The British Fantasists

Reading the views of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on drawing Turkey into the EU in the IHT, one is reminded that, beyond the patina of organisation and veneer of diplomacy that are natural to politicians, our political classes are as clueless as our journalists- maybe more so. Journalists live a somewhat insecure life compared to any of Mr Blair's front three. Few revelations would be enough to prise Mr Straw from his job for a political lifetime, never mind Gordon Brown, and Mr Blair himself needs only to schmooze with the political jetset or vaunt himself Churchill style amidst some crisis or other- his own or borrowed from somewhere else- to reassert his whelk-like position on the ship Britannica. Think what a pantomime it took for David Blunkett to be severed from the placenta-like comforts of the Cabinet- if only he had made abortion so difficult to attain (nb. with pantomines there are always semi-serious coincidences that make the stomach feel a bit funny- such as the Blunkett paternity fiasco). Meanwhile the journalists, faced with this political steamroller of Campell's creation, combining many feints and nuances they know and respect, dither and spin themselves into incoherence, and Blair's clones learn his tricks in peace, quiet and security. It is a sordid matrix indeed.

So my advice, as a Brit to the world (and, well, especially lovely American friends- as well as the chaps) would be not to take these men's advice on anything significant- which is a by the way plea to Bush not to favour all Blair's Euro nostrums. They are performers and drama queens and that's all. Remember that next time you feel like swooning at Mr Blair's trembling lip, quivering voice, or clenched jaw.

Take Mr Straw in the Herald Tribune (of all places to confront a Foreign Secretary's grey matter): one is reminded of the very funny sketch from Jon Cullen on Dead Ringers (about the only thing on BB tTV which could be viewed as right-of-centre- the Beeb just don't understand the jokes is my guess) which was aimed at Blair himself:

'"People of Britain, starey eyes, sweaty palms, receding hairline, yesterday I announced...", "People of Britain, oh how I hate to be beside the seaside grimace, hate Gordon Brown hand gesture, looking over his shoulder underpants...", "People of Britain, this is your Emperor..."'

I suspect Mr Straw has a very cunning pitch. He knows that the IHT is a leftist paper, so he'll appeal, not to their sympathy with a poorish country- which would wear thin once they realise all he wants is to maintain the cost of labour at politically convenient levels- but to the 'soft war on terror' argument, which would be popular with the so-called 'decent left', and the moderate left. He starts, therefore, with the terrorist attack on Istanbul 22 months ago:

'LONDON Twenty-two months ago I stood in the rubble of what had once been the fine perimeter buildings and courtyard of Pera House, the British consulate-general building in Istanbul. A few hours before, it had been blown up by Al Qaeda-linked suicide bombers. Sixteen people were killed - three British and 13 Turkish citizens.'

Typically then, we begin not with rationality but with emotion, and from there Mr Straw goes on, 'how familiar - yes, European - Istanbul felt; how close together we were despite the efforts of the terrorists to divide us.'

Then, after the emotion, comes the assertion:

'we in Europe long ago decided where we wanted Turkey to be anchored',

and then the ballast:

'In 1952, we - the United States, Germany, Britain, France and others - invited Turkey to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In 1963, Turkey signed an association agreement that led to a Customs Union with the European Union.

That agreement held out the prospect of EU membership. In 1987, Turkey applied, in 1999, it was granted candidate-country status, and in 2002 the European Council decided that it would open accession negotiations once Turkey had fulfilled the political criteria for membership.'

This though mixes things like NATO membership (which no longer has a meaningful European role, being sidelined by the Euroarmy plans), with various sundry other events, and tries to blend them into a narrative which we could call the force of history. It's typically deceitful.

In essence, Straw maintains that economically we need Turkey, as it is vibrant in that respect. He talks of competitiveness when he means cheap labour. He doesn't mention demographics though that's obviously crucial, when one looks at things like this via Laban Tall.

Mr Straw though gives us an ultimatum:

'We don't have the luxury of choice. We live in a world of global challenges and global competition. A static Europe will not face either with confidence. Stopping enlargement would only weaken Europe's ability to compete with emerging Asian economies.'

What he so easily forgets though is that Britain is not Europe. Our Government could be making us more competitive, encouraging childbirth through marriage centred policy, fighting wage inflation in the public sector, attacking waste. Instead it's relying on Europe, and that Europe will absorb large numbers of immigrants which will on the one hand keep it competitive, but on the other make the UK, for one, a place where the indigenous people are a minority for sure.

Personally I would like to see a plan of action that didn't involve large scale migrant invasions, because, as Peter Glover points out, that would leave us totally prone to the fundamentalist drive for which they could be an irresistible vehicle. It's utter dereliction for our politicians to suggest that our only option is to be taken over by hook or by crook. No amount of lip trembling can suffice to make it otherwise.

Admired the unfree world over.

If I were to have to guess at the BBC's most favoured phrases I'd likely include a phrase (or phrases) such as 'internationally recognised'.

This is a sad comment on the BBC's aggrandisement and ignorance. It may actually be that the BBC's taste for transnationalist boosting trumps its better judgement, but it amounts to the same thing.

The fact that we have to cope with is that the world is not free, the press of the world is not free; in reality the BBC has very little competition, such are the advantages of freedom, finance and history stacked in their favour. Phillip Chaston has written a very worthwhile item at Samizdata where he describes how, at the BBC, 'the writings of Comrade Bob's mouthpiece, a Chinese journalist who writes only what his masters want to hear and a reporter protected by the First Amendment are presented as equally valid to the reader'.

There is also the trouble that, even where democratic systems and free speech exist, and even where there are traditions of their existence, democracy is more democratic, and free speech is freer, in some countries than in others. Helen at EU Ref. helps demonstrate this, and refers us to this example of our glorious international media.

What's at stake in our modern era is whether we retain and extend the standards of journalism which the BBC have fed off for generations, and now use to queen it at the head of the 'international media', or whether we descend to the propagandist standards which prevailed so widely in the 20th century, with such awful effects.

'As President Bush scurries back to the Gulf Coast, it is clear that this is the greatest challenge to politics-as-usual in America since the fall of Richard Nixon in the 1970s. '- Matt Wells

Total Philosophical Disjuncture.


Well, as the saying goes, 'where to start'? You see, I might just disagree with both parts of Wells' analogy- that Watergate was a triumph for journalism, as well as that Katrina has helped re-grow a backbone in US journalism. Perhaps, from the perspective of hysteria, lies, and the bloodcries of the Left, there is an equivalence- but to unpick the analogy requires a fight against carefully tended popular mythology.

But I suppose I should start by saying that Wells is still reporting from LA, presumably from his Condo. Hopefully he will have at least seen pictures- that is if he reads his fellow BBC journalists' work.

Wells thinks that having wealthy white Americans in positions of media power is a recipe for spineless subservience to a white President. I don't- quite the reverse. Actually I would argue this situation, which Wells addresses only in caricature form, creates a competition of virtue and maganimity towards ethnic minorities, which could be called, oh, I don't know, 'positive discrimination', to pluck a phrase. This phenomenon might endure long after the apparent negative discrimination ceased to be significant. That's why President Bush gets nothing for having Powell and Rice, blacks of both sexes, at amongst the highest positions available, because according to the competition for who can be nicest to ethnics, that's just not good enough (and those two are just uncle Toms anyway, according to the Moveoners)- even though the Dems can't boast anything like that state of affairs in their own party.

When he says 'the moral indignation against inadequate government began to flow' he seems to forget Richard Clarke, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and numerous others propelled by MoveOn.org into the limelight and mainly embraced by the MSM in the US. Clarke's attempt to accuse the Bush admin of 'inadequate government' was quite noticeable at the BBC at the time (nb. further to what Nathalie at B-BBC says about former Presidents, according to Paxo, not criticising incumbents- it would seem Paxo doesn't use the BBC as his source of news, judging from the above link). Instead, Wells means that Fox have cracked. One could point out the overwhelming pressure exerted against this self-proclaimed anti-MSM broadcaster, which makes our puny efforts against the Beeb pale (even though Fox is merely one among many channels in the US, and people choose whether to pay for it or not- the protesters could legitimately be seen as totalitarian anti-freespeech thugs).

Wells goes on to claim that there will 'have to be a Katrina Commission, that a newly-emboldened media will scrutinise obsessively.' . Mmm, yes Wellsy- like the 9/11 commission which they couldn't be bothered to worry Bush about, I suppose?

