It was so exciting when... Tookie Williams was at the centre of the debate about modern America's morality.

Take a look at the Google BBC site search generously supplied by an anonymous B-BBC commenter.

Then compare with this Google search of the BBC site using the terms 'Iran death penalty'

Then ask yourself why doesn't the BBC seem to bother reporting incidents like this one?

This is so shocking it is apparently beyond the comprehension of the BBC even to cover it, let alone analyse it and adjust their moral reporting compass to accommodate the fact that this savagery exists. Their failure means that they can scarcely be considered to be a global broadcaster. They are fond of moralising within a cosy liberal western context: their morality hasn't got the guts to report what's happening 'outside the box'. Of course they can report famine in Africa, rape in Uganda, and so on, but the reach of their understanding goes little further than a paltry post-modern, post-marxist emoting.

One might think there's a ready made excuse: some societies are closed, etc. Well then, whenever a story reaches the light of day it has to be poured over, analysed, lucrative prizes being dangled before journalists who can, not just go behind the lines, but bring back the specifics (somehow- it could simply be a clever internet reportage system). The point is that not only don't they report things which are known, they don't offer them the kind of coverage they merit. The BBC perpetuates the same 'two worlds' theory that they thrive off with their guilt trip journalism.

Much as I dislike transnationals, and Amnesty among them, the list Amnesty provides is instructive. In addition to the fact that Iran is performing annually (as far as is understood) three times as many executions as the US, some of the cases are beyond pathetic. At issue is the balance of the news, and the fact that the BBC pursues moral equivalence, and actually moral inversion, in the face of the reality. Exactly how to redress the balance is unclear to me, but the first step is making some recognition of the grotesque imbalance, and well, growing some balls to address it.

Under 'Iran death penalty' the BBC hadn't filed a report about a death penalty in Iran since 2004, and prior to that one has to go back to 2001 to find anything that approaches a firm story about this type of execution revolving around a woman's sexual behaviour. And in that story, extraordinarily, the BBC went into a kind of Lady Chatterley's time warp by describing the accused as an adulteress (no quote marks).

What the Tookie vs Iranian savagery comparison shows is that the BBC offers very little range in some areas, and certainly no depth. World Leader? I think not, or pity the world.

The London Bus theory of interesting internet articles: spend an hour or so (or more) scouring the netscape for one, and suddenly two come along at once. (it helps when the bus stop you finally arrive at is Real Clear Politics.)

This article is about propaganda, and points out what I thought was obvious and so couldn't find a way to say- that is that in so-called propaganda (actually I think we're a tad confused about that word, hence my 'so-called') a major component can be a benevolent support of positive values eg. what could be more wholesome that 'don't kill yourself and many others; think like a human being' . It's hardly Nazism.

The second article is the Sharon argument (and I notice he's not gone yet, so where there's life...); the one where we try to rationalise a man who, as it were, swung both ways.

What I liked especially was this endearing way of looking at the issue:

'A popular toy among Sharon's generation of Israeli parents was called ``nachum takum'' -- lie down, get up. You know it: the toy you knocked down but which bounced right up again. That's Sharon himself and that, I think, was his grand strategy.'

But that's the thing that's impressed me about Sharon: he has always seemed on the side of life, even when dealing out death.

...And Now Is the Winter of Our Discontent.

Perry De Havilland catches one of those cringemaking moments on the letter pages of the Guardian. Phillip Gould wrote it; and a truly farcical leftist he is. It's all the vaingloriousness that makes me laugh painfully. I remember the impact Thomas Hardy's poem made on me, what is now years ago. And to think people like Mr Gould never grow up. I also remember that certain Conservatives used to be very triumphalist around the time before Mr Major proved what a political master he was, while the Conservatives ably demonstrated their own immaturity.

Somehow all this makes me think of Iran, and Israel. I don't know what to say about that; I think the Hardy poem might be the most sober comment I can muster. EURef has been thinking about it though.

Wisdom on Sharon.

A rare quality, but I think Amir Taheri shows it. This article is as shrewd a an analysis as any I've read. Taheri himself is a quite remarkable person, and he seems to understand something about Sharon, how he realised that

'For a war to be won it is not enough for one side to claim victory, although that is essential. It is also necessary for one side to admit defeat.'

(ps I think 'The Australian' may just be one of the Anglosphere's best newspapers, judging from the frequency with which I visit for a useful article.)

Of course, the sacrifice in Iraq (see below post) isn't without cause. I've been linking Stephen Hayes for years. He's dogged, and he's good, and I think those are the qualities that are needed. Here's another piece, on Saddam's terrorist links, and I look forward to many other rewards of his diligence.

'Meanwhile, a French engineer kidnapped by an insurgent group in December has been released, Iraqi security officials and the French government confirmed on Sunday.'

Oh glory.

Some backdrop, I think, here.

Sharon

To me this fellow towers above the news items around at the moment. I really wish him well.

It's interesting how Sharon managed to combine eclectic elements of policy- angering everybody and fully reassuring almost none- with becoming a political phenomenon able to say 'today, I will form a new political party', with every chance of having done so effectively had the flesh not proved too weak.

It could seem almost banal to say that one supported him, in this context. His support seems to have come from the man on the street rather than from any political creed or group.

But I think the man on the street had a point.

Sharon was anti-factional but patriotic. He was pragmatic but he wanted to win.

He managed to kill the leadership of his foes, build a kind of Berlin wall against them, reduce their efforts to kill Israelis to a point where their own murderous infighting was producing more body bags that the war they were supposedly waging against Israel, and yet gain an unprecedented hearing among people home and abroad.


There are some very interesting pieces about Sharon at the moment; as usual I think they are ambivalent at best. Everyone always has some major 'con' to put alongside the 'pros', which seems to me almost contrarian.

Atlas Shrugs' Doctor Nancy makes the classic error of think that any kind of land concession by Israel was indicative of defeatism. She thinks Sharon was hamstrung by the reluctance of Israelis to shoulder the consequences of a hardline stance.

Daniel Pipes is even more critical, accusing Sharon of 'monumental mistakes' with the Gaza pullout foremost among them.

Meryl Yourish, however, points to Ariel Sharon's last interview at the head of his country. In it, Sharon lays down the law concerning the state of Israel in relation to the Palestinians.

What's striking is the iron-like grip Sharon maintained on these issues. There's an absolute and historically informed clarity in what he's saying. It all turns upon patriotism and the awareness of the hurts that have been visited upon the State of Israel in seeking its annihilation.

What I think is clear is this: Sharon's a winner, and he wanted to win for Israel its security and its integrity as a nation. How hard is that to love?

One interesting blog I found as well on Sharon examined his military career, preferring to concentrate on that. Well, I don't think it ever stopped, but I was struck by these words Ben Gurion had for Sharon:

'The only thing that matters is that we can exist here on the land of our forefathers. And unless we show the Arabs that there is a high price to pay for murdering Jews, we won't survive.'

I think that's what Sharon was zeroed on. Everything else was sound and fury.

Two small nuggets. It's often hard to find out the BBC in big whopping lies, while to parse their articles can be likewise onerous on writer and demanding on reader.

So I have two small points to make:

This BBC article on the French very riot-like behaviour not only says that the riots had fizzled out several months back, it also describes the torching of 400 cars on New Year's Eve as representing a 'small rise' on the previous French hogmanay's festivities.
On the other hand this article describes how carbeques were up by one third on the previous year.

Basically it's the usual BBC love-in with the French establishment, and the PC willingness to overlook the crimes and misdemeanours of certain potentially religiously motivated groups. One thought I had about this recently: if it's ok for muslims to lie to dhimmies, is it ok for them, say, to drink in order to create the impression that they are disadvantaged youths recklessly rebelling? That would of course only be possible if they really intended some harm to the West, and had a strategy of sorts.

Anyway, the second nugget is where Paul Reynolds, analysing the great Ariel Sharon's legacy, which may well be sadly fixed at some time soon, gives the Palestinian point of view:

'They remember his role as the defence minister who allowed the Phalange into the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in 1982 and who was forced to resign after those massacres after being criticised by the Kahan Commission.'

