This ruling class...

On Sunday afternoon I watched the Marr interview the Brown, and I must say the time went as quickly as might a Sunday afternoon nap. Marr of the Beeb conducted one of his usual chummy interviews, a mellow and replete after-dinner-style (it was probably actually for a morning show) chat which enabled Gordon to pose as a calm sober influence guiding anti-terror activities and steering the good ship Britannia through her squalls/storms. A manse-like calm prevailed.

Although I fully believe that the terrorism attempted over the last few days has been real- as it was on other occasions- it is immensely easy on Brown that he has this fluffed attack in which to wallow, aided and abetted by his sympathetic media friends.

Melanie Phillips has a series of points which Marr might have raised, but didn't. One day this ruling class might come to very much regret the chummy games they have played with their hegemony, rather than making serious preparations for the challenges we face.

Phillips does though praise Gordon for his initial appointments- Sir Alan West from the Navy and Sir John Stevens. Yet I would have a question of her: is it enough to appoint better leadership at home, when the indications from the same batch of appointments are that Brown is about to back away from the "taking it to them" strategy that Blair was able to hold? Even finding the best deckchair on the Titanic and putting the best lifeguard in it wouldn't stop anyone from drowning.

The End is Nigh.

Mark Steyn gets busy on the summing up of the defence and the "rebuttal" by the prosecution as the Black trial comes to its close- the "rebuttal" being one of the (many) novelties of the US legal system which I wasn't familiar with. Actually, it's been quite an eye-opener, and made me quite fascinated by the relative high level of the UK legal system which I know rather better. Having absorbed quite thoroughly the Steyn line, I'm rooting for Black and co, as if I was ever doing anything else. Either Steyn's a genius propagandist though, or the Govt. case and the Government prosecution service is deeply unattractive.

Aayaan Hirsi Ali. So elegant as ever.

Pakistani dreaming.

"The politician is an acrobat. He keeps his balance by saying the opposite of what he does." (Barres)

Mark Steyn says

"It seems Her Majesty's Government in London was taken entirely by surprise by the scenes of burning Union Jacks on the evening news. Can that really be true?"

Well, my answer would be no, it can't be true and it isn't true. Steyn goes on to make hay out of this notion of a government without knowledge of even basic facts about Salman Rushdie. Fair enough, in a way, but Pakistan is now on the British radar in rather a dramatic way.

There is the basic fact that the 7/7 bombers were mainly of Pakistani origin.

There is the fact that most aspiring terrorists in the UK now receive their training and support from Pakistan.

There is the case of Kriss Donald, whose attackers fled to Pakistan and were tracked down with the help of British mulsim MP Mohammed Sarwar, who is now retiring following death threats which are, according to the BBC, unrelated to his retirement. According to the Guardian however,


"The multimillionaire MP used connections in Pakistan to help arrange the extradition of Imran Shahid, Zeeshan Shahid and Mohammed Faisal Mushtaq to the UK, where they were jailed for life for their part in the kidnap, torture and murder of the teenager Kriss Donald in 2004. The trio, part of a violent Glasgow gang, fled to Pakistan after the crime but were returned after 18 months of negotiations between the Pakistani and British governments, assisted by Mr Sarwar.

"Life is not the same, to be honest with you, since I brought them back. I was subjected to threats"

Aunty telling fibs again, methinks.

Still, this provides me another opportunity to ask an exit question: just why was the Bob Woolmer case so radically re-evaluated? After all, what could be easier and less controversial than to accuse the Pakistani national cricket team of murder?

The EU treastitution.

To analyse this sleight of hand by the resurgent Merkel and Sarkozy, and the no-longer-needing-to-tread-with-care Blair, you have to take a step back. Of course it is correct to say that it is practically the same as the EU Constitution which French and Dutch voters rejected. Back in October 2004 Blair said "There will not be a referendum. The reason is that the constitution does not fundamentally change the relationship between the UK and the EU."

Well said, Mr Blair! Bravo!

Now he is saying almost the same thing! Here's principle for you:

"If it's not a constitutional treaty, so that it alters the basic relationship between Europe and the member states, then there isn't the same case for a referendum,"

Phrasing slightly different, meaning the same. Yet in between these two occasions, in the three years that have passed, he has continually reiterated either the commitment to a referendum on the matter on the table then and now, or its obscurity as an issue out of consideration. Three years of rhetoric- denied, as Frank Field affirms in EUbusiness:

"One of the more popular things Tony Blair did was promising a referendum... Going back on that is against all the rhetoric of a government which says it wants to reconnect with a disillusioned if not hostile electorate"

That's it, win popularity where you need to, backtrack when you can, and return to the idea you first thought of because you're too pig-headed to think of anything else. That's Blair, and he'll make a fantabulous EU president no doubt.

Piccie of Britain. Canadian-American conservative Steyn writes:


"the dolly birds staggering around paralytic, the pools of "pavement pizza", the baying yobboes gagging for a shag and hurling bollards through the bus shelters to impress the crumpet - is a natural consequence of what happens when the state relieves the citizen of primal responsibilities."

How much of the first three lines do you imagine the US readership would understand without effort? Classic stuff. Personally, I've always felt that the type of characters outlined above were always subliminally aiming for the Hogarthian effect. I preferred to keep it to cartoons.

The Big Picture.

David Warren in visionary mode.

Hamastan wondering:

“If we get Alan Johnston back, will Britain recognise Hamas?”

It's a question. First hand reporting, here.

Putting lipstick on the pig

The BBC hasn't been too candid in reporting events in Gaza and the West Bank. Surprise!

What they have reported represents a vain attempt to retain the perception that there is a "good" party of Palestinians in whom to place trust, money, and diplomatic hopes. Not that the BBC particularly blames Hamas for anything, but that there are some very prejudiced types in the West who just might, y'know.

Of course Jeremy Bowen is a known quantity on these issues, but since he's the head honcho in the Mid-East coverage, it's sensible to listen to what he's got to say.

Well Jeremy finds that the defeat of Fatah is in fact our fault, for isolating Hamas. I agree that it would have been been better not to isolate Hamas; we should have isolated both Hamas and Fatah.

The truth is, as Bruce Thornton points out, "U.S. tax dollars are sent to Fatah, in the weird belief that it makes sense to help Fatah, who believe Israel should be destroyed in “phases,” prevail over Hamas, who believe Israel should be destroyed right now". Bowen manages to blame the "powers" for Fatah's defeat, when in fact without the support of the "international community", Fatah and Abbas would be in even more of a no-man's land than they are today.

Maybe one day we will find a Palestinian partner-for-peace, but that day will only come when there is a genuine battle for the soul of the Palestinians, not a squabble between aggrandised gangsters and overweening Islamofascists. The subsidies of the "powers" amount to support for a corrupt status quo, invalidating any genuine democrats, who can only emerge when reality bites the Palestinian polity and practical politics prevails over Islamofascistic or mafioso fantasy.

Excellent analysis of the decline and fall of Fatah, and the rise of Hamas, here.

Simply unbelievable

The BBC news report confirming the authorities' conclusion that Bob Woolmer's death was of natural causes, omits a vital and elementary point: how he actually died.

Pretty inept, huh?

Also inept to the point of straining credulity, the police investigation which claimed 100% certainty of foul play, fingerprinted all the players, and now proclaims that the investigation which was apparently 100% barking up the wrong tree was excellent. Apparently they have also been praised by Scotland Yard.

