'either way, you still get bombed.' David Araanovitch is brilliant in the Times today. I'd regard it as the definitive put down to those who think it's clear as daylight that our presence in Iraq is the reason why the bombs came, and came to London. People of quite blinding, bullying stupidity, like Phillip Adams, for example.

Meanwhile, after being reassured the London bombings were not the work of suicide bombers, we are finding out that they were the work of suicide bombers, from West Yorkshire in fact. I am sure that Andrew McCann of A Tangled Web will have something to say about that. Bradford- a city in West Yorkshire- is, I believe, where he lives. It's not like there weren't warning signals. In fact, he does.

From the Bradford report- concerning riots a couple of years back-, an interesting line from the local Islamic community. Sort of a 'how long can we get away with this' schoolboy tactic-

'It is total nonsense to even suggest that Islam had anything to do with what happened.'

No, if you are a carefully managed community like the Islamic community, then your youth belong to you, and your people's actions are your product. It's time for accountability, here, there, and everywhere.

Not good enough, Mr Blair.

It was far too pat, far too uncontroversial. Mr Blair says we're going after them as far as is 'humanely possible'. He means to reassure those who think we deserved it that they can hold such attitudes without fear- that helping terrorists will not have consequences, thus repudiating a central plank of the Bush doctrine (which the FO types can only smirk at even now).

So, having made numerous errors concerning immigration and multiculturalism, having mired Bush's campaign against Saddam by his own need to run to the UN for backing, having failed ever to make an honest case but instead relied on spin, Mr Blair now says that he's learnt no lesson at all from the failure of soft-pedalling the WoT, and intends to go softer.

It's sad because in the cocktail of socialistic nonsense in Mr Blair's brain there's a fairly good strand of understanding. The dishonesty of being a pseudo-conservative (or if you are of the Left a 'revisionist socialist') though has made it terribly misshapen.

If Mr Blair needs a shove it can come from John Simpson, who repudiates the WoT (partly by never mentioning it- or Al Qaeda.):

'When the big IRA bombing campaign first hit London in the 1970s, a famous columnist of the time, Bernard Levin, advised his readers to respond to the bombs as a refined hostess might respond to a dinner-guest who belched loudly at the table: just ignore it, he said.'

At the time it seemed to me effete and mannered. Now I see it was exactly the right advice.'

Simpson believes that grown-ups don't fight wars on terror. It's a tragically shallow argument. Ignore them and they will go away. The world is large and they are few. Chase them quietly. He still believes that Bush's nightmare is more powerful than the terrorists bombs.

The reality is that we're in the midst of some pretty powerful geopolitical shit here and we should realise it. Otherwise Simpson's siren song (deliberately construed in this fashion to shock his opponents and raise a smile of wonderment on the faces of the unalligned) may seem a strand of opinion among many, but so confident as to command trust.

For reality checks I could start in a number of places but I think the EUReferendum blog's the best- for pointing out the way that Blair has sold us into a Euro-centred perspective. The strategy of appearing to be America's best friend has served many purposes, but the overwhelming geopolitical one has been to enable Britain to tie itself very closely to the emerging EU joint military plans.

What this means in effect is that Britain couldn't chase the terrorists actively, even if we wanted to. It's not part of the deal, as independent action isn't envisaged, nor allowed for. Constitution or no, it's independent power or compatibility with other forces that counts. We only have it, going forward, with the Euros.

From that reality check to another- Mark Steyn on assimilation:

'Few European leaders have a clue what to do about this,but,as that French headscarf law and Britain’s Incitement to Racial Hatred bill and Dutch responses to the murder of Theo van Gogh all underline, mediation between what Tony Blair called on Thursday “our way of life” and Muslim values has already become a central dynamic of European political culture — a remarkable achievement for a minority few Europeans were more than vaguely conscious of pre-9/11.'

The fact is that Muslims from the so-called 'third world' we always used to talk about as a very distant place have evolved a kind of momentum and strategy to regain what they lost through the success of Western history. No masterplan, just momentum into which Al Quaeda breathes life and from which it is invigorated. Nothing but a sense of timing and a knowledge that the West is geared defensively and sees George W. Bush as a spanner in the works.

