It's all very well for Paul Reynolds to get into the French-centred history of the EU, as though it were some intricate watch mechanism that the French, having constructed, have just dashed to the ground in a huff.

The truth is that it's a lot less delicate than that, a lot more chauvinistic than some airy-fairy vison of Monnet and Schumann, and it's post-modern in its imperviousness to the pleading or reasoning of its subjects.

EURef sums up well the narrative which is being presented by the likes of Reynolds:

'The morning after, it looks like the end of a Dick Tracy episode. The hero is bound and gagged, facing a certain, horribly violent death - and the credits start rolling.'

While Reynolds has seized on the drama, and builds up the sense of crisis, the Telegraph offers the realistic conclusion to the referendum affair:

'the Euro-elites will make some soothing noises about the need to address voters' concerns; then they will carry on as if nothing had happened. This is, after all, not the first time that they have had to deal with rejection in a national referendum.'

In other words, what Reynolds builds up is that satisfying sense that the Euro-elite has been wounded; that it is hurting. In fact, such is the imperviousness of our technocratic masters, they don't know what hurt is.

Reynolds suggests that 'the EU will stagger on under existing treaties.'- and this, like much of his article, might seem like a criticism, but in fact it tacitly endorses the project and the need for the Constitution.

As the Telegraph says:

'From the first, the EU's founding fathers understood that it needed to be immune to public opinion. The genius of Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman was to design a system in which supreme power was wielded by unelected officials, and in which the peoples were presented with a series of faits accomplis.'

So when the public say 'no', this is inconvenient, but you don't change direction, you merely show the effort that progress requires. You stagger, maybe you fall like some tragic Greek hero, but you don't change your mind.

They are not cool, they are not techies, but EU Referendum blog have easily the best response to the French No that I've found anywhere. Be vigilant, work hard, if you believe that the project still needs to be dismantled. Also, be imaginative, like Austin Bay: 'well, hello, French Duck...' . (via Instapundit)

Solana: every reason you ever needed to reject the EU.

I have to admit, first of all, that Javier Solana has always been, for me, the most impressive of Europe's politicians. This is quite subjective, but based on his charm and courtesy and genuine ease in speaking English- plus his robust role during the Kosovo crisis some years back (as I recall).

So I was in interested when I came across this article entitled 'The Case for Europe' at Real Clear Politics.

It begins with the usual bombast: 'The case for choosing Europe is as strong as ever', to which my response is, as ever, 'not good enough, Mr Barroso, Solana, Delors, Estaing or Prodi'. They are in the same mode now as they were in the eighties: headbanging EU skinheads that think if they just bellow the same slogans again and again it somehow enhances their authority. I have to say I expected better from Solana.

This inauspicious intro is followed by the trademark EU historical butchery when Solana (who I considered educated) says

'More than any other region, Europe experienced the horrors of the 20th century. It was no surprise that after 1945, an exhausted continent was ready to try a radical new idea - building a zone of peace through institutional integration and the voluntary pooling of sovereignty'

You notice for the umpteenpth time that 'Europe' means France and Germany, plus sundry others. You also notice that, in typical Eurocratic fashion, Solana has forgotten his own country's history, since Spain didn't join the European project, then entitled the EEC, until the 1980's. Can I respect a man who wilfully forgets (or deliberately overlooks, for rhetorical purposes) his own background?

Of course he doesn't even mention the division of Europe into Communist East and non-Communist West.

But of course getting history right is secondary for most people, which is why the Euros always play fast and loose with it. Still, people don't like it, and nor do I.

The second thrust to Solana's argument is that bigger is better.

The third thrust is that bigger is even better when speaking with one united voice.

The fourth point is to repeat the previous two points but while emphasising security threats rather than diplomatic opportunities as a reason for desiring a bigger, and more united, Europe.

Perhaps I should make an aside here, in the absence of any real substance to Solana's argument greater than the kind offered to men's libidos by The Sun's Page Three.

I have a number of friends from former communist countries, and among them one is a sociology academic, the kind of person who gets invited to various training courses and fora to learn about and discuss political development. He was invited to one such forum in the 1990's, run by EU-types. He told me that he left the seminar with his head spinning- he'd seen it all before, he told me; it was COMECON.

'It's like Bingo, only in real life.'- Mr Free Market has a brilliant post, and I mean brilliant, on the infamous (in the UK anyway) Atkins/Williams family. It doesn't mean that I agree with everything (I'm basically anti-abortion) he says, but it's not a post to agree with, it's a post merely to nod your head to. The case of the Williams/Atkins family also er, spawned, this devastating post from Andrew McCann of A Tangled Web.

VDH gives a great analysis of some people who really annoy me.

More on the BBC's bogeyman Ilario Pantano from The Washington Times. The BBC has a response that I can only say cries out for a 'compare and contrast' approach. I was struck by the prominence of this quote (surely taken out of context badly):

'"The best interests of 2nd Lt Pantano and the government have been served by this process," the Marine Corps said in a statement.'

Europe: yesterday's idea or a serious project? I leave you free to choose (heh).

Spoiling the atmospherics: Somehow I don't think this verdict was quite what Paul Wood had in mind when he wrote this article. One not for the BBC archive- catch it while you can. (thanks to Marc for the tip)

As the BBC offer their well-worn activist platform to the findings of Amnesty International, it's good to notice that the transnationals are coming under a least a little scrutiny, as in this Wall Street Journal article, 'As Bad as the Nazis?: What the Red Cross thinks of the US military.'

What's interesting about the article is that it identifies a pattern of behaviuor, especially concerning the IRC and the media, which demonstrates that it is far from being the 'truly neutral humanitarian body' which many ordinary people feel it must be, and which many in the media would like to pretend it is.

Which brings me to Amnesty, and the Beeb.

According to the Beeb, it is said that '"four years after 9/11, the promise to make the world a safer place remains hollow"'.

But since when was it Amnesty's role to focus its entire approach on the US's presumed 'promises', and to suggest that bringing peace is the responsibility (and therefore the lack of it the failure) of the US and not of the Islamofascists who clearly stoke and have stoked violence at every opportunity?

Or, as Ms Khan puts it, "When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity."

This message is pathetic, suggesting that it is the US that grants a license for violence and not the fact of 9/11 which grants them a license for military action of whatever sort deemed necessary to prevent the future that 9/11 was intended by its perpetrators to presage.

The report goes onto suggest, according to the supine BBC presentation, that 'Many countries used anti-terror rhetoric to justify arbitrary detentions and unfair trials, it said, citing China's arrest of thousands of ethnic Uighurs and similar acts in India, Malaysia, Nepal and Pakistan'

But this is clearly a massive skewing of the data when one considers the patent human rights improvements in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia- and the much greater pressure on those countries to reform- which have directly followed the prosecution of the WoT. The fact is that countries like China have never needed any excuse for human rights abuses, and the only difference now is that they actually need to give an answer to critics because of Bush's pro-human rights stance.

The whole approach of Amnesty is political, and pathetically shallow in its politicking. What I would like to see is direct and sustained criticism of these bodies, to the extent that their activity and their influence, and their presence on BBC soapboxes, is greatly reduced pending proof that they have a reasoning capacity and that they actually do any good.

Meanwhile, speaking of reasoning capacity ...- a nugget of the real thing (er, not) via USS Neverdock.

No EU Constitution- no Problem (for the US) (brackets mine) (via RCP)

John O'Sullivan is good on the referenda- especially on putting a little orange in the picture:

' According to the law in the EU's founding treaties, the proposed constitution cannot go into effect if any nation rejects it. But the conventional wisdom is that there are national gradations of power in this regard:

First level: If France, a founding member of the EU and one of Europe's "Big Three," rejects the constitution by a clear margin, then the constitution is finished.

Second level: If Britain, one of Europe's "Big Three" but not a founding EU member, votes against it, then there would have to be renegotiations to make the treaty more palatable to the British electorate.

