Batty puts a Cork in shit.

Jailed for six months. I know that my imagination concerning prison has only been fed by the most unignorably lurid drivel from the distraction industry, but I can't help but pity a man incarcerated in one of HMG's prisons for saying he was proud to be British, and that people attending a mosque should go back where they came from.

The BBC's meagre details include the name of the judge (Batty), and the criminal (Cork).

It strikes me the really foolish thing Mr Cork has done is plea guilty.

Walked into an empty lift today accompanied by a guy in banking. He started talking to me in English (yes, this was in the Czech Republic- I really should find a way of putting my blogger profile into this template. I've always been nervous talking about myself). Anyway, he asks me pretty quickly whether I'm from Britain or America. He says he finds American English hard to understand. In fact, as soon as I say I'm British, he says 'I hate America er, Americans, er...'. Now 'hate', in my experience, is not a word that trips easily from the tongues of most Czech English speakers, yet here it was. Very classy.

Which brings me to Mark Steyn, and 'anti-Europeanism in the United States' ?

So excited they can't even punctuate.

Almost as much as I dislike the imposition of more state-sponsored authoritarian bureaucracy, I dislike the naif enthusiasm of those who are charged with operating it. Oh, it's good for their careers no doubt, whatever happens, but it's the pretense that they are engaged in anything more than the importation of generally malign layers of authority from largely failed socialist models that irritates me.

Or perhaps it's not pretense, and they're actually blissfully ignorant of the antecedents to what they are participating in. Either way deeply irritating.

You may be surprised (or not- and you may have already found out about it) to hear about one of Britain's newest ground breaking anti-crime initiatives: the secret police. Now we wait for the BBC drama where the cockney villain cries "Scram! 'SOCCER' (SOCA) are on the way".

Of course UK Leftists and any fellow drivellers on the Right like to bring up the FBI in all of this, as though this was just our version. However Britain, being smaller than California, scarcely can be said to need one.

SOCA are the plods that have this exciting new opportunity to imprint a new chapter in British policing. They have lots of new and exciting 'methods' to try out. The one I found most prominent on their website was snitching, or grassing, or informing- words that could be used to describe it, depending on context.

But actually they call it a Sar, and the plural they call Sar's- repeatedly (this is a clear act of language abuse and should be reportable to someone with the authority to discipline, maybe fine the abuser on the spot (joke). Here are some more examples). This pathetic lack of attention to detail, this carelessness, is precisely what I would expect of a flash new Government agency- well, responsible to the Home Office. The Sars homepage could get it right, but not the plod- or plod appointee- writing the website info. No organisation which pays that little attention to detail should be allowed within a mile of legal matters.

Anyway, one can argue about the need for some group to deal with money laundering and the like (looking at the info it seems that had been accounted for previously), but the problem with creating a brand new force working outside the system is the problem we always have with our law enforcers once they are freed from specific duties and made an 'operational force'. They go for the soft targets, the cheap and the easy targets within their new domain. They will probably eventually be used to track down those operating without ID cards, and the like. They will ostensibly be there to enforce immigration and monitor international transactions, but in the end they will find it much easier to target petty non-rule-obeyers, and that will probably mean Joe Bloggs who feels he ought to be able to travel without his ID card.

Via Samizdata

It reminds me of a feeling I've had in the Czech Republic for a while: I watch policemen travelling aimlessly round in vehicles, not sure what to do, what their role is. I think it must be one of the key challenges of policing, to define what you're for. For the most part this aimlessness in a former police state is benign, faintly positive. I notice that the new SOCA team will not pledge any oath; they'll just join up. But for what, to what end?

If you tie it in with this story it becomes scarier still: the news that the discretion of calling a crime a crime, or not, is being handed out more widely than ever to the police. It's scary when getting a caution means having a criminal record, and the police get to decide what's cautionable and what's not, working within a framework where burglary, shop lifting, arson, and underage sex, among others, may be viewed as cautionable and thus comparable to a parking offence.

The chaos and confusion in deciding what is a crime seems to be rampant today- I expect many more stories like this one... although actually in a sense I don't. The time for picking up anomalies may be passing. The Govt. want to increase rather than decrease them; they basically want to bring the police a greater degree of authority; not by ensuring a rational system which all respect, but by making randomness a weapon. Thus real criminals will accommodate to the irrationality of the individual officers and groups of officers (in other words, outwit them one way or antoher), and the law-abiding will fear the irrational police/state. Crime figures become manipulable, and order in any case can be simulated.

It's really happening. How stupid.

WMD and media bias captured in the same two minutes, as noticed by Tim Blair.

Advice to Opposition: Oppose. That has to be right about 90 percent of the time. Helen Szamuely has some good advice for the boy-prince.

The anti-war fallacy

Time to attempt something more comprehensive as a follow up to my post on the latest revelations concerning the Iraq war, terrorism, and the London bombings.

I'd start by saying that I've become immune to the drip feed of titillating 'revelation' concerning intelligence reports about Iraq- whether about warnings that intelligence concerning WMD was patchy, or leaks revealing that the decision to go to war was predetermined, or that the war would increase the risk of terrorism to the UK.

Why? Am I just unable to entertain that I can be wrong about something? In denial?

Well, I'm not going to introspect just yet.

... read on here, should you wish to...

'Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.'

Cut n' paste onto any current issue requiring public understanding for a rational public debate, but especially, as George Will argues, to global warming.

Follow the money

Says Riverbend, 'I was shocked to find out the BOOK “Baghdad Burning” had made the short list for the Samuel Johnson Prize- a prestigious, British award for non-fiction!!'

Shocked? Well, I don't know, but looking at the blurb from her book publishers one can see that she earnt 20,000 Euros only last year from the Lettres Ulysses Award (yes, new to me too). 20,000 Euros surely goes a long way in Baghdad. Still, I suppose a girl has to take encouragement where she can under 'occupation'.

Good Journalists get to talk to their subjects, even when their intent is investigative.

I think Claudia Rossett fits the bill.

A fascinating read about events in France, with reference especially to the Jewish community there. Anecdote upon anecdote, almost bang up to date.

And on to the Next War (well, bombing raid anyway). I can't say I'm sanguine about it. It's not taking on Iran with bombers that worries me, it's the fact that this seems to fall within the mullahs' gameplan. Though I'm a peaceful man, I wish that they had been taking on Iran at a time less of the mullahs' choosing (ie. earlier).

So predictable from the anti-war people that they should jump on the latest 'top secret' memo from MI5 claiming that the war in Iraq has made us a target for terrorism (and here comes the new bit) for many years to come.

Wow, I'm impressed. The hamster guy says

'Blair puts great store in always believing what the security services tell him. Presumably then, we'll now see him publically accept what's been glaringly obvious to most people for some considerable time. Oh wait - Blair saw this memo before the attacks in London last year. How strange that he, of all people, should misrepresent the judgement of the intelligence services to the British people...'

Rachel from North London says

'Finally, they cannot deny it any longer: this war has led to hatred and terror and suicide bombings in the U.K. Blair knew this risk, and he denied it, and he went ahead with the war, and he lied about the reasons for the war and the risks and consequences of the war - and people were murdered because of this.'

Both of them are wrong, but let's start with the obvious point:

One memo doth not a scandal make. Memos, rather surprisingly, are ten a penny, and say all sorts of things. Anyone who read the Hutton report will know something about the potential for contradictory noise at the highest level. What the anti-war types don't seem to realise is that these memos are only released for trite politicised reasons, to stir up the rabble. Well, at any rate they barely realise it, and that's really undermining to their credibility, and sanity. I don't accuse Blair of misrepresenting the evidence because I don't know the full range of evidence he was faced with and, on balance, formed a judgement. With that judgement were pros and cons and I don't think that was ever denied.

Secondly, I'd say I'm no fan of the endless alternative histories we find put forward, but nonetheless I'd like to see these people come up with a 2006 scenario where the threat of terrorism hadn't grown, given the trendlines of the previous 30 years.

And that's enough really. I'd add I'm not happy with our supercillious pols, but I think a bigger problem is the fashionable ignorance of the pampered chatterers who throw round accusations of lies like confetti at a wedding. (and yes, I acknowledge RfNL's trauma in July, without considering it a free logic pass)

Oh how embarrassing- not that Condi Rice has found some protesters meeting her in Blackburn and elsewhere, but that she was forced to sit through a Liverpool Harmonic concert featuring a performance of the Beatles' dirge 'Imagine'. I think today's pols often find themselves forced to pay homage to near worthless pop-culture junk (which is not to say that pop music hasn't got some positives, just that I'd never want it to be mistaken for serious entertainment, and anthems or event marking are not its strong suit).