Been Away. Needless to say, am very, very angry over the London bombings, and basically want revenge. No, we didn't in any sense 'deserve it'; no, we haven't cashed our WoT chips already in Iraq, and the only way to make some good out of grief that has crystallised for us now is to ram home the war on terror. It's not what I'm hearing out there so far, but each person so determined could make a valuable contribution. Some good info on this site- and a rebuff to Robert Fisk (via GR), while Marc at USSN has some stinging words for the utterly predictable Paul Reynolds of the BBC. It's vital to pour as much vitriol as possible on those who suggest that bombings on the Underground are 'our fault', our decision. This is totally against reality, totally head in the sand stupid, and totally counterproductive. Anyone amongst the British people who says it has a dangerous pathology of self-hatred that manifests itself in the hatred of their own people.

Death toll.

Well, it's rising, as I felt it would- but 'unlikely to top 100', so we are told. It's not close to my nightmares though- I thought the Underground, if attacked, would yield a harvest of death much more catastrophic, terrible though the situation seems anyway.

At the moment I feel a little relieved that such a well organised attack wrought fewer casualties than I would have anticipated. I still live in fear that the British Government are playing the same game they played with the Tsunami- ie. deflecting attention away from the bottom line about numbers of dead. I also live in fear of the chance that beyond my immediate circle there may be some I care for involved- though at the moment I care for all those involved.

But, beyond that, is there anything to say? Certainly some are saying things- like Galloway, for instance. I think that asserting out role in Iraq or Afghanistan as the reason behind this outbreak of violence in our capital is utterly foolish. We all know that for the terrorists such things are a given 'grievance'- but they had many such grievances before those campaigns (and of course 9/11 came without any possible solicitation either from occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan- unless you consider Saddam's resolution-pressured Iraq directly linked to 9/11, that is), and the US withdrawal from Saudi was a classic example where giving them what they wanted was really neutral as far as violence toward the West is concerned- in fact violence climbed in the Kingdom subsequent to the US withdrawal. So there's no genuine coherence there, only politicking- which leaves Galloway behaving absolutely true to form.

Marc, however, at USS Neverdock, makes a legitimate point on behalf of all those people who might have lowered their guard as a result of the undermining of the notion of a War on Terror by some BBC journalism. 'The Power of Nightmares' assured us there was no real organised Islamic movement bent on our destruction, yet the massive organisation behind the London bombings- the syncronisation, the planning- suggest quite the opposite. It suggests the BBC's flagship programme of the last year, it's main publicised recent claim to excellence, was in fact highly flawed. And as forewarned is forearmed, the BBC has in this regard, and others less well-known, certainly been unconducive to the public good.

The Belmont Club says

'These coordinated attacks are, technically speaking, at far higher level of sophistication than the Madrid attacks of 3/11 which involved a single train. The attack on London was a "time on target" attack which required simultaneity so that one incident did not compromise the subsequent. By implication the personnel involved received some degree of training and planned the operation in sufficient secrecy to prevent British security services from getting wind of it.'

So the lesson is that we are still faced by a real danger, as real as war- and the nightmare can come to a town near us, or where we are.

Most seriously of all- this

More seriously still- this is a fascinating take on the new Iranian order from Amir Taheri. I have to say I have a greater expectation of clarity and through clarity, possibly progress, from the new kid on the block.

But seriously, we need to outbid our European rivals in the race that matters- to rescue our continent from the grip of a bureaucratic juggernaut. The trouble is, of course, that as yet there's only one bid on the table and it's the Europroject.

No, I am pleased- despite what the Samizdatas say (caution: the main headline is very short and Anglo-Saxon). The truth is I don't live in London and I won't be likely to pay very much for it in money or infrastructural frustration, so Olympics 2012 should be a lot of fun- probably only on the TV, but with recognisable surroundings and more celeb-watching (ok someone will tell me I'll pay for it through the tax burden and that might be true, but I think actually that if any country's capital city can beat the financial blues of the Olympics it's Britain's... and besides, the deeper side of me says that six years is enough time for anything to happen). Anyway, I watched Daley Thompson from the comfort of our living room in my jim jams in 1984 and it was electrifying, so there's some history to my feelings about the Olympics.

