Aunty's Anti-Jewishness

I thought I might write about this because it's a subject that I find most divides my viewpoint from that of the BBC, and via this divides it from that of a considerable portion of people in the UK.

My thoughts arose from reading this article from John Ray- sourced from the Jerusalem Post- about the British elite and anti-semitism.

He quickly introduces the BBC we should all know if we aren't wrapped in maudlin (it was the last item which caught my eye):

'Matters begin with the BBC, the voice of sweet reason to itself and most Britons. On BBC discussion shows, like Question Time, defenders of Israel are inevitably outnumbered three or four to one, if they can be found at all. Even an innocuous observation that Israel is the Middle East's best functioning democracy is guaranteed to set off vicious hissing and jeering from the studio audience.

Prior to the boycott revote, the BBC carried a report on the College of Judea and Samaria, which it matter-of-factly describes as being located in an "illegally occupied settlement on Arab land." Viewers would never have learned that 300 Arabs from neighboring villages study there, or that 20% of the University of Haifa's student body, and many department heads, are Arabs. The BBC's Orla Guerin, who once described the arrest of a retarded teenage Palestinian suicide bomber as an Israeli stunt to gain favorable publicity, was on the Queen's most recent birthday honors list.'

This is just a taster, but I am disgusted by what the Queen's Honours have become under Tony Blair's guidance- routinely embodying for me why Blair is certainly no friend to Britain, and remains emphatically a revisionistic Socialist with all that means. Of course peerages and honours are debased coinage anyway following Blair's evisceration of the Lords, but nevertheless they are still as much, if not more than ever, the coinage of elitism, an expression of establishment admission, and a powerful social force among the UK's leadership tranche.

As for Guerin, I remember early one morning in one tucked-away broadcast, just over a year ago, when Guerin repeatedly described Ariel Sharon as the 'Godfather' of Israeli settlers. She clearly implied some kind of gangster-like qualities, and it was so gratuitous and sneering it took my breath away. This of course at a time when many unnecessary courtesies had already been mooted for Saddam Hussein. Well, more about Guerin's recent activities here, as she lays into Israel's highly successful concrete-aided fence.

What can a British person who is also a sympathiser of Israel say when someone like Guerin is honoured by the Queen. Dude, where's my country?

But Guerin is not alone in her bias; there's Barabara Plett and Lys Doucet and and others who I and others have noticed with anti-Israel bias, not to say occasional anti-semitism. In other words the BBC itself stands accused.

Yet from the journalistic establishment we get things like this:

'What, I sometimes wonder, would life be like without Desert Island Discs, Jim Traynor, Andy Marr, Bryan Burnett’s fab C&W extravaganza, the World At One, the World Service, Radio Three, Radio Five’s football commentator Alan Green (“This will be their 19th consecutive game without a win unless they can get an equaliser”), honey-voiced Nick Clarke, Natasha Kaplinsky, Humphrey Lyttleton, Mark Lamarr, the Round Britain Quiz, the fragrant Orla Guerin, and, of course, not forgetting my dear chum, Andra Neil.'

I mean really all you need is to put 'the Rvd', 'the hon.', and so on, beside these names and you'd have the makings of a speech from one of Jane Austin's Grande Dames.

To an extent that's absurd. No, of course the BBC and chums (and there are a lot of people involved) are not the new aristocracy, at least not as we knew it. What they are though is a highly self-satisfied and self-interested body of folks who are evolving their own definition of class and how to enforce it. Different classes than the old sort perhaps; more broad-based in some ways, yet in other ways actually narrower (the highest echelons being less soundly educated, for instance, than the Arnoldian upper classes).

The way that anti Semitism and elitism ties together is this: elites like to consider themselves the best that is present in society, and the more prestigious they find their society to be the more they can enjoy their position. Britain really knows far too much about this phenomenon, though you'd never guess it from the faux-egalitarianism of the Beeb (faux-egalitarianism is part of the fun). Society elites therefore spend their time comparing themselves to other countries' elites, and this is where the Jews come in for their stick. Forget American exceptionalism- the real exceptionalism of history, an exceptionalism unchosen and unsought, belongs to the Jews. So whatever the pretensions of the British successors to the Empire (ie. the cool Britons), there is always one cachet which eludes them- they are not different in the way that the Jewish nation is.

As the British elite becomes ever more rapaciously absorbative of all manner of problems that befuddled their ancestors (Ireland, Palestine, racism, Africa), and pretends to know all the answers to these questions (ever more ludicrously and damagingly in real historical terms), so they get more and more unhinged by Israeli exceptionalism.

But what does this mean? Not I think, that Britain is about to round up the relatively small populations of its own Jews- that would only happen over heaps of non-elite British corpses (as the elite get more rotten so in some respects the ordinary British people get more like tarts with hearts). And anyway, the elite is too lazy and too stupid either to bother rounding them up or to organise the operation. True, there are many sycophants of the elite, but they simply have very loud voices rather than overwhelming numbers.

Of course Israel-in-the-world suffers, but I still believe that modern Israel can and will hold its own.

No, the real loss is that when the world needs leadership what it gets is Tony Blair.

And it's people like Blair that render me sympathetic to people writing like this. (no, I don't agree, only sympathise- if that's not a cop out. I am certain that Blair will do no real good to Africa; the reverse in fact.)

Thanks, by the way, to A Tangled Web for much food for thought and valuable linkaging.

All that's bad about BBC reporting can be found in this article at BBConline. Well, perhaps not all- but much.

What is news anyway? Is it what happens, or what you would like to happen, or what you think could happen, given enough publicity?

I give you the BBC's idea of news:

'Four US soldiers have been killed in insurgent attacks since late Tuesday.

The American deaths on Tuesday brought the toll from the day's violence to at least 36 people, making it one of the deadliest days since May.

According to a US opinion poll, for the first time a majority of Americans believe that the war in Iraq has not made the US safer.

The nationwide poll of 1,002 selected adults taken by the Washington Post and ABC News shows 52% believe the war has not contributed to America's long-term security with 47% believing it has.

Inferno

"We found three civilians' bodies torn completely apart," said Lt Col Thair al-Izzi in Baquba.'

Note the linkage here: the deaths, the polls in the US, The Horror.

Of course taken separately each item may have some newsworthiness of some sort. Taken together they're just propaganda for the so-called insurgents, whose aims we all understand, though their tactics seem bizarrely to smack of a desire to be on the losing side of history.

One could understand it if there was anything in the current attacks which showed a step change in Iraq, but there isn't. The Coalition casualties go through their ups and downs as they always have. Judging from the entrenchment near Falluja the evil men of Iraq always bargained on a war of attrition. Judging from the continuing revelations of terrorist intent, Iraq is the flypaper it was always said to be.

All the BBC can hope is that the fabled religious divides of Iraq will come to life in time to impersonate some horrible, borrible place from which nightmarish, nightmarish reality US troops can only hope to emerge intact, if they're lucky. Sigh...- it's all been said before, yet the Beeb, with its unexcelled egotism, thinks it's very clever, still:

'The violence continued as a senior Shia figure demanded a greater security role for the Badr Brigades militia, accused by its critics of vigilante attacks on Sunni Arabs...

Before the US-led invasion in Spring 2003 the brigades waged a guerrilla war in southern Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein's government.'

See, civil war etc etc etc blah, 'right all the long' utter bullshit.

Meanwhile, an attempt at perspective, here.

Following up yesterday's post, here's John Hinderaker on Guantamo 'Koran abuse' and fair headlines.

A bit pissed off.

Looking through the news stories about the Guantamo bay "desecration" incident(s), I could see that confusion reigned. How to present 5 whole incidents separately or together in some summary phrase seemed to be beyond the powers of the media.

Particularly egregious was this Times of India report, which said that 'US military personnel once kicked a copy of the Quran, and subsequently a guard accidentally urinated on it'.

Er, I don't think it was the same Koran, bub, or the fellow it belonged to was having one very bad hair day. And I always thought the educated classes in India were pretty hot with their English.

Continuing the subcontinental theme, this from the Indian Express (sounds kind of fine, don't it?) was far better. You'd expect that all in the country would understand the kind of thing that makes the Muslim masses restive, and would hold back from Imran Khaning the issue.

But yes, I'm coming round to the BBC on this subject, as might be anticipated.

While they are reporting that Sen Biden wants to close Guantanamo down, and Amnesty think it's the gulag of our time (they really ought to get out more- to a psychiatrist's perhaps), they also say 'The comments came two days after the Pentagon admitted that guards at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated the Koran.'

