Mayor Ken and Qaradawi: a troublesome affair. I mentioned this way back, when the Beeb were trying to smooth the feathers of the body politic by covering for Qaradawi's lack of housetraining. No one it seems really cares much about the Beeb's role (merely a conduit after all), but Ken's not been so lucky, and he's having to defend himself at every turn. Melanie Phillips definitely doesn't set out to help him in this post, or Tony Blair for that matter:

'Livingstone is not fit to hold public office. When will Tony Blair be asked what he thinks about Livingstone’s support for Qaradawi? When will Blair be confronted with Livingstone’s support for Muslim Brotherhood ideas, against which Blair is ostensibly fighting across the world? When will Blair be held to account for this dangerous menace, in the person of the Mayor of London, to life, liberty and decency – a man who the Prime Minister himself cynically brought back from political exile into the Labour party, purely to prevent a haemorrhage of the Labour mayoral vote?'

George Bush is a great American leader. Even though I believe it on many grounds, I know it from the fact that only he could have got the BBC doing polls every other week saying how much (or rather, how little) the peoples of the world appreciate him. He is making our lazy Aunty work. Only under George W. Bush could the US have coaxed this level of activity from the world's formerly supine media (BBC huffing and puffing at the fore).

The Beeb's latest poll is generally risible, as they usually are (not mentioning, for example, that the press in most parts of the world is directing popular opinion against the US- led by... -I'd rather not repeat myself any more than necessary), and there's a headline, 'Global poll slams Bush leadership', to go with it. Then we are treated to such observations as that Latin American antipathy to GWB is surprising because 'the region has had less direct involvement in US foreign policy issues, says our correspondent.' I suppose we are led to wonder what the figures would have been like had they had direct experience, eh? We also find that

' Another surprise was India's support for Mr Bush. The poll found 62% believed his administration was positive for global security.

The BBC's Nick Bryant says the reason for this may be because the poll was carried out in cities where people have benefited economically from closer trade ties with the US.'

So they were bribed then, I gather. What was that Kerry (risible again in being upstaged by Barabara Boxer as he tried to lay into Condi Rice yesterday) said about a coalition of the bribed and the coerced?

Finally, given the headline of the story it was something of a surprise to read near the end of the article a caveat to all this Beeb sponsored doom and gloom:

'But Mr Kull says the results do not constitute a definitive world-wide majority, "suggesting there may be some underlying openness to repairing relations with the US".'

So, only a slamming from the world (and only, I suppose, of W's America), not a definitive world-wide majority. I imagine W and Condi will be relieved to hear it.

Update: Although I stand by my comments about Bush's quality, I think that the desire to contradict the Beeb perhaps limits more calm scrutiny. Belgravia despatch has some of that. via Instapundit.

Natural Partners

It should I suppose be obvious why the BBC and the UN are such natural partners. The BBC is the jewel in the crown of the nanny state that has, thanks to its old Empire network, gone global (oh where will all our- or even all their!- young minds go for enrichment should we not have Aunty Beeb?), and the UN loves telling people how to behave on the international stage. Naturally they have a lot to gossip about when they get together.

So how about Malta then? Those naughty Maltese have decided unilaterally that their island is not very big and that they are neatly placed as a stepping stone on the way to places and that therefore they can't go easy on scroungers, sorry, asylum seekers who come to their shores. Terrible. Somebody really ought to tell them off, make an example of them. I know, how about nanny UN and aunty BBC in tandem?

Or take that tsunami (again). Who is to teach the world the lessons it should learn unless Aunty Beeb and Nanny UN team up together under that nice mr Egeland (no sniggering please)- who must surely be a fine candidate for next UN Secretary General after Mr Annan decides he has done enough good for the international community.

Although nanny and aunty BBC are clearly of the same managerial sex, that should be no obstacle to a fruitful union between them, now should it? Not in this day and age?

Vital Statistics from A Tangled Web:

Number of Palestinian babies: fewer than you've been led to believe
Number of Palestinian liars: demonstrably more than they've let on.

Summing it up nicely

To add to the post below, this from Richard North seemed too perfect a complement to leave to an update of an update.

Frum nails the Harry incident as Roger Simon rethinks his proposed removal of the Royal family- see below post link for Roger's updated view. I'd add that I find it very strange that Harry hadn't learnt what a Nazi sympathiser his great uncle was, and acted accordingly.

Meanwhile the BBC has moved onto airing the views of Seymour Hersch.

Update- the BBC are also highlighting a UN report into world poverty which contains some of that hand-on-the-shoulder vague criticism which the BBC deigns to make of the UN. Less friendly is the association it leaves with the US:

'Our correspondent says it is an attempt to engage real change in the UN to go along with grandiose declarations.

Dr Sachs will say that the resources needed are well within the means of the world's richest nations.

Only five nations - Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden - have met their targets of providing 0.7% of GNP for development assistance.

The US, for example, spends only 0.15% of its GDP on development aid.'

In other words, to what do we owe the UN's grandiose statements, which fail to materialise, than the failure of the West, especially the US, to enable their materialisation through unstingy behaviour?

Leave aside all the development aid to Iraq. Discount the US' military involvement in Indonesia, and scrub out the generosity of business and the consumer in the world's foremost capitalist society, and that might, might just, be valid. But if the UN fails to command the respect of nations sufficient to see aid channelled through it, whose fault is that? Oh, and don´t forget to forget about Bush Aids package for Africa, or that 0.15% figure, which does so well to flesh out a boring and disquietening news report with prejudice, might not give so much knockabout media fun.

An end to everything except World Government.

Roger Simon calls for an end to the Royal Family. Ang. Bish. Richard Holloway says that God has already met His end. The BBC says that Sharon is causing an end to the 'Peace Process', and the BBC's Newsnight declares that the tsunami goes to show we all need a powerful UN with an activist Secretary General.

Yeah, right. (thanks to ATW for Holloway link)

Here's a vital commentary from a Lt. Cnl in Iraq. Yes, he's biting back at media critics. Yes, he's trying to influence the media war. Yes he may well have been assigned this task because of special skills he possesses, but he doesn't half make a good job of it.

