incoming... long post

Recently I bookmarked Eritrea...

I've long been concerned about East Africa. I went to what could be considered the wild heart of the region, the Highlands of Kenya, towards the end of the nineties, and spent perhaps the most deeply impressing few months of my life there- six of them, to be precise.

It was World Cup time when I left for Africa on Air France via Charles De Gaulle, after the previous night watching a French victory mainly achieved by black men, and we had the Euro by the time I returned- or rather, part of the Continent of Europe did. In between times there was the bomb attack on the US Embassy in Nairobi and Bill Clinton's missile attack retaliation against Afghanistan and Sudan.

I remember these events because I listened most evenings to the BBC world service, and I could concentrate on what I was hearing without too much distraction. There was barely enough light even to read, and the evenings were consistently lengthy, with the onset of darkness anytime between 6.45 and 8 O'clock leaving plenty of time for the oil lamps to burn in earnest, and the radio to receive full attention.

No-one I knew then could understand for the life of them why that schmaltzy philanderer Clinton should cause his missiles to penetrate such distant and alien nations as Sudan and Afghanistan. In fact they were rather angry with him, despite the major death toll among Kenyans -many of the 220 plus victims were Kenyan- in the blast. I bet they understand better now, when the perpetrators of the bombing are more widely known and understood.

The backdrop to these events though was also interesting. I became aware, in my fastness of the north-western hills (mountains in actuality, though scarcely comparable with their European cousins), of a steady pressure, a drum beat almost, coming from Islam in the North and heading Southwards. There were reports of conversions taking place of Christians to Islam, of Islamic polygamy; I sensed that Islam was starting to stir in the region.

This sense was confirmed in Nairobi. Among the reasons for the extensive migration from the North East of Kenya was certainly the instability caused by the breakdown of order in Somalia, and this has consistently had an Islamic component, maybe even an Al Qaeda component. Immigrants to Nairobi from the North East and from Somalia filled the slums of the city, but, even among these, those who left the faith of Islam were hunted down by armed gangs of Somali Islamists.

There has been a strong Islamic component to the unrest in Somalia for well over a decade now, so it's not really surprising that a group of Islamists has coordinated itself to 'take over' Mogadishu. But it is alarming and interesting simultaneously.

Somalia is an interesting country, racially and geographically. The appearance of Somalis, with wiry swirling hair, skinny frames and the sharp features of their faces, is quite different from that of the people further to the south.

Geographically Somalia hugs the East Coast of Africa and almost touches the tip of Yemen at its northernmost point, which makes it an ideal through-road for Arab, predominantly Saudi, influence.

I am interested to place the Islamist takeover in a little more context; I can only see it as part of its region, and subject to the regional ambitions of the most vigorous creed in the market at the moment: Islam.

I have heard quite a lot of wailing that the US was supporting warlords in Somalia to fight the rising Islamist camp there. I'd heard it on the BBC, and found a number of liberal media outlets wailing about it. Of much more interest to me though is the question of who is supporting the Islamists.

The most vigorous regional power at the moment, although it is of North Eastern Africa, is Sudan.

I was interested today to learn from the BBC about the President of Chad's version of how the Sudanese were sponsoring armed rebellion against his regime.

The BBC helpfully pointed out that 'in fact, according to the United Nations refugee agency, both countries openly support rebel activities against the other.

Well thanks Aunty, but it might be significant that the Chadian population is estimated at under ten million, while the Sudanese population is over four times that, and Sudan is Africa's largest country. It also has around nine times the military expenditure of Chad. Not sure whether that includes the Jangaweed.

The point is that Sudan's interference is potentially much more consequential than Chad's.

I think what I am getting at is quite simple: there is a strategy to extend Islamic domination across North-East and Eastern Africa (there's one for West Africa too, and that is focussed on Nigeria). It's summarised quite effectively by this post from Jihad Watch. In this schema, Ethiopia is seen as the stumbling block to Islamic ambition, just as it historically has been. It is however a mouldering stumbling block, both due to its poverty and the fact that nowadays upwards of 50% of its population are Muslim.

But if we look to Ethiopia's east we can see that ringing it are a series of smaller nations: Eritrea, Djibouti, and Somalia. Of these only Eritrea is pluralistic in its religious beliefs; the others are Muslim, although even in Eritrea Muslims are easily the largest single grouping. Significantly, towards the coast Eritrea is mainly Muslim. Coming back to the question of who has backed the Islamist takeover in Somlia, there are any number of candidates, but this corridor of Islamic opportunity down the East Coast is certainly a likely source of support.

I suppose I imagine that one of the goals of the Islamic war on the West is to secure for itself large regions which make good nestbeds for its operatives and schemes, where a civilian population can be a cost-free shield, where the use of conventional weapons would create only pin-pricks in a territory that an invading ground force would find forbidding and vast. The East African Caliphate would represent all of that.

The Jordanian and the President Agree.

That is to say, A Jordanian victim of Zarqawi and the President of the USA:

'He said U.S. special operations forces confirmed Zarqawi's location based on intelligence from Iraqis and "delivered justice to the most wanted terrorist in Iraq."'


'"I felt God has brought His heavenly justice on earth today."'

Here's the victim's tale.

Yay. And here's a better link, for a round up.

I had the killer post and then the key board jammed. Honest. (I would have posted the last couple of days but a frenzy of busyness combined with general lack of time to think held me back)

Well, actually I didn't, but Scott Burgess has a fairly-likely-to-cause-death post which I was going to link, and pontificate on.

The target is a Guardianista, naturally, who thinks only white people can be racist. Leave aside the fact that I dispute the existence of a thing called racism, preferring to think instead about crimes that are visited by one person upon another, it's still predictably bizarre to think that, as Scott points out the Guardianista thinks, Mugabe (to take one instance) can't have racist politics because he's black.

The real problem I have is with the future, rather than the past. If the Guardianista's position becomes the accepted one in a globalised world where white westerners have squandered their headstarts, whichever people of colour who come to dominate would have a made-to-measure argument for de facto racism: revenge for unjust humiliation. I don't, you see, have any sense that we whites really are racially superior: we're just quite inclined (a thing historically attested to) to get things together with limited resources. In a future where togetherness is assumed and resources unlimited because of man's established ingenuity, who knows? Maybe it'll be fun to be really racist, for some.

Though no Hirsi Ali watcher, I do begin to believe that I've underplayed her virtues. This interview with a pretty fine writer, Carlin Romano, does come with obligatory star quality, but I love the way her mind ranges across so many subjects and zeros in on them all. And she calls a certain nonagenarian orientalist 'Bernard'.

Entertainment aside, this is a great piece of commentary on the Haditha situation (a link which came, like many such good things, from Glenn Reynolds).

Online Entertainment.

Not only do I live outside the UK, I also have no TV. Were it not that the internet is increasingly providing multi-media, that situation would have to change.

I think though that having a TV as well as the internet might well give too much of a good thing. Instead, the good things- and in my view the better things, things that I can really personally endorse- are to be found online.

There have been some terrific podcasts and vlogs that I've tuned into recently.

Ever heard Mark Steyn speak? Well, his interviews are always well worth the time, and his latest with Hugh Hewitt can be downloaded here.

The most recent two 'Vents' from Michelle Malkin show the potential for independent journalism and grass roots awarenss that Vlogs can offer- the earlier one (1st June) was about social action against illegal workers, Dunkin' Donuts style. Yesterday's was about media news 'management'- a subject of great interest to me.

Meanwhile, I do think David Vance's presentation of his Vlog has potential cult-value, as well as being powerful, direct and correct.

But I should give a nod to the printed word, since that is enduringly important. Nathalie Solent is back good and proper, and really funny. The in-jokes tend to make her hard to quote- you'll just have to READ IT.

Reason to suspect...

The politicisation of the BBC is on full display at the moment. I do not refer to a Right or Left division, but to the naked desire to influence political events. Not any particular events that I can think of, such as an election, but simply the way things unfold in a country where all our political interests are invested- Iraq.

According to people such as Peter Glover, the BBC's treatment of the alleged Haditha killings has been appalling.

What I think is clear is that, as with Abu Graib, though I would say with a little more substance to work with, the BBC is both pre-emptively judging one incident, and integrating it into a large and long-running news item. Both are inappropriate in the extreme when the organisation is the British Broadcasting Corporation.

It angered me in particular to find a 'new' incident roped into the coverage. It should, of course, be dealt with, but the snowballing of disparate incidents into a frontpage avalanche is totally wrong when both cases are still alleged, when enquiries are ongoing, and when a process of justice, if required, has yet to take place.