I am prepared to say that is in at least one respect (that of criticism) strictly true, and of course Reynolds has covered himself with the reference to how the Palestinians remember him. However, it would have been a lot more instructive to have reported, as this ally of Sharon's does, that Sharon was held 'indirectly responsible' for the massacres. 'Indirectly responsible' is the kind of fact I would like newspapermen to bear in mind in their reporting: it's the kind of 'indirect responsibility' which has seen Koffi Annan sail through his scandal over Oil-for-Food. So far that indirect responsibility has been uppermost in the minds of BBC journalists reporting Mr Annan. It doesn't appear to register in Sharon's favour in this case.

Meanwhile the BBC's still in PC heaven:

Chirac's backing down on a so-called 'colonial law' - so the Beeb are quite excited. Thus they let doddering Chirac spout:

"France has set an example by being the first country in the world - and still the only one today - to recognise slavery as a crime against humanity. I have decided to establish a day of remembrance in France."

It's a difficult lie to parse, since technically they did outlaw slavery for a while after the revolution (don't know how effectually). The present perfect is a tad off-putting; I am sure that's not deliberate. But I don't suppose Chirac will ever get round to saying that Napoleon reinstated slavery, and it lasted almost half a century afterwards. Come to think of it, it's doubtful that in euphoric mood the BBC will bother to explain either. It must be Chirac's du bist la France moment.

Recommended Reading.

Anthony Browne, simply. And of course Steyn on Demography, Europe and the Islamists. If I could link Roger Kimball I would, as his Criterion piece was excellent too. I think in Browne (as linked by Stephen Pollard), we come very close to the reality of things in the UK; as I've known them and as I feel them to be. I don't know if I will buy it. Maybe I should; but I know this stuff- know it factually, test it with a modest sort of empiricism- it's the believing that's the hard part, and that Browne helps instill.

The bit that struck me most of what I've read was where Browne reports the suppression of a report by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia; or rather, the re-writing of it to blame white skinheads for anti-Jewish acts, rather than the Muslims identified by the report as the most significant element.

So, a supposedly respectable trans-national agency lies to preserve its PC agenda. That's no surprise, but it should be if they were at all worthy of respect. However, instead of being discredited, what happened? Well, in the UK, the media split:

The Independent reported 'White men blamed as attacks on Jews rise'.

The Telegraph approached the real story that was there to be told. Approached, I say, because there seems to have been no real sense of scandal.

The will to negate the real story of the world's developments is extraordinary. Suicidal even.

Most individuals think a bit before they lie; usually work a little to avoid it, and if they do regret it just a bit. But in Britain the media quite literally thinks nothing of lying to force its mentality upon its readership. Papers like the Telegraph are no paragons; there can't be any when things go so far down that lying is a community journalistic activity- part of the scenery, going with the territory.

People are often pretty nasty, but usually lack organisation. The media in the UK however has organised its rhetorical turf and meanders round the boundaries seeking ways of extending it (the Telegraph occupies a slighty nicer bit of turf, as does the Guardian in its own way. The BBC? They are like some higher former of mafia, with access to all turfs, able to look infinitely more respectable while, whenever they really want to, orchestrating quietly). I often recommend articles not out of any faith in the media, but because somehow they delineate this turf war in a comfortingly close approximation to the reality. So it is with Browne- but it's a very close approximation in this case.

Another of those exotic young things.... The BBC has been highlighting the account of former Palestinian hostage Kate Burton.

Of course they're keen to give us the background: she 'grew up in Belgium', she 'speaks Arabic'. Ah, perfect, perfect. She's well, a young female 'human rights worker'. Maybe she even speaks arabic in a non-laughable way.

I am sure many of us just think: Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall... Kate Burton- another (we are coached to think) telegenic product of one of the (if not the) great causes of our time. True, she worked for a slightly more academic organisation than Hurndall and Corrie (there is an aside on the website about sewage issues, for instance) but it is no different in outlook, only in tone.

According to the BBC she's even human: she 'lost it' with the hostage takers. But they just leave it in this picturesque celluloid ether waiting for the obligatory film director's interest.

The fact is though there are ample facts missed out by the BBC (and others, but the BBC gives her the sought-after formal gloss- nice pic, btw). Human Rights worker she may have been, but for which humans' rights? A run-through of the statements at the website of her Al Mezan 'employers' reveals an exclusively and chauvinistically pro-Palestinian stance. No mention of that one on the BBC.

The reason, therefore, she lost it, could be seen in a different light when one postulates that she felt that the terrorists owed her one for being on their side in the conflict. Absent recognition of that, she lost it. One interpretation of course, but one we're entitled to as much as we are to the Gladys Aylward made-up treatment. Unless facts are unpacked, interpretations are limited.

Going further, one might note the kind of detail picked up by David Vance via the Irish media: it turns out Ms Burton had helped out in Cuba, too- a picture begins to emerge - working shoulder to shoulder with a Sinn Fein activist.. er councillor.

The Beeb knows we like the glamour (though actually I find none of this stuff glamorous, only pathetic), and they're only to happy to give her the Gladys Aylward treatment. But they know much better than that- and they're sitting on that knowledge because it suits their news agenda. It figures. The Honest Reporting awards summarised reasons for the BBC's victory in the Dishonest Reporting Awards, 2005 by referring to:

...a pattern of naivete, dishonesty, forcing facts conform to a narrow worldview and, arguably, a desire to inappropriately influence events

Oh, I beg to differ. I think the desire is unarguable. I am only gratified when I notice it failing to be consummated.

de Havilland is good on Russia's ticklish gas problem. Very forthright.

'Russia needs to be treated with respect, but only the sort of respect you give a drunk with a knife as he staggers down the street.'

Happy New Year- and see the Beeb's grey matter stewing as they struggle to reallign in the face of new 'realities on the ground'.

Jeremy Bowen comes close to endorsing the neo-con revolution in the Middle East. Close, I say.

But first a little linguistic analysis. It's always noticeable how odd contortions of language are used when people want to soften the truth (ie. approach a lie). Jeremy Bowen gives a modest example with his intro:

'Oppression and violence and the doings of despotic regimes can seem to drown everything else out.' (in the Middle East)

The thing I notice is this triplicate 'Oppression and violence and the doings of despotic regimes...'

Just where is the oppression and violence disassociated with despotic regimes? Of course one might say he means terrorism, but this disjunction of several ills from the well-known despotism of the region seems unjust. Terrorists are merely aspiring despots, or tools of the same. One senses that Bowen is trying to blur distinctions into a 'we are all sinners' point (and the Israelis in particular, as usual). Naturally the BBC journalist carries round an instinctive awareness of an international audience that encompasses many who disapprove of Israel and the US and all that they do, and only a few jews.

Enough of the bad. What's good about Bowen's piece is that it identifies very forthrightly the locus of reform in the Middle East:

'there are signs of change.

They go back, in one way or another, to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.'

Yay. Iraq war good. At last.

Well of course, as I said, not quite. Bowen picks up John Simpson's point about bombing in Jordan being caused by the US invasion of Iraq- 'The violence will continue, and across the Middle East governments are worried that it will spread their way.

In Jordan, it already has.'

That really is Beeb-think in action, since it really flies in the face of the analysis of the Jordanians themselves, who blame not GWB but Al-Zarkawi- producing headlines and initiatives like this one (just as an evil neo-con of Rovian intellect might have planned away back).

It almost annuls the impact of saying 'Thanks to the Americans, Iraq had elections in December 2005.' , but not quite.

And then of course Bowen makes the obligatory anti-neo-con point that islamists may actually be popular, so democracy will work against America.

Maybe so- though he ignores contrary indicators like the response of Jordan to the bombings- but his point's a dud:

'The Americans are discovering that the problem with democracy is that it can produce results that you don't like.

That's just the way it is.'

Huh- very bluff. Very Yorkshire.

America- the country that knows more about democracy in terms of consecutive experience of it than any other. People there apparently haven't figured that votes can go against them, over the four centuries they've been experiencing it. I think the point has been demonstrated amply that where democracy endures and a commitment to it is made over time, despots shrivel and fall away- but the Beeb haven't quite figured that one out yet. But its what we all want, isn't it?

I try to conceal my admiration for Mark Steyn as a journalist and thinker, but it doesn't work- so why bother? Scroll down these NRO '06 predictions and you'll find some of the boldest and more interesting predictions for the coming year from the man himself. The one I liked the most was:

'Osama bin Laden will continue to be dead, and will be confirmed as such.'