For example:

'I've read that in the world of manufacturing, you can have only two of the following three qualities when developing a product -- cheap, fast or good. You can produce something cheap and fast, but it won't be good; good and fast, but it won't be cheap; good and cheap, but it won't be fast. In this case, we want the result to be good and we want it at the lowest cost in human lives. Given this set of conditions, one can expect this war is to take a while, and rightfully so.'

Or, as he concludes:

'Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the world is providing support for the enemy we fight. I obviously think it's a disgrace when many on whom the world relies for news paint such an incomplete picture of what actually has happened. Much too much is ignored or omitted. I am confident that history will prove our cause right in this war, but by the time that happens, the world might be so steeped in the gloom of ignorance we won't recognize victory when we achieve it.'

There's so much sense in his comments I think the only sensible course of action is to read the whole thing.

Struck by the BBC frontpage. A frightening thought, I know, to be smacked by Auntie (and surely illegal? Not the thought, the act), but this is sometimes how the BBC's relentless agendarizing of the news can feel.

Take today's offering. We got the Beeb's classic suggestive quality when, virtually simultaneously, they report 'US concern over Iran human rights' and that US 'erodes' global human rights. The point, if there is one about these headlines, is that one reports someone's view like a point of view, whereas the other reports someone's view like a statement of fact, interrupted only by those dinky little quotemarks that could easily be mistaken for a textual smirk. One view happens to come from the US government elected to represent the views of 300 million people, the other from a human rights group elected by, well, no one, representing the views of, can I remember? I think it was a small group of professionals of various nationalities and backgrounds last time I checked their website.

Anyway, all this reporting of 'concerns' is a pretty pointless thing that makes even the UN seem newsworthy on a daily basis. Oh, I think I begin to understand now.

That wasn't the only under the belt blow delivered by the AuntyOnline today.

This report about the bomb attack in Gaza (or, more precisely, on the edge of Gaza), waited until the last line to mention that 'our correspondent says groups like Hamas are very keen to portray the Israeli withdrawal as a retreat under fire.'

This indeed is one half of the logic at work. The Beeb however failed to mention that the terrorists wish to prevent the Israelis from withdrawing from Gaza by making it politically impossible to do so- i.e. presenting it as an Israeli retreat under fire. They know Sharon will not accept even a whiff of Israeli defeat, and wish him to be pushed into appearing to fit the image reserved for him by the world's opinion- that of unjust occupier. The Beeb play up the Palestinian leadership's 'peace' role, and play down the pressures faced by the Israelis. Plus ca change.

Needless to say, they did not fail to mention that, in their own words, ' The attack followed Israeli raids in the Gaza Strip earlier on Thursday in which two Palestinians were killed.'

Certainly sounds like the cycle of violence is whirring away in BBC newsthink as usual.

Given the above, this Mark Thatcher affair didn't need to be overdone. Too much icing on the cake might oversweeten it.

I think I mentioned Paul Reynolds' almost facetious article, 'Iraq 2004: what went wrong?'

Actually I tried to parody it- but really that was frustrating as it was too easy.

I think though that Reynolds has been producing many good examples of a dominant school of thought, the kind that likes simple narratives of western (or, even better, US) failure and which considers considering the opinions of anyone more positive to the West than itself to be showing exemplary fairness. In this article Reynolds clearly feels he's covering himself by quoting Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former UK ambassador to the UN.

If he'd really wanted to introduce balance he'd have consulted someone like Norman Podhoretz, who actually thinks about what George Bush thinks (and, from a political point of view, it's GWB who really counts in a sensible political analysis) rather than sounding off to echo the popular trends set by the likes of the BBC.

He encapsulates Reynolds' attitude perfectly in this superb article for Commentary:

'The idea here is that Iraq represents the first great test to which the Bush Doctrine has been put, and that the count is now in on its miserable failure. The retrograde "red-state voters" may have been hoodwinked by the lies emanating from the White House and the Pentagon and amplified by Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News Channel, but everyone who knows anything knows that Bush’s entire foreign policy now lies buried under the rubble of Baghdad and the smaller cities of the Sunni triangle.'

If this sounds like a charicature then it's not accidental. These people, especially people like Reynolds, spend all their time thinking in charicatures- charicatures designed to chasten and wound to further their political agenda. It's their stock in trade. Unfortunately for them what goes around comes around. (via Powerline)

Actually I loved David Frum's language lesson (if you like words, you'll like this). It seems as though Brent Scowcroft was trying to have his cake, and eat it- like so many on the left of any argument.

Sourcing our Satisfactions.

I have to be careful in this matter, since in the boastful world of political life observers of that life can find they are taking satisfaction in the failures of institutions which actually have very serious responsiblities.

Yes, I am a critic of the UN, but over its failures the critic is often vocal, the criticised and their allies are often evasive or agressively defensive, while the third party, the failed one, is silent. I am even more tempted to crow when the BBC makes blunders, but again there is a very serious side to that.

It's similar regarding France. I am a critic of that country's leadership on so many issues (or rather, their lack of leadership combined with a complaining, critical and patronising hauteur- yes such a thing really can exist at the level of national governments), but French failings (like anyone's), have consequences.

So, I found this masterly recountation of French media coverage of France's 'failings' over their tsunami response 'satisfying' on several levels. The main one was that at last 'France 2' as Douglas describes it, is speaking out against 'France 1'. The secondary one is that the attitude of France towards the role of its military (heading for a Eurocorps, eschewing Iraq but embracing- kind of- the Ivory Coast) was too irrational to secure a decent French military response when French pride was on the line- which satisfies the need we have that what goes up must be seen to come down etc.

But then of course there are the victims, which, although strictly not our victims, nonetheless suffer too much to appreciate this kind of farce. (my thanks to the ever-aware EuroRef. blog who found this, and are always raising a voice for the underdog.)

Another reason I have to be careful, of course, is that 'saving face' is one of the lowest motives for successful action, and shame can be misused.

In the UN bashing business (entirely legitimate on the basis of supply and demand) there seems to be no better port of call than the Diplomad (as I mentioned previously), although I'm always slightly worried when people very close to situations are blogging in a popular way, fearing that someone senior to them my just tell them to stop sometime. I don't think the same can happen to Tim Blair, who has also put together some excellent posts on the UN, like this one.

