I'm saying nothing: David Frum comments on the Galloway libel triumph (ahem).

Bill's Library- you know what I'm talking about.

I remarked on this earlier, but I've found the perfect antidote. Admittedly slightly for the broadminded, this account of Bill's library goes some way to redressing the BBC's sycophantic extravaganza.

About Ukraine:

I haven't commented about Ukraine. It worried me though I know little about the country. However, this looks like great news. Just the Christmas present I could wish for Eastern Europe.

Politics and Poetry, did I say? (I mean the tagline for my blog). Well, I thinks this qualifies, and this poem definitely appealed to the non-weenie in me (naturally the overwhelming part).

Losing no opportunity to bash the US (which has supplanted the old BBC habit of running down the UK), with an extra tweak to the nose of the US' partner in 'crime', the BBC enlists one of its old favourite tactics: the dignified voice of a distinguished figure, in this case Sir Edmund Hilary.

This time around it's an Antartic road being constructed by the US, and Britain's lack of support for the preservation of Scott's old huts that takes centre stage. What I object to is the generalisation:

'New Zealand mountaineer Edmund Hillary has strongly criticised the activities of the US and Britain in Antarctica.'

At this point we're assuming some kind of environmental debacle (I say assuming because of the relentless barrage of enviro-propaganda that is directed at blackening the name of the US)- but this is far from clear as we read that the road is designed to reduce air-traffic, about which there has been a lot of hot air (does anyone remember Chirac's beauty sleep on 'the way' to Russia?)

Maybe the Mail has a take on this, I don't know, but the broad brush seems to me to work pretty effectively here: anything for Auntie to whip those naughty Pols into shape.

Not so marginal.

Blog it may be, but the EU Referendum (strangely, inexplicably? I think not) has its finger on the pulse of what's happening in the world. In this case the real politic of the England trip to Zimbabwe. I concur with every word.

More on that European Weakness...

I suppose to some people it seems like the US dominated or influenced WWW is unjustly critical of Europe. I suppose it seems like US commmentators are always taking collumn inches to boast of superior US-this or that, or more likely, inferior Euro-this or that. That's despite a generally falling dollar and a huge deficit that no doubt those same Euros wish would carry a real sting for US citizens.

However, this is another example of the kind of thing that needs saying- from Gerard Baker of the Times writing in the Weekly Standard. It's possible there is some kind of gathering storm in Europe, and that possibility is really only being taken seriously on the other side of the Atlantic, if at all. Bush's itinerary for his visit to Europe might be very important indeed.

Meanwhile the BBC has brought us Che Guevara's travels in Africa, Russian Jews returning to Russia, and an Aborigine bunfight arising from some sort of tragedy. That's just a small sample of what the BBC considers news. Not uninteresting, but not essential. In other words, their ideological approach to broadcasting is keeping them somewhat at the margins in terms of providing a guide to world events. Yes, they cover Ukraine (how could they not?) but Aunty's ideology combined with their Foreign Office-style diplomatic avoidance of certain kinds of controversy leaves our understanding- left to itself and the BBC- somewhat darkened.

Meanwhile, this article becomes another of the BBC's contributions to the doom and gloom anti-Iraq war movement simply by changing its title: just now it's not about a weapons haul, weapons labs or victory in Fallujah, it's about two US soldiers being killed. Presumably the BBC thinks that's a potential lead on a new story- the battle after the battle (after the much earlier battle) of Fallujah.

There's also this cunning little juxtaposition in the same article:

'The US claimed Falluja was a centre for foreign fighters who had come to Iraq to fight the coalition.

Earlier this week, Iraq's interim defence minister said 60 Arab fighters were among those arrested in Falluja.'

So what can we figure out from those figures I wonder? What does the BBC want us to figure?

