirth's terms, with Bush and Rice and, yes, ok, if she must, Powell.

Why do I disagree with Neuwirth? Because Sharon is building his wall, a la Robert Frost, and though to build a wall might make you a friendly neighbour content to live within constraints agreeable to the other party, it ain't necessarily so.

Also meanwhile, a fascinating inside track on military operations countering the threat of Iran- involving the French and Germans!- from the American Thinker.

Meanwhile, Marc at USS Neverdock makes a good point about a particular piece of BBC coverage. Words, numbers? Who cares?

World Wide Wisdom. In the development of the blogosphere, men like Victor Davis Hanson and The Belmont Club's Wretchard have given the Right side some practical and intellectual bite.

I found Hanson's interview with Chrenkoff (another innovator) really interesting. Although European- with the emphasis on Europe as a geographical expression here- I am really heartened to think that there are heads hard enough to counsel thus:

'So... we sit tight, praise them, and keep our powder dry, looking to see the fall out from Islamicism on their shores, and whether they curb anti-Semitism, get their birthrates up, rearm and make a real alliance, avoid antagonizing a surrounded Russia, and buy off an Iran or crazy former Soviet Republic. We cannot do much in all that and so should expect very little from them and get ready for some pretty crazy things coming out of Europe in the next few years. NATO as we know it is dead, and we have no idea what will follow—so we praise it to the skies.'

(textual highlighting mine)

Rearming Europe seems about as likely as uncastrating a EUnuch, but you never know. The only passion strong enough to gird up the loins might be l'anti-Americanism, which is a sickening thought.

Meanwhile Wretchard has thoughts too, but about the success of US policy in neutering terrorists by establishing democratic dissidence:

'To that extent even the most heinous attacks, like the carbomb which recently killed more than 100 in Iraq, have lost their bite. Psychologically speaking, the greatest contribution of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns is that they have shattered terrorism's myth of invincibility. The terrorists embarked on a maximum effort to dislodge the US from Iraq, employing every weapon of violence, political maneuver and propaganda they could muster and came up much the worse for wear. This lesson has not been lost to public perception and has emboldened dissidents all across the region.

The real challenge will be to find ways to respond to the campaign of spoiling terror which may be forthcoming. Unlike Iraq, where US forces can respond directly to challenge, the problem will be the ability of the US to affect events over the wider region in clandestine or indirect ways.'

Notice he mentions the carbomb/suicide bomb as a spent tactic in Iraq, but not elsewhere. I was thinking of Israel. How the Israeli government can respond to the interference (I'll call it that) of terrorists is a quandary to which no-one seems to have an answer. If at the onset of any atrocity they fight back, even haphazardly, I for one won't blame them.

(brought to you with the assistance of Instapundit)

One knows where one stands.

'The BBC's royal charter should be renewed and its licence fee extended for another 10 years' the BBC says, sorry, that should be 'a government Green Paper is expected to say.' (chirpy intro, nice photo of the relevant minister, bang on officialese presentation)

That is tragic news which I have been fully expecting. I think that the belief that anyone in a socialist government- or the TINOs- would truly grasp the nettle over the BBC's flagrant irresponsibility was always a far fetched one. On the other hand I believe that if one doesn't at some level confidently expect one can alter the status quo meaningfully there's little chance of success from protesting of whatever sort (however 'Talking Hoarsely' is actually a bit smitten with protest for protest's sake). I think we can, and we will, one day dismantle the labyrinth of featherbedded propaganda and nationalised neuroses that is the BBC, but it will take time.

Actually if the BBC were dismantled tomorrow that would considerably confuse a notion of bias in the British media which is currently relatively straightforward (though it would be change for the good). Other media organisations are subject to far more transience, as commercial enterprises and small organisations are, and their prejudices are weathervanes, largely. Commercial interests in the media are unilkely ever to promote such ideological fixity as the BBC, even if the entire field of public opinion is open to them, rather than just the entertainment/light news section. The BBC has pursued an ideological agenda since the days of the British Empire, since before the Elizabethan age began, and will continue to do so. One knows where one stands- not that one likes it.

The BBC gets in touch with DumbJon (so to speak): Showdown!

Maybe this is a Steyn-admiring, Beeb-bashing, blog about politics with no poetry (you may have noticed the incongruity). I don't know.

Anyway Steyn has a fantastic volte face in the Telegraph today, all optimism about the fall of the Middle East's 'Berlin Wall'. If I've understood rightly, fundamentally what he has in mind is the notion that we can either do things the hard way, or the easy way. By taking on the Iraq situation Bush has chosen the easy way on our behalf (though of course not in our name), which is despite that the less travelled way (there, see, poetry) that has made all the difference.

Having earlier mentioned the Mark Steyn / Austin Bay disagreement, I thought I should post this- Mark's reply to Austin's post. Via Steynonline. There's a good companion to that post in Steyn's latest Chicago Times effort. I do believe that Europe, the UK included, is going to have terrible times ahead as it wakes up to impossible situations of its own making.

Update... and Bay's reply. Maybe I'll have to come back to this issue, too.

