A Nobel Assault?

I doubt I am the only one unsurprised at Harold Pinter's success in winning the Nobel Prize for Literature- but it's strange.

Until a couple of years ago I'd all but forgotten Pinter- he was one of those irrelevant and inferior representatives of modern patriotic/socialist British literature (think Hughes, Bennett, Loach etc.) I'd had foisted on me at school and university and had just about managed to vomit out of my memory. Then came the Iraq war and suddenly Pinter was hip and relevant. He produced some 'ravishing' poetry which can be read here.

What I couldn't believe was how the BBC managed to mention the prize he's won without pointing out that Pinter and Al Baradei (the peace prize winner) shared the same anti-Iraq war viewpoint. They mention that Pinter is controversial and was a fierce critic of Reagan and Thatcher, but they don't mention his most obvious claim to recent fame- which, it appears, is generally the main consideration for the publicity conscious Nobellers. To me it's almost indisputable that Pinter would have failed to win the Nobel Prize were it not for his anti-Iraq war stance (not that I give a monkey's about the Nobel Prize, but people do).

An aside- I find it particularly obnoxious that the nobel panel chose to say (and were quoted by the Beeb saying) that Pinter '"uncovers the precipice under everyday prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms".'

This is absolutely what he has not done. He has been the metaphorical aider and abettor of the literal oppressor in the literal closed room, with a literal victim- in Iraq.

Update!!!- major stealth edit alert!!! Now they tell us 'The playwright is known for speaking out on issues like the war on Iraq'. And then they eulogise. (+ I edited my own post- I meant to say unsurprised earlier.)

Also noteworthy, also from an EU-watching blog- this post about the remarkable steps being taken, and contested by the French, to massively reduce agricultural subsidies.

Random piece of British poltics: here is an insight I really hope is correct (nice site, too).

I couldn't help being slightly amused at the thought of a Cameron / Clarke ticket (though definitely more a nightmare than a dream ticket for me), because I used to know someone whose surname was Cameron-Clarke. It must be one thing to share the name of a party leader, another to find oneself bearing the names of both of them.

Miers: the debate. I'm posting this before I've read it, but it should be more than interesting when I get the time.

I would just add that for those who wonder why Miers is important- if you've ever wondered if Bush has judgement or just gets lucky sometimes, you'll have an interest in this. In that sense it's a potentially defining dilemma, however trivial it may seem (it's not trivial, when you consider some of the society-forming decisions which the US Supreme Court is entrusted with).

Interesting Flap in the States

I continue to be fascinated by the Harriet Miers case. 'Harriet who?' I hear you say. Well, quite- that's what all the problems are about.

Although I talked about the Miers nomination previously, the scale of the controversy, at least as it appears in the US conservative part of the blogosphere, demands some kind of introduction. Maybe Richard North's analysis of another UK conservative's green eyed observations about the US' conservative 'establishment' (kind of an alternative and not yet reigning version of the deeply entrenched US Liberal establishment) will do.

And now, according to conservative luminaries like David Frum, all the conservative success is jeopardised by a President who, when he has a free hand, chooses his chum for a crucial life-long legal position. Thus Bush (it would seem) betrays those who have supported him through situations where they disagreed with him on the grounds that a) they hated his opponents on the left, and b) they were hoping that when the flak calmed down he'd reward their loyalty by offering plums like a place on the Supreme Court to someone who they could see as a representative of their own political idealism.

But, as a conservative, albeit of a British sort, I have a different point of view. I believe conservatism naturally rebels against any kind of social establishment of the kind that many conservatives in the US would like to construct. It despises the way that many would like to place themselves in some pantheon of 'greatest conservatives', thereby feeling snubbed when a significant position is filled in government by one from beyond the pantheon. My kind of conservatism believes that small is beautiful and that a closely argued thought process is better than a thousand endorsements from unconnected eminences. My kind of conservatism doesn't believe in massive tides of revolutionaries, but slow accretions of good judgement- which others value and imitate. My kind of conservatism believes in minimalism- that you can't know everything or hold a schema perfectly, but you can perfectly well know the little that is given to you and can extrapolate that knowledge to great affairs.

Thus I support the nomination of Harriet Miers and recommend you read what a crusty and longwinded lawyer has to say about the matter.

Don't know why the post I just posted hasn't been posted.

However, what is remarkable is that the BBC's Don't Have Your Say may be becoming Have Your Say (after all). More credit to the Biased BBC blog I'd say.

Coo, isn't he lovely?

That's right, transnationalism has once more given birth- and it's the delightful progeny of the 'international community' (maiden name, UN), and the guilt ridden corpse of masculinity entombed in the Nobel peace prize. They're calling the fresh arrival Mohammed, apparently.

I watched a little bit of Sky and a little bit of the Beeb, and while Aunty Beeb was wreathed in smiles at the way the little chap had emerged from his Iraqi weapons crisis, Uncle Sky was grimacing wryly and saying good humouredly, 'bit ugly, isn't he?' Got to say I absolutely preferred the company of Uncle Sky.

Paul Reynolds, the godfather, was all serious when it came to a formal address. He seemed to think that Mohammed's arrival was a sign that he was a mighty achiever, rather than simply reflecting the fact that Alfie had got cosy amidst the warm embrace of the UN and it's anti-US obstructionism.

This gives an idea what the Nobels think about Iraq.

Cameron's mish-mash

I 've read David Cameron's much-heralded speech- and it doesn't amount to much. I notice how he avoids all the difficult issues, such as Europe, Ireland and Iraq, and goes for all the simple ones, like offering 'choice' and 'setting' and so on, in education (things which Tony Blair can claim for himself, and which the public believes are already happening).

But I found the emptiness summarised by a comment he makes about foreign policy:

'And when we talk about foreign affairs, we don't just stand up for Gibraltar and Zimbabwe, but for the people of Darfur and sub-Saharan Africa who are living on less than a dollar a day and getting poorer while we are getting richer.'

Another difficult and vital issue (aside from the War on Terror- and national security, and the London bombings-, which he doesn't mention) is the UN's role in our diplomatic life. Blair, just today, condemned Iran's violent toying with Soutern Iraq by referring to his 'UN mandate'. Politics it may be (though I think Blair does have a high regard for the UN), but it comes with a price- and the price is inertia ove issues of national interest.

Cameron's statement about Zimbabwe shows that he doesn't recognise historical responsibility or national interest and give it any priority over the UN's shapeless moralising. I don't believe that the Conservatives as a party have really stood up for Zimbabwe as Mugabe tightens his rigor mortis-like grip. The idea of watering down still further is amost unthinkable.

What we need is a leader who has some sense of the difficult issues, and can stand up for conservative policies in them. It's by adopting the right principled positions based on our national interest that would differentiate Conservatives from Labour, and give some substance to his idea of renewal. I found Claudia Rosett's analysis of a dynamic national spirit versus a moribund transnational one interesting- no country could be more clearly politically defined than her subject, Taiwan.

Almost right about Blair- Danny Finkelstein getting closer than most.

+

A solid comment on David Davis . One has to conclude there is no apparent serious candidate for leader. If pushed I would lean towards Fox, rather than stumble towards one of the others.

A little more on the subjects I talked about in the post below- the Miers and Delay situations, which I, perhaps somewhat impetuously (but I think constructively), tied in together.

The Delay 'second indictment' which the press greedily gobbled up, is nicely explained here.

The Miers situation, which I felt had some symbolic connection with the Delay one, is being vigorously pursued by Hugh Hewitt in posts like this and this.

I think that choosing Miers is another sign that Bush has a philosophy something like the following: He doesn't trust establishments. He does trust providence- providence which has brought him into contact with a wide, but not exhaustive, range of the interesting and talented. It doesn't matter if you agree with the idea of providence or not- it's the only summary word we have to express the specific journey a person takes which differentiates them from others (nb- you could make a case for 'fate', but the Greek tragic associations don't really work too well). What this means is that he makes his choices based at least partly on his own personal journey through life. He believes in making selections in a team context, and in the wider one of society and the world.

I don't know what to think of Harriet Miers- and I do care, since in many ways we need the USA to be strong for the safety of civilisation- largely because I don't know her. But I like Bush's balanced approach- rarely picking the biggest name, and never taking the genuinely easy option. I like the way he seems to have the attitude that you've got to displease all of the people some of the time. I've never really been pleased by GWB, and never felt betrayed by him- but I find him very reassuring.

