Ahmadinejad, the blog.

That's right, according to Captain's Quarters (and it seems absolutely genuine)- and here it is (click the interesting English-American flag for the dodgy English language translation, if it's all in Farsi). What I like is that you can vote in Amad's online poll:

"Do you think that the US and Israeli intention and goal by attacking Lebanon is pulling the trigger for another word war?"

So far the 'no' vote is winning.

The below items are my thoughts about a report on Israeli potential 'war crimes' by Human Rights Watch. The influence of this organisation is in my view disproportionate and mainly malign. It's undemocratic and, with its apparently straightforward humanitarian approach, a useful crutch of legitimacy for organisations like the BBC and the UN. If you doubt the influence of it, look only to the UN's latest activity :

"The second special session of the Human Rights Council today strongly condemned the grave Israeli violations of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law in Lebanon and decided to urgently establish and immediately dispatch a high-level inquiry commission to the region."

An announcement which follows the recommendation (with a couple of minor adjustments) of HRW in the report below:

"Human Rights Watch urges the Secretary-General of the United Nations to establish an International Commission of Inquiry to investigate reports of violations of international humanitarian law, including possible war crimes, in Lebanon and Israel and to formulate recommendations with a view to holding accountable those who violated the law."

Logic Lacunae

Having followed up my intention to read the HRW (an organisation the BBC places so much trust in) report, within a few pages of text I had a little anger to let out (but I forced myself to read the rest).

Tigerhawk was much too soft (though I think he intended to make a specific point about equivalence).

HRW launches its manifesto against Israel by saying that Israel has "consistently" launched attacks against targets offering "limited or dubious" military gains.

Thus does a self-proclaimed movement for human rights declare its understanding of the aims and means of warfare to be superior to the seasoned Israeli armed forces.

Of course, the usefulness of a target must depend on the overall aims of the action. Supposing Israel aimed at the total destruction of Hezbullah? What would that do to our analysis of military effectiveness? How does HRW's presupposition about a legitimate end result affect their view of legitimate military action? Absolutely, I'd argue.

Unless HRW will state what they think Israel's aims should legitimately be, they are pissing in the wind (as usual). They won't say it because it's unacceptable: total surrender to the demands of the Islamic world.

And sure, the war is (has been) retaliatory and defensive, but does that mean that only specifically retaliatory action is allowed, or are the Israelis actually allowed to aim to win? (the answer to that is obvious by now)

Tigerhawk points out that, following the figure presented by HRW, Israel would be 'guilty' of striking civilians in less than 1% of cases, yet HRW refers to their "consistent" non-military attacks. By contrast, HRW claims that only "occasionally" did Hezbullah site its military machinery in civilian locations.

The report quickly descends into contradiction. Having stated that they found no cases where Hezbullah deliberately used civilians to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack, they admit that Hezbullah did use civilian locations for storage of weapons and military sites. Uh- what? Hezbullah don't use human shields, they just locate near civilians. They also admit that hebullah have fired rockets from among civilian habitations. HRW's 'deep concern' (which they assert later on in the report) about this phenomenon doesn't prevent them making such an absurd train of logic. (update: In this context this from Volokh is a useful link)

Perhaps the biggest weakness is in the methodology where they go into Hezbullah heartlands, ask the locals if there were any Hezbullah fighters present when the Zionists Jews Israelis attacked, and then accept the results as reliable evidence of Israel war crimes. Oh, sure, if the village they're in has 'Hezbullah regional HQ' signposted in it- they think twice. They spent two days in South Lebanon, upon which they based a fifty page report.

One oppressed villager they interviewed says, "“The positions of the resistance are around the village, not inside the village.”. Oh, right, so I suppose we ignore the almost certain reality that members of the 'resistance' go home for a kip every 8 hours or so, come back refreshed and ready to confront the enemy, while their 'barracks' remain strictly non-military?