But the really embarrassing thing was that with almost mind-blowing predictability 'concert singer Jennifer John' slipped from 'Imagine' to 'Give Peace a Chance'. I'm sure Condi wasn't surprised, but I could cringe that the anti-war populists couldn't come up with a more original stunt than that. Another embarrassing thing is that the BBC considered it worth reporting, rather like those parish magazines that insist on informing you that the triangle in the Christmas children's show was pinged by little Johnny so-and-so. That's cute, where appropriate...

> Oh, and I meant to add that I can't stand the fact that the 'performers' freely consented to their profile raising reception of Condi, yet treated a guest like an enemy. It's against humanity.

'Can Western enlightenment and power, embedded in deep cynicism, still prevail over ignorance and self-inflicted pathology energized by fanaticism?

Simply a great article from Victor Davis Hanson

More Peacemaker Pants.

'The deaths of civilians in Iraq may indeed add up to violations of the Geneva Conventions, especially Article IV.'

They are also very sad.

I read with some interest this update on casualties in Iraq from a man behind the 100,000 Lancet figure which has become the basis on which every pro-war type like me has found themselves shouted down. It's hard to argue with the raw power of mass death.

I am sure they figure something like that the figures given by the pro-war people prior to the Iraq invasion were phoney, therefore sauce for the goose can become sauce for the gander.

The trouble is that the figures for deaths before Saddam have not been properly investigated, as is hard to do when the public and the government of Iraq mainly want to avoid going the same way via a bomb or a bullet direct to the head- and they know that unlike the US and UK soldiers, the Islamofascists don't care who they kill as long as the effect is right for them.

More Notelets I'm afraid

I suppose tomorrow I'll at last have more time to develop some posts on this blog. However, in the meantime here are some vital things to think about.

First of all, take a look at this fascinating exchange between the American Expat and Paul Reynolds of the BBC. I think Scott nails him with the logic of saying that either you report a claim of 100,000 civilian deaths (or more) in Iraq, and examine the methodology critically for the reader's sake, or you don't report it at all. Reynolds' response?

'It was simply a figure. I reported it. . What's the problem?'

Yeah, no big deal.

Then, perhaps even more importantly, take a look at this news from LGF about the Western Standard, Canadian publishers of Mark Steyn's columns, being sued because they published the Mohammed cartoons. Once the law in Anglosphere countries defended innocent people; now it terrorises them. Big news I feel.

Not much time... to write, so a couple of links only.

I promise you a rollicking experience if you visit Dr Crippen's site for his great big round up. Medical blogs have their own slightly disinfected flavour, I've discovered from reading his posts and the subculture of mediblogging which is emerging. They sanitise, or more accurately rationalise, some parts of life which are usual quite unclear, like death and sickness, and at the same time introduce a special kind of randomness and chaos. This round up shows you just what I mean.

Now, have shared possibly the most unsettling, let me direct you to the post which spoilt my morning, from the Belmont club. Not only does it paint a desperate picture of Iraq, it also references respectfully the current bete noir of anti-Beeb blogging, Riverbend.

There you go. Don't get bored.

Some kind of parallel can be drawn from almost every section of this 3 yr Iraq war anniversary report from John Simpson, to some part of this anniversary report from the Beeb's latest award nominated darling, Baghdad Burning.

The only thing that Simpson avoids mentioning which Riverbend mentions is the violence- that is, mentioning it directly. It's typical of Simpson not to overreach with his bias.

Oh, and do check out this post on the subject of 'who is Riverbend?'. It comes recommended by Dave T. from BBBC comments, Cabarfeidh, and the Queen's Own...

I'm a fan of Wikipedia so I liked this post...

My only quibble is how it can avoid the addition of meaningless information because many obsessives are full of minutiae and irrelevant detail. In other words, how can it avoid the trainspotter's redundancy?

Lacking a spine

This is not a post about the BBC's lacking courage. They do, but the metaphor is a bit more literal than that. I'm referring to an interesting article concerning the booming state of the Israeli economy which is paradoxically dominated by the BBC's focus on poverty.

The trouble is, like so many BBC reports, it lacks the spine provided by recognition of fundamentals. So we get a jelly-like rambling commentary telling us how

'Last year, the economy expanded at its fastest rate in years, bolstered by healthy growth in exports, strength in the technology sector and a healthy investment climate.'

You look through the article in vain for the central theme: it is conveyed only in hints about a positive 'investment climate' and how 'a Palestinian uprising sparked a slump' in 2000.

But the real story behind economic growth is the stability brought about by Sharon's barrier policy and unilateral action. Because they will not focus on this, a fundamental issue, they are released to focus on one of their cherished topics, poverty, which enables them to include Palestinian alienation in their 'compassionate' coverage. In doing so they pass over the fact that the gap between rich and poor is mirrored by the gulf between terrorist sponsoring people and law-abiding citizens.

The war de les langues.

Not sure even if that three words of French is correct, but it hardly matters, does it? (actually, to me it would, which is why I ascertained that it should be war 'des langues', but still.)

Agnes Poirier does make at least one mistake in her 'comment is free' entry defending- I think- Jacques Chirac; along with several awkward usages which tend to confirm my sense that English is her second language.

As for the assumption that English is carrying all before it; that may be so, but what kind of English would emerge, and would it be good for Britain, if hordes of people in the world learnt our language the hard way, while we basked in the sense of well-being it gave us?

One crusty old professor (ie. deceased and a theology don) made an interesting comment I came across recently:

'Modern English, it seems to me, is slack instead of taut, verbose and not concise, infested with this month's cliché, no longer the language of a proud and energetic English people, but an international means of communication.'- Prof. Kenneth Grayston.

That was said quite a few years ago (at least pre-1993), and things move quickly in the world out there.

Kember- there's only so much oxygen, you're being greedy.

I noticed this lavish op-ed from Bruce Kent, former head of CND, on the BBC.

It's a good example of how leftists have privileged and easy access to the state sponsored soap box that the BBC is able to offer.

Bruce Kent's pedigree as a political agitator is a long one, and I've no doubt his apologia for wrong-headed activism is well practiced.

I don't really like criticising people like Kent and Kember. It's not because they're well-meaning, which is something I don't really believe, but because they are clumsy and obvious.

Kent, for instance, justifying Kember, says

'He could see there were a lot of people in Iraq who were hurting and suffering, who had lost relations or been imprisoned. Whatever their nationality, our job as Christians and as people interested in peace was to offer help and consolation to people who were suffering. That was Norman's basic wish.'

Here we have a combination of straw man and faux charity.

Firstly the nationality issue was not an issue. If he said that Kember went to protect the Sunni minority from a backlash from Shias that might have some semblance of sense- but don't expect any such precision from people like Kent- or Kember.

Secondly, the vast majority of Iraqis were suffering first from the tyranny of Saddam, and afterwards from the tyranny of his regime remnants and the terrorists who have killed Iraqis, but especially Shias, by the score. Kember was a major kind of propaganda tool for the insurgents (so called), and thus was de facto taking sides in the conflict. Unfortunately for him, his propaganda value was not seen as being high enough by the so-called insurgents, so they kidnapped him and others, and killed one of them.

Kent proclaims the virtue of Kember's desire to show 'we were not a country which was united in favour of what had been done.' That is precisely the message which has encouraged the insurgents (so-called) and led to thousands of deaths as they seek to further tip the balance helpfully pointed out by Kent, Kember and their ilk.

Thirdly, what 'help' was it that Kember intended to provide? Did he take with him supplies and equipment? In this case he must be very stupid if he does not know that the US is in Iraq with all the necessary equipment to help Iraqis should there be peace enough to enable proper reconstruction.

As is typical, the Christian anti-war campaigner says that 'we as Christians are commanded to be concerned about the suffering and imprisonment of others - it's an explicit mandate to us.'