But worse is the BBC's conflation of these issues in accordance with the wishes of both the anti-war lobby and the so-called insurgents, as exemplified by Ian Pannel in the above-linked report:

'The news of ethical training for US-led troops is likely to be greeted with cynicism by many Iraqis, the BBC's Ian Pannell in Baghdad says, as the troops have long been accused of deliberately targeting civilians.'


Well, I do not believe this journalism and I consider it poisonous. I do not believe the Iraqi people generally believe themselves targeted by American troops. We have thousand upon thousand of photos and anecdotes to demonstrate that Iraqi children often make a bee-line for US troops on patrol, in the hope of sweets usually. The Iraqi people may be cynical because shit happens, unfortunately, but they are unlikely to feel that Don Rumsfeld sent a memo decreeing their extermination wherever possible.

The BBC's conflation of accident with indiscipline, indiscipline with intent, intent with policy, is journalistically totally indefensible in my view- and mirrors what they attempted to do with Abu Graib, as they tried to shift the blame higher and higher and have never apologised or shown the slightest backtracking from the position that Abu Graib was part of a systematic US torture network. The BBC however is not thinking about journalism, true or false, but about exerting influence- and that is the problem.

Free Speech and Consequences

Have you seen how a disabled US Iraq veteran is suing Michael Moore for mispresenting him and exploiting his wounds during the making of Fahrenheit 9/11?

Well, maybe you haven't because I see nothing about it on the BBC. The BBC's coverage of the film when it was released in the run up to the US election in 2004 was fulsome, but it seems that after selling a story dearly they don't concern themselves about aftersale care.

This was a man whose very real trauma and experience of war was misrepresented and abused by a so-called champion of dissent.

The BBC though are ploughing on with the theme that Bush represses free speech by giving this move against whistle-blowers a lot of exposure.

The fact that the same wave of enthusiasm for Michael Moore swept along a raft of other 'leaks' that were politically motivated seems to be beyond their comprehension. Politically motivated whistle-blowers are anti-democratic and endanger their society for the sake of self interest or ideological gratification. But then, I suppose the saying is fairly true that birds of a feather flock together.

Update 1st June: The BBC reach the story... after I do... and do quite a business-like job of reporting the case. Saying that, I think that the case is not as clearly presented as it should be- the reason for the suit is the alleged misrepresentation of the plaintiff's views and situation, rather than failure to gain his consent. Since the BBC don't do court reports, I would expect the general interest angle to be pursued, and that is most certainly that Moore is a lying sack of... [insult to taste]. I didn't see it anywhere near the headlines either, unlike Moore's success.

A Shiver Through Fairy-Land

On Iranian Badges: the National Post apologises, as Melanie Phillips reports,

'for the mistake and for the consternation it has caused not just National Post readers, but the broader public who read the story.'

But surely such consternation could only be found among those living in liberal fairy-land, where innuendo is read into each word of each speech of those purporting to represent the Right, while prescriptive Islamofascists have to make it really, really clear in big bold colours that they're the big bogeymen before notice is taken?

What kind of a Government legislates a dress code anyway (which they certainly are doing)? Anyone with the slightest understanding of legislation and the machinations of governments should have seen immediately the nature of the case, and the National Post should have been savvy enough to phrase their report artfully to straddle a number of possibilities. However, that said, readers have no reason to cry out: they read between the lines all the time when it suits them. The real reason is that it sends a shiver through fairy-land.

Spinning Iran, yet again: Iraq the Model catches CNN out good and proper.

Today I've been reading Ahmadinejad's letter to George Bush (via Hugh Hewitt) and it's fascinating stuff. I found this understanding of it very direct and helpful, too.

Revealed: Journalism is a very competitive business. To see who can get away with being laziest.

Wuzzadem has a classic 'journalists proved wrong seeking easy way out (again)' moment. You may not have heard of the latest bogus anti-war Iraq veteran, but the story is very instructive, though it will probably not come as a Shock.

Interesting article from Douglas Murray for the Social Affairs Unit on the departure of Hirsi Ali from Holland. Some interesting observations on the BBC's coverage of the situation, too.

The most worth a click blogger I know.

That would be Tim Blair, whose latest is an extended piece on a curious case of alleged plagiarism which really isn't. The alleged culprit is Mark Steyn, and what adds spice for me is that the article concerned was one of my favourite ones of recent times: Steyn's take-down of the Da Vinci Code. This book's popularity and its now-attendant film have been irritatingly sweeping back and forth across Europe in waves dashed only by a veritable Rorke's Drift of critics. Frankly who cares if the valiant defenders share weapons?

Ali on the telly: a number of good points made to Jon Snow. I guess it was conducted at an earlier stage but I think it illustrates that there has been an organised opposition to her- or at least that has been her awareness. I'm sure she's right about that.

Back to Hirsi Ali, and so on

Alison at Making Headlines has a very interesting post on the topic.

There are lots of things I could say about it. One though is that my scepticism about Europe's future is not a judgement on the moral values of the people: it's simply based on observations about political change, the liveliness of the expression of civilisational values in Europe, and demography. Ultimately there's a moral dimension, but that's not important when one is merely making observations.

That any citizen in Europe is forced into isolation and has to be guarded against minority fanatics is a scandal. Each death threat letter or threatening phone call is a crime. The criminals should be chased and harried and made example of. That's the only way law works; yet if we fail to impose the law the fanatics have an alternative for us, concerning which a recent Dutch Government report suggested the Dutch become less 'spastic': Sharia law.

Back to the Beeb soon.

Crash Course in Blogging Available for free...

Just read about Polly and her commenters (nb. Tim Worstall's contributions especially noteworthy)

The Real Iraq: Amir Taheri reports back for Commentary, and it's not BBC-approved stuff I can assure you. Of the gloom and doom, he says

'It would be hard indeed for the average interested citizen to find out on his own just how grossly this image distorts the realities of present-day Iraq.'

And his conclusion:

'Is Iraq a quagmire, a disaster, a failure? Certainly not; none of the above. Of all the adjectives used by skeptics and critics to describe todays Iraq, the only one that has a ring of truth is messy. Yes, the situation in Iraq today is messy. Births always are. Since when is that a reason to declare a baby unworthy of life?'

(trying to make time to post more, but I'm pretty busy)


In the end, too much effort required.

That might not be the right interpretation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's decision to leave Holland, since she has certainly been pursued by the idiot pols (and stoopid media) who govern there. However, as a non-native, why should she fight for a people who not only don't value her, but make her life more difficult and more frightening than it should be?

I was interested in her personal account of her flight from fate. She was forcibly married and taken from her home in Nairobi (she was a Somali refugee at the time it seems- which is one controversy, as she claimed in the immigration forms to have fled direct from Somalia). It was there, some years after she left for Canada and ended up in Holland via Germany, (late nineties) that I met many Somalians and heard how their lives were under threat from Islamism: mainly because they had renounced Islam and adopted Christianity under the influence of their host nation. I also encountered many stories of quite horrendous forced marriages, even among apparently respectable people (and Islam tended to allow for polygamy, as an added twist). Meanwhile there were accounts of armed Somali-Islamist gangs roaming the streets in trucks aiming to track down and kill apostates, and sometimes succeeding.

But isn't it ironic that Ayaan's critics accuse her of lying when in fact it is merely their cultural ignorance that prevents them from seeing that in recording her name as Ali she was just drawing on one of the many names with which her culture had endowed her? The multi-culti society knows little about traditional cultures. I wonder how many immigrants get into and stay in the West due to outright lies rather than artful half-truths? Surely Ali's main crime has been attempting to live truthfully and potently on the back of (at worst, in my view) a few paltry half-truths, rather than skulking and absorbing the benefits of an outright lie. Outright lies the pols can cope with as they're ok with that; as long as the immigrant keeps a low profile, only mugging the odd old lady or raping a young tart or, in the female case, goes on the game herself, that's ok.

Faced with such out-of-touchness and crass double-standards I'd be very willing to agree that Holland will never, by itself and under her influence, 'get it'. She is better casting her bread upon the waters.

Wikipedia's account is bang up to date and worth reading.

Oppose terror in principle and practise: DV sets the Ulster Unonist party straight.

And the link to the below is... this


Is it possible to have an immigration policy that stems abuse while allowing compassionate asylum and sensible population circulation?