As usual it is left to the Pakistanis ,in the guise of aspiring pol Imran Khan, to assert the cause of Woolmer's death, with an innuendo of his ill-health which rather suggests they were saints to tolerate such an obvious physical and mental basket case for a moment as their national coach.

"Bob Woolmer had diabetes, he had blood pressure, an enlarged heart, he had respiratory problems. On top of it, the depression of losing and then he drank a bottle of champagne. They should have first ruled out natural causes before this whole drama about the murder"

Khan truly is egregious, leaving it to his nation's cricket captain, his beard a little more clipped than I remember during the World Cup, to act all magnanimous:

"Inzamam-ul-Haq says Pakistan should not take legal action over how the team was treated during the Bob Woolmer affair."

"I don't feel court action would be of any use now.", says Inzamam Ul Haq, Pakistan Captain.

Well thanks Inzi. I am frankly amazed that the Woolmer family so meekly accepts the current word of this mazy investigation. I feel deeply sorry for them. It seems to me that what this badly needs is a court case to clear the air- if it's the incompetence and irresponsibility of the police that's under scrutiny, and if heads are on the block, maybe then we'll find out the real reasons for their uneqivocal statements and initial enthusiasm for the murder investigation. After all, it wouldn't have been hard to sustain the scenario of death by natural causes from the beginning and indefinitely, and sane people would have been inclined to were it not for strong counter-arguments. What were they and why are they now irrelevant in the wake of the UK intervention of a few weeks back?

Nice chap that he is, nevertheless a student of mine was tut-tutting, in that slightly distant, airy way that Euros tend to have, about problems on the Mexico-US border.

To be fair to him he had actually visited the Mexico-US border, and he was commenting on the fence he saw there. I pointed out that the fenced areas were comparatively small- concentrated on urban areas. They do intend to expand them though.

But the difference between Europe and the US can be seen in the fact that in the US the debate on immigration is open, is transparent, a source of conversation across the whole nation.

In Europe the border issues may be more acute, taking "borders" to mean the borders of the EU. The problems are primarily to the South, although it seems to me that immigration from the East is just more tolerable to the Euros, in part because it isn't as visually obvious.

As so often with Europe though, the disgrace is so immediately under our noses we can't see it. There's a mechanism, it seems, that enables us to switch off to problems in other EU countries, while claiming them for our own when there's something positive and noteworthy going on in them. It may be the fact that we're just not Europeans at all ;-).

Ok, ok, and the issue is: the scandalous deaths and hardships endured by immigrants from Africa in Morocco and on the high seas.

According to the Goethe Institute, "Between November 2005 and February 2006, 1,300 people died en route to the Canary Islands alone.".

But you want fences, right? Well, the EU's got 'em, all right. And they're 6 metres high, backed by over a thousand border guards, tear gas, watch towers, rubber bullets- all of which are quite liable to be brought into action. The fences enclose those little colonial enclaves which the Spanish have never wanted to give up in North Morocco, even as they desired the return of other alleged real estate.

I dare say there is some heated rhetoric in the US about a war on immigrants. In Europe, or on Europe's edge, it's a reality. One episode illustrates:

"on 28 September 2005, the refugees decided to storm the fence. Night after night, hundreds of them scaled the barricade using homemade ladders. The guards shot at them, and at least seven died in the hail of bullets. 1,200 were locked into buses by the Moroccan Army and driven to the southern border of Morocco in the Sahara, where they were left in the desert without any food or water. Even weeks later the local inhabitants reported that they were still finding bodies".

In fact, what appears to be the case in Europe's border strategy is an approach of Darwinian selective cruelty- make the crossing so hard, so vicious, that only the fittest either attempt to make it or succeed in making it. And even when they have, that's not the end of the story.

This all happens under our noses, without much of a murmur. Indeed, how would we affect it, even if we considered it our problem? It's a policy so extreme that it has all the hallmarks of never having been discussed in an open forum, but instead imposed by some shadowy securicrats. That, there, is the Euros' democratic deficit. Right there.

Enigma Bush

Well, it's good to see a good speech from Bush again. Many things closed in Prague today. Many people were ambivalent to say the least about his visit. Yet the speech he put forward managed to be eloquent, informed, flattering to his hosts, and honestly his own, as well as consistent with past messages.

On the other hand, what Bush doesn't seem to realise is that in the Czech Republic, even the dissidents were in some sense elite- educated, descendents of the affluent upper-middle class dispossessed by the Communists. Havel was a great example of that, if he could even be termed middle. His Grandfather built the Lantern theatre which Bush alludes to in his speech- a grand affair far from the ideals of the ordinary people. Havel was criticised too for having his head in the clouds, when president. People prefer the more bruising Klaus who isn't frightened to take on and slag off such luminaries as Al Gore. With Klaus there is content and courage, a recognition that flattery is no good and hard-headed decisions must prevail. With Bush there is courage, now and then, and content if you believe.

But believing oughtn't to be the condition for content where battling Islamofascism is concerned, and it's a problematic legacy if that becomes accepted wisdom.

Globalised sensitivities

I couldn't help being interested in this article about Tony Blair's foreign policy principles (via Con. Home), and one particular quote, in the light of the Woolmer case discussed in the post below.

Tony said:


"What happens today in Pakistan matters on the streets of Britain."

It's ironic too in his choice of language:

"Be a player not a spectator"-

and certainly whatever you do don't be a coach.

In a way the Woolmer case would be the perfect illustration of the "Pakistan point", were it to be the case that the British had decided to close down the Jamaican investigation to prevent another inflammatory anti-British issue for the imams in the madrassahs to ponder, and for the Pakistani population in the UK to absorb as another "grievance". That Mark Shields must be a rubbish policeman- he said at one point that he was 100 percent certain that Woolmer had been murdered... or maybe he's just amenable to a good talking to from his erstwhile colleagues from Scotland Yard.

By the way, Pakistan has a population of 165 million with 37 percent below the age of 14.

Still No Cricket.

So, from the BBC we receive the news that Bob Woolmer was not murdered after all. Or at least we think we do. Who knows what to think now? It was held to be certain after a decent period for initial investigation that Woolmer had been strangled. Then that was questioned. Then it was asserted that he was poisoned and strangled. What was noticeable was the interventions of the Pakistani cricket authorities, again and again pushing for a naturalistic explanation. Then the UK police stepped in; and the UK pathologists. My reaction to that was twofold- good to have extra police weight behind the investigations; bad that they were becoming internationalised and politicised too early in the process.

Whatever Woolmer's state of health (and the family stated he had no serious health issues), he was a lifelong sportsman who still exercised with his team. How unhealthy could he have been? The only cause of such sudden death brought on by stress that is generally known is a heart attack, and this is so easy to determine it could have been immediately announced.

If this is the final resolution by the authorities then there is nothing more to be said (the motivations for a cover up are quite obvious); but that still doesn't make it cricket.

I feel a pattern emerging...

Maragaret Hassan, Ken Bigley, the British navy servicemen, Alan Johnston, the five contractors kidnapped in Baghdad. Horror. Manipulation. Cat. Mouse.

Who needs money?

What LGF says about kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston's statement is all too true:

"unfortunately, what he says isn’t that different from the BBC’s day-to-day reporting under normal circumstances"

I feel a touch of the old Humbert Wolfs coming on. Sing along:

"You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
thank God! the
British journalist.
But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there's
no occasion to."