Well, if you insist. However the same obviously (and this is why I rarely comment on such things) applies to the suffering and imprisoned people in Iraq under Saddam. Kember was explicitly rejecting their rights by opposing the war in Iraq. Definitely the idea of compassion shouldn't extend to those actively engaged in murder and torture, as the so-called insurgents have been, for example the 'defenders' of Fallujah. There were many under Saddam's Iraq though who had not abused anyone yet were subject to vicious oppression.

Kent goes on to say 'We send out government people and contractors and God knows who else as well as soldiers, and they all take major risks, some of them for commercial reasons and some for political or other purposes.'

Yes indeed: and all of them have rational reasons for being where they are and doing what they do, whereas Kember had none- unless, that is, one analyses his actions politically and as a consequence of a classic case of holier than thou emotional rather than rational, self-aggrandising rather than humble, superior and pampered western condescension to events of global significance.

Changing Media

David Aaronovitch has a fascinating post up about media change over the last twenty years. Lots of fine insights. One of the most recent changes has been the Times' launch of blog sites. They're not bad, in general, but Aaro's is like watching a duck entering the water. Can't say I'm too enthusiastic about having a blog broadside from Britain's media establishment, but hey-ho, I think participation is healthy.


Meanwhile, this type of journalism could be the consequence of the coincidence of media change stress syndrome with Bush derangement syndrome. Not pretty.

BBC gab fest taking place as Norman Kember is 'freed'. I've never bothered to talk about him as he didn't seem too important, but look at these guys gush.

However, I notice now the ambiguity of the word 'freed'. It does seem to me that that word 'rescued' seems more appropriate.

Certainly I do not think we should be hearing from the latest terrorist celebrity, Moazzam Begg. If not a terrorist, this man consorted with them, and now the BBC is allowing some spurious and evidently inconsequential words he used to advocate Kember's release in December as a justification for his rehabilitation into an acceptable face of Islamic extremism.

'Moazzam Begg, who publicly pleaded for the release of Mr Kember in December, said he was "ecstatic" at the news.

He said: "I am extremely pleased. I am very, very happy and hope to meet him soon after he gets back here.

"I am a little concerned about the military operation and hope that nobody was hurt during that.

"It is the best news to come out of Iraq in a long time.

"I just know the experience of being kept away from your home for such a long time. He needs time to recover and I hope that everybody gives him that." '

heh- "I am a little concerned about the military operation and hope that nobody was hurt during that." - wouldn't want any of his friends harmed during the 'freeing' of infidels, would he?

Interesting stuff from the DT on Begg here. For the BBC to use Begg as a quotable source on the Kember matter implies a firm assumption about Guantanamo and US interrogation procedures. That's no surprise, but sometimes media judgements become foundational, and treating Begg as a quotable source is one such.



'

Some Anniversaries But Not Others

In the post below I noted the tenth anniversary of the predictions of doom that accompanied a Government announcement about Mad Cow Disease. Nothing from the Beeb about that. It would actually be interesting to read an anatomisation of mindless hype, so there's little chance of the Beeb going near it. They loved saying 'how could the US intelligence have been so wrong over Iraq WMD etc', but somehow fail to see the dramatic shortfall between expectation and reality when it comes to their own deranged pontifications.

Needless to say, they make space to remember a nuclear accident, Chernobyl, where slighty fewer people- 56 - died than have died so far in the CJD crisis (which nevertheless represents a case study example of failed punditry). Of course we can argue about fallout in terms of defects of birth and whatnot, but this comment in the BBC's Have Your Say, like a seed fallen on stony ground, seems to me to have real merit:

'How about querying why the environmental pressure groups' estimate of 300,000 to 400,000 deaths caused by Chernobyl does not tally with the actual death toll to 2004 of 56.'

1 recommendation demonstrates how the reality game is a minority sport.

Oh, and another thing: I really resent the BBC's giving the ETA ghouls centre stage for a spurious announcement made in full fascist regalia. Who made these evil clowns the story except their own pathetic and murderous activities? I so dislike the BBC's responding to the whims of people only notable for their criminality.

Wrong Again: the MSM

Richard North has a classic post up at Euref; one of those where the apparently unstoppable force of media hype meets the immoveable object of historical fact, and squishes like an overripe tomato.


As the BBC have been reminding us, it's the third anniversary of the Iraq war. If it weren't that they were reminding us about that perhaps there'd be a new season of climate change reporting instead, or Guatanamo, or oppressed Muslims in Europe or...


But we're unlikely to hear about the anniversary of the predictions of mass deaths from BSE. Richard points out that there have been only 160 confirmed or probable cases of vCJD (people alive or dead) in the decade since the Tory Government was lambasted by the MSM (well, they were idiots by that stage, but they were punished less for their real faults than for media generated and spun ones). North quotes the Observer. It's difficult to believe such hysteria could have existed, until you contemplate some of the absurd hysteria about today. In fact, if anything the situation has got worse, and writers like North and Booker who were pointing out the reality back then are certainly further from the media hub than they were.

Apologies for the lack of posting yesterday. Of course, I am also sorry about the hiatus that occurred in recent weeks, but this was almost wholly due to technical matters beyond my control eg. being given the wrong password for an upgraded ISP connection! (amongst other things) duh. There are two compounding factors; one, I live and work in Prague, thereby reducing my ability to communicate over matters which in the UK would be simply solved (Czech is a difficult language; I am not confident using it). Second I have very limited patience with the technology, and I don't really cope well when it misbehaves.

Yesterday, at any rate, I had a very busy day and when I finally got to sit in front of a screen with time to blog I found several things which belonged on Biased BBC instead of here. Thus it goes sometimes.

Still, regarding blogging I found this a very heartening piece- not to say delightful- from Scott Burgess. In my view blogging has far to go before it has revealed the extent of its potential, but as Scott points out, it has some intrinsic qualities which, if you like, give the project its water wings. My view of newspaper/antique media today is that it's hideously reductive, lacking the sense of social responsibility which undergirded its history. So in those respects, in a way, blogging can't fail- which makes it a likely success story, I feel.

Great Writers Care About Words.

Recently I weighed in a bit on behalf of my favourite writer, Mark Steyn- on threads like this one at Tim Worstall's. I'm sure he'll recover from being pushed out from the British press; in fact I'm sure he'll be back before long, but no-one should be taking liberties with a writer as good as him, least of all the DT and the Spectator.

Anyway, today Steyn has produced another gem for one of his newer syndicators, Macleans, where he writes about books. I loved this observation about the debasement of language:


'When the British hostage Ken Bigley met the same fate, his brother Paul complained that Tony Blair had "blood on his hands." This seemed an especially unworthy accusation when anyone with an Internet connection could see the relevant snuff video with Mr. Bigley's blood on the hands of his killers. Indeed, the key difference between the participants in this conflict is that on one side clichés about "blood on his hands" and "calls for the defence secretary's head" are just that, and on the other they're for real.'

It reminds me of some of George Orwell's concern about the overuse of metaphor in his Politics and the English Language, and this care about language seems to be one that distinguishes great writers from exploiters of words.

Knowing Where We Stand: Melanie Phillips has lined up a nice snap shot.

As far as I can see it there's only one good thing about the extremism of tolerance and the tolerance of extremism in Britain today: there's certainly a lot for us critics to work with; so much so it's overwhelming.

Meanwhile, Glenn Reynolds says he thinks the Beeb might have pulled her socks up. I think I'd agree with him on that (I was looking at a neat and tidy website today, wondering aimlessly what to be scathing about), but where the BBC have led, others now require no prompting to follow; it's this kind of agenda shaping which makes the BBC the loathsomely self-satisfied organisation it is, and regenerates its desire to shape the agenda anew- which it inexorably does.

I liked this part of another of Melanie's analyses, of the increasing 'choice' of marital states on offer in the West:

'causes and symptoms are inextricably fused so that they all reinforce each other. The more alternative lifestyles become ordained as mainstream, with dissidents treated as social pariahs if they try to uphold traditional moral norms, the more those moral norms are undermined'

She might have added, 'the more the agents of that alteration of perception are encouraged to contemplate the next frontier of attack'. I think what I have in mind is a media appetite, rather than a conscious desire- certainly I don't have in mind a media with any coherent intellectual purpose; in their dreams, perhaps.

I am minded to quote Shakespeare (after googling-up my memory, that is) when I think about the media and our cataclysms of social change:

'Why, she would hang on him, as if increase of appetite had grown by what it fed on.' -Hamlet, I. ii. 144-145

But maybe I have been missing things...