I'd say so. I have a list of questions in my mind which I'd like to ask, including whether we prioritise our former colonies (which I should know but don't; I suspect not really any longer, which would be irrational if so), and exactly what questions are asked and what requirements made. Funny how we never really get the chance to find out. It's quite Yes Ministerish when you go to the Home Office site (caution: the "Directorate" loads slowly) and find out just how many amendments are being continually made to the rules. There's no sense of principle, only pettiness. Pretty much off the cuff I'd say that our problem lies in a system relying on the alien principle of 'rules' rather than the kind of evolutionary, flexible principles which make our common law work. I'd say why not allow for a branch of home grown law to grow up on the subject, giving access to courts where something like a CPS for immigrants considered a case uncertain and meriting legal examination? That's probably quite a silly idea but seems appealing to me rather than the bureaucratic morass and opaqueness of the current situation.

The US situation is different to the UK's, but if you're looking for an expert on the situation Michelle Malkin has some definite attributes. And she can vent on the subject, too. Fine rant indeed.

By a kind of serendipity, I read within the space of a half hour both this post about the necessity of being guided by laws rather than ruled by them, and news of calls made for Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be deported from Holland for lying in her asylum application.

The real gravity of nazism comes across loud and clear in this recently discovered BBC broadcast from Belsen in 1945, while today's BBC meanwhile are tracing castles in the air, pursuing mirages, and ignoring reality.


Three dimensions missing from the one dimensioned BBC.

When the BBC report 'Far right ties in Belgian murders' they are misleading readers. Rather than any direct political link what they have to report is only 'family ties'- in other words that the murder's family includes members of the (banned) so-called right-wing party Vlaams Bloc and its legal successor Vlams Belang.

The BBC go on to report how the 18 yr old murderer's father took part in the formation of 'anti-immigration party Vlaams Blok'. What they don't point out is that the fundamental principle of this party is Flemish separatism, and that this party was declared illegal in Belgium (information here). They do manage to report that its successor-party, Vlaams Belang, was successful in elections in 2004 but kept from power by a coalition opposed to it.

Three dimensions are to my mind inappropriate:

1)The focus on family connections. It's unusual in murder cases to drag the family in (certainly pre-trial). It's surely unproven that his family's beliefs bear a direct relation to the occasion of the murders. It's surely offensive that the search for causes precedes the establishment of the legal facts, and more to the point it becomes politically and legally prejudicial.

2)The failure, in the context, to highlight that the murderer's uncle was co-founder of a party (Vlaam's Blok) declared illegal by Belgian courts. The murderer's connections were outlawed before he turned outlaw in his behaviour, it would seem. If we want to go into root causes it might be interesting to examine the consequences of having one's relatives declared criminal by court ruling. The BBC describe instead the 'now defunct' Vlaams Blok party.

3)The tying together of these murders with another recent incident:

'The killings follow an attack last Saturday in the city of Bruges, in which a black Frenchman was left in a coma after being beaten up by a group of skinheads.'

There is almost certainly no organisational link. There may be no ideological link. The murderer with so-called far right ties wasn't very careful in his choice of targets, including a white baby among his victims. Really, who knows if his motive was really racial, despite what he says. Normally we wait for psychological reports. In this case the BBC (and Belgian pols) waste no time in setting this within the grand narrative of the scourge of far right racism.

The absence of faithfulness to detail and interest in specifics makes this BBC report prisoner and prison-warder to a political agenda; the kind of soft-left take on things which dominates the media. I am clear in my own mind that there is no great right wing conspiracy to persecute non-white races, yet the BBC acts as though there were. This is a great disservice to truth, and to the people who pay for their services.

Mel says it all.

I've been meaning to get around to reading the report to the BBC Governors on the BBC's coverage of the Arab-Israeli situation, but Melanie Phillips has read it and comments

'Beneath all the strenuous striving to appear to be seated on the Mt Parnassus of dispassionate judgment, the panel cannot help revealing evidence of the very same partial mindset displayed by the BBC.'

Sounds about right.

(I'm back)

Parallels

You can tell a lot from parallels. Often we miss them, and only vaguely later we realise there is some shocking symmetry in social trends.

Take the life sentence imposed on Zacharias Moussawi, which Peter Glover comments on powerfully- as does Mark Steyn. It's just over a year since the death of Terri Schiavo.

Or, on a smaller scale, take the case of the man manhandled by numerous armed police (arrested in front of his grandchildren and held for five hours) for pinging the back leg of a dog threatening his sheep. That was the sensitivity of Bedfordshire police in action.

And its exponents are police officers from a force who will have read their instructions about dealing sensitively with the muslim community by taking off their shoes and not interrupting prayers when entering muslim homes.

Sorry for Absence. It might continue for a few days as I'm travelling until monday. I'd love to be able to post as I go but it seems unlikely.

Whither blogging?

A recent period of quite relaxed sifting of online information has led me to think about blogging (and I'm not alone; Auntie is looking over her shoulder). One of the reasons for haitus's on this blog is that things are really changing very quickly, and it's hard sometimes to decide what's relevant at any given time.

What prompted me in the first place was my experience of feeling abandoned by media like the BBC, and to a lesser extent by the Telegraph (which can do what it likes as far as I am concerned, and still produces the occasional interesting thing).

I blog to set myself the independent line which many media, especially State sponsored ones, would deny me, or rather, tried to deny me, and about which I am lastingly angry.

I also blog to give myself an incentive to examine the many fascinating and necessary things being said by people out in the new media.

What follows is a summary of current change, with personal notes.

Politicians taking hits, in a spin

That could be the summary point: on both sides of the Atlantic politicians are taking hits from the new media; at the same time, the old media is having holes punched through it by anyone with the widely available technology (and a clear sense of what they want to do with it. So not you then, ed- ed).

Look at what Michelle Malkin is doing with 'Hot Air'. It's very, very smart. She's such a clever little cookie in her little slippers, sitting pretty on the couch (sorry for the tone there, but isn't it fair to question how much her success involves sex appeal? Not that it matters in some ways). I've heard that she and her family have experienced death threats from some extremists, and I'm very angry about that.

I also found this item on USS Neverdock: a video on John Kerry's changing opinions which very much sums up the nonsensicality of Kerry's whole career. I think Marc has every right to get a bit hung up on Kerry's flailings. He's the very model of the modern major politician. At a time when leadership is needed, all we find is 'a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma', as Churchill said of Russia. Perhaps the key is John Kerry's desire for power and influence. But it's fascinating for me how our observations can be partisanly supported through the magic of video on a blogspot site. Carefully cut the video may be, but the cutting just removes the Kerry ums and ahs, the vanity, the window dressing- to leave the void, the nullity, wide open.

Kerry's career really is fascinating, in a sick kind of way.

Also fascinating, in a sick kind of way, the Blair Government's unravelling, almost I think heightened by their attempts to deflect attention away from incompetence and towards sleaze in the bulked up shape of John Prescott. All I can say is that I'm sorry it's come to that, and that the predictions I am sure many conservatives have made more frequently privately than publicly are coming to be fulfilled. I know in my family there was talk about this, and we knew it would be ugly. Can't get much uglier than Prescott in his current position.

But here again there is the role of the blogosphere in pushing the real stories into the light of day. I am sure, for instance, that the Devil in his kitchen is regretting not using a few more impolite words about Charles Clarke.

Guido Fawkes has been like a kindly wasp over John Prescott's affair, and here forces a senior BBC journalist to be honest and Ian Dale has been pushing the debate on sleaze in a number of directions.

What this means is that the Britblogosphere is on the move, and it will change rapidly from here on.

Will it become professionalised or retain an amateur integrity? Those with greater experience, in the US, are likely to be of assistance here.

In the disappointed corner I'd say, we have Donald Sensing

In the optimist's corner we have Anne Althouse. I'm with Anne on this.

The Last Days of the Tonan Empire.

'What I find fascinating is the complete lack of perspective the BBC has on this. In the dying days of Major's government (which were really just a warm-up for ZanuLabour anyway, policy-wise) the BBC were going ape-shit over every possible hint of "sleaze". Yet, within months of Labour entering office I recall tiny hints of possible bad behaviour being reported in the newspapers, but quickly brushed over - and simply ignored - by the BBC. Labour started out bad and went downhill. Over the years we've seen Labour ministers involved in affairs (practically orgies if you believe some accounts), bribery, corruption and general nastiness, yet barely a peep of criticism from the national press. And, behind all that, we've had Prescott re-organising the country, bypassing the county councils with his regional development agencies and his new Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (which gave itself planning permission to knock down thousands of houses in the north and build thousands more in the south, without consultation), the Home Secretary's office pushing ID cards, the ministry of transport pushing for a universal road camera monitoring system, the MAFF destroying our ability to produce our own food, the MoD removing any ability to cooperate with the Americans in military matters by fording the procurement of European equipment that works on different standards, the ministry of "Culcher" destroying just about any culture we have, and all of it with the expressed aim of harmonising us with the EU. Thhis government has had one aim from the beginning: destroy the country. And they're succeeding. A truly impartial BBC would have picked up on this and pointed it out a long time ago... but the BBC isn't impartial about this. They want european harmonisation as well, because it guarantees their existence.