Food for thought. There's also one about the fall of the German Government. And then there's the funny one at the end.

Maybe though, a new, saner dawn is just around the corner for the Beeb (an early New Year's resolution, perhaps?). I sometimes find a little snippet on the Beeb which indicates that somehow things might be changing. I am an optimistic sort, and dislike the feeling that I am unevenhanded. So, I'm linking this article about the Polish decision to stay in Iraq.

According to the BBC report there currently:

'The new conservative government's decision reverses the previous leftist administration's plan to pull troops out in early 2006.'

I highlight the point. 'Leftist' sounds a bit almost well, pejorative, especially when set against the 'conservative government' part. Of course I don't ask for a slant towards the right, but it's a small point I think I ought to acknowledge.

I really had to share this little gem from the American Expat's site. Not only does Scott skewer the BBC's anti-Bush/America bias in two recent posts, he also gets entertaining comments like the following:

'In a very deep and beautiful way Mr. Bush has penetrated to the innermost core of the BBC, where everything is interpreted in the light of his existence. It really is poetic justice that the BBC should be housed at, of all places, Bush House.'

Latest example of BBC Bush hysteria here. I think 'buff' is a term they reserve for eccentric amateur followers of the arcane, and US Presidents they have no respect for.

Basic stuff

Ok, I said I'd pop back, and here I am. Well, actually here I am- within a mighty stone's throw anyway. Quite wintry, which I gather the UK is beginning to feel as well (Christmas passed with the usual lack of whiteness, apparently, as indeed it did here by and large).

But while surfing, I found an item which has been buzzing in certain Brit-blogs for a day or two now. PC Coetzee (not to be confused with JM, who 'constructs representations of people slipping their chains') has been doing too much pesky arresting. What struck me about it was the comment from Coetzee's Chief Inspector that gave as an example of this fault 'arresting people who have failed to appear in court'

That's why I so admire PC Coetzee- he enforces the law. He forces people to face the courts which their alleged crimes are said by British Parliament-passed laws to merit. Last year (04) I faced a court on about three occasions over one motoring case(when postponements are considered I actually readied myself to face it about five times- and part of this time while not even UK resident). I won my case, which was a minor one, without a lawyer. I don't think it should have taken that long; it certainly shouldn't have been postponed at all (due to lack of court time). The reason probably lies partly in the fact that many cases have to be scheduled but the defendants fail to show, thus creating chaos and an atmosphere of disorder throughout the system.

It's all about enforcement really. If they enforced the law they wouldn't need, and wouldn't be able, to have catch-all police policies that rely on convicting those who allow themselves to be convicted. They would then have the respect of all: the real offenders, who would understand that to offend is to be forced to face the law, and the generally law-abiding person, who would be less likely to be targeted just because of a mild temporary lapse (not my case, actually; I was innocent altogether, and proved to the court's satisfaction that the prosecution- shifty coves the lot- had no case) and would then consider a general policy of good-citizenship more rewarding.

Failure to appear in court is a crime fundamental to all others. It's basic stuff and the stuff of a basic law-abiding society. And the idea that a Chief Inspector can just dismiss it with a curt criticism of one of his best officers (from a community- the white South African immigrants- to whom we already seem to owe a debt for their expertise and uprightness) is just fairly sickening and equally predictable. The sickening part is that it's something that could so easily be addressed had not the liberloids their heads up their backsides. You know where people live (and soon you'll know it even better); they can't get away; yet you let them, to the detriment of the entire system.

Anyway, on the theme of the basics, Mark Steyn is remembering the Tsunami relief effort, and there seems to be this same lack of sense which has infected many aspects of the British establishment (see this sickeningly shallow nonsense masquerading as common sense as St Jack tells us Christmas cards are ok. Thanks Jack). It makes me ask whether this Christmastide we should not be asking whether liberalism (in the sense of treating certain majorities as though they were the real sponsors of iniquity, on racial or historical grounds, in defiance of actual racial or historically based data- with the corollary that certain minorities are either on historical or racial grounds to have a false reality cocooned about them) isn't actually a kind of virus which impairs the life-support system of a decent society and a sensible mind.

I begin to fear I am not indefatigable- unlike some who post the Christmas through. Happy Christmas though to everyone, and I'll be back in the interim period before the New Year. Jingle Bells, and all that...

'Opinion I can handle; it's biased narrative posing as objective reporting that needs to stop'- Jeff Goldstein.

Just a random quote from the clever ad thingys that Pajamas are using to attract readers- but it made me think of the BBC's Matt Frei for some reason. Oh and this twit. Roll on a media revolution!

Lost Boys

Thanks to Eamonn in the comments, this article is a fascinating read- the closest to a real and constructive kind of deconstruction of text that I've come across for a long time, perhaps ever. The text in question? Well, not one, naturally, but a pastiche of Bin Ladenisms cross-referenced with the media in the UK and US (no need for Bin Laden to mine the depths of the Middle East or French press). One can see that Bin Laden is no philosopher- unless one counts Derrida and co with their playful deferral of meaning.

Deferral of responsibility; deferral of meaning. Both seem to be in vogue yet also pathological conditions we are imprisoned by. I guess that a young man by the name of Daniel Higgins thought of his life as a kind of game. He was only eighteen when tortured and murdered- fatefully yet cold-bloodedly- by a group of vengeful Asians. By then he had apparently built such a reputation that when an Asian man was killed by having a knife stuck into his liver during a robbery, Higgins was the rumoured killer- supposedly beyond the reach of the law despite a 50,000 pound reward for information. If the reports available are anything to go by, there was a sensational trial to determine his killers, following his Tarantinoesque death. Higgins was already a father when his life was taken; the nexus of connexions surrounding him seems to have been explosive.

I wonder how much Tarantino has done to help evolve the definition of "white trash"?

Against such drama the dry work of a chronicler of genocide pales. But I was delighted to find this website concerned with analysing the National Islamic Front's Sudanese massacres. I could have wished long ago for action not words but it's a hugely worthy site.

I also found this essay from AEI chimed precisely with my feelings: George Bush has found his voice. I think it's necessary today to let the wordsmiths play in the newspapers, magazines, on air and online so I sympathise with the situation he has faced. It's necessary to let the bullying loudmouths play; not only that but it can't be avoided as no-one shouts louder than someone in love with their own voice.

I'm not sure we need too much analysis: we have to endure it though. So though I welcome the Tigerhawk's assessment of success in Iraq, I think that the democratic vote is the most unambiguous sign that sometime soon the bottom line of US deaths in Iraq will fall to a level whose meaning is unambiguously clear. (thanks to Laban and Instapundit for some links and thoughts)

BBC's hands clean: rendition of the truth proceeds apace.

So the BBC, itching to say some really nasty things about George Bush's Iraq 'adventure' and Saddam's trial, daren't say it themselves but instead outsource the job to one of our admirable academic fraternity.

Imagine though: would the BBC even consider the same approach to calling Saddam an evil and criminal dictator, in the circumstances? I think not; they would never allow it to be said, let alone themselves say such a thing.

Yet here the reassuringly educated-sounding tranzi-commentator (whose job, naturally depends on convincing people of the benefits of international legal procedures) says, quite brazenly, 'Regardless of specific American influences, though, the whole trial is tainted in some eyes by the illegality of the initial invasion.'

Don't the Beeb geddit; ever? That's Saddam's argument in a nutshell, and the Beeb are making it for him via this academic cipher. Just to underscore this point, it isn't, in this article's view, that some people think the Iraq invasion was illegal, it's that because the Iraq war was illegal some people think the trial is tainted. If it really were they'd be right to, because illegality implies that the status quo ante was more just than the status quo post invasion, ergo Saddam's innocent in this court at this time, strictly speaking. As I said, Saddam's argument: and the BBC is broadcasting it.

Beeb evades reporting the news (shock); reports Democrat talking points once again. Oh yes, there was some kind of Beeb report (note the starting point: a humble Bush implies a previously arrogant one- duh), but it just got lost quite quickly and was pretty hard even to track down.