As seems his wont, he reserves his full MoveOn. org mania till he starts to take his bow-

'The dithering and incompetence that will be exposed will not spare the commander-in-chief, or the sunny, faith-based propaganda that he was still spouting as he left New Orleans airport last Friday, saying it was all going to turn out fine.

People were still trapped, hungry and dying on his watch, less than a mile away.'

This stuff is so Michael Mooreonish. Remember, that guy the MSM had no time for- and failed to praise?

He signs off with letting some of his fellow liberal witterers take the strain-

"Our people deserved rescuing. Many who could have been, were not. That's to the government's shame" (The New Orleans Times-Picayune).

That's not, by the way, a sentiment post- what was it? -Sept 2nd thing, but actually a standard line of the left: leave it to big Government. When Mark Steyn writes columns like this one and they're published by the BBC, I'll believe things are changing.

Meanwhile some tips for our Matthew, since he's branching out from reporting the news to trying to manage it-

1)Don't use meaningless loaded words like 'scurries' and 'spouting' when all they do is mark you as biased from the moment they're read. Your friends will like it- but do you only write for friends?

2)Beware in praising fellow journalists- ever heard of 'backscratching'?

3)Don't rely on historical precedents that rely on a certain political interpretation to make the analogy intended viable- it's overloading the reader with politics. Don't twist the link mid analogy.

4)Don't make sweeping generalisations from your LA Condo- and if you do, do a Jayson Blair and 'just pretend'. Sweeping generalisations like 'the collapsed, rotten flood defences of New Orleans are a symbol of failed infrastructure across the nation.' are also not good. It must, after all, be a horrible Condo and gym that you frequent.

5)Don't imitate the rhetorical bankruptcy of the MoveON.org crowd. It's embarrassing and- see point one and consider whether 'People were still trapped, hungry and dying on his watch' isn't just a bit Michael Moore.

To the BBC- is Matt Wells' hamfisted opinionating really the best you can do? Hasn't his Guardian experience been largely factual news gathering, at which he was markedly better than in his current guise? It must be nice to employ a journalist who has spent years reporting your favourite causes and even supporting you through thick and thin, but I can't imagine you will employ an anti-Matt Wells to retain balance, so you- and he- are surely out of line.

Get Over It- already. Richard North has an excellent post (with piccies) lambasting the British media's ignorance and condescension over the Gulf Coast disaster. I hope US citizens can forgive them not knowing what they're doing- and not representing the more thoughful Brit among us.

Prediction Time Again:

I suspect that Bush will be vindicated in his approach to the Gulf Coast disaster- as Hugh Hewitt clearly believes and others are helping to back up (that trusty Bush phone expertise again- via Instapundit). Secondly that the left are once again over-egging the pudding in ways exemplified by this blogger's post. Thirdly that New Orleans will recover, and could be a far more hopeful place in the future than it was in the past.

The Truth according to Matt Wells

'The truth was simple and apparent to all. If journalists were there with cameras beaming the suffering live across America, where were the officers and troops?'

The BBC's true colours shine through in this article. We find an enraged and ideologically inflamed writer swallowing every one of the so-called 'fitting metaphors relating to the New Orleans debacle.'

That is what journalism is not about, yet here we have a BBC journalist in full pursuit of his ideologically chosen enemies.

Perhaps the BBC is fed up of people thinking they don't care about the States (my most charitable thought). Perhaps there's an element of the Michael Moore theory that disasters shouldn't happen to Democrat voters, as it has in New Orleans. Perhaps this is intensified by the BBC's utter lack of balance when called upon to report the old colonial victims, the blacks. Perhaps too the BBC has been listening to US broadcasters tearing their hair out (for some similar reasons) and has been lured into thinking they are reflecting a genuine consensus- just another victim of the US MSM. Add to that the gnawing anger they feel that the purest capitalist society around has become the most admired and feared, and one can see the need for emotional breakout.

But the caricature offered by the BBC journalist is a disgrace. A disgrace.

First we have the predictable dig at the 'home-spun myth about the invulnerability of the American Dream.' This was so predictable, and so unnecessary- and stupidly wrong (think of John Edwards' Dickensian depiction of the girl who had no coat and you'll see that immediately). The whole first three paragraphs are utter bilge- but I notice so cunningly put together that though they appear to unequivocally indict President Bush, they could be read differently as a more general comment.

Then we get the BBC's patent 'metaphor' approach- involving a series of assertions about a 'heroic Mayor' (who is certainly a savvy enough political individual to see that his skin's safety depends on deflecting blame), an 'extraordinary complacency', Federal agencies staying 'tucked up at home', and no 'official' plan. Again, this is lightly veiled- but an utter attack on the Bush administration.

The really extraordinary thing is the disingenuousness of this writer. Take the representation of New Orleans vs the US Governement:

'The Bush administration, together with Congress, cut the budgets for flood protection and army engineers, while local politicians failed to generate any enthusiasm for local tax increases.

New Orleans partied-on just hoping for the best, abandoned by anyone in national authority who could have put the money into really protecting the city.

Meanwhile, the poorest were similarly abandoned, as the horrifying images and stories from the Superdome and Convention Center prove.'

He covers himself with the comment about 'local politicians'- but notice how the population of New Orleans is abandoned by central government, who also abandon the poorest. What, do these party goers have a sovereign right to party, with central government picking up the bill. Notice that it's central government, not local politics, that's responsible for local concentrations of poverty. Nothing could be further from the US political philosophy enshrined in the Constitution. The attitude displayed by the BBC journalist is truly extraordinary, attempting to condemn all of this political culture through a condemnation of the Republican ascendancy over it. Not for the first time I am left wondering what a Beeboid is on.

But perhaps, as I intimated, there is a rational explanation- the BBC's colonial grievance culture. He explains himself:

'The neglect that meant it took five days to get water, food, and medical care to thousands of mainly orderly African-American citizens desperately sheltering in huge downtown buildings of their native city, has been going on historically, for as long as the inadequate levees have been there.'

He doesn't seem to realise- having accepted every caricature floating around in the aftermath of the hurricane, he can't escape his own mentality, bloated with historical caricature.

'In the workout room of the condo where I am currently staying in the affluent LA neighbourhood of Santa Monica, an executive and his personal trainer ignored the anguished television reports blaring above their heads on Friday evening'.

Laughable, isn't it? The whole of the US is in the grip of delusion but our man in the USA, the noble British Broadcasting journalist, is a lone survivor, valiantly doing his serious journalism from the workout room of a condo in LA.

It stinks of utter bovine stupidity.

As a final slander he comes out effectively accusing US citizens, and he means the average Joe here, of being tax evading criminals:

The uneasy paradox which so many live with in this country - of being first-and-foremost rugged individuals, out to plunder what they can and paying as little tax as they can get away with, while at the same time believing that America is a robust, model society - has reached a crisis point this week.

Was there ever such a stupid response to a crisis (certainly when one considers the extraodinary generosity of the US people that is unfolding and will continue to unfold. Hugh Hewitt's response, dignified and practical, shows just how far left this BBC journalist is)? I don't know; but I do know the BBC should consider this man's future very seriously, and they could write a nice note of recommendation for his next job interview to help him on his way. (cross-posted at B-BBC)

Wise words on the Gulf coast disaster from David Frum.

Sorry about the post overload below. I experienced blogstipation recently and was storing up a bit too much. I also reserve the right to cross-post at B-BBC as seems fit, since it seems I'm focussed that way just now.

I earlier mentioned (not for the first time, slipped shyly in the end of a post) the superior blog 'BlameBush'. My guilty secret is that it's this 'young Liberal blogger' who keeps me sane(ish). I've been inwardly fulminating about the Beeb's idiot reporting of the Ugandan Aids story- producing no fewer than 17 search results for 'Uganda condoms', and producing headlines like 'Uganda: 'No shortage of condoms''. Some ideologues are suspicious, it seems, that others might be even more ideological than them- that's the story, in a nutshell. Fortunately Liberal Larry can fill you in even more pithily:

'thanks to his primitive views against casual sex and abortion-on-demand, Bush is withholding millions of life-saving prophylactics from the peaceful, yet incredibly horny people of Uganda'

I do not support President Putin- but I have been keeping a weather eye on the BBC's Beslan coverage. There are many questions that remain concerning Beslan- many good ones- but BBC World chose to concentrate on the idea that Putin's responsibility revolves around his Chechnya policy, and invited guests in to discuss this as well as reporting it themselves.