The dumb and the less so

No, this is not a plug for honest Jon. Well, not really.

Actually it is to make a point about US politics at the moment.

I notice that the media have managed to avoid mentioning the idiocy of the Texan legal eagles who indicted Rep Congressman Tom Delay on charges which relied on legislation which postdated his alleged offence. Instead the Beeb and others race straight ahead to the 'new indictment'. If that had been US legal authorities versus the Islamofascist I doubt the utter stupidity of the first indictment would have been missed so glaringly.

In the light of this conspiracy of dumb, is it really so stupid of Bush to choose a new member of the Supreme Court from outside the loop- but of course part of Bush's, someone whose abilities he has seen close at hand? Unless you just distrust and hate Bush per se, that is. Furthermore, if Ms Miers had been educated in the real Texan jurisprudence of dumb, it is doubtful if she could ever have headed a successful law firm. I suppose I have the right to be suspicious of people like the aforelinked Sullivan who buy into the idea that the second Delay indictment is actually an additional one, and not a replacement for the abortive initial one (designed of course, for the very media misrepresentation which is ongoing).

I got into this issue via the slightly personal exchanges of sorts between Sullivan (the aforelinked) and Hugh Hewitt, whom Sullivan accuses of basically being a fawning sycophant of the President. I have to say that Sullivan is an idiot. He seems uncontent while anyone else is on the other side of a debate. He whines like a child in personal and emotive language, being totally prone to psycholanalysis of the president. You could almost guess he'd just come from the shrink's couch to his computer. Meanwhile, if Hewitt is guilty of anything, it's of praising his own profession too much, thereby making it look like Bush's choice within that profession was really straighforward, when in the current global situation (which is what America and its legal framework will have to face up to) it was anything but.

When you look into the likes of Sullivan, the dumbness of the media generally, and the dumbness of much of the oft-praised legal eagles- and the way that they'd all like to huddle together in one self-righteous lump screaming at big bad Bush- you have to say that Bush may at least be slightly less dumb than his opponents, and thus well placed to make history happen the way he'd prefer.

Blood and Iron

I think the Bali bombings should have taught us some useful things- things we shouldn't need to be taught, but that we're learning with painful slowness.

One important thing is that Islamists repeat their targets. That means they are not engaged in some geographical lottery of explosive protest, with the names in the hat being those who have offended Islam, but a sustained assault. It might be comforting to think that the safest place to be would be somewhere which has already been targeted, but that's clearly false logic.

Mark Steyn has a great article about the Bali bombings, aimed at the Australian public. It's more and more important for us to think globally (and act locally) to counteract what the Islamists are developing.

We can see the Bali situation as a microcosm of the Islamist strategy and the potential it has. Steyn paints the picture a little:

'When the suicide bombers self-detonated on Saturday, the travel section of Britain's The Sunday Telegraph had already gone to press, its lead story a feature on how Bali's economy had bounced back from the carnage of 2002. We all want to believe that: one terrorist attack is like a tsunami or hurricane, just one of those things, blows in out of the blue, then the familiar contours of the landscape return. But two attacks are a permanent feature, the way things are and will be for some years, as one by one the bars and hotels and clubs and restaurants shut up shop. Many of the Australians injured this weekend had waited to return to Bali, just to make sure it was "safe". But it isn't, and it won't be for a long time, and by the time it is it won't be the Bali that Westerners flocked to before 2002.'

I highlight what is surely the significance of Bali- it won't be the same again. It's been changed, and by Islamofascists. That's their victory, their template, and their credential for the place at the head of history which they seek.

Sometimes people list the achievements of the US in its War on Terror. Sometimes even the sceptics, like the BBC, do that. They main reasons are either to say, 'well, it's working', or 'it's worked'. Many who do that are either getting cold feet or trying to egg on those whose feet are cooling.

The reality is that for all the talk of neo-colonialism no-one has the appetite for that anymore. The only would-be colonists out there are Islamofascists. They'd love to colonise the whole world. They know the dynamics include blood and oil, and a commerce in ideas. So, like every good international sales manager, they have a big, big map of the world imprinted on their minds. They have outposts and representatives worldwide- some violent, some not- aping, a little, the way the British Empire began with Raleighs as well as Drakes. I'm not saying Islamofascism has anything so positive to offer, but it has the dynamism of a nascent Empire. It's that grand vision which we have to confront, and most would like to pretend it doesn't exist in any significant form.

Some great stuff on the web.

Had some peace and quiet, and no eye strain- and no major deadline; and the result was I spent a while actually surfing the web and reading some stuff (following up some stories), and checking my links- and it was great.

This post, therefore, could go in a variety of directions, but as I'm just calming down from being greatly tickled by something Barry Beelzebub said, I'll link there first. B.B. is going to be one of the biggest British blogreads, if he sticks around and doesn't greatly prefer venting through his local newspaper columns. He just has a satirist's gift for pith. Thus, talking about the girls who claim they've been assaulted while drunk, he says:

'What these girls are really reporting is not assault but regret.'

And aint that the truth?

Staying with British blogging, I found that this rang true for me, and reflects a considerable malaise in British society. Paul Marks talks about a conversation overheard on a train (trains, in my view, are not so much ways of getting from A to B as they are cultural and civilised leisure facilities- which of course is why they are endangered- acknowledging of course that there are those who rely on them in daily life, with catastrophic effects for their household budgets and blood pressures). The conversation was between two academics from Nottingham University and basically what emerged was what frauds today's academics in the UK are: idle, lacking intellectual curiosity, even dishonest. I say 'in the UK' but actually I think it's a little more universal than that. I've always found myself very comfortable with the atmosphere in any university where I've spent time (including several outside the UK)- and that's how I know they're morally wrong. No place that makes me feel so comfortable can be a real benefit to society (er,- updating hastily-, not that I find myself at home in dishonest company, but intellectual dishonesty is generally quite pleasant for those on the inside; or those temporarily accepted by it).

Another reason for surfing the web is that there's so much going on which, for good or ill, is important.

I came across some fascinating stuff surrounding the Conservative leadership campaign via the EURef blog- stuff with which I actually agree. According to the Daily Telegraph, that makes me a 'right-winger'. Yay- at last I know for sure. The interesting essays from 'Right-wingers' include some I'd almost be happy to sign a petition for- but I suspect I'd want to tease out the details. That's why it's troubling that the Conservatives are so weak just now- there's not room for that debate when things are in the broadbrush phase (still).

Finally (I think), but most important, thanks to A Tangled Web I noticed what John Dugard- special 'rapporteur' from the UN to the so-called occupied territories- said about a single (Palestinian) state solution to the conflicts there. It only backs up other things he's said.

Something else I noticed also interested me though (something I picked up at the Jerusalem Post)- that was Kim Howells' response to Israel's recent actions in retaliation to shelling from Gaza. It's quite different to Dugard's tack. Howells says:

'"I thought the retaliation this week was proportionate," said Howells about the IDF operations. "The [Palestinian] attack was a very serious one, it could have killed a lot of people. It's a miracle really there weren't more casualties."

"I think there is no excuse now," he added. "Gaza is now in the hands of the Palestinian Authority, and there are no Israeli troops there. One hopes that where tough decisions have to be made, Abu Mazen [PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas] and the PA will make them." '

He also followed it up, forcefully:

'"We are waiting with bated breath for a response from the PA," said Howells, "and it has to be a signal that it is capable of good governance. This is not a bottomless pit that this money is coming from."

Howells dismissed PA claims that it doesn't have the wherewithal to effectively take on Hamas and the other terrorist organizations. "Look, they have 60,000 troops in the PA, they have all the equipment they need. What they need is the political will to do it," he said. '

And he topped it off by the following:

'Regarding moves he expected Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to take immediately to move the diplomatic process forward, Howells said, "I'm not looking for Sharon to do anything other than – if Israel is attacked in the way it was attacked this week – to act in the measured way I spoke of. '

Well, it could be better, but it's been worse- see how the late Robin Cook faced a similar situation. The divide between the Dugard approach and the British Government's one is heartening; one can only hope it widens and that the former is seen for what it is: anti-Jewish, hopelessly biased, and symptomatic of the UN's condition.

Supporting Israel is made more and more essential by every fresh terrorist attack by Islamists- such as the one that's happened just today in Bali.

Time for 'Institutional Repentance'?