Just a note about the BBC's World, which was once more in evidence on Sunday as I braved all manner of discouragements to catch up on the progress in their world-view.

Lys Doucet was occasionally able to remember that her 'Talking Point' progamme was not exclusively for bashing America, but only occasionally- like the children at Christmas that only occasionally remember to thank the giver of their gifts. Poor William Hill. As soon as I heard that this intrepid US caller to the BBC was from 'Texas' (you have to italicise as 'Texas/Texan' are only adjectives with pejorative connotations in the BBC lexicon) I knew he would be unlikely to last long. Sure enough, as soon as he said that the EU could go ahead and unify, and go on the 'offensive' if they wanted to (ie. be one of those other poles in world affairs they talk about), Lys had had enough and said something like 'that's not the kind of language we use over here', and it was goodbye anglo-saxon white-male sounding Mr Hill. Back to your 'Texan' cave.

Naturally the other callers, especially the incredibly whiny (thankfully exported) Brit from Germany, who had had a tough day at work when Mr Bush visited Mainz, were treated with far more respect- even though I do recall Doucet thanking the egregious 'Texan' very much for his worthless POV.

Reflecting on Israel: haven from terror.

Powerline has a fascinating selection of reader's views: some of them echoing my own which I expressed earlier (I really should link them sometime! Basically I have seen Sharon's moves as a military commander's tactic of war which only really looks like a retreat). Krauthammer is a little more downbeat than I am, but I don't disagree in principle. What worries me is agreeing with so many people.

Sadly the threat to Israel is still current. I suppose that completing the wall will reduce is further.

But meanwhile, and I think related, it seems not only that the Sinn Fein village idiots have given themselves away, but that politicians on both sides of the border have decided to help them to destroy themselves- or at least bring them down a peg or two.

For an excellent survey of the subject matter outlined in the below post, the very meaty Eursoc can fill you in.

Key word that unlocks the future

Richard North has it right about Bush when he says there is a 'key word: democracy'. Although he's talking about Bush's words to Putin, I think the reasoning holds for much else too.

This cornerstone of W's philosophy helps decode everything he says (and unlike, say, Justin Webb, I do think that Bush's words need interpreting. The only reason they're not being interpreted is that the idiot Left likes to remain in a patronising, beatific daze, deluded into thinking the Texan has no designs, preoccupied with their own, lesser, designs, and then run screaming to the 'court of international opinion' when he does something to upset their complacent applecart. They think they can stop unpleasant things- unpleasant things as far as they see things- happening just by pretending the possibility doesn't exist. Ironically, Webb makes a comment about the US' desires for Nato assistance over Iraq, and the obvious French insult which was Chirac's response: 'Some of the contributions are very small. France will send one officer to help support the mission from here in Brussels. Luxembourg is making a financial contribution of around a hundred-ninety thousand dollars, but the Americans say it is the symbolism that counts.'. According to Webb it's the US who likes silly symbolism from the Euros.)

Proof that W's words may need decoding comes not only from the ability of the Left to delude themselves he's been successfully neutered, but from the Right's tendancy to launch attacks against what they perceive as his softness. Though I sympathise with the latter, which I found interestingly, and challengingly, expressed by A Tangled Web recently, I don't think that Bush is about to become a softie.

No, what Bush said to Europe was really not that difficult. He praised moves towards 'democratic unity'. Did he mean the EU I wonder? I don't wonder, actually.

To quote from Bush's recent words:

'America supports Europe's democratic unity for the same reason we support the spread of democracy in the Middle East because freedom leads to peace.'

Bush approves of a democratic European unity- ergo he doesn't approve of the Franco-German alliance which seeks through clever Euronods and Eurowinks and Eurotiddlywinks to run the show.

Notice how he linked his approval of European democracy with his pursuit of democracy in the Middle East? It's the same creature, not a different one.

Another bit of controversy seems to have occurred over Mark Steyn' remarkable article which ends so dramatically: 'This week we're toasting the end of an idea: the death of "the West".'

Austin Bay thought he was wrong, but I couldn't understand what Austin was saying- practically speaking.

For my part where I think Steyn is definitely right (never bet against him being right is my advice) is in his assessment of Bush's assessment of Europe, and the kind of figure W. cut while it seemed to him to be over, over here (anyone thinking at this point that I just made a typo needs to read some of Mark's backdated work- or his books). In other words, Bush's trip was token, and everything about it needed to be seen not for what it was on the surface, symbolically, but for what it meant in actuality.

The President's carefully measured trip was designed to do the right thing by his enemies, not to embrace their treachery.

The BBC Muft it

A man after Aunty's own heart is the Mufti of Bosnia- who also merited a mention in my last post but for different reasons.

No, Aunty hadn't heard of him either but he sounds like a jolly nice fellow to entertain the natives with a tale of wholesome multicultiism.

He's such a nice fellow that when he thinks of a hot debate, like 'is Islam secure in Europe?' he doesn't just ram it down your throat, he thinks of a third way-

'"We have two extremes of approach. One says that Muslims are not secure and that Europe is an anti-Islamic environment. The other extreme says Europe is a haven for Islam and Muslims," he says.