Like this from the clever Mr Tall, a draw-latching rogue as some know him, but an astute and valued fellow blogger to me (is there a contradiction there?).

I realise that I'm well out of date on this (it being a news item from about a week ago), but it seems important, in the light of the excision of Mark Steyn from the British press. I heard that Steyn made an appearance on the BBC recently- it would make a nice coup for them if they could sneak him back onto their books somehow. (Of course S.T. Editor Sarah Sands has got the boot too, which is interesting, though I've never valued her journalism. Her picture has always pleased me though).

Anyway, Laban was drawing attention to an interview in the Telegraph with Patrick Sookhdeo, a prominent CoE figure and convert from Islam. The interview was fascinating; but I only read it via Laban's pasting of it onto his blog as the Telegraph has long since yanked it. It was essentially outlining the way the behaviour of Muslims in the UK was following a pattern laid down in the era of Khomeneian radicalism (that's my thought, anyway), in 1980. Rule number one: never dilute your presence.

But I think we need to put this in some kind of context, for it's the context which agitates me.

Let's Beebify it, for a min:

Now, I've no time for Pat Robertson, a US religious celebrity, but I suspect that's why the BBC chooses him to provide a newsworthy story concerning allegations of Islamic plots for world domination. After all, Dr Sookhdeo would bring things too close to home, and Robertson is easily swatted away.

The fact that the Muslim faith does plot such a domination, a political domination, is ignored by the BBC. Instead, they parrot the line that Western tolerance has failed, which is both counter to any reason in the light of terrorist atrocities against the West, and morally defeatist.

The fact is that it is not just by reading the Koran, or by listening to your average Imam, that one can get a general impression of a kind of pressure towards Islamification being exerted. One can get much more specific instances, as Scott Burgess has pointed out regarding the Muslim Brotherhood.

To take a recent example, the leader of the Danish Imams, Abu Laban, met with the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Qaradawi, during his rabble rousing tour last year.

Here I do not need to suggest conspiracy, I need merely to point to it. And meanwhile the entire British press is heading, along with British Government, down the path of appeasement, willing to sacrifice anything in their conviction that they will find peace if they only apologise to the right people.

The 'we are the enemy' theorists.

But first, it's good to be back. Originally I had blogger woes, a kind of 'PACman' phenomenon, for which their email apology was bare comfort. Then, my ISP 'upgraded' my connection. Mmm. Three weeks later, they told me they'd issued me with the wrong password for the new connection, though that was a secondary, follow up problem to their initial failure to run through procedures properly. Mmm.

But things aren't much different, though I've only just discovered that Milosevic is dead. First I saw something about his 'widow', and slowly it dawned on me that he was no more.

Tragic though, is that Mark Steyn seems to have been dumped, or is imminently to be dumped, by both Telegraph and Spectator publications. The news comes through the Guardian Newspaper, in the form of a sympathetic-style commentary from a notebook-type columnist. The Guardianistas will know they've gained a victory, and are channeling their good news through a token sympathist.

The tragedy though is more because Steyn really can write. Not only that, but he has a kind of clarity and sinuous thinking which only genius has, and that's why the boneheads at the Tele and the Speccie couldn't stand it. Steyn's a friggin' genius, for crying out loud! You don't do that to genius unless you're secretly culturally suicidal.

Anyway, to topic, and my beef with the media, specifically the BBC.

Melanie Phillips points out the latest outrage, or should it be idiocy? The Beeb's attempt, via risible leech Michael Crick, to draw an equivalence between Israel's acquisition of the bomb and Iran's.

I know some who would demand an argument that demonstrated the non-equivalence of the two, rather than condemning Iran out of hand. Sorry, I'm not offering that, and I do condemn Iran out of hand. If fantasists want a nice even balance to history and politics then who can stop them theorising such equivalences? Balance is a mantra, a religious thing, a guilt trip where guilty parties are to be found within the story of the West, excepting themselves and their kindred spirits of course as the heroes of the piece. The new Beeb charter is a recipe for more of the same.

Clive Davis also notices something interesting: it's the freedom of interpretation which culturally western leftist conspiracy theorists (I use the term loosely for all those who think that secretly the faults of our culture and history are the root of all world problems today) allow themselves with other culturally western people's actions.

Sickening. Really. And the Telegraph has sacked Mark Steyn. Idiots.

Woes and Troubles

On top of having Blogger woes my internet service provider also decided to take the weekend off. Normal service will resume asap.

Lawyer wins case (the body will naturally appeal- but so far so good).

One thing I haven't heard anyone mention about the hunting accident is that Cheney knows a thing or two about heart problems and mortality. Dick might well keel over before Whittington does.

Certainly couldn't have put it better myself:

'Maybe a few British soldiers did some bad things and beaten up some Iraqis but bruises don't kill, it's Iran's revolutionary guards and secret services thugs who are assassinating Iraqis and destabilizing my country, so SHUT UP MULLAHS.'-

Lovely stuff from Iraq the Model.

Of course, in the context he speaks of he doesn't mention the jihadofascists. The Jawa report does that (via LGF).

Reverance for an Irrelevance.

That's my view of the BBC's lavish coverage of the UN's attempt to blast the US into getting rid of Guantanamo.

I despise all this weasel worded 'amounts to torture' rhetoric from the tranzis. If you have to weasel around trying to label some kind of treatment 'torture' you can be sure it isn't that at all.

Anyway, it seems I'm not alone in thinking that the UN is an utter rotten disgrace. This man thinks so too- and he spent four years at the highest level there.

Oops, did I send you to the BBC site for some news? Silly me, I meant to send you here for some news. (via EUREF)

I think the UN is a very sad and very real distraction from the real world. The BBC seem to love it.

A Whim for Zim. (a post-valentine's message)

Over the course of a while, as I browsed my visitor stats (a sobering experience, believe me), I noticed an interesting pattern. I kept getting visits from some computer (or computers) lodged in a particularly forsaken nook of sub-saharan Africa. I mean Bob's country, the land of Rhodes, you get the picture?

Oh well, I rarely mentioned the country, despite having it on my heart really most of the time- just how do you deal with the devil's playground?

It's sad to say but when you read reports coming out of the country that's what you conclude: the 'vintage' one (I quote the BBC) has made it his business to flout the needs of his people, to hurt them, in the most bizarre, cruel and brazen ways. The more brazen he is the more he gets away with it. Don't tell me he's going to keel over and die. I don't believe it, although I can't say for sure, of course. He seems a healthy old goat.

So what to do, what to do? I could as well keep a record of Bob's evil acts as I could a record of sick jokes that I've heard.

I link almost at random this current instance; there have been many more. There can be no doubt that the repression in Zim is routine and sadistic.

I may have mentioned on this site that I spent some time- about six months- in East Africa a few years ago. I was fortunate and had no health problems; no typhus or bruscella, and no malaria, entered my blood-stream. Something about Africa did though, and I've been carrying it around ever since.

That something tells me that all we need to do is tell Mugabe 'no', to stand up to him in all the ways available and some that aren't immediately available. I'd favour an armed intervention and I'd bet all I have that just a small one would have miraculous effects, without anything like the Iraqi situation emerging. Not exactly a second Rhodes raid, but not far off in spirit, is what I have in mind.

Well, anyway, I don't seem to be getting the visitor from Zim anymore, so he or she won't get to read this, my small cry on behalf of a long-suffering people. But if there's one thing I'd like people everywhere to take on board about this it would be that it doesn't have to be this way.

Gilding the lily on the left.

One really shouldn't do it. It only does harm.

It's probably a bedrock characteristic I have: I just can't stand being lied to; I try really hard to understand people's half truths because I hate the feeling I get when I feel caught out.

That's the thing about the cartoon apoplexy: the lies. The Gateway Pundit reports that the Danes (some of them) want to try for treason the Imams who spread fake cartoons in the Middle East. That's how I'd feel about it if I were Danish. It's how to deal with traitors, who are usually cocky little idiots doing it 'because they can' and because they want a sense of significance their society has seen fit not to give them. I'd feel alot more comfortable, for instance, if society would call George Galloway on his egregious lying and put him in the dock and thence to jail where he belongs, instead of playing the silly little game of pretending he's an honest radical. He's not honest and it would dignify him far too much to call him radical.

And another thing: this cartoon thing is a lot less about religious intolerance than it is about lying and rabble-rousing politics.