Yes, it will annoy Chirac- and it no doubt already has, though the red glow of embarrassment will linger amusingly. Chirac's response according to the BBC has already given me a couple of chuckles. I suppose the line '"He wishes good luck and full success to the British authorities and people in the organisation of the 30th Olympiad." ' seemed somewhat underwhelming. Maybe the translation 'full success' just sounds a bit odd to Anglo ears- or maybe it's intended to sound off-key (I mean does he mean the best we can do, or actually outright success? I'd have been happier with 'all the best'. Such can be the wily use of the French language I always look for whether the Frenchman bothers to use a phrase that can be unambiguous in the English language as well as the French. He could have said that he hopes we enjoy it- the Games I mean not just the 'organisation'- but then again maybe it's the BBC's selection of quotes. You never can trust them; their idea of patriotism can be indulging in international Punch and Judy).

Barroso's incredible political imitation of constipation in praising 'an EU capital' also made me laugh. (Barroso's and other responses here.)

The funniest part though was undoubtedly Chirac having 'praised the "fair play" shown by the French bid team.' How very British! And not only that: it's what we say when the Aussies beat us, implying that all is not well in the antipodean moral garden. Of course it could be true that the Olympic committee have found comfortable places in Seb Coe's pocket or that the French were only caught out in the slips after some vicious sledging- but er, that's cricket! Yippeddee doo da!

More Chirakian responses, plus other fine French whines, tucked away in BBC Sport, here.

Meanwhile, for any Francophiles out there who need cheering up, you could always try googling 'French Military Victories' and follow the link there for a really encouraging read.

Essential Steyn. Had to link this article, as anything which exposes the hypocrisy of the aristrockrats has to be a positive thing.

The BBC's Simpson says this is becoming quite a week. What's with this 'becoming'? It was scheduled in advance- the news was as planned by the BBC as Live 8 was planned by its organisers. It's a week of organised news, and goodness knows what's actually going on in Africa and who considers that it might be a good week to bury bad neighbours. In the same article George Bush is encaptioned as one who will 'do what is best for the US'. He might be the only sane one among the whole circus.

You can read more thoughts here

Nialling it. I'm not sure about the totality of his argument (especially when he veers off into China-ball gazing), but certainly Ferguson raises some interesting parallels concerning Geldof's mission. Personally I remember finding Mrs Jellyby just uncannily up to date...

Pop Goes Reason

According to the BBC reporting Live 8, 'Almost all of the singers involved took the opportunity to explain their reasons for performing.'

However, I bet none of them made so much sense as John Lennon on the subject of pop's charity bashes.

Meanwhile, this is also worth reading (from the same website). Not that I despise St. Bob- not at all. I think he's doing the best that an ageing, wealthy, secularist 'pop star', who finds himself with a cachet outweighing most politicians, could do. The trouble is that the solutions will not come from those 'within the loop', like Bob. (via Steynonline)

Clive Davis (new link in my sidebar) has an interesting reflection on the inbred world of London journalism (and I don't think the phenomenon confines itself to London- but London revels in it). That aspect of the (London dominated) UK media is one reason I don't buy the idea that it is the world's most competitive. Of course it is, if the adrenalin of competition is anything to go by, but its domination by certain family names- I could add Preston and Reynolds to the few offered as samples by Davis- suggests that the competitiveness exists within a fairly fragile bubble, a carefully tended ecosystem of the logos. Great fun for those who enjoy name-watching, but for those interested in a broad and balanced perpective, as opposed to a bunch of back-scratchers enlivened by the odd token outsider (representative of some undeniable fringe), not.

No, the EU is not the ugly duckling.

Ok I've let go this post... could be little half-baked but between friends you know...



Compassionate Conservative Melanie Phillips on the British Government's appalling combination of ineptitude and amorality about Zimbabwean refugees in this country- and indeed the whole asylum system.

The problem to me is that the British Government and its agencies apply the same approach to immigration that they apply to areas like law and order. They attack the less sophisticated users of the system because it's easier to demonstrate routine competence that way than by seeking developed policies that actually tackle abusers of the system (who are naturally more sophisticated in their approach). Basically they have no concept of hard work in the service of the real public good, but they certainly know a lot about soft work in pursuit of looking good.

Quote of the day on the immigration subject may have come via the BBC reporting the Home Office on immigration-

'Home Office officials say they have sought to take into account the fact that some illegal immigrants may not have filled in their census forms.'

Not filling them in? You don't say? I don't know where we can fit in the fact that illegals in 2001 would include Poles, Czechs etc. who would now be in the UK legally, but based on several of my direct contacts with these matters, I'd say the UK is really still a destination of choice for the mobile masses of the world. Meanwhile the suffering Zimbabweans fail to get much of a shoulder to cry on to put it mildly.