I've also been watching Sky's excellent Laurence Lee reporting, and he elicited the grievances of the Beslan families against the headmistress of the school, against the local authorities- for colluding in lies-, against the border police, for being corrupt and accepting bribes, and against the military for being incompetent and vicious in their atrocious 'final showdown'. I think that's called the reality on the ground- starting with those most closely involved and moving to those whose hands were bloodiest, discounting of course the Islamofascist killers who almost all perished. In fact analysis of the disaster offers a cross-section of the disaster that's modern Russia + satellites. (Sky's Online coverage is less impressive- but there are notable differences to the Beeb's account. For instance, Sky highlights the corrupt border officials, whereas the BBC highlight Putin's apparent refusal to negotiate. In this we can see the Beeb ingnoring on the ground reality in favour of pet theories about terrorism)

The BBC World reporting was all about root causes- nothing at all to do with the victims whose day was supposed to be remembered. BBC Online was slightly better, but they really miss the wood for the hysteria. The Beeb reporter says 'Many in Beslan believe most of the victims were killed by the Russian assault forces, after Mr Putin had refused to talk with the gunmen'... and ...'They want to know how so many gunmen made it into their school in the first place, and why officials refused to negotiate.' Of course they quote one of the leading women saying '"The government is supposed to guarantee our lives, take responsibility for our lives, and they haven't,"', and another saying that that Putin '"is responsible for what happened in Beslan".'- but compared to Sky they really miss the interesting things by chasing the big bad Kremlin wolf. The specific points that Sky brought out are fascinating; the one the BBC majors on is banal and blatantly political. It's logical I suppose that the women should seek to use the British Broadcasting Corporation to embarrass Putin, ahead of some of them meeting him, but that's precisely why the Beeb should not be taken in but should report the real story of Beslan and the heart rending real issues that consume the people involved. Do they really imagine that the local Beslan people put their suffering in a full geopolitical context? I think not- but the Beeb is so strong in its own political philosophy that they hardly need to report the story, they just work out what they want to the story to be to further their reputation as a politically powerful organ.

I think it's working

Well, after a fashion. It appears that visiting Biased BBC has had some effect on Paul Reynolds- either that or the warm weather. Today, a day when the New York Times said '"George W Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday", Paul Reynolds said 'Mr Bush returned to Washington from his holiday in Texas and made a speech whose rhetoric, unlike his first effort on 9 September 2001, did rise to the occasion.' [Post-script, but before posting, I notice that Reynolds has updated his article, and indicated it in writing in the article: 'Update on Thursday evening London time: One has to say that reports indicate that the intitial response has not been as fast as might have been expected....' . This is interesting, once more indicating the influence of bloggers on a BBC correspondent. I have to say, in dealing with Mr Reynolds I've found him a very respectworthy person. But I knew that already. The points about BBC bias are usually collective in nature, rather than personal- though see below, for it can get a little personal].

Lest anyone get too excited, I notice the dig at Bush tucked within the compliment (yes, balance, balance- but it's only pro-Bush comments which are reliably punctuated with digs at the Beeb.). Also, maybe someone can inform me of the significance of 9th Sept 2001, as I am at a loss over it- shark attacks maybe? [edit- Paul reynolds noticed this mistake too and edited as part of his overall edit. Maybe I should have emailed him rather than sniping...] As for his claim that Hurricane Katrina will be as big a test as 9/11, I think that's to give way too much credit to the global warming thesis, as though the hurricane is among a tide of disasters rising like the terrorist threat has risen. The questions he introduces his article with seem to be more fitted to a film maker's brainstorm than to the real world.

The media quotes come from the Beeb's own roundup of US newspapers- somewhat snappily titled 'Papers hail heroes but blast Bush'; strong, considering the article points out newspapers who are not critical of him. However, one can understand: if the Gray Lady blasts Bush, then he is a blasted Bush. That's the world according to the sophisticated etiquette of Media of Record. [Also post-script but pre-posting, I notice an interesting fact- the headline's been changed without acknowledgement, to 'Bush under fire from press', and the balance of the coverage has been moderated. I think that's poor. If the press really was against Bush initially, that's an important documentary fact, and if it's changed its tune, that's important for the same reason.]

In other news, Justin Webb is a disgrace too great for me to cope with. However the Rottweiler Puppy put together a very insightful post which analyses the strategy of a man like Webb, a man who specialises in a line of spin which combines the surreal and the spiteful to create the America you never knew:

'Yet now, they have a "troops out" movement incubating in their midst, within spitting distance of the holiday home of the Lone Star state's favourite son.

There are earth mothers talking about love, hugging each other, swapping recipes for organic stews. (what, on earth, was Webb on when he was writing this?- or, I suppose, what are they on?)

Americans - even Texans - are rethinking the Iraq war, indeed rethinking war itself as a tool of foreign policy.'

Webb/Sheehan antidote, combined with much else, here. Yes, it might be surreal too, but has the crucial advantage of self-awareness.

Two small dreams to chalk on a wall somewhere:

This man wins. I know; he's dubious; but I like him.

These people lose. Well, they deserve to.

It must be said that this fellow is rather cool-

'And after taking the match into a final set he broke early before suddenly being sick on court....

"That's my best win, or the one that I've enjoyed the most," the Scot said afterwards.'

Intellectual looting at the Beeb

The Beebonline have so far (so far- it's very early yet) been wise enough not to carry an article linking hurricane Katrina to global warning. Unfortunately BBC World were not so circumspect this morning. I saw one presenter saying to a US environmentalist (invited in apparently to advance the thesis in question) that there was a growing consensus in the US linking hurricane Katrina to global warming. This was not an implication, but a direct comment encouraging a thesis that Katrina was linked to global warming.

So, while many are concerned with doing the constructive things that might help the people on the Gulf coast, the Beeb take time to scour the hurricane newsscape for what it can do for one of their favourite themes.

I can imagine so many people will agree with them, yet again and again trendlines contradict the trend in reporting ever more vociferously and loudly the global warming-world disaster scenario. Here is another one, showing frequency and magnitude of hurricanes hitting the US mainland in the last century and more. (via Instapundit).

The context of the BBC's alliance with greenish NGOs gives me a chance to link this priceless article from Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. When you're at a loss to describe the kind of thing (the socialist mentality which is hard to identify, hard to pin down) that repels you about the Beeb, just run your eyes over lines like these:

'Illiberal ideas are becoming to be formulated, spread and preached under the name of ideologies or “isms”, which have – at least formally and nominally – nothing in common with the old-styled, explicit socialism. These ideas are, however, in many respects similar to it. There is always a limiting (or constraining) of human freedom, there is always ambitious social engineering, there is always an immodest “enforcement of a good” by those who are anointed (T. Sowell) on others against their will, there is always the crowding out of standard democratic methods by alternative political procedures, and there is always the feeling of superiority of intellectuals and of their ambitions.

I have in mind environmentalism (with its Earth First, not Freedom First principle), radical humanrightism (based – as de Jasay precisely argues – on not distinguishing rights and rightism), ideology of “civic society” (or communitarism), which is nothing less than one version of post-Marxist collectivism which wants privileges for organized groups, and in consequence, a refeudalization of society. I also have in mind multiculturalism, feminism, apolitical technocratism (based on the resentment against politics and politicians), internationalism (and especially its European variant called Europeanism) and a rapidly growing phenomenon I call NGOism.'

It would be hard to give a better summary of the BBC's mentality- but anyway, do read the rest (also via the prof.). (cross-posted at B-BBC)

It's late in the day (no, not literally, but for Britain), but I do think that Charles Moore, as so often, has some good things to say:

Teach English, Restore Parliament, Look again at the word 'Britain'.

Yes, and we could forget the Notting Hill Carnival without loss (no offence to people of African or Carribean origin, but it's a farce, isn't it, which will dwindle by itself being contentless already?). In addition to reviving Parliament we could give some teeth to the law by reviving the death penalty for murder. It's not really that radical to suggest that we take ourselves, our language, our society, and, yes, our 'communities' a little more seriously.

It'd be heartening, if I had the remotest trust in IQ tests, to hear that men were cleverer than women. But an unhealthy kind of heartening, I think.
Anyhow, if it's so that these men are right, we should also consider that, with a five point IQ gap between men and women, and a six point gap (according to the man who ran the research) between East Asian people and Europeans, then a European man would just, but not quite, be a match for an Asian woman.