And for the record, the boy king Cameron is nothing more than Blair MK2. If the tories win, it'll be in spite of him, not because of him. It should worry people that he's toeing the BBC line so closely these days. They won't get my vote until he's gone.'- the views of Archronix in Biased BBC comments, who blogs infrequently here.

I thoroughly agree, except that in my analysis of New Labour I'd replace their aim of destroying the country with their contempt for its basic character, such that they wished essentially to re-shape it in an an alien mould.

Ian Dale meanwhile has a list of New Labour scandals, rounded down to 50.

And Richard North has an account of the career of John Prescott, the most blatant dark horse one could imagine, with the bully's knack of getting away with it.

Me? I think there's a sense of sick fulfilment about this Labour Government. What Archronix says about the cover up of Labour sleaze from the earliest times is absolutely right, and Ian Dale demonstrates it well. I noticed an immediate shift, while the dew still rested on Tony Blair's forelocks, to appease and perpetuate the public mood of political indulgence post 1997.

One thing I think is interesting is the adulation of Tony Blair which occurred in America. There's no doubt that Blair was capable of papering over cracks better than any painter-decorator. I think I observed back in the early days that Blair and co. were masters at social appearances and networking, at using momentum to overcome a lack of substance. Like Clinton in that respect; and it's curious how someone like Prescott turns out to strongly resemble Clinton in one respect at least.

What Americans like, or liked, about Blair, was that he had Clintonian vibes while definitely not being like Bill. Must be safe, they thought, and on top of that he had the presentational skill lacked by a certain W. Yet that fact that Tony's not Bill- and I doubt that British politics could produce a Bill Clinton- doesn't mean that the tactics and standards by which Tony Blair operates are any higher than the gutter which was Clinton's natural habitat. Perhaps there's more to Tony than meets the eye, too.

While we're talking film reviews- see below post but one, pretty please- this is an awesome off-beam review of a much better film than I saw last night, United 93, which I intend to see because I should.

Don't miss this fascinating take on the BBC's attempt to come to grips with the modern world, from Brian Appleyard. It's not only interesting from a BBC point of view, the trepidation of the media generally is another issue, concerning
'the multimedia firestorm that is about to engulf us all'

Really, really must read. (hint- that's why I'm leaving my accidental second link up. If you want to check links you can just make the cursor hover over the link and the URL appears to you in the bar at the bottom of the screen)

Sorry for the hiatus.

I've been meaning to post (I even have a substantial draft languishing) but deferring. Anyway, last night I saw V for Vendetta. Quite an interesting film, tries hard. You can read what I thought about it in more detail here.

The BBC's mudhut thread (not).

In 11 photos deemed by the BBC to represent African architecture, they were so keen to avoid the old stereotype about African buildings that the only photo of the typical dwelling -at least sub-sahara- the mud hut, was taken from inside, shot through a window. The limited view this gives is insufficient to get any idea of the classic staple dwelling of African life.

The twee PC narrowness of all this strikes me particularly forcibly since I was recently reunited with my large collection of Kenya photos, gained while living there seven years ago. I have mud huts galore, teeming compounds, ancient defensive structures, newly built churches, valleys gleaming with tin roofed huts. I also remember shiny clean smooth and cool concrete flooring, rafters in some buildings, raised maize barns; there was something of a genre but with more variations than you could express in words.

I wish I were in a position to download some photos, but here is an inferior example. However, I am sickened that the BBC is so narrow-minded as to think that showing the reality of African architecture in a more balanced way would be prejudicial against Africans. I don't really care if they would get complaints from Africans themselves, since the real African-in-nature so to speak would be unlikely to be among the complainants, while it is our BBC, and we deserve to know how others live. Architecture, I am sure many trendy enough architects would say, is about living spaces. The BBC have ignored the living spaces of Africans in favour of some political correctness. And that is typical.

Knowledge is key. I slept in many a mud hut and I loved many of them. Cool, calm, airy, sometimes even reasonably light. One has to bear in mind the warm temperatures and the hot, intense sun. Many was the time I sheltered beneath the drooping eaves of a mud hut. True, some were dirty, but most were not, and that's just as it is anywhere when it comes to interiors. Most were tidier than my current flat, anyway.

Aunty Got Bigger.

Back in the day, pre-internet, when I was at school, I was involved in a debate on capital punishment. I was leading a motion that This House Believes in the Death Penalty. The opposition was led by a national public speaking champion who was also quite a nice looking girl. Well, I won from behind in the voting on that evening and felt incredible, especially enlightening the young lady in the pub afterwards as to why and how I had won, and why that was A Good Thing.

I have to say I didn't expect to win, partly because of the fashionable humanist lethargy which people seemed to breathe in from media like the Beeb, but was pretty passionate about it and somehow, maybe through bluster behind some rock solid factual points, I managed it.

But I've been wondering if I could have won today, when the Beeb has on offer a free debater's anti-death penalty pack. That's how the Beeb's influence has crept along since that time. It's a shame people will think twice about thinking the issue through on their own when they know the opposition could have a ready made, Beeb-shaped crib sheet.

Don't think it would have stopped me though.

According to the BBC, Bin Laden's call for Holy War to Sudan and Hamas 'fell on deaf ears'.

The trouble is, do they need any hints from Osama? They seem to have the idea pretty well themselves.

The above link is to a story about violence spreading from Western Sudan. Although Chad itself is a majority Muslim country, that very situation tells me that it must be a moderate one- since there is a sizeable Christian minority and no civil war. And being moderate these days just isn't good enough for the A-list Jihadis. Additionally, it's been clear to me for some time what the Jihadi aim is in North Africa: obviously they want an Islamic caliphate stretching across Africa from Nigeria to Sudan, and extending South from there.

Spastic Beeb (no I'm not being offensive for the sake of it- read on)

I came across this BBC whimsy recently- a little dig at Dutch Prime Minister Jens Peter Balkenende.

Now these things always intrigue me because there are numerous little embarrassments or moments of supposed self-revelation, gaffes and the like, going on continually all over- so what, I ask, makes the BBC choose one over another?

Well obviously if the gaffe concerned GWB that would not be a sensible question, but sometimes in other cases it's interesting.

Aside from the fact that Balkenende is a 'devout Calvinist'- meaning, I imagine, that he is one, in BBC speak; aside from that it may just have to do with another recent focus of BBC interest: a study which basically condemned Dutch society as intolerant and, regarding such matters as assimilation of Sharia law, 'spastic'.

As DFH pointed out, when the BBC report the controversy they prioritised the story rather strangely. Instead of leading with the specifics which have caused controversy, for example the recommendation to accommodate sharia law, and that to negotiate with terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbullah internationally, the BBC merely reported that 'A new report submitted to the Dutch government has sparked controversy by arguing that Islam does not conflict with either human rights or Dutch values.'

It seems to me that most of the public would say that being 'not in conflict' with Islam is not the same thing as allowing for the incorporation of its laws or the endorsement of its goals. Although the BBC report later in the article about 'reaching out' to Islamofascists (actually, believe it or not, not the word they used), this is not presented as a cause of controversy, when it was. Indeed, it was not incidental to the report's impact, but central to it. If the summary headline contradicts the main story then the headline is wrong.

It seems the BBC think that Holland has got a touch of the Denmarks- ie., that the Dutch are tending towards 'bigotry' too. The next thing you know they'll be drawing naughty cartoons. As the BBC say:

'In a country traditionally seen as one of the most liberal and tolerant in Europe, Islam and Muslims are now viewed with suspicion.'

What is wrong with this sentence is that it dogmatically places an historically conditioned notion of tolerance (the old easy come-easy go immigration-led multi-culti merry-go-round) in opposition to latter day Dutch 'suspicion'. If things have deteriorated, I would ask who has caused the deterioration (a link off the sidebar to an article about the murder of Theo Van Gogh may give a clue)

Apologies for the break.

I was unexpectedly involved in a very sociable evening yesterday, following an awkward sort of day where no spare time presented itself. The weather was so good in Prague and it was/is real sitting-out-drinking-beer weather, and I was only able to enjoy it because of a cancelled appointment- so I really made the most.

...aaaanyway, I suggest you check out Alison's post on an Iranian woman under threat. Then you can find out more here.

Very Busy Day Today.