Third level: If Holland, a founding member but one of Europe's smaller nations, votes against it, then the Dutch will have to keep voting until they get it right -- as in the past the Irish and Danes were forced to eat their votes.'

Coincidence?

France is poised to vote no, or something (Gerard Baker is not sure), and Britain is, with great slapping broad brush strokes, being painted into a corner as the bad guys for retaining their (well deserved) rebate. It's as if the French are being reassured that the rest of Europe has its eye firmly on the bad guys, l'Anglo Saxons, so the French electorate should take heart and vote 'oui'.

Eursoc covers lots of lovely Euroterritory.

Dear Lady Above- where can the BBC be? (perhaps their strike action has deprived them of their usual balance)

There was I, labouring under the conscientious apprehension that no-one cares about racismandsexism like the BBC, when I came across this nugget, which Natalie and Samizdata picked up, and which I should have read days ago but for my lazy eye/lazy clicker syndrome. It's from man on the conservative ball Theo Dalrymple, and I am truly shocked, shocked at his story of how a vicar, a man in fact, was able to project his Secret Self so effectually, penetrating the very heart of the carefully interwoven non-establishment diverse feminine and ethnic meritocracy.

Perhaps even more shocking, given that the Beeb looove these secret undercover institutional racexism stories, is that it takes a staid old Tory columnist to break the story. Where are you Beebies? Oh yes, I remember, bunking off. Keep up the good work!

Aside: actually, it's long been a mystery to me how such presses as Virago, the publisher bamboozled in this case, have been able to get away with such a blatant kind of unfairness- institutional sexism if ever there was such a thing.

By, er, popular demand (well, mine anyway): Hitchens on Galloway.

When I saw the pictures of Saddam in his pants I laughed, and I agree entirely with Powerline's take.

Of course the Beeb got the tingles over it, following any story of those abusive yanks like a dog with a bone. They truly are dangerous in their perverse priorities, ambulance chasers who try to precipitate accidents. Michelle Malkin has been chasing the chasers.

Update: Iraq the Model provides perspective.

Gerard Baker on Galloway seen from an Iraq perspective:

'It is the tragic but hopeful people of Iraq who have shown us how to defy power and misery, and who, if we stand firm against the Galloways of this world, will one day get the Respect they truly deserve.'

Natalie Solent quoted Baker, and added one salient observation.

Scott has what he terms 'final thoughts' about Galloway. I suspect the last word is a long way off, but his observations are valuable and lucid.

Meanwhile, speaking of lucidity, soon I am going to have to permanently link this site- whose well-known author carves up the fallacies of our welfare state like an expert surgeon. (Thanks to ATW for the link)

Ok. Galloway update.

I watched carefully, attaching myself to every Galloway twitch and visible emotion, making like a lie detector. I'd say Galloway absolutely winged it, and not terribly convincingly unless you are impressed by supercharged blarney. I don't think the Senate committee were as bad as some people think. I thought quietly about Lord Hutton, who could never match Galloway for rhetoric but would make mincemeat of him were he given six months to conduct an enquiry.

The Scotsman agreed with me that Gallingway was bullshitting to high heaven. His attempt at raising parallels between himself and Donald Rumsfeld was bizarre, illogical, and even stupid from his own point of view, which sees Rumsfeld as something close to one of Beezebub's flies.

Furthermore, his blatant soapbox approach merely convinced me he was trying to steamroller the real questions that would have teased out his guilt. Norm Coleman may have smirked like a schoolboy but I can see why and might have done the same in his shoes. I don't think the Senate committee was trying to dissect him on live tv- merely to probe a little and show they had allowed him a chance to cooperate sincerely. Galloway failed, as sincerity is a foreign country to him.

My view is that information about Galloway's guilt will continue to dribble out; no-one has the committment to skewer Gorgeous, but plenty of people are paid to investigate his kind of corruption and will continue to fill in the picture slowly. Harry's Place, points this investigation out as an example.

The real question is when the line is crossed and Galloway goes from curiosity to societal reject. I think it will come, in time.

Let me at 'im.

That's how I feel when I hear about Galloway's barnstorming yet contentless appearance before the US senate committee: It's a 'a paack of liiiess' etc etc.. I'd love to be the prosecuting counsel against Galloway (which usually requires some legal training but...well, I mean...), but I'll content myself for now by linking to this good summary of his appearance from that reliable online source The Scotsman.

Sad but true- the Beeb's slick bias.

Trying something newish here- that is, to comment on the Beeb's anti-Conservative bias, and even their pro-Tony bias. Of course the leftists have typically felt they needed to be at Tony's throat as long as he was chummy with W., and W. was chummy with Rummy, but then they had a wopping majority to reassure them that a mediatorial vote against Tony wasn't a vote against, well, Tony. I suppose that that actually explains why the 'stopper' left were so angry about the war- they thought that 'their' man was in charge, and then they found that he wasn't so much their man as they'd thought. Naturally Blair's independence from the far-left, nominal though it is in philosophical terms, has always been his passport to election to Government in the UK.

But there's a real sense of bygones being bygones in this Beeb blather from Nick Assinder about Tone's new term agenda. It's a hotchpotch of authoritarianism and social tinkering which conceals a continual leftward drift in public policy- in other words business as usual in the 'Third Way' and the sort of thing that Beebies can readily get behind.

So, Blair is 'is out to make this package count' and continuing as, allegedly, he began- 'at full throttle.' . The whiff of bull is unmistakeable. Blair's approach is 'undoubtedly ambitious, controversial and wide-ranging' . He sweeps, he tackles, he reforms, he bans- like some overgrown Harry Potter he leaves those unscrupulous Slytherin' rascals floundering in his wake- 'The Tories have previously been split on the proposal but, if they scent the prime minister's blood, are likely to seize any opportunity to help defeat him.'.

To round off the impression that the Beeb is reconciling itself to Tone again and trying to get behind The Progam, this snippet of sartorial nonsense is a small case in point.

There is only one man, to my mind, who can be said to have pioneered the use of appearance in latter day politics in a most artful way to enhance his reputation, and that man is Tony Blair.

Yet it's the nasty party whose 'naked ambition'- yes, it's a crap opportunist pun- has led to a situation where 'A string of senior Conservatives have been putting their necks out on television talk shows to push their leadership credentials.'

Yes, they're back in line, and if we want some real criticism it'll be DIY from here on, so here's Irwin Stelzer on Blair's inglorious role in the world economy-

'More seriously, the Labour government's stated attempt to find a third way between America's free market capitalism and Europe's corporatism has been abandoned in favor of a lurch towards a high-tax, increasingly regulated economy that is already producing consumer angst, stock market jitters, and depressed businessmen.'

More seriously indeed.

Meanwhile, talking of collaboration between Arabs and Israelis...

Just whose side do they think they're on?

Alright, I'll admit the naivity implicit in my question, as I'll admit to a weakness for wanting to believe that people who share as much of my culture as do the journalists who fill the BBC, are somehow 'with me' and not against me.

But still, reading this article on the BBC website, with its introduction as follows, I couldn't help silently screaming the line which I used to start this post:

'I knew he was a collaborator, and he knew, I knew he was a collaborator, but the 50-year-old sheikh still danced around the issue.'

Yes. And the 'collaborator' in question was an Arab man who had helped the Israelis.

So, if the BBC journo, Butcher, knows the man as 'a collaborator', presumably he also knows who he thinks the enemy are. Implicitly, he reinforces the intifada, he objectifies Israel as a combatant in a war, and he endorses the demonisation which, as Melanie Phillips notes, gives rise to viciousness which even then the BBC chooses to romanticise.

Media Menace.

Of course you can't blame Newsweek entirely for what happened, but the press exploitation of the Islamic issue generally must lead to events like this. I expect the riots had been planned by terrorist remnants of the Taliban regime for a long time, and they were just waiting for an occasion. The BBC's megaphone journalism reporting horrified reactions to the 'desecration'- everyone from the Saudis on- was noticeable, and causeless. The mutual dependence of extremist Islamics and extremist left-wing journalists with their 'investigational' journalism is an awful kind of Frankenstein. Cabarfeidh and Powerline round up.