Optimism- This is a great account in the Weekly Standard of how Iraq, through its election success, is looking up in quite a big way. If so then it is a sign that the recent months' higher casualty figures were a reflection of what William Kristol calls 'the recently adopted American/Iraqi counterinsurgency strategy of "clear and hold."'. In other words, a more pro-active strategy- impossible prior to greater Iraqi involvement- which clearly puts lives at risk but offers the prospect of unambiguous advances. A real no pain no gain strategy instead of an intangibly directed process of losing lives.

The extraordinary Sunni turn out (70-80% in supposedly terminally recalcitrant 'strongholds' of anti-Americanism), when combined with the solid democratic enthusiasm of the Shia and Kurds, seems to indicate an inexorable critical mass of democratic decision-making which makes the Islamofascists redundant. I don't see what other major card the terrorists can hope will fall their way.

Mark Steyn today is wonderfully bullish too, almost as scathing of the Democrats as he should be.

What they should be highlighting (it languishes now in the Middle East pages of the BBC world news website).

What they are highlighting. Of all the pathetic cooked up non-human interest stories to lead with- when they could be giving witness to history. Needless to say a certain Justin Webb was BBC midwife of the story and the Liberal media in the US the delighted parents. I have to say it's a most absurd distraction from some Good News from Iraq.

(even CNN kept this headline: Iraq elections a 'success'- reporting the UN observer's verdict in predictable but at least consistent tranzi style- as their top world news story. I just find the BBC's obsession with Democrat talking points totally, well, biased.)

A Few Observations

I have been very busy the last few days. That's number one.

A second observation: Aren't BiasedBBC doing well? It's great to see Toby back posting and posting so much so quickly. He's a clever guy and it interests me just how distinctive is everyone's mode of writing. You could extract sections of writing from bloggers that I know and mix them up, and still find yourself recognising authorship correctly. Toby's terse and forensic; Natalie wistful and seductively newsy; Andrew blending the barnstorming with the sardonic. No, I'm not all misty-eyed about group-blogging; No, this is not a meander in place of a post; I certainly hope it's not vainglorious blog vanity-card broadcast into a void; It's just that sometimes it pays to reflect on the evolution of the blog and perhaps what's fun about it and what it can do.

What, for example, is the difference between the equally thoughful posts of Natalie and Adloyada, who, being 'sort of' a woman and vetted as having a sound mind, has been doing the anti-Beeb bit on the Beeb (sort of bringing the militants in-house, which one can do when they're not packing bomb-belts or bringing in friends with bombbelts)? Answer: Natalie kind of meanders around a bit, like a country walk along the riverside, making allusions which you only get at the end as you reach the vista you were seeking all along; Adloyada picks a thread and then pulls and pulls, taking care to straighten the material so as not to hurt the threads she doesn't object to. Both I enjoy- and naturally, regarding their styles I generalise rather.

A third observation: I really admire America; not so much for getting everything right (although, in my view they do that with a startling frequency) as simply for getting. Getting a murderer some justice; getting a country a vote; getting an economy with draws people in and builds them up. All this takes conviction, and that's actually the only fault I find with the US in their Iraq mission (as in other fields, such as taking on the Iranian menace). I think the only thing they really GOT wrong, was not believing in themselves enough. But of course not believing in oneslf is not a crime, I suppose.

A final observation: Toby was a little off when he said sorry to me for posting approvingly about a Paul Reynolds' article on the Beeb. Having recently had to digest some of John Simpson's rants on the BBC website I have come to feel that Paul Reynolds wasn't so bad after all (but, dear reader, read on, for I have hopes even for Mr Simpson). Or rather, it seems to me that he has adjusted his style, retreated a little into observations drawing from a much deeper pool of experience and a drier, more intellectual approach rather than trying to hit populist (popular according to Beeb groupthink) contrarian notes re US policy. It's at least possible that contact with the wider blogosphere and the reactive media therein have modified his approach, maybe even changed a few little pieces of his mind- possibly out of awareness that a decisive critical audience exists which can and will undermine his authority to speak if he fails to give it some of its due. It's all good I feel! I've never questioned his savvy, or his skills, and least of all I hope his experience, and I feel that just now these gifts are being more responsibly deployed. Thus, I agree with Toby, largely.

Final, final observation: this Reynolds' article is a case in point- from 'One is tempted to say' (but of course, doesn't), to 'All this is not unhopeful for US policymakers.' Even the sceptical note at the end is a kind of 'one never knows' point, based on the events in the real mad world out there, as experienced selectively by the writer. In other worlds [a typo I have allowed to stay in- should be 'words'], Mr Reynolds has written a good piece. Maybe another good piece, Toby. Bravo.

And the last one: Check out this article from a different kind of Reyolds, in May 2004. Back then Reynolds was saying 'Events in Iraq have been spinning out of control - and out of control of the spinners - so fast on so many fronts that the W word - withdrawal - is now being mentioned.' . This one was googled from the memory association of 'Reynolds' with 'quagmire'- though this time Reynolds' mention of quagmire was via what he called the 'gadfly' pro-war journalist Christopher Hitchens. It certainly seems like Mr Reynolds has done a bit of gadding since then. And since then too, the US, and GWB, along especially with the Iraqi and Afghan peoples, has done a fair amount of getting.

Don't normally do entertainment, but this is a great remembrance of Richard Prior, such a likeable comedian. Also, I think while I'm about it I'll recommend a CD for Christmas: James Blunt, author of Back to Bedlam, is not your average balladeer, having served as a Captain in the British Army in Kosovo. His music's of the timeless variety, with great lyrics and real themes (you may already know this- I'm not sure how big a hit he's been yet in the UK, apart from 'Beautiful'). The final track on the album is performed by a Private, a Lieutenant, a Colonel and a Captain (Blunt). A little refreshingly different.

Typically, I find the Guardian pointedly saying that Blunt (peevishly) thinks he's the 'housewife's favourite'- but since when did the Guardian ever believe such a creature continued to exist for them to promulgate the idea? I though it was all about gay dwarves now. Uncontent with one putdown, the ever-hypocritical ones' sneering review goes on to cite a following of gay men (as if there were some unholy alliance of gay men and housewives in the nexus of uncool). I don't know about either of these things; but only that there's real depth there in the writing, a little like Dylan without the (essential) irritating and hectoring politics. This makes James Blunt a serious talent in my book. As for comparisons with early Elton John, which the Captain modestly deflects in other reports- I should think so too, because it's blatantly obvious how much cleverer Blunt is than Reggie. As usual, the Guardian votes with its social radar rather than any recognisable thought process.

So, in (a highly unusual) summary (for me), buy it, or download, or whatever.

Not all such bad chaps, evidently.

I'm pretty suspicious of our Foreign Office in general, but there's no doubt they get together interesting CVs. Via Albion's Seedlings.

Not good at numbers

Perhaps John Simpson and I share that in common, but I think that I've calculated accurately when I say that comparison of this years's BBC survey and last year's BBC survey of public opinion in Iraq shows one interesting statistic- the level of optimism there hasn't declined; if anything it's increased.

To their small credit, they reported the optimism in the headline of their news item.

Simpson however does his typical 'don't bother me with facts' analysis where the usual BBC tactic of placing their subjective opinion over and above what is demonstrable is on display.

Undoubtedly the situation in a country as repressed and damaged as Iraq will be complex, such that peace doesn't always mean progress (pace some parts of Iraq under Saddam), and unrest doesn't indicate unworkableness except for those who attempt the usual unrealistic activities of a media tourist (pace Simpson).

Yes, clearly, 'Things have changed radically in Baghdad since March last year - and not for the better' (for Simpson)- but do we really need this subjective browbeating of unwelcome survey findings from the BBC's most senior Foreign correspondent? Isn't it prejudicial when already the Beeb were struggling to find a way through the straightjacket of statistics to reassert their chosen interpretation of Iraq (to which they are sticking)?

Awards

I was really pleased to find Biased BBC (to which I contribute) nominated for the Best UK Blog award in the Weblog Awards. Of course such things are easily questionable, but since I often feel a bit down about the progress made there, there's quite a good feeling gained from seeing us garnering votes. Which brings me to my little appeal. I suppose the majority of visitors here also visit B-BBC, so they will have seen the link Natalie made to the awards, but for any who haven't been voting, may I invite you to do so (daily, as you are entitled)? We are already performing creditably, but could make it really a notable performance WITH YOUR HELP. So here's a wee linky to help you help us (myself and my B-BBC colleagues, as well as all in sympathy with us) along our way.