Blair also pointed me to this superb, almost definitive one would have to say, article critical of the UN by David Frum. I think Frum is great: witty, thoughful, articulate (you can find his NRO blog in my links, at the bottom). In fact I can't think of a better advertisement for the art of column-building. There's always a touch of moralism, a little wisdom of a private kind, in what he writes- such as in his conclusion to his analysis of the 'special place' the UN occupies in the well-thinking left:

'But the real challenge to all of us, in all the democracies, is this: to be guided by realities, not fantasies - and especially not such uniquely unconvincing fantasies as the allegedly unique moral authority of the United Nations.'

In other words, Clare Short, go and acquire some judgement from somewhere.

But meanhile, back at the ranch, the BBC is showing off what must be the strangest construction still left over from the Victorian Age of moralism: its scales of mediatorial judgement.

The Beeb have a report about the UN-Oil-for-food programme, which is, like Volcker's report itself, quite conservative. Then they have this rather more colourful story about homelessness in the USA, called 'Homelessness in a land of plenty' . Why do I always feel the BBC are trading a story they don't want to report, but must, with a report they shouldn't need (like some latter days unwelcome Dickens) to keep disinterring, but do? And why is the former one of kleptocrats in high places the only story that comes over with all its colour drained?

Even while stealing the show from Koffi, Jill 'quivering' Mcgivering's tiny Tim gets a breakfast of 'porridge and bagels, and eggs and hot coffee.' from a local church, which left me thinking 'please please please make me homeless in that part of America rather than housed where I am'


Ok, perhaps it seems a little unfair to the BBC to cut n' paste their coverage so savagely as I have in the penultimate paragraph above, to make my favoured points. However, if the Beeb gave adequate weight to the many (too many, surely, for cossetted Beebies) unwelcome stories out there (they know what they are), perhaps there would be no room at the inn for vacuous moral statements.

Rumbling Abu : emerging slightly dazed from under a heap of the BBC's beatification of Abu Mazen (or whatever he's called), and now following his election 'glory', Nicholas Vance makes the important point, that Orla and co. fail to mention, about

'statements by Mazan (co-founder of the Fatah terrorist organisation) announcing that he had no intention of seeking the end to all terrorist attacks against the "Zionist enemy.'

He continues,

'To say that Abu Mazan "is opposed to violence" is very generous, indeed. It would be more accurate to say that he has on occasion — depending on his audience — proposed a temporary ceasefire," '.

This makes it imperative for Sharon not to get into bed with Mazen. Luckily Sharon's already built a fence between them to reduce the temptation, and Mazen will have to eat his words if such pillow talk is actually to take place- early meetings notwithstanding.

I am sure we will all watch that space.

A succinct argument from IraqtheModel for calling terrorists terrorists. It seems to me that this is one of the issues- a one word issue- where the peoples of the world have the right to feel most aggrieved by the moral failure of their media. Needless to say, the BBC have figured very strongly in this failure.

Meanwhile, speaking of terrorists...

Later... Also, just to note- a terrific reposte from AE Brain to the BBC's tsunami conpiracy page (via B-BBC commenter).

Natalie's in storming form at B-BBC as she rounds on the Beeb (again, quite rightly) over the way they've stirred up the tsunami conspiracy 'theorists' (ahem). 'Irresponsible' is the BBC editorial staff's middle name.

Meanwhile I'm taking some advice and blogrolling the Diplomad, which has excelled in giving the UN the back of the hand it deserves.

Just to add to the above tsunami theme, Arthur Chrenkoff has a list of his top tsunami idiot-savants.

Covering the States

It might sound as though I'm inviting obsessiveness, but I really believe there would be a place out there for a blog devoted purely to covering the coverage the BBC extends to the US. Many good Americans are already concerned about this, and express their concerns, amongst others, at blogs like Last Night's BBC News and USS Neverdock, but really there should be no shame in a blog dedicated to tracking US coverage by the BBC, for several good reasons.

First of all there's the fact that the BBC coverage of US matters is large and growing. They are, I am quite sure, more fascinated by America than by any other country or any other region of the world. The BBC, as any voracious grazing mammoth might be, is constantly attracted to the nutrious plains of the USA newsscape. If its bad, and happens in the USA, the BBC is almost guaranteed to label it so and proclaim it.

There is a deeper reason though, which I find more disturbing. That is that the BBC is one of those remaining British institutions most intertwined with our history as a colonial power. Not only, therefore, does the notion of a neo-colonial US stimulate the sensitively attuned nostrils of the former British Empire Service, it also reawakens their appetite to influence history as it used to do in times of yore.

Even worse is that the BBC has for many years considered itself the conscience of the British nation, and consequently charged with expiating the sins of the past. So we have a post-colonial broadcaster, laden with a weight of the intellectual fashion to consider the British Empire a dirty compound noun, which nonetheless cannot deny its appetite for power and influence. A dangerous British brew, I continue to believe- that can be observed quite well from this post at LNBBCN.

So, when I see a vast array of anti-American articles expressed at BBC online (sometimes just a crucial word or two, determining the flow of the reader's thought), including utterly indefensible ones such as this, highlighted by Natalie at BBBC, and sentiments to match that across the BBC's networks, I think I know what is happening: the BBC is taking up the task of policing the policeman which it believes its forebear failed to do when it was the British Empire Service. For an example of that, the BBC's obsession with Guantanamo and abu Graib is a notable, continuing theme- as this LNBBCN post illustrates. What's bad about this general trend in particular is that it's a reflexive reaction to the criticisms of the British Empire that were mainly coaxed along by socialist and communists, and later splinters from those movements such as feminists, ecofreaks and race-warriors.

Thus we get ad infinitum negativity about the US', at best a faintness of praise when praise is truly deserved, and regular chances to bash the US in the solar plexus on the BBC's airwaves.

Mark Steyn is undoubtedly emerging from his early winter hibernation. That's great news, and in the meantime, while expecting little from him , I overlooked these trenchant comments on the environmental blather of our day. Maybe you did too. Different from his usual, and typically good.