Blurr's intentions. My mistrust of Blair (despite his correct final analysis judgment call over Iraq) is pretty thorough- and developing all the time.

Hence I knew something was amiss when Blair addressed the question of Lords reform during his first public press briefing of his third term in office, and said- rather pathetically after all this time- '"I want to think very carefully about reform of the House of Lords," "I am a bit undecided on some aspects of it myself."

The truth is that gutting and refurbishing the House of Lords has been one of Blair's greatest pleasures in his governing period- a long, protracted meal with plenty of time to digest it- blotted only by the fact that the House of Lords has stalled and mired a number of his schemes. Well, to see his solution to this problem, and to see that he actually has some very firm ideas about what to do with the House of Lords, you need only look at the way he's gerrymandering the House now, satisfying some of the dumbest loyal drones who have brought him to this juncture of third term politics by elevating their nonentities to the Upper House and rebalancing it in his favour by doing so. (with thanks to A Tangled Web)

Feeling Geopolitical: great thought-food from Kissinger, and Baker of the Times, on the USA in the world and Britain in Europe respectively (and when I say Britain in Europe I intend no connection with the euphemistically named Euroenthusiast pressure group). (via RCP). Also, and related to the previous, EURef puts the Times right on a point of fact, and the point of fact leads to an interesting rumination.

Not Forgetting Gallowsway, of course, Marc at USSNeverdock has a thorough, interesting and expanding post which went some way to satisfying my considerable appetite for the hunt. Mind you, it didn't stop me enjoying the feast on offer at Harry's Place.

Cringemaking coverage.

The BBC is just a embarrassment. Never mind Gallowsway and co.- today a solid block of the BBC's web frontpage was devoted to covering the USA they way they like to- that is, with Republican values and personalities on the defensive.

Take the Bolton case. The Beeb's presentation, while not false in strict terms, plays on the ignorance of its readership to increase a sense of Republican crisis over John Bolton's nomination to the UN.

They pile it on: 'increasing pressure', 'A leading Democrat senator' -surprise!-, 'A key Republican senator' (how key? Well, only in the sense that he happened to be on the relevant committee- not key as in, well, important generally). They start with the negatives and gradually unwind- if you can be bothered to read past all the breathless relayal of derring Democrat-do - and the purposeful expression of their 'options' should W fail to do as the BBC expects of him and capitulate to their righteous ululations- and finally we come to Bush's comments, which seem comically simple set against the Beeb's overwrought prose: 'Mr Bush has called Mr Bolton "a blunt guy" who "can get the job done at the United Nations".'

In all the above one can detect the leaden hand of one Justin Webb, who, lo!, is on hand here to add some finishing touches about the 'bruised' President ('cast your mind back' to the horrors of November; now we have a 'plaintive' president- chuckle chuckle- 'Senator George Voinovich, of Ohio, opted for independence' etc,, blah). The aim of course is as it is for the Democrats: a lameduck Bolton serving (if he must) a lameduck President. Carry on screaming, chaps.

For a better., more informative take on the facts, and a far less partisan engagement with the issues, see here.

Say- did I say a solid block? Well, they had a little anti-death penalty fest as well, here and here (at least the second one to cheer up the troops, anyway).

Time to re-think that Al Jazeera deal? Or did the BBC buy into Uday's Oil-for-News program all the long?

Bedtime reading for the Beebies about how once upon a time there was a theory...- a theory, see? Compare and contrast.

The Beeb:
'Researchers... say 70% of Switzerland's glaciers will disappear in the next 30 years, due to the effects of global warming.'

The alternative view:
'Glaciers have been receding for hundreds of years; that’s because we are still coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating.
It’s normal.'

Wish we'd hear the alternative sometimes, even if it would spoil the story.

Meanwhile, here, in case you were a little bemused about Mr Blurr's mixed bag, is the real trouble (non Iraq, largely) with Tony, as depicted brilliantly before the election in NRO.

Yay- get the lynch mob ready for Gallowsway- as Time reports the posse is [apparently- welcoming here suggestions about other British MP's who could be a subject of such revelations] about to 'out' the alleged UNscammer as part of a wider revelation of international figures involved in profiteering out of Saddam's corrupt regime- or maybe just ring the great bells of Bow, since something tells me history's guts will reject hideous George.

Marc at USS Neverdock alerted me to this story, and, if true, we could be looking forward to a second bite at having a decent election in Bethnal Green and Bow. Hooray if so. Also, I might ask of Mr Galloway- since he seems so enthusiastic about court cases- whether he oughtn't to think in terms of a different court and start dialogue with some defence lawyers.

Whilst nothing about the UK election actually sickened me, even Gallowsway's victory and crowing attempt to mire Blair in an Iraq-based demise, I would welcome a goodbye to all that. If Galloway does go down (a big 'if' since he's more slippery than a Tigris Trout), it might lead to an even bigger rollback of opinion on Iraq than this Max Hastings article demonstrates.

Despite his many flaws in his pursuit of an Iraq strategy, Blair deserves vindication on the geopolitical fundamentals, and to weather media round ups of anti-war-founded criticism such as this produced by the Beeb- comprising merely the usual suspects who have always supplied the Beeb with anti-war soundbytes throughout.

The Beeb's anti-war bias is well demonstrated by the absurdly one dimensioned analysis of John Simpson, who has done his best- with his BBC chums- to make Iraq the cause celebre of Blair's downfall. Marc also investigates this one. In it, Simpson claims, absolutely contrary to Max Hastings and his 'sources', that 'Iraq's civil war ' is 'worsening month by month'. Which goes to show that Simpson, like Gallowsway, hasn't forgotten who his Saddamite friends were- and hastens to see things their way.

The story of the election was probably the radicalisation of Northern Ireland's politics- and a test of Blairism will be Nelson Mandela's chum Peter Hain's ability to get his master's bidding done. NI focused website A Tangled Web predicted the UUP meltdown a long time ago, and continually repeated its prophesies until the fateful day for Trimble came. As the UUP should have heeded those warnings, so they should take this advice.

For an interesting analysis from across the water (the big water) try these guys

Meanwhile, this being VE day, Niall Ferguson is a history guy worth reading on the subject (via RCP)

Today I gorged on UK election commentary, on media great and small.

This might not be everyone's cup of tea but it satisfied me.

Among the mass of opinions expressed I came closest to agreeing with Matthew Parris, a writer for whom I seem to find a strange mixture of admiration, mild irritation, and fury. Still, I think he nailed what was really worth nailing in his current commentary, with his usual stylishness and hyberbole thrown in.

On the other hand I have reflected and thought that it was unwise to call Galloway the leader of a racist party- as I did yesterday, wishing to find a suitably progressive insult. They might be that, but hearing about Jeremy Paxman making Galloway look good completely turned me off that somewhat unstraightforward assertion.

There is though a much darker side to election 2005 than Parris's slightly bucolic prose brings to light. Melanie Phillips digs in, and I think effectually.

Not so bad as all thaaaat.

Mark Steyn (at least, his website) blogged the election, and aside from predicting a fall in turnout he did a very nice job as you'd expect.

He and Andrew McCann differ- as do most Conservative leaners- on whether it's A) The beginning of the end of the Conservatives, or B) The end of the beginning for the Conservatives.

I was sad of course that Tim Collins, my favourite Conservative I'd generally say, lost his seat, and that hideous George won one for himself by playing the race card so shamelessly. Really the man (hideous George) is beyond parody, beyond reproach.

Other notable things included the amazing disappearing Ulster Unionist party, typified by David Trimble's annihilation at the hands of the surging DUP. With Sinn Fein's vote hardening and the SDLP sinking, the region seems to be polarising. Another success for Mr Blair's bestridal of the international stage.