One Dumb Broad- yes, yes, I know: cheap and sexist tag, but this woman sets herself up.

It occurs to me I might be branching out when I find myself getting heated about the errors made by a non-BBC journalist, but really, to claim that George Bush 'is famous for keeping critics at bay, and has rarely come face-to-face with protesters (which is why Cindy Sheehan, the bereaved mother of an American soldier who has become the face of popular opposition to the war, made such a splash).' is just too tendentious for words.

Duh! She met Bush in 04, says so herself. I thought everyone knew that!

Of course the point our broad makes is not disproved- it merely makes the 'famous' consensus look stupid.

And perhaps my bullishness is linked to seeing the reality of this. Only a couple of weeks ago I was fretting over Iraq, and then came Bush's 'strategy for victory'. It strikes me that although this has an overwhelmingly manufactured look, it must be a GWB initiative. Only Bush would (could?) have waited so long before a media counterattack. Some opponents, aware of this success, are desperately calling him the 'propaganda President'. What a perfect inversion that is!

Haven't those dummies smelt the sulphur emanating from the insurgent activities in Iraq? Haven't they observed the teensieweensiest bit of doctoring of videos or manipulation of the press during western kidnappings? David Vance lances the latest Islamofascist propaganda coup excellently here. What about those damned orange jumpsuits- which have adorned the bodies only of Islamofascist victims for western audiences?

I've been deeply impressed by Bush's counteroffensive recently- perhaps through the strength of my desire to see it. The 'broad' I mentioned and linked at the beginning toys with the meme that Bush never answers questions that are asked of him. She's quite wrong. He answers all the questions that make sense; especially those which have some factual basis. The rest are just for dummies.

For a great rebuttal of all the central criticisms and questions asked by dummies, see this typically thoughtful and informed analysis from Norman Podhoretz.

UN showing its true colours: Israel wiped off the map.

It's always strange looking at large-scale geographical maps. Weird though to look at one with nationalist and transnationalist colours on either side. I suppose they thought there'd be a colour clash.

Update: Another act of touching solidarity via PJM.

'I shiver in delicious anticipation of the shrilling shrieks of outrage as the British media monopoly begins finally to taste the lash they deserve so badly.'

Lexington Green at the excellent Albion's Seedlings (but who is this insightful and fluent writer?). All I can say is that for once I agree with some words of John Lennon: Let it be.

Biased Beeb Defending Saddam

To keep their swarms of Middle Eastern moonbats happy (while snubbing the telly taxpayers who fund their service) the Beeb have to treat Saddam with the dignity befitting a grand Islamic leader- even in their news items.

Thus the Beeb reported the ex-despot's 'boycott' of his trial by relating the sad tale of how (in news unrelated, it should be said)

'the eight-year-old son of a guard at the trial was abducted from outside his Baghdad home on Wednesday.

It was not immediately clear if the kidnapping was related to the trial.

Thousands of Iraqis, including many children, have been abducted - mainly for money - since the Iraqi leader was ousted in 2003'

The implication here is that the ousting of Saddam has resulted (or is somehow rationally linked to) this apparent crimewave.

In fact, as many studies and reports (such as this one) make clear, much of the kidnapping is merely the consequence of Saddam's thugs going freelance, and the money is not because it's difficult to make an honest living in Iraq but because even so-called insurgencies cost money (think of all that costly video kit and bribe money, to name but two outgoings).

Now, I can sort of see why the BBC wouldn't mention Saddam's lurid torture activities, kidnappings and criminality at this point- that would be rather prejudicial. On the other hand, if it were merely part of the evidence presented in court, rather than the BBC's editorialising, that would be a different matter- safest when they stick to the news. However, isn't it equally prejudicial to make mention of the negatives of Saddam's ousting at a time when his regime is under judicial scrutiny? As I said, the news of the kidnapping is unrelated to the 'boycott' (so-called) which Saddam is holding.

Then, as though unrelated, the Beeb introduce the conclusions of court spectators (eg. John 'sly one' Simpson) to say that 'many observers have felt that Saddam has used his appearances in court to great effect, calling on his followers to continue their fight against the American presence in Iraq and condemning the 2003 invasion again and again.'

Talk about letting the ex-despot have it both ways! First the kidnappings somehow link to his loss of power, then he is admiringly reported for his effectiveness in using the court to bolster the so-called insurgents- the ones, speaking generally, who foment and act out the vast majority of these criminal acts. The Beeb, in this reporting, utterly disregard the extent to which the so-called insurgency is a war on the Iraqi people- an extension of the hatred of his own people which marked Saddam's reign as despot.

The French response to rioting: Got to get some better TV channels out there.

It's so ironic when one considers the French coverage of Hurricane Katrina (not that the British coverage was at all praiseworthy). The French just seem incapable of taking on board that they are seriously ideologically challenged, among other things. The French CNN will be as bad as the rest of the French media: terminally constrained by its assumptions.

Update: More managing of the news in Europe (albeit the older sort).

Simpson's Sly One

Ever trying to bounce, er, nuance me into a greater appreciation of the complexity of the Middle East, John Simpson returns to one of his favourest topics: how Saddam had a few things to be said for him.

'The Iraqi army of Saddam Hussein's time had mostly Sunni officers, many of whom had had the experience of fighting three wars, as well as crushing the Kurdish and Shia resistance. It was, relatively speaking, tough and disciplined - not up to fighting the Americans, but more than able to deal with an insurgency.'

And the point is...?

Saddam knew a thing or two about applying a firm rod to the fissiparous factional nation he found himself the ruler of, unlike well, mentioning no names, but...

News for Simpson: Saddam knew a thing or two about intimidation, torture, bribery, assassination, propaganda and terror- not to mention mass murder. All necessary no doubt in Simpson's Mad Mad world, but hardly representative of the moral standard which the BBC so often claims to uphold. Thus, today, they're busy as beavers with Condi's 'transport yes, torture no' statement. And previously they've made hay while the Amnesty sun shone. The BBC's standards are so utterly double it's doubtful whether they have any.

Good for Scott.

I think what's happening over at the Daily Ablution could be quite important.

In his latest post on the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaradawi, Scott informs us that he's 'received an encouraging response from a very well known print outlet over the weekend, concerning an article I've written which distills all this into about 2000 words'. Let's hope he gets a positive outcome and that the schemes which motivate a considerable minority get full publicity.

He also says something interesting: 'To be frank, I wasn't aware of the material such as Qaradawi's until this educational process began. Nor were, I assume, many of my readers.'

I am sure he's right about his readers on that count. And if that's the politically informed blogosphere, what about the rest of society? What a different light that casts upon the actions of July this year; on November's events in France; on the last Spanish election. Not, I would say, a totally transformative one, but a very illuminating point of view nonetheless.

That's why I was angry the BBC never replied to an email I sent them about soft-pedalling Al Qaradawi's visit to the UK. I also wonder what we should make of Red Ken's actions in facilitating that: enough, I would have thought, for Londoners to wholeheartedly reject him in elections when they next have a chance. Roll in the big media. Good luck Scott.

Whatever happened to the term 'statistically insignificant'?

It was with interest that I heard about a small furore about the presence or absence of Gays in the area of Teignbridge in Devon, as reported by the Mail. It's so funny to watch the public information scouts at the Beeb scurrying to produce absurd lines like this:

'A market research company says it did find gay people living in Teignbridge, contrary to reports.'

Having myself a bit of contact with market researchers, I am reminded of a survey that was done about religious belief in a small region of the Czech Republic. Out of a thousand surveyed, two were Protestants- thus they didn't figure in the report's conclusions; they were considered 'statistically insignificant'. As a Protestant myself I thought that a little harsh, but on reflection perfectly reasonable.

There are other possibilities of course. One is that there were Gays but these ones, reasonably enough, didn't wish to be part of the 'Gay community', hence their fleeing to the wilds of Devon to escape from the miserable platitudes of the Left. I personally don't buy the idea that they feared the rural savages' backlash. Oh, and by the way, maybe Kinsey was wrong 'an all (of course, he was, but a real culture war is still being waged to minimise the extent to which this outrage is understood and the conclusions from it properly drawn).

Twofer post.