''Assassin' Bush''

It's an old chesnut for me by now, but I posted recently on Biased BBC about it. I appreciate not everyone has seen the significance of the Beeb's headlining of Chavez's 'swipe' at Bush recently. Actually it's not just the headline, it's the angle that flows from it.

The point was reinforced for me by this introduction (I'm not a subscriber, but I got the general idea) to a Johann Hari column at the Indy, which was linked by Scott from the Ablution. As Hari put it:

'Venezuela is living in the shadow of the other 11 September. In 1972, on a day synonymous with death, Salvador Allende - the democratically elected left-wing President of Chile - was bombed and blasted from power. The CIA and the US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had decided the "irresponsibility" of the Chilean people at the ballot box needed to be "rectified" - so they installed a fascist general, Augusto Pinochet.'

This contextualises the Chavez comment and the BBC reporting of it nicely. What it suggests is that the BBC is giving some considerable credibility to the Chavez perspective on world affairs. I don't think it should be.

Meanwhile, more BBC reporting of Chavez's grandstanding. I know how the Beeb despise Margaret Thatcher's comment about the oxygen of publicity, but if they had anything but reflex leftism in them, they'd think about this more carefully. It's not even as though Robertson can be pinned down definitively as having called for Chavez's assassination- it was more like, 'maybe we should give the guy what he thinks we want to give him'. To quote:

'If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it'

Note to the world- this was a conditional sentence, conditional on Chavez's own views. It's also not so stupid, even if a mite evil. The problem with the Left today is that they think the US is the root of all evil. They ought to look in the mirror for more than admiring their daring left-wing jawlines. The truth is that the idiocy and paranoia of the Left is the visible manifestation of the problem the world has today- the need to blame the bogeyman for their inability to organise themselves responsibly. Chavez is not only at the forefront of that, he's also, like so many at the head of political leftwing or fascistic movements, totally cynical in knowing that it isn't so, but using it to maintain power and authority.

/

'So they went up to the mountains, to behold the gardens and orchards, the vineyards and fountains of water; where also they drank and washed themselves, and did freely eat of the vineyards' (on the Delectable Mountains of Bunyan's Christian odyssey.)

It's holiday time, and it seems the columnists I most admire, Steyn and Hitchens, are using it to take a step back and reflect on Iraq. Steyn is focussing on the Iraqi constitution. He takes on the glass-three-quarters empty crew who are obsessing that, among other issues for BUsh's legacy, 'Iraqi women were better off under Saddam'. Killer point-

'So what do we find in Article 151 of the Iraqi constitution?

"No less than 25 percent of Council of Deputies seats go to women."

I'm not a great fan of quotas but for purposes of comparison, after two-and-a-quarter centuries, in the United States Senate, 14 percent of the seats are held by women.'

Indeed. But, speaking of killers, it's worth saying that the argument that women were somehow protected by Saddam is a fairly stupid one. I recall seeing a C4 documentary chronicling the mass beheading of a group of women in Baghdad central by Saddam's henchmen- as an example to society. This report I think refers to many similar incidents (not, I think, as I thought initially, that particular one- I thought it a hopeless task searching for one of the few pro-Iraq war Channel Four broadcasts). Even the BBC reported, from a part of the Governement's dossier that seems undisputed that 'Under Saddam Huseein's regime women lack even the basic right to life. A 1990 decree allows male relatives to kill a female relative in the name of honour without punishment.

Women have been tortured, ill-treated and in some cases summarily executed too, according to Amnesty International.'

While this is straightforward stuff, it's been largely forgotten. That doesn't put Steyn off much though- an overwhelmingly positive article.

Meanwhile, Hitchens pulls off that rare feat- an article with which I hardly have a point of disagreement. Simply a wonderful defense of the case for the Iraq war- though not always the case that has been presented to us. Rather simlar to a case I attempted to make in a recent post at Biased BBC, basically the opponents of the war must assay some realism in their view of what the world would be like now without the Iraq war more than two years ago. Hitch nails it excellently:

'Anyone with the smallest knowledge of Iraq knows that its society and infrastructure and institutions have been appallingly maimed and beggared by three decades of war and fascism (and the "divide-and-rule" tactics by which Saddam maintained his own tribal minority of the Sunni minority in power). In logic and morality, one must therefore compare the current state of the country with the likely or probable state of it had Saddam and his sons been allowed to go on ruling.

At once, one sees that all the alternatives would have been infinitely worse, and would most likely have led to an implosion--as well as opportunistic invasions from Iran and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, on behalf of their respective interests or confessional clienteles. This would in turn have necessitated a more costly and bloody intervention by some kind of coalition, much too late and on even worse terms and conditions. This is the lesson of Bosnia and Rwanda yesterday, and of Darfur today. When I have made this point in public, I have never had anyone offer an answer to it. A broken Iraq was in our future no matter what, and was a responsibility (somewhat conditioned by our past blunders) that no decent person could shirk. The only unthinkable policy was one of abstention.'

Strange, to return to Bunyan, that Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. Truly it's a postmodern world, but with some seriously real battles to fight.

One more to add to the collection

Why is it that I feel the same way about the BBC's coverage of the environment that I used to feel about the National Geographic magazine: not news but adornment? I used to have a subscription to the NG, but I found it moved into artwork rather than reportage.

This seems similar:

'The stalactites hang like glass daggers over the glacial lake. Ice peaks rise against the bright blue sky like crystal pyramids.
Mounds of dark rock rise up between the snow and ice, discoloured after years of being covered by the glacier.

This is Pastoruri. In the past 10 years, its ice caps have retreated by about 200 metres'

What's wrong with this article is that there's no news in it; none. Glaciers have been retreating and advancing unpredictably for as long as they've been around- and it's not news to point out the latest advance or retreat in a random location. You can't find a single current news item in this article about Peru. Nothing's happening; no drought or flood- even though they're natural too. Such things are simply not news- they're speculatively playing upon a trend of public thinking, what might one day seem to be simple hysteria. Wikipedia is interesting on this:

'Glacial movement has recently become politicized in discussions of global warming. Opponents of global warming like to point out that although some glaciers are retreating, others are advancing and therefore must be growing.'

So guess which side the BBC's on. Go on.

Manufacturing Environmental Consensus with the BBC

I am a news watcher, it's true- and I watch far more than I comment. So, I have this little antenna grown out of experience that in some media areas night follows day- and in my experience never is this truer than with the BBC's environmental agenda. The awesomely consistent BBC takes every possible cue from nature to discuss GLOBAL WARMING- this wonderful post-communist magic schtick with which to harrass the evil capitalist kulak scum.

So, no sooner can you say 'flood'ˇand 'drought' than you will find the Beeb ruminating its favourite unfalsifiable 'news' story.

And what's worst is the pious tone of 'we don't know but we think it's only safe to ram it down your throats' that they use.

It's so medieval, this fixation with signs and wonders, this attempt to build significance out of every jot and tittle of nature's revelation.

And, if nature doesn't suggest it in a medievalist's dream headline form, they'll go looking for it. And, like any of your medieval scholars you care to mention, they'll get their facts wrong.

The environment... ah, so poignant, so pictorial, telegenic eeeven.

And a great way to bash Bush!!!

How on earth the Beeb thought to replace the elastic minded and high minded Alistair Cooke with a Liberal consensus man like Harold Evans I don't know.

But anyway, here's a great debunking of the manufactured (Beeb-authorised) consensus about Bush and science. (thanks to The Ablution and A Tangled Web)

Apologia... blah blah

Of course, saying all this risks making one seem terribly reactionary and closed minded, since where science pushes, we're supposed to give- but, well, yes, I am closed-minded to medievalist tripe when presented looking, smelling and tasting like medievalist tripe, with the same intentions largely that inspired that medievalist tripe ie. reinforcing an orthodoxy deemed beneficial for the public mind by the self-appointed custodians of the public mind. Besides which, as the Harold Evans article makes clear, it's really the ivory tower brigade who are upset, and it's well known they're a project the Left in the States has been working on these last few decades (in Britain the battle was over much earlier). Of course I believe in answering environment problems with science (though to me that has generally meant coastal defences versus groynes versus marshland areas etc etc, or similar direct and verifiable arguments), but this push 'n' pull argument stretching a wafer thin cause and effect scenario over global distances is really All About Oil- and the Left's agenda with it.

Dead Weight Telegraph.

I suspect their figures for sales still remain fairly strong, but the Telegraph is a failed right-of-centre newspaper.