This is an absurd way to describe the findings of the report in question. The first thing you have to question is the precise meaning of this word 'desecration'. If some similar standard were applied for the Christian church in Britain then shops open on Sunday would be 'desecrating' the Sabbath and shopkeepers would be trembling at the thought of a call being paid by the men from the International Courts. Similarly if the fine spray of inadvertent urination were a 'desecration', then someone ought to stop the vandalism of toilet spaces that is engaged in hourly by men around the globe. If only the Yank had gone 'sitting down' there would have been no problem.

But secondly there was no admission of guilt involved. In fact the opposite. They admitted, to a question that was not asked, that they held the Koran in great respect in all their practises. I am not sure about the notion of desecration in Islam, though I don't know if I care much either, but I know that in Judeo-Christianity a fundamental distinction is made between advertent and inadvertent behaviour. Not to make it here seems either wilful manipulation, or rank dhimmitude.

Of course I'm well-aware that Muslims think the Koran was dictated straight from Heaven, and everything about its treatment needs to be rinky-dinky, but the fact is that (I've a confession to make, I've read the Bible cover to cover three times or more) to read a book like the Koran (which I've also done, though not completely through) requires that it's a bit dog-eared. Not sure about pissing on it, but it slips down the back of the bed, is good for resting hot coffee on, gets a bit damp in the bathroom and is the all time best, guaranteed-death, fly swatter (in this the religious texts are united and inseparable).

Quite frankly I'm amazed how good the US army is, and how utterly respectful of their protocols- and I can't think why our press has seen the need to spoil their knickers over it. Except that, of course, the press (especially the British one) always feels like they're part of some low-grade Hollywood film where the US Government agencies and minions are always the bad guys)

And this Euro analysis, from the Weekly Standard, really cuts to the quick on occasion:

'had the constitutional thingy, whatever you choose to call it, passed, the ability to paint it as a constitution would have been crucial to increasing Brussels' power and prestige.'

This vital point, it seems to me, illustrates how much the old 'tidying up' canard was just a clay pigeon for sceptics to shoot at. Christopher Caldwell makes other telling points too.

Back to Euroland, and it's been pleasing to find a lot of people mulling over the possibility of radical deconstruction. Charles Moore, one of the cleverest journalists around, takes a typically insightful look at the fine cracks appearing in the mighty Eurodam.

Oh yes, and, while talking about media misrepresentation, the Newsweek story about toilet-flushing (the Koran) is interestingly exposed by the official report into such incidents, as noted by CNN .

Of course they presented it like a 'Bad News' story (especially on the TV version), yet in reality it exonerates the US of any serious misdemeanour, as Austin Bay says, and really turns the heat onto Newsweek. They got the story the wrong way round, completely. They ignored the real explanation- that an inmate flushed the Koran in the toilet himself- and went for the join the dots version that they were anticipating instead. (AB via Instapundit). Oh yes, and Michelle Malkin makes the issue very clear, too.

Numbers Count: that's what I said to a friend just as the 2nd Iraq war kicked off. I meant that our discussions about numbers of dead under Saddam, and those who would undoubtedly die in fighting during and subsequent to an invasion, were important in analysing the rightness of the cause. Of course not the only thing at all, but important.

So there is little wonder that various groups have tried to use numbers to disqualify the humanitarian aspect of the Iraq invasion and reconstruction from weighing in their precious scales of justice. We've endured the likes of Galloway picking up these figures and running with them- as per the intentions of the anti-war groups concerned (yes, I do mean The Lancet and various supranationals).It's abundantly clear that boosting the numbers of dead has been a prime objective for the terrorists in Iraq, too- though naturally they don't use respectable journals but rather bomb belts to achieve this boosting.

I do hope then that some people will listen to the figures published by the Iraqi Government, horrific though they are. After all, this is the Sovereign Iraqi Government we're talking about- men you can do business with.

12,000 is a lot of bodies, even over an 18 month period. But one thing I always notice about the media coverage of Iraq- we never get any retractions of numbers of dead cited in incidents. A little suggestive of a mindset, I feel, where 'worse' is the only story the reporters can understand. (Via Chrenkoff)

I was prompted to think about Iraq a bit more by this precise and incisive article from Amir Taheri

Taheri makes the telling point that 'The insurgents know how to kill, but no longer know who to kill. Nor do they seem to know why they are killing.'

Which is a bit of a problem for the anti-Bush leftist media, who can't help their allies in Iraq unless they know what they're trying to do with their spirited tactics.

Of course, were it not for MR Galloway I'd be warier about making such a direct association between the ostensibly law-abiding left and the totally lawless Islamofascists, but Galloway's made it all too clear we can't flatter them with that distinction anymore:

'the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries.'

I suppose it's only the logic of language to associate Galloway and friends with, er, Galloway and friends: all "militants" together. (and thus the whirligig of time brings in its revenges)

But the telling feature of Taheri's argument is that the very things which most antagonise us about the "insurgents", ie. the indiscriminacy, the bloodthirstiness, are resulting in the defeat of the political aims of those people.

It strikes me the same is true of the leftist media, whose grasping indiscriminately and vociferously at every opportunity to megaphone their opposition to GWB's progress is just bewildering rather than impressive. I read this hotchpotch round up of violence in Iraq today. What was (is) clear is that the BBC haven't a clue, beyond a few snippy, cut n'paste remarks, how to undermine US confidence or how to generate a defeatist narrative. That's in part a reflection of the utterly chaotic nature of the so-called insurgency- without reason, without rhyme- and partly a reflection of their (own) utter barrenness of real ideas.

So even if Galloway is right that his 'progressive' chums and himself are on the side of those who oppose US so-called occupation of Iraq, it means nothing practically apart from cameramen who will chase ambulances and news anchors who will raise eyebrows. Sickening and alienating, yes- and that's the point.

As can be seen from then amazing maturation of BBC theorising, they are all at sea- just like their 'progressive', sorry, er, 'militant' friends.

One final point about Taheri's article. Probably consciously he drops into it the idea that 'The insurgency may continue for many more months, if not years, in the area known as Jazirah (island), which accounts for about 10 per cent of the Iraqi territory, plus parts of Baghdad. It may continue killing large numbers of people but will not be able to stop the political process. Its history is one of a string of political failures.'

I'm willing to bet a fair bit that this term 'Jazirah' has a more familiar incarnation to us Westerners in 'Al Jazeera'- a fitting testimony to an alliance in failure.

And lo! I googled.

Ideology and Fresh Air Thinking.

Remembering a time when, in the absence of anything much to do before Sunday lunch (spoilt kid that I was), I used to sit down with half an eye on a glass of sherry, half an eye on the Sunday newspaper, half an eye staring into space, and half an eye on some old bloke on the TV warbling on in measured yet somehow, strangely, breathless tones about politics, I was interested to see the Rottwieller Puppy lay into Brian Walden.

You could trace one line of my BBC-scepticism from that time, as it dawned dully on me that Brian was in fact a former Labour MP, yet was supposed to be some god of neutrality. It didn't add up, given that to be a Labour MP in the days when Walden had been one meant that you were waiting for the revolution, either patiently or impatiently.

So, I recommend you read Walden on the BBC commenting on the European dream (trying at present to replace the rather more balanced Alistair Cooke and his American Letter), and then read the Rottweiler Puppy's take (set aside some time for these readings). I guarantee by turns an illuminating and refeshing experience as the R.P. blows Walden inside out. If I had foreseen back then the 'Fisking' of Walden no doubt I'd have choked on my sherry and volunteered to peel the carrots.

When you're taking hits like there's no missing, is it sensible to make the target bigger?

Maybe someone should ask that question of Jacques Chirac, whose sacking of sacrificial lamb, sorry, Prime Minister Raffarin, and replacement with De Vilepin, is surely an attempt to increase my merriment at his own expense.

Eursoc rounds up the rounds nicely, while speculating about Sarkozy, who either let Chriac know he didn't want the poisoned chalice, or actually managed to convince Chirac he would be doing him down by overlooking him for poisoned chalice service.

It's all very well for Paul Reynolds to get into the French-centred history of the EU, as though it were some intricate watch mechanism that the French, having constructed, have just dashed to the ground in a huff.

The truth is that it's a lot less delicate than that, a lot more chauvinistic than some airy-fairy vison of Monnet and Schumann, and it's post-modern in its imperviousness to the pleading or reasoning of its subjects.