That the Prime Minister and I coincided over Iraq seems now to have been only a coincidence. Like Howard I would have favoured taking on the Saddamite regime whether 'WMD' or no- though Michael should have troubled himself to explain it better.

On the whole I think Howard has given the Conservatives heart. Blair's unpopularity over the war was not a Conservative issue, but it was one of the few trains departing the station when Mr Howard was waiting to board a train (and Howard's nothing but a decent man of his time). Still, despite that he managed to match the Liberals for whom this was an issue. We can discount RESPECT as a party for inner city racist vandals. On balance I think Andrew McCann has it right: it's the beginning of something for the Conservatives, allowing room for personnel development (post updated, slightly)- if you know what I mean.

Garton-ass (as Tim Worstall puts it) follows Gordon (see below post) in laying out the case for voting Labour to usher in a new- but strange, apparently- Liberal Britain.

As Tim points out this is rubbish masquerading as history. As I recall it from me history classes, the days of Liberals versus Conservatives were the days when a sensible, if often unacceptably languid, debate was had between the State not doing something, and the State doing something- all at a time when it was much harder for the state to wield any kind of apparata whatsoever.

These days it's dead easy for the Government to 'do something': it's call fiddling with absurdly complex and deliberately managerial taxation, and pumping it into artificially lowering unemployment by creating such various bodkins as 'classroom assistants' (nice though they naturally are) and the like.

Anyhow, What Blair definitely isn't is a classical Liberal- and the same almost goes without saying for Charles Kennedy. What the strange new birth might be, in fact, is a nation of state-fed puddings- stodgy, doughy, fatty and stupid.

Vote for Polly's head to explode. Hilarious end to a Worstall post. My cross is already on the paper, waiting to be popped into the box.

Gordon Brown has one thing wrong in his analysis of the political situation, and unfortunately it invalidates all the rest.

Says Gordon:

'So to anyone tempted to use this election to register their discontent: there are real consequences to a protest vote that risks inadvertently returning the Conservatives to power, and which by punishing Labour would end up punishing the people who most need Labour.'

What's wrong with this (the emboldening gives the clue)? NO-ONE needs Labour. No-one needs the No 11 kleptocracy to do their thinking for them. No-one one needs Gordon.

If Gordon's lucky they'll vote for him anyway, as fat people vote for an extra burger.

John Simpson's 'lesson' the Americans should learn in Iraq: 'you're crap and you know you are!'

In this article he returns to his favourite ground: that of journalists being hit by friendly fire, and takes time to reiterate his favourite 'violence is growing almost daily' meme. This line is used so often by the BBC that if I plotted a graph with every mention of 'growing violence', and expected to find a pattern which mirrored these assertions- as opposed to the real situation of ebb and flow- I would add to the 'growing violence' by dying of laughter.

Classic line from Denis Boyles, brought to me via A Tangled Web:

'If Howard wins, I won’t be unhappy, just astonished at the triumphant vitality of European political mediocrity, British accent and all.'

This is sadly my point of view too, though saying anything original about the election cooked up for us by our current crop of politicians is not an easy matter.

Gerard Baker gives it a go.

My point of view is that Howard hasn't done such a bad job. He needed to appear tough and professional and he has. Unfortunately he's been tough in a one-dimensioned manner, ruled it seems by assumptions about the electorate, about Blair, and about the Conservative party which are difficult to rally around. It's been politics by numbers; points supposedly hitting public concerns but treating the public rather like a child that responds only to carefully numbered, reassuring and repeatable lists. There is no argument, which for a lawyer is pretty extraordinary, and no joined-up thinking. Just lists of words. It's boring, and easy for Blair to seem, as Boyles says, the only 'the only sentient British politician in sight'.

The tragedy of having to say that Howard's a decent man trying to do a difficult job (which sounds so much like what we used to say about IDS, funnily enough), is that Blair is such a flawed character; like Clinton only his faults are more fundamental, more lulling, more damaging.

Fairplay.

It's not the BBC's fault of course, but it seems strange to me that when you predict the result of the election using the Beeb's swingometer, and you assume 35% each for the Conservatives and the Labour party respectively, you find the Labour party with 134 seats more than the Conservatives. Sounds fair to me- not.

The BBC Applies Sanctions

US/Private business investigating Chinese textile imports = ridiculous and self-interested.

EU/God knows who pulls the strings = serious and conciliatory ('the EU's trade commissioner on Friday made a plea for Westerners to avoid protectionist thinking.'-see second link above).

Funny how the Beeb don't mention that in fact, while the US government is under pressure from business affected by imports, EU textile manufacturers are also pressing the EU for limits to Chinese imports (not that we in Britain have any textile manufacture to get angry about protecting).

Bearing this kind of one-sidedness in mind, is it coincidental that America always has to bear the brunt of the anti-glob mob's ire?

Meanwhile, on the subject of China, Mark Steyn continues his thoughts on matters oriental in the Spectator Magazine.

The art of Steyn is quite a philosophical one. He builds on core themes, is unafraid to repeat points of view and even the means of their expression. I don't think this is really repetitious, any more than a philosopher who builds his theories from certain arguments which require reiteration is being repetitious.

One of the central ideas in the article about the 'sovereign individual' (the second Steyn link above) was that migrant workers in the West would return to their homelands (eg. China, India) as these opened up to trade and development, offering the chance for clever committed migrants to prosper by returning home.

Steyn had a bit of grief from some blowhards who thought he meant that China was a beacon of human rights- an issue he addresses in the second piece.

The main reason he concentrates on the EU and Canada as the likely fall guys in this projected trend, meanwhile, is what he fairly calls the 'death bed demographics' of their huge territories.

Block by block he builds what seems a likely framework for the future.

I suppose it's not surprising then, given this degree of insight on the part of one writer working with materials gleaned from many sources, that the BBC have pricked up their ears at the notion of immigrant re-migration- but their take is rather different. They focus solely on human interest stories and guess who the fall guys for this process are? Yep, the US- with it's relatively prosperous economy and naturally growing population about as conspicuous to the Beeb as the horizon is to an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Election Selection

In the BBC's coverage of the British election, they take care to include a page about Iraq's WMD's and the partys' stands on them. This is surprising, in a way, because I don't think Howard ever accuses the Prime Minister of fabricating the reality of Saddam's WMD threat- what he deplores is Blair's casual use of the broad brush WMD argument, and in a deceptively direct way he calls this lying. Strictly speaking I think Howard is right, and Kennedy is wrong in saying that Blair misled us. Kennedy sounds like a good guy as usual, but in fact is calling Blair a fool as well as a knave. Howard is in fact the moderate because he accuses Blair of playing fast and loose with facts, which is a safe bet with Mr Blurr. There is no doubt he and the Sun did that.

Meanwhile, the Beeb were only too pleased to state its own definition of Charles Duelfer's conclusions to add a spin to a band wagon which doesn't represent the views of the main political opponents to Blair. Howard of course should make this clear, but he doesn't seem to see the need, relishing any criticism of Blair rather than the right criticism.

However, Captain's Quarters in a well argued post says that the MSM, with of course the BBC at the fore, have jumped far too soon and far too clumsily onto Duelfer's WMD negatives. The story's an old one, but it's important not to lose sight of it.

Good times roll for the Beeb.

Just over a year ago the BBC were in crisis as Lord Hutton's report caused the departure of three key BBC men: Gilligan, Dyke and Dayvies (ok, Gilligan wasn't too key, but his symbolism was.)

As a long-term BBC critic I can say those were heady days, yet I didn't feel too optimistic because our success came down to the good fortune (thank Tone) of having an old-fashioned, undiplomatic judge, and a BBC which decided (wisely, in one sense) that drastic action was required.

That drastic action, which gave people like me so much entertainment, saved the BBC for another day. They won their battle to have their charter and license fee renewed.

I knew, at the time, it would have been better for us had Dyke and co. hung tough, played down the Hutton findings after having briefed their journalist friends to expect the worst, and been the target of the New Labour machine thereafter.