More non-Reynolds (-previous post) UN/US aid effort comparisions in this NBR report via the Instapundit:

'As news media are increasingly dominated by footage of US, Australian and regional military forces actually delivering aid to stricken survivors of the Boxing Day tsunami, UN officials are carping about housing in major cities far removed from the front lines and passing around elaborate business cards.'

People I generally agree with, but...

Having (I guess) disagreed with Chrenkoff in my last post, I suppose I can broach another disagreement with a favourite site- A Tangled Web.

These guys are forthright and, to take one example where I appreciate this, it's in their forthright condemnation of the Republican fudge over power-sharing and violence in Ulster.

However, I disagree with them that Ariel Sharon is wrong in his guidance of Israel.

First I would say you have to judge a man by his enemies. Sharon is the enemy of the all the right people, and as Oliver Kamm says, has built a consenus in favour of defensive organisation around the fence and aggressive pursuit of Palestinian terrorists. This seems a balance around which Israeli opinion can cohere and remain firm. Gone will be all the rogue peace conferences between 'moderates' from Israel and charlatans from the rest of the world.

The enemies? Oh to speak from personal knowledge, the BBC and the British left- including much of New Labour (though not, I would say, Tony Blair himself directly). Excellent enemies to make! I wish the Conservatives could do the same. Melanie Phillips adds more.

Secondly, to refer back to Ireland, the willingness of the Israelis to hit back against Palestinian terrorists is a stark contrast to the UK policy of rapprochement with Sinn Fein. As CNN always quote Tony Blair, sometimes war brings a chance of peace.

Well, those are my two basic reasons, but look who hates Israel under Sharon according to Fred Siegel, and I think even David Vance ought to agree that the Israeli Prime MInister must be doing something right.

Brownie points for Reynolds.

Kudos, I suppose, to Paul Reynolds who received a 'read the whole thing' commendation from Arthur Chrenkoff as he rounded up news from the tsunami disaster.

Just a couple of points of criticism remain for me to make (and by the way, this is not a Reynolds-bash-based blog! I just happen to find that Mr Reynolds' judgements part of the BBC's faulty intellectual engine room).

Talking about the political fallout from disasters and governmental responses to it, Reynolds says that 'The perception of the United States in the world has been changed for the better, with the rapid despatch of a US aircraft carrier to ferry help by helicopter to the survivors in Aceh.'

Aside from the fact that the US response was only notable in the context of the inability or, more likely, unwillingness of others (eg. Indonesia's large military) to assist, particularly in Aceh, the implication is that the US somehow upped its game from a previously low level. Note that the perception (subjective) was changed by actions of aid-giving from the US (real)- therefore the previous perception must have been the consequence of real actions (or real 'inactions', but I find it difficult to believe the US is really viewed as lacking in willingess to act in a humanitarian fashion), like invading Iraq, just to pick as random example.

Reynolds says that the US had been in the doghouse because they acted without considering the UN (repeating a fashionable and self-fulfilling mantra), but the real issue is not the US' redemption by good works (which may be a French but is certainly not a US' ethos), but the vacuity and ineptitude of a UN that talks big and acts little. By a little faint praise of Bush's crew, Reynolds can do what he does best: temper the perception of the failings of the UN.

For the real analysis of the UN's actions we can only turn to people like Wretchard of the Belmont Club, who has been systematically dissecting the UN response to the tsunami in posts like this one.

Reynolds makes out that Colin Powell is the hero of the hour, massaging UN and US relations, when in fact the key to the good publicity the US has gained is that the UN have not been even at the starting line to make an impact on the disaster, and the heroic thing the US did was to ignore the UN and go alone effectually (not as quickly as I would have liked, but fast enough to catch the media attention). This go it alone ethos (or vast network of bilateral relations, as I prefer to call it) also enabled a successful invasion of Iraq. What ought to be seen in tandem, therefore, as a consistently successful policy of fairly consistently ignoring the UN, Reynolds wants to separate- in his usual obfuscatory fashion.

It's kind of reminiscent of all the other faint praise Liberals have made it their business to slap onto the Bush admin.: Colin Powell saves lazy Bush's bacon.

That's an analysis I don't for a moment believe, and never have.

Putting those issues aside for a moment though, I will acknowledge the breadth of Reynolds' allusions as being worthy of a link, anyway- thus preserving both my disagreement with Reynolds and my unbroken admiration of Arthur.

Oi, Beeb, what went wrong?

2004 was a bad year in the Beeb's history (at the link Melanie Phillips summarises the BBC's troubles after the Hutton Report, last January), except for those of us who would like to see the BBC as history, in which case it went grimly well.

Coming into 2004 there were still some optimists who believed the BBC could be saved from its legions of ideologues. There are fewer now, as the depth of the BBC's recalcitrance is clearer by the month, and its resistance to looking in the mirror when it comes to analysing the overmighty and incompetent grows ever deeper.

Maybe 2005 will be better, but it's difficult to see how if this article from Paul Reynolds is anything to go by.

I think that Arthur Chrenkoff's overt approach to 'Good News from Iraq' is obviously far more up front and factually based than any of Reynolds' anti-Iraq war propaganda masquerading as informed and balanced opinion. The latest Chenkoffian item here.

Meanwhile I don't think Chrenkoff mentioned Logan, but here he is, via IraqtheModel.

BBC cutting edge journalism: 'The World Shows its Compassion'

That was the headline yesterday on BBCWorld. As an introduction to a journalistic item it's mind-numbingly moralising. As invaluable Andrew at B-BBC has pointed out , the BBC has an interesting way of presenting even the donation of aid in a politicised way. The discreditation of the Beeb is surely gathering pace by their own actions, which is sad in a way.

Such headlines as the BBC's above are really another way of hastening the process whereby the world, ostrich-like, puts its head in the sand. I hope this doesn't happen as completely as in the past when the world has briefly felt its pulse quicken, but if it doesn't it'll be no thanks to the Beeb.

Reading this post from Helen Szamuely at Euro-Ref. blog, I couldn't help smiling a little and wanting to bill it 'everything you'll never hear examined on the Beeb'. It sort of starts where I left off two days ago, with extra bonus points for hitting harder and longer.