The issues of barracks, provisions, supplying and other supportive actions are simply not addressed by HRW. All very well if Hezbullah locate some of their rocket launchers outside habitations, but isn't it militarily advantageous to them to rest, heal, water themselves and feed themselves among civilian populations- many of whom will lead dual existences- eg. farmer/freedom fighter?

Another thing the report mentions but gives little reassurance over is the issue of the Civil Defence Force- so-called. One seriously wonders what this does when not 'defending' lebanon (its very title, CDF, including as it does the word 'defence', could indicate a military role). Putting the matter another way, since in elections in 2005 Hezbullah's election coalition won 35 seats mainly in the South, they could reasonably be called the local Government of choice for the region. In that case, surely the CDF would be likely to do their bidding? Again, not part of HRW's calculation. Nor, naturally, is the fact that the 05 elections produced results which indicated the South was a.o.k with a militia-government.

Another issue is that of the 'foreign nationals'. For some reason a lot of them have become casualties in the latest war while vacationing near the border of Israel. There have been German-lebanese, Brazilian-Lebanese and Canadian-Lebanese. Although some seem to have been there in family groupings, it's very odd that they would be in such a region at this time when surely their savvy in leaving Lebanon arose from the unrest there in the past, and being international types they'd be very aware of the wider context. Weird that they'd head in and stay in at a time of such tension. Why locate abroad to escape unrest yet choose such a time to be there? And why not get out quick; globe trotters of that kind can't be so short of cash or initiative.

On the issue of the non-military nature of the victims and their localities the HRW are fundamentally confused. In some cases they state that no military activity had taken place in specific locations to justify Israeli strikes, in others stating no connections whatsoever, or no likely connections, between the victims and the Hezbullah- but they never define the dividing line between military and civilian (they'd have a job, with Hezbullah), or when a location becomes 'civilianised' after having had military usage ie. how many days a location must be without military activity (whatever that is) before it's a warcrime to strike it.

Just to come to the HRW conclusions, among them is that Israel must

"Scrupulously observe the principle of proportionality. Cease launching any attack that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

Notice how the principle of proportionality is to dictate the war aims of Israel, circumscribing it and giving the Hezbullah a neat and easy cut-out n' keep template by which they can predict how far Israel will go (metaphorically and physically) and construct their plans accordingly. (and, as we know from Olmert's meandering path to war goals and rather more straightforward path to the UN high table, they may have miscalculated, but not that much.)

"Sorry HRW", I want to say- "you're naive beyond belief. Credulous, cretinous, facile". But actually none of those applies- they are just on the side of Hezbullah and the deathly Western consensus against Israel.

But now, of course, comes my disclaimer. Not that the points above aren't valid, but that obviously people who are innocent get killed in wars- always have and always will. Israel has not been trying to kill those people though, and is as far from such a practice as any participant in a conflict has been.

One extra point:

Some of the problematic examples of bombing attacks are those on the roads. However, HRW's main suggestion seems to be that a vehicle with a white flag or a red cross should be immune from attack. Mmmm, very constructive for those fighting terrorists, and so insightful.

The John Bolton Interview.

Pamela from Atlas Shrugs got a 30 minute interview with John Bolton on the US' approach to the Lebanon situation. Must listening if you care about the subject.

Some good reading for you here (why say too much when others are saying it very well?)

Sometimes an outsider can say the things we can only feel:

James Lewis has a terrific piece for the American Thinker on the role the BBC has played in creating the society which is producing suicide bombers for Allah. It has been a vital piece of the establishment jigsaw which has made it so hard for Britons to think clearly about themselves and their place in the world; to have respect for themselves and to take responsibility appropriately. Now we rely on the technocrats to save us, and are grateful to them, but the source of trouble comes from deeper down in society, and does threaten to overwhelm it.

The case of Don Stewart-Whyte struck me as particularly indicative. Former grammar school boy (like me!), halfbrother to a model (not like me; I just date them) who apparently had never met his sister, he seems the very model of a muddled modern jihader.

