The BBC's mudhut thread (not).

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

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

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

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

Aunty Got Bigger.

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

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

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

Don't think it would have stopped me though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apologies for the break.

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

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

Very Busy Day Today.

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

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

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

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

Update:

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

Inside Tracks

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

So here's a selection.

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

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

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

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

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

The Iraq war was wrong, natch.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Happy Easter!

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed.

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

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

Anti-Royals worth a post? I believe so

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

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

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

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

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

Unnecessary information confusing things, see?

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

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

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

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

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

here,

here,

and here.

Random, ticklish comic thoughts

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

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

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

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

'Has Ahmadinejad Miscalculated?'

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

'Is Ahmadinejad Emasculated?'

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

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

Different Strokes-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humour blogs.

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

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

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