The deep parody of a church that the C of E has become is quite stark this week.

The backdrop was already provided by the way their senior British numpties had decided they ought to issue a report prepared to broach the idea of apologising for the Iraq war. It was reported that:

'While criticizing Western democracy as "deeply flawed," the bishops appeal for greater "understanding" of what motivates terrorists, and say efforts must be made to address their "long-standing grievances'

For me it doesn't matter that, as some pointed out, their eminences weren't gung-ho against the war; the point is that with IslamoNazis you can't afford to give their propagandist nostrils a sniff.

That's even what their own man in Iraq, Canon White, thought:

'"They've got to take seriously the Anglican churches in these [Muslim] nations," the Church of England Newspaper quoted Canon Andrew White as saying in its weekly edition published on Friday.

"The situation is dangerous on the ground and what is said in the U.K. has a profound effect," he added.'

But did their eminences bother to consult with their man on the ground before they pronounced from comfortable blighty? I doubt it. They thought it was enough to turn down an interview with Al Jazeera.

Canon White was primarily concerned about St. George's church, Baghdad's only Anglican church, which had been shut by Saddam and only reopened in 2003- in other words, because of the war their eminences wanted to apologise for.

Today I came, by chance, across a report which said that the lay leadership of St George's Church in Baghdad is missing, believed murdered by criminals on the Ramadi-Fallujah road. Canon White thought the murderers were likely to have been simple criminals. Who knows? What I do know is that it must have been a lonely road they were on, when the Anglican hierarchy itself was passing by on the other media side.

Nevertheless at least the C o E newspaper was on the ball, taking a completely solid line for once on something with its headline story:

'MUSLIM consultants are queuing up to offer their services free of charge to help Anglican clergy following the London bombings. In what can only be seen as pure acts of altruism, a spate of Muslim doctors have been volunteering their expertise to patients since July 7, at St Luke’s Hospital for Clergy in London, after it was put on alert to help victims of 7/7.'

Nice to see they know how to pay tribute to the poor and downtrodden still.

(highlighting mine- and btw, quite how this muslim activity helps is difficult to fathom; and quite why the hospital is so busy with Anglican clergy is also obscure, being as it is nearly three months since the attack. Spiritual mysteries that are beyond me, no doubt).

I hope to be more active blogging soon. The deadline I mentioned has been extended, though I think I kept my end up reasonably, so to speak. Anyhow I have noticed a few things:

Peace has broken out in Northern Ireland- not

I have to comment about this, as few Brits from the mainland probably will. I think that it's despicable to give the people of Northern Ireland up to a bunch of long in the tooth gangsters like the IRA/Sinn Fein. I worry that, admirable though he is (and I've known people who know him), Ian Paisley may not be quite strong enough to see off the men of near violence for the adequate future- he's getting a bit frail. And, save Ian Donaldson, there's no successor (and I don't trust Donaldson all that much, either). People always mocked Paisley's 'Ulster says NO' line, but what's at stake in Nothern Ireland is the democratic integrity of the British Isles, long term. In the short term, there are victims past, present and future to worry about (and when I say victims, I think we need to mention the Mcartney case, and ask ourselves whether the IRA mentality should have any place in any Government anywhere).

David Vance summarises very well a line of resistance (I highlight what I think are the highlights):

As a pro-republican propaganda blitzkrieg is launched this week, and assiduously sold by our own Government, thinking unionists should stand firm and ask three simple questions to all those appeasers and peace processors now praising the IRA. 1. Has the IRA disbanded? 2. Has the IRA desisted from its multi-million annual criminal racketeering? 3. Has Sinn Fein accepted that the IRA was a gang of murdering thugs?

The political gales that will buffet unionists in coming days will be of Hurricane Katrina-scale proportions, but I trust that our political representatives will recall that "the thing that will destroy us is politics without principle". This is the time to stick to our principles, insisting that terrorist proxies can never be permitted into Government. If we allow that then we decommission democracy.

Meanwhile, I notice the BBC reporting Hain, who could really be Mo Mowlam's little brother when it comes to flippancy and leftist idealism:

'"I wouldn't have expected Ian or the unionists to just bowl over and welcome everything with open arms because they've got a lot of cause to be sceptical and suspicious over the behaviour of the IRA in the past," he told BBC News on Tuesday.

"The IRA have often promised to do things and then reneged on them."

Earlier, before editing, Hain was also quoted saying that no reasonable person could doubt the decomissioning process- which shows you exactly what Hain thinks about the DUP. But what no-one on this side of the water seems to think about, least of all, Hain, is just what it must be like to consider actually having to look up to Gerry Adams as a political authority. Or to have Martin McGuinness in charge of your kids' schooling. I wonder what his line on bullying is? That's really what's at stake in Ireland, but with every act of a nation a kind of mentality is cemented- so there's bigger, British dimension too- unsurprisingly, since you can't duck out from history. If we cave in to the political aspirations of the IRA, I see no discouragement whatsoever in temporary setbacks for Islamic terrorists- and while the Catholics in Ireland have to face the fact that demographics do not favour a Republican, Catholic North, greying-beard Osama (not actually so very old himself), knows how many opportunities are springing up out of his Faith's fertility.

As I notice yet more worrying (and pathetic) Euro weakness (of course I meant EU 'diplomacy' over Iran, not the slightly dodgy currency) I feel I have to mention too that I may be gone for the next few days. I have a piece of work to do for which the deadline was today, but hopefully Monday will do. Of course I'll just mention how blogging takes up a lot of time and I'm sure to be understood...

In other BBC news, this African news doesn't surprise me. Nor does the BBC's slightly unhealthy interest in this. Somehow all three seem to be of a piece, as often happens when the world out there is filtered through the BBC.

Like him or loathe him, I think it ought to be clear by now that GWB has a scheming brain. Thomas Lifson analyses the details of it (with especial reference to this hurricane season they're experiencing in the South). He concludes that Bush 'knows and understands strategy in a way no other president ever has.' Make of that what you will.

Well, there has been a failure in the UK miliary activities in Iraq- they should have taken on Al Sadr, arrested him and tried him for some of his many misdemeanours. Then they should have said to all the waverers around Mucktada, 'who's next?', and then (to the people) 'we want to involve ourselves in most of what goes on here in Basra, getting to know you and what's best for us to do before we go'. They should have done this a long time ago.

The BBC's Paul Reynolds is still bleating about an exit strategy. Yeah, well, ok- but in doing this almost solid for over a year- almost two years I think- he seems to have missed the point that the troops were there for real reasons, and had serious work to do. Perhaps the defensiveness of the whole UK endeavour, which the BBC has done more than most to promote, has contributed to the failure to exit?

The point is that the Brits had it relatively easy there, but naturally where you have hot-blooded Shia and the mullahs next door you have to move smartly to build on that position, rather than preening about being liked more than your colleagues further north. I don't really blame our troops for this as it's mainly media driven, but nevertheless there is a snobbery about, which I don't like, which may just have got our troops singed recently. I also don't think the situation in the South is desperate, unless one considers that this area was a real potential strength and dynamo to achieve our objectives, and now it isn't so clear that it is.

The Poosh is very clear about this, as on much else. Good stuff. If I understand correctly he's from an Asian background, which is why he sounds so refreshingly patriotic I suppose.

Back of an envelope stuff-

Yes, really- I'm turning it round and round in my hand to read my scrawl, and I'm just glad to have it and my keyboard so close together for once.

BBC World often requires enveloping; I don't want to be mean and have a notepad and pen right at hand, or maybe I just know that pens and paper were made for me to separate them at crucial moments.

After noting down (with a pared down biro squirming in my clenched fist) that Brian Hanrahan was talking about the subsidisation of oil when he meant a reduction in duty, I went on to chronicle a discussion between two eminences from the US and UK (I know them, but their names I failed to note and can't remember) about aid and the UN, hosted by Zanab Abadawi.

First she asked whether the failure of the UN's jamboree to produce reform was a result of John Bolton's 'coming late'. The she said 'the US has made the world resent it; that is the crux of the matter'. When the US former ambassador to the UN (I think that was his role) tried to mention the question of African corruption Ms Abadawi intervened quickly :

'We're not going to talk about corruption in Africa, because I'm sure we all agree we want that sorted out...'