But the media rarely reflect on themselves and the accuracy or worthwhileness of the messages they give out. The endless barrage of sensationalism obscures the fact that serious things are happening (and they don't just obscure them, they help create them). Reading this LGF special I reflected that to have a role in the MSM requires an instantaneous ability to fit the current news into the template of modern, liberal pietistic prejudices- hence the competition to make Israel's military action seem as 'disproportionate' as possible.

Live from an Israeli bunker looks brilliantly at the psychology at work. I have to say I see only bullying brusqueness in the muslim reaction to the attempted bombing, and the same kind of aggressiveness in the media concoction concerning the Lebanese situation. It's interesting the way the British dimension in the fostering of terrorism is beginning to impact people's thinking. One commenter criticises the blogger for getting his stats wrong concerning British support for Sharia- but the mistake is an understandable one.

ps. I meant to quote the Israelly bunker on the media, Olmert and Lebanon:

"France and the US drafted a UN resolution that both Israel and Lebanon seem to accept, it will be voted on in Israel on Sunday. Olmert whom I (now very regretfully) praised when I started this blog finds it agreeable and will recommend the government to vote for passing it. If it is passed the outcome of this war has been determined not by Katyusha rockets falling on Haifa and the north of Israel, not over a hundred Israeli casualties, not the 2 million Israeli citizens living in bunkers suffering sometimes up to 10 sirens a day (and a rather new occurrences of night-time sirens and rockets), but by propaganda."

Bush's master message

While on the one hand terror is biting, and on the other the latter day Leni Reifenstahls of the Islamic world are having their techniques analysed and sponsors challenged, Bush says something far and away different in character from his recent nuanced terms.

Reuters' report is brief but effective, as he talks of being "at war with Islamic fascists."

This as Joe Lieberman, the only pro-war Democrat of note aside from the veteran Zell Miller, is sent packing by his local Democrat voters.

I am convinced Bush knows what he's doing with the language he uses; he uses the opportunity of an invasion of reality to tell it like it is. He immediately shows up the Democrat left for the vacuous space it is; he sends out the message that he's got the Islamopaths' numbers. Just the one line at the right moment is all it takes.

... and as I posted this, Natalie at Biased BBC posted this

If all it takes is one line at the right time, all it takes is one overwhelmingly (self)important media organisation with an inbuilt bias to squelch it (but of course they will fail).

Don't be dummies

As someone brought up on fond tales of humanitarian derring do- at my Co E Primary school at least- I viewed international organisations like the Red Cross as wearing a kind of halo (as well as a cross). It's slipping. Badly.

I'm just flagging up this post from Richard North. Partly because it proves my point, partly because it deserves attention (a lot more than my link will give it), and partly because I'm working on a bit of a takedown (got to be modest here) of HRW's latest ant-Israel report. Generally speaking, the rot in one apple affects others.

"No more than they can we suppress
The universal wish to guess
Or slip out of our own position
Into an unconcerned condition."

Gotta love Auden. He's so quotable on isshoos, and in this case I want to refer to Human Rights Watch, big isshoo maestros of our day.

I was inspired though by this posting on TigerHawk, which recommends that we arm ourselves (figuratively) against the siren song of equivalence sung by the BBC's favourite pressure group. (via the Instapundit)

As we do so, as in all cases, it is worth keeping in mind the advice given by Auden in the poem quoted above. That's why the reactivity of blogs is their strength. Of their very essence is the acceptance of the 'concerned condition'.

Anyway, I intend to read this guff from HRW. Feel free to follow suit if it suits you.

(sorry for my lack of posts over the weekend and monday- I wasn't, unfortunately, at some glamorous location, but I was in fact buying a new lap top following my old one's disastrous lapses. Maybe now... at last... I can get blogging proper-like. Of course my lap top's not the only sometimes-faulty equipment- there's also me)


I recommend this article in The Business by ConservativeHome's Tim Montgomerie. It's heartening to find people getting closer to my views on BBC bias.

Whilst I do consider there is an anti-Conservative bias at the BBC, it certainly isn't consistent and is not usually blatant. Tim doesn't get stuck on that one, skirting neatly round it in the opening paragraphs concerning Fox News.