EURef sums up well the narrative which is being presented by the likes of Reynolds:

'The morning after, it looks like the end of a Dick Tracy episode. The hero is bound and gagged, facing a certain, horribly violent death - and the credits start rolling.'

While Reynolds has seized on the drama, and builds up the sense of crisis, the Telegraph offers the realistic conclusion to the referendum affair:

'the Euro-elites will make some soothing noises about the need to address voters' concerns; then they will carry on as if nothing had happened. This is, after all, not the first time that they have had to deal with rejection in a national referendum.'

In other words, what Reynolds builds up is that satisfying sense that the Euro-elite has been wounded; that it is hurting. In fact, such is the imperviousness of our technocratic masters, they don't know what hurt is.

Reynolds suggests that 'the EU will stagger on under existing treaties.'- and this, like much of his article, might seem like a criticism, but in fact it tacitly endorses the project and the need for the Constitution.

As the Telegraph says:

'From the first, the EU's founding fathers understood that it needed to be immune to public opinion. The genius of Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman was to design a system in which supreme power was wielded by unelected officials, and in which the peoples were presented with a series of faits accomplis.'

So when the public say 'no', this is inconvenient, but you don't change direction, you merely show the effort that progress requires. You stagger, maybe you fall like some tragic Greek hero, but you don't change your mind.

They are not cool, they are not techies, but EU Referendum blog have easily the best response to the French No that I've found anywhere. Be vigilant, work hard, if you believe that the project still needs to be dismantled. Also, be imaginative, like Austin Bay: 'well, hello, French Duck...' . (via Instapundit)

Solana: every reason you ever needed to reject the EU.

I have to admit, first of all, that Javier Solana has always been, for me, the most impressive of Europe's politicians. This is quite subjective, but based on his charm and courtesy and genuine ease in speaking English- plus his robust role during the Kosovo crisis some years back (as I recall).

So I was in interested when I came across this article entitled 'The Case for Europe' at Real Clear Politics.

It begins with the usual bombast: 'The case for choosing Europe is as strong as ever', to which my response is, as ever, 'not good enough, Mr Barroso, Solana, Delors, Estaing or Prodi'. They are in the same mode now as they were in the eighties: headbanging EU skinheads that think if they just bellow the same slogans again and again it somehow enhances their authority. I have to say I expected better from Solana.

This inauspicious intro is followed by the trademark EU historical butchery when Solana (who I considered educated) says

'More than any other region, Europe experienced the horrors of the 20th century. It was no surprise that after 1945, an exhausted continent was ready to try a radical new idea - building a zone of peace through institutional integration and the voluntary pooling of sovereignty'

You notice for the umpteenpth time that 'Europe' means France and Germany, plus sundry others. You also notice that, in typical Eurocratic fashion, Solana has forgotten his own country's history, since Spain didn't join the European project, then entitled the EEC, until the 1980's. Can I respect a man who wilfully forgets (or deliberately overlooks, for rhetorical purposes) his own background?

Of course he doesn't even mention the division of Europe into Communist East and non-Communist West.

But of course getting history right is secondary for most people, which is why the Euros always play fast and loose with it. Still, people don't like it, and nor do I.

The second thrust to Solana's argument is that bigger is better.

The third thrust is that bigger is even better when speaking with one united voice.

The fourth point is to repeat the previous two points but while emphasising security threats rather than diplomatic opportunities as a reason for desiring a bigger, and more united, Europe.

Perhaps I should make an aside here, in the absence of any real substance to Solana's argument greater than the kind offered to men's libidos by The Sun's Page Three.

I have a number of friends from former communist countries, and among them one is a sociology academic, the kind of person who gets invited to various training courses and fora to learn about and discuss political development. He was invited to one such forum in the 1990's, run by EU-types. He told me that he left the seminar with his head spinning- he'd seen it all before, he told me; it was COMECON.

'It's like Bingo, only in real life.'- Mr Free Market has a brilliant post, and I mean brilliant, on the infamous (in the UK anyway) Atkins/Williams family. It doesn't mean that I agree with everything (I'm basically anti-abortion) he says, but it's not a post to agree with, it's a post merely to nod your head to. The case of the Williams/Atkins family also er, spawned, this devastating post from Andrew McCann of A Tangled Web.

VDH gives a great analysis of some people who really annoy me.

More on the BBC's bogeyman Ilario Pantano from The Washington Times. The BBC has a response that I can only say cries out for a 'compare and contrast' approach. I was struck by the prominence of this quote (surely taken out of context badly):

'"The best interests of 2nd Lt Pantano and the government have been served by this process," the Marine Corps said in a statement.'

Europe: yesterday's idea or a serious project? I leave you free to choose (heh).

Spoiling the atmospherics: Somehow I don't think this verdict was quite what Paul Wood had in mind when he wrote this article. One not for the BBC archive- catch it while you can. (thanks to Marc for the tip)

As the BBC offer their well-worn activist platform to the findings of Amnesty International, it's good to notice that the transnationals are coming under a least a little scrutiny, as in this Wall Street Journal article, 'As Bad as the Nazis?: What the Red Cross thinks of the US military.'

What's interesting about the article is that it identifies a pattern of behaviuor, especially concerning the IRC and the media, which demonstrates that it is far from being the 'truly neutral humanitarian body' which many ordinary people feel it must be, and which many in the media would like to pretend it is.

Which brings me to Amnesty, and the Beeb.

According to the Beeb, it is said that '"four years after 9/11, the promise to make the world a safer place remains hollow"'.

But since when was it Amnesty's role to focus its entire approach on the US's presumed 'promises', and to suggest that bringing peace is the responsibility (and therefore the lack of it the failure) of the US and not of the Islamofascists who clearly stoke and have stoked violence at every opportunity?

Or, as Ms Khan puts it, "When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity."

This message is pathetic, suggesting that it is the US that grants a license for violence and not the fact of 9/11 which grants them a license for military action of whatever sort deemed necessary to prevent the future that 9/11 was intended by its perpetrators to presage.

The report goes onto suggest, according to the supine BBC presentation, that 'Many countries used anti-terror rhetoric to justify arbitrary detentions and unfair trials, it said, citing China's arrest of thousands of ethnic Uighurs and similar acts in India, Malaysia, Nepal and Pakistan'

But this is clearly a massive skewing of the data when one considers the patent human rights improvements in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia- and the much greater pressure on those countries to reform- which have directly followed the prosecution of the WoT. The fact is that countries like China have never needed any excuse for human rights abuses, and the only difference now is that they actually need to give an answer to critics because of Bush's pro-human rights stance.

The whole approach of Amnesty is political, and pathetically shallow in its politicking. What I would like to see is direct and sustained criticism of these bodies, to the extent that their activity and their influence, and their presence on BBC soapboxes, is greatly reduced pending proof that they have a reasoning capacity and that they actually do any good.

Meanwhile, speaking of reasoning capacity ...- a nugget of the real thing (er, not) via USS Neverdock.

No EU Constitution- no Problem (for the US) (brackets mine) (via RCP)

John O'Sullivan is good on the referenda- especially on putting a little orange in the picture:

' According to the law in the EU's founding treaties, the proposed constitution cannot go into effect if any nation rejects it. But the conventional wisdom is that there are national gradations of power in this regard:

First level: If France, a founding member of the EU and one of Europe's "Big Three," rejects the constitution by a clear margin, then the constitution is finished.

Second level: If Britain, one of Europe's "Big Three" but not a founding EU member, votes against it, then there would have to be renegotiations to make the treaty more palatable to the British electorate.

Third level: If Holland, a founding member but one of Europe's smaller nations, votes against it, then the Dutch will have to keep voting until they get it right -- as in the past the Irish and Danes were forced to eat their votes.'

Coincidence?

France is poised to vote no, or something (Gerard Baker is not sure), and Britain is, with great slapping broad brush strokes, being painted into a corner as the bad guys for retaining their (well deserved) rebate. It's as if the French are being reassured that the rest of Europe has its eye firmly on the bad guys, l'Anglo Saxons, so the French electorate should take heart and vote 'oui'.

Eursoc covers lots of lovely Euroterritory.