Of course for the anti-religious, it's a gift, but what is stupid is that instead of learning the real lessons about checking people's assertions, investigating their backgrounds, analysing their words and actions, etc (you know, the human game?), they just say 'that's religion for you; knew it all the long!'

One suspects that right-on leftist anti-religionism was the reason why Harry's Place casually quoted and worked up this pseudo-historical account from Times' journalist Gary Duncan.

It's the story of Britain's last death penalty for blasphemy, but reading that story at numerous online sources, including primary accounts, I barely recognise it from the Times' account, rehashed by Harry's Place and popularised (I guess) by a link from Pajamas Media.

I like this source. Two things emerge quite clearly: one is that Garry Duncan's account is a pathetic rendering of the story, reducing it from an accusation of a habitual, yearlong blaspheming pattern, to one incident in front of a church one freezing night. The second is the role of lying, or at best bare-faced hypocrisy.

We learn about the actions of one Mungo Craig, 'friend' of Aikenhead (the young man accused) and his chief accuser, who lent him radical books and then accused him of believing and espousing what they said! Craig seems to have disingenuously pursed a vendetta, resulting in an execution.

Anyway, none of this is to invalidate the accusations against religion; the religous authorities were stupid, vain, and yes, intolerant- by all accounts- but if you ignore the human element you ignore everything that makes the case distinctive, everything which tells you why such a thing happened exactly then, and perhaps why such abuse of power came to an end. It's all so MSM to miss the story completely like that.


But a final thought: from googling Gary Duncan I haven't a clue who this phantom of uncertain historical tales is; I have no bank of articles of his to ascertain anything he believes, or anything about his background at all. He's so unaccountable!

So John Simpson Alleges...

That the Guantanamo inmates are mostly innocent, in this article. He throws impressive statistics around like confetti. He brandishes the fact that most of the 'enemy' were not captured by the US; he tosses up the US' reward in Afghanistan for informers as though to invite jaundiced outrage.

Let's focus for a moment. When the professor and lawyer Simpson cites argue that the vast majority of inmates were not Al-Qaeda, why can't Simpson simply point out that the US' reward to informers was offered in return for members of the Taliban as well as Al Qaeda? Afghanistan's government provided a terrorist haven; to support terrorists you could simply be a loyal part of the Taliban. The whole question Simpson raises should not be about the headline Al-Qaeda point, it should be about the definition of a terrorist organisation, and the definition of involvement. I feel pretty confident that has received some thought on the US' part; pity about the BBC.

Then again, why doesn't Simpson point out that many have been released from Guantanamo? There has been a rationale at work there, for sure, differentiating between inmates of different sorts. Why not analyse that? No, he's not interested. Not interested at all.

Sunday Reading: I give you the Sandmonkey (specialist in Egyptian cartoon publication).

Ideology and Truth (another cartoon rumbled?)

We've been slaves to ideology of one sort or another for a hundred years or so, ever since the emergence of radical socialism/communism. You and your family may never have been either socialists or Marxists (as mine weren't, I believe), yet the nature of the ideology was domination at all costs. People have done unimaginable things hard to even believe on the back of these ideologies, and now there's a new one, or a resurgent one, on the block.

Martin Kettle is a semi-reformed Guardian columnist: he still writes for the Guardian but he's somewhat dissenting, reminding the poor cossetted lefties of slightly uncomfortable home truths- he was supportive of the work of Lord Hutton, supportive of the US in Iraq.

That said, he's the son of a leading Marxist, while the reformed part is that he rejects that movement- now at least. His article about the subject is fascinating: the lengths that the Left would go to, the religious quality of it all; the lies.

But what we should learn from this is that 'strong' ideologies will go to any lengths, will stop at nothing, to rise and dominate. Islam is an ideology at heart, one which has been ebbing and flowing around the globe for over a millenium. It's a slow burn ideology since a religion of conquest and political uniformity is bound to go through bad spells; but it's not going through a bad spell now- it's cannibalising the burnt out shell of that more reckless ideology, world socialism, and motivating a vast number of activists.

That's why I'm almost certain Jim Lindgren's onto something with his theory that a further one (not only old pig snout) of the 'extra' Danish Imam cartoons was likely to have been a hoax, written by a hand used to forming Arabic letters. (via Michelle Malkin)

The rule, with aggressive ideologies, has to be if it smells bad, it is bad.

One might ask 'why forge something? Surely some hatemail must be floating around suitable for the purpose? Or why not get something from the internet? Even before the Jyllands Posten case there must have been some pretty strong stuff out there.' Well, aside from the practical consideration that a real offensive cartoon could have drawn a real apology, scuppering the whole process, I think that's ideologies for you: they're all about control. Better to make the revolution yourself than to rely on the vagaries of real life. Rather lie than use the reasonable truth.

They just don't enjoy the beach anymore.

350 odd years ago a fellow by the name of Isaac Newton said something interesting about his experience with science:

“I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”

Now Isaac Newton was not a 'soft' scientist, but I think he enjoyed the whole business rather more than today's joyless politico scientists, who can't think of science for a moment without conjuring up some straw man political opponent who stands between them and their next project funding.

The BBC, as usual, has a fine specimen of that species here.

Serious Media.

A gulf seems to be emerging between the informed professionals who have adopted the web as a vital part of their engagement with the news, and the uninformed professionals who haven't. I'll give two examples of some of the best commentary over the last few days, even though I'm far from being the first to highlight them no doubt.

Here's Claudia Rosett in magisterial form. Information brings perspective, which ultimately becomes authority.

Here's David Warren, with insight upon insight into the cartoon controversy. It's startlingly good, and makes me convinced I must make my daily visits a fixture.

What's interesting is that the governments concerned are still playing to the big media who have been thoroughly outflanked by the blogs and keyed in media. Jack Straw can have little idea of how foolish he looks from an online perspective. His career must surely be over as the message filters through. Another interesting thought is that the likes of Abu Laban can be exposed by the blogosphere, and others in the muslim world will notice this: thinking 'maybe the dhimmies are no so stupid after all; maybe Abu Laban's not so clever' ('rank idiocy' is where I would categorise him, but that would include his moral idiocy as well as his ineptitude as a forger). I would like to think they will put that in their pipe and smoke it.

See also this excellent posting at Euref. And, for a snapshot of the new media in action, interacting with one major story, check out the fabulous Michelle Malkin.

There was nothing spontaneous about Muslim toon anger: that's why an Egyptian newspaper could publish the cartoons in full, in October last year, during Ramadan- and not a peep from the street. That offensive, huh?

The resonance of Omar Khayam

Interesting times, or are they? Looking back in my mind to my blazered and tied, hopelessly dazed and out of it school days, I remember feeling that loons got a free pass with the press; that, for instance during the Rushdie crisis, only those who were innately culturally distinctive ever stood for anything and were allowed to stand for something.

We've pushed on since those times however, and now the free pass does not come without the potential for 'afters'. Omar Khayam is back in jail. One is tempted to say 'where he belongs' and that would be right, except that his is the criminal lifestyle, and that shouldn't exist at all. There should be choices in life whether to be criminal and face the consequences of meaningful restictions on one's lifestyle, or 'straight' and begin to reap some benefits. For Omar Khayam the consequences will be very limited indeed.

What does he do following 3 years imprisonment over drugs trafficking? Straps on a fake (or should that be 'empty'?) bomb belt and goes looking for trouble at a London demo against western free speech. His only prospect the continuation of his fantasist lifestyle paid for by the taxpayer. No thoughts induced in Omar Khayam by his incarceration that discouraged him this time around.

In a way he's a lot weirder than the loons used to be: the absurd posturing against the backdrop of already being a serious offender was not the profile of the muslims who protested Rushdie. When we talk of protests being healthy, we usually mean they show a stake in society that the protester cares about. Not many anti-Rushdie men felt like that, but maybe a few did, however misguidedly. But Khayam is just typical of how people with voices today are those who don't have a stake in society- through their own fantasy rather than through deprivation. These are people who get benefits for free, which if they were taken away might actually present them with some serious decision-making process. Most of the London mob were simply idiots (but often not unintelligent ones); and those who weren't were extremely dangerous characters. The police can't tell the difference (and really there isn't one- flip-flopping between idiocy and criminality in the ether of extremism- to have arrested the lot would have been salutory and defensible) and so are paralysed, then fixated on what they think the press or public notice, which in this case is a black plastic paraphenalia which looks like it could be used to carry water but is associated with carrying bombs. I really felt for the officers forced to stand there like dummies while the protesters made threats against the society the police are sworn in to uphold. Of course some of them felt no doubt that they were doing their duty- but most must have had doubts at some level.