However, I did notice the BBC plugging the views of one Sir Lawrence Freedman, rotund University of London academic. It's funny how at times the BBC can fawn so completely at the feet of the enobled. This seems to coincide with those occasions where the BBC's views and those of the enobled coincide.

I googled Sir Lawrence Freedman and ran across this article on the first page. It's predominantly a rank hit piece on Rumsfeld, from The Washington Post in Jan 2005. Talk about a coincidence given the BBC's recent anti-Rumsfeld fest.

How could anybody who read this catalogue of accusations against the Bush administration's Iraq policies ever imagine they would get an honest answer from its author concerning the existence or non-existence of civil war in Iraq? Oh, but I overlook something: it isn't an honest question. It's a BBC question, feeding into and feeding off the agendas of all those who oppose the US.

I notice one BBC excuse for coverage being the Saudi Minister's contradiction of Jack Straw(man) at a recent news conference: 'yes there is civil war in Iraq, blah blah'. It sums things up for me: whatever I may think of the Bush administration they're still making the right enemies.

Update:

Something about the conclusion I've drawn above has been nagging at me; it's not quite right somehow. The trouble is that we're hearing too much from America's enemies, channelled by the gagging for it press. Anyway, regarding Rumsfeld, here is an interesting cross-take on the Freedland/BBC Rumsfeld critique in the Times (via Belmont Club). One more thing strikes me about this 'civil war' season, which has blent nicely with the anti-Rumsfeld coverage, as indeed it has in this posting: they're moving on; the anti-US coalition for the killing, I mean.

Inside Tracks

One of the good things about blogging is the way you end up wandering through thoughts that belong to different people, in different places, even acting at different times.

So here's a selection.

This is a really funny caricature from an expat newspaper in Moscow. Hilarious social commentary. I'm here in Prague, and it's probably nearer in spirit to this caricature than it would be to a similar one for the UK, but really this is one analysis which travels. There are enough categories for it not to be lacking in subtlety, too.

Here's a look into the global warming mallarkey. Given organisations as cliquey as Nasa's meteorology dept seems to be, it's no wonder they can't think straight.

And here's a look inside the world of 1970's LA journalism, showing how politics trumps news, especially concerning hot topics like immigration.

Thanks to Peter Glover and Tim Newman for 2 of 3 links.

If you have some time this is a great review of literature on the crisis facing Europe vis a vis Islam, by Bruce Bawer, who also contributed his own book recently.

The Iraq war was wrong, natch.

I hate to harp on- especially on an Easter Monday after four beers, three shorts, four steaks and four cream eggs (spread over a lengthy period, but kind of continued from the previous day's activities)- but it is necessary. Really.

Oh yes, it's the BBC again. Many things, of course, but I just find their talking points so banal and self-interested, especially the Greg Dyke memorial story: that the Iraq War was Wrong.

The BBC run articles like this one in which they try to embody each individual horseman of the apocalypse they predicted in the days of the dear leader (Greg).

Whenever I get really over-fed up about this I just visit this site to read posts like this. Wonderful.

You'd never guess from the BBC's coverage that last month the US suffered its lowest level of casualties for months. Yes, the moment has passed but has become a statistcal fact, and although rates have risen again, they are consistent with a disorderly and fissiparous society, rather than a basket case. To have a state of civil war develop is inconceivable while an active coordinating force of US troops simultaneously goes about its business without multiplying military casualties. That's the reality; (aside, to the Beeb) put it in your Beeboid pipe and smoke it rather than the shit that generally goes in.

But, who are the BBC rolling out as their authority, as the man to restate the meme: none other than Toby Dodge, the guy who predicted a long hard war against Iraq's conventional armed forces in 2003 for the Guardian. A man whom even Paul Reynolds of the BBC described as 'a critic of American and British policy in Iraq'- as I reported some while ago.


In case the Beeb hadn't noticed, ethnic shifts inside Iraq certainly predate the Iraq war. Places like Mosul and Kirkuk were deliberately settled with Sunnis by Saddam. Now, I am not saying that current ethnic flight may not be some indication of imminent or even immanent civil war, but I'd want to be reassured on the following matters:

That the figures mentioned by the Iraqi Government really were exceptional. I'd want to know that this was not just a response to journalistic pressure, and that they differ significantly from figures previously available which happen perhaps not to have had the same relevance to the meme-du-jour and therefore were ignored.

I'd also want to compare with other population movements, for example from Kirkuk and from Fallujah. In the latter case tens of thousands fled conflict. Did they all go back? What happened to them? In the former case Kirkuk is prized by the Kurds as their 'true' capital, yet was heavily settled by Arab sunnis under Saddam. What's going on there, and how does it compare with the so-called Samarra flight?

These are the kinds of things I'd imagine a lively broadcaster would enquire after. So not the BBC then. There is no detail to their report, there is no break down of figures. There is only the bizarre notion that somehow the deterioration of Iraq into civil war is some kind of hardy perennial.

To establish this the writer draws in an assortment of deeply partial Arab despots, and a Guardianista pin-up academic, plus a few soundbytes from Iraqi politicians. Yep, real balanced there.

Happy Easter!

Following up the article I mentioned the other day about deceitful and pressurized global warming 'science', this article in fact, Richard North weighs in with his personal story of scientific engagement. These kinds of things should be printed and pinned up on the wall anywhere that media products are likely to be consumed.

Well, I had a choice, and I posted at Biased BBC instead.

The topic is France, the reportage from Caroline Wyatt, a reliably mildly irritating presence I find.

But I find myself inclined too to link this wonderful Mark Steyn pen portrait of the life in works of Michael Wharton. I have to say I didn't like him all that much as a writer- I was close to being, but not quite, a fan; and that's why I find Steyn's nearly but not quite effusive style on these occasions so excellent.

'there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves.'

Indeed.

Just some Daily Mail hack criticising real global warming science, I'm sure.

If, like me, you didn't know what to make of one of Saddam's generals' comments about WMD, take a look at this account of his views and a meeting with him, from Melanie Philips.

Anti-Royals worth a post? I believe so

Well, the Royal family've proven they can take it, but it seems to me this is a bit rich. It comes from the BBC, which is an organisation supposed to show impartiality in its role as British state broadcaster.

It may be a bit of a non-job, but I teach non-defining relative clauses among other stuff to people who need to know them, and this specimen is going to become one of my favourites:

'The 21-year-old, who last week joined Army pals at a lap dancing club near Slough, is to join the Household Cavalry's Blues and Royals.

Clarence House has released a series of photographs to mark his graduation. '

Thus the BBC announces Harry's graduation from Sandhurst to defend his country. I included the line following because it seemed to me more than slightly amusing.

Unnecessary information confusing things, see?

At the bottom of the article they reiterate the point (not the graduation, the lapdancing), saying

'The prince has again been the subject of tabloid headlines in the last week.

The Daily Mirror and the Sun said the 21-year-old and his friends visited the Spearmint Rhino club near Slough to celebrate the end of his army training.'

I have never believed the BBC is any friend of the Royal Family, though in a sense they bask in a similar kind of nationalistic glow at times. That hypocrisy is one of the BBC's major turn offs. They just made it worse. On the other hand, I am sure that this kind of publicity will make Harry the nation's secret favourite for the rest of his life.

Meanwhile, a little sequence of more or significantly less relevant links which tickled my fancy:

here,

here,

and here.

Random, ticklish comic thoughts

Yes there are very serious things taking place (below post gives some details), but I just need a place to giggle manically without upsetting the neighbours- so here goes.

First of all the opinion of a Saudi 'religious author', “Dr.” Muhammad Al-’Arifi about infidelic life: 'they have organizations for homosexuals, organizations for people who marry animals - she marries a dog, a donkey, and so on... The organizations exist, and strangely enough, they are official. They have websites, and they publish magazines with pictures.'

See, I thought about this for a moment, and I honestly don't know if such societies exist or not, or such websites actually. And then I thought of using Google to check, and then I thought, 'rather him than me'. Well, I laughed like a cat laughs- silently.

Then I clicked on VDH's site and the first thing I saw was the following headline:

'Has Ahmadinejad Miscalculated?'

Only I misread it, and I thought (goodness knows why; maybe it was the suggestiveness of a certain Saudi religious scholar) it said:

'Is Ahmadinejad Emasculated?'

I don't know the answer to that question, either.