Tim gets full marks from me for identifying the BBC's core biases as lying in the foreign affairs realm, specifically concerning coverage of Israel and the US. He might have done more than mention Iraq, but gets marks for political awareness for this low-key approach. I would personally have been more direct, but Montgomerie says only that British servicemen are 'disappointed' by the lack of coverage of their positive work. Aah, very good- the patriotic approach to a serious BBC bias.

Coming to BBC anti-Conservative bias, he does so by a gate left open at the back, so to speak:

'Soon after David Cameron had abandoned traditional Tory support for lower taxation and public service reform he was subjected to a very tough interview on the Today programme. Can voters be sure you have changed? Isn’t this new policy inconsistent with what you were proposing at the last election? Those questions were the questions of the establishment. Missing was an attack from the right. “Doesn’t Britain need lower taxes to compete with the world’s tiger economies?” “Isn’t school and hospital choice an essential way of forcing public service workers to improve their performance?”'

That's a great point. We attack dogs of the right feel muzzled by such circumvention of the political spectrum.

From there argument devolves into laundry list... but at the end the Beeb's dirty washing must produce just such, mustn't it. And he's held a few garments up to the light beforehand. So, high marks, Monty.

Well, Richard North continues to do a brilliant job of quizzing the photos of the Qana incident.

Meantime at the superbly written Augean Stables I came across a lot of great stuff, especially their demi-fisking of a Kossite contributor who has a stupid bone to pick with Dr North. The best part is that you don't actually have to read the Daily Kos to get with the latest in Left-speak, in this case the parable of the flowers and the weeds.

I loved this bit in particular:

'smintheus informs us that the rest of North’s work is “writing obsessively about inconsequential details.” This comment reveals quite nicely what happens when someone with a predisposition to reject the argument, reads uncomfortable material (like me reading tax forms)'.

You know, I rarely type this, but LOL! That's exactly what it is. The problem with the left is that they're defrauding reality, and they hate to be reminded of the fact. Of course on the right the problem is handling being correct, which is very hard to do constructively or with dignity. How exactly can one make 'liar, liar etc' sound respectful and constructive without finally sighing and saying 'oh, ok, I give in, black is white etc, whaaatever'. 'Tis a conundrum.

Update: I was pleased to find Mark Steyn taking this line on the Qana happening:

'I don’t claim to know what really happened at this season’s “massacre” – at Qana – but I do know this: it’s not what the western media reported.'

Pilate asked 'What is truth'.

Richerd A.E. North asks 'What is the truth' concerning the Qana outrage.

The 'the' here is a vital one. Pilate would have been a perfect post-modern, little bothered by matters of detail, obsessed with the effects of actions rather than their particularities and moral mechanics. He would have really taken to the idea of disproportionality: after all, what's the bottom line? How many have the Hezbullah actually killed?

Read Richard's latest post. It's a defence of asking questions, of weighing evidence.
Seeing all of the pictures together in the way Euref has assembled them stimulates the mind to think about how the scene unfolded.

From much experience we know how startlingly sympathetic much of the press is to anti-Israel terrorists like Hezbullah and Hamas. It's clear looking at the photos that they are not photos of a rescue and recovery operation, but a particularly macabre and prolonged photo opportunity for an international press baying for a ceasefire.

They of course think they are doing us good; more to the point doing the Lebanese good; but it's clear from the photos there must have been a kind of patience being exercised by all concerned while the photo ops were teed up. It's this which fertilises the suspicions. The man we see again and again is said to be Abu Shadi Jradi. This man is consistently referred to as a civil defence official by all the news reports I've seen. But what, I ask, is a 'civil defence official' in this part of Lebanon except a Hezbullah man? Why is it only he and another man of similarly authoritative appearance, mr 'white t-shirt', who are seen prominently with the bodies? Is it that they are feared or that they are trusted exclusively?