It was then I started scrawling in earnest. I thought, how ridiculous that she thought this point needed no discussion. Until corruption in Africa is controlled and ended, there will be no solution to Africa's problems, and aid is like a sticking plaster on a blown out tyre. Moreover, any approach or mechanism to end corruption will not be simple, hardly a matter of consensus, and deeply controversial there's no doubt.

Then back came the ex-ambassador, talking about how the money was going to be spent (ie, was it all going to be wasted through corruption), and Ms Abadawi was again swift off the mark, 'ok, you've made that point'. Er, no. It was ruled out of court, remember?

All she wanted to talk about was the Millenium Goals and why the US and Mr Bolton were so laggardly. I would write more about this, but my envelope was rather limited in size and my scrawl was rather big. The companion sheet to my envelope remains elusive.

Those wannabe intellectuals.

Is there anyone in the hierarchy of the C of E today who wouldn't rather have been an intellectual if they had had the vigour, discipline or intellect to do so?

I only say because they're forever intellectualising and poking their noses in where they haven't a clue, let alone aren't wanted. They have much to say at the moment about the threat of terrorism and the 'just war tradition' (today's C of E loves tradition as much as the Pope, maybe more) and how the church should apologise to Islam for the war in Iraq.

I'll quote a little and then ventilate:

'By way of conclusion we offer a set of fundamental Christian principles, both theological and ethical, which we believe should guide our thinking and action, not only in relation to policy toward Iraq and Iran, but more generally to the present international order'.

Why thank you very much learned gentlepersons of the cloth. I think you'll find that you can't offer a 'fundamental set of Christian principles' other than the ones you completely ignore which were handed to you for transmission to the society around you, ie. Biblical doctrines. I don't care about your 'principles'; I don't trust your interpretations, which remain as ever grounded in the techno-speak of transnationalism rather than in the plain text which is your only claim to exceptionalism. You never deal with any of the things in your own intray, such as moral decay within and surrounding your church, but feel free to deal in the supposed failings of others. You stand for nothing but genteel and dead-end intellectual dilletantism. By even raising your voice on this issue while your church remains so weakened under your guidance you shame your calling. The best thing you could do for the next ten years is shut up, saying nothing but that which affects your church life directly. By doing so you might just start to plant the seeds of some good- but don't count on it, or the grand effort of saying nothing will all be wasted. (hat tip A Tangled Web)

Continental uplift.

Sort of hoping that Mrs Merkel wins today. I hope she turns out to be more radical that the MSM are saying, just as I hope she puts their 'Schroder closing the gap' theme down properly. Maybe one reason for hoping that she causes a stir is simply that this might distract bored and complacent continentals from their boring complacent lives, where they tolerate sleaze, gross behaviour and the most virulent anti-Americanism- not to mention anti-Britishness (see also above link).

I notice the death figures for Katrina are such that it's possible that the final figure may be less than a thousand- which makes a stark contrast to what happened in France during a heatwave two years ago. The truth is that America at its worst would be like most continental countries at their best- and to say that would be just to go with the economics, let alone the 'can do' attitude of most American states (an ethos which Lousiana may be unusually low on)./ Some interesting reflection on several Euro fronts here.

The day after's Update: actually not very uplifting, was/is it? Wonderful advert for the Lib Dem proportional representation policy though, as they meet in Blackpool.

We may be four years on but.... this is a fascinating observation from The Captain's Quarters about an largely overlooked article which appeared in the State-owned Iraqi newspaper Al-Nasiriyah two months prior to 9/11.

There's a killer point of course, which I'll come to, but almost as interesting is the way the writing treats the psychology of Iraqis. One really important realisation is how a state-owned (and controlled) newspaper could be so supportive of Osama Bin Laden, before his full post-9/11 Arab hero status:

'The phenomenon of Bin Ladin is a healthy phenomenon in the Arab spirit. It is a decision and a determination that the stolen Arab self has come to realize after it got bored with promises of its rulers: After it disgusted itself from their abomination and their corruption, the man had to carry the book of God and the Kalashnikov and write on some off white paper ``If you are unable to drive off the Marines from the Kaaba, I will do so.''

Talk about the 'stolen Arab self' reminds me of our own Orla 'Israel stole thirty-eight years from them; today, many were ready to take back anything they could' Guerin. But the pseudo-psychology reminds me of the typical western analysis of the self nonsense (link randomly plucked from a morass). One can't forget that Saddam drew for inspiration on the kind of mystical revolutionary Arabist socialism of Euro-educated Michel Aflaq.

One can't also emphasise enough that this article was carried in the Saddam-worshipping and brutally controlled press- yet sang the praises of Bin laden. It was a product of a newspaper in a Shia area, so I'd say we can assume its purpose was partly to intimidate, shackle and, if possible, indocrinate the local population with propaganda.

Given the recent declaration of war against the Shia by Al Qaeda, Iraq branch, this is more interesting still.

But the real crux of interest in the article is that it mentions all three of the targets on 9/11 in connection with Bin Laden. The last apparent reference may actually not be one, but it is certainly curious: 'the revolutionary Bin Ladin is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. That the man will not be swayed by the plant leaves of Whitman nor by the ``Adventures of Indiana Jones'' and will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.'. (boldenings mine)

It's so interesting- I'd like to read a better translation, but one can see that there is some clever name-dropping going on, and that someone like Bin Laden is quite philosophically consistent with the Baathist presses' mission. It's old stuff, true, but what strikes me is that on so many occasions in not being willing to believe we have an enemy that is widespread and charged with ideology and hatred towards us we've missed many things (like the clear Al Qaeda links to the London bombings, of which many are stupidly sceptical). It wouldn't surprise me if these really were references to 9/11, or that Al Qaeda reps were boasting in the coffee bars of Baghdad and elsewhere before, as well as after, the attack. (hat-tip to Mark Steyn- again)

Tranzi Frenzi- and a hope

Melanie Phillips adds some info about the Israeli General's escape from the risiblly overextended arm of the law:

'Israel’s Maj.-Gen. Doron Almog who flew to Britain to raise money for a charitable cause, was warned by Israel’s ambassador to London not to disembark from his El Al flight at Heathrow because British detectives were waiting to arrest him. The arrest warrant had been issued on Saturday by the Bow Street Magistrate's Court at the request of a pro-Palestinian group. The warrant alleged that in 2002 Almog had ordered the demolition of 59 Palestinian homes in Rafah. Gen. Almog decided not to alight from the plane, and remained aboard until it turned around and returned to Israel.' (bold lettering mine)

I was incensed by this action of the part of the authorities- and I will be even more upset if the they take some actions aginst the sensible Israeli ambassador. Britain used to be a country which had a rational regard for Israel and its position, which understood the difference between soldiers and mobsters, and distinguished sensitively between types of government. Now we don't, even though the distinctions are ever more relevant and important for our own understanding of the world.

There's a perfect evil twin to this misuse of judicial power in the surrendering of British sovereignty to European law courts- as explained by Peter Glover. Essentially what's likely to happen is the harmonisation of EU criminal law- certainly the EU powers have that power now. As well as an abdication of real power (the opposite of the extension of false power), it's an abdication of thought- and to think is what we need more than ever to do. (hat tip, ATW)

Our law used to be decent, even if imperfect and limited in many ways by the eras in which it worked. Now the limitations are few, the boundaries are eroding away to nothing, but the results is illiberalism and powercrazy behaviour.

But, despite this gloom, there is an answer. The answer is not to be too negative, but to look for positive judgements and actions to outweigh the negative ones that have such high profile. From somewhere we have to find within the law some wise decision-making. I believe it might be possible since I've been proved wrong once before. I never believed that Lord Hutton would be as immune from the popular gossip as to blame the BBC for their behaviour surrounding the Kelly affair. From almost nowhere (well, Northern Ireland ;-)), came this decent, rational man to seemingly bunker-down and deliver a rational account of affairs.

Of course I am aware that legal decisions which give the EU such powers as have been given are difficult to cope with from my perspective, but the legal position and what happens in reality can be two different things. Thus Israel might find it has some British champions and the EU might find it gets its fingers well and truly burnt at some time in the future. I wish I could say I was active in this matter, but I'm open to suggestions. For now I'll retain a little hope that our legal system can find some fibre from somewhere.

Talking About Rotten- this graph and map shows the way the UN views the world, describing the frequency of UN human rights complaints against different countries. If you look closely at the middle of the global map you can see a little sliver of red that highlights Israel. It's part of a great site, Eye on the UN.