Why? No sufficient reason (of course the major one is their successful chase of a dumbed down market, especially among the younger generation sad to say) but prioritising a tone of presentation and a settled value system above real convictions about the world are the cause of its material decay- of course compounded by ownership difficulties and a crisis of confidence in its philosophical mentor, Lord Black.

See, what grists my mill is BBC bias and incompetence- the natural effluence of a state run caballistic organisation- but nowadays I find I have hardly a half decent publication to give good points of comparison. True, the Times is a little sharper than formerly, but it can't fill the void left by the Telegraph's decline.

For instance, today we have Con Coughlin reporting how 'All week long, as Israeli soldiers and settlers fought running battles in the soon-to-be-dismantled Jewish settlements, their Palestinian neighbours could hardly contain their delight.'

Whilst the latter point may be valid, though simply opinionated, the first part seems to be away with the fairies when it comes to the reality I have seen in endless live broadcasts from the settlements. 'Running battles'- good grief. How many dead, I wonder? And Con Coughlin's supposed to be a senior journalist.

Then, from that trademark 'toned up' reality, some kind of Wilbur Smithonian luridness indeed more suitable to 13 year olds, we come to another feature of the Telegraph today- the dramatisation of the right. Maybe they feel a little marginalised in Blair's Britain, in need of a good fairytale or two, but really the adoption of the 'dramatic' left wing presentation of people like John Bolton is a major, major own-goal.

Of course I will applaud if Bolton takes on the UN over its Palestinian propaganda, but headlines like this are pure mythopoeia- 'Bush's 'bruiser' squares up to UN in row over Palestinian propaganda'

John Bolton is a respectable, intelligent man who doesn't, and doesn't need to, 'square up' to anyone. To depict him thus is just to massage the spine of the pathetic Left who regard his very existence as an affront.

Then they repeat the old canard that the Republicans are 'bitterly' critical of the UN. I prefer by far 'deeply' critical Republicans to the 'bitterly' critical ones- but anything for a bit of colour I suppose must suit the Telegraph today.

The sad part is this: more and more the Telegraph, which was formerly substantive enough to criticise organs like the BBC, actually needs the BBC's analyses of society to regurgitate the narrative which sells Telegraph newspapers. Thus the BBC's stranglehold on political analysis is strengthened from most surprising sources.

More positive analysis of the Gaza pullout- from the generally hawkish American Thinker- which imho is looking better and better for Ariel.

True, in the meantime our own aunty Beeb's coverage contains pointed references to the 'next steps' of Israeli concession- but I think the reality is that Sharon's move has done several things for him. It has strengthened his military position, because now he can threaten overwhelming force in retaliation for Gaza sponsored violence. As the Am. Th. puts it:'If the Palestinians and their terrorist allies continue their assaults on the Israeli people, there will be hell to pay, and this time, there will be no Israeli citizens in the way of a full-blown assault.'
It has also made his willingness to deal with unrealistic geopolitical situations with the firmness and rationality not of a poetic nationalistic figure, European-style, but of a winner of grand strategic conflicts. But further than that, it's put money where mouth was regarding the intention to ultimately allow a Palestinian State in the region. Few can doubt the will of Israel to permit honest Palestinian self-governance now. As with so many things Israel has to prove itself again and again to be better than the rest.

However, the Beeb's warnings to Sharon need consideration:

'It's widely believed that his grand strategy is to close the more isolated of the West Bank settlements and consolidate Israel's control over the territory behind the newly constructed security barrier.

That would re-energise his domestic opponents and arouse widespread international protest.' - Jim Fish

'then there is the other plank of his unilateral disengagement policy - consolidation of settlement blocs in the West Bank and East Jerusalem

Israel says the barrier is a temporary security measure, but to most analysts it looks like the drawing of Israel's border to annex more Palestinian land and shore up a Jewish majority in the Israeli state.

Such a move could put the possibility of a return to peace talks on hold for a long time to come.' - Martin Asser. - emboldening mine

But, by the Beeb's standards their coverage has been flattering to Sharon, which suggests a division between the Liberaloids of the BBC and their ilk, and the Pallie Islamofascists for whom no concession short of killing every last Jew is sufficient. Such a division might be something that can be built on.

The Conservative Revolutionary in Chief.

Yep- Mark Steyn again- a constant presence on this website. One of the few genuine treasures of transnationalism, I'd say, and a major irritation to the moonbat fringe, or the head in the sand liberal drones who somehow suck out a life somewhere on the epidermis of the body politic.

What's fascinating, following the work of someone so current in everything he does is to see the reactions- is to watch the waves. I've read some intemperate opponents insulting him personally and ridiculing his accuracy, yet- and I don't think it takes a genius to be accurate- nine times out of ten the critics are the innaccurate ones.

The Pub Philosopher has a great example- the Leicester Somalis. I'd thought I could recall my Leicestershire uncle saying something about this, but still Steyn's claim that 10,000 Somalis had moved to Leicester from 2001 struck me as remarkable, and questionable by those who always try to question those who puncture their multi-culti ideology through simple shocking observation. The Pub Philosopher checked it out, and found Steyn to be more than reliable- and I'd guess the sources he used, for instance a Parliamentary Select Committee- might even be the same.

In this light I found Steyn's comment as part of his Hugh Hewitt interview here very interesting.:

'That's the great thing about a lot of what's happened on the internet. You can actually read the Pakistani papers before you go to bed each night. That's the new world.'

Well, if you're Mark Steyn you can, and you do- whereas many of us could and don't.

But I wanted to point out another good Mark Steyn call- the Menezes case, for which he received flak from the Right. Steyn produced a little topical take in response to recent revelations about the case- basically explaining himself a little more and claiming a modest vindication.

Good on him- and we need to recognise the integrity at work in his writing. My response to those on the Right, is to say that for over a decade I (we?) have been concerned that the police have become ever more technocratic and politically correct. Thus now we need to ask whether that hasn't made them practically less competent at traditional policing, such that they can't even present a coherent witness description to the press- Laban reports fascinatingly- and announce a policy unknown to the British culture of policing in the fashion we've seen in the Menezes case. Then, we could take the opportunity to cull the force (I'm thinking particularly of the Met here) of many of the politically correct showboaters who've muscled their way ahead by being good at mouthing the pieties of modern politically correct policing- starting with Mr Blair. That's positive thinking.

Rhetorical highs and leading in the modern age

Quite a grand title, eh? But relevant to the subject that's on my mind most at the moment, which is Israel's Gaza pullout and where it will lead to- and to the more general question of our time, which is, 'do our leaders know what they're doing?', which you can apply to everything from the Europroject to the war in Iraq, to abortion to speed cameras and surveillance.

But turning to Gaza for a moment- here is a really great analysis of the strategy of Ariel Sharon, as well as some vital statements from his recent speeches trying to reassure his people that he knows what he's doing. To me there's a fascinating parallel between Sharon's inarticulacy, lamented by writer Herb Keinon, and Bush's, which many people regret who support the President. I personally was reassured by this from Sharon:

'"Now the Palestinians bear the burden of proof," he told the nation Monday night. "They must fight terror organizations, dismantle its infrastructure and show sincere intentions of peace in order to sit with us at the negotiating table. The world awaits the Palestinian response-a hand offered in peace or continued terrorist fire. To a hand offered in peace, we will respond with an olive branch. But if they choose fire, we will respond with fire, more severe than ever."'

I highlight the last part; I love it bacause it shows that the warrior Sharon has not hung up his holster just yet, but loaded it with a greater readiness to make use of it than previously. That, to me, is what the Gaza pullout is about. The idea that some endorse that it's about creating a judenrein is to me a bit absurd- 8000 Jews in a population of 1.3 million is practically judenrein already. You stand a greater chance of long term Jewish presence in the area by giving it over to a process of gradual civilianisation, to the point where reciprocal arrangements for free movement might allow for a significant Jewish presence on a sustainable long-term basis. A long way off, I realise- but the only choice for Palestinians if they're not to be singed by Sharon's avenging military flame as the consequence for creating a terrorist haven and launch pad (which, incidentally, it already seems to be). Provided Sharon will flay the abusers of his gesture, and flay them hard, I see no problem.

I reccommend you read it all though, and read carefully- there's a tremendous amount of subtlety in Sharon's thinking that is perceived and teased out by Keinon (I'll let him make the presumptions of Sharon's thinking process).