In a similar vein the Diplomad offers an antidote to the surfeit of fawning praise being directed at the UN as the only organ capable of coordinating international aid. In the UK we have double or treble helpings of this staple food thanks to a combination of the BBC, the New Labour machine and assorted journalistic sycophants. (from Arthur Chrenkoff)

Meanwhile, another lady I know has been extremely miffed with the BBC in many areas, but especially over Iraq and Israel. The argument I am familiar with; it doesn't change. Truth usually comes in with a certain immutability, I find. Melanie Phillips goes back to basics in tearing strips off the seemingly mentally retarded legions of journalists led by the BBC.

Those who live, learn.

There's no doubt we will learn a lot from this Tsunami disaster (I still think the key lesson is to have a fleet of helicopters at the ready in all regions of the earth for natural disaster relief on the instant, but there are others). Unfortunately from the world's perspective we learn too late and our contributions are more about our emotions than about saving the lives of others. Of course I wouldn't want to dismiss any act of charity, but when the Premiership gets in on the situation you know we've crossed a line from the rational to the showbiz end of things.

It has entered my mind watching the reports that there's very little to be done since almost everybody in need could find their critical needs met by friends or relatives just a few miles inland. Aceh province in Indonesisa is obviously different- but I don't get the sense that we're geared up to provide assistance there yet. We've only just got round to considering the Maldives. Then again, given the disaster in Indonesia, will there be anyone to donate anything to? Precious few, if this kind of report is true (and in this disaster I tend to believe the biggest figures I'm offered) Or will the few survivors be buried under a tidal wave of castoff clothing?

Whatever the truth behind the above musings, I know that Laban Tall is right when he says that 'The Indian Ocean disaster is a heaven sent opportunity for liberal breast-beating into which can be shoehorned the correct views on globalisation'.
I frankly couldn't believe it today when I heard (on Sky) that a British Scientist was saying that the tsunami shows the risk we face from global warming, as if that had anything to do with the price of fish!

Instinctively Right: Alan Sullivan has been a great source of sanity on the tsunami disaster- partly through his extensive knowledge of the sea and its manifestations. This post from Sunday demonstrates how possible it was to assess the likely impact of the waves at that point: 'I have no doubt a final number will be in tens or even hundreds of thousands'. This post meanwhile provides a great graphic to appreciate the waves in their proper geographical context.

Since Christmas, probably 100,000 people have died in the Indian Ocean. That's my bet anyway (and I realised subsequently I should have put a + sign beside that figure). I've watched quite a bit of coverage on BBCworld, CNN and Sky, and I can say that Sky provided easily the best coverage, with more realistic casualty counts (by which I mean less conservative estimates), more on the ground coverage, and a more direct approach that seemed to use its British-centred perspective to raise more concern than the Beeb et al could muster. Strange though it may seem, I don't regard underestimation of casualties as a sign of a mature, respectable broadcaster. I'd rather call that dereliction.

The Beeb tended to keep its usual schedules, unlike CNN, and certainly lagged way behind Sky in minute-by-minute coverage. Not that I think minute-by-minute casualty counts are all that sensible- it was obvious after a few minutes thought and a little anecdotal evidence that casualties would be massive, so that the best thing would have been panic stations and maximum pressure on inept and lazy Govts from the beginning. Military helicopters on site within hours would have made a huge difference (and yes, I am aware of at least two civil wars ongoing in the region, but I think that the overwhelmingly hostile force out there this last few days was nature).

Part of the Beeb's usual schedules included their so-called Hard Talk programme, which earlier in the festive season included James Rubin interviewing Robin Cook. If I had a schoolboy sense of humour I'd say that it wasn't the talk that was hard, but something that related to the physical makeup of these two mutually admiring men. Robin called Rubin 'Jamie', as the talk just got harder and harder. Robin waxed lyrical about his opposition to the Iraq war, and Jamie helpfully listed in his repetitive drone the many things terribly wrong there. Even Robin appeared momentarily irritated: 'you don't need to convince me how disastrous the Iraq war has been'. Indeed, I thought.

For a different perspective on the tsunami disaster, yet extremely pertinent to the issue of inept and lazy Governments, EU Referendum blog is following a different, political disaster:

'while it may not leave piles of bloated corpses on exotic beaches, the death and destruction, in terms of poverty and the concomitant disease and ill-health is every bit as real.'

Meanwhile Norm is doing a good job of looking at aspects of the disaster.

Also meanwhile, and far below the kinds of huge concern that ought to be occupying our thoughts at this time, I'd like to echo Terence Coyle in thanking Mr Boyles for his kind words about my blog.

Just popping back, as promised, to note this American Thinker article which deals with the Rumsfeld 'sting' operation by what it calls the 'Press gang'. There are, of course, meaningful questions to be raised, but the sensitivity of the media is just about crude enough to be manipulated, yet not attuned enough to help us understand.

One thought I would raise (or several along one line) is that the murder of 19 Americans among others in Mosul may conceivably have been timed to coincide with media scrutiny of Rummy. It may also be the case that the release of two French journalists on the day of the US' highest recent casualties was not coincidental. When I mentioned in the previous post that a media bandwagon may be joined by concerned parties for political effect, I shouldn't have omitted the terrorists in that analysis. They watch CNN, and the Beeb, as well.

Rounding up the bandwagon (news).

Here's one of those classic examples of the BBC giving a bandwagon a roll by collecting a range of stories over a period of time and publishing them as one 'story', thereby demonstrating a narrative to which they or those who contribute to the news (ie politicians, other media) can add. It's emotionalised tripe really, about whether condolences were personally signed or not, though I know that some would disagree with me on that- maybe from the high moral ground, but still I'd contest that it's emotionalised tripe given the hardnosed media context in which these fellows have their being.

It would be controversial to defend Rumsfeld, yet that's just what I feel like doing- because no-one else could have carried the weight of media scrutiny that he has carried to enable the Iraq war to take place without collapsing under the weight of Western defeatism.

Instapundit also defended Rummy out of the same instinct for unfairness which I personally would prefer to call sensitivity to bias (examplar of sensitivity here).