The Blog's The Thing:

Forgive me for posting something simply because I enjoyed it so much, but this Powerline post just tickled me greatly and reminded me why the heading of this post is appropriate. Ok, so I am an enthusiast for Shakespear, Powerline and the death of Arafat- but, well, really. By the way I see they've put Mark Steyn's comment as a permanent feature of their page- it's a good one (I'm missing him already):

'"Everything that's wrong with American newspapers is summed up by the fact that these guys do it for free and their disparager, the pompous windbag editor at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, gets paid for it."
--Mark Steyn, Columnist extraordinaire '

Freedom's cry goes hunting:

Perry De Havilland really hits the nail on the head (well, several nails actually) in this post about the Government's appalling campaign to ban hunting with dogs.

This is the central problem with Britain today: that Government assumes too much authority. Of course it's linked to all our other problems, like the dependence of people on the State for the organisation of their lives, or the need for the State to seek greater and greater association with larger entities such as the EU (these two trends are naturally twinned).

But basically, the need of the day is for them (the Government) to get off my case and the cases of millions of sane and responsible people, and start worrying about some of the responsiblities they have to fulfil rather than the rights which being ensconced in Parliament enables.

Bush the Basher:

Nice article from Charles Krauthammer outlining the freedom and the forcefulness of GWB as he lays out his administration and its goals. A lot rests on the success of this second four years, especially at a time when Europe is so chronically weak. This point, especially Europe's weakness for Islam, is made admirably clearly by Chuck Colson (via Veritas)

It does seem as though one way or another Bush will stretch the liberal establishment to breaking point, which is a great prospect.

For thoughts about the relative weakness of Europe, and the relative dynamism of the US, GDStQ gives it a pretty good go.

Headlines for your friends.

Now CNN is not, I think you will agree, the scourge of the liberal establishment- yet they know how to frame headlines (and indeed articles) as a matter of course that don't confer an unwarranted respectability on the subject of the article, that don't show that institutional regard that one pillar of the liberal orthodoxy has for another.

The BBC is different. Institutional in such a way that they may determine the qualifications for institutionality, they can say 'Clinton due to open his library', and we all say, 'of course, Clinton's Library- what could be more proper than to mark its opening with an official ceremony and a party led by the likes of Bono and The Edge?' (of whose involvement the BBC religiously informs us).

CNN don't mention Bono or The Edge (the BBC there seemingly doing their bit for intra-U2 equality). Instead they major on the different reactions of the public to Clinton's portentious statement.

No, we don't just get Clinton's whine that people didn't focus on what he did in government (he should count himself lucky they got distracted by what he did, so to speak, on the side), we also get partisan supporters who look absurd: '"We had to show this was a systematic attempt by Republican leaders to de-legitimize Bill Clinton and the administration," said former Clinton adviser Bruce Lindsey'. IN otheer words, we get to know that this is a rankly partisan attempt to shape or possibly reshape, the way history is seen. Good luck to them- they'll need it.

The BBC, by contrast, sound like the tourist guide- who designed it, who opened it, what's inside, and what Bill thinks of it. Ok, ok, ok, Beebies- what I want to know is, 'what's going on here?' You always pride yourselves in reading between the lines of the VRWC, so what's with Clinton's Library that you might as well be quoting admission prices?

But, anyway, to move on- how's about that other grossly fat sacred cow, the UN? How comes it that CNN can rightly entitle their piece 'Rare U.N. meeting on Sudan', whereas the BBC proudly declare : 'Sudan conflict under UN spotlight' .

In other words, 'never fear, the UN are here' versus 'about time too and shouldn't we have done this last year?'

A)Which is closer to the truth? B)Which shows an attachment to the way things are that betrays them as pure establishment?

"Well, Britain gave its support, but I did not see much in return."-

Jacques Chirac (presumably speaking in French or demonstrating his ignorance of the subtleties of English tenses) referring, as is his wont, to Iraq.

Alas, I'm pretty sure it's not only English tenses that Jacques is ignorant of- it's also the extent of his own isolation.