Another question (and there are many). Richard North has been informed that there is no secret regarding timestamps to photos but that reporters came from all over the world and thus their cameras were operating on different time settings. Maybe so, but this just raises the question as to how all these journalists were able to set themselves up in time to capture all these urgent scenes. No one got an exclusive, it seems, because there was zero spontaneity. They were in the hands of the local "Civil Defence Authority" aka Hezbullah.

Many have pointed out (another latest updated sceptical post) the apparent rigor mortis in some of the bodies, the lack of wounds consistent with an airstrike and building collapse, the time gap between the time the Israelis said they struck and the building collapsed. These are all good points, but I think that the extent to which the media universally got the story in a uniform way through uniform images- the clear evidence of a 'civil defence force' with everything under control except for the lifeless little bodies- makes clear to me that this news was managed. Therefore Qana can't have happened as we have been led to believe, because, as 9/11's desperation showed, as any calamitous event shows, no one can manage a true disaster- least of all the incompetents of an Islamofascist regime.

Sorry I didn't have time to post here today- but I usually have something I'd like to share with interested readers. Today it's this excellent article from a former Indian Government official on Israel's position vis a vis Hezbullah and the rest. He's both urgent in tone and knows whereof he speaks. Read it here. Taste:

"Israel is a very small country with a very small population. It has no military depth. It has to follow a policy of instant and forceful retaliation against terrorists and States such as Iran and Syria using terrorism as a weapon to make its population bleed. Israel has to retaliate instantly or perish. This has to be kept in mind while judging Israel's action in taking its fight against terrorism to the Lebanese territory. Israel had no other option, but to do what it has done."

Great article from David Warren on the Mid East situation.

Also (but you may have read it already) Melanie Phillips cuts deep, cuts true.

Can't really blame Paul Reynolds for waffling on 'in a good cause', as it were, since the BBC is more determined than a thousand Koffi Annans to see Israel acquiesce to a ceasefire that will save Hezbullah from its deserved drubbing.

Yet waffle on he does in pursuit of the idee fixee.

Meanwhile Richard from Euref brings us down to earth:

'France has decided to forego the privilege of intervening on Hezbollah’s side and announced that calls for an international force were “premature”. Germany has agreed to send some troops but only if definitely asked by both Israel and Hezbollah.

The great European foreign policy panjandrum, Javier Solana, has announced that “several European states” were ready to provide “all possible assistance” but did not specify who they were and what that assistance might consist of.'

Every sensible person wants Israel to finish the job they started- crushing Hezbullah and changing the ME balance of power vitally for the better. I hope Richard's right and the shambolic UN can kid nobody that they have a serious force available, least of all the Israelis.

Beeb autocorrects; kind of. (as do I)

Some readers might know of my more than passing interest in East Africa. For a long time this has caused me to take the threat of Islamism there quite seriously. In the battle of wills it's the one with most ambition, the most active one, which wins. Whatever you think of the half-baked analyses of radical Islam, there's no doubt about their own belief in the importance of their activities.

I recently noted the advance of Islamists in Somalia- a consolidation of their power really, since Islamists have been active there from the 90's. Now the more Islamic warlords have beaten off the less Islamic ones. And how has this been achieved? Well, in a recent news article on the subject, the Beeb wanted us to accept that

(UPDATE .... whoops- sorry to those who visited- looks like a draft slipped through by accident; I was looking for the link to support my memory of the Beeb's inadequacy, but I couldn't find it- the BBC's new search system is considerably less logical and friendly to critical enquirers. Still, I'll finish the point I began...)

They wanted us to accept that the Somali Islamic courts movement was founded on the support of "local businessmen". Yeah right I thought, and proceeded to post about Eritrea and the Horn of Africa. Now lo, but the BBC "finds out" (after the horse has bolted) that the Islamic courts seems to have support out of Saudi Arabia and, yes, Eritrea. The point is made here and here- in the kind of articles one goes to for reference rather than to form one's immediate judgement.