[addendum: judging from his breadth of understanding VDH could actually; the article whose title I misread so amusingly is actually an excellent one]

Different Strokes-

looking forward we have Mark Steyn with an essay anatomising recent history. Some do find his work a little gruesome; I just marvel at the clean stokes of the scalpel. As for the argument, there's no doubt he's right and we've been soft-pedalling this issue for decades. I can imagine many anti-war types saying we knew it all the long, Iran's next. That was the horrible thing about being pro-war 3 years ago; logically it should have been, short of miraculous success in Iraq being completed in a matter of months and intimidating countries like Iran into quiescence, but to say so meant effectively becoming the living room advocate of WWIII, mini-Hitler on the sofa.

Well, opponents of the war put paid to the quick Iraq victory which could have salvaged our bacon, didn't they? More or less as I knew they would. I don't think history's a trainwreck; I desperately hope not, but it's certainly a gory business which you can sometimes catch yourself anticipating far too much for comfort.

Riding shotgun we have Christopher Hitchens, doing the brilliant lawyers job he specialises in, reminding one of the proper rational processes involved in thought.

Squabbling over an election result, we have Silvio Berlusconi and Romano Prodi. Ah well, it's not the good news I was hoping for which would have avoided yet more anti-Iraq war (or pro-terrorist) irrationalism. And we also have Chirac abandoning the man whom the BBC profiled using the quote '"It could be seen as a relationship between a bigger and a younger brother,"
"Someone like Mr Chirac is quite lonely. He has no son. He has two daughters, but no son."

Bigger and a younger brother? Maybe Cain and Abel, I suppose (honestly the Beeb's take on France is the other side of absurd sometimes). Eursoc rounds up the Euro situation.

But, to come back to Iran for a moment, I notice that Ammedinejad (sic) has been promising some very good nuclear news, and has swiftly followed it up. Simultaneously, Iran wants in to the UN's "human rights" body. It's like a prizefighter bulking up- not good news if you're the opponent he has in mind.

There's really nothing to say when there's so much to observe.

Here's hoping the Berlusconi swing continues. I'm keeping an eye on this blog for the news. He's a kind of talisman for Italy, a kind of genius, and although his economic policies have failed to a degree, can you imagine the commies doing better? (oh, and he's a reasonably strong from a national security pov).

Then there's this: Captain's Quarters says 'Case Closed' following the translation of a secret Iraqi document showing that Saddam recruited suicide bombers to strike US interests. It's one of those logic gates: if Saddam recruited bombers for targetting the US then Saddam was a living link in the war on terror. But then I knew that anyway.

Then there's this: in the wake of France's backdown over employment reform, the only momentum for change seems to in one scary direction.

I haven't forgotten, incidentally, that this is a Beebbashbased blog. Beeb bashing can wait a little, though not too long (unlike the poetry, which is a bit of a frippery to be honest) as I get a mite twitchy if I don't have the Beeb in my sights.

Still feel SOCA's an own goal- though not for the politicians.

The lack of interest is pretty amazing (I wrote about this dangerously oriented development recently). I had to trawl through page after page on Google News, most dripping with comic book blandishments about the new extra-police service, before coming to this moderately critical article by Neil Darbyshire in the Telegraph.

Trying to find a political party that will articulate something of this is another matter entirely.

Humour blogs.

Well, in my view, IMAO is for nice balanced people (unfair, unbalanced, unmedicated), Scrappleface for nice right wing people, and Blamebush, well, that's the real deal. Latest post cracks me up from moment 1:

'Planning on getting hitched in the sewers of Tehran this spring? You might want to reconsider.'

The rest, as far as I see it, including an incredibly stupid blog called Jesus' General which won some blog award by some miracle, are for lefties.

Batty puts a Cork in shit.

Jailed for six months. I know that my imagination concerning prison has only been fed by the most unignorably lurid drivel from the distraction industry, but I can't help but pity a man incarcerated in one of HMG's prisons for saying he was proud to be British, and that people attending a mosque should go back where they came from.

The BBC's meagre details include the name of the judge (Batty), and the criminal (Cork).

It strikes me the really foolish thing Mr Cork has done is plea guilty.

Walked into an empty lift today accompanied by a guy in banking. He started talking to me in English (yes, this was in the Czech Republic- I really should find a way of putting my blogger profile into this template. I've always been nervous talking about myself). Anyway, he asks me pretty quickly whether I'm from Britain or America. He says he finds American English hard to understand. In fact, as soon as I say I'm British, he says 'I hate America er, Americans, er...'. Now 'hate', in my experience, is not a word that trips easily from the tongues of most Czech English speakers, yet here it was. Very classy.

Which brings me to Mark Steyn, and 'anti-Europeanism in the United States' ?

So excited they can't even punctuate.

Almost as much as I dislike the imposition of more state-sponsored authoritarian bureaucracy, I dislike the naif enthusiasm of those who are charged with operating it. Oh, it's good for their careers no doubt, whatever happens, but it's the pretense that they are engaged in anything more than the importation of generally malign layers of authority from largely failed socialist models that irritates me.

Or perhaps it's not pretense, and they're actually blissfully ignorant of the antecedents to what they are participating in. Either way deeply irritating.

You may be surprised (or not- and you may have already found out about it) to hear about one of Britain's newest ground breaking anti-crime initiatives: the secret police. Now we wait for the BBC drama where the cockney villain cries "Scram! 'SOCCER' (SOCA) are on the way".

Of course UK Leftists and any fellow drivellers on the Right like to bring up the FBI in all of this, as though this was just our version. However Britain, being smaller than California, scarcely can be said to need one.

SOCA are the plods that have this exciting new opportunity to imprint a new chapter in British policing. They have lots of new and exciting 'methods' to try out. The one I found most prominent on their website was snitching, or grassing, or informing- words that could be used to describe it, depending on context.

But actually they call it a Sar, and the plural they call Sar's- repeatedly (this is a clear act of language abuse and should be reportable to someone with the authority to discipline, maybe fine the abuser on the spot (joke). Here are some more examples). This pathetic lack of attention to detail, this carelessness, is precisely what I would expect of a flash new Government agency- well, responsible to the Home Office. The Sars homepage could get it right, but not the plod- or plod appointee- writing the website info. No organisation which pays that little attention to detail should be allowed within a mile of legal matters.

Anyway, one can argue about the need for some group to deal with money laundering and the like (looking at the info it seems that had been accounted for previously), but the problem with creating a brand new force working outside the system is the problem we always have with our law enforcers once they are freed from specific duties and made an 'operational force'. They go for the soft targets, the cheap and the easy targets within their new domain. They will probably eventually be used to track down those operating without ID cards, and the like. They will ostensibly be there to enforce immigration and monitor international transactions, but in the end they will find it much easier to target petty non-rule-obeyers, and that will probably mean Joe Bloggs who feels he ought to be able to travel without his ID card.

Via Samizdata

It reminds me of a feeling I've had in the Czech Republic for a while: I watch policemen travelling aimlessly round in vehicles, not sure what to do, what their role is. I think it must be one of the key challenges of policing, to define what you're for. For the most part this aimlessness in a former police state is benign, faintly positive. I notice that the new SOCA team will not pledge any oath; they'll just join up. But for what, to what end?

If you tie it in with this story it becomes scarier still: the news that the discretion of calling a crime a crime, or not, is being handed out more widely than ever to the police. It's scary when getting a caution means having a criminal record, and the police get to decide what's cautionable and what's not, working within a framework where burglary, shop lifting, arson, and underage sex, among others, may be viewed as cautionable and thus comparable to a parking offence.

The chaos and confusion in deciding what is a crime seems to be rampant today- I expect many more stories like this one... although actually in a sense I don't. The time for picking up anomalies may be passing. The Govt. want to increase rather than decrease them; they basically want to bring the police a greater degree of authority; not by ensuring a rational system which all respect, but by making randomness a weapon. Thus real criminals will accommodate to the irrationality of the individual officers and groups of officers (in other words, outwit them one way or antoher), and the law-abiding will fear the irrational police/state. Crime figures become manipulable, and order in any case can be simulated.

It's really happening. How stupid.

WMD and media bias captured in the same two minutes, as noticed by Tim Blair.

Advice to Opposition: Oppose. That has to be right about 90 percent of the time. Helen Szamuely has some good advice for the boy-prince.

The anti-war fallacy

Time to attempt something more comprehensive as a follow up to my post on the latest revelations concerning the Iraq war, terrorism, and the London bombings.

I'd start by saying that I've become immune to the drip feed of titillating 'revelation' concerning intelligence reports about Iraq- whether about warnings that intelligence concerning WMD was patchy, or leaks revealing that the decision to go to war was predetermined, or that the war would increase the risk of terrorism to the UK.

Why? Am I just unable to entertain that I can be wrong about something? In denial?

Well, I'm not going to introspect just yet.

... read on here, should you wish to...

'Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.'