I'm going to file it in my blogroll some time soon, but under which category I wonder?

Sometimes I feel I get this categorisation business a bit wrong, and maybe it's the fault of my slightly poetic filing system. However, in Natalie Solent's case I'm sure I was right to file her under 'pastoral talk', as is amply proved by this posting recalling Sept 11th. It's great sermon material for anyone who does that kind of thing. Or maybe it already was sermon material and Natalie was a beneficiary? In any case it ought to be in sermons somewhere.

And btw the way I must thank that fine 'surfing dude' Mark Steyn for his excellent links.

Rotten inside

A number of things have made me realise that the problem with the War on Terrorism is that most Western politicians share the analyses of the terrorists.

The clearest example is the one staring us in the face, the one that people from outside the UK most remark on, the savagery on our doorstep that's found in Northern Ireland. Peter Hain is a classic example of a politician who has agreed with every so-called colonial grievance that's ever been aired. When you read his CV, you know that in founding the anti-Nazi league he intended to create a pressure group that would identify what he would call the 'nazi within' ie. the colonial legacy, and enshrine political correctness. Through this prism we have to see his dramatic concessions to the IRA following their latest P.R. stunt.

Moving on, look at how the British Government are dealing with Israel nowadays: trying to arrest retired Israeli Generals. Now of course it was only the idiot judiciary who were trying this on, but the British Government are not far behind. It also shows how the judiciary are becoming ever more activist. Again the establishment are agreeing with the terrorists, accepting their lines- even repeating them.

And finally, what are we to make of the War on Terror when most politicians would be horrified at any mention of a further military step- even a step- against such terrorist regimes as Iran and Syria?

Even Bin Laden, I suspect, only needs to hang around for his anti-imperialist needs to be met.

I think the current generation of politicians, especially our British ones, are unblushing hypocrites. They can't stand the bombs exploding anywhere near their political eardrums, so they act tough, but they agree with the terrorists' analyses: poverty is our fault; colonialist fascism is to blame etc etc. They won't tell us they agree, because that's not their style. I don't think the public in any western country agrees with them (and I would except a number of US politicians and thinkers from this charge, though their will is weak).

Why then are people fighting and dying in Iraq? Simply because politicians like Blair are realistic enough to know what kind of concessions are required, and that these can't be offered overnight. If you're going to allow for reverse colonisation you can't do it just like that. He is therefore at war with the unrealism of the terrorists, not their causes. People like Ken Clarke, meanwhile, are too short-sighted to understand that the terrorists have a meaningful mindset that requires appeasing or destroying.

An article to file alongside the UK's attempt to bring Turkey into the fold, from Melanie Phillips:

'The EU is a profoundly anti-democratic project. Its concept of democracy amounts to the will of the collective trampling down individual national interests — a collective without even a language in common.'

Cutting to the Quick

Two posts made a major impact on me today- this from Michelle Malkin, and this from Slugger O'Toole, showcasing the talented Newton Emerson. Both are on US politics- in the first case the memorial planned for the heroic crashed aircraft on 9/11, the second on why Bush's Katrina critics are stupid. Of the first, I can only say that only US Liberals could be that cruel; on the second, well, the same sentence with 'stupid' at the end.

The British Fantasists

Reading the views of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on drawing Turkey into the EU in the IHT, one is reminded that, beyond the patina of organisation and veneer of diplomacy that are natural to politicians, our political classes are as clueless as our journalists- maybe more so. Journalists live a somewhat insecure life compared to any of Mr Blair's front three. Few revelations would be enough to prise Mr Straw from his job for a political lifetime, never mind Gordon Brown, and Mr Blair himself needs only to schmooze with the political jetset or vaunt himself Churchill style amidst some crisis or other- his own or borrowed from somewhere else- to reassert his whelk-like position on the ship Britannica. Think what a pantomime it took for David Blunkett to be severed from the placenta-like comforts of the Cabinet- if only he had made abortion so difficult to attain (nb. with pantomines there are always semi-serious coincidences that make the stomach feel a bit funny- such as the Blunkett paternity fiasco). Meanwhile the journalists, faced with this political steamroller of Campell's creation, combining many feints and nuances they know and respect, dither and spin themselves into incoherence, and Blair's clones learn his tricks in peace, quiet and security. It is a sordid matrix indeed.

So my advice, as a Brit to the world (and, well, especially lovely American friends- as well as the chaps) would be not to take these men's advice on anything significant- which is a by the way plea to Bush not to favour all Blair's Euro nostrums. They are performers and drama queens and that's all. Remember that next time you feel like swooning at Mr Blair's trembling lip, quivering voice, or clenched jaw.

Take Mr Straw in the Herald Tribune (of all places to confront a Foreign Secretary's grey matter): one is reminded of the very funny sketch from Jon Cullen on Dead Ringers (about the only thing on BB tTV which could be viewed as right-of-centre- the Beeb just don't understand the jokes is my guess) which was aimed at Blair himself:

'"People of Britain, starey eyes, sweaty palms, receding hairline, yesterday I announced...", "People of Britain, oh how I hate to be beside the seaside grimace, hate Gordon Brown hand gesture, looking over his shoulder underpants...", "People of Britain, this is your Emperor..."'

I suspect Mr Straw has a very cunning pitch. He knows that the IHT is a leftist paper, so he'll appeal, not to their sympathy with a poorish country- which would wear thin once they realise all he wants is to maintain the cost of labour at politically convenient levels- but to the 'soft war on terror' argument, which would be popular with the so-called 'decent left', and the moderate left. He starts, therefore, with the terrorist attack on Istanbul 22 months ago:

'LONDON Twenty-two months ago I stood in the rubble of what had once been the fine perimeter buildings and courtyard of Pera House, the British consulate-general building in Istanbul. A few hours before, it had been blown up by Al Qaeda-linked suicide bombers. Sixteen people were killed - three British and 13 Turkish citizens.'

Typically then, we begin not with rationality but with emotion, and from there Mr Straw goes on, 'how familiar - yes, European - Istanbul felt; how close together we were despite the efforts of the terrorists to divide us.'

Then, after the emotion, comes the assertion:

'we in Europe long ago decided where we wanted Turkey to be anchored',

and then the ballast:

'In 1952, we - the United States, Germany, Britain, France and others - invited Turkey to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In 1963, Turkey signed an association agreement that led to a Customs Union with the European Union.

That agreement held out the prospect of EU membership. In 1987, Turkey applied, in 1999, it was granted candidate-country status, and in 2002 the European Council decided that it would open accession negotiations once Turkey had fulfilled the political criteria for membership.'

This though mixes things like NATO membership (which no longer has a meaningful European role, being sidelined by the Euroarmy plans), with various sundry other events, and tries to blend them into a narrative which we could call the force of history. It's typically deceitful.

In essence, Straw maintains that economically we need Turkey, as it is vibrant in that respect. He talks of competitiveness when he means cheap labour. He doesn't mention demographics though that's obviously crucial, when one looks at things like this via Laban Tall.

Mr Straw though gives us an ultimatum:

'We don't have the luxury of choice. We live in a world of global challenges and global competition. A static Europe will not face either with confidence. Stopping enlargement would only weaken Europe's ability to compete with emerging Asian economies.'

What he so easily forgets though is that Britain is not Europe. Our Government could be making us more competitive, encouraging childbirth through marriage centred policy, fighting wage inflation in the public sector, attacking waste. Instead it's relying on Europe, and that Europe will absorb large numbers of immigrants which will on the one hand keep it competitive, but on the other make the UK, for one, a place where the indigenous people are a minority for sure.

Personally I would like to see a plan of action that didn't involve large scale migrant invasions, because, as Peter Glover points out, that would leave us totally prone to the fundamentalist drive for which they could be an irresistible vehicle. It's utter dereliction for our politicians to suggest that our only option is to be taken over by hook or by crook. No amount of lip trembling can suffice to make it otherwise.

Admired the unfree world over.

If I were to have to guess at the BBC's most favoured phrases I'd likely include a phrase (or phrases) such as 'internationally recognised'.

This is a sad comment on the BBC's aggrandisement and ignorance. It may actually be that the BBC's taste for transnationalist boosting trumps its better judgement, but it amounts to the same thing.