Dear Lady Above- where can the BBC be? (perhaps their strike action has deprived them of their usual balance)

There was I, labouring under the conscientious apprehension that no-one cares about racismandsexism like the BBC, when I came across this nugget, which Natalie and Samizdata picked up, and which I should have read days ago but for my lazy eye/lazy clicker syndrome. It's from man on the conservative ball Theo Dalrymple, and I am truly shocked, shocked at his story of how a vicar, a man in fact, was able to project his Secret Self so effectually, penetrating the very heart of the carefully interwoven non-establishment diverse feminine and ethnic meritocracy.

Perhaps even more shocking, given that the Beeb looove these secret undercover institutional racexism stories, is that it takes a staid old Tory columnist to break the story. Where are you Beebies? Oh yes, I remember, bunking off. Keep up the good work!

Aside: actually, it's long been a mystery to me how such presses as Virago, the publisher bamboozled in this case, have been able to get away with such a blatant kind of unfairness- institutional sexism if ever there was such a thing.

By, er, popular demand (well, mine anyway): Hitchens on Galloway.

When I saw the pictures of Saddam in his pants I laughed, and I agree entirely with Powerline's take.

Of course the Beeb got the tingles over it, following any story of those abusive yanks like a dog with a bone. They truly are dangerous in their perverse priorities, ambulance chasers who try to precipitate accidents. Michelle Malkin has been chasing the chasers.

Update: Iraq the Model provides perspective.

Gerard Baker on Galloway seen from an Iraq perspective:

'It is the tragic but hopeful people of Iraq who have shown us how to defy power and misery, and who, if we stand firm against the Galloways of this world, will one day get the Respect they truly deserve.'

Natalie Solent quoted Baker, and added one salient observation.

Scott has what he terms 'final thoughts' about Galloway. I suspect the last word is a long way off, but his observations are valuable and lucid.

Meanwhile, speaking of lucidity, soon I am going to have to permanently link this site- whose well-known author carves up the fallacies of our welfare state like an expert surgeon. (Thanks to ATW for the link)

Ok. Galloway update.

I watched carefully, attaching myself to every Galloway twitch and visible emotion, making like a lie detector. I'd say Galloway absolutely winged it, and not terribly convincingly unless you are impressed by supercharged blarney. I don't think the Senate committee were as bad as some people think. I thought quietly about Lord Hutton, who could never match Galloway for rhetoric but would make mincemeat of him were he given six months to conduct an enquiry.

The Scotsman agreed with me that Gallingway was bullshitting to high heaven. His attempt at raising parallels between himself and Donald Rumsfeld was bizarre, illogical, and even stupid from his own point of view, which sees Rumsfeld as something close to one of Beezebub's flies.

Furthermore, his blatant soapbox approach merely convinced me he was trying to steamroller the real questions that would have teased out his guilt. Norm Coleman may have smirked like a schoolboy but I can see why and might have done the same in his shoes. I don't think the Senate committee was trying to dissect him on live tv- merely to probe a little and show they had allowed him a chance to cooperate sincerely. Galloway failed, as sincerity is a foreign country to him.

My view is that information about Galloway's guilt will continue to dribble out; no-one has the committment to skewer Gorgeous, but plenty of people are paid to investigate his kind of corruption and will continue to fill in the picture slowly. Harry's Place, points this investigation out as an example.

The real question is when the line is crossed and Galloway goes from curiosity to societal reject. I think it will come, in time.

Let me at 'im.

That's how I feel when I hear about Galloway's barnstorming yet contentless appearance before the US senate committee: It's a 'a paack of liiiess' etc etc.. I'd love to be the prosecuting counsel against Galloway (which usually requires some legal training but...well, I mean...), but I'll content myself for now by linking to this good summary of his appearance from that reliable online source The Scotsman.

Sad but true- the Beeb's slick bias.

Trying something newish here- that is, to comment on the Beeb's anti-Conservative bias, and even their pro-Tony bias. Of course the leftists have typically felt they needed to be at Tony's throat as long as he was chummy with W., and W. was chummy with Rummy, but then they had a wopping majority to reassure them that a mediatorial vote against Tony wasn't a vote against, well, Tony. I suppose that that actually explains why the 'stopper' left were so angry about the war- they thought that 'their' man was in charge, and then they found that he wasn't so much their man as they'd thought. Naturally Blair's independence from the far-left, nominal though it is in philosophical terms, has always been his passport to election to Government in the UK.

But there's a real sense of bygones being bygones in this Beeb blather from Nick Assinder about Tone's new term agenda. It's a hotchpotch of authoritarianism and social tinkering which conceals a continual leftward drift in public policy- in other words business as usual in the 'Third Way' and the sort of thing that Beebies can readily get behind.

So, Blair is 'is out to make this package count' and continuing as, allegedly, he began- 'at full throttle.' . The whiff of bull is unmistakeable. Blair's approach is 'undoubtedly ambitious, controversial and wide-ranging' . He sweeps, he tackles, he reforms, he bans- like some overgrown Harry Potter he leaves those unscrupulous Slytherin' rascals floundering in his wake- 'The Tories have previously been split on the proposal but, if they scent the prime minister's blood, are likely to seize any opportunity to help defeat him.'.

To round off the impression that the Beeb is reconciling itself to Tone again and trying to get behind The Progam, this snippet of sartorial nonsense is a small case in point.

There is only one man, to my mind, who can be said to have pioneered the use of appearance in latter day politics in a most artful way to enhance his reputation, and that man is Tony Blair.

Yet it's the nasty party whose 'naked ambition'- yes, it's a crap opportunist pun- has led to a situation where 'A string of senior Conservatives have been putting their necks out on television talk shows to push their leadership credentials.'

Yes, they're back in line, and if we want some real criticism it'll be DIY from here on, so here's Irwin Stelzer on Blair's inglorious role in the world economy-

'More seriously, the Labour government's stated attempt to find a third way between America's free market capitalism and Europe's corporatism has been abandoned in favor of a lurch towards a high-tax, increasingly regulated economy that is already producing consumer angst, stock market jitters, and depressed businessmen.'

More seriously indeed.

Meanwhile, talking of collaboration between Arabs and Israelis...

Just whose side do they think they're on?

Alright, I'll admit the naivity implicit in my question, as I'll admit to a weakness for wanting to believe that people who share as much of my culture as do the journalists who fill the BBC, are somehow 'with me' and not against me.

But still, reading this article on the BBC website, with its introduction as follows, I couldn't help silently screaming the line which I used to start this post:

'I knew he was a collaborator, and he knew, I knew he was a collaborator, but the 50-year-old sheikh still danced around the issue.'

Yes. And the 'collaborator' in question was an Arab man who had helped the Israelis.

So, if the BBC journo, Butcher, knows the man as 'a collaborator', presumably he also knows who he thinks the enemy are. Implicitly, he reinforces the intifada, he objectifies Israel as a combatant in a war, and he endorses the demonisation which, as Melanie Phillips notes, gives rise to viciousness which even then the BBC chooses to romanticise.

Media Menace.

Of course you can't blame Newsweek entirely for what happened, but the press exploitation of the Islamic issue generally must lead to events like this. I expect the riots had been planned by terrorist remnants of the Taliban regime for a long time, and they were just waiting for an occasion. The BBC's megaphone journalism reporting horrified reactions to the 'desecration'- everyone from the Saudis on- was noticeable, and causeless. The mutual dependence of extremist Islamics and extremist left-wing journalists with their 'investigational' journalism is an awful kind of Frankenstein. Cabarfeidh and Powerline round up.

Blurr's intentions. My mistrust of Blair (despite his correct final analysis judgment call over Iraq) is pretty thorough- and developing all the time.

Hence I knew something was amiss when Blair addressed the question of Lords reform during his first public press briefing of his third term in office, and said- rather pathetically after all this time- '"I want to think very carefully about reform of the House of Lords," "I am a bit undecided on some aspects of it myself."

The truth is that gutting and refurbishing the House of Lords has been one of Blair's greatest pleasures in his governing period- a long, protracted meal with plenty of time to digest it- blotted only by the fact that the House of Lords has stalled and mired a number of his schemes. Well, to see his solution to this problem, and to see that he actually has some very firm ideas about what to do with the House of Lords, you need only look at the way he's gerrymandering the House now, satisfying some of the dumbest loyal drones who have brought him to this juncture of third term politics by elevating their nonentities to the Upper House and rebalancing it in his favour by doing so. (with thanks to A Tangled Web)

Feeling Geopolitical: great thought-food from Kissinger, and Baker of the Times, on the USA in the world and Britain in Europe respectively (and when I say Britain in Europe I intend no connection with the euphemistically named Euroenthusiast pressure group). (via RCP). Also, and related to the previous, EURef puts the Times right on a point of fact, and the point of fact leads to an interesting rumination.