That having been avoided, the BBC needed only to wait for events. Apart from the re-election of George W. Bush, which was an event not really on the BBC's beat anyway (though they love to dabble), these have favoured the Beeb.

First and foremost of course was the charter renewal I've already mentioned. That gives the BBC the breathing space which none of their commercial competitors enjoy. I've no doubt they're taking pleasure in it.

Second is the fact that their general scepticism about WMD, always a political football, has been given cover by both the trend towards questioning the war from all points of the political spectrum, and the findings of the likes of Duelfer which give no concrete support to those who proposed a WMD inclusive argument. Other related 'good news' for the BBC, given their pitch pre-war, might be the failure of the Volker report to eviscerate the UNscam, and the success of Gorgeous George in using a libel case to sweeten the stench given off by the anti-war mob, while punishing some of the BBC's detractors.

Third is that, after sacrificing to appease New Labour, the Beeb have been rewarded not only by their charter renewal, but by the cover that comes from having reconciled themselves with the party that is likely to be in charge of the political situation in the 'base country' for the foreseeable future.

That's why the Beeb now seem far surer-footed, despite lapses which demonstrate their innate tendencies. Some examples of surefootedness here and here that I would call good journalism were it not for the fact that the only good journalism that comes from the Beeb comes when their ideological budget affords it. In other words, when it doesn't damage their ideological agenda. It's so much easier to control those tendencies though when they have a defensible position in the scheme of things, and an assured future. When the Augean stables looks set to remain a major employer, it isn't hard to get the stable-boys to keep trying to freshen the top layer.

So, am I downhearted? No, is the answer to that- because the whole exercise is about recognising the BBC's institutional nature, and feeling the weight of its velocity, so as ultimately to destroy it if it will not be radically altered. The Gilligan-Dyke-Dayvies phenomenon showed how deep the BBC's culture runs, and how important it is to the socialist project as it has been conceived in Britain. Two deep-dyed socialists (Dayvies and Dyke, especially Dyke) fell on their swords to save the BBC and deliver it into today's calmer waters. Only by understanding that can I hope, in a small way, to facilitate the perfect storm which will end the BBC and all it stands for.

A clear view of what makes Tony Blair an overwhelming favourite for the election emerges from this article by Micklethwaite and Wooldridge in the LA Times.

There's a pathetic predictability in the way they describe Howard's success in appealing to Conservative support:

'the Conservatives have run their best campaign in a decade, talking tough on "dog-whistle" issues such as crime and immigration (in which their core supporters respond instinctively, even if you cannot hear the whistle).'

Whether they realise it or not, they have encapsulated the very quality in the British public's mentality at present which makes Howard's pitch unfeasible. The view of dog-and-whistle Conservatives is very far from the reality, since today's Conservatives have to grasp hold of things that matter through a fog of opposition. The British people are currently blind to Blair's simplism, locked into a false consciousness of celeb laden Britpop-inspired anti-Thatcher soft-focus love-see-no-colour complacency. All Tony Blair has to do is pose with a few celebs and babble on about how he and Gordon have mastered the economy and he's, as Campbell is said to have said, home and dry.

What's tragic is that history's real opportunities are passing us largely by as Blair poses for the cameras. The economy is only successful because of previous decades' reforms and the dividends of globalisation. Blair and Brown are simply setting us up for a fall by signing a contract with bureaucratic dead-ends, with the longer term vista of Europe their only get out clause. All the time they are setting up new shibboleths, such as the new vows they are making to the NHS, which cannot be sustained in the new world order that is coming.

Oh well.

To get a flavour of the greek tragedy that is the modern Britain's mindset, this Melanie Phillips post is a good place to start.

Outrage! There ought to be some, though the fact that I have only heard about the BBC's rent-a-heckler scheme to barrack Howard, as far as the MSM is concerned, from the Telegraph and a little snippet on Sky suggests that it will slip smoothly down the well-worn memory sinkholes out there. (This first link is to BiasedBBC's snippet-summary.)

However, I have to say that I agree with David Vance that 'The BBC is a menace to democracy in this country and that is one more reason why it should be privatised.'

This follows from my agreement with the Rottweiller Puppy that 'The fact of it is that when you're actually bringing in demonstrators and filming them while they disrupt a political rally, you've stepped across the wire, so to speak, between filming the news and actually manufacturing it. This isn't documentary-making, it's political activism.'

One could add to that nascent chorus USSNeverdock's conclusion: 'What a pathetic, biased and bumbling organization the BBC has become.'

My own view (to add that) is that this incident is not surprising. Observing the Beeb's tendancy to highlight every utterance of Howard on the subject of immigration it's clear they feel he is one step away from warranting 'Griffining'. They've been itching to have a go at Howard for weeks, and in the spirit of over-zealous theologians if there isn't a heckler for Howard then it's time to go and invent some.

An interesting insight into the media world we live in is available if we contrast the BBC's unheralded manufacturing of stories (which, as we know from Gilligan and other incidents is something of a Jayson Blair-like habit on a grand institutionalised scale) with the reaction to a very simple Channel Five documentary gleaned merely from dropping in on life in average British Comprehensive schools. Laban Tall has that story.

A couple of things are confirmed a little for me by this story. One is that British schools are about as bad as your worst intuition might have told you. Another is that Channel Five is a place where interesting outcast programme-makers can find some of the interest they deserve.

Lifting my gaze for a moment from the squalidness of what can be called the detritus
of cool Britannia, I note that some big events are taking place around the world. This post from the diplomats at the New Sisyphus blog, and this from Mark Steyn, are sufficiently sobering to make me see that Howard's seriousness in taking on Blair, and the disservice that even the most moderate or supportive media are doing him, are really quite serious matters indeed. We need a serious leader for the coming years, and we can't afford a lame-duck Blair or a scheming Brown, but the MSM in Britain is likely to deliver us to them.

Bowing by the Beeb.

A new trend in BBC coverage seems to have been thrust at me recently: that of the deferential coverage of China. Report after report has told of the Chinese anger against Japan as though a)The population of China has spontaneously arisen in response to Japanese provocation and b)The Chinese government, having nothing to do with the public responses to Japanese actions, has acted to subdue them despite having sensible grievances against the Japanese. This is a good example.

Surely this is just a superpower flexing its muscles, and surely the BBC, with its usual fairmindedness, would act to balance out the scales, as it seeks to against the US hegemon (alleged)?

Oh, I forget, we have to be deferential and polite to the Chinese. Meanwhile British ex-servicemen and families, who suffered at the hands of the Japanese, are, I suppose, merely nursing old grievances- that is, according to my BBC schooling. The results of a search of the BBC site which used the words 'Japan British Prisoners war' can be viewed here. There are no immediate results relevant to the case of British prisoners held under appalling conditions by Japan, and this one, found on the second page, merely talks about a new tourist attraction founded on the slave railway between Thailand and Burma, yet the Chinese anger, 60 years on, it practically unquestioned by the BBC.

The only recent BBC entry which mentioned warcrimes and Japan, referred most directly to warcrimes- but John Simpson was talking about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which of course helped to hasten the end of the treatment of British POWs in ways unimagined by the Abu Graibised public consciousness. A serious film for the graphic modern mind remains to be made, if anyone can stomach it.

So let's summarise, on this St. George's day:

Grievances from British victims can be sidelined. Grievances from China must be mainstreamed. The only unequivocal warcrimes from the period that we will foreground are the Allied uses of the nuclear option against the vicious Japananese resistance.

That'll be balance, Beeb style.

Good News.

Warmest best wishes to Frank Gardner as he resumes his work following his convalescence in the wake of the awful attempted terrorist execution that he suffered in Riyadh last June. His life has been changed permanently, but he survived and is telling a little of his tale on the Beeb at the moment. Sadly Simon Cumbers wasn't so fortunate.

I'd also like to say, while I'm being a slightly above-decent fellow to the Beeb for a while, that I don't harbour any grudges towards any of them; not least someone I often snark at- Paul Reynolds. It's that they set themselves up at the head of a society I find it impossible to hold back from questioning that makes me seek to undermine their role- if possible.