Although Khayam is weird he's almost certainly not an outcast; I think he probably feels right at home in the niche position of being a loyal Muslim feeding off the stupid dhimmi system, dabbling in western-specific types of criminality to make life more rewarding. He doesn't have himself under control but then how many young men do, really? I've no doubt many muslims, especially young ones, would respect him for his bravura- and it's natural that that's so. He demonstrates a balanced role surfing waves between worlds that only looks absurd to an outdated bank of perceptions based upon fading assumptions. He has a poet's name and his symbolism is nonchalant. And he pisses me off something chronic.

From the re-emergence of Rummy with an audience in Germany, to the disappearance of 'Europe' from the cartoons debacle. Missing: European leadership- as Richard North notes, warming to his theme.

Results from the German Elections

It was questionable whether electing Angela Merkel was going to make any difference to the German outlook, but I think this is one thing we wouldn't have found without being rid of the toxic Schroeder: Don Rumsfeld speaks his mind and is listened to, in Munich, Old Europe.

Of course recent events may have played a part, but it's difficult to imagine Schroeder being this mature. Wise words from Rummy:

'"We could choose to pretend, as some suggest, that the enemy is not at our doorstep. We could choose to believe, as some contend, that the threat is exaggerated.

"But those who would follow such a course must ask: what if they are wrong? What if at this moment, the enemy is counting on being underestimated, counting on being dismissed, and counting on our preoccupation," Rumsfeld said.'

Galloway in the black hole of Cairo International. Heh heh.

Searching for the real Mohammed...

I searched the BBC's site today for 'Muhammad', and something struck me. Every single return referred to him as "the Prophet Muhammad". Really, I didn't know the Beeb were so religious. To call Muhammad 'the Prophet' is a tacit endorsement of Islam's claims. It is analogous to the pious term 'the Lord Jesus Christ', which you will not find the BBC using (In case anyone thinks this is just to distinguish that Mohammad from all the others, I would point out that Jesus is a first-name too in countries like Spain; an interesting quirk for a post-Islamic state).

Now I have no problem with secularism, as long as it's even-handed- but in the BBC's case, quite obviously it isn't. The BBC might respond that the West is far less religious, so it's an appropriate distinction in their address. That's not a good response though. In the UK, for example, 70 percent or so regard themselves as CoE, so that the difference can be better seen in terms of tolerance. Many people I've known who've termed themselves Christians have enjoyed Monty Python's Life of Brian, for instance.

Now, I would have no problem with the BBC saying that it wasn't their business to enforce western tolerance as a lodestone for its coverage, taking a moralistic liberal tone as a standard from which to judge all events, but that's exactly what they do on many issues that concern certain groups and countries- it's one of the staple inspirations for this blog. They often fly in the face, for example, of US sensitivities, and Israeli sensitivities, and white people's sensitivities, and western conservative sensibilities etc etc. One could point out that the majority of Africans are Christians, and often passionate ones, but this somehow doesn't seem to weigh in the BBC's balance.

Well, one could respond that there are dominant sensitivities in need of challenging (ha ha- western conservativsm 'dominant'!), but really, in Iran Muslim sensibilities are thoroughly dominant, and in Saudi, and in Indonesia, and in these countries such sensibilities are often enforced through great injustices- the banning of christianity, the imprisonment of converts, and so on. And the BBC styles itself as a world broadcaster, spends taxpayer's money in this cause (yes, the licence fee was recently designated 'a tax'), and therefore has a responsibility, at least, to be 'world impartial'

So what I want is for the BBC to be evenhanded; that is all. Oh, and to get rid of the licence fee which complicates and exacerbates all their faults.

Making sense of senselessness

Not for the first time, Victor Davis Hanson produces a great article which does this.

Explaining the inexplicable: the BBC response to looney toons.


The BBC know next to nothing about religion: that's the root cause of their absurd response to the controversy, exaggerating both the number and nature of the cartoons, then portraying the protests as spontaneous, the anger disinterested, the Danes as instransigent etc etc. Their limitations are on display.

Because they wouldn't touch a literalist approach to the Bible with a barge-pole, they have a problem when faced with Muslim literalism, which, because 'foreign' they must dignify somehow. Except that it's not literalism at all- it's Koranic hyperventilation, as the BBC's own article about the Koran's anti-imagery ethos proves.

Point one: the Koran doesn't anywhere say not to make images of GOD, let alone Mohammad.

Point two: although the Koran rails against imagery, no-one is going to worship those Danish cartoons!

The whole thing makes no sense, and the Beeb can only try to pad it out by assuming some mysterious exegesis of the Koran. Anyone who had the slightest experience of actually attempting exegesis of religious texts would be falling about laughing. The fact is that the Koran posits a mysterious and grand God, and a mighty messenger. Therefore it's the lack of our reverence for that that's at issue. It's just pure religious bigotry which demands that others share the same feelings, the same understanding etc.


But Muslims = foreign = in need of special care and attention; the more so because if we don't they'll blow us up.

That's why the BBC's overall account has to assume some (serious) fault from the Danish side. Sorry Beebies, there's none.

eg. "Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met ambassadors in Copenhagen to talk about the row. Danish officials said they could not expect an apology.

Syria and Saudi Arabia have already withdrawn their envoys.

The meeting comes three months after Mr Rasmussen rejected a request for talks from 11 Muslim ambassadors in Copenhagen.

The prime minister was criticised for not meeting the diplomats. The BBC's Julian Isherwood in Copenhagen says Friday's meeting seems to be an attempt to redress what was seen as a diplomatic snub to Muslim countries."

eg. "Jyllands-Posten has apologised for causing offence to Muslims, although it maintains it was legal under Danish law to print the cartoons."

Of course it was legal. Any law which invalidated those gentle little sketches would have to be devised by Tony Blair himself.

(another one from drafts. I understand that Stephen Pollard has posted about the same BBC article, and the link's on Biased BBC, so this one's going here instead. BTW, so much for the French, eh?)

Immediate Update: the Beeb stealth edited the worst quote away, as Laban Tall points out. No acknowledgement was made of major changes, including that one. The point is that with the BBC, changing a story doesn't alter the fact that millions may have been influenced by it, and there is no redress. The original had all the hallmarks, not of a news piece, but an opinion one. It's all very Marx brothers: those are my principles, and if you don't like them, I have others. (or something like that).



More Looney Toons from the Beeb:

Not content with misrepresenting the cartoons (15 instead of the actual 12, with the add-on value of Mohammad with a pig's face- by far worse than any of the actual cartoons), the BBC are keen to invent another side to the account. According to Michael Buchanan,

'Denmark's reputation as an easy-going, consensual nation has been severely tarnished in recent days. All the Danes can do now is hope the repeated apologies for the offence caused, by both the government and the newspaper, will end this unseemly row.'

Er, no. Denmark's reputation for being easy-going and consensual has only been enhanced. The Danes should be proud as once again they've shown they can stand up for themselves in order to continue to be easy going and consensual in the future. The apologies offered are far from being abject- good job our BBC reporter managed to put a comma between 'caused' and 'by'.

However, the reputation of a certain world religion as been confirmed as intolerant and childish. But you won't be hearing that on the BBC unless on the Have Your Say section. And, by the way, I haven't seen any background to the story pointing out the Islamist violence in Denmark in Oct-Nov last year over this same cartoons issue. This is all I could see- a peaceful protest! And this, naturally- the 'balancing' article.

For some real background, see here. And here.

As for the 'global outrage' Buchanan alludes to- this may be technically true, but is disingenuous as we are really talking about a certain part of the world, and its co-religionists abroad.

Truth will out however. Despite a leading question from the BBC reporter, all the real bonus points go to the Danes as the question is roundly answered (the only thing good I can say about this article is that the exchange made it into the final copy):

''But knowing what he knows now, would he still commission and print those cartoons?

"That is a hypothetical question," he says. "I would say that I do not regret having commissioned those cartoons and I think asking me that question is like asking a rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt Friday night at the discotheque."'