"I believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle because we are all in a process of learning."'

Despite all this flannel, we do get to find out what he thinks about the Jews-

'at first outsiders, they later became part of the fabric of society but have defended their identity and world view. In turn, that world view influences decisions of the state and international relations.'

Indeed- but of course they don't 'control the world'.

Dangerous Brew

Chrenkoff has an interesting post on Eastern Europe and its impact on the EU, amongst other things (via Instapundit). It tallies with the BBC article I noted yesterday.

What Chrenkoff envisions is a shift of wealth from West to East in Europe. In principle I would welcome this, except that of course I would prefer not a shift sideways but a levelling up, which looks unlikely.

However, Chrenkoff begins by pointing out the rise in Russian espionage, which seems all of a piece with stealing Yukos, suppressing dissent and 'coordinating' elections.

Meanwhile we have a declining, increasingly authoritarian Western Europe intent on centralising powers in an unelected politbureau.

So, we have an ascendant Eastern Europe (yes, that may be a little premature, but I think it's inexorable as they learn some tricks of capitalism), but without, I would argue, either properly shrunken authorities or an evolving tradition of individual rights (this I have witnessed first hand), and we have a Russia that is still so far behind that it sees its future, as Chrenkoff says, in modernisation rather than liberalistion. I guess Russians are pretty sore at the sudden loss of Empire, too.

To acknowledge another twist that history is insisting on, to that we must add the rise of Islam in Western Europe, the concomitant rise in anti-Jewishness, and the confused stance of people like Prince Charles on Europe's 'historic Muslim presence', and we have a pretty dangerous brew (Incidentally, at the link the BBC ask what surely must rank as most farcically inverted question of the week, nay, era, 'Is Islam secure in Europe?'.)

It's not that I think the coming century will be the century of Europe, any more than I think it will be the century of China (less, actually). It's just that I think that the powers being stirred in Europe are increasingly potent, and dangerous. It doesn't have to be 'your' century for you to ruin it for everyone else, as both the Germans and the Russians jointly proved last time round.

On the theme of Europe's sleepwalk Richard North gives yet another graphic illustration, explainnig part of the divide that exists between the US and Europe in terms of philosophy and direction. I think a resounding rejection of the EU Constitution would be of great assistance in Europe's awakening.

Sharon: Still on Track

Just restating my views about Ariel Sharon. Nicholas Vance has another excellent post critical of the BBC's James Reynolds for saying things like '"It's very simple, today's been all about Israel deciding which bits of occupied land to give up, and which to hold on to."

I agree with Nicholas' arguments about the lack of balance here (eg. 'occupied land' with its catch-all moral pejorative), but as is sometimes the case, BBC journalists are at their most peevish when they can see their little castles in the air disintegrating. Sharon really has the initiative, so much so that Mahmouud Abbas can't keep up. Israel lets go of the prisoners it wants (ie. 'non-bloody' ones), lets go the land it wants, reroutes the barrier as its own courts dictate, and retains the vast majority of the West Bank settlement, all the time with Abbas in tow. Not saying it's easy or pleasant to make concessions to a potentially barely concealed enemy of the state, but I think that Sharon is in charge, and he knows what he's doing. I've always thought that, but recent days (and a little forthright Sky coverage) have help revive that belief. Contrary opinions will be welcomed in comments, as none of my views on this are set in stone, if you feel like having a go at contrariety.

On the other hand (see Steyn below), strong growth from new EU members would create the temptation for the UK to burn its boats with the US and commit to EUtopia in a truly serious relationship (well, knowingly serious, anyway). Of course the BBC do tend to favour such a scenario, so who knows whether the report is reasonable or just puff.

I think Steyn's main concern is not the growth, but the demographics behind it- and what that means for Europe's historic values, more atrophied daily.

Laugh out loud truth, from Steyn:

'in the broader sense vis-à-vis Europe, the administration is changing the tone precisely because it understands there can be no substance. And, if there's no substance that can be changed, what's to quarrel about? International relations are like ex-girlfriends: if you're still deluding yourself you can get her back, every encounter will perforce be fraught and turbulent; once you realise that's never gonna happen, you can meet for a quick decaf latte every six – make that 10 – months and do the whole hey-isn't-it-terrific-the-way-we're-able-to-be-such-great-friends routine because you couldn't care less. You can even make a few pleasant noises about her new romance (the so-called European Constitution) secure in the knowledge he's a total loser.'

Can't help wondering whether it's laughter that's appropriate, or tears.

The Other Side.

It's traditional, I believe, for BBC journalists from time to time to write saccharine little tributes to the country they have insulted so solidly for several happy years. Still, this from Rob Watson (helpfully offered by Marc of USS Neverdock fame) is unusually friendly, and not wholly empty. There's the usual post-modernist dash, designed to express the writer's a) lack of bias or b) humility when faced by grand issues, but some things he says are nearly true.