Not Forgetting Gallowsway, of course, Marc at USSNeverdock has a thorough, interesting and expanding post which went some way to satisfying my considerable appetite for the hunt. Mind you, it didn't stop me enjoying the feast on offer at Harry's Place.

Cringemaking coverage.

The BBC is just a embarrassment. Never mind Gallowsway and co.- today a solid block of the BBC's web frontpage was devoted to covering the USA they way they like to- that is, with Republican values and personalities on the defensive.

Take the Bolton case. The Beeb's presentation, while not false in strict terms, plays on the ignorance of its readership to increase a sense of Republican crisis over John Bolton's nomination to the UN.

They pile it on: 'increasing pressure', 'A leading Democrat senator' -surprise!-, 'A key Republican senator' (how key? Well, only in the sense that he happened to be on the relevant committee- not key as in, well, important generally). They start with the negatives and gradually unwind- if you can be bothered to read past all the breathless relayal of derring Democrat-do - and the purposeful expression of their 'options' should W fail to do as the BBC expects of him and capitulate to their righteous ululations- and finally we come to Bush's comments, which seem comically simple set against the Beeb's overwrought prose: 'Mr Bush has called Mr Bolton "a blunt guy" who "can get the job done at the United Nations".'

In all the above one can detect the leaden hand of one Justin Webb, who, lo!, is on hand here to add some finishing touches about the 'bruised' President ('cast your mind back' to the horrors of November; now we have a 'plaintive' president- chuckle chuckle- 'Senator George Voinovich, of Ohio, opted for independence' etc,, blah). The aim of course is as it is for the Democrats: a lameduck Bolton serving (if he must) a lameduck President. Carry on screaming, chaps.

For a better., more informative take on the facts, and a far less partisan engagement with the issues, see here.

Say- did I say a solid block? Well, they had a little anti-death penalty fest as well, here and here (at least the second one to cheer up the troops, anyway).

Time to re-think that Al Jazeera deal? Or did the BBC buy into Uday's Oil-for-News program all the long?

Bedtime reading for the Beebies about how once upon a time there was a theory...- a theory, see? Compare and contrast.

The Beeb:
'Researchers... say 70% of Switzerland's glaciers will disappear in the next 30 years, due to the effects of global warming.'

The alternative view:
'Glaciers have been receding for hundreds of years; that’s because we are still coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating.
It’s normal.'

Wish we'd hear the alternative sometimes, even if it would spoil the story.

Meanwhile, here, in case you were a little bemused about Mr Blurr's mixed bag, is the real trouble (non Iraq, largely) with Tony, as depicted brilliantly before the election in NRO.

Yay- get the lynch mob ready for Gallowsway- as Time reports the posse is [apparently- welcoming here suggestions about other British MP's who could be a subject of such revelations] about to 'out' the alleged UNscammer as part of a wider revelation of international figures involved in profiteering out of Saddam's corrupt regime- or maybe just ring the great bells of Bow, since something tells me history's guts will reject hideous George.

Marc at USS Neverdock alerted me to this story, and, if true, we could be looking forward to a second bite at having a decent election in Bethnal Green and Bow. Hooray if so. Also, I might ask of Mr Galloway- since he seems so enthusiastic about court cases- whether he oughtn't to think in terms of a different court and start dialogue with some defence lawyers.

Whilst nothing about the UK election actually sickened me, even Gallowsway's victory and crowing attempt to mire Blair in an Iraq-based demise, I would welcome a goodbye to all that. If Galloway does go down (a big 'if' since he's more slippery than a Tigris Trout), it might lead to an even bigger rollback of opinion on Iraq than this Max Hastings article demonstrates.

Despite his many flaws in his pursuit of an Iraq strategy, Blair deserves vindication on the geopolitical fundamentals, and to weather media round ups of anti-war-founded criticism such as this produced by the Beeb- comprising merely the usual suspects who have always supplied the Beeb with anti-war soundbytes throughout.

The Beeb's anti-war bias is well demonstrated by the absurdly one dimensioned analysis of John Simpson, who has done his best- with his BBC chums- to make Iraq the cause celebre of Blair's downfall. Marc also investigates this one. In it, Simpson claims, absolutely contrary to Max Hastings and his 'sources', that 'Iraq's civil war ' is 'worsening month by month'. Which goes to show that Simpson, like Gallowsway, hasn't forgotten who his Saddamite friends were- and hastens to see things their way.

The story of the election was probably the radicalisation of Northern Ireland's politics- and a test of Blairism will be Nelson Mandela's chum Peter Hain's ability to get his master's bidding done. NI focused website A Tangled Web predicted the UUP meltdown a long time ago, and continually repeated its prophesies until the fateful day for Trimble came. As the UUP should have heeded those warnings, so they should take this advice.

For an interesting analysis from across the water (the big water) try these guys

Meanwhile, this being VE day, Niall Ferguson is a history guy worth reading on the subject (via RCP)

Today I gorged on UK election commentary, on media great and small.

This might not be everyone's cup of tea but it satisfied me.

Among the mass of opinions expressed I came closest to agreeing with Matthew Parris, a writer for whom I seem to find a strange mixture of admiration, mild irritation, and fury. Still, I think he nailed what was really worth nailing in his current commentary, with his usual stylishness and hyberbole thrown in.

On the other hand I have reflected and thought that it was unwise to call Galloway the leader of a racist party- as I did yesterday, wishing to find a suitably progressive insult. They might be that, but hearing about Jeremy Paxman making Galloway look good completely turned me off that somewhat unstraightforward assertion.

There is though a much darker side to election 2005 than Parris's slightly bucolic prose brings to light. Melanie Phillips digs in, and I think effectually.

Not so bad as all thaaaat.

Mark Steyn (at least, his website) blogged the election, and aside from predicting a fall in turnout he did a very nice job as you'd expect.

He and Andrew McCann differ- as do most Conservative leaners- on whether it's A) The beginning of the end of the Conservatives, or B) The end of the beginning for the Conservatives.

I was sad of course that Tim Collins, my favourite Conservative I'd generally say, lost his seat, and that hideous George won one for himself by playing the race card so shamelessly. Really the man (hideous George) is beyond parody, beyond reproach.

Other notable things included the amazing disappearing Ulster Unionist party, typified by David Trimble's annihilation at the hands of the surging DUP. With Sinn Fein's vote hardening and the SDLP sinking, the region seems to be polarising. Another success for Mr Blair's bestridal of the international stage.

That the Prime Minister and I coincided over Iraq seems now to have been only a coincidence. Like Howard I would have favoured taking on the Saddamite regime whether 'WMD' or no- though Michael should have troubled himself to explain it better.

On the whole I think Howard has given the Conservatives heart. Blair's unpopularity over the war was not a Conservative issue, but it was one of the few trains departing the station when Mr Howard was waiting to board a train (and Howard's nothing but a decent man of his time). Still, despite that he managed to match the Liberals for whom this was an issue. We can discount RESPECT as a party for inner city racist vandals. On balance I think Andrew McCann has it right: it's the beginning of something for the Conservatives, allowing room for personnel development (post updated, slightly)- if you know what I mean.

Garton-ass (as Tim Worstall puts it) follows Gordon (see below post) in laying out the case for voting Labour to usher in a new- but strange, apparently- Liberal Britain.

As Tim points out this is rubbish masquerading as history. As I recall it from me history classes, the days of Liberals versus Conservatives were the days when a sensible, if often unacceptably languid, debate was had between the State not doing something, and the State doing something- all at a time when it was much harder for the state to wield any kind of apparata whatsoever.

These days it's dead easy for the Government to 'do something': it's call fiddling with absurdly complex and deliberately managerial taxation, and pumping it into artificially lowering unemployment by creating such various bodkins as 'classroom assistants' (nice though they naturally are) and the like.

Anyhow, What Blair definitely isn't is a classical Liberal- and the same almost goes without saying for Charles Kennedy. What the strange new birth might be, in fact, is a nation of state-fed puddings- stodgy, doughy, fatty and stupid.

Vote for Polly's head to explode. Hilarious end to a Worstall post. My cross is already on the paper, waiting to be popped into the box.

Gordon Brown has one thing wrong in his analysis of the political situation, and unfortunately it invalidates all the rest.