The Unposted

Here's a little something from my drafts of a day or two ago. I might revise my opinion of the French if they continue a)to publish cartoons and be damned, and b) continue helping the US as this article describes. However, I have to say that if the French had just come right out and supported the US/UK over Iraq, we'd have wrapped things up in the first three months. No Turkish neutrality, a Northern front, no sympathetic Europress etc etc- maybe even no Syrian WMD smuggling- fait accompli.


Over-sporting to the French. Whatever the core characteristic of Britain you choose to look at, the chances are the BBC have distanced themselves from it. French bashing, for instance, is a national passtime we indulge in for having our generous admiration (over the centuries) spurned and disappointed. With the BBC it's the reverse: to show how sophisticated they are, French bashing is a purely unemotional and political decision, in place of a general fawning approach.

But anyway, why is is said in this article that 'France is drafting 400 troops to help fight a mosquito-borne virus spreading on its Indian Ocean island of Reunion.'

'Its'?

Well, fair enough, I suppose the French have paid enough in subsidy to buy the place by now, though the reality is that they have military interests there. But actually, colonial ownership of this island of almost 800,000 is a pretty big deal in today's day and age. Oh I know it's just a 'departement'- but that surely makes it part of France itself.

Another odd thing in the BBC report: the troops are said to be being 'drafted' to help the locals, yet as the BBC note they're already stationed on the island this seems a contradictory way to report. It doesn't seem so much like an international news item, more an item from the local French sponsored 'aren't we doing well' newspaper. Items like this remind me of those awful council newspapers that money is wasted on in the UK. At least the bias is clear there though- people paying taxpayer's money to convince the same taxpayers their money isn't being wasted. A sucker punch if ever there was one. Here we just have the hypocrisy of the BBC in sucking up by reporting the fairly innocuous yet apparently positive doings of a dubious colonial power.

The Debased Coin

I have enjoyed reading autobiographies in the past; I wrestle with them, seeing if the author is being honest. One of the greatest autobiographies was Rousseau's Confessions, which I haven't read apart from the opening (I do intend to sometime; got to buy it first!)- but I have read Augustine's, and that's quite interesting. These kinds of autobiographies were groundbreaking in their time.

Reading Mark Steyn's article about the latest bust of a bestselling autobiography I was left with a few questions. The first was 'why do people carry on buying the most outlandish personal stories that can almost definitively be seen as dishonest?' Personally, I've grown more and more dissatisfied buying 'autobiographical' and even 'biographical' books as Christmas presents in recent years. They're so sloppy and exaggerated so often.

The second question concerns whether the dead tree industry has a future at all- its machinery seems to invite dishonesty as a sweatshop encourages illegal workers.

By chance then I happened upon this autobiographical snippet about everyday communist life- and guess what? It's real, in every sense. And I got it for nothing.

Great article from Jeff Jacoby on the election of Hamas. I agree entirely. (hat tip to LGF)

Chirac's Stand.

A while ago he had a stroke; then he threatened the bomb. Norm wondered why he'd made his threat, and got email. Now he shares some options: I agree with the first, as I mentioned before. Straw has been as wet as a lettuce, but it seems an all too overt good cop, bad cop routine. Who better to threaten nukes than a possibly senile, certainly unpredictable French patriot who cuts his cloth in Gaullist fashion? I still think it's for the sake of England though, and that Straw's abjection has been on a strict "E3" conditional arrangement. That doesn't make it right...

Palestinian elections: my view.

But before my views, here's David Warren, who seems to share a lot of them on this issue, but without discussion of the consequences of the Hamas victory.

The first principle I understand here is that the Palestinians do not want a settlement with Israel. Therefore they have no political party which seriously proposes it.

Secondly, the only thing holding Fatah together was the sense that its labyrinthine machinations were coordinated by Yasser Arafat. No one thought Arafat would seriously make peace with Israel, or lose out in negotiations. Arafat was happy to have Hamas in the wings and took no action against it, supremely confident as he was of his support from the West in confronting Israel.

The death of Arafat meant that many were free to think again about who to trust to prosecute their war against Israel. The prospect of an end to Ariel Sharon allured by giving them an extra boost in seeking effective confrontation. In the absence of both the dominant leaders, they could also register their rage at the killing of other potential leaders like Rantissi and Yassin, knowing that it would only embellish the notion of a 'deathless' Palestinian cause among their supporters.

There is a lot of talk about an anti-corruption vote. I think this was just a coded way for Hamas to say they will make a more effective war party. I don't remember much talk of corruption when the 'saintly' Arafat walked the earth.

Thirdly, and linked to the first, I think that there was no democratic vote this month in the territory occupied by Palestinians around and inside Israel. It's a war vote, and the only options were effectively derived from a wartime coalition- the same one that's held power for decades. The democratic element is a western construct because it means nothing to the Palestinians in their situation. It's just a politically staged event with an unspecified outcome in matters internal to the wartime coalition, designed to give the Palestinians chance to become enthusiastic about their war again.

Saying all this though, I think it will backfire. The Palestinian people, moved by their impotence and failure, have gone on the record saying that they hate Israel and can't tolerate it. They may have done so under distress, but nevertheless they have. Once it becomes undeniable that one party to a dispute is irrational and unreconcilable, the rational party tends to win the sympathy of any powers that be. The unwinding of Arafat's factional scheme has exposed the hard facts in a way never before seen. Although it may take time, and there may be setbacks, there are only two options: one is that the Palestinians back down by bringing to power a serious moderate (thus sueing for peace); the other is that they betray their hatred repeatedly in the face of a defensively organised yet assertive Israel inspired by the success of Sharon, and have to sue for peace because the costs of war can't be sustained by their squalid societal framework.

And, just to top and tail my post, Steve Plaut agrees with some of my assumptions but has a radically different view of what the future holds. His urgency demands respect; his site is under attack from a sick hacking game; his latest post (29/1) is immensely worth reading. I can well understand his fears, and it makes sense to express them. If I disagree from my easy armchair, it's because I think that the Palestinians are too uncoordinated to challenge Israel in a straight military fight of any kind, and too unsophisticated to marry nihilism with diplomacy. My biggest fear is of an unconventional attack; apart from that, I think if Israel sticks to the Sharon line of building their fence and pursuing their attackers right to their homes, I think they'll hold their own and be ok. I'll just link Plaut's site though as the sickos have made linking specific posts intolerable. Touch wood I'm not worth such attention.

Best thing I've read for months: the Belmont Club seems to go from strength to strength. The latest post is a must read. It's a job to say what the post is about really, but it's the intellectual equivalent of one of those guys from a hotel balcony on Boxing Day 04, leaning out with his video phone trying to capture the enormity of the incoming wave- a bit grainy, but awesome, and frightening.

Hamas the Governors.

My first reaction to the result of the Palestinian elections was 'oh no, another confrontation'. Now I begin to think that this writer is correct (an Oxford University academic, too, surprisingly), and we should see clarity before long. The fence now seems totally justifiable; the Israelis can punish the rulers for the actions of their militia (until the two 'split' that is).

Brewing up

Things are definitely hotting up over Iran. I'm quite worried about it. If you pay careful attention to the Beeb you'll have noticed Iran accusing the UK of stirring unrest (the BBC probably agree), and the UK sending extra troops to Afghanistan (as per plan... but they're considering additions to the 4000 they're about to send). As it was things were already very bad.

All I can say is that the Iranian's noise over the last few months have been as much directed at the UK as at the US- we're the mothers of many evils, apparently. It makes me wonder if Chirac's gambit in threatening nukes may actually have been intended for the benefit of les Ros-bifs, after all.

Sorry for the lack of posts. I've been very regular over at B-BBC recently (any other B-BBC writers out there- feel free to post, really. I mean it.)

Anyhow, I'm loving Steyn in Macleans completely. Being a bit of a lit-crit cove it just covers all the bases for me. Today's article was reviewing a book about Michael Jackson. I read it all and enjoyed it before I looked up and noticed the headline summarising his review: 'Starts off dark, ends up very pallid'. Then I began to laugh.

That Richard North's a miserable blogger. Seems like he's really getting into it.

Sunday Reading.

Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson may be among my standard reads, but today the reason for reading them is particularly compelling. Taken together, their very different approaches to the same issues help clear up a lot.