Cut n' paste onto any current issue requiring public understanding for a rational public debate, but especially, as George Will argues, to global warming.

Follow the money

Says Riverbend, 'I was shocked to find out the BOOK “Baghdad Burning” had made the short list for the Samuel Johnson Prize- a prestigious, British award for non-fiction!!'

Shocked? Well, I don't know, but looking at the blurb from her book publishers one can see that she earnt 20,000 Euros only last year from the Lettres Ulysses Award (yes, new to me too). 20,000 Euros surely goes a long way in Baghdad. Still, I suppose a girl has to take encouragement where she can under 'occupation'.

Good Journalists get to talk to their subjects, even when their intent is investigative.

I think Claudia Rossett fits the bill.

A fascinating read about events in France, with reference especially to the Jewish community there. Anecdote upon anecdote, almost bang up to date.

And on to the Next War (well, bombing raid anyway). I can't say I'm sanguine about it. It's not taking on Iran with bombers that worries me, it's the fact that this seems to fall within the mullahs' gameplan. Though I'm a peaceful man, I wish that they had been taking on Iran at a time less of the mullahs' choosing (ie. earlier).

So predictable from the anti-war people that they should jump on the latest 'top secret' memo from MI5 claiming that the war in Iraq has made us a target for terrorism (and here comes the new bit) for many years to come.

Wow, I'm impressed. The hamster guy says

'Blair puts great store in always believing what the security services tell him. Presumably then, we'll now see him publically accept what's been glaringly obvious to most people for some considerable time. Oh wait - Blair saw this memo before the attacks in London last year. How strange that he, of all people, should misrepresent the judgement of the intelligence services to the British people...'

Rachel from North London says

'Finally, they cannot deny it any longer: this war has led to hatred and terror and suicide bombings in the U.K. Blair knew this risk, and he denied it, and he went ahead with the war, and he lied about the reasons for the war and the risks and consequences of the war - and people were murdered because of this.'

Both of them are wrong, but let's start with the obvious point:

One memo doth not a scandal make. Memos, rather surprisingly, are ten a penny, and say all sorts of things. Anyone who read the Hutton report will know something about the potential for contradictory noise at the highest level. What the anti-war types don't seem to realise is that these memos are only released for trite politicised reasons, to stir up the rabble. Well, at any rate they barely realise it, and that's really undermining to their credibility, and sanity. I don't accuse Blair of misrepresenting the evidence because I don't know the full range of evidence he was faced with and, on balance, formed a judgement. With that judgement were pros and cons and I don't think that was ever denied.

Secondly, I'd say I'm no fan of the endless alternative histories we find put forward, but nonetheless I'd like to see these people come up with a 2006 scenario where the threat of terrorism hadn't grown, given the trendlines of the previous 30 years.

And that's enough really. I'd add I'm not happy with our supercillious pols, but I think a bigger problem is the fashionable ignorance of the pampered chatterers who throw round accusations of lies like confetti at a wedding. (and yes, I acknowledge RfNL's trauma in July, without considering it a free logic pass)

Oh how embarrassing- not that Condi Rice has found some protesters meeting her in Blackburn and elsewhere, but that she was forced to sit through a Liverpool Harmonic concert featuring a performance of the Beatles' dirge 'Imagine'. I think today's pols often find themselves forced to pay homage to near worthless pop-culture junk (which is not to say that pop music hasn't got some positives, just that I'd never want it to be mistaken for serious entertainment, and anthems or event marking are not its strong suit).

But the really embarrassing thing was that with almost mind-blowing predictability 'concert singer Jennifer John' slipped from 'Imagine' to 'Give Peace a Chance'. I'm sure Condi wasn't surprised, but I could cringe that the anti-war populists couldn't come up with a more original stunt than that. Another embarrassing thing is that the BBC considered it worth reporting, rather like those parish magazines that insist on informing you that the triangle in the Christmas children's show was pinged by little Johnny so-and-so. That's cute, where appropriate...

> Oh, and I meant to add that I can't stand the fact that the 'performers' freely consented to their profile raising reception of Condi, yet treated a guest like an enemy. It's against humanity.

'Can Western enlightenment and power, embedded in deep cynicism, still prevail over ignorance and self-inflicted pathology energized by fanaticism?

Simply a great article from Victor Davis Hanson

More Peacemaker Pants.

'The deaths of civilians in Iraq may indeed add up to violations of the Geneva Conventions, especially Article IV.'

They are also very sad.

I read with some interest this update on casualties in Iraq from a man behind the 100,000 Lancet figure which has become the basis on which every pro-war type like me has found themselves shouted down. It's hard to argue with the raw power of mass death.

I am sure they figure something like that the figures given by the pro-war people prior to the Iraq invasion were phoney, therefore sauce for the goose can become sauce for the gander.

The trouble is that the figures for deaths before Saddam have not been properly investigated, as is hard to do when the public and the government of Iraq mainly want to avoid going the same way via a bomb or a bullet direct to the head- and they know that unlike the US and UK soldiers, the Islamofascists don't care who they kill as long as the effect is right for them.

More Notelets I'm afraid

I suppose tomorrow I'll at last have more time to develop some posts on this blog. However, in the meantime here are some vital things to think about.

First of all, take a look at this fascinating exchange between the American Expat and Paul Reynolds of the BBC. I think Scott nails him with the logic of saying that either you report a claim of 100,000 civilian deaths (or more) in Iraq, and examine the methodology critically for the reader's sake, or you don't report it at all. Reynolds' response?

'It was simply a figure. I reported it. . What's the problem?'

Yeah, no big deal.

Then, perhaps even more importantly, take a look at this news from LGF about the Western Standard, Canadian publishers of Mark Steyn's columns, being sued because they published the Mohammed cartoons. Once the law in Anglosphere countries defended innocent people; now it terrorises them. Big news I feel.

Not much time... to write, so a couple of links only.

I promise you a rollicking experience if you visit Dr Crippen's site for his great big round up. Medical blogs have their own slightly disinfected flavour, I've discovered from reading his posts and the subculture of mediblogging which is emerging. They sanitise, or more accurately rationalise, some parts of life which are usual quite unclear, like death and sickness, and at the same time introduce a special kind of randomness and chaos. This round up shows you just what I mean.

Now, have shared possibly the most unsettling, let me direct you to the post which spoilt my morning, from the Belmont club. Not only does it paint a desperate picture of Iraq, it also references respectfully the current bete noir of anti-Beeb blogging, Riverbend.

There you go. Don't get bored.

Some kind of parallel can be drawn from almost every section of this 3 yr Iraq war anniversary report from John Simpson, to some part of this anniversary report from the Beeb's latest award nominated darling, Baghdad Burning.

The only thing that Simpson avoids mentioning which Riverbend mentions is the violence- that is, mentioning it directly. It's typical of Simpson not to overreach with his bias.

Oh, and do check out this post on the subject of 'who is Riverbend?'. It comes recommended by Dave T. from BBBC comments, Cabarfeidh, and the Queen's Own...

I'm a fan of Wikipedia so I liked this post...

My only quibble is how it can avoid the addition of meaningless information because many obsessives are full of minutiae and irrelevant detail. In other words, how can it avoid the trainspotter's redundancy?

Lacking a spine

This is not a post about the BBC's lacking courage. They do, but the metaphor is a bit more literal than that. I'm referring to an interesting article concerning the booming state of the Israeli economy which is paradoxically dominated by the BBC's focus on poverty.

The trouble is, like so many BBC reports, it lacks the spine provided by recognition of fundamentals. So we get a jelly-like rambling commentary telling us how

'Last year, the economy expanded at its fastest rate in years, bolstered by healthy growth in exports, strength in the technology sector and a healthy investment climate.'

You look through the article in vain for the central theme: it is conveyed only in hints about a positive 'investment climate' and how 'a Palestinian uprising sparked a slump' in 2000.

But the real story behind economic growth is the stability brought about by Sharon's barrier policy and unilateral action. Because they will not focus on this, a fundamental issue, they are released to focus on one of their cherished topics, poverty, which enables them to include Palestinian alienation in their 'compassionate' coverage. In doing so they pass over the fact that the gap between rich and poor is mirrored by the gulf between terrorist sponsoring people and law-abiding citizens.

The war de les langues.

Not sure even if that three words of French is correct, but it hardly matters, does it? (actually, to me it would, which is why I ascertained that it should be war 'des langues', but still.)

Agnes Poirier does make at least one mistake in her 'comment is free' entry defending- I think- Jacques Chirac; along with several awkward usages which tend to confirm my sense that English is her second language.