Scum on top

After Paul Reynolds' tour de force contrasting The French success in maintaining their flagship enterprises with the demise of Rover, it seems very pertinent to link to this news report showing how trade with China can really be secured. I have to admit I was relieved to be led to understand that China wasn't interested in Rover, so that our foreign policy (such as it is under the Eurobrolly) wouldn't be determined by the flow of Yuan to Brum. Now we just have to watch for the French Cockerel trying to crowbar us into appeasing China via the CFP (Common Foreign Policy).

Samizdata, from which I discovered this latest French perfidy, also offered this interesting Observer half-condemnation of the Blairite strategy for Rover- sourcing the trouble right where it struck me it belonged, with Byers' promotion of the BMW-Phoenix deal.

It's the fact that the Guardian suite can produce this kind of sense that makes you weep for the Conservatives' incapability (in advance of their supposed poll failure):

'Now we are asked to believe the real plan all along was to ease the workers into redundancy, and to view industrial policy as an extension of the social security department.'

All of which turns me- almost, almost- to seeking religious succour in the comforting stability of the Roman Catholic faith, which unlike Rowan Williams has a semblance of self-respect.

In this vein it was amusing for me to find what a lot in common Larry from BlameBush had with Timthy Garton-Ash from the Guardian in their view of the new Papa- proving that the Graun hasn't yet croaked and been reborn as a sensible newspaper.

Election Comment... has been somewhat lacking from this blog so far.
Well, on this blogger's part there was a little sharp intake of breath as the Conservatives went into the campaign putting pressure on Labour, albeit having to ride their gaffes as they did so. Would it work? I wondered. Were all the people I admired wrong in considering Howard a duffer in a lawyer's guise, possessing only the patina of well-heeled experience in high places, rather than the judgement needed to expose the Blairmonster?

Well, there is something like this Larkin poem about the Conservative's campaign, and even US Conservatives don't know who to root for (unless it's Blair). Even Steyn would vote for the big B's grinning mug (and it has to be said Howard is wrong to attack on the smug smile front as he looks every inch as smug in his own way)

To top that off, the polls show a general Conservative slum of percentages huddled bleakly at around the 30 mark (well, a little above, being charitable). This despite the fact that I'd say the 'base', so-called, is fairly well motivated.

Melanie Phillips has been lambasting Howard for months and months, especially over his Iraq war opportunism, and I think she's taken time out from Howard bashing (being, as she is -I believe- a Conservative at heart) to lambast Blair for his unwillingness to take on his critics over the war. She's right there too, though I think the whole phenomenon Howard has failed to understand, completely, and Blair has failed to take to heart, is that the party that will succeed in changing this country in a genuine way is the one which stands up and argues with the British people, as it were, man-to-man, as fellow adults, with adult complexity. Naivity, perhaps, you may say- but courage and naivity often appear the same when we're trapped in a cycle of cravenness.

Serial abuser Bolton

It must be the way he looks or something -perhaps he cuts his own hair- but everyone has it in for John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for UN ambassador.

As Mark Steyn points out, he's been accused of grave offences such as standing with hands on hips.

Maybe a bit camp, but does it warrant the Beeb's parroting of his proposed status as 'serial abuser'? I quote:

'When asked by correspondents whether accusations that he was a serial abuser stood up, she [Condi Rice] said: "It's certainly not the John Bolton that I know or that a lot of other people know."'

Indeed. The Beeb's list of accusations is about as devastating as the crushing 'hand on hips' episode. I only hope I never make anyone that angry.

Through a glass, darkly.

Forgive my attempt to beef up my headlines after some lame ones recently, but the thought occurred to me that if the BBC consider a Eurosocialist EUtopia to be their idea of heaven, in only makes sense for them to report it as though partiality in their coverage was natural.

Paul Reynolds has an article about the EU Constitution which majors on the contrast between the French and British approaches to business highlighted by the demise of Rover. I thought Steyn summed up the British attitude perfectly when he said 'I would hazard that most Britons psychologically closed down Longbridge a generation back.', and followed it up well when he said 'Permanence is the illusion of every age'.

Indeed. And we Brits, while accepting the latter point and preparing for the consequences using the former strategy, have tended to tolerate any kind of Canute (eg. Phoenix) who promised to stop the tide of history and maintain prestige ventures like MGRover.

It's therefore impossible to go along with Reynolds' idealised notion that somehow our attitude is that 'For the UK it is a matter of regret that the last major British manufacturer has gone, but it is not a matter that will change government policy. The market has spoken and the market must decide.'

The fact that we are not oriented the way the French are doesn't mean that the market is somehow rampant in the UK (don't forget Mr Reynolds that we are part of the EU). To say so seems disingenuous.

As the EUserf points out covering similar territory, 'Companies need to be protected alright, but not from the competition. Rather they need protection from the ravages of rapacious tax collectors and regulation wielding Eurocrats.'

In his article Reynolds goes on to make a list of the things the French are doing better than we are, including the openness of their debate on the European Constitution. Amongst the nuggets, 'Few people in London know that their supplier, EDF, is actually Electricite de France.'. Speaking as a regular payer of Wanadoo internet charges, I know exactly what I pay the French on a regular basis, and though I don't pay EDF for my electricity I knew that Londoners do.

But what's missing from Reynolds' little fit of brand-envying prose is the fact that despite these wonderful headline names France can still boast unemployment of ten percent. This contrasts sharply to Britain's economy, denuded though it is of brand manufacturers- though, having said that I expect that Mr Brown has fed in enough fat tissue to the economy to see the British unemployment wasteline grown considerably in the coming years (it's already starting).

For Reynolds, the reason for the French opposition to the EU Constitution lies in the perception 'that free market doctrines are embedded in the new treaty in a way that makes the kind of social and industrial policy that is such a feature of French life much more difficult to pursue.'

For me, meanwhile, the reason for the French intransigence is their confidence that they are the arbiters of the future of Europe, and their conviction that (given the servility of British Pols to the Euro-agenda) they could soak the Brits a bit more and gain more accommodations for the various 'features' of French life that they hold dear.

But anyway, EURef gives a list of real rather than existential incursions into British economic freedoms, starting with one that directly impacted Rover's sustainability. While Britain grins and bears the ministrations of a statist system modelled on France's economic strategy, France seeks to make sure the project doesn't depart from the script.

Funnily enough Reynolds didn't put it quite that way. We'll just have to wait until we get to heaven. Update: the Rottweiler Puppy weighs in.

Setting Annan straight. While the BBC employs its old Punch and Judy tactic regarding international disputes where it would rather not see moral clarity emerge, The Washington Times offers the critical US-UK responses to Annan's attempt to fling a little mud in the 'international community's' eyes.

Key points:

'British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Britain was "consistently in the lead in seeking to enforce sanctions against Iraq" ... "There were no occasions, which we can recall, on which the United Nations made representations to the United Kingdom" regarding smuggling activities'

'exemptions from U.N. sanctions that were granted to Turkey and Jordan had been implemented with the full knowledge of the U.N. Sanctions Committee and other U.N. bodies and officials.'

You know, that's really game over, isn't it? I know of no real contradictory arguments. We would be left contemplating Koffi's moral/political failures.

So what do the Beeb consider the proper continuation of the fight Annan picked to coincide with the indictment of some of the few US connectors to Oil for Food?

Oh yes, Mr Punch, it's 'UN must reform or die, says Rice'

Not that I really disagree with the sentiments of Ms Rice, but it is the Beeb's habit to seek a mudslinging session when a clear view would see their chosen ones (and if ever there was a chosen one it was Koffi) deselected by history.

