The Beeb thinking what I'm thinking, part deux.

The Beeb, it would appear, consider that the murder of Bob Woolmer may be linked to Islamic radicalism. According to this article via ATW

"PAKISTAN'S cricket coach Bob Woolmer may have been murdered after angering radical Muslims, according to a BBC investigation.

The Panorama TV show suggests some players followed the extremist Muslim movement, Tablighi Jamaat."

There is also the fact that "preliminary toxicology tests confirm Woolmer was rendered helpless with a powerful poison before being strangled."

Maybe in the light of these things I would venture to suggest that not only Islamic radicals linked to the team, but the team too, may be responsible for the murder.

Why? Because cricket is a very personal game- there's no other game where you are around the same people for such a long time, often engaged in idle chat and casual observation. The things Woolmer apparently criticised his players for were part of their lives and only the players would have heard them and felt their effects. Only the players, meanwhile, were going home to Pakistan to face the ridicule of their formerly adoring public. How to respond to the Englishman's "oppression" and save face at home?....

"Everybody's watching, everybody's gloating..."

-Sandmonkey on the world reaction to the political retreat of the US Congress and Representives from Iraq. In a fascinating interview with the ubiquitous Atlas the Egyptian blogger talks of a political thaw in Egypt following Bush''s reelection in 04, and a crackdown following the election of the Democrats last year. Some things needed to be above politics- unfortunately the pols lack the imagination for things like that.

Cat. Bag. Open. Heh.

Dangerously Good

If you're not following the Conrad Black trial as blogged by Mark Steyn for Macleans, I strongly suggest that you do. Writing with such unpolitical perspicuity Steyn does what the great satirical writers have always done: open their opponents to ridicule while remaining scrupulously observant. I suppose none of the jury will get to read any of it, but if they did...

Blogsweep

In which Max Boot makes it seem as though my pessimism on Iraq is premature (again), Dumb Jon makes most excellent and chewy toast of a former BBC journalist, while Norm Geras and Oliver Kamm demonstrate which of them is the Professor of Philosophy as they debate that high art, The Blog.

Ironic how the roles of philosopher king and man of letters are reversed- the academic offering tolerant and social solutions, the journalist offering draconian bloviation.

Then again, the US media could get worse (see below post).

Iraq revisited- what does go down the toilet.

Melanie Phillips has a fascinating post up on Iraqi WMDs.

Mmm. Kind of retro now, isn't it.

Yet I think it is instructive, and I have more respect for Melanie Phillips than for any other journalist.

It's almost a welcome relief to think about Iraqi WMDs than to think about mounting death tolls of US and British troops.

In truth I never expected anything else. I did hope for a miracle though, given that the goal was certainly a noble one. The really interesting thing is to reflect on the weakness of a military giant that can allow an insurgency to defeat it despite, and this is key, the overwhelmingly receptive nature of most Iraqis to an occupying force in place of a terrorist regime.

When you consider it, victory in Iraq is critical- yet it is not apparently happening. The opponents are very active- the Iranians, the Syrians, even the Saudis one suspects, at a distance. But America and its allies should have been able to enforce their will. So it's imperative to examine in detail why they haven't, and I'd start here:

"The docile US media, dependent as it is on government sources and handouts, is all too easily intimidated or bought off by pressure from a myriad different sources which all have their own conflicting reasons to suppress such politically damaging revelations. Too many important reputations in the media now rest on the ruthless suppression of the faintest possibility that they might have been wrong."

The US media, I would add, is docile when it comes to things which feed its preening narrative, and totally reactionary when it is contradicted. The poverty of the US media in understanding and reporting the stakes and the realties of the big wide world mirrors the starvation of intelligence which characterises the involvement in Iraq. Idealism remains, but is not enough. To know friend from foe and rightly estimate their designs is the key, and the media love throwing such realities down their toilets after the fashion of top mag Newsweek.

The Bias Masterclass

As an epicure of media bias, I have to link to a couple of recent posts from the well-known US blog Powerline. These lawyerly types are particularly good at highlighting the liberal bias of many media outlets there; the BBC's relentless pap represents a far tougher challenge here though.

Lesson One

Lesson Two

I may add more as they arise.

Allah's Moneyed Enslavers

I've not come across anything that exposes the utter evil of the people the US-led coalition are confronting in Iraq more than the story of a handicapped 13 year old, bought- yes, BOUGHT-, by Al-Qaeda to do its bidding.

It's Oliver Twist, Iraq-style, and instead of picking pockets, we find that the lad is assisting in attacks on US forces.