The fact that we have to cope with is that the world is not free, the press of the world is not free; in reality the BBC has very little competition, such are the advantages of freedom, finance and history stacked in their favour. Phillip Chaston has written a very worthwhile item at Samizdata where he describes how, at the BBC, 'the writings of Comrade Bob's mouthpiece, a Chinese journalist who writes only what his masters want to hear and a reporter protected by the First Amendment are presented as equally valid to the reader'.

There is also the trouble that, even where democratic systems and free speech exist, and even where there are traditions of their existence, democracy is more democratic, and free speech is freer, in some countries than in others. Helen at EU Ref. helps demonstrate this, and refers us to this example of our glorious international media.

What's at stake in our modern era is whether we retain and extend the standards of journalism which the BBC have fed off for generations, and now use to queen it at the head of the 'international media', or whether we descend to the propagandist standards which prevailed so widely in the 20th century, with such awful effects.

'As President Bush scurries back to the Gulf Coast, it is clear that this is the greatest challenge to politics-as-usual in America since the fall of Richard Nixon in the 1970s. '- Matt Wells

Total Philosophical Disjuncture.


Well, as the saying goes, 'where to start'? You see, I might just disagree with both parts of Wells' analogy- that Watergate was a triumph for journalism, as well as that Katrina has helped re-grow a backbone in US journalism. Perhaps, from the perspective of hysteria, lies, and the bloodcries of the Left, there is an equivalence- but to unpick the analogy requires a fight against carefully tended popular mythology.

But I suppose I should start by saying that Wells is still reporting from LA, presumably from his Condo. Hopefully he will have at least seen pictures- that is if he reads his fellow BBC journalists' work.

Wells thinks that having wealthy white Americans in positions of media power is a recipe for spineless subservience to a white President. I don't- quite the reverse. Actually I would argue this situation, which Wells addresses only in caricature form, creates a competition of virtue and maganimity towards ethnic minorities, which could be called, oh, I don't know, 'positive discrimination', to pluck a phrase. This phenomenon might endure long after the apparent negative discrimination ceased to be significant. That's why President Bush gets nothing for having Powell and Rice, blacks of both sexes, at amongst the highest positions available, because according to the competition for who can be nicest to ethnics, that's just not good enough (and those two are just uncle Toms anyway, according to the Moveoners)- even though the Dems can't boast anything like that state of affairs in their own party.

When he says 'the moral indignation against inadequate government began to flow' he seems to forget Richard Clarke, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and numerous others propelled by MoveOn.org into the limelight and mainly embraced by the MSM in the US. Clarke's attempt to accuse the Bush admin of 'inadequate government' was quite noticeable at the BBC at the time (nb. further to what Nathalie at B-BBC says about former Presidents, according to Paxo, not criticising incumbents- it would seem Paxo doesn't use the BBC as his source of news, judging from the above link). Instead, Wells means that Fox have cracked. One could point out the overwhelming pressure exerted against this self-proclaimed anti-MSM broadcaster, which makes our puny efforts against the Beeb pale (even though Fox is merely one among many channels in the US, and people choose whether to pay for it or not- the protesters could legitimately be seen as totalitarian anti-freespeech thugs).

Wells goes on to claim that there will 'have to be a Katrina Commission, that a newly-emboldened media will scrutinise obsessively.' . Mmm, yes Wellsy- like the 9/11 commission which they couldn't be bothered to worry Bush about, I suppose?

As seems his wont, he reserves his full MoveOn. org mania till he starts to take his bow-

'The dithering and incompetence that will be exposed will not spare the commander-in-chief, or the sunny, faith-based propaganda that he was still spouting as he left New Orleans airport last Friday, saying it was all going to turn out fine.

People were still trapped, hungry and dying on his watch, less than a mile away.'

This stuff is so Michael Mooreonish. Remember, that guy the MSM had no time for- and failed to praise?

He signs off with letting some of his fellow liberal witterers take the strain-

"Our people deserved rescuing. Many who could have been, were not. That's to the government's shame" (The New Orleans Times-Picayune).

That's not, by the way, a sentiment post- what was it? -Sept 2nd thing, but actually a standard line of the left: leave it to big Government. When Mark Steyn writes columns like this one and they're published by the BBC, I'll believe things are changing.

Meanwhile some tips for our Matthew, since he's branching out from reporting the news to trying to manage it-

1)Don't use meaningless loaded words like 'scurries' and 'spouting' when all they do is mark you as biased from the moment they're read. Your friends will like it- but do you only write for friends?

2)Beware in praising fellow journalists- ever heard of 'backscratching'?

3)Don't rely on historical precedents that rely on a certain political interpretation to make the analogy intended viable- it's overloading the reader with politics. Don't twist the link mid analogy.

4)Don't make sweeping generalisations from your LA Condo- and if you do, do a Jayson Blair and 'just pretend'. Sweeping generalisations like 'the collapsed, rotten flood defences of New Orleans are a symbol of failed infrastructure across the nation.' are also not good. It must, after all, be a horrible Condo and gym that you frequent.

5)Don't imitate the rhetorical bankruptcy of the MoveON.org crowd. It's embarrassing and- see point one and consider whether 'People were still trapped, hungry and dying on his watch' isn't just a bit Michael Moore.

To the BBC- is Matt Wells' hamfisted opinionating really the best you can do? Hasn't his Guardian experience been largely factual news gathering, at which he was markedly better than in his current guise? It must be nice to employ a journalist who has spent years reporting your favourite causes and even supporting you through thick and thin, but I can't imagine you will employ an anti-Matt Wells to retain balance, so you- and he- are surely out of line.

Get Over It- already. Richard North has an excellent post (with piccies) lambasting the British media's ignorance and condescension over the Gulf Coast disaster. I hope US citizens can forgive them not knowing what they're doing- and not representing the more thoughful Brit among us.

Prediction Time Again:

I suspect that Bush will be vindicated in his approach to the Gulf Coast disaster- as Hugh Hewitt clearly believes and others are helping to back up (that trusty Bush phone expertise again- via Instapundit). Secondly that the left are once again over-egging the pudding in ways exemplified by this blogger's post. Thirdly that New Orleans will recover, and could be a far more hopeful place in the future than it was in the past.

The Truth according to Matt Wells

'The truth was simple and apparent to all. If journalists were there with cameras beaming the suffering live across America, where were the officers and troops?'

The BBC's true colours shine through in this article. We find an enraged and ideologically inflamed writer swallowing every one of the so-called 'fitting metaphors relating to the New Orleans debacle.'

That is what journalism is not about, yet here we have a BBC journalist in full pursuit of his ideologically chosen enemies.

Perhaps the BBC is fed up of people thinking they don't care about the States (my most charitable thought). Perhaps there's an element of the Michael Moore theory that disasters shouldn't happen to Democrat voters, as it has in New Orleans. Perhaps this is intensified by the BBC's utter lack of balance when called upon to report the old colonial victims, the blacks. Perhaps too the BBC has been listening to US broadcasters tearing their hair out (for some similar reasons) and has been lured into thinking they are reflecting a genuine consensus- just another victim of the US MSM. Add to that the gnawing anger they feel that the purest capitalist society around has become the most admired and feared, and one can see the need for emotional breakout.

But the caricature offered by the BBC journalist is a disgrace. A disgrace.

First we have the predictable dig at the 'home-spun myth about the invulnerability of the American Dream.' This was so predictable, and so unnecessary- and stupidly wrong (think of John Edwards' Dickensian depiction of the girl who had no coat and you'll see that immediately). The whole first three paragraphs are utter bilge- but I notice so cunningly put together that though they appear to unequivocally indict President Bush, they could be read differently as a more general comment.

Then we get the BBC's patent 'metaphor' approach- involving a series of assertions about a 'heroic Mayor' (who is certainly a savvy enough political individual to see that his skin's safety depends on deflecting blame), an 'extraordinary complacency', Federal agencies staying 'tucked up at home', and no 'official' plan. Again, this is lightly veiled- but an utter attack on the Bush administration.

The really extraordinary thing is the disingenuousness of this writer. Take the representation of New Orleans vs the US Governement:

'The Bush administration, together with Congress, cut the budgets for flood protection and army engineers, while local politicians failed to generate any enthusiasm for local tax increases.

New Orleans partied-on just hoping for the best, abandoned by anyone in national authority who could have put the money into really protecting the city.

Meanwhile, the poorest were similarly abandoned, as the horrifying images and stories from the Superdome and Convention Center prove.'