However, I can't help but feel that though he makes a good point about US nationalism not being of the dangerous kind (to be honest it's depressing that people here need to be told about this), his expression lays the US open to charges of mindlessness, which the BBC in other contexts exploits fully.

'It is not the unhealthy nationalism of "our country is better than your country", after all most Americans have never stepped outside the place, but rather an expression of "life here is good, whoopee".'

'Life is good, whoopee' is a short step from Voltaire's Pangloss, but a long way from the grit which underlies the US' real character- as demonstrated by their outstanding response to 9/11. I also notice the sideswipe made at insular Americans, yet do BBC correspondents ever consider that many a European has never stepped outside his/her own country (eg.Slovakia, Poland, probably France too) above a couple of times at best?

This, however, is better:

'As a European, what I found most refreshing here was the remarkable lack of envy in American society.

When Americans see someone doing well, they do not grumble about it being all right for some, instead they say, one day that could be me.'

If someone thinks I should here be pointing out the BBC's pro-US, anti-Europe bias, I would say that envy is what I would call a natural human condition. The US is an exception to this and Watson rightly points it out. That's not disparaging Europe but noticing what's there, what's notable.

Oh, but last among the post-modern touches I'll note is this example:

'It may all go back to Thomas Jefferson's claim in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 that the pursuit of happiness is among life's unalienable rights.

Whether it is or not, I have no idea, but certainly most of the Americans I know are in hot pursuit of the happiness thing.'

Now did we really need that bit about Watson's non-plussed reception of the principle of the pursuit of happiness? Do we really care what he thinks about it? Would we be happy to hear if Watson said 'I don't know what I think about the right to freedom from torture'. If he'd read his dystopian North American novelists as BBC US correspondents are supposed to have, he'd have recalled what Margaret Attwood wrote in the Handmaids Tale (notable for its depiction of a society succumbing to very European-like birth rates) about there being two kinds of freedom: freedom from and freedom to. The US chose the latter and that's as rational a thing to do as to choose the former, yet not to BBC/European minds.

I think, as the old Crusader said to Indiana Jones at the end of the trilogy, the US has 'chosen wisely', and, by observing at least some of the consequences of that choice made by the Founders of the USA, Watson is halfway to knowing it.

Ian Duncan Smith: true to form

Actually, despite what you may be thinking (apart from Ian Duncan Smith- who he?), I mean this to be complimentary. I felt fairly lonely in my opinion that IDS had both principles and vision. Worldly wisdom, no. Charm, not really. But the rest was admirable, and I can honestly say I was sad the Conservatives got rid of him in what was a effectively a sneaky little putsch.

So it's a pleasure to be able to recommend IDS writing, of all places, in the Guardian (actually, where else?). The fall guy of the Conservatives' doldrums is saying that the Internet, and humble bloggers, may provide a way of salvation for the British Right. I think he overstates the case, although his article is impeccable both in its understanding of the phenomenon in the US and in its logic. He's surely right that there will be surprises for the establishment coming from the emergent sphere of Britblogos. Unfortunately I think that blogging of the kind of quality we've seen in the US (as opposed to flashes in the pan) relies on a disciplined and knowledgeable community with some coherent shared values- perhaps even a quality of friendship- which I think will be hard to come by in the case of UK Conservatives (small or big c), on or off-line. (via Instapundit)

Somewhat related, the BBC quotes a lot of people on the blogging phenomenon, in an article with a balanced feel but a whiff or two of establishment defensiveness (for example I'm sure they blur the Eason Jordan issue).

Meanwhile, it has to be said (in response to Justin Webb's windy mental wanderings detailed below), BITRW

Sack this man, NOW!

I'm not sure that is exactly the way to get what I want, but it felt good to type it. I am truly furious at the BBC and at Justin Webb, seriously jaded correspondent in the US.

I should first say I understand exactly what he is saying in an article which deals with the US/EU division- if you will, a division of consciousness. It's something I've thought about a lot through close dealings with both Europeans and Americans (though I've only encountered a wide variety of US expats in various locations, rather than visited the country itself. Saving the best..., is how I would put it).

But it's soo0 banal- I wouldn't blame you if you took one look and gave up on Webb's blatherings, but I feel I should mention them.

Let's start with the most obvious factual calumny. According to Webb the US response to the Tsunami illustrates their lack of reality by comparison with Europe. Did he bother to find out that France, to take the most prime example, was so ill-equipped in their effort to help that they had only one helicopter to administer their aid effort, and that loaned to them? As one Frenchman exclaimed on TV with a notable European flourish of realism, 'It is as though France no longer has the means even to express its emotions.' or as a reporter was reported saying , '"The good will of the rescuers is not in question," says Pujadas. "This is well and truly a foul up."' If he thought that Europeans were on the ball regarding the Tsunami it is Webb who is the fantasist, wilfully failing to notice failure. Frankly I couldn't give a damn who saw what pictures- I am interested to see who was on hand to help. So were the Indonesians.

According to Webb

'America is fast becoming a nation of faith not fact. A nation where the unpleasant aspects of human existence are simply airbrushed away.