Nowadays no-one is scared of the British polity, so why bribe when you can just take hostages?

Yet one could reaonably ask, why bother when the Beeb are so pliable to the cause of the terrorist anyway? I think it's something in the criminal mind- they just want to make sure. And anyway, criminality is fun, innit?

Legal Calculation

When I make a few remarks on the British legal system, one of the things I have to explain to the uninitiated is how numbers just mean different things in Britain. Take the case of Sheik Abdullah el-Faisal. He's the guy who preached serious hate and went to jail for a hefty nine years. four years. And now he's out and sunning himself in the Caribbean (which, after all, is what he should have stuck to).

According to the BBC at the time "The judge recommended that el-Faisal, from Stratford in east London, should serve at least half of the sentence and then be deported."

Maybe we're there now, taking into account custodial time before the trial. Or maybe we're not. And maybe that too is a point worth arguing. In any case, it's simply absurd to append the tag "nine years" when we only mean four.

But that's me naively assuming that a crime carries a price, rather than prison as being a form of social management. We're all part of that continuum.

When a comment is a rebuttal.

Matthew Parris has one of those typically high-handed moments of his, concealed under his trademark upper-class self-deprecation, as he debates the insufficiency of democracy.

A commenter sets him straight:

If you can't trust democracy, who can you trust? For the last 900 years (approx) in England we have been moving towards greater democracy because of the failures of kings (King John, Charles I, James II and others). Our rulers are not necessarily wise.

Taxation without democracy is nothing more than demanding money with menaces.

For a democracy to function, the electorate must be fully and impartially informed. Therefore the press must be free and impartial. I am not sure how this could be achieved but could the owner of this newspaper please take note.

Ian Wyld, Marlborough,

I agree with almost all of this, but it seems pretty clear how a "fully and impartially informed" public could be achieved, and that is by imposing a free market on the UK media through the progressive privatisation of the BBC. Naturally legal powers would need to be buttressed against monopoly interests (which should be the number one priority of the Government of the land in all sectors), and obviously the public would perforce have to wake up to the idea that there is no "given" view to be held, but all this would be to the good, and democracy the winner.

Christopher Hitchens comes home, and finds it another country (well he has settled in America, but that's not quite what I mean...)

Scary and real

I had this article about Britain's coming disillusion pointed out to me, and it really struck home. The fiddling of figures in the UK has reached desperate proportions; the imperative to deceive out of control. From immigration to education to unemployment there has been a general whitewash of data, leading to a bubble of false confidence and false alarms to go with it.

All due to burst sometime soon, according to a book written by former Guardianistas Elliot and Atkinson, reviewed by Jeff Randall.

Yes, they're Daily Mail themes, and yes, such things sell books, and no these authors are not the only two good apples in the rotten basket. In fact though, the greatest disservice done by our fetid media, as well as our fetid politicians, is that they have so promiscuously oversold the truth, mingling it with their little lies to such a point where truth and lies are indistinguishable. I won't be reading the book, I don't think, but it seems to me that it's a truth in this case only slightly oversold.

Hope for Gaza and the West Bank: gangs of fascists are fighting each other in what might ironically be titled a "civil war". The BBC chooses to avoid the irony, for some reason.


So what's the good news (apart from the above)? Well, as noted by Instapundit from this Times' report, "Some Palestinian analysts predict that a collapse of the Palestinian Authority would pave the way for Jordanian custodial rule in the West Bank and a similar arrangement for Egypt in Gaza."

Which would mean the reunification of the Palestinian ethnic grouping, and an end to the farcical pretense of a nation used by the Arab world to undermine Israel, more or less.

The Wall is working, t'would appear.

Oh, and the second hope would be that such rule of law would end the Kassam missile attacks into Israel.

The Big Story you haven't heard about.

The BBC is usually all over stories of violence from America, especially those with a racial dimension, like this.

Curiously enough they're not all over this story, which comes via the excellent la Shawn Barber. And saying that the US media would rather ignore it is not an excuse: Greg Dyke boasted once that the BBC covers topics too hot for the US media (he was actually talking about Iraq, but the same would be true regarding white on black crime, which would be generally referred to as race hate crime). Not on this occasion, it seems.

It made my blood boil. Swift and accurate justice would stop people such as the criminals concerned from getting as far down the line of evil callousness as to commit such crimes against the very humanity of us all.

Update: HotAir now has a barnstorming vent on the subject which pretty much says it all.

"I look like an exploding tomato and shout like a jet engine and every time I see it makes me cringe."

Sweeney Crawling

The above quote is from John Sweeney, of the BBC's Panorama, and is a calculated attempt to make it look as though he was just out of control when lambasting the Scientologists. In fact, I'd say he seemed to have an icy control behind his bellowing, as though indulging a whim out of contempt for his subjects.

Hello again.

Black is not the conspiratorial type.

Mark Steyn is in danger of turning me into a Conrad Black trial-geek. His coverage is getting hotter and sharper by the day, as is the nature of the case. The point, however, that I have summarised above, is the Black may be an intellectual dreamer, an other-worldly oddly patriarchal figure out of his time- but he is no conspirator, whereas David Radler clearly is.

I only hope US justice is strong enough to demonstrate that, since it wasn't strong enough to prevent the abuse of Black's name and twilight years up till now. And, yes, since you ask, I am buying the Steyn line on his former boss and friend.

If you view one thing on the internet this week, I recommend this, a Bloggerheads discussion between Robert Wright and Eli Lake. Bloggerheads, in case you are wondering, is a site where two way video conversations are broadcast. Robert Wright's a liberal, Eli's a conservative journalist. Eli's embedded in Iraq, following the "surge" of US troops there; Robert's back in the USA. It's nighttime in Iraq when this is recorded, daytime in the USA. Eli's account is full of excitement and tension- the real thing in other words. (via Instapundit)

Also fascinating, to get into the mood of Lake's reporting, this from Michael Yon- Rattlesnake- embedded with the British army and active on night missions. Again, electrifying.

I should also add that I will be away for the next few days, visiting relatives. I may be absent from these pages for five days or so. Then again, maybe I won't be.

Ah, happy days. Some joke, perhaps? The BBC had it as their front page photo all day.

As Mark Steyn said about the BBC in a recent column, "On the European Union, on the Iraq war, on Northern Ireland, on Islam, on America, the BBC trends not merely well to the left of the Conservative Party but well to the left of Tony Blair’s New Labour."

Is the IPCC doing harm to science?

Look out for a big BBC climate change splash this weekend, unless that is they think the weather's too cold in London or they think people are looking the other way. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), you see, is due to release another climate change paper on Friday.

Der Spiegel have written an interesting analysis of the current state of play, explaining the international wrangling that goes on about the use of language, and how the EU (with the UK) has tended to have its way in hardening forecasts.

What struck me most was this concerning CC "denier" Richard Lindzen:

"Lindzen's arguments sound convincing, but they are still nothing but claims, popular theories as opposed to a transparent global process, a global plebiscite among climate researchers."

I grew up in a family headed by a scientist, and this was not the way I understood it should work. Politics and science just don't mix, which appears not to be good enough for some.

Oh, another highlight from the Spiegel article (unserious one), concerning Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC:


"When colleagues describe him they mention his beard, the way he combs his hair straight across his head and his diplomatic skills."