As for the assumption that English is carrying all before it; that may be so, but what kind of English would emerge, and would it be good for Britain, if hordes of people in the world learnt our language the hard way, while we basked in the sense of well-being it gave us?

One crusty old professor (ie. deceased and a theology don) made an interesting comment I came across recently:

'Modern English, it seems to me, is slack instead of taut, verbose and not concise, infested with this month's cliché, no longer the language of a proud and energetic English people, but an international means of communication.'- Prof. Kenneth Grayston.

That was said quite a few years ago (at least pre-1993), and things move quickly in the world out there.

Kember- there's only so much oxygen, you're being greedy.

I noticed this lavish op-ed from Bruce Kent, former head of CND, on the BBC.

It's a good example of how leftists have privileged and easy access to the state sponsored soap box that the BBC is able to offer.

Bruce Kent's pedigree as a political agitator is a long one, and I've no doubt his apologia for wrong-headed activism is well practiced.

I don't really like criticising people like Kent and Kember. It's not because they're well-meaning, which is something I don't really believe, but because they are clumsy and obvious.

Kent, for instance, justifying Kember, says

'He could see there were a lot of people in Iraq who were hurting and suffering, who had lost relations or been imprisoned. Whatever their nationality, our job as Christians and as people interested in peace was to offer help and consolation to people who were suffering. That was Norman's basic wish.'

Here we have a combination of straw man and faux charity.

Firstly the nationality issue was not an issue. If he said that Kember went to protect the Sunni minority from a backlash from Shias that might have some semblance of sense- but don't expect any such precision from people like Kent- or Kember.

Secondly, the vast majority of Iraqis were suffering first from the tyranny of Saddam, and afterwards from the tyranny of his regime remnants and the terrorists who have killed Iraqis, but especially Shias, by the score. Kember was a major kind of propaganda tool for the insurgents (so called), and thus was de facto taking sides in the conflict. Unfortunately for him, his propaganda value was not seen as being high enough by the so-called insurgents, so they kidnapped him and others, and killed one of them.

Kent proclaims the virtue of Kember's desire to show 'we were not a country which was united in favour of what had been done.' That is precisely the message which has encouraged the insurgents (so-called) and led to thousands of deaths as they seek to further tip the balance helpfully pointed out by Kent, Kember and their ilk.

Thirdly, what 'help' was it that Kember intended to provide? Did he take with him supplies and equipment? In this case he must be very stupid if he does not know that the US is in Iraq with all the necessary equipment to help Iraqis should there be peace enough to enable proper reconstruction.

As is typical, the Christian anti-war campaigner says that 'we as Christians are commanded to be concerned about the suffering and imprisonment of others - it's an explicit mandate to us.'

Well, if you insist. However the same obviously (and this is why I rarely comment on such things) applies to the suffering and imprisoned people in Iraq under Saddam. Kember was explicitly rejecting their rights by opposing the war in Iraq. Definitely the idea of compassion shouldn't extend to those actively engaged in murder and torture, as the so-called insurgents have been, for example the 'defenders' of Fallujah. There were many under Saddam's Iraq though who had not abused anyone yet were subject to vicious oppression.

Kent goes on to say 'We send out government people and contractors and God knows who else as well as soldiers, and they all take major risks, some of them for commercial reasons and some for political or other purposes.'

Yes indeed: and all of them have rational reasons for being where they are and doing what they do, whereas Kember had none- unless, that is, one analyses his actions politically and as a consequence of a classic case of holier than thou emotional rather than rational, self-aggrandising rather than humble, superior and pampered western condescension to events of global significance.

Changing Media

David Aaronovitch has a fascinating post up about media change over the last twenty years. Lots of fine insights. One of the most recent changes has been the Times' launch of blog sites. They're not bad, in general, but Aaro's is like watching a duck entering the water. Can't say I'm too enthusiastic about having a blog broadside from Britain's media establishment, but hey-ho, I think participation is healthy.


Meanwhile, this type of journalism could be the consequence of the coincidence of media change stress syndrome with Bush derangement syndrome. Not pretty.

BBC gab fest taking place as Norman Kember is 'freed'. I've never bothered to talk about him as he didn't seem too important, but look at these guys gush.

However, I notice now the ambiguity of the word 'freed'. It does seem to me that that word 'rescued' seems more appropriate.

Certainly I do not think we should be hearing from the latest terrorist celebrity, Moazzam Begg. If not a terrorist, this man consorted with them, and now the BBC is allowing some spurious and evidently inconsequential words he used to advocate Kember's release in December as a justification for his rehabilitation into an acceptable face of Islamic extremism.

'Moazzam Begg, who publicly pleaded for the release of Mr Kember in December, said he was "ecstatic" at the news.

He said: "I am extremely pleased. I am very, very happy and hope to meet him soon after he gets back here.

"I am a little concerned about the military operation and hope that nobody was hurt during that.

"It is the best news to come out of Iraq in a long time.

"I just know the experience of being kept away from your home for such a long time. He needs time to recover and I hope that everybody gives him that." '

heh- "I am a little concerned about the military operation and hope that nobody was hurt during that." - wouldn't want any of his friends harmed during the 'freeing' of infidels, would he?

Interesting stuff from the DT on Begg here. For the BBC to use Begg as a quotable source on the Kember matter implies a firm assumption about Guantanamo and US interrogation procedures. That's no surprise, but sometimes media judgements become foundational, and treating Begg as a quotable source is one such.



'

Some Anniversaries But Not Others

In the post below I noted the tenth anniversary of the predictions of doom that accompanied a Government announcement about Mad Cow Disease. Nothing from the Beeb about that. It would actually be interesting to read an anatomisation of mindless hype, so there's little chance of the Beeb going near it. They loved saying 'how could the US intelligence have been so wrong over Iraq WMD etc', but somehow fail to see the dramatic shortfall between expectation and reality when it comes to their own deranged pontifications.

Needless to say, they make space to remember a nuclear accident, Chernobyl, where slighty fewer people- 56 - died than have died so far in the CJD crisis (which nevertheless represents a case study example of failed punditry). Of course we can argue about fallout in terms of defects of birth and whatnot, but this comment in the BBC's Have Your Say, like a seed fallen on stony ground, seems to me to have real merit:

'How about querying why the environmental pressure groups' estimate of 300,000 to 400,000 deaths caused by Chernobyl does not tally with the actual death toll to 2004 of 56.'

1 recommendation demonstrates how the reality game is a minority sport.

Oh, and another thing: I really resent the BBC's giving the ETA ghouls centre stage for a spurious announcement made in full fascist regalia. Who made these evil clowns the story except their own pathetic and murderous activities? I so dislike the BBC's responding to the whims of people only notable for their criminality.

Wrong Again: the MSM

Richard North has a classic post up at Euref; one of those where the apparently unstoppable force of media hype meets the immoveable object of historical fact, and squishes like an overripe tomato.


As the BBC have been reminding us, it's the third anniversary of the Iraq war. If it weren't that they were reminding us about that perhaps there'd be a new season of climate change reporting instead, or Guatanamo, or oppressed Muslims in Europe or...


But we're unlikely to hear about the anniversary of the predictions of mass deaths from BSE. Richard points out that there have been only 160 confirmed or probable cases of vCJD (people alive or dead) in the decade since the Tory Government was lambasted by the MSM (well, they were idiots by that stage, but they were punished less for their real faults than for media generated and spun ones). North quotes the Observer. It's difficult to believe such hysteria could have existed, until you contemplate some of the absurd hysteria about today. In fact, if anything the situation has got worse, and writers like North and Booker who were pointing out the reality back then are certainly further from the media hub than they were.

Apologies for the lack of posting yesterday. Of course, I am also sorry about the hiatus that occurred in recent weeks, but this was almost wholly due to technical matters beyond my control eg. being given the wrong password for an upgraded ISP connection! (amongst other things) duh. There are two compounding factors; one, I live and work in Prague, thereby reducing my ability to communicate over matters which in the UK would be simply solved (Czech is a difficult language; I am not confident using it). Second I have very limited patience with the technology, and I don't really cope well when it misbehaves.

Yesterday, at any rate, I had a very busy day and when I finally got to sit in front of a screen with time to blog I found several things which belonged on Biased BBC instead of here. Thus it goes sometimes.

Still, regarding blogging I found this a very heartening piece- not to say delightful- from Scott Burgess. In my view blogging has far to go before it has revealed the extent of its potential, but as Scott points out, it has some intrinsic qualities which, if you like, give the project its water wings. My view of newspaper/antique media today is that it's hideously reductive, lacking the sense of social responsibility which undergirded its history. So in those respects, in a way, blogging can't fail- which makes it a likely success story, I feel.