I always believed that the first Rummy story this Christmas (as the illiberal elite realised he was going to outstay Colin Powell and couldn't stand it any longer) was a put up job, and the BBC's reporting then was a model of how to make such a story credible and powerful.

Meanwhile, in the follow-up, which the BBC deigned to consider newsworthy, a 'grilling' over 'equipment' became a 'query' over 'kit' and the 2000 cheering soldiers became merely 'soldiers assembled'- quite a low-key affair compared with the story I'd heard previously.

But now, in the latest story of Rumsfeld's woes there is no mention of the planted question (which ought to be allowed to derail the bandwagon but funnily enough isn't), which reverts to 'full-grill' mode (ie the storyline of disgruntled ordinary soldiers is unbroken by matters of fact). Funny what we remember to report and what we don't.

Something, by the way, that I should not fail to mention is that I am liable to be absent from blogging for much of the festive season, so don't be surprised it there are longish pauses. I'll pop in and I'll return more permanently in the New Year. So, if I don't say it later I'll say it now: Happy Christmas and New Year (except to the Beeb, who should use the time to reflect shamefacedly on their many failings!).

From the first person: two accounts I've come across that really shed light on two situations that many are interested in, but few understand.

Chrenkoff interviews Steven Vincent, who provides fascinating personal views of Iraq based on months spent freelancing there.

Meanwhile, Jeffrey Gedmin stars in an interview that is extensively quoted by David's MedienKritik, shedding light on the Euroblindness that dares not call itself anti-Semitism.

Where does the BBC fit into these perspectives? I would generally characterise it as the attitude of the three wise men: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Except of course that they do, often.

Shades of 'Je ne regrette rien'?

It is only wishful thinking, I am sure, but in this bizarre episode of the (now thankfully fallen) singing Secretary (Blunkett, Secretary of the nanny-friendly State) I was immediately reminded of Lord Lamont's lack of lament over the ERM debacle (allegedly singing 'Je ne regrette rien' from his bath). I honestly do, though, think that the Tories will be mad if they don't realise that one rotten apple indicates the presence of possibly widespread mould. They should attack, attack, attack (and if they did that, which I am not sure is even within their capabilities, they would win).

Transatlantic take: the Blunkett affair is caught nicely by Powerline:

'The government official, coincidentally, is a blind man in the land of one-eyed men, and therefore not king, but rather a sympathetic public figure.'

And there's more...

Aunty Beeb, having just about finished chuckling (paradoxically) like a new born at the acrimonious fate of General Pinochet (I don't exactly object to this except for the fact that the long-term emphasis on Pinochet undoubtedly contrasts with their approach to other unsavouries, and consequently illustrates the BBC's chronic attraction to the margins of the news stream), has taken a break from Pinochfreud to report on one of those famous Anglo-French cooperation stories- you know, one of those nice engineering stories like Concorde and maybe even Eurobus or Airbus or whatever the Eurofighter thingy is called.

I only hope that Norman Foster's latest bridge doesn't sway like the last one.

Fascinating as Usual- the Belmont club has part two of a post about Europe. It seems this period is prompting a lot of reflection on where we are and where we are heading, which is good. By 'we', I suppose I mean those identifying themselves with the Anglospheric association.

There's a lot of China about these days:

'China is methodically following the example of Meiji Japan in moving from a position of inferiority to one of military equality with far superior rivals, by deliberate application of a striking phenomenon of economics'

Friends United

Iraq the Model (well, Omar & Mohammed) and Roger Simon, two of my favourite blog sources, have met, and it seems to have quite a touching meeting judging from what Roger says. Instapundit had that, and a useful link to one of the voices that have been raised to defend the brothers against the accusations of illwishers- illwishers that the third brother, Ali, still holding the fort in Iraq, takes a post to tackle. Ok, so I almost lifted a post, effectively (apart from the last link)- but it's like a party that I prefer not to be excluded from, and, well, it's Christmas (nearly).

Can the EU regulate itself into success? Belmont Club thinks not.

I suppose this is important as every day I get more and more impressions of the EU's ambitions, with Turkey and Rumania prominent, but the vague Eastern promise of countries like the Ukraine tantalisingly over the horizon.

A related question, suggested by watching BBC World, is whether the BBC can browbeat us into environmentalism. Now, I just need a link for that one. Here's an old post from Liberty Log that still carries some bite.

Responsibility: Melanie Phillips tells it straight about the media's responsibility for encouraging attacks on Coalition troops.

More job cuts, please. Nicholas Vance's prescription for improving the BBC sounds about right to me. A must read-type post.

More China- Brian Micklethwaite has put together a valuable post at Samizdata

More China stuff from two of my favourite sources, EurSoc and the American Thinker, about the armaments trade and 'Dollar diplomacy'. Both sources confirm the fact that should be informing British policy towards Europe and the rest of the world. Europe is in a hole, economically, diplomatically, and militarily.

Sigh, Relief... Steyn is back in the Telegraph- and poor John Monckton has a effective voice raised in anger (via the excellent Tim Worstall)

The World gets big on us- and you know what, I think Bush can cope with it (so says the Weekly Standard, and as so often they're right). When I say big, I mean fascinating accelerations like this one in China (isn't it amazing how financial journals these days bring all the real news?), or this story from B-BBC, which perfectly illustrates so much of my criticism of the BBC's coverage of Africa- and its consequences.

Of course, its only just becoming acceptable to say that Bush has some kind of wisdom up his sleeve (actually the conventional view is that Bush plays poker and that's how he's weirdly canny), but I predict it will gather pace, for a little while. Funnily enough I think we'll come to value Bush's judgement even as we come to recognise the vacuity of a certain Anthony Blair's- here EURef is surely on the mark ahead of schedule.

Great Commentary from David Pryce-Jones on the potential for Islamisation in Europe (via the indispensible Real Clear Politics). He goes back through a range of gathering incidents to what I think of as one of those minor events of major importance- the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie for his book about the Koran 'The Satanic Verses'.

I will always remember how this incident announced to me the existence of a powerful force of irrational zealotry, shockingly different, yet almost symmetrical to our own rigorously enforced secularism. I think the contrast between the fate of Rushdie's work and the fate of a similarly controversial work in that year, The Last Temptation of Christ by Martin Scorsesee, convinced me that something was going to give in the future.