I wrote a long post yesterday and saved it as a draft because I thought I might regret posting it the morning after. I'm going to post it below this one, as this one can add valuable detail. I should reiterate that the Ramadi affair is not the BBC's fault. What they were at fault for is drawing on the most dramatic parts of the reports available at the time; or at least drawing up reports which covered the most extreme interpretations of events- flying in the face of so many examples of insurgent propaganda which should have made them pause for thought. But the real criticism revolves around the fact that they were highlighting supposed/alleged, and in my view highly disputable claims of US propaganda- while comletely missing the real propagandists of the piece, the Islamofascists. It's the same old straining at gnats and swallowing camels which has made me dislike the Beeb so much.

Bill Roggio- in Iraq at the moment - describes this as 'The Ramadi Debacle'

I also want to link the Opinionated Bastard (via the professor)- whose analysis of the battle situation in Iraq is great to read, and encouraging- and even more this post at Security Watchtower, which presents a really encouraging analysis suggesting a real erosion in the power of the Islamofascists.

That said, there are real tragedies out there, which should cause us to rally round and consider how we can help the forces of democracy and civilisation to win uneqivocally against the forces of savagery and wickedness. Since the battle is a real one there can be no need and no excuses in our media for fake-Ramadis.

Propaganda!

I groaned a little at the headline on the Beeb: 'Insurgents attack Iraqi city' (not sure if there were quotemarks there at the time). I glanced morosely at the article: Ramadi- one of the usual suspects. Yet I knew that when the BBC reports an 'insurgent' 'attack' it usually means something like a a few discharged weapons, a suicide bombing, and somebody's little brother starting a fire somewhere. And so I moved on.

And then I came to another article: US 'admits' propaganda drive. The article said that the US had 'implicitly admitted' paying for positive articles in the Iraqi press. Yet an 'implicit admission' is not an 'admission', and the two are not made equivalent by the insertion of a couple of quotemarks- rather, it is a matter of interpretation. I choose to intepret this 'BBC infers propaganda from US commander's comments'.

The only interesting part for me was whether the US was directly planting articles, and this actually could not be 'inferred' from the commander's comments. I would think it amazing and actually incompetent if the US army did not have some close links with the Iraqi media. However, why not just pay Iraqis to write positive articles under US direction? And, surely we know by now, to be an Iraqi known for a positive stance towards the US in Iraq is to risk one's life. Some danger money and life insurance would be only sensible. It is a difficult issue; yet there is no doubt there are Iraqis positive about the US' presence there, and relatively few who oppose it except by the violent option favoured by Islamofascism.

And so, with that reflection, it seemed just the usual negativism where the worst interpretation is placed on the US' words and the highest value placed on the terrorists' actions.

And then I noticed this. And this.


According to one report,

'An AP Television News video showed the insurgents walking down a shuttered market street and a residential neighborhood, as well as firing four mortar rounds. The masked men, however, appeared relaxed, and the U.S. command dismissed the video as little more than a publicity stunt.'

According to another,

'Insurgents launched a brief assault west of Baghdad on Thursday, firing mortar rounds and rockets at a U.S. base and local government buildings' (nb there are specifics here)

Yet according to the BBC:

''Insurgents attacked US bases and government offices in Ramadi, in central Iraq, and then dispersed throughout the city, reports say.'

The BBC, it's clear, is reporting the worst case they can. I could 'infer' that ('heavily armed'- see report) insurgents launched a multi-pronged attack on military and government targets and then spread out around the city. I am not informed that they were not in charge of the city. I could infer that too.

But what about those 'reports'. One, unmentioned by the Lebanon Star, and the BBC, seems to have been the video tape. The other seems to have been based on the civilian witness accounts. But am I alone in being extremely sceptical of the first (the insurgents are well-known for staged videos), and being struck by the 'duh' moment in the Lebanon Star report:

'Residents said that heavily armed men wearing masks attacked a U.S. garrison in the center of Ramadi, a rebellious city 110 kilometers west of Baghdad, and fired on nearby council offices before seizing several streets'

So, were those the unrebellious ones then, whom we should be trusting? All a bit confusing.

The bottom line is and will be this: attacks on US and Govt. installations in Ramadi by hundreds of heavily armed men should, no, must, have caused casualties. If the US military can hide those from the US press and the presumably interested families, then woahhh, they are certainly real propagandists. If not, then the video was a little stage-managed, the attack was a squib, and the trustworthy residents of the rebellious city were gilding the lily, backed up by helpful leaflets- and the BBC bought it hook, line and sinker with their usual quotemarking disclaimer and their 'reports say' bullshit. It's all about the casualties, stupid!

There is a clearly a major propaganda effort going on somewhere. I wonder if the BBC know where. They seem to think this is the right place to start.

Of course, I should note that the BBC has used multiple sources for their report. But that just really demonstrates an important point: it seems that the so-called insurgents are well-capable of launching multi-pronged propaganda offensives targeted at multi-media. The BBC is channelling even the mose baseless of these minor propaganda lies into a narrative of doom. As I said: where are the bodies?

I think I know why I haven't been wholly determined to read about Scott Burgess' investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood.

For one thing, I feel a sense of anti-climax. Ken's friend Qaradawi (a man I've previously noted as an Islamofascist being cossetted by BBC coverage of his sophisticated views) wants to take over the world- through political and other kinds of action- surprise!

For another it would be easy to dismiss it or paint it as a kind of Protocols of the Elders of Zion moment- even though that was a fake and this is likely to be real. However the important point is that he has a plan, and, when you read about it, it rings as true as anything I've read concerning the Islamic strategy (which logically active Muslims must sort-of have as a minimum). It's truly fascinating. All I could do with is a reasonable combined printable form of Scott's posts on the subject...

The contribution of freakoids to public life.

Yes, it shouldn't be overlooked. Today we have all manner of weird and pushy types who don't appear to have too many stable brain cells to rub together clamouring to be heard (and paid) by the public.

I was reminded of this by the ever-stable and unfreaky Adloyada, who did a nice job of fisking (so to speak) celebrity freakoid of 'real' experience Yvonne Ridley. Just because Yvonne's been to a few odd places she thinks she knows a thing or two- and better than everyone else. Perfect columnist material, you might think, but I'd say that this is going too far.

You may also remember a guy by the name of James Brandon- another kidnappee of the WoT, this time a DT freelancer (which means sort of interesting fantasist but unemployable- an IFBU). The excellent Viking Observer took this one apart in a pricelessly titled post so true for today's journalism: 'when a journalist can't help but lie'

As Mr Ledeen says about Iraq, faster please.

I'm linking to this post from Powerline because as of now the Memri site is non-functional. However, we live in hope, don't we? And I hope to read an article from an Iraqi journalist claiming that Galloway will follow his indefatigable role-model Saddam into the courtroom.

Update: Here's the article (translated excerpts from it)

'I want to say in this article: George Galloway, leader of the Respect party - you defend your friend and benefactor Saddam and you will yet be tried just like your friend and benefactor Saddam'

Like, Really up-to-date, like.

Ok, a post against the BBC's being modern. How popular that will be (and does one care, really?)! Well, to be modern is one thing; to be stupidly so is another. To reflect the views of modern people one thing; to reflect the views on a certain kind of modern person another completely.

The BBC is often replete with ridiculous tales of modern science. Often British science, sad to say. Take this one: fatness can be 'in the mind'. I'm not at all sure it wasn't more tabloid than that, even, earlier on- but with the BBC's stealthy editors one never quite knows. Yes, there's a vague possibility of some assistance for eating disorder types, but speaking as a person who goes up and down in weight (with significantly differing responses from the opposite sex a not unnoticeable result), and knowing others similar, I can most certainly say it's not in the mind that one is fat or not. One speaks as a potential fatty, very sceptical of the mental explanation for all ills, having made perhaps too much use of a long and introspective memory of one's ups and downs. I also have contact with science-types in central Europe for whom British 'science' (thanks mainly to the Beeb's presentation of it) is a running joke (they make allowances, but find it all hilarious).

But also there's the priority thing. The Beeb's rationalism only goes so far. When it comes to the great homosexual debate they're treating it as though some real and tangible 'type' of person were being persecuted by the Catholic church. Evidently it's not a thing that's, so to speak, 'treatable'. Nor is it just a choice, evidently. I think the BBC is the confused party (and I do mean 'party'), not the Catholic church (for all its sins).