Ah, I think this is the polite German way of saying that he has a wicked comb-over.

Nations Run Deep : France's positive moment.

I've heard recently from several sources of an old quote from the perennially influential Adam Smith:

"There is a great deal of ruin in a nation"

True enough, but the corollary must be that there is a great deal of repair required from time to time.

I am glad to hear of Nicholas Sarkozy's victory in the French Presidential elections, but Commentary's Michael Gurfinkiel sounds a cautionary note, and with good reason.

It's difficult reading his analysis of the situation, with France dominated by elite bureaucrats in Government, and by numerous, youthful and active Eurabian inmigrants on the the ground, to see how Sarkozy will be more than temporary respite for France. Maybe he will show people what needs doing- ie. a massive and alien revamping of France's political culture and social ideas. It's doubtful that he can actually do this himself, but perhaps he can be a trailblazer who buys France some time.

It would be nice for Europe if he can be more than that.

My comparison of the French situation with that of Britain, meanwhile, would be that while the French need to swallow their pride and accept alien solutions to their problems (and I mean more traditional Anglo-Saxon ones), Britain needs to awake to its own interests and show even greater robustness in its elected War on Terror. What we have seen in France is creeping Islamisation; in Britain we are vulnerable to the sudden terrorist shock. The French need to take their self-imposed blinkers off; the British to wake up. Neither is in a good position, but the French have taken a step forward today, undoubtedly.

By the way, I rather enjoyed the sour grapes BBC comment that "the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris says he will have to work hard to unite the French, and try to win round those who voted against him". Clearly since this vote was a choice of two philosophies, it would be a betrayal of Sarkozy's voting base to pander to the Royalists. But that's, I expect, the Beeb's only consoling consideration at the moment. I wonder whether the Beeb will ever tire of their boilerplate.

Beeb-based observations

Ordinarily I ignore local elections. There seems to be a pretty good case for ignoring the most recent ones. That, one can imagine, is what the attuned folks at the Beeb concluded when they analysed the Conservative performance primarily through the prism of a notional national voting percentage barely increased on the previous year's less comprehensive local elections results (40ish percent versus 40ish percent). Yet there I was on Thursday night poring over the results at 3 in the morning. True, it was really just the consequence of insomnia- but somehow I had begun to care.

I wonder if others are beginning to feel that way? The Beeb are probably shuddering at the thought. A litmus test though of whether Cameron is really a statist or is actually a pretty good conservative liar would be whether (assuming- big assumption- his election in three years' time) the BBC was permitted to continue as the state sponsored global broadcasting monster which it has evolved into, or whether Cameron would engage in some conservative-minded natural selection of BBC functions, with the aim of stimulating the free media market.

Also in my mind during the coverage was the Beeb's very own Lothian question- where they gave primacy to the decision making processes of less than an eighth of the British population by headlining the elections to the assemblies in Scotland and Wales.

I wonder if that would have happened had Labour enjoyed a relatively relaxed Thursday night south of the border? It must be a comfort to lefty Beebites that they can always retreat to covering a truly leftist country when they need to get their breath back. Something similar has usually been true of conservatives in England- there was always the South East. Though we never had a giant broadcaster to cater for such escapism, news tends to follow the money, so...

I very much like Scotland, actually. The main reason, aside from motive, that I can't imagine ever locating there is the suffocating essentialness of the state to people's existences there. The same for me would apply to Sweden, probably Norway too. Where I currently reside, in the Czech Republic, the state has a bit of an image problem, having had a forty year term of office statifying (stultifying?) everything. The roll back from that is therefore instinctive and there's an instinct to leave alone; as well as the imperative of not actually being a very rich state to begin with.

I fear for Scotland though, or rather for its people. A retreat from the Union would be a fundamentally unserious step, a step towards EUification and away paradoxically from national identity. The fact that the deciding factor would be the opposition of the Lib Dems to such a move says it all really.

The Beeb thinking what I'm thinking, part deux.

The Beeb, it would appear, consider that the murder of Bob Woolmer may be linked to Islamic radicalism. According to this article via ATW

"PAKISTAN'S cricket coach Bob Woolmer may have been murdered after angering radical Muslims, according to a BBC investigation.

The Panorama TV show suggests some players followed the extremist Muslim movement, Tablighi Jamaat."

There is also the fact that "preliminary toxicology tests confirm Woolmer was rendered helpless with a powerful poison before being strangled."

Maybe in the light of these things I would venture to suggest that not only Islamic radicals linked to the team, but the team too, may be responsible for the murder.

Why? Because cricket is a very personal game- there's no other game where you are around the same people for such a long time, often engaged in idle chat and casual observation. The things Woolmer apparently criticised his players for were part of their lives and only the players would have heard them and felt their effects. Only the players, meanwhile, were going home to Pakistan to face the ridicule of their formerly adoring public. How to respond to the Englishman's "oppression" and save face at home?....

"Everybody's watching, everybody's gloating..."

-Sandmonkey on the world reaction to the political retreat of the US Congress and Representives from Iraq. In a fascinating interview with the ubiquitous Atlas the Egyptian blogger talks of a political thaw in Egypt following Bush''s reelection in 04, and a crackdown following the election of the Democrats last year. Some things needed to be above politics- unfortunately the pols lack the imagination for things like that.

Cat. Bag. Open. Heh.

Dangerously Good

If you're not following the Conrad Black trial as blogged by Mark Steyn for Macleans, I strongly suggest that you do. Writing with such unpolitical perspicuity Steyn does what the great satirical writers have always done: open their opponents to ridicule while remaining scrupulously observant. I suppose none of the jury will get to read any of it, but if they did...

Blogsweep

In which Max Boot makes it seem as though my pessimism on Iraq is premature (again), Dumb Jon makes most excellent and chewy toast of a former BBC journalist, while Norm Geras and Oliver Kamm demonstrate which of them is the Professor of Philosophy as they debate that high art, The Blog.

Ironic how the roles of philosopher king and man of letters are reversed- the academic offering tolerant and social solutions, the journalist offering draconian bloviation.

Then again, the US media could get worse (see below post).

Iraq revisited- what does go down the toilet.

Melanie Phillips has a fascinating post up on Iraqi WMDs.

Mmm. Kind of retro now, isn't it.

Yet I think it is instructive, and I have more respect for Melanie Phillips than for any other journalist.

It's almost a welcome relief to think about Iraqi WMDs than to think about mounting death tolls of US and British troops.

In truth I never expected anything else. I did hope for a miracle though, given that the goal was certainly a noble one. The really interesting thing is to reflect on the weakness of a military giant that can allow an insurgency to defeat it despite, and this is key, the overwhelmingly receptive nature of most Iraqis to an occupying force in place of a terrorist regime.

When you consider it, victory in Iraq is critical- yet it is not apparently happening. The opponents are very active- the Iranians, the Syrians, even the Saudis one suspects, at a distance. But America and its allies should have been able to enforce their will. So it's imperative to examine in detail why they haven't, and I'd start here:

"The docile US media, dependent as it is on government sources and handouts, is all too easily intimidated or bought off by pressure from a myriad different sources which all have their own conflicting reasons to suppress such politically damaging revelations. Too many important reputations in the media now rest on the ruthless suppression of the faintest possibility that they might have been wrong."