This situation brings me to another speculation. I remember thinking how odd the wars between Ethiopia and Eritrea have been. I have never seen a good reason for them. It might make a lot more sense when you consider that Ethiopia is the historic barrier to Islamist designs on East Africa. To find Islamists nibbling away at it to create an eastern Islamic corridor would not be at all surprising...

Amusing error of the day.

The usual lazy waffle over at the Observer, but this time with a humorous twist. The Guardianistas are vaguely conscious they need to talk about media bias, but don't realise they're it.

Cue waffle waffle waffle and then this- heh-

"The BBC is particularly sensitive to accusations of impartiality, however."

Accusing the BBC of impartiality- how ridiculous!

Allah at Hotair delivers a great thumbnail sketch of why Hezbullah have acted the way they have at the time that they have.

Where'd Aunty's Bush gaffes go?

The time was where barely a month went past without a Bush gaffe heavily publicised on the BBC. Those however were the heady days when media 'giants' like the Guardian thought they could influence the US general election by writing condescending messages of 'we know best, rebels', recommending the Boston Brahmin to the benighted untouchables of Clark county.

This week there have been two Bush 'gaffes' and it seems there's not much enthusiasm for them at the BBC anymore. Yes they covered the so-called gaffe of Bush's accidentally recorded conversation with Tony Blair- the 'Yo, Blair... if if the Syrians would only tell Hezbullah to stop this shit' conversation- but somehow without the gusto of yore. They preferred to leave it to others. Then there's the latest, the Merkel big brother massage, which seems somehow off the radar at the moment.

I would say there's more to this than just being stung by their lack of ability to harm Bush in the past, the sense that really not every right-minded person agrees that Bush's so-called gaffes indicate a man out of his depth, a hick in power. I think it's that often Bush's gaffes show how straight he is, how actually focussed he is on the things that matter such that trivia and etiquette sometimes escape him [and actually I don't think he cares awfully when they do]. Surely no-one articulated better than Bush the common man's intuition about Syria's role with Hezbullah and the rocket attacks. This is not simplistic; rather it is so well grounded it tends, like historical facts, to lack nuance. No, no, it couldn't be: Bush's gaffes help Bush. The horror, the horror.

Then there is the Merkel massage, where the lady is very comically surprised. It's a lot more tasteful and friendly than Berlusconi's attempt to machismo is way to re-relection. In fact it's so much more natural it makes you think that Bush is a person capable of restoring some humanity to politics, as well as honour. The Beeb, having been too leaden to effectively lampoon him, are now too po-faced to entertain his energetic presence. Funny that. Heaven forbid his approval ratings rise again like the phoenix.

Speaking of returning honour and humanity to politics, here's what Jacques Chirac's been up to recently- along with Vilepin that is, a fetching Muttley to Chirac's Dick Dastardly. Get that pigeon!

Update: Blame Bush investigates French initiative.

And Meanwhile... Another story that the BBC is having too busy a news weekend to mention.

Given the internationalist pretensions of the BBC, you wouldn't think a Tory councillor who had under 18 porn on his comp would merit twice the pages from a BBC search as a man who sucked on the teats of a program designed to relieve a nation's poor and young, which instead became an arm of Iraqi diplomcy and an Iraqi dictator's cash cow. Yes, we're talking Oil for Food. But so it is.

Tilting the pitch against Israel.

In so many ways the BBC have taken to misrepresenting the situation of Israel. It persistently sees israel as just a common or garden warmaker, whose warrior spirit has as its object the civilian nation of Palestinians and now Lebanese.

The headline to this article is truly foul, when looked at in the cold light of day: "Israel kills Lebanese civilians".

What country gets such media treatment that casualties of a conflict which it didn't start and hopes not to continue are regarded as its national fault?

The BBC persistently fail to menton that the hostage-taking was a deliberate infringement of terrirorial sovereignty by Hezbullah, and that it has been accompanied by an ever-present barrage of rocket attacks on Israel. This is the true cause of the current actions taken by Israel. They have stepped up nothing, contrary to BBC claims, but have had their will to self-defence tested ever more sorely by terrorists with backing from regional powerhouses like Syria and Iran.