The difference in this story is that although motherless, like Oliver, unlike Oliver "Barack Muhammed" was sold by his father for 10,000 dollars.

Quite a lot of money, when you think about it.

Oh, "source" I hear you asking?

The UN, actually.

Thanks to the excellent Pamela from Atlas Shrugs for the link.

It's a little cruel, and perhaps slightly unwise, but I have to confess I found Allah very funny is his riff from the Iran debacle/kerfuffle/distraction.















I also have to confess that, though I should have known better, I thought young Batchelor was a girl. Those doe eyes!

ps. Devil's Kitchen, I notice, is a tad more up front along similar lines.

Compare and contrast

Zimbabweans write. Here and here.


"Every day, every night, hitmen in smart, unmarked vehicles arrive and drag people out their houses, or beat them senseless, because they don’t support the ruling Zanu PF."


"Mugabe has always left his people licking their wounds. He stops at nothing to take out his frustration, his anger and what he sees as his God-given right to lead on the people...The man jumps at shadows and orders his police and army, together with the CIO, the youth militia and the war veterans to beat his own people - the very ones that voted him into power."
[ I don't think Mugabe ever got in in a truly straight election process, even at the beginning there were thousands of reports of intimidation on big M's behalf- ed]

Comfy non-Zimbabwean western marxists write. Here and here


"Morgan Tsvangirai is a Western sponsored "terrorist", he plotted in London to assassinate Mugabe and overthrow the elected government. There is nothing democratic about the MDC, unlike the Mahdi army and Badr Brigades in Iraq, Hamas in Palestine or Hezbollah in Lebanon."


"Ever since veterans of the guerrilla war against apartheid Rhodesia violently seized white-owned farms in Zimbabwe, the country’s president, Robert Mugabe, has been demonized by politicians, human rights organizations and the media in the West."

Given the general apathy towards meaningful actions against Mugabe, given the laissez faire approach that has given the main role to quiet diplomat Thabo Mbeki, given the catastrophic (no understatement) decline of every aspect of Zimbabwean life taking Mugabe's reign in its totality, isn't it clear that far too much credit has been given already to the marxist take on that country, without the BBC giving it some more? (see where they link luscious lawyerly lefty Steph's blog- 1st marxist link above).

Kamm is rong

On, the contrary. to Kamm, most blogs are well ritten and a fare amount of time is given to rite spelling two.

But of course it isn't just that ;-). The blogosphere gives room for counterbalancing opinions to the dominant media. Really. Speaking as someone who was always antagonised by the BBC's simplistic socialistic version of Britain and the world, the blogosphere gave the first opportunity to fight back directly and honestly.

The Telegraph could be said to be the nearest thing to an opposition to the BBC, as long as one isn't hung up on the notion that the Times is Murdoch's personal Beeb-bashing vehicle. Yet the Telegraph has enjoyed journalistic contacts with the Beeb, swapping correspondents from time to time (Andrew Marr, for instance, has written for the Telegraph). It is also true that the Telegraph would probably be happy with a conservative-oriented state broadcaster, if such a thing be possible .

I would never be happy while a state organised news network retained centre stage in the British media. I was also deeply unhappy with the complicity of Dyke's BBC with New Labour, which is marginally less noticeable in today's corporation following the Hutton watershed. That's not to mention its closeness to the British Foreign Office with all its designs.

So, the blogosphere has given me the chance to say directly what I so deeply feel- that the BBC, through accident of history and malchance, has become a deeply rooted disseminator of half-baked reality.

Gazillionth confusing headline from the BBC

London attacks suspects in court

Yes, it's probably pretty unusual to wonder at this who Mr London is and why he has attacked people in court...

Happy Easter!

About that photo..

Claudia Rosett weighs in.

Aww, What a sweet little grandma...

Reality Checks

It's occurred to me that anyone regularly following this blog might imagine that I forget the issues I've taken an interest in once they're off the media radar. Well, Pakistan, Somalia and the vacuity of the modern Conservatives (dangerous in the light of the dangerous world we're in) are very much in my thinking.

Here's Douglas Farah on the looming menace of Pakistan-in-Afghanistan and vice versa, the Washington Post on the rising violence in Somalia (what a menace these jihadi are; what a rabble rousing, violent, coercive and devious bunch of evildoers), and Sean Gabb on Cameron's dodgy doyen, courtesy of the eponymous Fawkes.

Truth be told I've only been following the Pakistan situation passively, with a certain fear and trembling- such a vast potential for mischief, especially for the UK.