Says Gordon:

'So to anyone tempted to use this election to register their discontent: there are real consequences to a protest vote that risks inadvertently returning the Conservatives to power, and which by punishing Labour would end up punishing the people who most need Labour.'

What's wrong with this (the emboldening gives the clue)? NO-ONE needs Labour. No-one needs the No 11 kleptocracy to do their thinking for them. No-one one needs Gordon.

If Gordon's lucky they'll vote for him anyway, as fat people vote for an extra burger.

John Simpson's 'lesson' the Americans should learn in Iraq: 'you're crap and you know you are!'

In this article he returns to his favourite ground: that of journalists being hit by friendly fire, and takes time to reiterate his favourite 'violence is growing almost daily' meme. This line is used so often by the BBC that if I plotted a graph with every mention of 'growing violence', and expected to find a pattern which mirrored these assertions- as opposed to the real situation of ebb and flow- I would add to the 'growing violence' by dying of laughter.

Classic line from Denis Boyles, brought to me via A Tangled Web:

'If Howard wins, I won’t be unhappy, just astonished at the triumphant vitality of European political mediocrity, British accent and all.'

This is sadly my point of view too, though saying anything original about the election cooked up for us by our current crop of politicians is not an easy matter.

Gerard Baker gives it a go.

My point of view is that Howard hasn't done such a bad job. He needed to appear tough and professional and he has. Unfortunately he's been tough in a one-dimensioned manner, ruled it seems by assumptions about the electorate, about Blair, and about the Conservative party which are difficult to rally around. It's been politics by numbers; points supposedly hitting public concerns but treating the public rather like a child that responds only to carefully numbered, reassuring and repeatable lists. There is no argument, which for a lawyer is pretty extraordinary, and no joined-up thinking. Just lists of words. It's boring, and easy for Blair to seem, as Boyles says, the only 'the only sentient British politician in sight'.

The tragedy of having to say that Howard's a decent man trying to do a difficult job (which sounds so much like what we used to say about IDS, funnily enough), is that Blair is such a flawed character; like Clinton only his faults are more fundamental, more lulling, more damaging.

Fairplay.

It's not the BBC's fault of course, but it seems strange to me that when you predict the result of the election using the Beeb's swingometer, and you assume 35% each for the Conservatives and the Labour party respectively, you find the Labour party with 134 seats more than the Conservatives. Sounds fair to me- not.

The BBC Applies Sanctions

US/Private business investigating Chinese textile imports = ridiculous and self-interested.

EU/God knows who pulls the strings = serious and conciliatory ('the EU's trade commissioner on Friday made a plea for Westerners to avoid protectionist thinking.'-see second link above).

Funny how the Beeb don't mention that in fact, while the US government is under pressure from business affected by imports, EU textile manufacturers are also pressing the EU for limits to Chinese imports (not that we in Britain have any textile manufacture to get angry about protecting).

Bearing this kind of one-sidedness in mind, is it coincidental that America always has to bear the brunt of the anti-glob mob's ire?

Meanwhile, on the subject of China, Mark Steyn continues his thoughts on matters oriental in the Spectator Magazine.

The art of Steyn is quite a philosophical one. He builds on core themes, is unafraid to repeat points of view and even the means of their expression. I don't think this is really repetitious, any more than a philosopher who builds his theories from certain arguments which require reiteration is being repetitious.

One of the central ideas in the article about the 'sovereign individual' (the second Steyn link above) was that migrant workers in the West would return to their homelands (eg. China, India) as these opened up to trade and development, offering the chance for clever committed migrants to prosper by returning home.

Steyn had a bit of grief from some blowhards who thought he meant that China was a beacon of human rights- an issue he addresses in the second piece.

The main reason he concentrates on the EU and Canada as the likely fall guys in this projected trend, meanwhile, is what he fairly calls the 'death bed demographics' of their huge territories.

Block by block he builds what seems a likely framework for the future.

I suppose it's not surprising then, given this degree of insight on the part of one writer working with materials gleaned from many sources, that the BBC have pricked up their ears at the notion of immigrant re-migration- but their take is rather different. They focus solely on human interest stories and guess who the fall guys for this process are? Yep, the US- with it's relatively prosperous economy and naturally growing population about as conspicuous to the Beeb as the horizon is to an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Election Selection

In the BBC's coverage of the British election, they take care to include a page about Iraq's WMD's and the partys' stands on them. This is surprising, in a way, because I don't think Howard ever accuses the Prime Minister of fabricating the reality of Saddam's WMD threat- what he deplores is Blair's casual use of the broad brush WMD argument, and in a deceptively direct way he calls this lying. Strictly speaking I think Howard is right, and Kennedy is wrong in saying that Blair misled us. Kennedy sounds like a good guy as usual, but in fact is calling Blair a fool as well as a knave. Howard is in fact the moderate because he accuses Blair of playing fast and loose with facts, which is a safe bet with Mr Blurr. There is no doubt he and the Sun did that.

Meanwhile, the Beeb were only too pleased to state its own definition of Charles Duelfer's conclusions to add a spin to a band wagon which doesn't represent the views of the main political opponents to Blair. Howard of course should make this clear, but he doesn't seem to see the need, relishing any criticism of Blair rather than the right criticism.

However, Captain's Quarters in a well argued post says that the MSM, with of course the BBC at the fore, have jumped far too soon and far too clumsily onto Duelfer's WMD negatives. The story's an old one, but it's important not to lose sight of it.

Good times roll for the Beeb.

Just over a year ago the BBC were in crisis as Lord Hutton's report caused the departure of three key BBC men: Gilligan, Dyke and Dayvies (ok, Gilligan wasn't too key, but his symbolism was.)

As a long-term BBC critic I can say those were heady days, yet I didn't feel too optimistic because our success came down to the good fortune (thank Tone) of having an old-fashioned, undiplomatic judge, and a BBC which decided (wisely, in one sense) that drastic action was required.

That drastic action, which gave people like me so much entertainment, saved the BBC for another day. They won their battle to have their charter and license fee renewed.

I knew, at the time, it would have been better for us had Dyke and co. hung tough, played down the Hutton findings after having briefed their journalist friends to expect the worst, and been the target of the New Labour machine thereafter.

That having been avoided, the BBC needed only to wait for events. Apart from the re-election of George W. Bush, which was an event not really on the BBC's beat anyway (though they love to dabble), these have favoured the Beeb.

First and foremost of course was the charter renewal I've already mentioned. That gives the BBC the breathing space which none of their commercial competitors enjoy. I've no doubt they're taking pleasure in it.

Second is the fact that their general scepticism about WMD, always a political football, has been given cover by both the trend towards questioning the war from all points of the political spectrum, and the findings of the likes of Duelfer which give no concrete support to those who proposed a WMD inclusive argument. Other related 'good news' for the BBC, given their pitch pre-war, might be the failure of the Volker report to eviscerate the UNscam, and the success of Gorgeous George in using a libel case to sweeten the stench given off by the anti-war mob, while punishing some of the BBC's detractors.

Third is that, after sacrificing to appease New Labour, the Beeb have been rewarded not only by their charter renewal, but by the cover that comes from having reconciled themselves with the party that is likely to be in charge of the political situation in the 'base country' for the foreseeable future.

That's why the Beeb now seem far surer-footed, despite lapses which demonstrate their innate tendencies. Some examples of surefootedness here and here that I would call good journalism were it not for the fact that the only good journalism that comes from the Beeb comes when their ideological budget affords it. In other words, when it doesn't damage their ideological agenda. It's so much easier to control those tendencies though when they have a defensible position in the scheme of things, and an assured future. When the Augean stables looks set to remain a major employer, it isn't hard to get the stable-boys to keep trying to freshen the top layer.

So, am I downhearted? No, is the answer to that- because the whole exercise is about recognising the BBC's institutional nature, and feeling the weight of its velocity, so as ultimately to destroy it if it will not be radically altered. The Gilligan-Dyke-Dayvies phenomenon showed how deep the BBC's culture runs, and how important it is to the socialist project as it has been conceived in Britain. Two deep-dyed socialists (Dayvies and Dyke, especially Dyke) fell on their swords to save the BBC and deliver it into today's calmer waters. Only by understanding that can I hope, in a small way, to facilitate the perfect storm which will end the BBC and all it stands for.

A clear view of what makes Tony Blair an overwhelming favourite for the election emerges from this article by Micklethwaite and Wooldridge in the LA Times.