The US media, I would add, is docile when it comes to things which feed its preening narrative, and totally reactionary when it is contradicted. The poverty of the US media in understanding and reporting the stakes and the realties of the big wide world mirrors the starvation of intelligence which characterises the involvement in Iraq. Idealism remains, but is not enough. To know friend from foe and rightly estimate their designs is the key, and the media love throwing such realities down their toilets after the fashion of top mag Newsweek.

The Bias Masterclass

As an epicure of media bias, I have to link to a couple of recent posts from the well-known US blog Powerline. These lawyerly types are particularly good at highlighting the liberal bias of many media outlets there; the BBC's relentless pap represents a far tougher challenge here though.

Lesson One

Lesson Two

I may add more as they arise.

Allah's Moneyed Enslavers

I've not come across anything that exposes the utter evil of the people the US-led coalition are confronting in Iraq more than the story of a handicapped 13 year old, bought- yes, BOUGHT-, by Al-Qaeda to do its bidding.

It's Oliver Twist, Iraq-style, and instead of picking pockets, we find that the lad is assisting in attacks on US forces.

The difference in this story is that although motherless, like Oliver, unlike Oliver "Barack Muhammed" was sold by his father for 10,000 dollars.

Quite a lot of money, when you think about it.

Oh, "source" I hear you asking?

The UN, actually.

Thanks to the excellent Pamela from Atlas Shrugs for the link.

It's a little cruel, and perhaps slightly unwise, but I have to confess I found Allah very funny is his riff from the Iran debacle/kerfuffle/distraction.















I also have to confess that, though I should have known better, I thought young Batchelor was a girl. Those doe eyes!

ps. Devil's Kitchen, I notice, is a tad more up front along similar lines.

Compare and contrast

Zimbabweans write. Here and here.


"Every day, every night, hitmen in smart, unmarked vehicles arrive and drag people out their houses, or beat them senseless, because they don’t support the ruling Zanu PF."


"Mugabe has always left his people licking their wounds. He stops at nothing to take out his frustration, his anger and what he sees as his God-given right to lead on the people...The man jumps at shadows and orders his police and army, together with the CIO, the youth militia and the war veterans to beat his own people - the very ones that voted him into power."
[ I don't think Mugabe ever got in in a truly straight election process, even at the beginning there were thousands of reports of intimidation on big M's behalf- ed]

Comfy non-Zimbabwean western marxists write. Here and here


"Morgan Tsvangirai is a Western sponsored "terrorist", he plotted in London to assassinate Mugabe and overthrow the elected government. There is nothing democratic about the MDC, unlike the Mahdi army and Badr Brigades in Iraq, Hamas in Palestine or Hezbollah in Lebanon."


"Ever since veterans of the guerrilla war against apartheid Rhodesia violently seized white-owned farms in Zimbabwe, the country’s president, Robert Mugabe, has been demonized by politicians, human rights organizations and the media in the West."

Given the general apathy towards meaningful actions against Mugabe, given the laissez faire approach that has given the main role to quiet diplomat Thabo Mbeki, given the catastrophic (no understatement) decline of every aspect of Zimbabwean life taking Mugabe's reign in its totality, isn't it clear that far too much credit has been given already to the marxist take on that country, without the BBC giving it some more? (see where they link luscious lawyerly lefty Steph's blog- 1st marxist link above).

Kamm is rong

On, the contrary. to Kamm, most blogs are well ritten and a fare amount of time is given to rite spelling two.

But of course it isn't just that ;-). The blogosphere gives room for counterbalancing opinions to the dominant media. Really. Speaking as someone who was always antagonised by the BBC's simplistic socialistic version of Britain and the world, the blogosphere gave the first opportunity to fight back directly and honestly.

The Telegraph could be said to be the nearest thing to an opposition to the BBC, as long as one isn't hung up on the notion that the Times is Murdoch's personal Beeb-bashing vehicle. Yet the Telegraph has enjoyed journalistic contacts with the Beeb, swapping correspondents from time to time (Andrew Marr, for instance, has written for the Telegraph). It is also true that the Telegraph would probably be happy with a conservative-oriented state broadcaster, if such a thing be possible .

I would never be happy while a state organised news network retained centre stage in the British media. I was also deeply unhappy with the complicity of Dyke's BBC with New Labour, which is marginally less noticeable in today's corporation following the Hutton watershed. That's not to mention its closeness to the British Foreign Office with all its designs.

So, the blogosphere has given me the chance to say directly what I so deeply feel- that the BBC, through accident of history and malchance, has become a deeply rooted disseminator of half-baked reality.

Gazillionth confusing headline from the BBC

London attacks suspects in court

Yes, it's probably pretty unusual to wonder at this who Mr London is and why he has attacked people in court...

Happy Easter!

About that photo..

Claudia Rosett weighs in.

Aww, What a sweet little grandma...

Reality Checks

It's occurred to me that anyone regularly following this blog might imagine that I forget the issues I've taken an interest in once they're off the media radar. Well, Pakistan, Somalia and the vacuity of the modern Conservatives (dangerous in the light of the dangerous world we're in) are very much in my thinking.

Here's Douglas Farah on the looming menace of Pakistan-in-Afghanistan and vice versa, the Washington Post on the rising violence in Somalia (what a menace these jihadi are; what a rabble rousing, violent, coercive and devious bunch of evildoers), and Sean Gabb on Cameron's dodgy doyen, courtesy of the eponymous Fawkes.

Truth be told I've only been following the Pakistan situation passively, with a certain fear and trembling- such a vast potential for mischief, especially for the UK.

Clinton sets fundraising record
Pope 'moves closer to sainthood'

Headlines found side by side at teh BBC

Sweet, sweet article from Mark Steyn on the Iran hostage crisis, complete with LoL moments such as this:

"Patrolling the Shatt al-Arab at a time of war, the Royal Navy operates under rules of engagement designed by distant fainthearts with an eye to the polite fictions of "international law": If you're in a ''warship,'' you can't wage war. If you're in a ''destroyer,'' don't destroy anything. If you're in a "frigate," you're frigging done for.

"I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen. What we want is a way out of it - we want it peacefully and we want it as soon as possible."

So spoke Margaret Beckett today, according to the Beeb.

However I am not so sure that "everyone regrets" this situation. The Iranians certainly took their hostages deliberately, have not backed down, and have taken every opportunity to parade their captives and claim victory.

It's been disgusting how the BBC have alternated screenshots of the servicemen sitting in various poses, including one odious shot of them stuffing their faces with western style food. "eat, eat!", you can almost hear the minders saying.

Mind you, it's always interesting listening in to the Iranian discourse, as the above link to Memri enables. From it we get the old Islamic boilerplate about how the West wants them weak and puny, and is the big bad aggressor; with the twist that terrorist armies have explicit Iranian support and blessing, to put it mildly.

The truth is that Iran is weak and puny, but that is not the West's design. And like weak and puny people they are inclined to behave pathetically, as they did and do habitually in taking hostages, and to seek advantages way beyond their strength, as they do in furtively scrabbling for nuclear weapons. But weak and puny people will cave when pressure is applied, and strong action against them is a magnet for allies- who rather enjoy the spectacle of an idiot exposed.

Which leads me to suspect that in not taking a lead in demanding immediate sanctions from the EU Blair and Beckett have made a craven error. Note how the BBC covers this up nicely. While the Times exposes it faithfully.