Clinton sets fundraising record
Pope 'moves closer to sainthood'

Headlines found side by side at teh BBC

Sweet, sweet article from Mark Steyn on the Iran hostage crisis, complete with LoL moments such as this:

"Patrolling the Shatt al-Arab at a time of war, the Royal Navy operates under rules of engagement designed by distant fainthearts with an eye to the polite fictions of "international law": If you're in a ''warship,'' you can't wage war. If you're in a ''destroyer,'' don't destroy anything. If you're in a "frigate," you're frigging done for.

"I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen. What we want is a way out of it - we want it peacefully and we want it as soon as possible."

So spoke Margaret Beckett today, according to the Beeb.

However I am not so sure that "everyone regrets" this situation. The Iranians certainly took their hostages deliberately, have not backed down, and have taken every opportunity to parade their captives and claim victory.

It's been disgusting how the BBC have alternated screenshots of the servicemen sitting in various poses, including one odious shot of them stuffing their faces with western style food. "eat, eat!", you can almost hear the minders saying.

Mind you, it's always interesting listening in to the Iranian discourse, as the above link to Memri enables. From it we get the old Islamic boilerplate about how the West wants them weak and puny, and is the big bad aggressor; with the twist that terrorist armies have explicit Iranian support and blessing, to put it mildly.

The truth is that Iran is weak and puny, but that is not the West's design. And like weak and puny people they are inclined to behave pathetically, as they did and do habitually in taking hostages, and to seek advantages way beyond their strength, as they do in furtively scrabbling for nuclear weapons. But weak and puny people will cave when pressure is applied, and strong action against them is a magnet for allies- who rather enjoy the spectacle of an idiot exposed.

Which leads me to suspect that in not taking a lead in demanding immediate sanctions from the EU Blair and Beckett have made a craven error. Note how the BBC covers this up nicely. While the Times exposes it faithfully.

Obviously absolute sanctions would just be a first, momentum building event, but they should be in place yesterday, or earlier. "Good" to hear from the BBC that our Euro-friends are standing "shoulder to shoulder" (odious phrase even when Blair said it; rank hypocrisy- and frankly up yours- coming from the EU in the circumstances).

"I have made up my mind, yes, but let me sleep on it first."

Bob Woolmer's last words to the media, to the BBC in fact.

Priorities and Consequences

"It is the welfare of the people that have been taken by the Iranian government that is most important."

So spoke Tony Blair recently when faced with the Iran hostage crisis (something familiar in the ring to that?). Some have noticed a degree of brave rhetoric from Blair generally, but it's these little nuances you have to watch. If the welfare of our servicemen were most important, they wouldn't be there at all. If that's Blair's priority then we'll give the Iranians whatever they want. But probably what they want is to weevil their way into the British diplomatic and military system. Are Blair and Beckett clever enough to stop them? Ahem,, I don't think so.

I think the BBC are thinking what I'm thinking about the Woolmer case, which happens, occasionally.

Manual asphyxiation. Entire team fingerprinted. More than one person necessary for the killing to take place, according to police; the death of Bob Woolmer, coach of the Pakistan cricket rabble, is looking more and more suspicious.

Still, at least they beat Zimbabwe. It really is sad how destroyed a sport can be.

Peter Briffa brings a personal perspective, or retrospective.

Commonsense, wit, openness, generosity- all qualites displayed by writer and journalist Cathy Seipp, who died on Wednesday at the age of 49.

I will miss that click. Her work is archived though, here.

Sorry for my absence.

I've been really busy and then when had an hour or two a strange phenomenon of non-connectivity came over my computer. Back now.

I have been taking a few mins most days to follow Mark Steyn's coverage of the Conrad Black trial.

Following this and some of the stuff surrounding the Scooter Libby trial makes me wish America had a Dickens to follow these Jarndycian affairs. No offence to Mark Steyn, he's doing a great job, and maybe the novel is waiting until later, as it was with Dickens.

Time for some big thinking

Mark Steyn in full vindication mode following some criticisms of his demographically based book, America Alone, links to this UN study of population trends.

Life's going to be interesting, I think.

Just a selection of my favourite of Meccawood's latest towerblock busters, as found via DumbJon and supplied by Right Wing News



Alahu Akhbar Cinema

Now showing! :

Fatwa Gump
4 Beheadings And A Funeral
Throw Israel From The Train
Indiana Jones & IN THE NAME OF ALLAH WE SHALL AVENGE THE LAST CRUSADE. PEACE BE UPON YOU.
Martyring Private Ryan
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Abu Ghraib
Honey, I Martyred the Kids
Ali Wonka and the IED Factory
Schindler's List Never Happened Either
The Good, The Bad And The Infidel

The serious questions of cultural hegemony and the inability of much the world to entertain itself (perhaps it should try feeding itself first) remain, of course.