There's a pathetic predictability in the way they describe Howard's success in appealing to Conservative support:

'the Conservatives have run their best campaign in a decade, talking tough on "dog-whistle" issues such as crime and immigration (in which their core supporters respond instinctively, even if you cannot hear the whistle).'

Whether they realise it or not, they have encapsulated the very quality in the British public's mentality at present which makes Howard's pitch unfeasible. The view of dog-and-whistle Conservatives is very far from the reality, since today's Conservatives have to grasp hold of things that matter through a fog of opposition. The British people are currently blind to Blair's simplism, locked into a false consciousness of celeb laden Britpop-inspired anti-Thatcher soft-focus love-see-no-colour complacency. All Tony Blair has to do is pose with a few celebs and babble on about how he and Gordon have mastered the economy and he's, as Campbell is said to have said, home and dry.

What's tragic is that history's real opportunities are passing us largely by as Blair poses for the cameras. The economy is only successful because of previous decades' reforms and the dividends of globalisation. Blair and Brown are simply setting us up for a fall by signing a contract with bureaucratic dead-ends, with the longer term vista of Europe their only get out clause. All the time they are setting up new shibboleths, such as the new vows they are making to the NHS, which cannot be sustained in the new world order that is coming.

Oh well.

To get a flavour of the greek tragedy that is the modern Britain's mindset, this Melanie Phillips post is a good place to start.

Outrage! There ought to be some, though the fact that I have only heard about the BBC's rent-a-heckler scheme to barrack Howard, as far as the MSM is concerned, from the Telegraph and a little snippet on Sky suggests that it will slip smoothly down the well-worn memory sinkholes out there. (This first link is to BiasedBBC's snippet-summary.)

However, I have to say that I agree with David Vance that 'The BBC is a menace to democracy in this country and that is one more reason why it should be privatised.'

This follows from my agreement with the Rottweiller Puppy that 'The fact of it is that when you're actually bringing in demonstrators and filming them while they disrupt a political rally, you've stepped across the wire, so to speak, between filming the news and actually manufacturing it. This isn't documentary-making, it's political activism.'

One could add to that nascent chorus USSNeverdock's conclusion: 'What a pathetic, biased and bumbling organization the BBC has become.'

My own view (to add that) is that this incident is not surprising. Observing the Beeb's tendancy to highlight every utterance of Howard on the subject of immigration it's clear they feel he is one step away from warranting 'Griffining'. They've been itching to have a go at Howard for weeks, and in the spirit of over-zealous theologians if there isn't a heckler for Howard then it's time to go and invent some.

An interesting insight into the media world we live in is available if we contrast the BBC's unheralded manufacturing of stories (which, as we know from Gilligan and other incidents is something of a Jayson Blair-like habit on a grand institutionalised scale) with the reaction to a very simple Channel Five documentary gleaned merely from dropping in on life in average British Comprehensive schools. Laban Tall has that story.

A couple of things are confirmed a little for me by this story. One is that British schools are about as bad as your worst intuition might have told you. Another is that Channel Five is a place where interesting outcast programme-makers can find some of the interest they deserve.

Lifting my gaze for a moment from the squalidness of what can be called the detritus
of cool Britannia, I note that some big events are taking place around the world. This post from the diplomats at the New Sisyphus blog, and this from Mark Steyn, are sufficiently sobering to make me see that Howard's seriousness in taking on Blair, and the disservice that even the most moderate or supportive media are doing him, are really quite serious matters indeed. We need a serious leader for the coming years, and we can't afford a lame-duck Blair or a scheming Brown, but the MSM in Britain is likely to deliver us to them.

Bowing by the Beeb.

A new trend in BBC coverage seems to have been thrust at me recently: that of the deferential coverage of China. Report after report has told of the Chinese anger against Japan as though a)The population of China has spontaneously arisen in response to Japanese provocation and b)The Chinese government, having nothing to do with the public responses to Japanese actions, has acted to subdue them despite having sensible grievances against the Japanese. This is a good example.

Surely this is just a superpower flexing its muscles, and surely the BBC, with its usual fairmindedness, would act to balance out the scales, as it seeks to against the US hegemon (alleged)?

Oh, I forget, we have to be deferential and polite to the Chinese. Meanwhile British ex-servicemen and families, who suffered at the hands of the Japanese, are, I suppose, merely nursing old grievances- that is, according to my BBC schooling. The results of a search of the BBC site which used the words 'Japan British Prisoners war' can be viewed here. There are no immediate results relevant to the case of British prisoners held under appalling conditions by Japan, and this one, found on the second page, merely talks about a new tourist attraction founded on the slave railway between Thailand and Burma, yet the Chinese anger, 60 years on, it practically unquestioned by the BBC.

The only recent BBC entry which mentioned warcrimes and Japan, referred most directly to warcrimes- but John Simpson was talking about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which of course helped to hasten the end of the treatment of British POWs in ways unimagined by the Abu Graibised public consciousness. A serious film for the graphic modern mind remains to be made, if anyone can stomach it.

So let's summarise, on this St. George's day:

Grievances from British victims can be sidelined. Grievances from China must be mainstreamed. The only unequivocal warcrimes from the period that we will foreground are the Allied uses of the nuclear option against the vicious Japananese resistance.

That'll be balance, Beeb style.

Good News.

Warmest best wishes to Frank Gardner as he resumes his work following his convalescence in the wake of the awful attempted terrorist execution that he suffered in Riyadh last June. His life has been changed permanently, but he survived and is telling a little of his tale on the Beeb at the moment. Sadly Simon Cumbers wasn't so fortunate.

I'd also like to say, while I'm being a slightly above-decent fellow to the Beeb for a while, that I don't harbour any grudges towards any of them; not least someone I often snark at- Paul Reynolds. It's that they set themselves up at the head of a society I find it impossible to hold back from questioning that makes me seek to undermine their role- if possible.

Scum on top

After Paul Reynolds' tour de force contrasting The French success in maintaining their flagship enterprises with the demise of Rover, it seems very pertinent to link to this news report showing how trade with China can really be secured. I have to admit I was relieved to be led to understand that China wasn't interested in Rover, so that our foreign policy (such as it is under the Eurobrolly) wouldn't be determined by the flow of Yuan to Brum. Now we just have to watch for the French Cockerel trying to crowbar us into appeasing China via the CFP (Common Foreign Policy).

Samizdata, from which I discovered this latest French perfidy, also offered this interesting Observer half-condemnation of the Blairite strategy for Rover- sourcing the trouble right where it struck me it belonged, with Byers' promotion of the BMW-Phoenix deal.

It's the fact that the Guardian suite can produce this kind of sense that makes you weep for the Conservatives' incapability (in advance of their supposed poll failure):

'Now we are asked to believe the real plan all along was to ease the workers into redundancy, and to view industrial policy as an extension of the social security department.'

All of which turns me- almost, almost- to seeking religious succour in the comforting stability of the Roman Catholic faith, which unlike Rowan Williams has a semblance of self-respect.

In this vein it was amusing for me to find what a lot in common Larry from BlameBush had with Timthy Garton-Ash from the Guardian in their view of the new Papa- proving that the Graun hasn't yet croaked and been reborn as a sensible newspaper.

Election Comment... has been somewhat lacking from this blog so far.
Well, on this blogger's part there was a little sharp intake of breath as the Conservatives went into the campaign putting pressure on Labour, albeit having to ride their gaffes as they did so. Would it work? I wondered. Were all the people I admired wrong in considering Howard a duffer in a lawyer's guise, possessing only the patina of well-heeled experience in high places, rather than the judgement needed to expose the Blairmonster?

Well, there is something like this Larkin poem about the Conservative's campaign, and even US Conservatives don't know who to root for (unless it's Blair). Even Steyn would vote for the big B's grinning mug (and it has to be said Howard is wrong to attack on the smug smile front as he looks every inch as smug in his own way)

To top that off, the polls show a general Conservative slum of percentages huddled bleakly at around the 30 mark (well, a little above, being charitable). This despite the fact that I'd say the 'base', so-called, is fairly well motivated.

Melanie Phillips has been lambasting Howard for months and months, especially over his Iraq war opportunism, and I think she's taken time out from Howard bashing (being, as she is -I believe- a Conservative at heart) to lambast Blair for his unwillingness to take on his critics over the war. She's right there too, though I think the whole phenomenon Howard has failed to understand, completely, and Blair has failed to take to heart, is that the party that will succeed in changing this country in a genuine way is the one which stands up and argues with the British people, as it were, man-to-man, as fellow adults, with adult complexity. Naivity, perhaps, you may say- but courage and naivity often appear the same when we're trapped in a cycle of cravenness.