Israel is said to have "launched a campaign". Well, that is stretching language to breaking point, as if Israel's position left it any choice. Luxury car firms and pampered western politicians 'launch campaigns'. Victims of violence and bullying don't. Apparently, according to the laughable Beeb, "Hezbollah has responded with rocket attacks". What, trying to cover up the history of Hezbullah rocket attacks, again!?When will the BBC get tired of that old Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum nursery rhyme they revert to whenever it's terrorists that are obviously guilty of targeting and harrassing Israel?

To get a flavour of what the BBC are overlooking, read this transciption of some of Ehud Olmert's recent comments, which comes via EU Ref.

That's it; I'm back. Not only from Budapest but from keyboard purdah. I bought a dirt cheap keyboard and a not as cheap splitter and voila, I can once more vent my spleen and other things.

And funnily enough I'm moved to talk about football again, and the BBC.

I was on the train last Sunday when the World Cup was being played out. I didn't fancy the Italians versus the French much anyway; one of those occasions where you wish that both sides could lose. And to my pleasure and illumination, to an extent they have.

The Italians, having used a bunch of very experienced players to elbow their way off with the prize once again, have just announced that that same set of players (give or take a few) were part of the biggest corruption scandal ever to hit football. The last few seasons, it seems, were fixed.

Mind you, I did used to wonder myself, as a Westham fan, whether we didn't occasionally throw a few games. A 4-0 abject defeat to Notts Forest many moons ago in an FA Cup Semi springs to mind, not to mention losing 4-0 to Newcastle in 1987 (or was it 86? Difficult to remember through the mists of years and tears back to my young self).

Still West Ham are just that way: always erratic, not worth betting on as a fan, anyway.

The Beeb though set this in a quite farcical context, comparing this massive and systematised fraud with all manner of relative nonentities- while never actually explaining in detail the nature of the fraud. The truth is that football, while never very clean, is now organisedly corrupt. I wouldn't be surprised to find that World Cup matches had been fixed this time round- this time more than ever before, I'd say. I watched a number of matches on the grounds that it helps me relax and only happens once every four years, and I've never seen so many bad referee's decisions that effectively cost matches. It's not just the bad decisions, its the bad application of bad laws (tackling from behind, contact in the air, challenging goalies, raised feet, offside, advantage- you name it, referees with their technocratic swagger can get it wrong these days). Brazil-Ghana with its two offside Brazilian goals and numerous decisions favourable to the yellow shirts made me despair somewhat-- but then all the matches I saw did that, including needless to say the Rooney-Portugal affair.

What I am waiting for, still, is for England to be able to take that free-kick they were given when Rooney was being manhandled (it that's the word) by three wretched Portuguese. The Ref blew his whistle and then didn't stop play, allowing the harrassment to continue- and then he over-noticed Rooney's crafty footgrind into the groin to the point that Rooney had to go. It was a classic case of the sheriff, having lost control, punishing the vigilante. And I'm all in favour of vigilanteism where the technocrats have 'command' (so to speak), so I was, as they say, 'gutted'.

The thing is that the whole event was so scripted it's as if give or take a couple of dummies who don't know their place in the scheme of things (like Rooney), everyone was doing what they were paid to do- not so much play football but fail at the appropriate places and times. Zidane's headbutt actually made me laugh; who can think of a better explanation than that Zidane was paid to do it like some WWWF wrestler?

What I am saying is not restricted to the traditional idea of the crude attempts of the Grobbelaars of this world to make a few bucks: I am saying that the monetisation of a game whose participants never had too much integrity (and didn't need to have, really) has created layer upon layer of grubby control placed upon the free play of football- which is, after all, just a game and unable to bear the stress of the grown-up kids with their money manias.

One final thing: all the focus has been on the referees so far, regarding the verdicts. I absolutely don't believe that it is restricted to referees and senior management. The players too must have some degree of involvement. At the very least one can see the money they demand as an incentive to play as a kind of extortion.