Let's assume for a moment that Britain hadn't backed the US. That could have severed us from much more loyal friends, like Australia for instance, not to mention the States themselves. Why would we want to do that? For a cold French shoulder to cry on, as usual? Of course the US might have delayed longer without Britain, but alternatively they might have gone sooner, since it was TB who played the friendship card to force an attempt to placate the same UN that had been (we now know) infiltrated so badly by the wishes of the Iraqi despot through Oil-for-Food. Had the US gone in sooner, the success might have been more complete, including such things as WMD stockpiles as a bonus. Still, despite our hesitation, it was the right course of action, and we can retain close ties with two newly re-elected Anglospheric leaders for some years as a result. It's also the case that much of Europe was closer in spirit to the UK position than to that of the French- as was witnessed by their inability to remain silent.

So, Chirac's wrong. We've retained more than we've lost by the Iraq invasion, even in narrowly diplomatic terms- let alone the longer term fruits of democratic change, or change anyway, in the Middle East.

But of course it was right anyway to support and facilitate the ousting of Saddam Hussein, terrorist sugar daddy and inveterate plotter against the UK and US, whose regime was always personal in pursuing its vendettas, and cunning to boot.

Meanwhile, Roger Simon follows another hypothesis.

Bigger than you thought: that's UNScam, not Lord Black's alleged misdemeanours; though to look at the BBC's website you'd think Lord Black's champagne lifestyle the only 'fraud' going. It would be so much more a mark of a serious broadcaster were those priorities to be reversed

The BBC, true to their personality obsession, are more concerned with Colin Powell's significance (which has always fascinated them) than with the significance of Saddam's illicit billions. The protectiveness such selectivity shows towards Galloway and the French in particular is touching. One for all and all for one. Galloway, incidentally, happens still to be pursuing the Telegraph in the courts. I wonder if there is a theme emerging here.

The little things they say...

I had to laugh as I followed Martin Asser's account of preparations for Yasser's burial, as it entered another purple patch patch with the following:

'The roar of bulldozers and the shrill "beeb, beeb, beeb" of their warning signals mingled with the mournful sound of funerary verses from the Koran floating over Mr Arafat's Muqata compound throughout Thursday.'

Indeed, it would be just like the BBC to seek a formal role in eulogising the dead wannabe despot, and lamenting his demise, but I think it was just an unfortunate choice of expression, a freudian slip perhaps.

The passage I quote now represents the only inkling of irreverence towards the former Arafat:

'But that may leave only about three hours for the general public to pay their respects to a man who - for all his faults and failings - is acknowledged to be the father of their struggle for independence.'

That's really Arafat warts and all, isn't it?

Meanwhile there is an interesting contrast between the way the non-cooperation of Egypt and Israel with the Arafat bandwagon is represented.

Of Israel, we are told that 'Israel for its part has refused to honour Mr Arafat's long-held wish to be buried in Jerusalem.'

Of Egypt, meanwhile, we hear that 'Palestinian officials say they had asked Egypt to keep the body until Saturday to avoid any crush - but Egypt, for its own reasons, refused.'

It's crazy world when it is not recognised why Israel might not wish to bury Yasser Arafat in Jerusalem, thereby making a whole new 'holy place' for the Palestinians to wrangle over with them. 'Refused to honour'- I don't like the sound of that; refused to allow a terrorist statesman to continue his malevolent impact on Israel sounds more like it to me.

But, although it might appear that Asser is ignorant of the impact a Jerusalem-buried Arafat mighthave, that's clearly not the case. Asser not only seems aware of Arafat's impact, he seems to celebrate it vicariously through thoughts about Arafat's own preference for publicity:

'For all its poignancy, this is probably a day that Mr Arafat would have relished.

An honour guard has been practising its final salute to Arafat
Back on the world stage again for a major international event after years being pinned down by Israeli forces in two rooms at the Muqata, just a stone's throw from his burial site today.'

It's really more of the old 'sins of the fascist Jewish-fascist conspiracy will come back to haunt them' trash that we've grown used to in the deaths of Yassin and Rantissi. Even the though the Israelis didn't kill Arafat (though, really, I mean, who knows? Room for a Beeb Beeb documentary perhaps?) the BBC are determined to blow on the grey embers of Arafat's legacy.