Television coverage of the Asian Tsunami was a case in point. In Europe it was covered as an unrelenting tragedy, in America, one television network promised "incredible stories of lives saved in near miraculous fashion".'

...


'While Europeans fret about what they regard as real life, about poverty and social justice and about combating AIDS, Americans find it easier to rally round a vision, however otherworldly it might be.'

Like the 'vision' Bush has about donating billions of dollars to help Aids victims in Africa, I suppose.

Not only does he demonstrate ignorance bordering on complete dishonesty, stupidity is also displayed. Setting aside the assumption that the best measure of the reality of a nation's worldview is the extent to which they show violence of different sorts on their television, or the assumption that the nature of TV in various places is a good measure of anything at all, did it occur to Webb that the reason for a greater sense of 'reality', so-called, in Europe, could have been their much greater involvement in the casualties that were recorded? If the US' population had been hit by the tsunami like, say, Sweden's, I think there would have been more direct coverage, at the very least in terms of interviews with victims' families questing to have bodies discovered and returned.

Webb goes on to tack this observation to an observation about the numbers of Americans who believe in what is technically termed 'The Rapture'. Well, this teleological prediction may not be true, but it is certainly something about which Europeans are largely ignorant but Americans are comparatively well informed. It is Webb's automatic presumption that belief in certain things indicates unreality, which he also links to ignorance. In fact of course there are people in the US highly educated in the field of theology for whom such concepts as The Rapture are matters of robust debate. Debate- you know, the thing we don't have about our central idea for the future, the European Superstate. I'm willing to bet the populous of the US know more certifiable facts about different theories of the End-times than EU citizens know about their political masters' political teleology.

As if his massive simplification and condescension weren't bad enough, he adds a note of true absurdity, which nevertheless does approximate a truth- if I can explain.

'No wonder then, that in international affairs America is so willing to smite its enemies.

Or to hold firm to a principle even when practicalities get in the way.

It has been happening for years.

'Atlantic chasm'

Witness President Reagan's arms build up in the 1980s, which helped to destroy the Soviet Union, or the first President Bush's decision to press for German re-unification, when even Mrs Thatcher was nervous.'

The way this shadows, but does not represent, reality, is that, yes, America stands out by its willingness to consider the possibility that it might have enemies, to conduct foreign policy with this in mind, and to act when it views it necessary to act, or, if you prefer to use Biblical language, 'smite' the self-proclaimed enemies of the United States. This would, in a non-fantasist's lexicon, be known as 'diplomatic reality.' I can only think that Webb lives in a bubble that is not simply post-modern, but post-reality, and certainly pre-Sept 11th 2001.

But judging from this article, and others, Webb would only be comfortable in a pre-1989 world, and even that would have to be in a privileged post editing Pravda.

Sorry- no time equalled no posts yesterday. Today I have spent an amiable time surfing. I realised, among many other things, that I'd followed the Belmont Club from less than 20,000 registered visitors to over 5 million. I also realised how essential it is to have a simple memorable registration for the Spectator, solely for the purpose of reading Mark Steyn's lit crit, and lines like this one about Arthur Miller:

'He wasn’t amiable enough to be an amiable dunce but he was the most useful of the useful idiots.'

Speaking of useful idiots, Powerline chose this time to launch several posts about Jimmy Carter. There's something in the last paragraph of this one that seems to suggest a translation from an Iraqi paen to Saddam Hussein.

'O great poet, novelist, artist, builder, seer, peacemaker, thank you. Thank you because I am joyful. Thank you because I am well. Centuries will pass, and the generations still to come will regard us as the happiest of mortals, as the most fortunate of men, because we lived in the century of centuries, because we were privileged to see you, our inspired leader. Yes, and we regard ourselves as the happiest of mortals because we are the contemporaries of a man who never had an equal in world history.'

This kind of brings me back to Steyn's view of Miller:

'a man of such unbounded self-regard judged the health of nations and political systems in the same way he did the health of the American theatre — by how fulsomely they acknowledge his genius.'

Meanwhile, all this talk of cosying up to dictators (a British artform, I'm afraid, that was marred only by two or three world wars) brought to mind someone else. Austin Bay has an excellent post on why Eason Jordan's resignation was not honourable. Thanks to Roger Simon for several interesting links.

Understanding Ken. Melanie Phillips, well placed as a London journalist throughout Ken's rising and falling, does a pretty good job- and highlights a potentially dangerous trend of synthesis between radical Islam and the Left, in this case between Ken's anti-Jewishness, and Al Qaradawi's.

Incidentally, defenders of Ken tend to highlight the Daily Mail (Standard's sister paper)'s association with Oswald Mosely in the Thirties. Well, they don't call Ken 'Red' for nothing. If I didn't find it idiotic to compare despot with despot the way we used to play Top Trumps, I'd wonder what the body count comparison would be between Mosely's heroes and Kenneth's.

The BBC at work: Building 'em up; knocking 'em down; rallying the troops. After all- it's in a good cause.

Says Linda Burney of the Aborigines (last link),

'"[Aborigines] can look forward to being sick, unemployment, racism and a very, very early death," said Linda Burney, the first indigenous member of the New South Wales state parliament.'