Obviously absolute sanctions would just be a first, momentum building event, but they should be in place yesterday, or earlier. "Good" to hear from the BBC that our Euro-friends are standing "shoulder to shoulder" (odious phrase even when Blair said it; rank hypocrisy- and frankly up yours- coming from the EU in the circumstances).

"I have made up my mind, yes, but let me sleep on it first."

Bob Woolmer's last words to the media, to the BBC in fact.

Priorities and Consequences

"It is the welfare of the people that have been taken by the Iranian government that is most important."

So spoke Tony Blair recently when faced with the Iran hostage crisis (something familiar in the ring to that?). Some have noticed a degree of brave rhetoric from Blair generally, but it's these little nuances you have to watch. If the welfare of our servicemen were most important, they wouldn't be there at all. If that's Blair's priority then we'll give the Iranians whatever they want. But probably what they want is to weevil their way into the British diplomatic and military system. Are Blair and Beckett clever enough to stop them? Ahem,, I don't think so.

I think the BBC are thinking what I'm thinking about the Woolmer case, which happens, occasionally.

Manual asphyxiation. Entire team fingerprinted. More than one person necessary for the killing to take place, according to police; the death of Bob Woolmer, coach of the Pakistan cricket rabble, is looking more and more suspicious.

Still, at least they beat Zimbabwe. It really is sad how destroyed a sport can be.

Peter Briffa brings a personal perspective, or retrospective.

Commonsense, wit, openness, generosity- all qualites displayed by writer and journalist Cathy Seipp, who died on Wednesday at the age of 49.

I will miss that click. Her work is archived though, here.

Sorry for my absence.

I've been really busy and then when had an hour or two a strange phenomenon of non-connectivity came over my computer. Back now.

I have been taking a few mins most days to follow Mark Steyn's coverage of the Conrad Black trial.

Following this and some of the stuff surrounding the Scooter Libby trial makes me wish America had a Dickens to follow these Jarndycian affairs. No offence to Mark Steyn, he's doing a great job, and maybe the novel is waiting until later, as it was with Dickens.

Time for some big thinking

Mark Steyn in full vindication mode following some criticisms of his demographically based book, America Alone, links to this UN study of population trends.

Life's going to be interesting, I think.

Just a selection of my favourite of Meccawood's latest towerblock busters, as found via DumbJon and supplied by Right Wing News



Alahu Akhbar Cinema

Now showing! :

Fatwa Gump
4 Beheadings And A Funeral
Throw Israel From The Train
Indiana Jones & IN THE NAME OF ALLAH WE SHALL AVENGE THE LAST CRUSADE. PEACE BE UPON YOU.
Martyring Private Ryan
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Abu Ghraib
Honey, I Martyred the Kids
Ali Wonka and the IED Factory
Schindler's List Never Happened Either
The Good, The Bad And The Infidel

The serious questions of cultural hegemony and the inability of much the world to entertain itself (perhaps it should try feeding itself first) remain, of course.

"He won’t go to jail. My bet is he’ll go to the UN."

Ah, the French President on the world political stage. C'est manifique.

Another area of interest

The "surge" in Iraq. Working? Well, Robert Kagan thinks so.

View it HERE! The Great Global Warming swindle, I mean. It's extremely watchable, engaging, and mostly cogent.

Apparently one of the scientists interviewed has cried foul- Prof. Wunsch. His contribution was modest and limited in scope, as well as being largely informative. Naturally the Indie gives the story its usual unspun and unbiased treatment. Ahem.

The Intelligent and the Tragic

Not to denigrate the potential of Africans, but I think this story highlights just how tragic a plight can be. Of course, many Africans are also reasonably comfortable, though not in our terms. The BBC did well to highlight it: in certain parts of Africa it's a commonplace story- but I can almost hear her saying, "It's me, Mary, you know, me, me!"- and it's certainly not restricted to Zimbabwe.

Niall Ferguson puts together a rational survey of the general malaise of Africa, and in particular Ghana.

In my view, colonialism-lite would be the best policy for us, operating through churches (I would say faith-based charities but wish to exclude Islamic ones and politicised charities). Churches are something Africans generally understand and welcome, and the power structures are amenable to their local cultures.

The maverick climate-change deniers are examined in some detail by Brian Micklethwait at Samizdata. A good post, which addresses the concerns I had about the reliability of the documentary makers. Summary: who cares who made it if they spoke truth to power. Or, as Brian puts it:

"If a mad, not-to-be-trusted person says something true, there is still the matter of its truth to be considered. "

Generally speaking I would like to vote Conservative, but sometimes they've been too pathetic a shower to allow for it.

When Dave Cameron (yes, I'm still angry about the sacking of his shadow minister Mercer- see below post) was spouting his green credentials to the heavens recently I said to myself that sooner or later his judgement was going to be exposed on that issue. There's no way the reality matches the hysteria.

It looks as though that time has come sooner rather than later with the devastating documentary on Channel 4- The Great Global Warming Swindle- yesterday exposing the shallowness of global warming science. Dave could suffer serious credibility loss as this sinks in. Melanie Phillips has a grand summary up of the main points covered, so that even though I myself didn't see it I can tell how powerful the message was.

"The Great Global Warming Swindle has blown an enormous hole in every fundamental claim made to support the climate change obsession — including the claim that the argument is over."

Do read it all. Perhaps the most interesting thing for me is that it got made by Channel Four, maverick to the core it would seem.

What's left when this is right?

The Cameron bandwagon rolls on, and who cares if a little baggage falls off on the way?

Patrick Mercer, veteran high ranking officer of Bosnia and Northern Ireland, and MP close to my neck of the woods in the UK, just became inexpedient to his master Dave. Or rather he became another useful example to be made.

Dave really makes my blood run cold sometimes, and this is one of them. It is, of course, a rearranging of the deck chairs, but Cameron's contempt for a man's career and reputation is just awesome. That's as it's meant to be, I suppose.

Real impressive, Dave, you pampered little Etonian Oxbridge druggie. Check out the class dumping on show:

"The comments made by Patrick Mercer are completely unacceptable and I regret that they were made. We should not tolerate racism in the Army or in any walk of life. Patrick Mercer is no longer a Shadow Minister.”

Ooh err. How tough and hard and cruel that Dave is. Sexy!

Now, of course, Cameron is operating by certain rules of the game. You know, thou shalt be cool with the perceived moraes of the drifting mainstream, oriented towards that shrinking cohort of youth which everyone aspires to be cool with.

This is electorally smart but fundamentally foolish, if you aspire to actually do your country some good. For one thing there are clever and resourceful people who will not forget these kinds of bloodletting sacrifices to political correctness.

For another, unlike Dave, other people do live in a world that is not simply about deckchairs and their latest rearrangement. It's clearly true in Britain, and even more blatant elsewhere. There are people in Britain who cannot draw comfort from a label of minority, who are unable to follow the banal and emptied pieties of correctness, who can't make sense of it and who find the likes of Dave's mean media morality discouraging and depressing. If they don't raise their voices it's because it all seems way over their heads, and Dave obviously knows they can be safely ignored. Yet how safe is a cowed native populace?

Dave frets that Mercer compares army discrimination against blacks manifested in nasty names like "black bastard" with discrimination against redheads with nasty nicknames like "ginger bastard".