Steyn launches a typical yet especially well wielded double barrel at the Democrat party in the US (it's an essay from about 3 weeks ago in the NRO but only now widely available, and as relevant now as then).

VDH meanwhile tries making sense of confusion (again for the NRO), and distils the situation into four characteristic prejudices into which people retreat who've had their assumptions upset.

Politically, the link is that the Democrats in the US have become the sink into which the shell-shocked celebrants of a non-existent pre-9/11 peace have drained, and internationally the talking points of the Dems are the talking points (salted to taste) of those whose self-satisfaction has been compromised by events. Thus John Kerry (apparently) criticises people for pointing out that Osama Bin Laden and Michael Moore agree ideologically. Kerry seems to think that the fact that Moore has had no chance of relating to Bin Laden more practically is sufficient to require that they be seen as chalk and cheese, even when they say the same things. Unfortunately they are ideological twins; profiteers of their own sense of superiority.

A Tale of Big Media- Remember Hutton? What was seen then was a commonsense judge with forensic skill deciding who had fulfilled their responsibilities in relation to a man at the centre of a storm, and who hadn't.

Dyke took it all very easily, until the judgement came in.

I felt a similar kind of feeling reading this article by Thomas Lifson concerning the fake photo in the New York Times. The American Thinker was the first online source to rumble the fake. The Times editor came out carelessly, roused by the ripples from the blogosphere, swaggering like a real Goliath; and Lifson was ready with some smooth stones. It's a great exchange, as Lifson's aim is true.

French offensive

Interesting that Chirac's saying France would nuke a country that attacked it using terrorism and WMD at the same time as his troops are holed up in their bases in the Ivory Coast - 4000 of them, along with 7000 UN troops, decidedly on the defensive.

The Beeb, naturally, has laid all the emphasis on the UN troops and ignores both the French instigation of the intervention, and the French presence. EU Ref is not so helpful to French pretensions.

I liked the way this blog covered Chirac's unilateral declaration:

'“That response could be conventional, it could also be of another nature,"

Stinky cheese at 30 paces! En Garde!! Allez!! '

:-)

Update: Seee also the EurRef comments, where Richard North makes a vital point one should take note of:

'This is actually why, in the grander scheme of things, the Ivory Coast issue is so important. It is a taste of things to come where, as part of the European Union with its military ambitions, we could get drawn into situations not of our making which run wholly contrary to our interests, our principles and against the interests of peoples whom, in different circumstances, we would have supported.'

Simon Jenkins: the intellectual runny nose of the British establishment.

I read Simon Jenkins' article about Iran after hearing about it in various places. He's such an inveterate con(descension) artist I knew what to expect. With Jenkins you can expect sub-BBC rumination, vacuous high-sounding intellectual abstraction, and lists of undistinguished assumptions. You end up feeling sorry for the poor deluded sod. And that's how it was.


Jenkins gets off the mark in his opposition to anti-Iran action 'The very talk of it - macho phrases about "all options open" - suggests an international community so crazed with video game enforcement as to have lost the power of coherent thought.'

This is absurd, when as he usually has no difficulty in pointing out, the US has been losing real lives in Iraq next door. One moment he doesn't like on the ground movements, next it's video-game enforcement he's down upon. It also seems that he thinks the non-macho thing (the right thing, natch), would be to have no discussion of options, for there are none.

Next up, Jenkins shows why he's one of Britain's foremost black columnists when he says:

'Iran is a serious country, not another two-bit post-imperial rogue waiting to be slapped about the head by a white man.'

No, they're waiting for a token white figurehead to come and lick their arses, after which they'll treat them the way they treat other objects of their affection, like their women.

One senses the baleful ghost-writing of Beeb hack John Simpson here:

'Iranian politics are as complex and sophisticated as any I have observed around the world.'

er, evidence?

And Iran, serious? What does Jenkins mean by that? They're serious about only one thing- nuclear weapons- and about the rest they're completely nutty, from stoning unfaithful women to proclaiming their intent to uproot anglo-saxon culture everywhere.

Next up is such a classic piece of liberal piffle it needs posting in full:

'All the following statements about Iran are true. There are powerful Iranians who want to build a nuclear bomb. There are powerful ones who do not. There are people in Iran who would like Israel to disappear. There are people who would not. There are people who would like Islamist rule. There are people who would not. There are people who long for some idiot western politician to declare war on them. There are people appalled at the prospect. The only question for western strategists is which of these people they want to help.'

He seems to be saying that anything we say about Iran is true. Well, that certainly makes intel a lot easier. But his conclusion is that we throw some clumsy gestures into this melange. No distinctions, just vague good intentions required, and no action.

I prefer to use some discrimination, and say that it's obvious the nutters are in charge in Iran, and they're tightening their grip; moreover, the anti-western rhetoric is not to appeal to the beast within the Iranian people, but to intimidate the pro-western ones into believing that the grip of the hardline is iron-like, and there is no help coming from the West. It's the inactivity of the West in the face of this that makes such a line plausible.

Moving on we find some piffle about nuclear proliferation. The question is this: is Iran actually threatened by any nation with regard to nuclear weapons. Answer, unequivocally, no- unless they unleash mass destruction themselves. Nukes are just the ultimate in insurance policies for the Iranian high-wire Islamofascist playboys.

But lacking an argument, what's a girl to do but lie? Jenkins is no exception. He knows this is wrong, but that his Beeb-o-GUardianista readers will lap it up:

'But given the inaccuracy of American bombers, the death and destruction caused to Iran's cities would be a gift to anti-western extremists and have every world terrorist reporting for duty.'

Don't you love the 'given' here? So lazy.

Jenkins tries to bolster his argument by saying that the current President of Iran is not secure, and that the Islamic revolution has been a failure. As for the former point, Ahmadinejad is working on that one. As to the latter, Ahmadinejad agrees with Jenkins, and that's why he's working to bring home the revolution.

All of which leaves Jenkins ploughing the wrong way down shitcreek with only his hands for paddles.

I love the way she just keeps me hangin' on... I laugh more and more every time I go to the lady's site and find this post. Surely, she speaks for us all.

Since writing at Macleans, Steyn has had a new kind of line. It's great.

Anton V and me. Well, I enjoyed the exchange, anyway.

But really, how inspired is this biblical story? It really hearts me. (to be less cryptic, I was questioned over my spelling of Al-Qaeda)

Pure genius from BlameBush (the wonderfully ignored blog): God Switches Teams.

Faked photos.

Powerline points out that a photo of the aftermath of the airstrike in Pakistan was staged.

I suggest you follow the link, and, before reading the post, just look at the photo. Obviously posed- a young boy, slightly fair and western looking, in what looks like it may be his best cardigan, stands in one corner of the photo. Opposite him, an old man, beturbanned, white-bearded, tribal looking. Both have shocked expressions. Between them, poised on its base, a shell sits atop a crumbling wall. It's so obviously set up, it must have taken half and hour or so to get this appearance, with mother carefully dressing and grooming son for the camera, and old man arranging himself to look interesting- and of course finding a nice spot for that shell.

Of course that's not the ultimate problem, as Powerline make clear, but one can see how the game is being played- with the flair of a Hollywood studio, but not as explicitly anti-Bush or lacking in credibility.

Incidentally, does anyone know if this photo was on the BBC? I thought I recognised it from there, but since the authenticity of it crumbled I haven't been able to find it.

May I recommend...

Cerdic, who's a true blogger. He's set up a number of sites including the delightfully named 'Dock Green' (of Dixon fame- Dad loved 'im). All of them link me, it seems, which is even more delightful, but somehow strange (no laughing, please, at this point), since I'm as far in style from the little gnomic utterances which fill ascerbic Cerdic's blogs as can be. I will however get round to linking all of Cerdic's sites- they're invigorating- more permanently. There's something very poetic about little wedges of truth lined up in neat columns.

Every day Cerdic dutifully updates his site with tales of the absurd (that is, of the British- stifled laugh, nod to the forefathers- justice system). The greatest part is, no links, alongside no blather. Go figure, he seems to say. What? You didn't notice? Surprise!

BBbbbut- I thought it was all genetically programmed? Mr FM majored on the money wastage caused by the inmate's indecision, but a flawed understanding of gender is at the root of it.

At last- a BBC article I can recommend- they're reviewing US soldier's books, and aren't even snarking about it. OTOH- I think it suits the BBC to build up the sense of an 'Iraq war era'.