The Beeb article about the RC's latest pronouncement has been up all day, and immediately points out that 'it treats homosexuality as a "tendency", not an orientation'

Well, why not? What's the big deal? There's ample evidence out there it's just one of those personal choices. Some like blue, some like green; some like soft things, others hard ones (I mean it- they do). Girl says, I don't like men, they cause wars etc., plus Dad's a b******; later becomes lesbian. Ditto boy says he's too clever to be like other men and settle down- 'a-hole's a-hole'- and besides women are too cagey about sex (ie. he fears not getting any of any quality); so he becomes a bit gay. I say a bit, because so often we have alot of this bi-talk, and where does that, er, fit in?

Oh, and while we're about it- a mention for Justin Webb, the BBC's chief moist-eyed I-love-to-Hate-America journalist, and now scientific expert:

'The dinosaurs, he informs me with great authority and aplomb, are millions and millions and millions of years old. I could have hugged him and his parents; we are, after all, inhabiting the same mental planet.'

I am sure few will take the trouble and the angst of tendering a refutation of his statements, but the passion is just a little like a perverted religious fervour: loving only the Chosen. The idea that the feelings of a BBC journalist about a source hang on the agreement of that source (and the source in this case is just a child) with his own views is such a telling one. As so often Webb just tells it like he is. And that makes it rather like the rest of the BBC's 'science': long on prejudice, short on patient judgement.

Just a couple of items.

One- how sad it is that Mark Steyn is 'working out his notice' at the Daily Telegraph. How short-sighted of the Telegraph. This latest article has an air of a valediction about it. He comments on so much it's as if he were trying somewhat sadly to compress three months' commentary into one article. I don't know how long his contract will take to work out, but I'd guess not too long.

Two, a little poetry. One of my favourite poems from one of my faves John Donne. It's a tad risque, which makes the use of one famous line 'Oh my America, my New Found Land' (which, in mho, in context, is a line of pure genius) as the heading for a cruise liner article just extremely funny. The essence of the poem is why one needn't travel at all when one has it all in front of one, so to speak. Good advice really, at bottom.

Fascist/Commie convergence (duh)

Melanie Phillips points out a kind of barometer detail from the news. Perhaps a good reason for feeling that the War on Terror is being won exists in the fact that Zarqawi and his terrorist ilk seem to have such bad taste in supporters.

Rethinking History

There are many ways to look at history, so it's sad that the dominant model the UK follows is one where the British past is something either embarrassing or shameful. There are many other ways of looking at it, and we should explore them. Why? Not only because we can, but because the enemies of the West thrive on our guilt and our ignorance. They care more about history than we do- they believe they're still living it.

That's why I recommend this essay from Dr Andrew G. Bostom on the American Thinker. It's basically an analysis of history focussed on the role of Islamic factions, dominated by the Ottoman Empire. When you read it carefully you can find numerous Islamic apartheids to completely overshadow the South African one. You can find forms of slavery more profound than the Western one (from a cultural origin, I would argue, which set the scene for and was foundational to the modern slave trade we so abhor in our own history), and a pure relish in sadism which rivals Europe's most shameful episodes. This is the history which the Islamic world has to live down- and guess what, they're proud of it!

I wish people could try for a while and reverse their assumptions about the need to apologise for our own history, and get angry about someone else's. It's crucial to get our historical priorities straight, to recognise the truth the enemy is trying to forget (and make us forget) and the outrageous evil he is trying to emulate. Dr Bostom's article is full of fact and detail which we should perhaps try to memorise- it may help keep the BBC-shameful-Britain-bogeyman at bay, scare off the moonbats and even send a shudder of recognition down Islamofascist spines (yes, yes, I know, an oxymoron to have an Islamofascist with a spine, but there we are).

Iran: 'Iranian politics are as complex and sophisticated as any I have observed around the world.' Yeah, right, Mr Simpson.

"Republic of Ireland Prime Minister Bertie Ahern led tributes, describing Best as one of his "one of the best players the world has ever seen". "

Thus does the BBC describe the initial reactions to George Best's death. A question arose for me from this intrusion of politics into someone's passing away: given that Best was Northern Irish, and Protestant, and played his football mainly in England, what on earth has Bertie Aherne got to do with it? Does the world know that Ahern has less cause to be the 'leader' of tributes to George Best than dozens of British people who have been involved in Best's career (eg. Denis Law, Bobby Charlton- even Jack Charton if they wanted an Irish flavour)? It's very doubtful that the world knows that. It's rather more likely that they assume that Best, who played in the green used by Northern Ireland, would be a representative of the green of the Ireland they idealise and think they know.

I had a look on Google to see if Best had shown any sign of being psychologically allied to the country of which Aherne is the leader. I found nothing (scanning some nice articles) except reiteration of his Protestant origins- him frequently referred to as homesick for Belfast and him being a boy from Ulster, as well as being a saviour of British football in his numerous wanderings in Britain, but only once, very briefly, in Southern Ireland- and one reference - reported by the Beeb in terribly emphatic style given the political backdrop- to his desire for a world class all-Ireland team. He even spent time in one of HM's British prisons. As the sum total of my pro-nationalist findings it's hardly a ringing endorsement for his Eireishness. Indeed Best seems to have been determinedly quiet about politics. Why then use essentially a foreign politician -foreign to Best's nationality, foreign to his history- to lead the tributes; especially one with so little to say?

I've no doubt that Tony Blair himself, without justification, would defer to Bertie in this matter. His motive is appeasement of Irish Nationalist aspirations. It would seem this attitude is at best shared by the BBC.

(Sorry for my absence. I had an intensely busy period thrown at me by life)


This had to be linked. First.

I was- I am - a big fan of Lord Black. Well, finally Mark Steyn has played a blinder for his old boss. I suppose because he can.

Wrong Again Mr Simpson

One of the few benefits from the Beeb's large number of journalists is where one produces a report that flatly contradicts another's 'expert' opinion and confirms one's own with fact rather than speculation.

That's how it was for me reading this report from Jordan, where King Abdullah makes absolutely clear who he blames for terrorism and why he thinks they did what they did to his country.

John Simpson couldn't have been more wrong in reading the Royal mind with his absurd thesis that 2 and a half years on from the invasion of Iraq its bitter fruits would be a vindication for Abdullah's pre-war doubts.

Actually Abdullah's just a little more up-to-date that Mr Simpson, calling ' for a relentless war on Muslim extremists in the wake of the suicide bombings in Amman earlier this month.'

He goes on to say that Jordan's modernisation and liberalisation was irreversible (which makes one see that he attributes the terrorism to Islamofascist cultural ludditism, contra Simpson). He mentioned the unfamiliar name of an familiar ideology, calling for "relentless war on all the Takfiri schools, which embrace extremism, backwardness, isolation and darkness and are fed on the ignorance and naivety of simple people."

Tell it as it is, King Abdullah- not as Simpson would like it to be.

Iran: dysfunctional Oligarchy or functioning Democracy.

An interesting question, perhaps.

As is the definition of a 'purge'. This 2002 BBC article about the British Conservatives included the subheading 'Extremism purge' when talking about the 'Monday Club' and Ian Duncan Smith (who they?).

Meanwhile, this article about Iranian President Ahmadinejad
talks of 'a series of purges of officials.' , while the theme of the article is that the President is facing stiff parliamentary opposition. The ideas that he is both all powerful, as the purges are indicating- take a look at this Guardian article- and that he faces a meaningful democratic opposition, are difficult to combine. Needless to say, the BBC take the line of least resistance by emphasising the parliamentary opposition rather than the purges.

It's interesting in the context of John Simpson's avowal that 'Iranian politics are as complex and sophisticated as any I have observed around the world.'

It's also interesting in the light of the numerous efforts the BBC have made to educate me about 'caviar fishermen', 'Iranian basketball', and other rich and strange features that apparently marry with the expectations of the Iranian authorities who let Beeb journalists reside in Iran.

The presumption of such journalism is that in my prejudiced ignorance I need to be informed about the human side of Iran. On the contrary, I suspect the Iranian polity of being only too human, with a political elite corrupt as well and undemocratic and inept. But then, I have no way of knowing.

I honestly don't think it's worth the BBC's being there if all they can do is operate as modified PR agents for the regime.