"He won’t go to jail. My bet is he’ll go to the UN."

Ah, the French President on the world political stage. C'est manifique.

Another area of interest

The "surge" in Iraq. Working? Well, Robert Kagan thinks so.

View it HERE! The Great Global Warming swindle, I mean. It's extremely watchable, engaging, and mostly cogent.

Apparently one of the scientists interviewed has cried foul- Prof. Wunsch. His contribution was modest and limited in scope, as well as being largely informative. Naturally the Indie gives the story its usual unspun and unbiased treatment. Ahem.

The Intelligent and the Tragic

Not to denigrate the potential of Africans, but I think this story highlights just how tragic a plight can be. Of course, many Africans are also reasonably comfortable, though not in our terms. The BBC did well to highlight it: in certain parts of Africa it's a commonplace story- but I can almost hear her saying, "It's me, Mary, you know, me, me!"- and it's certainly not restricted to Zimbabwe.

Niall Ferguson puts together a rational survey of the general malaise of Africa, and in particular Ghana.

In my view, colonialism-lite would be the best policy for us, operating through churches (I would say faith-based charities but wish to exclude Islamic ones and politicised charities). Churches are something Africans generally understand and welcome, and the power structures are amenable to their local cultures.

The maverick climate-change deniers are examined in some detail by Brian Micklethwait at Samizdata. A good post, which addresses the concerns I had about the reliability of the documentary makers. Summary: who cares who made it if they spoke truth to power. Or, as Brian puts it:

"If a mad, not-to-be-trusted person says something true, there is still the matter of its truth to be considered. "

Generally speaking I would like to vote Conservative, but sometimes they've been too pathetic a shower to allow for it.

When Dave Cameron (yes, I'm still angry about the sacking of his shadow minister Mercer- see below post) was spouting his green credentials to the heavens recently I said to myself that sooner or later his judgement was going to be exposed on that issue. There's no way the reality matches the hysteria.

It looks as though that time has come sooner rather than later with the devastating documentary on Channel 4- The Great Global Warming Swindle- yesterday exposing the shallowness of global warming science. Dave could suffer serious credibility loss as this sinks in. Melanie Phillips has a grand summary up of the main points covered, so that even though I myself didn't see it I can tell how powerful the message was.

"The Great Global Warming Swindle has blown an enormous hole in every fundamental claim made to support the climate change obsession — including the claim that the argument is over."

Do read it all. Perhaps the most interesting thing for me is that it got made by Channel Four, maverick to the core it would seem.

What's left when this is right?

The Cameron bandwagon rolls on, and who cares if a little baggage falls off on the way?

Patrick Mercer, veteran high ranking officer of Bosnia and Northern Ireland, and MP close to my neck of the woods in the UK, just became inexpedient to his master Dave. Or rather he became another useful example to be made.

Dave really makes my blood run cold sometimes, and this is one of them. It is, of course, a rearranging of the deck chairs, but Cameron's contempt for a man's career and reputation is just awesome. That's as it's meant to be, I suppose.

Real impressive, Dave, you pampered little Etonian Oxbridge druggie. Check out the class dumping on show:

"The comments made by Patrick Mercer are completely unacceptable and I regret that they were made. We should not tolerate racism in the Army or in any walk of life. Patrick Mercer is no longer a Shadow Minister.”

Ooh err. How tough and hard and cruel that Dave is. Sexy!

Now, of course, Cameron is operating by certain rules of the game. You know, thou shalt be cool with the perceived moraes of the drifting mainstream, oriented towards that shrinking cohort of youth which everyone aspires to be cool with.

This is electorally smart but fundamentally foolish, if you aspire to actually do your country some good. For one thing there are clever and resourceful people who will not forget these kinds of bloodletting sacrifices to political correctness.

For another, unlike Dave, other people do live in a world that is not simply about deckchairs and their latest rearrangement. It's clearly true in Britain, and even more blatant elsewhere. There are people in Britain who cannot draw comfort from a label of minority, who are unable to follow the banal and emptied pieties of correctness, who can't make sense of it and who find the likes of Dave's mean media morality discouraging and depressing. If they don't raise their voices it's because it all seems way over their heads, and Dave obviously knows they can be safely ignored. Yet how safe is a cowed native populace?

Dave frets that Mercer compares army discrimination against blacks manifested in nasty names like "black bastard" with discrimination against redheads with nasty nicknames like "ginger bastard".