So, what's the downside to Abo. life, I wonder?

Nicholas Vance gets better- not that he ever really needed to, but it's all to the good when it comes to incisive comment on the BBC's biases, or sheer incompetences.

He reports on Matt Frei's pursuit of the sinister Christian Right in the US which is said to underlie the great satan.. er, sorry, the capitalist leader of the world's economy. Funny how a secularist comes to see the worship of mammon as a kind of identifiable sin (the BBC journalist funded from the public purse, that is).

Anyway, a great post about a fool's journalistic errand. What strikes me is that we won't be hearing about the sinister phenomenon of the spread of the Islamic banking system any time soon from the BBC.

Meanwhile, Steyn produces gem after gem of hard edged prose to scythe into the UN's scurrilous ranks, eg.

'UN territories like Kosovo are the global equivalent of inner-city council estates with the blue helmets as local enforcers for the absentee slum landlord.'

or

'But, if Lynndie's smashed to pieces our entire morality with just one tug, Bush's Zionist neocons getting it on with Congolese kindergarteners would have the Independent calling for US expulsion from the UN - no, wait, from Planet Earth: slice it off from Maine to Hawaii and use one of those new Euro-Airbuses to drag it out round the back of Uranus.'

Way to go. Sometimes I wish that hatemongers like those at the Indie would take such analogies and think about them until their jaundiced minds burst.

He's Back! Steyn I mean, at least in terms of his too long hiatusing website. He's back and he's controversial as ever, as in this extract from an article to which I don't have full access (maybe you do?), but I can at least guess where he's going with it from the excerpt.

If I lived in Britain, I'd vote for Tony Blair's Labour party. Yes, yes, I know he's a nanny-state control-freak and you can hardly pull your pants on in the morning without filling in the form for the Public Trouser Usage Permit and undergoing inspection from the Gusset Regulatory Authority. But on the One Big Thing — the great issue of the age — he's right, and he's reliable. And, sad to say, the British Conservative party isn't. Their leader, Michael Howard, has been a cheesy opportunist on the war, supporting it at the time, backtracking later, his constantly evolving position twisting itself into a knot of contortions even John Kerry might find over-nuanced.'

It's a sentiment I almost agree with, and I could go along with, but I don't expect much from Mr Blair on the WoT from here onwards. Has Steyn not noticed all Tony's talk of learning from mistakes? Isn't that a similar kind of twisting in the wind to that which he accuses Howard of? Besides, Blair may be right in his grasp of the WoT, but he can't carry his party with him in that understanding. If anything Blair may be a fifth column ally for the US, carrying his socialist freight with him as he does- for instance over Iran. At least Howard would only have the same pontificating idiots to deal with that he already has to deal with over Europe, eg. Clarke, Hezza, Rifkind and Brittan.

Update: darned Blogger is delaying posting my posts, hence this one's late arrival.

Barone Balance. Michael Barone analyses blogs (via Instapundit) and their political effects. He makes a lot of spot-on points, and struck the biggest chord for me when he said 'the right blogosphere was different from the left. There was no one dominant website and no one orthodoxy'

It's very much my impression that Kos is the darling of the US Left. In the UK the situation is different, but in the States it seems like being part of an overwhelming movement, submerged in a mindset and worldview of moral indignation, is the only way to be for the Left- hence Kos's success, which has coincided with the Left's failure. This authoritarian tendancy is the natural consequence of the ideological fixity which is inseparable ultimately from socialism.

Here in the UK the blogosphere is less developed, and really the most recurrent thought I have is that with Blair we're going through what I feel to be our 'Clinton years'. With the rest of Europe so weak economically, and no stained dresses on Mr Blair's conscience, and no 9/11 wake up call conceivable for so many reasons (and let's hope we never have to deal with such an event), perhaps we'll never realise- but I am sure we'll see the Blair years as a time of political lethargy, waste and missed opportunities.

I'd say the blogosphere in the UK actually leans leftwards, in a lukewarm sort of way, and that, even absenting a Conservative Kos, the Conservative perspective is held more emotionally than rationally. It's at the point when hard-headed Conservatism makes a return that we might see the kind of reversal that would synchronise us with the US blogosphere.

I think that will happen over the next ten years- too long but worth waiting for.

I am a fan of cricket, and though I rarely mention it, I just found amusing this little excerpt from one of those running commentaries the BBC provides on their website.

In the 33rd over: 'Just 17 overs remain and at 89-6, England are merely hoping they can bat out the overs.'

Here's the latest, livebloggin' here!:' Eng 208-7 46.1 ovs v SA'

Bit of a turnaround, methinks, courtesy of our South-African born Pietersen. However, they'll probably still lose so I'm not over-excited; I have learned to create a zen-like calm when it comes to investing interest and hopes in sporting affairs.