Apologies for my little absence from posting here. I posted at B-BBC and then collapsed with exhaustion and other commitments.

What could revive me except the fountain of scorn emanating from the EU Referendum blog as it notes another great result for the French from the French-shaped EU?

As Jaques Chirac puts it '"It is a big success for France, for Europe and for all the partners of Iter,"'- with the emphasis firmly on France. The EU Ref. remarks on both the immense blandishments the EU offered to get the the project for France, and the improved conditions France managed to secure for herself in the inducement and subsidy arrangements for a project that will do wonders for France's high-tech industrial base.

Just one more spin-off from Chirac's rebate histrionics- the gallic grandma of Old Europe really knows how to make the rest of the family dance to her tune. Of course as long as our press enjoyed the show, that's what really counts...

Re: Media bias- here's Iraq the model ripping into the Guardian's coverage of one battle in Iraq (maybe you'll have to scroll down as I did). Normally I leave the Guardian alone as it spins off into the outer space of idiocy. There are people who champion lost causes like reforming the Guardian, but not me. The Guardian's a newspaper that gives centre stage to one Eric Hobsbawm, Stalinist apologist of former Soviet power- critique here. (hat-tip RCP)

Meanwhile, for those seeking an antidote to the media doom and gloom, ItM pointed me to this marvelous and elegant piece of writing from Grim at the Fourth Rail, in response to a question. Interestingly, Grim seems to have some some identification with the original hoodies, whose latter-day imitators found Bluewater fame.

We should war, war, war... on hype and the liars who use it.

Highlight of the week, for me, was Don Rumsfeld telling a Senate committee the bottom line about public opinion and Iraq. He was responding to one of the few sane members, Joe Lieberman:

'Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat who has been a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq, also questioned whether the US public was tiring of the war. “I feel that American public opinion is tipping away from this effort,” said Mr Lieberman. “[The insurgents] will only defeat us on the field of American public opinion.”

Mr Rumsfeld replied: “You sense the American people are tipping away from support. I have a feeling they're getting pushed.”'

The only thing that I would add to that is that there's no 'feeling' about it. It's the reality.

So, as the Democrats carefully orchestrate their attacks, and the media, in sympathy largely, orchestrate theirs, so the fascist Islamists in Iraq orchestrate theirs. When I talk about 'orchestrate', I mean that the whole tempo and targeting strategy of the fascists is dictated by their awareness that the battle is to be won or lost through the media. Such rhyme or reason as there is in the so-called 'insurgency' can only be gleaned from a careful reading of what the media considers newsworthy in the way of exploring the media-perceived weaknesses of the Bush administration over Iraq. Such a relationship is complex, like an orchestra where musicians and conductor are interchangeable. One moment one person creates an expectation which another fulfils, the next the roles reverse. You could call it symbiosis. I'd prefer to settle on 'pandemonium'- I mean in the original sense. More about that original sense from me here.

The Balfour column is up- and exceptionally fine it is too. I know you'll want to read his take on the Israel/Palestine issue.

Of course I didn't know whether they did, but I hoped that when United Nations' Inspectors, according to the BBC, said that the US was '"not willing to co-operate with the United Nations human rights machinery"' over Guantanmo Bay, they didn't mean the same 'machinery' of which Koffi Annan said this:

'"Unless we re-make our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the United Nations itself,"'

But since the Beeb didn't bother to inform us of the origins of these 'inspectors', how could I know that they weren't the honorable representatives of Sudan or Zimbabwe, China or Saudi Arabia? It seems public confidence isn't part of the BBC's business.

As it happened when I followed up the BBC's reporting I found that the inspectors are from 'Algeria, Canada, New Zealand, Austria, Argentina and Egypt'- so not any of the above that sprang to my mind.

...But hang on, wasn't that a list that included the Egypt that people have complained the US sends alleged terrorists to for extra portions of torture? And why were they accused of that except because of the poor human rights record of Egypt?

That's the rationality of the UN at work, which the BBC just treats as an anti-US merry-go-round. Spin, spin, spin- till we're so dizzy we fall off.

Hitch is great on the Downing Street memos. The BBC isn't.