Just a post to note the absurd BBC policy of soft-pedalling the Oil-for-Food scandal until they can make it a partisan 'them and us', US/UK vs the decent chaps just doing their transnational duty etc etc. Such dishonesty is sickening, and Koffi, like one of those slapstick comedians in old Western comedies, crawls out from the melee he's encouraged on his dirty hands and knees. I noted a couple of related articles in the post below (maybe even the one above is an updated form of one of them), where the Beeb were building a little bandwagon of blame to counteract what they habitually term the 'hostility' of the US to the UN.

To be honest it doesn't matter if the US were letting Saddam get away with smuggling, to some degree. Let's see: they ejected him from Kuwait a the cost of US lives; they policed his dangerous territory at the cost of a permanent presence there. What did the UN ever give? What right had it to make strategic decisions? yet they were doing just that, and for profit. Surely the crucial point is that Saddam's sources of money went far beyond the US's ability to control them, significantly due the UN's incompetence and criminality. Consequently the threat Saddam posed was being bumped up by UN actions and UN inaction. Reason enough to sack Koffi.

Simply superb: Steyn on the future, in the Speccie. What can I say? I agree with every word. I'll link the print version too, as it's an article that deserves to be read whole. He picks out so many of the telling instances that epitomise the looming realities that are making so much of the current baggage of thought that passes for politics in the UK just that: baggage.

To give one example, I'm sure a lot of people noticed an appalling 'Christian' Aid advert recently. Well, Natalie Solent noticed it. Steyn says:

'in the Guardian last week, Christian Aid took out the following advertisement: ‘It’s not called slavery nowadays. It’s called free trade.’

Yeah, sure. I’d love to email to India the CAT-scan of whichever Christian Aid wallah thought that would work, even as overheated rhetoric. The popular British ‘charity’ is campaigning for what it calls ‘trade justice’: ‘Poor countries must be given the freedom to help their own farmers and industries.’ By ‘poor countries’ they mean the dictators and crooks and incompetents who run ‘poor countries’; by ‘given the freedom to help’ they mean encouraged in the delusions that have made ‘poor countries’ out of once prosperous territories.'

So, what we can say is that whatever is the right thing to do by the developing world- or whatever the latest apologetic term is- we're not doing it by placing our trust in the likes of Christian Aid, and we're not doing it by trusting State proxies, or the nice GDP percentage targets of aid that everyone murmurs assent to, from Left and Right alike in British politics.

Moreover, we're not learning about that failure from the BBC- quite the opposite. They tell us about capitalist criminality, the failure of UK and US politicians, the outdatedness of global corporations (a photo-article, unavailable to links, asked the question, 'is the Burger giant showing its age?'): you name it, anything but the real waste of western wealth and western advantages that the statist projects of western nations entail.

Podhoretz versus the Beeb:

Says the Beeb:

'Mr Sharon said Maale Adumim "would be part of Israel" and that there ought to be "contiguity between Maale Adumim and Jerusalem."'

'The international community considers all settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.'

Says Podhoretz:

'With Israel's successful defeat of the Palestinian intifada, the death of Yasser Arafat and Sharon's stunning decision to cede Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, the terms of the discussion between the two parties have changed entirely.

The astonishing changes on the ground over the past 18 months are creating a new political dynamic between Israel and the Palestinians. The effort on the part of the press, the pundits and the Europeans to make the theoretical Maale Adumim issue a major scandal is an effort to deny the existence of this new political dynamic.'

Let's see now; which one seems to be carrying the news, and which seems about as relevant as an aged Metternich bleating on about the Congress of Vienna?

Political limbo dancing: how low can they go?

Pols behaving despicably. For every pseudo-example of the politics of the gutter, such as when Michael Howard raises the question of UK immigration, there are many more examples of the real thing which happen when no one is paying attention.

The basic definition of gutter politics I'd offer is that it's politics which puts lives at stake for the sake of personal satisfaction.

The sharp intake of breath taken by liberals when they heard whisperings that Bush was pursuing his aggressive War on Terror strategy 'because he could', ie. because of the US' power and unique position, was the sound of affronted hyprocrites.

The reality is the Left does everything it does because it can, and thirsts to do more whenever it can.

John Kerry, for instance, is talking about intimidation at the US polls, claiming his voters were cowed by Republican rottweilers- because he can- despite the fact that he knows well what use his words will be put to in the prejudiced and propagandised world media. American lives may be lost due to the perception he fosters of American corruption. Kerry talks of having 'no magic wand' to end this corruption (though he has a magic hat, as we know), but I am just struck with a saying such as 'once a traitor, always a traitor', to sum the Senator up (Chrenkoff also reports)

Oona King, in the UK, is facing a torrent of abuse and pressure from anti-war 'ethnic communities'- despite her own ethnicity, and, certainly in part, because she's Jewish. George Galloway is opposing her in her constituency, playing on all these factors to gain personal revenge for his near-brush with political extinction, and lucrative notoriety- because he can (because no one saw fit to put him behind bars already). In so doing he is stirring the anti-Semitism which endangers Jewish lives everywhere, and stoking the Jihadic drive which endangers us all. (Arthur Chrenkoff also reports)

The BBC are questioning the anti-Aids strategy of perhaps the only good example of a country that has combatted the disease effectively: Uganda. Where is the sense in that, when Mbeki's gross ignorance and stupidity in allowing the disease to take hold in Southern Africa is the continent's big political story, allied to his tolerance of the stinkingly flea-bitten and diseased Mugabe regime? Why are they doing this kind of journalism? Let Uganda tinker with its policy however it wants since at least it has a successful policy to tinker with. The Beeb are doing this kind of journalism, in fact, to satisfy anti-religious and anti-US prejudice- because they can, having been given the carte blanche of the licence fee for another ten years.

French Chauvinism

While in perfect nuLabour Britain we're supposed not to have any illicit stirrings of nostalgia in the nether-regions of our hearts and minds for British power and influence (maybe it's best to keep quiet while we still have some- but rather than shaking Mugabe's hand I'd have been inclined to break his wrist, as a sign of peace, of course (though, when you think about it, what on earth was Robert Mugabe doing at the Pope's funeral, and what esteem do the Pope's lieutenants hold Charles in that he was seated just two seats away from the Thugocrat himself when there are stories like this circulating involving senior Zimbabwean Catholics???)), in France things are rather different.

The hilarious spectacle of French politicians muscling up to convince their ovine-like nervous proletariat that the big bad capitalist wolf wouldn't eat them if they said yes to the European Constitution was not only highly entertaining, it also provoked much more of le candour from our neighbours than is usual.

The invaluable Eursoc carries a plat principale of tasty soundbites that have been circulating during le campaign (I can't resist using some bad French-like language, any more than they can resist mispronouncing English). My favourites (but they're all goood!):

'* "This Constitution allows the French ambition to assert itself in the big Europe that General de Gaulle hoped and prayed for." - Education Minister François Fillon (Le Figaro, 7 April)'

'* "We have finally obtained this 'Europe à la française' that we have awaited for so long. This constitutional treaty is an enlarged France. It is a Europe written in French." - Justice Minister Dominique Perben (Times and AFP, 4 April)'

See- like I always always all my life said, a grand French strategy to dominate Europe. The only thing missing from the quotes is the name Napoleon.

Scroll down the last couple of Eurosoc posts for more frogdiculous antics.

See also this from the Times on BBC bias and Gavyn Davies their former CoG- via Mr F&M.

So full of crap he needs an enema.

Yes, yes I know. Crudeness. And from me, too. But Justin Webb really merits it, and I hope that having expressed my disgust so obviously I can take a few breaths and examine an article that could actually tell us much about what is wrong with today's BBC, and what is wrong about the BBC's Britain too.

I said a lot about the tragedy of the Schiavo case, but at least it made Webb feel better about America. As he concludes his article he says:

'It is common to mock at American attempts to export Jeffersonian democracy, but after these two weeks the mocking should stop.'

Now that Schiavo has died her legalistic death he can rhapsodise about the 'complex and vital soul of America' .

Really, this is straight out of LiberalLarryland.