He covers himself with the comment about 'local politicians'- but notice how the population of New Orleans is abandoned by central government, who also abandon the poorest. What, do these party goers have a sovereign right to party, with central government picking up the bill. Notice that it's central government, not local politics, that's responsible for local concentrations of poverty. Nothing could be further from the US political philosophy enshrined in the Constitution. The attitude displayed by the BBC journalist is truly extraordinary, attempting to condemn all of this political culture through a condemnation of the Republican ascendancy over it. Not for the first time I am left wondering what a Beeboid is on.

But perhaps, as I intimated, there is a rational explanation- the BBC's colonial grievance culture. He explains himself:

'The neglect that meant it took five days to get water, food, and medical care to thousands of mainly orderly African-American citizens desperately sheltering in huge downtown buildings of their native city, has been going on historically, for as long as the inadequate levees have been there.'

He doesn't seem to realise- having accepted every caricature floating around in the aftermath of the hurricane, he can't escape his own mentality, bloated with historical caricature.

'In the workout room of the condo where I am currently staying in the affluent LA neighbourhood of Santa Monica, an executive and his personal trainer ignored the anguished television reports blaring above their heads on Friday evening'.

Laughable, isn't it? The whole of the US is in the grip of delusion but our man in the USA, the noble British Broadcasting journalist, is a lone survivor, valiantly doing his serious journalism from the workout room of a condo in LA.

It stinks of utter bovine stupidity.

As a final slander he comes out effectively accusing US citizens, and he means the average Joe here, of being tax evading criminals:

The uneasy paradox which so many live with in this country - of being first-and-foremost rugged individuals, out to plunder what they can and paying as little tax as they can get away with, while at the same time believing that America is a robust, model society - has reached a crisis point this week.

Was there ever such a stupid response to a crisis (certainly when one considers the extraodinary generosity of the US people that is unfolding and will continue to unfold. Hugh Hewitt's response, dignified and practical, shows just how far left this BBC journalist is)? I don't know; but I do know the BBC should consider this man's future very seriously, and they could write a nice note of recommendation for his next job interview to help him on his way. (cross-posted at B-BBC)

Wise words on the Gulf coast disaster from David Frum.

Sorry about the post overload below. I experienced blogstipation recently and was storing up a bit too much. I also reserve the right to cross-post at B-BBC as seems fit, since it seems I'm focussed that way just now.

I earlier mentioned (not for the first time, slipped shyly in the end of a post) the superior blog 'BlameBush'. My guilty secret is that it's this 'young Liberal blogger' who keeps me sane(ish). I've been inwardly fulminating about the Beeb's idiot reporting of the Ugandan Aids story- producing no fewer than 17 search results for 'Uganda condoms', and producing headlines like 'Uganda: 'No shortage of condoms''. Some ideologues are suspicious, it seems, that others might be even more ideological than them- that's the story, in a nutshell. Fortunately Liberal Larry can fill you in even more pithily:

'thanks to his primitive views against casual sex and abortion-on-demand, Bush is withholding millions of life-saving prophylactics from the peaceful, yet incredibly horny people of Uganda'

I do not support President Putin- but I have been keeping a weather eye on the BBC's Beslan coverage. There are many questions that remain concerning Beslan- many good ones- but BBC World chose to concentrate on the idea that Putin's responsibility revolves around his Chechnya policy, and invited guests in to discuss this as well as reporting it themselves.

I've also been watching Sky's excellent Laurence Lee reporting, and he elicited the grievances of the Beslan families against the headmistress of the school, against the local authorities- for colluding in lies-, against the border police, for being corrupt and accepting bribes, and against the military for being incompetent and vicious in their atrocious 'final showdown'. I think that's called the reality on the ground- starting with those most closely involved and moving to those whose hands were bloodiest, discounting of course the Islamofascist killers who almost all perished. In fact analysis of the disaster offers a cross-section of the disaster that's modern Russia + satellites. (Sky's Online coverage is less impressive- but there are notable differences to the Beeb's account. For instance, Sky highlights the corrupt border officials, whereas the BBC highlight Putin's apparent refusal to negotiate. In this we can see the Beeb ingnoring on the ground reality in favour of pet theories about terrorism)

The BBC World reporting was all about root causes- nothing at all to do with the victims whose day was supposed to be remembered. BBC Online was slightly better, but they really miss the wood for the hysteria. The Beeb reporter says 'Many in Beslan believe most of the victims were killed by the Russian assault forces, after Mr Putin had refused to talk with the gunmen'... and ...'They want to know how so many gunmen made it into their school in the first place, and why officials refused to negotiate.' Of course they quote one of the leading women saying '"The government is supposed to guarantee our lives, take responsibility for our lives, and they haven't,"', and another saying that that Putin '"is responsible for what happened in Beslan".'- but compared to Sky they really miss the interesting things by chasing the big bad Kremlin wolf. The specific points that Sky brought out are fascinating; the one the BBC majors on is banal and blatantly political. It's logical I suppose that the women should seek to use the British Broadcasting Corporation to embarrass Putin, ahead of some of them meeting him, but that's precisely why the Beeb should not be taken in but should report the real story of Beslan and the heart rending real issues that consume the people involved. Do they really imagine that the local Beslan people put their suffering in a full geopolitical context? I think not- but the Beeb is so strong in its own political philosophy that they hardly need to report the story, they just work out what they want to the story to be to further their reputation as a politically powerful organ.

I think it's working

Well, after a fashion. It appears that visiting Biased BBC has had some effect on Paul Reynolds- either that or the warm weather. Today, a day when the New York Times said '"George W Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday", Paul Reynolds said 'Mr Bush returned to Washington from his holiday in Texas and made a speech whose rhetoric, unlike his first effort on 9 September 2001, did rise to the occasion.' [Post-script, but before posting, I notice that Reynolds has updated his article, and indicated it in writing in the article: 'Update on Thursday evening London time: One has to say that reports indicate that the intitial response has not been as fast as might have been expected....' . This is interesting, once more indicating the influence of bloggers on a BBC correspondent. I have to say, in dealing with Mr Reynolds I've found him a very respectworthy person. But I knew that already. The points about BBC bias are usually collective in nature, rather than personal- though see below, for it can get a little personal].

Lest anyone get too excited, I notice the dig at Bush tucked within the compliment (yes, balance, balance- but it's only pro-Bush comments which are reliably punctuated with digs at the Beeb.). Also, maybe someone can inform me of the significance of 9th Sept 2001, as I am at a loss over it- shark attacks maybe? [edit- Paul reynolds noticed this mistake too and edited as part of his overall edit. Maybe I should have emailed him rather than sniping...] As for his claim that Hurricane Katrina will be as big a test as 9/11, I think that's to give way too much credit to the global warming thesis, as though the hurricane is among a tide of disasters rising like the terrorist threat has risen. The questions he introduces his article with seem to be more fitted to a film maker's brainstorm than to the real world.

The media quotes come from the Beeb's own roundup of US newspapers- somewhat snappily titled 'Papers hail heroes but blast Bush'; strong, considering the article points out newspapers who are not critical of him. However, one can understand: if the Gray Lady blasts Bush, then he is a blasted Bush. That's the world according to the sophisticated etiquette of Media of Record. [Also post-script but pre-posting, I notice an interesting fact- the headline's been changed without acknowledgement, to 'Bush under fire from press', and the balance of the coverage has been moderated. I think that's poor. If the press really was against Bush initially, that's an important documentary fact, and if it's changed its tune, that's important for the same reason.]

In other news, Justin Webb is a disgrace too great for me to cope with. However the Rottweiler Puppy put together a very insightful post which analyses the strategy of a man like Webb, a man who specialises in a line of spin which combines the surreal and the spiteful to create the America you never knew:

'Yet now, they have a "troops out" movement incubating in their midst, within spitting distance of the holiday home of the Lone Star state's favourite son.

There are earth mothers talking about love, hugging each other, swapping recipes for organic stews. (what, on earth, was Webb on when he was writing this?- or, I suppose, what are they on?)

Americans - even Texans - are rethinking the Iraq war, indeed rethinking war itself as a tool of foreign policy.'

Webb/Sheehan antidote, combined with much else, here. Yes, it might be surreal too, but has the crucial advantage of self-awareness.

Two small dreams to chalk on a wall somewhere:

This man wins. I know; he's dubious; but I like him.

These people lose. Well, they deserve to.