So, given that Sharon is right, as I believe, and believing that Bush is right, though with an unenviable scale of problems to deal with- first and foremost being Isalmofascism- what are we to make of their inarticulacy? Is it that in today's society words have been debased such that real thinkers use them less and find them less useful? Is it that society is too childish to chew on deep reasoning expressed in words, and unable to sustain the concentration to listen for sufficiently long? Is it that the press actually has all the wrong things in mind when it addresses the news, being far more trustworthy with the presentation of simple gossip than with ideas and announcements? I think all of those- which is why we can analyse a politician today in terms of the number of words they like to use- the more, the worse being a general rule. That's why Cindy Sheehan and John Kerry, are, to say the least, a bit suspect- and we should be listening for the still small voice instead. What a pity the Conservatives in Britain ditched their Quiet Man.

And here seems to be the place to lament the failures of the Met. Ok, they got the bombers- thanks to the public- but they've lost the P.R. battle, thanks to their own incompetence and dishonesty and well, downright viciousness, over the Menendez case. Sadly- as Bill Quick comments (more gratitude to Instapundit).

And since I'm not always right, but about this I was quickly on the case, I'll remind you, should you care to follow the link, what I said about it, and how I supported Mark Steyn's sterling response.

Roll up roll up- one of the great attractions behind what Hugh Hewitt calls 'the Information Reformation' is the chance to see the freakishly large hidden undergirth of the revealed news on the world these days. Brought up on the BBC's thin P.C. pickings, I really larded it when I came across the blogosphere and realised what lay beneath. Well, I didn't find out precisely what lay beneath, but just that there was a lot of it.

And this is typified by the Oil-for-Food scam, which, as a certain Miss Rossett points out, is a kind of interwoven sub-plot for the history of our times, enwrapping all manner of unsavouries into the same globalised samosa.

These, it turns out, included Enron. Rossett points out that Enron's involvement doesn't appear to have been illegal- like so many they just seem to have been 'ask no questions' types, useful to the kind of folks more intimately soaked in the juices of Oil-for-Food.

But she also comes up with a meaty little nugget about Saddam's business principles, which links with another issue de nos jours: Israel's legitimacy. Apparently Saddam's men solicited from 'business partners' this kind of assurance:

"We herewith confirm never to have sold directly or indirectly to Israel and further confirm that this policy will remain permanently in force during the entire validity of our contract."

Which brings us to the Presbyterian Church of America- naturally. Let me say first that six years ago I discussed this church with a hispanic-American Pastor who happened to be in Spain and who had got to know their hierarchy through close association, and he partly condemned them for anti-semitism. So, it was no surprise to read James Lileks:

The Presbyterian Church (USA) -- not the members, but the learned elders -- has announced it will use its stock holdings to target Israel for being mean to the Palestinians.

Interesting in this context how Enron chief chappy Ken Lay, though no Presbyterian, but rather a Baptist like GWB, came out of the US religious heartland. Not that I think that US church as a whole is corrupted, but I think it is sailing close to that wind. I just think it's amazing how widespread is a de facto conspiracy against Israel- either endorsed explicitly or tacitly (and explicit endorsement may be less malign than tacit endorsement, when it comes to it).

But when speaking of corruption, can we pass George Galloway by on the other side? No, even obliquely he needs a mention. 'Can we get him for treason?' is a question every honest Brit should ask, but funnily enough it takes a Jewish American to ask it thoroughly.

(there- I've basically done the Instapundit round, in my own fashion- where, incidentally, I found this a little disquietening)

Meanwhile, as DumbJon ably reported, the BBC have been a little queasy about blogs recently (too much samosa, I'd guess).

I mentioned I went to Cracow at the weekend. Well, I have written about it, but I've put it on my odds and ends of longer writing site, here.

I'm also thinking alot about the Gaza situation, which is moving in lots of respects, but comment will have to wait for another day.

What's BBC headline news- This, about 'a racist man' who just happens to be white; who is headlined a 'thug' (quotemarked); who nicely backs up the BBC's maligned 'backlash-against-Muslims' thesis. (actually we're talking about a pathetic person little more than a boy, without plans, schemes, self-control or a future- as far as I can see.)

What's Not- This interview, via Frum, which details the mindset of an Islamofascist. It produces some fascinating nuggets about the concept of terrorism, the thinking of the jihadis- and the cold-hearted evil of them. Also the cleverness, combined with an utter willingness to ignore whatever logical processes and matters of fact they please. Definitely we need to understand them as they have big plans.

Some might say one's news (a crime committed, a judge sentencing), the other's just someone's expressions of their views- not even precisely current. Yet where's the BBC's Islamofascist page to go alongside all the other social trends they love to chronicle so lavishly? You can have this, or this. You pays your money, you get no choice.

And, btw, what in whoever's name is the news value of this article? (about Laura Bush's appointment of a chef). [post updated to reflect a second reading!]

Update: I'm unsure if the link is working. You get to it via Steynonline, naturally.

Self respect.

It's all we need in the current world, actually, which is why I think Steyn is so right in his analysis of what we need and what we don't (and by the way, I don't mean the kind of self-respect that self-regarding agony aunts preach). Delicious. I am sure multiculti rubbish could survive Islamonazi bombers, but can it survive Steyn? Read on, Macduff.

'Like the Innu, they’re a dysfunctional amalgam of traditional and Western culture, fundamentalist Islam filtered through an old-school European fascist movement. Like the Innu, they’re hooked on welfare and the glorification of self-destruction. Like the Innu, they’re the creations of Western largesse — from the firebrand imams bilking the British welfare state, to the bananaphobic imams of taxpayer-funded Aussie schools, to Osama bin Laden himself, who took his pa’s dough from the US-fuelled Saudi construction boom and sunk it into a hole in the ground in Tora Bora'

Tragic Cookie

I haven't mentioned the death of Robin Cook, I don't think. I didn't find out about it immediately, and when I saw some headline a couple of week back, I thought it must have been referring to some other high profile people whose health is very fragile.

For what it's worth I do think of Cook's death as a tragedy. Not, as sometimes, because you feel that a person still has much to give. I didn't feel that way about him. In fact the opposite was true- i felt he was washed up. I felt that misjudgements and ill-judged actions in all areas of his life had left him drained- a husk of an immensely promising man. No doubt he was still down to earth and what not, as people say- but if Tony Blair didn't attend his funeral out of pique rather than the need to rest his own slightly peaky frame, I could understand why.

Cook was losing no opportunity to turn the knife on Blair, and had a rationale behind that of contempt for the PM, especially in his judgement over Iraq. I don't think the little man's judgement, acid though it was, was any longer focussed or balanced effectively- and despite his looks he loved acting as a poster boy for the anti-war left. Altogether Cook's deep resentment of Blair- very little of it fair- would suggest that the last person he would want to envisage at his funeral would be the nemesis of his political ambitions. An interesting contrast to Lady Thatcher's presence at Ted Heath's funeral- while in that case I imagine there'd have been consultation about Heath's wishes in that regard, as we all know the history there. Maybe the 'great sulk' of our Edward was finally over- but Cook's has never been adequately recognised or understood. Perhaps Blair does understand it. Perhaps he even a little respects it.

ps. I've just realised that McCririck's comments included the Thatcher parallel. (Nice Scotsman article here.) All that differs is our interpretation of the facts.

Note-

Just to say I am away for a few days and will probably not have time to post much. I'm exploring Krakow .

You know, I'd be so sad if Italy quit the Euro. One couldn't blame them. It's hardly a dynamic club to be a part of- as the BBC reports with the revealing defence that 'the performance was slightly better than feared'.

Reach exceeding grasp with the BBC. Unparalleled in its cultural reach to find out what's happening somewhere completely obscure (I think the AP is too biased even to count, and Reuters' bread and butter is found in obscure reporting- yet the BBC lavish correspondents all over the world despite being just another national broadcaster), and capable of tallying these things into a story, the BBC has little clue why things happen, relying on a very tired stock of ideas and the words of utterly unreliable governments who by moral equivalence have to be worked up into possessing some kind of authoritativeness.

Hence, an allegedly cancerous man's bus suicide bombing in China is explained via a tired old template that you sense is well known to the Chinese authorities:

'The motive for Monday's attack is unclear, but it follows criticism by medical professionals that the costs of healthcare have risen beyond the means of many people living in rural areas.'

So rather than chalk this one up to the global jihad, as this poster would have it, we are supposed to think this is a protest at globalisation and the loss of Chinese socialist security.