Dave, of course, is neither black nor ginger. I'd like to know exactly what makes him an expert on the feelings of black people, since he clearly wouldn't give a monkey's for the feelings of less seriously "different" sorts. I realise he's choreographed some trips in Africa, which isn't difficult when you have a political machine behind you. I don't know how qualified I am to comment, but I am red headed, have lived in- and adored- Africa, visited aids sufferers and slums, and dated several black ladies (in Europe) whom I respected and even could claim to have loved- so I do feel qualified, at any rate. Dave has also never been in the army. Dave merely pronounces.

Mercer was talking from experience. I don't expect he made anything up. Dave, meanwhile, is himself a piece of fabrication. He actually scares me: a puffed up piece of vanity propelling himself on a specious notion of power, a hydrogen balloon of pr. guff who will go off with a bigger pop even than Blair- and sooner. I once punched a guy who acted like Dave Cameron- probably the only decisive act of violence of my volition in my life. It felt great, and it was actually the right thing to do- which blew me away completely, and the other guy too.

What about Lord Black?

I wanted to link to this article by Mark Steyn because I have always been interested in Lord Black, since long before he was a lord. He made the newspaper world in Britain far more dynamic than it otherwise might have been. That dynamism is probably why it's so far ahead of its US rivals in adapting to the internet, and why, still, Britblogs are way behind the Dailies- with the exception of a certain Mr Fawkes.

Black lived it big, but not clever. If he'd been as cunning as most top execs he'd have been in a more lucrative business where hundreds of millions are available without the green-eyed onlookers prying in.

I also link to this article because it's a great read from a great writer.

And by the way, the Black story hasn't gone away yet, unlike his millions and his direct legacy.

A couple of interesting snippets, one from Mark Steyn's letters page:

The published total GDP of the entire 22 nations the Arab League in 2005 went to 1.05 trillion dollars and it only got to that point as a result of 60 plus dollar a barrel oil prices. Iran is not a member of the Arab League and their GDP was 352 Billion dollars so for all of these 23 nations, the total is well under 1 1/ 2 trillion dollars! Interestingly, to put that into perspective, Italy's total GDP for the same period was 1.765 trillion dollars. Now they have a nice agricultural background and a little bit of manufacturing and they are still way ahead of the entire Arab League.

And then there's this: Soros buys Halliburton. Surely a bit early for April Fool's? (via Samizdata)

Still, hypocrisy is in the air at the moment. One of the world's leading politicians with a reputation for not giving a damn about the environment has in fact taken great care to contradict that image- privately. I suppose the inverse of hypocrisy must be something quite opposite- such as modesty. I actually knew about Bush's enviro-friendly house three or four years ago, but I think it's indicative of the way "good news" about Bush has been communicated (by his administration) and received (by the media) that it is news only now.

Whereas one of the great nearly-men with a reputation for being very green-fingered has in fact been turning a carbon friendly red before the gaze of the world's media; that which can be bothered, anyway. (Thanks to Peter Glover for his great new site).

The booze is back in town...

Good news from Pajama clad Iraq the Model.

Islam vs...Robert Frost

A thought inspired by three unfortunate travellers (who will not be telling their stories years from now).















TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth; 5

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same, 10

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back. 15

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference. 20

French Lesson

"The great lesson of this story is that nothing is set in stone – antagonisms that we believe are inscribed in marble are not eternal."

Indeed, Jacques Gilles. But must it not also follow that allies are not chiseled in stone either? EU Ref. is following the story of the Eurohistory boys.

Sorry for the absence of posts at the moment... I'm away this weekend and very busy, but I'll be back with more very soon.

Tricky language, English.

I came across a little item from Robin Aitken at BBC Radio 4's Today website, and the phrasing of its description, though unexceptional, amused me. Aitken's the man whose book is doubtless embarrassing all the right people at the Beeb. A video of his comments, filmed by Doughty St., can be seen at Biased BBC here. The item:


"Jackie Elliott
Robin Aitken's interview with Jackie Elliott before he was executed"

I can't remember anything about Jackie Elliott, but I think Aitken has so far survived Auntie's ire, so I suppose Elliott's a gonner and Aitken is merely in a critical condition.

"the prospect of a world that, if Maugeri is correct, can sustain itself indefinitely on fossil fuels—even as it pursues new forms of cleaner burning energy—is enough to drive many environmentalists, who have spent their lives combatting smog, absolutely batty."

Jeff Goldstein on the latest difficult reality for the "reality based" to swallow. Gulp.

Still playing cricket...

One has to admire the gentleness of the response a man like Robin Aitken to the BBC's endless provocations.

Wearing a white checked shirt and what looks like a pair of cords for his Evening Standard photo, Aitken, promoting a book, catalogues an extraordinary string of experiences had while doggedly retaining both right of centre political views and his job at the BBC. One feels that his forward defensive might be a joy to behold.

"From the sugar queues the police, army and Gezi youths go to the road blocks and from there to the scramble for fertilizer or the lines for maize meal. And everywhere you look the feeling is of the increasingly fragile hold on control. In this one week over 170 women from Woza were arrested for Valentine protests; teachers union leaders were arrested and 14 student union leaders were arrested. Seven years of misery are coming to a head."

Just the latest moving news from Zimbabwe.

An interesting possibility noted by Israellycool here

Do you recognise this face from anywhere?

"The Italian language is the language of song, German is good for philosophy and English for poetry. French is best at precision, it has a rigour to it. It is the safest language for legal purposes...The language of Montesquieu is unbeatable." - CPLDE leader Maurice Druon

The above quote comes from the latest salvo in a campaign to make French the sole language of law in the EU. (via Language Log)

I doubt very much that this is a good idea.

For one thing French was the language of diplomacy in part because its vagueness allowed for all those fudging compromises which glued together the fissiparous European peace (for a while).

For another, the extreme receptiveness of English has absorbed and adopted both French and Latin legalisms and created a virtual language within a language for use in legal contexts. It's made to measure, so to speak.

The problem could be that it's not made to measure for the EU- which is basically another of those relatively frequent admissions that the EU is a kind of greater France, a fulfillment of the Napoleonic fantasy. British English adapted a form specifically to cope with the realm of Common Law, and the Froggies think they've finally found a less sticky wicket to play on where they can promote their language without looking like nutcases (more or less).

Regarding the quote from M. Druon, "English for poetry"- I can't quite believe he means this, and not just because he's French. The man is certainly betraying his ignorance; there are approximately nine words to rhyme with that most central of poetry's abstract nouns, "love"

I suppose M. Druon would make us really the unacknowledged legislators of the EU, which would, no doubt, put us at the heart of Europe as well- metaphorically speaking.

To end on a serious note, in case it seems that this political fixing is just a joke, it's good to remember that the European Court of Justice already uses French as its working language, for no apparent reason other than its location in Luxembourg. From this irrational toe-hold, the French are apparently trying to get their whole foot in the door.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Breaking news from the BBC:

LATEST: Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov wins Turkmenistan presidential election. More soon. (ie. they'll tell us the rest of his name).

Interviewing Mr Klaus

The Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, is one of the few decent politicians on this planet:

"Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't."

Proof here

Wow- this is a fantastic way to start an article:


"The more I think about “global warming”, in light of the most recent United Nations report, the more confident I become in averring that it is a fraud, a political stunt, a criminal imposture, that every intelligent journalist should be helping to expose."