Update: Including both the theme of censorship and the Islamisation of Europe, this is a fascinating article in the Jerusalem Post about the murder of Theo Van Gogh (who was, in fact, as I suspected but hadn't found confirmed until now, the Great Grand-Nephew of Vincent van Gogh) and its repercussions in the Netherlands. (If this link requires registration, I recommend you become registered- the J.P. is often one of the most informative reads around, and easy to join too)

That don't impress me much

So Bono says he wants to spend the rest of his life fighting poverty. This from a guy that has spent years at the head of one of the most lucrative, frivolous and essentially distracting 'industries' the West has yet toyed with. What a man!

Ok, so I like his (sorry, their) music, sort of, in the sense that it always annoyed me less than the rest, had a mood that sprung from experiences which, out of the UK's relative comfort zone, seemed to have reality, and had lyrics that seemed a little poetic and aspirational. I still preferred Simple Minds though, apart from Van Diemen's land.

I guess that 'Wealthy Pop star puffs out chest and laments world poverty' shouldn't be much of a shock to me, but it rankles- whatever Bono's financial arrangements may be. But if it shouldn't surprise me, why should it be news to the BBC?

Come to think of it, why should this caption, 'Bono said world leaders looked at him like "sort of exotic plant"' be placed next to a picture of GWB, whereas the next thing we know Bono anecdotalises thus: '"But I've found them to be very respectful. When I met [Bill] Clinton, I looked like our road crew and he burst out laughing.' ? This comes in the wake of the Clinton library episode, where U2's appearance was touted by the BBC as part of the grand occasion.

Sounds a bit like Bono has a strange notion of respect, as indeed the BBC have of impartiality- and somehow it seems that there may be some kind of media-industrial-Liberal complex at work here that could use the investigation of a few good journalists.

Galloway's a fleabite compared to some of the issues confronting us today. Hugh Hewitt has a vital article taking up the story of a euthanasia committee established in the Netherlands, sheltering under the reassuring title of the 'Groningen Convention'.

Never mind that this sounds like some dull but worthy piece of history in the making, I try to consider the fact that the law today, which we all contribute towards in various ways (passive or active) exonerates bad men and persecutes children (even as it permits the massacre of the unborn).

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.

Election Reflection


The BBC is running a page for US voters to explain to bemused and befuddled Europeans why they voted for GWB. All the entries I troubled to read were extraordinarily well put together and spelt- as though thoroughly edited- except one:

'There is a lot of Biblical teaching on how God judges nations. The story of Lot is one example on how corrupt societies corrupt good people and bring down a community. Gay marriage and abortion are a threat to our culture and security. I voted to preserve the morale values of this country.
Howard, Chicago, USA'

I can't help wondering why that might have been.

In other election reflection, it seems appropriate here to note the energetic study of Steve Sailer, who, despite often criticizing the Prez., doubts whether Kerry was acccurately portrayed as having the higher I.Q. of the two men. Not that I'm a fan of the intelligence quotient system, but since they mentioned it first...

Finally, last but not at all least, the olympian (I mean his talent and achievements) Hugh Hewitt has written a terrific article about the Democrat defeat and what, in completing a phase of history that began in the sixties, it means for the future. His opinions are conciliatory and visionary, I'd say.

So much to say.

I'll begin by saying that Mark Steyn was right (phew!) about the US Presidential election.

More importantly, his thoughts about the Bin Laden tape are vital and fascinating. I posted about this earlier, and there are points of agreement.

Also, I think Steyn is at his best when he knows his audience is hostile- several of his Irish Times articles have had a degree of clarity and originality which even surprised as avid a consumer (sorry Mark- I'll pay you later) of Steyn's lines as I am.

On Osama-

'he seems to be repositioning himself from holy warrior to torpid 1950s pan-Arab secular nationalist.'

On the Left-

'if I were a Democrat, I would be deeply ashamed at the way my favourite talking-points have been taken up so enthusiastically by my country’s enemies. Not just My Pet Goat, but the whole Bush-stole-Florida thing. In the heat of partisan politics, the left has failed to understand that these are arguments that diminish not just their target but an entire political culture.'

On Osama's use of the Left (with acknowledgement to 'Aussie wag' Tim Blair)-

'“It appeared to him [Bush] that a little girl’s talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers.”

Ha-ha. It’s the way he tells ‘em. But Blair pointed out that, unlike Michael Moore, who just used the book’s title as a cheap gag at the President’s expense, Osama went to the trouble of mastering the plot. In My Pet Goat, the eponymous hero prevents his little friend’s dad’s car being stolen by butting the thieves. If you go down to a polling station tomorrow and talk to the anti-Bush crowd, you’ll notice that, despite having been doing the “Shrub sat there reading My Pet Goat for seven whole minutes!” cracks to like-minded chums for six months, your average leftie windbag hasn’t been motivated to find out anything about the book beyond the title.'

All of this, and Steynian punning genius, reducing Osama to the mere 'bin man', the purveyor of garbage- much like his 'familiar' Moore.

OoooK, this post has turned into a Mark Steyn appreciation moment. I have a lot of thoughts about the BBC just now, too, but they'll have to wait. I should also say, while I'm here, a big thank you to Mark for all his wonderful columns. I'll have to revive my letter writing habits and tell him more directly.

I think that when you listen into French radio the day after the night before a US election result (as I did), and find the presenters' tones sombre, their subject 'stability' and their prognosis an uncomfortable time for M Chirac, you know it's been a good night for GWB.

Update:

Meanwhile...

An Indymedia guy reflects on the outcome:

'Personally, I played my bongos at many rallies to defeat Bush. I had some phat beats going sometimes for hours, I really gave it my all.

How could this happen?'

...And, by the way, I love the BBC's graphic dept.

Another Way:

After reading the Moore/Bin Laden tripe mentioned in the post below (which is unfortunately somewhat necessary reading) I was refreshed by reflecting on this analysis from Amir Taheri. Kind of a different way of seeing the Bush Admin., I think you'd have to say.

Here it is:

That Democratic election broadcast transcript in full- via LGF, who else?