One of the greats, Paul Johnson, has a marvellous analysis in Commentary Magazine of what he calls the disease of anti-Semitism, and some of the most level-headed understandings of Hitler you'll find anywhere.(via R.C.P)

The axis of unbelievable.
I am hitching a shameless ride in the vehicle of Mark Steyn's website at the moment. No, not his columns, for once- his links.

One thought occurs to me: is the Archbishop of Canterbury the saddest and worst ever? I just want him to get hence to a nunnery and never bother my ears again. This time he's found common cause with the Chinese Communist authorities. How so? Well, he too understands the dangers of unpoliced conversation.

The Archbishop, from all that I have read and heard (and unlike the outputs of many dignitaries I have bothered to listen and read a fair portion) is a staunch defender of the politically correct establishment and the powers of the social welfare state. Never mind rendering unto Cesar- the Arch. Bish. would like us to lick their *****.

That's why it's the commercial media that irks the bearded fool. He accuses them of creating an 'alternative reality' far removed from the lives of ordinary people. Sorry A.B.C.- most people live in the world of money, and buy a newspaper or subscribe to a channel because it appeals to their tastes in information. They are not dupes and Rowan's simplistic argument yet remote language doesn't come close to identifying the problems with today's media.

Of course Rowan Williams is too lost in his own theo-sociological maze to be worth talking to, but nevertheless his folly gives me chance to restate my views.

The problems with today's media are twofold:

There are too many national medias in the world where positions on tv, radio and so on are reserved for people who meet the approval of oppressive political and social powers. China is a classic example. Where politicisation reigns in so much of the globe, it makes western media look good and enables them to luxuriate in politcal choices of their own when it comes to the simple matter of stating the news.

Secondly, among the relatively free western medias they are many examples of voluntary subjection of the media to political patronage, usually in return for status and privileges. The BBC is a classic example of this, but other media that seek to be the organs 'of record' tend to fall into the same traps (CNN Iraq for one notorious instance). The sad fact is that the British people and Government sanction the politicisation of their media through the licence fee and the Foreign Office's links to the BBC.

The danger with media 'of record' (inevitably a matter of the general public interest) is that it trivialises its more commercially dependent competitors (or, occasionally, forces them to suck up even more rigorously to a ruling power than a heritage media 'of record' needs to) . Maybe that's where Rowan Williams needed to begin his critique, rather than with the sub-marxist nonsense with which he turns off the British people.

But the thing that really annoys me about Williams is that he's such an establishment lackey- even though the establishment really rather despises Williams' (alleged- for he doesn't understand a thing about it) church. He reserves his praise for recent MBE Frank Gardner, even though Gardner has nothing much to recommend him apart from the fact that Islamists shot him viciously (why such people get MBEs is another question that could be asked of our 'liberal' establishment). Expert he may be, but he has been a unexceptional appeaser of the Islamofascism that leads to the terrible restrictions suffered by Christians in Islamofascist countries like Saudi Arabia. I've plenty of sympathy for Gardner, and I'd like the heads of those who shot him, but this is really a coda for Williams to endorse statism and the statist BBC especially. Trawling for another Dimbleby lecture perhaps? Or perhaps an entree to China- there are no doubt Buddists and Falun Gong who need his help, let alone Christians.

By the way (for any interested) I was christened and confirmed in the Church of England. NIMN, A.B.oC.

Lovely isn't it, how the BBC suddenly get a appetite for reporting allegedly anti-semitic behaviour and intolerance of religious freedom? Can you guess who the accused are?

Now, can you also guess how many words the BBC expend on this example of religious intolerance? (via Steynonline)

Yes, that's right, I couldn't find any. I only found this, which gave the usual impression of the US as a stick-waving patriot gesturing self-interestedly at furriners.

An ironic combination of headlines on the BBC F.P.:

World paedophile register closer

Jackson 'at peace' after verdict

On which subject, as on many others, Steyn talks sense.

'The only sound will be the soft, steady march of integration, unchecked and unheeded.'

Richard North in brilliant form describing The Project.

Tory metaphor misery- first we had the shoes, symbolising the trivial rebranding of the party; now we have the panties. That Duncan certainly has a twisted sense of what 'in touch' means. (nugget noticed via Mark Steyn's selection). They really are a painful bunch. Give me Davis any day.

We heard you, Mr Blair, and if we were listening carefully we heard the authentic voice of Blairism- ordinary people are work-arounds. Watching the Prime Minister's questions for the first time in ages today, I was reminded that Jacques Chirac is not always completely wrong, since Blair has a surefire strategy for often sincere questioners: he simply laughs at them. Seems a bit 'badly brought up' to me.