According to the Jawa's reasoning:

'What many people in the West are unaware of, is that China is fighting a low-level Islamist insurgency in its Western provinces. Fujian Province, however is not in Western China but in Southeastern China. Not generally a hot bed for Islamist sentiments.'

Well, all I can say is their awareness would not have grown from the BBC's reporting of the incident. But really- a suicide bombing to protest at lack of cancer treatment? Well, maybe in China... I don't know.

However, one commenter at the Jawa thought very differently:

'Fujain province is 30% Muslim and they had huge riots there about 6 months ago as the Muslims want Sharia law.
This is certainly Islamist 72-virgin job.
Shame on Islam and Muslims who support Islamic government (which is about 80% of Muslims).
Criticism of Islam should be decriminalized.'

As I mentioned, I don't know the full truth of this, but Reuters carries the same story with the same apparently state-sponsored explanation, and a little more detail. Remembering the way that eyewitnesses proved unreliable in London, and remembering that eyewitness in police states can be a touch influenced by official expectations, we can't give too much credence to the lucky lady who got off the bus early. Neither Reuters or the BBC stress the haste with which the Chinese Government's explanation has covered all the interpretations of the story.

Meanwhile, as this story reports:

'Both the Russian and Chinese governments are confronted by mounting Islamist radicalism and separatist movements on their soil that are believed to be fueled and financed by al-Qaeda. The US-led military operations against the Taliban and al-Qaeda were therefore perceived in Moscow and Beijing as being in their interests. '

Could it be that this bombing is one more shot across the bows of the Chinese Government?

And this source may shed some light on the issue:

'The conflicting movements of Uighur separatism, abetted by Islamist organizations abroad, and Chinese internal and economic interests, suggest that further and serious conflict may be expected.
The dearth of research into radical Islam in Asia is in itself a cause for concern. One reason for this may be that states affected by separatism such as the Philippines, Thailand, and China prefer not to admit to a problem. This may be cultural. The Asian concept of saving face may be an element of the difficulty. It may, however, be a fear of losing overseas investment if there is an emphasis on factors that suggest future instability.'

China certainly has an Islamist problem. How far it extends is an interesting question- but Fujian is one of the historic stopping off points for Islam in China and undoubtedly part of the sphere of Islam's historic ambition.

***

This as Mauritania goes the way of all Islam infested backwaters, and the BBC finds someone to blame it all on the US and Israel: 'Most Mauritanians believe that the US has double standards when it comes to dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... The Americans have failed the Mauritanian regime... a large Israeli-built hospital in Nouakchott is boycotted by most Mauritanians on principle... there is a feeling that US President George Bush is leading a crusade against Islam.'

But it's ok- all is well with the world- like so many 'leading journalists' he's Londonistan-based.

Blair sees back of comical Bakri? Or not maybe.

It could have been the first fruits of Blair's tough line on treason- but it could also be one of the last. It's good to get rid of Bakri, even if his al mujahagoon rabble had already wound up, having served a purpose. He says he's coming back, but five weeks either means his mother thinks he needs feeding up, or that he's giving himself time to assess the situation and whether uncle T.B. calms down at all.

The treason issue, added to this recent Sunday Times expose, seems to have turned up the heat on old Mohammed. But is it enough? No, it seems to me.

As I may have hinted above, Bakri is a joker, a man who can hardly articulate the English language and who gives his exhortations while picking on some else's chicken and chips- having arrived at his rabble-rousing two hours late. If he was a genius perhaps I might see that as charisma at work, but I'm sure he's not that. On the other hand he could certainly be a lot more careful about his appearance, actions and language than he has been- so his goonishness is surely partly an act. If he has contacts with the Al Qaeda leadership then it's only a sign that bin Laden, as so many intellectuals from upwardly mobile classes do, knows how to use a rabble for his own ends, and Bakri's an idiot useful enough for that.

I saw an effete (I mean really effete) Telegraph journalist opining on Sky recently that the July bombers must be rather dim wits. He wasn't specifically referring to the failed bombers, but to such bombers in general. People like Bakri and followers certainly reinforce that stereotype, but it's one dimensional and deliberately so. Bakri and friends may get out of control, but they reinforce the respectability of the Iqbal Sacranies of this world- and it's people from Sacranie's class who are the heavyweights who really inspire the kind of people deep enough and organised enough to perpetrate terrorist acts. I don't think Blair's bureaucratic gnashings will really nip those buds- even if they give that appearance.

And speaking of Blair's bureaucratic gnashings, it was interesting to read Charlie Falconer adjusting the spin after the public mind had been turned by it, saying that 'it is "extraordinarily unlikely" treason charges will be used against outspoken Islamic radicals.' I guess he doesn't want Bakri to think Uncle T.B. is all that angry with him.

It was also interesting to read, regarding the prospects for a more French style inquisitorial court system to deal with the folly of the CPS, er, sorry, the terrorist threat, that 'The Home Office says any idea of moving towards a French-style inquisitorial, rather than adversarial court system, is "very long term" and not being actively considered.'

Fascinating that it's on the long term agenda at all- along with all the other capitulations to the Euroculture, no doubt. Slipping in such nuggets amidst an issue of absorbing potency is the political version of laying cards on the table- for whom is an interesting question.

Bring out the old words.

Blair seems to have decided that he needs to take some old-fashioned words out of the New labout spin locker to inject some stiffness into the upper. I didn't even imagine that Blair and co. had bothered to keep the word 'treason'- but here it is restored for new spinning duty, dutifully disseminated by our national boredcaster.

It's absolutely amazing, too, to think that we only abolished the death penalty in 1998- even though I used to remind people regularly who thought we didn't have it all, querulous pedant that I was. It was the inactivity of the penalty for over half a century that made it seem like a joke term; like describing a volcano as a volcano when it's been inactive for a thousand years. But now, Blair presents, in archetypal Blair fashion, the all-new, defanged, nuLabour charge of treason. I'd like to think that Galloway might be first up, though as with everything else Blair's government has managed to take all the fun out of it before deployment. Dumb Jon has some wise words on the Blair's other spinnouncements.

Update: I should have pointed out that the death penalty for treason had been inactive for over fifty years when it was abolished- the death penalty for murder had been enacted as recently as 1965. Timeline here.

French logistics: paying ransoms and funding bombings, assuming the money isn't spent on Iraq's wide range of consumer goods and leisure activites. Maybe the BBC could remember that the next time they trumpet the 'worst atrocity yet'. Time to address the root causes.

Suggestion(s)

Might it not be true that there might be different types of racist/religiously motivated murder in the UK? I only ask because there seems to be a complacent media blanket extended over the issue such that unless race is mentioned in the attack, we can't describe it as racist (the same doesn't apply to religion, since peeing against the Mosque wall would probably be sufficient- or even near an air vent, I suppose, if you are in the pee C US military). Apropos this matter, I have a suggestion. Could it not be true that murders committed by racial minorities rarely use racial language because they are killing a member of group not well defined by saying 'whitey' just before the blow is struck?

Besides, if your crime is motivated by hatred of the host society, which is white in nature, is that not as racially motivated as an attack on a minority which is linked to the habitual actions or character of that minority?

It seems to me that admitting the use of the 'N' word or the 'P' word or equivalent as a necessary and sufficient condition for the full media treatment will rather fall short in the real world. As linkalicious Laban points out- it does

I believe I'm looking for a more nuanced approach.

DumbJon thinks we shouldn't prioritise racially motivated murders. I think that would be a better approach, but it won't wash really, as the journos have a point that a story which links to a wider phenomenon is more newsworthy than a random event- and one point is about all they can handle. Of course, though, random events aren't really random- even a nutter killing indiscriminately says a lot about the society which has let him reach such a nadir. If the BBC want to talk about moral laxness every time there's a senseless murder involving a sexual dimension; or the folly of drugs relaxation every time there's murder that involves cannabis, then fine- but I think they should report the news without relying on the subtexts which happen to match the colour of their own poster collection of social issues. So I'm agreeing with DJ the idealist here.

And I'm agreeing with this. When you hear that ''Muslim association calls Gerald Howarth's remarks 'naïve' and 'arrogant'' you know instinctively they must be good. And they are. He's the shadow Defence Secretary in the UK by the way. It must be said that people who sympathise with our enemies should be encouraged to leave, and people who threaten action against us should be made to leave. Don't know where that leaves Galloway, though he and al Qaeda agree on much, but I'd personally ensure that his passport details were somehow lost from the system, making his re-entry difficult. Maybe the Islamic world could babysit for a while?