The calm Webb feels after his humanist prejudice has been satisfied with its ultimate sacrificial vindictation allows him to be even more candid than usual. He admits a significant amount when he says:

'America is often portrayed as an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers and ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy television, superstition and religious bigotry, a place lacking in respect for evidence based knowledge.

I know that is how it is portrayed because I have done my bit to paint that picture'.

It's funny. As a product of the Beeb's Britain I've been brought up to believe that no stereotype can ever really be true (that is, I've rejected the Beeb's favourite nostrums and bugbears, and what's left to stereotype?). Stereotypes exist in defiance to reality. This is evidently an invalid assumption as far as Justin Webb is concerned. He adds to the above quoted stereotype:

'that picture is in many respects a true one.'

Webb finds his comfort in the thought that many Americans agreed with him that Schindler should die (I was going to say Schiavo but I think that her husband effected a common-law divorce long before her death). He may say that it's the following of due process that he finds has revived his faith in America- but what's telling is that it's the following of so-called due process against what he believes is religious bigotry that he finds comforting:

'Americans do believe in God and they do believe in life, but they also believe in law, and rules, and the need for democracy to restrain, not satisfy, the wishes of politicians.'

It's quite interesting that Webb's faith in America depends on its subordination of so-called religious values to secular protocols.

These so-called religious values clearly include the right to life, which I wouldn't have thought was any more religious than many a secular nostrum. To believe in this right to life though is to be prejudiced, and to depart from acceptability. All that is acceptable is summated by the grey mass of humanist consensus (in other words, a world where humanists win votes):

'Plenty of honest disagreement among reasonable people, religious and non religious, Republican and Democrat.'- and death on demand.

What's weird for a self-styled ratonal man is when Webb disparages the power of observation, and the medium which he relies on for his life's work and his credibility:

' the television news showed pictures of Terri Schiavo looking responsive, even affectionate, and above all looking vulnerable.'

Yeah- almost as if she had something approaching those qualities.

It's not Webb's rationalism that impresses me about this article- as the Voice of Reason tells us all is well now Terri's dead- it's the coercive irrationality of it.

So what have we got so far: condescension, humanism and socialism, all mixed together to give us Webb's view of the world. He offers us subtle inducements to follow his position (by praising the heart of the US, for instance), but all the long he has a little spiteful wishlist to impose on the unlovely subjects of his journalism (that's you and me, as much as it is the hicks who are, in Webb's vision, beyond feeling like Schiavo herself, almost).

I've gone on long enough- maybe I even went off topic, but as the intro made clear, I was dismayed and angry. Anyway, you can find a parallel take here at the Rottweiler Puppy. Thanks to DumbJon for introducing me to this excellent site.

Death in the Americas

It just seems to me that the Beeb, as well as their liberal transational partners and proteges, are in a horrible twist over the death penalty.

When the Beeb reports a rise in the number of death sentences it somehow winds up in the 'Americas' section, which is wrong not just because the US is a minor contributor to their statistics, but also because at the present time falling numbers of death sentences are being given there, and of course an immensely lengthy judicial system is devoted to cases, frequently alotting more time than was alotted to Terri Schiavo.

What you can say is that the US' death penalty is the big attention-grabber, thanks to the policy of media such as the Beeb, so it makes 'media sense' to put it there- though the Beeb always carefully retains the State's financial and moral support while applying it.

This comes after the BBC asserted- via a journalist's manipulation of an interview with Iraqis concerning instability in their country- that the death penalty was inconsistent with democracy, a common prejudice it seems. In the latest article they pointedly mention that the US is 'one of the very few democracies on the list' (of killer-nations).

But the twist comes when China (responsible for the vast majority of death sentences) says that it

'would improve its justice system so the death penalty would be given "carefully and fairly", the official Xinhua news agency reported.'

and, following that, we find that

'Sarah Green, a spokeswoman for Amnesty in London, welcomed the announcement, but said the group wanted action, not words. '

Whereas, when it comes to the US, we find that

'"There is so much evidence that the death penalty is being applied unfairly, the very possibility of executing anybody who is innocent is reason not to have it," she said.'

So it's good news that China is insisting on a 'fair' death penalty (which, you have to say, seems to need a pinch of salt adding to it), while in the US there's soooo much unfairness in the death penalty waaaaah waaaaah.

To cap it all the report ends by quoting Ted Heath, who has been conpicuous in his admmiration for totalitarians, Chinese in particular. I recognise the unfairness comes via an interlocuter, or 'proxy', as I prefer to see these mouthpieces, but the BBC knows all about selectivity yet fails to apply it when it suits them.

Such inconsistency is consistent with only one thing: a bandwagon, whereby fairness is nothing and the end is everything. The BBC is firmly on it, generally whip in hand.

Sorry to harp on Paul but...

Reynolds versus Coleman...

also known as...

Elected politician versus Koffi's state-funded cheerleader:

Says Reynolds-

'UN Secretary General Kofi Annan will be hoping that the latest report into the Iraqi oil-for-food programme will help put his ship back on an even keel, though there are still squalls ahead.


Annan said he expected the highest standards of integrity from Kojo


The report effectively cleared him of corruption, though he must be wishing that the lawyers' language it used was more definitive.'

Says Norm Coleman-

''The Volcker report did not "exonerate" Annan, as many have claimed; to the contrary, it pointed the finger directly at him. Indeed, one member of Volcker's committee, Mark Pieth, made that point loud and clear: "We did not exonerate Kofi Annan."

With that in mind, I reiterate my call for Annan's resignation.''

Some reading... and things... a little different.

Anyone who has read this website at all over the last year or so will know my views on the war with Iraq. For me it was always an unlosable argument that Saddam could be removed from power forcibly and his regime extirpated without the slightest danger of compromising the morality (such as it is) of the countries taking part in his removal from power. Plus, of course, we live in a world where weapons of mass destruction are a prevalent reality, and Saddam had a penchant for them. End of argument, boring readers to tears etc.

I only add that preamble (reluctantly, I have to say) to make clear that by recommending this poem (did you know Clive James was a poet? You do now.) I'm not endorsing its viewpoints- though it slips down a heck of a lot more easily than the NIMN antics that have passed for the antiwar movement. As usual with James he prides himself on being that bit broader-minded than the next man; I'm sure he'd like to think he was a man with 'bottom', and he'd make a lot of fun of it too.

In a similarly contrarian vein, here's Hitchens on Pope John Paul; a mixed bag as usual.

Meanwhile, this photo of an Islamic terrorist in Jenin from LGF tickled me, mainly because my Grandma (now 94) has always talked about her nightmares of early (orphaned) childhood where, based on the stories she was hearing of the First World War, she always imagined there was a German under her bed at night.

I'll be back to Beeb-bashing no doubt shortly, though there's no doubting they're aware of our existence.

How angry should I be?

A bit, certainly. Probably very.

In this article I originally thought the BBC were doing their usual talking up of obscure racial and tribal matters which makes them feel so good about themselves that a) They're the only global broadcaster global enough to pick up these things and b) They're the only ones who care enough to do so.

But wait! There are Jews involved, so it can't be so straightforward. No, we have not simply got the recognition of an interesting racial link between Israelis and people living in India, we've got a sinister Jewish plot to reinforce the Israeli population and deny the Palestinians their rightful demographic ascendancy. That's why they mention many times in some detail, that the recognition of this link to orthodox Jewry means that these 6000 people (6000! More people than several years of valiant suicide bombing managed to exterminate.) can all up sticks and settle in Israel.

But the extent of the BBC's pro-Palestinian paranoia against Israel can be seen in the choice of commentator they make to inform us of the sinister plot, a man they refer to as just an 'Israeli Social Scientist'. What that they don't mention is that Lev Grinberg is a supporter of Palestinian terrorists and a vicious critic of his own people, whom he likens to Nazis and psychotics.

Here is an example of his writings:

'The murder of Sheik Ahmad Yassin by the government of Israel is part of a major move carried out by the government of Israel, which can be described as symbolic genocide.'

Here's a critique of the same.