Extra, Extra. It seems the BBC noticed a nuance about that French kidnappee: she received farewell gifts from her kidnappers. Goodness, those Islamofascists must have got tired of all the bad press, but at least the BBC show some reflex reactions suggesting sentience. When is a hostage not a hostage?- When they're a French guest of Islamofascists.

More interestingly, this reflection (via Roger Simon) on the real feelings of Chinese people, and Mark Steyn's good Sino-sense. Having extensive expatriot experience myself I can really identify with this feeling that the deeper currents of public opinion, hidden from Microsoft scrutiny and BBC polling, are far more positive to the USA, in particular (more so than to dear old Blighty, I'm afraid), than is generally allowed for in western self-analyses.

What we're all about. Richard North has another great post on what the EU is all about.

Meanwhile, I offer a selection of what the BBC is all about:

Anti-Americanism, the promotion of European machination, dhimmitude and the interests of other, hostile countries.

To my mind, in the above articles, and in one case the programme connected, the BBC pursues its post-US election vendetta against Christian red State America, covers for the growing Airbus fiasco, which it terms 'squabbles', (try telling Quantas and co. that- maybe the Beeb can be a witness in court), promotes the Islamic agenda in Britain, and reports the meaningless return of yet another French journalist whose collaboration got a bit out of hand in Iraq and has now become Chirac's latest PR opportunity.

Not only is this journalism by political agenda, it's also sadly lacking in news content. The two go hand in hand it seems.

A Columnist's Progress: Mark Steyn was roundly criticised by some-including Jonathan Mirsky- for an article implying that China was a good place to go to live and work. In fact, to summarise, he said that 'China’s the land of opportunity'. Oh, they said, it was a terrible abuser of human rights and the gist was that he must be ignorant or dishonest to try to argue against the EU, for one, using the example of China.

I wonder what those same people will make of this article, which include the delightfully wide-ranging lines:

'And what is the likelihood of China advancing to a functioning modern stand-alone business culture if it's unable to discuss anything except within its feudal political straitjackets? Its speech code is a sign not of control but of weakness; its internet protective blocks are not the armour but the, er, chink.'

It's another great article, satisfying that golden rule for artists everywhere by including something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue. As usual Steyn does something which virtually no one else does so clearly: he works from a framework of thought. Delightfully surprising though is the way that he breaks new stories at the same time, or rather, he gives current stories eg. internet censorship in China, intellectual piracy in the Far East, new authority. In doing so he confounds his critics. Hurrah.

Can it be true?

The Jerusalem Post reported that Orla Guerin was to receive an MBE, yet I couldn't find her on the BBC's list (btw. I have very limited list-scanning abilities) . The BBC is keeping quiet about it if she did, as I'd have expected a footnote to this article about Frank Gardner's award if she had been honoured.

BTW, I should point out I posted on the honours list just recently, 'inspired' by the alleged Guerin honour. Actually even without her my argument would still be essentially the same. If, however, it really is true that Guering (so easy to misspell, I find) has been honoured, I am intrigued that it's being kept so quiet. If it's the case that she was going to be honoured but somehow this transference of honour was frozen, that's also intriguing.

Everything I wanted to say (nearly), from Mark Steyn.

And Wow! Compare and contrast!

The BBC:

Boeing has most to lose at the moment.

It's now being out-sold by Airbus, but it's putting its money on a new mid-sized 250-seat jet: the 787, better-known as the Dreamliner.

Der Spiegel:

'While Boeing is practically fighting off demand for its new 787, which consumes significantly less jet fuel than earlier models, Airbus's managers are seemingly ripping each other apart in internal power struggles and intrigues -- and increasingly neglecting their company's daily business.'

Strikes me Auntie's a little slow on the uptake.

Leapfrogging the electorate. Richard North has a great post about the Euros' pursuance of the aims of the Constitution despite the 'non' vote- in the context of space research and development. He makes the great point that as the EU pursues Britain for its rebate, it could do without that money if it did without its unstoppable grandiose scheming. This also made me think of the Airbus subsidies, alluded to below.

Interesting, most interesting. According to Thomas Lifson the Airbus Euro-flagship enterprise has hit dangerous turbulence. The BBC is considerably more relaxed, even boosterish.

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?