I recommend that you read it all, for the light it casts on the Michael Moore, sorry, Bin Laden mentality, and especially how he seeks to understand America. It's vastly more informative than the excerpts we've received from the press, which leads me to think that though they can't formulate an original idea to save their lives they know dynamite when it's thrown at them.

It's interesting how much Bin Laden has an eye for economics. It's interesting how much he taps into the thinking of Western liberals to critique the allegedly blind leadership of the shrub- he even cites the Royal Institute of International Affairs as a source for the boast that Al Qaeda's wisdom surpasses that of the World's superpower. He seems to know all the 'right' people, including, infamously, the 'neutral' Robert Fisk.

In short, it's the best liberal critique of GWB that I've read, and it comes from one of the worst mass-murderers at large in the world today- and that, surely, shows the depths of depravity to which our Liberal intelligencia has sunk, when they can't outflank a jumped up murderer like Bin Laden, and instead become his helpmates.

And yes, I do pray that GWB succeeds in his re-election bid, big style.

As for Michael Moore, he's busy being himself, which has already proven more than helpful to Osama:

'There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?)'

Right now, quickly, I endorse Bush, like Natalie, and for almost exactly the same reasons! And, like, neither of us can vote, anyway.

Yes, and I'm disgusted by Barabara Plett of the BBC- but then I'm disgusted by some of their audience, too.

So Mark Steyn was wrong and Osama is still alive: but why make a come back only to deliver such an easily ridiculed message? (hopefully it's the only surprise Al Qaeda will spring this election season).

UNscam: a true story

It's been a long time since I updated concerning the UN Oil for Fraud scandal, so this is not a bad point to take notice of, from a Wall Street Journal editorial:


'Saddam Hussein exploited the program to run the largest bribery scheme in the history of the world.

Yes, we mean that literally'

...

And for the doubters:

'It can't be stressed enough that both the Duelfer and Volcker investigations confirm that this global web of corruption is no mere allegation trumped up by Ahmed Chalabi and "neoconservatives," '

All of which contrasts rather starkly with the rather non-story about the missing explosives which our biased national broadcaster considered fit for their frontpage for several Kerry-pandering days.

Andrew Sullivan: Wrong about the War on Terror, wrong about Iraq, Bush, and gay marriage, and now... wrong about Hitchens endorsing Kerry. Actually, they still disagree, even about this, as Hitch makes clear in the Nation.

The Beatification of William:

Once again I am reminded of the BBC's boundless appetite for romanticising the Democratic challenge to President Bush. There's no doubt it takes two to tango, but the BBC is near contravening obscenity laws in the way it holds aloft the form of Clinton for the world to admire.

Adam Brookes writes that 'He makes good television and he generates copy.' as though that were a judgement beyond the BBC's control. I actually think that if there ever was an instance of an empty suit, Clinton might have been it.

Meanwhile they are running out of respectful terms for Kerry. This time they resort to 'lugubrious' to express the absence of personality in the stiff from Massachusetts.

Kerry, says Brookes, wants to show that he can bring the good times back:

'It was on Bill Clinton's watch, say the Democrats, that America was last in the black.'

Meanwhile Brookes has already coined his own view of the nineties- the 'roaring 90's'- which lends Kerry some extra credibility, and he doesn't take a moment to explain that what Clinton's 'watch' really meant was a passive if not prostrate (ahem) attitude to a growing terrorist threat. Oh well.

Oh well, all that remains is to insult the Repuglicans with some trademark BBC prejudice:

'The Republican Party - many of whose members retain a boundless loathing for Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary - put out a well-crafted sneer as Mr Clinton took to the stump.'

The BBC, you see, constructs articles, and indeed its whole coverage, with a scrupulous attention to fairness; while the Repugnicants spend all their time crafting their slime and sneer campaigns. I hope that's clear to all. Any questions?

Coming Through Loud and Clear

Charles Moore, often the dealer of ambiguous hands, comes up trumps in this article about the upcoming election:

'So who gains if Bush loses? The Labour Left, of course, and the political power of the European Union, the Guardian readers who have been writing magnificently counterproductive anti-Bush letters to the voters of Clark County, Ohio, and every twerp who says with a trembling lip that Mr Bush and Mr Blair have "blood on their hands"; not to mention every corrupt, undemocratic, "pragmatic" government in the Middle East that longs for a return to stasis. '

There's only one group he leaves out amidst some far more serious winners than those quoted above: the BBC. Marc at USS Neverdock has some words to say about them (some of them misspelt, but we all make mistakes- and mine are usually bigger than that!).

On the subject of Charles Moore and the BBC, I took this letter on Steyn's website as delivering a backswipe at the policies pursued by Moore during his time as Telegraph editor. Says George Warburton:

'RESTORE THE TELEGRAPH
My father read the Telegraph for most of his life. I started to read parts of it when I was about 13 years old, having been weened on The Childrens' Newspaper. Since the age of 20 I have read all of it every day (slight exaggeration).

I have enjoyed reading your column and was disgusted that your latest effort was censored. The DT was in the wrong hands for a number years, being at times an apologist for the paedophile tendency of the Roman church (and an enemy of the BBC for that reason, when there were so many other reasons). I had hoped that a change of ownership would bring a change of editorial control and a restoration of the values of the past but it has yet to happen. I live in hope.'


Interesting. I might even agree.

Meanwhile, Steyn himself, who has never been known for self-contradiction or pulling punches, is feeling the need to spell things out again:

'The war against the Islamists and the flu-shot business are really opposite sides of the same coin. I want Bush to win on Election Day because he's committed to this war and, as the novelist and Internet maestro Roger L. Simon says, "the more committed we are to it, the shorter it will be.'' The longer it gets, the harder it will be, because it's a race against time, against lengthening demographic, economic and geopolitical odds. By "demographic," I mean the Muslim world's high birth rate, which by mid-century will give tiny Yemen a higher population than vast empty Russia. By "economic," I mean the perfect storm the Europeans will face within this decade, because their lavish welfare states are unsustainable on their shriveled post-Christian birth rates. By "geopolitical," I mean that, if you think the United Nations and other international organizations are antipathetic to America now, wait a few years and see what kind of support you get from a semi-Islamified Europe.'