A nose for casualties. A BBC journalist has been counting:

'the latest Haditha attack ranks among the biggest US losses.
Last December, 14 US troops and four civilian contractors died in a suicide bombing targeting a military base in Mosul.
Only air crashes, with or without hostile fire, have resulted in higher US death tolls, including 16 in the November 2003 loss of a Chinook helicopter near Falluja and 31 in a helicopter crash in January 2005 near the Jordanian border'

One Way Traffic

When looking at this article from the point of view of bias analysis I don't know where to start- but that's because there's a de facto conspiracy involved in it.

For a start the Police's frontman for the story is the deliciously token 'Met Police Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur', who obligingly offered the kind of personal comment we very rarely get from our technocrat constabulary these days, that 'he had never seen so much anger among young Muslims. '

So, it's the police as community race relations officers again.

But taking a step back, the very term 'religious hate crimes' is an immensely and distastefully Orwellian one, which the BBC choose to lede with. It's just one of those pieces of routinely intimidatory language that now shapes public discourse.

They then claim authoritatively that 'There were 269 religious hate crimes in the three weeks after 7 July, compared with 40 in the same period of 2004.'

Why is this wrong? Because, as they then admit, most were 'verbal abuse and minor assaults'.
It's barely possible to register such 'crimes', let alone verify them. I remember minding my own business one day some years ago, drinking a can of coke. A stranger on a bike cycled slowly past, and very casually, spat directly at me and at my can, scoring what to me was a humiliating bullseye by hitting squarely the opening from two or three feet away. Needless to say I did not report this incident- but was it a hate crime? Heaven knows, to be honest. Or, if the above case seems freakish, I know many elderly people who have been verbally abused and had property damaged just for being old and ageing- these have included my own Grandmother.

But what no one seems to question in this reporting is whether there has actually been the dramatic rise in so-called ' religious hatred crimes' or whether the sensitivity of muslims is somehow so heightened in the wake of the bombings that every possible thing, which previously often went unremarked, is now being reported.

Needless to say the policeman plays ball (and why wouldn't he, being from an ethnic minority and a muslim himself):

'Communities were particularly frustrated by the increased use of stop-and-search and the new "shoot-to-kill to protect" policy of dealing with suicide bombers, he said.'

Cue then the BBC to start editorialising: 'The alarming figures emerged as Home Office minister Hazel Blears held the first in a series of meetings on Tuesday with Muslim community groups across the country. '

Naturally, no-one, especially the BBC, is asking a further, even more sensitive question: whether there is any concerted effort among muslims to push their grievances to the fore as a way of putting politicians in this country on the defensive, as clearly Hazel Blears is seen to be in this article. Undoubtedly there are enough radicals out there, and their sympathisers, to keep many a police complaints officer busy with false testimonies. As the muslims always tell us that there is more than one way to fight jihad I can't help wondering, myself.

RottyPup has more.

I fail to see what's good about David Davis's latest spiel about multiculturalism not working- apart from the sentiment itself.

After all, Mr Davis says 'Let us be clear. Non-Muslims have obligations to their Muslim fellow citizens - to strive for equal opportunities for all, to accept the mainstream version of Islam as a part of society'

But what's clear about this? Why do I have to accept mainstream Islam as part of society? None of Christianity's recommendations or prohibitions are accepted today in society, so why should Islam's have a special place? And does he mean that the police in Bedfordshire have the right idea and this is moderate Islam? (via DumbJon)

And if so, he's not going to change anything whatsoever if, in some freak non-representative accident such as Islamists blowing up the Labour Party whilst in conference, he gets the opportunity.

Behold the sickening Galloway: going further (if you'll pardon the pun in the light of the quotes) than I've ever heard him go before. He's a traitor- but of course we knew that. It's just as bad as watching comical Ali aired for tens of minutes on the BBC. Not for the faint hearted. (from Harry's Place).

In case you have problems with the video, let me give some quotes:

'The idea that Muslims have some kind of sickness in their bodies' (of Tony Blair's view of Muslims).

'Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners- Baghdad and Jerusalem'

'The foreigners are doing to your daughters what they will'

Laban Tall has a great post about the Anthony Walker murder. He compares the coverage of the Walker murder to that of several white boys murdered out of racial animosity. He also gives the stats for interracial murders, which are interesting.

Laban's tacked-on conclusion may be my only quibble with his post. He says ' I'd just like to say that I've no objection to the amount of air that the Anthony Walker case is getting. I'd just like to see all all murders getting that kind of coverage'

I hope that he meant 'all such racially motivated murders'. I'd be all in favour of that. After all, the argument for media prioritising of such murders as Walker's is that racial murders are part of a larger story, not isolated spasms of emotional conflagration as many murders are. However, what's needed is an even-handed presentation of this apparently awful racial tension in the UK (actually it isn't, but the repercussions in politically correct lifestyle restriction are pretty awful, as are the consequences for such integral roles of the state as controlling immigration).

That would mean people getting sick of hearing about white people killed by ethnic minorities in Britain, even more than vice versa- and the most sick of all at hearing it would be the ethnic minorities themselves. Many decent people would be sick of having to analyse their role in all of this, just as we lily livered whites are when berated by BBC-led guilt-edged coverage.

The stumbling block to all of this is the possibility of quite widespread revenge attacks (which doesn't seem so much of a problem when those radicalised are the minority- though I guess radicalisation is hardly the flavour of the month). These might come because the Law is rarely seen to be effective- there is no catharsis in seeing the guilty punished, so the liberal elite are somewhat justified in damping the stories of white trauma down on the narrow pragmatic ground that there would indeed be a backlash. There would because their Royal Liberalnesses are so ineffective and the law has no teeth.

Pub Philosopher agrees about the ultimate sanction of the state.

But rather than give the law teeth we have to join the multi-culti merry-go-round of white guilt. It won't do.

nb. see my earlier post if you have doubts about my feeling about Anthony Walker's death.

OTOH- this is just a BBC Islamist inspired fantasy, as DumbJon points out, and using phrases like '"People are going to fight back."' reminds me of nothing more than the much descried BNP rhetoric which some would like to be actionable- and some do find actionable. 'Phone the police- help the Jihad' might be a nice slogan; or anyway phone your local special pleading centre.

Meanwhile, I couldn't believe how ridiculous the human rights angle from this article was. 'Ethnic' men, apparently, are to be searched more often by police than those who don't seem 'ethnic'. That makes absolute sense, but I just can barely believe how stupid the racial crusader brigade, in criticising this, think we are. Their rationale is that '"If you search people of a particular race or description while letting others through, it doesn't take long for a terrorist group to learn ways of placing their lethal cargo with those who don't meet the profile."'

Yes, but, it's surely a lot riskier for them to approach people not of their 'tribe' with a view to making them human incendiarists. There are many gullible white people who are susceptible to the old Islamofascist-anti-colonial-Islam-means-peace canard- but how can you be sure the worm won't turn? Or, if you mean to plant the bombs on some carrier- how risky is that for the bomber makers point of view? Very.

This stupendous lack of imagination from the so-called human rights lobby is not accidental- they have so much contempt for the ordinary ethnic majority in this country they feel they have to keep it simple and emotionally appealing.

Answering Terrorism.

There are two sides to every coin. I think that while desiring a crackdown on Islamists, on all who support them, and for pressure to be put on the communities who harbour them- we have to admit that there are people who, like the terrorists against democracy in Iraq, don't want our society to work. There are vicious and destructive people who build their own rationale to the point where they express it violently- if 'express' weren't a horrible euphemism for acts like that against Anthony Walker in Liverpool-, of British origin.

Maybe it's sentimental, but everything I hear about him suggests that the apparent racists who targeted him chose an admirable example of where integration actually works, in order to make their point the more brutal and hard nosed.

Just over ten years ago I was part of a debate where I argued for the reintroduction of the death penalty (I lost the original vote, won the ultimate one). One of the things I argued was that for society to have the respect of all its extremely varied and vigorous members, it had to have an effective ultimate sanction. I still hold that view, and I'd apply it to the likes of Anthony's murderers. Our sclerotic justice system won't wake up until it realises the power it has whether it likes it or not. The fact is that power suppressed is merely manifested in the increasingly ego-centric behaviour of the extremer fringes of society. If somebody out there thinks that Anthony's death was just politics by other means- because they calculated it to be that way- then politics has to be able to give an answer by other means than the purely political ones it currently has.