From the great David Warren- continue reading here. Think I'll go and read the rest now... [update: immensely well worth the time]

The Wise Consensus:

The DT's Farndale mulls Cameron's Eurostance via the fancies of Brian Walden:

"Tories who talk about withdrawal from Europe are wasting their energy and ensuring that their party will never be re-elected. They should accept that we are in Europe to stay. The deed is done. But he added this: if you don't like the idea of the EU, simply bide your time. Eventually its own internal contradictions and absurdities will make it implode."

That's a good example of how the British "thinking" classes are so completely letting down their nation. Do they really imagine that implosion of the EU would be painless for us, while we were inside? Is it in any way sensible to tie our medium term policies to an entity whose guarantees are likely to be acrimoniously voided? If this is in fact not the real view of the "thinkers", what kind of a unified Europe can be expected to emerge? More importantly, what kind of Britain would shape up to be a part of it (I think we already have part of the answer with increased- indirect especially- taxation, ID cards, surveillance cameras etc)?

The BBC and truth agree at last:


"Back to cold war?
By Rob Watson
BBC defence and security correspondent, Munich

The Munich security conference was born in the 1960s - the height of the Cold War. Forty years on, there been talk of a new chill"

Meanwhile, back in darkest Russia:

"The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again."

Rather an interesting snippet from Birmingistan

Via Mel as it happens, author of Londonistan, here is a richly realistic view of a neighbourhood in Birmingham.

Too much to quote, but a perspective encompassing radicalised mosques, burkhas, self-segregation, coercive and exploitative arranged marriages, and polygamy- not to mention terrorism and jihad; all in Enoch Powell's backyard.

“They say we’re being victimised. We’re not. The truth is coming out at last, but it’s 20 years too late.”

Journalist Mary-Anne Sieghart seems to have sat down with the Pakistani- or rather, British- lady interviewed and listened long and hard over a coffee or two. That's the stuff.

Cameron: Not a good thing

I haven't completely decided what my view of Conservative leader David Cameron is, but I don't think he's a good thing.

I was struck by a quote made by his spokesman in response to critics from the Cornerstone grouping of MPs:

"ultimately, the party has got to change and be relevant to modern Britain. Edward Leigh is completely wrong".

I have little doubt Cameron knows how to ride the beast of modern Britain, for a while, but I think the Conservatives need to think not just of "modern Britain", but of Britain in the world. "modern Britain" in any case is an abstraction and as such a luxury. Leigh cannot by any means be said to be "completely wrong". Blinkered and myopic from the Con. leadership: that's not a good thing.

The Middle East: an end to US primacy? Good.

Jonathan Marcus of the BBC exemplifies the MSM commentator's urge to explain breathlessly the myriad ways W miscalculated in his Iraq "adventure".

"The US invasion of Iraq and its quest to spread democracy throughout the region has had a series of profound but unintended consequences. Of these, the most important is the rise of Iran."

Ah yes, those "unintended consequences" of the "quest". Oh how dreadful that we're hearing so much about Iran.

Marcus sets off merrily enough as well, talking of "the barrage of bad news from Iraq"- no loaded language there then. I'll take "barrage of bad news" to mean "news the BBC is conveying".

The main contention of the article, though, is deeply contentious. Did the 2003 invasion of Iraq release Iran from fear and increase its involvement in the rest of the Middle East, or did it mean in fact that there was one less sugar daddy in the field and so terrorists had to look more directly to Iran for assistance?

To put it another way, isn't it good to talk about Iran?

Was it even the 2003 invasion that strengthened Iran- rather than the 1990 invasion and subsequent sanctions plus inspections which hamstrung Iraq, indirectly making Iran top dog?

Marcus devotes the rest of his article to demonstrating the weak position the US is apparently in, and how its era of "primacy" is over. Well, if you define primacy as preening over the powder keg and waiting benignly for it to explode in your face, perhaps so.

And if you think that the leadership of Bill Clinton, during the wait 'n' do nuthin but dabble nineties with his oh-so-successful Oslo accords and schmoozing with Arafat (with Monica under the table), was strong, then fine.

I prefer to define my primacy differently. So sod off, al-Beeb- go and sell it to Bashar, instead. No difficulty there.

Apologies for the lack of posts. I plead unusual busyness, physical unwellness, and a few items of bad news which have had me preoccupied.

I've still kept in touch with news online, I think. One the issues that really involves me emotionally is the Iraq situation- everything seems quite emotional to me at the moment.

This, for starters, is an insightful foray into understanding one part of the Iraq insurgency- coming from a man who has subsequently been killed. More of his work here. I wonder, partly in the light of this, whether some individuals in the Coalition are targeted for their effectiveness- implying a kind of surveillance and intelligence operation against the Coalition. Could be.

Then I was also moved by this account of a true shahid (martyr) in Iraq.

Tim Montgomerie makes an excellent point:

Right-wing commentators may despair at the drift of “their” party towards the BBC world view but they are wrong to lay all blame on the shoulders of David Cameron. The Tory leadership lacks the resources to change cultural attitudes that have been carefully nurtured by lavishly funded quangos, the universities and other pillars of today’s Establishment.


Read the whole thing.

Just a repost of something I posted at B-BBC, but I consider really encapsulates the BBC's bias:

---------

The reason is the death of hope, caused by a cocktail of Israel's military activities, land expropriation and settlement building – and the financial sanctions imposed on the Hamas led government which are destroying Palestinian institutions that were anyway flawed and fragile.

The "death of hope", eh? Sounds pretty comprehensive to me.

I thought about the leaked email from Jeremy Bowen when I made comparison between this November 2006 BBC report of a Christian exodus from Bethleham, and this January 07 article from the Jerusalem Post. What you notice as the BBC journalist attempts to explain a massive lurch from Christian to Muslim domination is that somehow Israel is to blame for it. Two thirds of the article is devoted to the actions and restrictions meted out by Israel.

Most pathetic is the attempt made to tick the old "public/private" box when interviewing the locals:

"Publicly Christians here insist there is no friction with the Muslim majority.

Earlier this year though the Islamist Hamas movement came to power.

And in private some say they now dress more conservatively. There have also been fights between Christian and Muslim families."

Mmm- it would seem these "fights" were a little one-sided, given statistics which show that what was once an 85% Christian town is now 15% Christian (must be all the Jews moving in and grabbing land as usual, eh, Jeremy?).

Maybe the BBC could learn a little more, and so could we, from attending to the report (a second link here to the JP's eyeopener) of Palestinian Muslim Khaled Abu Toameh. The brutal truth is out there, Aunty, but you don't care.

"A number of Christian families have finally decided to break their silence and talk openly about what they describe as Muslim persecution of the Christian minority in this city.

The move comes as a result of increased attacks on Christians by Muslims over the past few months. The families said they wrote letters to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, the Vatican, Church leaders and European governments complaining about the attacks, but their appeals have fallen on deaf ears."

Feeling a bit environMental

Or, rather, since I could be driven (environ)mental by the sheer redundancy of the thinking of most in the environmental lobby, I was pleased to hear from the lovely Mary Katharine Ham about the release of a new film exposing environmentalists as empty-headed, prejudiced, and pampered. It's called "Mine Your Own Business" and its promo website is here.

I also responded to one of the more foolish BBC articles on environmentalists' concerns about "compassion" for sharks, in the longish post you will find below.