Serial abuser Bolton

It must be the way he looks or something -perhaps he cuts his own hair- but everyone has it in for John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for UN ambassador.

As Mark Steyn points out, he's been accused of grave offences such as standing with hands on hips.

Maybe a bit camp, but does it warrant the Beeb's parroting of his proposed status as 'serial abuser'? I quote:

'When asked by correspondents whether accusations that he was a serial abuser stood up, she [Condi Rice] said: "It's certainly not the John Bolton that I know or that a lot of other people know."'

Indeed. The Beeb's list of accusations is about as devastating as the crushing 'hand on hips' episode. I only hope I never make anyone that angry.

Through a glass, darkly.

Forgive my attempt to beef up my headlines after some lame ones recently, but the thought occurred to me that if the BBC consider a Eurosocialist EUtopia to be their idea of heaven, in only makes sense for them to report it as though partiality in their coverage was natural.

Paul Reynolds has an article about the EU Constitution which majors on the contrast between the French and British approaches to business highlighted by the demise of Rover. I thought Steyn summed up the British attitude perfectly when he said 'I would hazard that most Britons psychologically closed down Longbridge a generation back.', and followed it up well when he said 'Permanence is the illusion of every age'.

Indeed. And we Brits, while accepting the latter point and preparing for the consequences using the former strategy, have tended to tolerate any kind of Canute (eg. Phoenix) who promised to stop the tide of history and maintain prestige ventures like MGRover.

It's therefore impossible to go along with Reynolds' idealised notion that somehow our attitude is that 'For the UK it is a matter of regret that the last major British manufacturer has gone, but it is not a matter that will change government policy. The market has spoken and the market must decide.'

The fact that we are not oriented the way the French are doesn't mean that the market is somehow rampant in the UK (don't forget Mr Reynolds that we are part of the EU). To say so seems disingenuous.

As the EUserf points out covering similar territory, 'Companies need to be protected alright, but not from the competition. Rather they need protection from the ravages of rapacious tax collectors and regulation wielding Eurocrats.'

In his article Reynolds goes on to make a list of the things the French are doing better than we are, including the openness of their debate on the European Constitution. Amongst the nuggets, 'Few people in London know that their supplier, EDF, is actually Electricite de France.'. Speaking as a regular payer of Wanadoo internet charges, I know exactly what I pay the French on a regular basis, and though I don't pay EDF for my electricity I knew that Londoners do.

But what's missing from Reynolds' little fit of brand-envying prose is the fact that despite these wonderful headline names France can still boast unemployment of ten percent. This contrasts sharply to Britain's economy, denuded though it is of brand manufacturers- though, having said that I expect that Mr Brown has fed in enough fat tissue to the economy to see the British unemployment wasteline grown considerably in the coming years (it's already starting).

For Reynolds, the reason for the French opposition to the EU Constitution lies in the perception 'that free market doctrines are embedded in the new treaty in a way that makes the kind of social and industrial policy that is such a feature of French life much more difficult to pursue.'

For me, meanwhile, the reason for the French intransigence is their confidence that they are the arbiters of the future of Europe, and their conviction that (given the servility of British Pols to the Euro-agenda) they could soak the Brits a bit more and gain more accommodations for the various 'features' of French life that they hold dear.

But anyway, EURef gives a list of real rather than existential incursions into British economic freedoms, starting with one that directly impacted Rover's sustainability. While Britain grins and bears the ministrations of a statist system modelled on France's economic strategy, France seeks to make sure the project doesn't depart from the script.

Funnily enough Reynolds didn't put it quite that way. We'll just have to wait until we get to heaven. Update: the Rottweiler Puppy weighs in.

Setting Annan straight. While the BBC employs its old Punch and Judy tactic regarding international disputes where it would rather not see moral clarity emerge, The Washington Times offers the critical US-UK responses to Annan's attempt to fling a little mud in the 'international community's' eyes.

Key points:

'British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Britain was "consistently in the lead in seeking to enforce sanctions against Iraq" ... "There were no occasions, which we can recall, on which the United Nations made representations to the United Kingdom" regarding smuggling activities'

'exemptions from U.N. sanctions that were granted to Turkey and Jordan had been implemented with the full knowledge of the U.N. Sanctions Committee and other U.N. bodies and officials.'

You know, that's really game over, isn't it? I know of no real contradictory arguments. We would be left contemplating Koffi's moral/political failures.

So what do the Beeb consider the proper continuation of the fight Annan picked to coincide with the indictment of some of the few US connectors to Oil for Food?

Oh yes, Mr Punch, it's 'UN must reform or die, says Rice'

Not that I really disagree with the sentiments of Ms Rice, but it is the Beeb's habit to seek a mudslinging session when a clear view would see their chosen ones (and if ever there was a chosen one it was Koffi) deselected by history.

Just a post to note the absurd BBC policy of soft-pedalling the Oil-for-Food scandal until they can make it a partisan 'them and us', US/UK vs the decent chaps just doing their transnational duty etc etc. Such dishonesty is sickening, and Koffi, like one of those slapstick comedians in old Western comedies, crawls out from the melee he's encouraged on his dirty hands and knees. I noted a couple of related articles in the post below (maybe even the one above is an updated form of one of them), where the Beeb were building a little bandwagon of blame to counteract what they habitually term the 'hostility' of the US to the UN.

To be honest it doesn't matter if the US were letting Saddam get away with smuggling, to some degree. Let's see: they ejected him from Kuwait a the cost of US lives; they policed his dangerous territory at the cost of a permanent presence there. What did the UN ever give? What right had it to make strategic decisions? yet they were doing just that, and for profit. Surely the crucial point is that Saddam's sources of money went far beyond the US's ability to control them, significantly due the UN's incompetence and criminality. Consequently the threat Saddam posed was being bumped up by UN actions and UN inaction. Reason enough to sack Koffi.

Simply superb: Steyn on the future, in the Speccie. What can I say? I agree with every word. I'll link the print version too, as it's an article that deserves to be read whole. He picks out so many of the telling instances that epitomise the looming realities that are making so much of the current baggage of thought that passes for politics in the UK just that: baggage.

To give one example, I'm sure a lot of people noticed an appalling 'Christian' Aid advert recently. Well, Natalie Solent noticed it. Steyn says:

'in the Guardian last week, Christian Aid took out the following advertisement: ‘It’s not called slavery nowadays. It’s called free trade.’

Yeah, sure. I’d love to email to India the CAT-scan of whichever Christian Aid wallah thought that would work, even as overheated rhetoric. The popular British ‘charity’ is campaigning for what it calls ‘trade justice’: ‘Poor countries must be given the freedom to help their own farmers and industries.’ By ‘poor countries’ they mean the dictators and crooks and incompetents who run ‘poor countries’; by ‘given the freedom to help’ they mean encouraged in the delusions that have made ‘poor countries’ out of once prosperous territories.'

So, what we can say is that whatever is the right thing to do by the developing world- or whatever the latest apologetic term is- we're not doing it by placing our trust in the likes of Christian Aid, and we're not doing it by trusting State proxies, or the nice GDP percentage targets of aid that everyone murmurs assent to, from Left and Right alike in British politics.

Moreover, we're not learning about that failure from the BBC- quite the opposite. They tell us about capitalist criminality, the failure of UK and US politicians, the outdatedness of global corporations (a photo-article, unavailable to links, asked the question, 'is the Burger giant showing its age?'): you name it, anything but the real waste of western wealth and western advantages that the statist projects of western nations entail.

Podhoretz versus the Beeb:

Says the Beeb:

'Mr Sharon said Maale Adumim "would be part of Israel" and that there ought to be "contiguity between Maale Adumim and Jerusalem."'

'The international community considers all settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.'

Says Podhoretz:

'With Israel's successful defeat of the Palestinian intifada, the death of Yasser Arafat and Sharon's stunning decision to cede Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, the terms of the discussion between the two parties have changed entirely.

The astonishing changes on the ground over the past 18 months are creating a new political dynamic between Israel and the Palestinians. The effort on the part of the press, the pundits and the Europeans to make the theoretical Maale Adumim issue a major scandal is an effort to deny the existence of this new political dynamic.'

Let's see now; which one seems to be carrying the news, and which seems about as relevant as an aged Metternich bleating on about the Congress of Vienna?