Update: I shouldn't have joked about the Beeb documentary. Given reactions like these, it's a matter of when not if.

Furthermore, the BBC website has headlined Asser's subsequent, burial effort, 'a people's burial'- echoes of Diana, methinks

An Obit For Arafat: Powerline cuts on the media crap to reach the man beneath (or so it seems to me).

An interesting contrast here between the coverage of France's troubles in the Ivory Coast from the BBC, and a more insightful approach from the EU Referendum blog.

For the BBC, the French are somehow refreshingly no nonsense, a sort of unAmerican, Socialist minded Indiana Jones, whose escapades must be reported indulgently. Chirac 'bangs heads' together, 'loses patience'- meanwhile the French UN 'mandate' goes unquestioned, when all they really did was strong arm a pliant pro-French organisation into sanctioning and aiding the defence of French colonial interests that have endured for more than a century. Equally unquestioned are the words of Governent proxy, Le Monde's Stephen Smith (*reassuringly Anglo for the job of excusing the French follie): "It is up to the international community to decide whether France is an obstacle or a factor for conflict resolution."

It is true that, of necessity given their coverage of Iraq, the BBC describe the situation as a 'quagmire', but the reality is that France, like some revered pensioner in international affairs, has been given a free pass.

Some superb analysis from Arthur Chrenkoff- who I normally associate with Good News, but who is capable of contemplating the other sort with equal grace. His takes on Fallujah & Kosovo at the moment are must-reads in my view. Especially his views on Kosovo, the dirty secret of the interventionist fringe.

One Step Ahead

That's the art of politics it seems to me: being one step ahead.

Bush was one step ahead of John Kerry; Howard one step ahead of Latham, and Blair is one step (or several) ahead of the Conservatives.

So what is it, to be one step ahead?

Well, Douglas Alexander, a relatively young Home Office Minister, demonstrates the 'touch' by his analysis of the US political situation and the lessons that can be drawn for a Labour Britain. Melanie Phillips, meanwhile, has been right about most movements of the zeitgeist for quite a while, and she picked up on Alexander's openness to the lessons Dubya's success can teach to make a prediction:

'it will once again be Tony Blair who grasps the need to appeal to the socially conservative centre (however bogus that appeal may be), while the Tories continue to commit slow political suicide by not recognising the need for such an appeal at all.'

Naturally I find this quite scary, especially as it relies in part on the success of an idea that Alexander calls 'manufactured' common sense. To me you don't manufacture commonsense, you appeal to it- which W. successfully did last week. It's one of the fundamental differences between a conservative and a socialist that socialists believe common sense can be 'manufactured'- a very different thing from, say, 'being learned by experience'. However, the lines do get blurred, as when a socialist describes 'creating a learning experience'. That's what Blair would like to do for us: create a learning experience where we associate Labour with Government, Pavlov-style.

Well, Alexander is at least one step ahead of The Conservatives, who couldn't recognise Dubya as anything except foreign to them and their values- and couldn't envisage any sort of synthesis of Republican success with Tory re-election (which wouldn't, you'd have thought, take a genius).

Another sort of 'one step ahead', a more exciting one, is demonstrated by Irwin Stelzer in the Weekly Standard. I've long suspected that W. was likely to be remembered as a great custodian of the US economy in a time of crisis. If Stelzer is to believed such a legacy is a certainty, and the UK and Europe are to be buffeted by economic waves- from China. If he's right then Bush will show, by the end of the next four years, that he truly has been one step ahead.

Election Reflection (late entry): Mr Free Market reminds me why he is so hilarious -especially when he gets his lettering in the right order- as he comments on seeing the election through the BBC lens.

Filled with Pain au Chocolat:

That's the experience of the French intervention in the Ivory Coast (the French describe that country somewhat autre). Read this article about Coastal unrest and you find human shields, 'friendly fire incidents', a local leadership you can't trust, French citizens as targets, and increased troop deployments to deal with unrest- and the big question that is looming over it all is 'why?'

The only thing I can imagine is that it's that pesky baking-military complex again and that it's all about cocoa.