It must be said that this fellow is rather cool-

'And after taking the match into a final set he broke early before suddenly being sick on court....

"That's my best win, or the one that I've enjoyed the most," the Scot said afterwards.'

Intellectual looting at the Beeb

The Beebonline have so far (so far- it's very early yet) been wise enough not to carry an article linking hurricane Katrina to global warning. Unfortunately BBC World were not so circumspect this morning. I saw one presenter saying to a US environmentalist (invited in apparently to advance the thesis in question) that there was a growing consensus in the US linking hurricane Katrina to global warming. This was not an implication, but a direct comment encouraging a thesis that Katrina was linked to global warming.

So, while many are concerned with doing the constructive things that might help the people on the Gulf coast, the Beeb take time to scour the hurricane newsscape for what it can do for one of their favourite themes.

I can imagine so many people will agree with them, yet again and again trendlines contradict the trend in reporting ever more vociferously and loudly the global warming-world disaster scenario. Here is another one, showing frequency and magnitude of hurricanes hitting the US mainland in the last century and more. (via Instapundit).

The context of the BBC's alliance with greenish NGOs gives me a chance to link this priceless article from Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. When you're at a loss to describe the kind of thing (the socialist mentality which is hard to identify, hard to pin down) that repels you about the Beeb, just run your eyes over lines like these:

'Illiberal ideas are becoming to be formulated, spread and preached under the name of ideologies or “isms”, which have – at least formally and nominally – nothing in common with the old-styled, explicit socialism. These ideas are, however, in many respects similar to it. There is always a limiting (or constraining) of human freedom, there is always ambitious social engineering, there is always an immodest “enforcement of a good” by those who are anointed (T. Sowell) on others against their will, there is always the crowding out of standard democratic methods by alternative political procedures, and there is always the feeling of superiority of intellectuals and of their ambitions.

I have in mind environmentalism (with its Earth First, not Freedom First principle), radical humanrightism (based – as de Jasay precisely argues – on not distinguishing rights and rightism), ideology of “civic society” (or communitarism), which is nothing less than one version of post-Marxist collectivism which wants privileges for organized groups, and in consequence, a refeudalization of society. I also have in mind multiculturalism, feminism, apolitical technocratism (based on the resentment against politics and politicians), internationalism (and especially its European variant called Europeanism) and a rapidly growing phenomenon I call NGOism.'

It would be hard to give a better summary of the BBC's mentality- but anyway, do read the rest (also via the prof.). (cross-posted at B-BBC)

It's late in the day (no, not literally, but for Britain), but I do think that Charles Moore, as so often, has some good things to say:

Teach English, Restore Parliament, Look again at the word 'Britain'.

Yes, and we could forget the Notting Hill Carnival without loss (no offence to people of African or Carribean origin, but it's a farce, isn't it, which will dwindle by itself being contentless already?). In addition to reviving Parliament we could give some teeth to the law by reviving the death penalty for murder. It's not really that radical to suggest that we take ourselves, our language, our society, and, yes, our 'communities' a little more seriously.

It'd be heartening, if I had the remotest trust in IQ tests, to hear that men were cleverer than women. But an unhealthy kind of heartening, I think.
Anyhow, if it's so that these men are right, we should also consider that, with a five point IQ gap between men and women, and a six point gap (according to the man who ran the research) between East Asian people and Europeans, then a European man would just, but not quite, be a match for an Asian woman.

''Assassin' Bush''

It's an old chesnut for me by now, but I posted recently on Biased BBC about it. I appreciate not everyone has seen the significance of the Beeb's headlining of Chavez's 'swipe' at Bush recently. Actually it's not just the headline, it's the angle that flows from it.

The point was reinforced for me by this introduction (I'm not a subscriber, but I got the general idea) to a Johann Hari column at the Indy, which was linked by Scott from the Ablution. As Hari put it:

'Venezuela is living in the shadow of the other 11 September. In 1972, on a day synonymous with death, Salvador Allende - the democratically elected left-wing President of Chile - was bombed and blasted from power. The CIA and the US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had decided the "irresponsibility" of the Chilean people at the ballot box needed to be "rectified" - so they installed a fascist general, Augusto Pinochet.'

This contextualises the Chavez comment and the BBC reporting of it nicely. What it suggests is that the BBC is giving some considerable credibility to the Chavez perspective on world affairs. I don't think it should be.

Meanwhile, more BBC reporting of Chavez's grandstanding. I know how the Beeb despise Margaret Thatcher's comment about the oxygen of publicity, but if they had anything but reflex leftism in them, they'd think about this more carefully. It's not even as though Robertson can be pinned down definitively as having called for Chavez's assassination- it was more like, 'maybe we should give the guy what he thinks we want to give him'. To quote:

'If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it'

Note to the world- this was a conditional sentence, conditional on Chavez's own views. It's also not so stupid, even if a mite evil. The problem with the Left today is that they think the US is the root of all evil. They ought to look in the mirror for more than admiring their daring left-wing jawlines. The truth is that the idiocy and paranoia of the Left is the visible manifestation of the problem the world has today- the need to blame the bogeyman for their inability to organise themselves responsibly. Chavez is not only at the forefront of that, he's also, like so many at the head of political leftwing or fascistic movements, totally cynical in knowing that it isn't so, but using it to maintain power and authority.

/

'So they went up to the mountains, to behold the gardens and orchards, the vineyards and fountains of water; where also they drank and washed themselves, and did freely eat of the vineyards' (on the Delectable Mountains of Bunyan's Christian odyssey.)

It's holiday time, and it seems the columnists I most admire, Steyn and Hitchens, are using it to take a step back and reflect on Iraq. Steyn is focussing on the Iraqi constitution. He takes on the glass-three-quarters empty crew who are obsessing that, among other issues for BUsh's legacy, 'Iraqi women were better off under Saddam'. Killer point-

'So what do we find in Article 151 of the Iraqi constitution?

"No less than 25 percent of Council of Deputies seats go to women."

I'm not a great fan of quotas but for purposes of comparison, after two-and-a-quarter centuries, in the United States Senate, 14 percent of the seats are held by women.'

Indeed. But, speaking of killers, it's worth saying that the argument that women were somehow protected by Saddam is a fairly stupid one. I recall seeing a C4 documentary chronicling the mass beheading of a group of women in Baghdad central by Saddam's henchmen- as an example to society. This report I think refers to many similar incidents (not, I think, as I thought initially, that particular one- I thought it a hopeless task searching for one of the few pro-Iraq war Channel Four broadcasts). Even the BBC reported, from a part of the Governement's dossier that seems undisputed that 'Under Saddam Huseein's regime women lack even the basic right to life. A 1990 decree allows male relatives to kill a female relative in the name of honour without punishment.

Women have been tortured, ill-treated and in some cases summarily executed too, according to Amnesty International.'

While this is straightforward stuff, it's been largely forgotten. That doesn't put Steyn off much though- an overwhelmingly positive article.

Meanwhile, Hitchens pulls off that rare feat- an article with which I hardly have a point of disagreement. Simply a wonderful defense of the case for the Iraq war- though not always the case that has been presented to us. Rather simlar to a case I attempted to make in a recent post at Biased BBC, basically the opponents of the war must assay some realism in their view of what the world would be like now without the Iraq war more than two years ago. Hitch nails it excellently:

'Anyone with the smallest knowledge of Iraq knows that its society and infrastructure and institutions have been appallingly maimed and beggared by three decades of war and fascism (and the "divide-and-rule" tactics by which Saddam maintained his own tribal minority of the Sunni minority in power). In logic and morality, one must therefore compare the current state of the country with the likely or probable state of it had Saddam and his sons been allowed to go on ruling.

At once, one sees that all the alternatives would have been infinitely worse, and would most likely have led to an implosion--as well as opportunistic invasions from Iran and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, on behalf of their respective interests or confessional clienteles. This would in turn have necessitated a more costly and bloody intervention by some kind of coalition, much too late and on even worse terms and conditions. This is the lesson of Bosnia and Rwanda yesterday, and of Darfur today. When I have made this point in public, I have never had anyone offer an answer to it. A broken Iraq was in our future no matter what, and was a responsibility (somewhat conditioned by our past blunders) that no decent person could shirk. The only unthinkable policy was one of abstention.'

Strange, to return to Bunyan, that Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. Truly it's a postmodern world, but with some seriously real battles to fight.