Couple of Items

First of all CNN was the liveliest I've seen it in ages (I am a fairly frequent watcher of this channel) in the wake of Eason Jordan's resignation. The need to self-justify dragged up an interesting item (no, fascinating)about Sudan's rapprochement with the South, but also a whiny David Kay to warn about the dangers of getting Iran's WMD capabilities wrong (this is the man I am convinced has made a plea bargain with the Liberal media: 'don't destroy my professional life and I'll say anything you want me to'). The Sudan item was an interview with one of the former rebel leaders of the South, who now plans to enter a powersharing arrangement with the North. These were just two of the desperate stabs that CNN made to distract from their unease over Eason.

Meanwhile, LGF noticed Red Ken's antisemitism- or should that be anti-Jewishness?- in the light of his support for al-Qaradawi.

And by the way, this article about Argentina's emerging anti-US position and alliances with Cuba and Venezuela from the American Thinker is fascinating.

The things I value about David Frum include his sense of personal involvement in the things he comments about. This was especially evident in a recent post about an Iraqi politician, Mithal al-Alusi, who suffered the terrible loss of two sons in a recent attempt on his life by terrorist gunmen, yet managed when commenting on his devastation to mention a third murder which occurred on the same occasion, that of his bodyguard, in the same breath as his sons'.

I wonder if there is anyone who will read Frum's post apart from me who will make the connection between this incident and another politician who lost two sons to violence in Iraq. The man that I am thinking of is Saddam Hussein. I have to admit I didn't care at all when he lost his sons- in fact I was quietly pleased for a variety of reasons.

So, the question I ask of myself is, do I lack balance to react so differently? Does David Frum for that matter? Or are we actually maintaining a moral compass in distinguishing between the killing of the sons of a peaceful democrat and a those of a vicious dictator.

Should we have marked the deaths of Uday and Qusay, terrible names for many Iraqis, the way we mark the deaths of Mithal al-Alusi's sons, whose names I do not know?

Frum ends his post by quoting from a recent (unpublished, sadly) article from Al-Alusi- which I found quite penetrating. Above all though was the reasonableness of the man. A good man, I would say- even if saying such a thing is really a bit of stretch for anyone.

'Last month, I became the first Iraqi official ever to visit the State of Israel. My visit outraged my colleagues in the provisional Iraqi government. I was fired from my job as General Director of the Supreme National Commission for DeBaathification, expelled from my political party, and stripped of my personal security detail: a potentially deadly punishment for somebody in my position in today’s Iraq. I was even threatened with criminal prosecution.'

Frum quotes this in the context of his anger at the narrow-mindedness of rentagob opponents of the US invasion of Iraq. Can't they at least support the kind of people exemplified by Al-Alusi? Can't they keep a civil tongue, at least, in the face of suffering?

To quote Frum:

'Maybe it’s too much to ask Americans to support such brave people – that at least seems to be the dominant point of view in today’s Democratic party and much of today’s elite media. Maybe it’s too much even to be bothered to pay attention to Arab democrats' struggles and hardships in exile and under tyranny. But can we not at least refrain from ridiculing them?'

It seems the fault is ours. If only we had valued the lives of Uday and Qusay this might never have happened. I suppose, too, that if Al-Alusi had never been so unbalanced as to show support for Israel what has befallen his family would never have happened, either.

I was reminded of Paul Reynolds, who I quoted yesterday, saying that France and Germany, mindful of the price the US was paying, didn't feel the need to 'rub American faces in it'

But what niggled me so much was what 'it' was. 'It' being US deaths? 'It' being Iraqi deaths? If 'it' was economic problems, then I know who would have experienced more of the rubbing of faces, and it wouldn't be GWB.

As it happens, I completely disagree with anyone who says that the price has been high, too high, or some such thing, even though I can't talk about the price from personal experience, like many a family in the States or in the UK, or like Al-Alusi and some of his compatriots.

The likes of Reynolds seek to trivialise the ends and ridicule the means that the US has made its labour in the Middle East. In doing so people like Al-alusi and the countless victims of terror are merely caught in the crossfire. Too busy pursuing mean spirited political goals, the BBC and co. are simply unable to dignify the deaths of the innocent with respect (even the deaths of those they genuinely accept are innocent- these are the casualties of the random dribblings of the incontinent North American superpower). After all, if we had just shown the respect due to Saddam Hussein, this whole 'adventure' or 'calamity', depending on our rhetorical objectives, would never have taken place.

Ohh, look- the Beeb say Iranians are all unified behind the Mullahs.

Despite the fact that they must know better, they can't resist this temptation towards 'balance', as they call it. They also can't resist saying things like this:

'The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says those in power want to show they have genuine popular support, and make it far more difficult for the Americans to topple the regime.'

Which is the Beeb's way of calling a spade a spade. Didn't hear about it in Condi's speech recently, though. The Beeb knows even better than the French not to believe the words of a neo-Con.

Paul Reynolds has an article about neo-Condi- where I agree with him that Condi has not changed her position in terms of substance. However, after the successful elections in Iraq, I find it hard to credit that Reynolds thinks that

'The French and Germans have no intention of joining in the Iraq adventure and reckon that the US is now paying the price of a wrong decision.

So they do not feel the need to rub American faces in it.'