The Timescale of Pessimism- set by the media

It could be that there are grim times ahead. I mentioned recently the high casualty rates in Iraq- well, they are not so high, but relative to months where perhaps 'only' 40 or so servicemen died, month on month averages of about 90 represents a problem.

Why so? Well, the damage was already being done by talk about quagmires when the casualty rates were significantly lower, when there were many pieces of the jigsaw still falling into place. Now, I notice, the bandagon has moved on: instead of Iraq as a country recovering from a war and dictatorship, more often we find merely a country at war- and this is standard on the right, so the left needn't bother anymore, but instead can play cynical politics, which is what they do best. Not that the casualty rates are so very high, but 'where we go from here' is always the stuff of politics- and increasing death rates never makes for popular politics.

This Weekly Standard article sums up the political situation which has arisen. My anger against the journalists who have cheerled this state of affairs will never abate- one more potential absurd echo of Vietnam, I suppose. In a very real sense these have given the terrorists targets to aim for- both in terms of the actual targets, and the numbers involved. One, two (troops) killed per day has been enough for the press to shriek hysterically and present the events as a failure of the Iraq policy. This has given a kind of breathing space to the terrorists, since they could maintain a low level of carnage and plan bigger things and sustainable increases of destruction in due course, safe in the knowledge that the political process was still heading in a favourable direction where it really counts- in the governments of the coalition, with America's preeminent.

Just to clarify why I think the political process is going badly- the two recent votes in the Senate, one about an exit strategy and one about an immediate withdrawal, tell the story. The exit timetable requested by the Senate is supposed to start in 2006. The terrorists must be delighted: just one more year to hold out before they can start to claim some serious victories, or at least have the US Senate seeing to their case in Washington. By contrast the motion- overwhelmingly rejected- concerning immediate pull-out, was merely a patriotic figleaf; hence even Mr Murtha voted against it.

Sorry to be pessimistic, but I have other reasons to worry as well.

Much as I am taken by the idea of the Anglosphere, I am less than convinced that the will exists to make it a real reality. This is a great post from Albion's Seedlings, making many good points- but it's just the outline of a nice idea. Aside from the technology of the internet and telecommunications making it possible, I don't see the momentum- with the exception perhaps of some of our great trans-Atlanticists, such the the Scotts (Ablution and Expat) and Marc of Neverdock (all great sites, all in my blog links for your delectation).

I fear that much more potent in the world, in capturing the imagination of some and the non-cooperation of others which we (the UK and the US- Australia's needs are different) need to have a positive response from, is this kind of thing. The Iranian strategist comments:

"We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization"

(hat-tip, Marc at Neverdock)

This is the country that is currently resisting attempts to thwart its nuclear ambitions, and being appeased.

In the battle between the anti-anglosphere and the anglosphere I think I know which one is more united in a common philosophy. Even Mugabe has tried to get in on the act.

The only bright side, I suppose, is the Iraqis themselves. The Beeb heralded a speech from Iraqi President Talabani indicating a willingness to talk to terrorists- yet this is not really a new thing, and what I love is where he says he will '"listen... even to criminals". I doubt that's quite what the Islamofascists are waiting to hear- God rot them.

Calming Down:

Denis Boyles, now in Texas rather than Chiracian Euroland, made a welcome return to the NRO, shortly before the puff went out of the rioting in France. It's funny, Boyles' opinion seems almost anti-climactic, until you realise that he just couldn't muster any more cynicism or lack of optimism about France than he already had:

'This "serious social crisis" will be solved exactly the same way Chirac solved that far more serious social crisis two years ago: by lying low and waiting it out. The summer of 2003, after all, finally waned. The weather broke and the crisis was solved, by God. Curfews won't cut it now. One of these nights, the rioters will run out of matches and Citroens, the weather will turn cold, and Chirac's France will once again be at peace.'

Well, the weather has turned cold (at least where I am- not my photo, I hasten to add, but a nice one. And not right now, though the weather's not million miles away from that in the photo), and I did run out of matches as it happens- though needed for my gas cooker rather than for any nefarious purposes, and I discovered that in Prague the price of matches is utterly, mind-bogglingly cheap (-but try getting them during the night- not so easy); and no-one burns anything in particular unusual. Of course there are almost zero muslims as well, but I'm sure that's totally unrelated...

Just to add one thought though: I think Boyles is a little too steady-state in his analysis of France. More than any country I know it seems the French are masters at pretending that nothing is really changing, that the heart of France beats strong etc cant etc- when in fact France bottles all its change up for pyrotechnic displays of earth-shattering significance. Fair enough, the recent weeks' events weren't that, but they were a significant tremor which shows where we seismologists of history have been forgetting to put our ears to the ground.

For analysis of the phenomenon of revolutions, one could do worse than go here. The comments are most interesting too. For what it's worth, I'm a 'human agent' man myself.

More news the BBC won't bother too much with.

Well, there's the recurrent one about Iraq's actual WMD programs- yes, I know, yawn (me too). It's not that there isn't a great deal of interesting stuff to understand, just that I'm utterly fed up with it being ignored, soft-pedalled, and fitted into a narrative that's been the same for years. The UN, the BBC, the Franco-Europeans and the US Democrats (plus or minus assorted weasels) in lockstep for so long they could have fitted a random headline generator by now (and maybe they have).

Then there's the one about the Al Qaeda connexions (yawn, again- bored not that the news has been reported, but that it hasn't had any penetrating coverage, creating a kind of news wheel-spin which just digs a rut, since without deep coverage and laurels offered to the newshounds, nothing gets done). I actually read it first at the always interesting WS- but this guy picked it up too, and I've just linked him, along with sundry others. I've also just realised that the Hayes article has gone from the Weekly Standard's frontpage, thereby necessitating the link anyway.

Finally (but, you know, not finally...) there's the old UN-Oil-for-Food thing, which just a few journalists are bothering with- almost in directly inverse proportion to its significance. Just enough to put the historians straight, I feel some what melancholily (a word? Well, good enough I reckon).

The Beeb reports the French end of things, and the Arse of Coarsai says to the effect that

'the allegations concerned only the two men's private activities after their retirement and did not involve the French government.'

And that's the best they can do as one of their own takes a fall! To my mind the UN Oil for Food scandal is the stand out best argument for the war in Iraq- thus I am not surprised that it is largely ignored. One interesting fact the Telegraph point out which is lost to us through the BBC is the relative recentness of the corruption- as late as 2002! This was long after the French Government had dispensed with his frontline services (apparently)- so what in that case was Saddam getting for his money? Answer: the Telegraph may appear a little bumptious in pointing out his 'Ambassador for Life' status, but they're really just being on the money, so to speak.

George Galloway Reveals All.

Yep, it's a sick thought, and a sick reality. In this Memri report you can find out all about George's latest treasonable comments in the Arab media. It seems that George has something in common with the rioters in anti-Gay Paree: they're both big fans of Eurabia.

'"This is not a dream, you know. In the European Union, there is almost 100 languages, there is many religions, there is countries who only 50 years ago were slaughtering each other by the million in war - totally different cultures with nothing in common except living on the mainland of Europe. But we are making a European Union which in 20 years will balance the power of the United States of America, inshallah."'

Maybe I should say Eurabia...

I'm a bit depressed about continuing casualties in Iraq. Yes I know that this website is unreliable and includes accidental deaths, heart attacks and anything else it can find to boost the body count- but still it shouldn't be at the level it is given all the hoped for political improvements and elections etc. The rise seems a little inexorable.

What to say? I don't know- one can point out that the prospects for Iraq are better than the prospects for, say, France, in the medium term. Some have done that- but it seems a rather impractical observation (though I think followed sensibly it's a perfectly helpful one, as I'll point out shortly).

But rather than stew over the fact that GWB is still having to defend his decision to go to war, that the MSM is still harping on about US 'iniquities' in iraq (yes, that'll be the BBC in full warcry), and that Bubba Bill is showing which way his antennae are twitching, I prefer to dwell on the fact that we're engaged in a fight for our lives- which would justify the most radical action, which necessitates action, even though the action may not be well executed. This was brought home to me by a devastating American Thinker article. I live in Europe, or maybe I should say Eurabia- so this much is clear, the inadequacies of the US in Iraq should be the least of our concerns.