This is the sort of casual language Reynolds uses when he wants to pull a fast one. It's not as if Bush didn't scupper all their hopes when he got reelected. It's not as if the election success didn't pull a rug from under the Iraq war critics. Their position, as Steyn has argued cogently, is dribbling away. The only question now is what their exit strategy will be: the attentive audiences for Condi suggested that Europeans in fact know the game is up. They've been contradicted by the stained finger. So has Zarqawi. The game's up- but let's not rub their faces in it.

Pants!

The BBC's sense of priorities was interesting last time I checked. It was held to be bigger news that the British PM 'apologised' (no quotemarks for the BBC) to the Guilford bunch than that MPs were debating the EU Constitution. Even while covering it, the Beeb let Straw get away with the utterly ridiculous argument that the EU Constitution represented a line in the sand:

'Mr Straw said the constitution signalled "thus far and no further" by clearly setting out the limits of EU powers.'

Notice what is quote marked and what isn't. Straw's assertion- yes. Straw's justification for that- no.

In fact, that pathetic gesture politics over the Guildford lot being played by Blair(never mind the pesky bank robbery, we can still be friends) is a long way less important than the progressive seizure of the powers of the United Kingdom's elected legislators.

Bigger still for the Beeb was that Virginian State delegates were backing fines for 'droopy drawers'. So, anti-Americanism conquers much, it would seem. As the BBC puts it, 'US politicians fed up with catching an eyeful of underwear want to fine those who won't hitch up their trousers.'

Yeah, the BBC- well and truly hipsters.

Meanwhile, the BBC reports, unquotemarked, that 'More than one million people from the EU's eight eastern European states have visited the UK since their countries joined last May, figures show.' . Wot, no "visited"?

I notice that 'Around 90,000 said they intended to stay longer than three months', and I wonder if that is all we have to rely on- what they say.

For coverage of the issue that actually raises some questions instead of enforcing answers irrespective, Nicholas Vance asks some questions of the Beeb.

For coverage of the Constitution debate that doesn't tolerate the Straw man's puffery, EURef has a nice post, and promises more to come.

Looks like I was right, sort of, and the Diplomad's period of grace has ended. Whether this was the consequence of the big splash they made considering the sensitivity of their occupation, I leave you to decide based on their valedictory post.

It was good while it lasted, and they link to some alternatives for our perusal. There're plenty of options to put in my links section- more appearing than dissappearing, I feel, on balance.

A Fine Line or a Crooked Path?

Some scepticism here and here about the Sharon rapprochement with Abbas as some kind of Oslo-lite. I'm sympathetic when no-one has really demonstrated to me that Abbas is any more unequivocally committed to peaceful means of resolving the issue than Arafat was. Sure, Abbas can be found saying the right things, and can engender some modest moves in the right direction, but I believe Arafat was capable of that. I see (saw) Sharon's unilateral disengagement plans as- essentially and justly- an attempt to gain the best grounds for fighting a war by either means necessary. If it means signing up to the UN/BBC/French/Palestinian 'peace plan', then it means nothing good for Israel. I don't yet concede that's what we're getting right now, but it could be. The American Thinker (second link) was particularly scathing, and that publication is lashing Bush generally at the moment. I would counsel patience, but Republicans feel that they have some slack to use post election, and they're really using it. Says the A.T.:

'Sharon’s actions are so inexplicable, so out of character, so extreme and so dangerous that one can seriously inquire if he is in his right mind. ... If the Bush Administration continues its ruinous course of supporting Sharon's “disengagement” policy and joining him in the appeasement of the Abbas-Fatah terrorist regime, then it too will be guilty of betraying its own principles as enunciated in Mr. Bush's justly celebrated speech of June 24, 2002'

To which I would reply, still, 'wait and see.'

Stormin' Norman? Really, I never would have thought of our mild-mannered Norman Geras in such terms if the Times hadn't just used them in a big splash profile. (via Powerline)

Want a sound basis for understanding the world of international politics? Don't want to be a dummy and trust all the wrong people to do things which completely miss the point? Read Mark Steyn now. Yes, lots of people have linked his latest article, most of you will have read it, but this is my favourite part:

'a few days ago, the UN Human Rights Commission announced the working group that will decide which complaints will be heard at their annual meeting in Geneva this spring: the five-nation panel comprises the Netherlands, Hungary, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. I wouldn't bet on them finding room on their crowded agenda for the question of human rights in Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe, would you? One of the mystifying aspects of UN worship is the assumption that this embryo world government is a "progressive" concept. It's not. Its squalid geographic voting blocs, which use regional solidarity to inflate the status of nickel'n'dime dictators, are merely a Third World gloss on the Congress of Vienna – a relic of an age when contact between states was confined to their governing elites. In an era of jet travel, internet and debit cards that work in any bank machine from Vancouver to Vilnius to Vanuatu, there are millions of global relationships far better for the long-term health of the planet than using American money to set up Eurowimp talking shops manned by African thugs – which is what the UN Human Rights Commission boils down to.'

This passage, especially the last part, contains oodles of that precious commodity, reality.