Dave, of course, is neither black nor ginger. I'd like to know exactly what makes him an expert on the feelings of black people, since he clearly wouldn't give a monkey's for the feelings of less seriously "different" sorts. I realise he's choreographed some trips in Africa, which isn't difficult when you have a political machine behind you. I don't know how qualified I am to comment, but I am red headed, have lived in- and adored- Africa, visited aids sufferers and slums, and dated several black ladies (in Europe) whom I respected and even could claim to have loved- so I do feel qualified, at any rate. Dave has also never been in the army. Dave merely pronounces.

Mercer was talking from experience. I don't expect he made anything up. Dave, meanwhile, is himself a piece of fabrication. He actually scares me: a puffed up piece of vanity propelling himself on a specious notion of power, a hydrogen balloon of pr. guff who will go off with a bigger pop even than Blair- and sooner. I once punched a guy who acted like Dave Cameron- probably the only decisive act of violence of my volition in my life. It felt great, and it was actually the right thing to do- which blew me away completely, and the other guy too.

What about Lord Black?

I wanted to link to this article by Mark Steyn because I have always been interested in Lord Black, since long before he was a lord. He made the newspaper world in Britain far more dynamic than it otherwise might have been. That dynamism is probably why it's so far ahead of its US rivals in adapting to the internet, and why, still, Britblogs are way behind the Dailies- with the exception of a certain Mr Fawkes.

Black lived it big, but not clever. If he'd been as cunning as most top execs he'd have been in a more lucrative business where hundreds of millions are available without the green-eyed onlookers prying in.

I also link to this article because it's a great read from a great writer.

And by the way, the Black story hasn't gone away yet, unlike his millions and his direct legacy.

A couple of interesting snippets, one from Mark Steyn's letters page:

The published total GDP of the entire 22 nations the Arab League in 2005 went to 1.05 trillion dollars and it only got to that point as a result of 60 plus dollar a barrel oil prices. Iran is not a member of the Arab League and their GDP was 352 Billion dollars so for all of these 23 nations, the total is well under 1 1/ 2 trillion dollars! Interestingly, to put that into perspective, Italy's total GDP for the same period was 1.765 trillion dollars. Now they have a nice agricultural background and a little bit of manufacturing and they are still way ahead of the entire Arab League.

And then there's this: Soros buys Halliburton. Surely a bit early for April Fool's? (via Samizdata)

Still, hypocrisy is in the air at the moment. One of the world's leading politicians with a reputation for not giving a damn about the environment has in fact taken great care to contradict that image- privately. I suppose the inverse of hypocrisy must be something quite opposite- such as modesty. I actually knew about Bush's enviro-friendly house three or four years ago, but I think it's indicative of the way "good news" about Bush has been communicated (by his administration) and received (by the media) that it is news only now.

Whereas one of the great nearly-men with a reputation for being very green-fingered has in fact been turning a carbon friendly red before the gaze of the world's media; that which can be bothered, anyway. (Thanks to Peter Glover for his great new site).

The booze is back in town...

Good news from Pajama clad Iraq the Model.

Islam vs...Robert Frost

A thought inspired by three unfortunate travellers (who will not be telling their stories years from now).















TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth; 5

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same, 10

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back. 15

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference. 20

French Lesson

"The great lesson of this story is that nothing is set in stone – antagonisms that we believe are inscribed in marble are not eternal."

Indeed, Jacques Gilles. But must it not also follow that allies are not chiseled in stone either? EU Ref. is following the story of the Eurohistory boys.

Sorry for the absence of posts at the moment... I'm away this weekend and very busy, but I'll be back with more very soon.

Tricky language, English.

I came across a little item from Robin Aitken at BBC Radio 4's Today website, and the phrasing of its description, though unexceptional, amused me. Aitken's the man whose book is doubtless embarrassing all the right people at the Beeb. A video of his comments, filmed by Doughty St., can be seen at Biased BBC here. The item:


"Jackie Elliott
Robin Aitken's interview with Jackie Elliott before he was executed"

I can't remember anything about Jackie Elliott, but I think Aitken has so far survived Auntie's ire, so I suppose Elliott's a gonner and Aitken is merely in a critical condition.

"the prospect of a world that, if Maugeri is correct, can sustain itself indefinitely on fossil fuels—even as it pursues new forms of cleaner burning energy—is enough to drive many environmentalists, who have spent their lives combatting smog, absolutely batty."

Jeff Goldstein on the latest difficult reality for the "reality based" to swallow. Gulp.

Still playing cricket...

One has to admire the gentleness of the response a man like Robin Aitken to the BBC's endless provocations.

Wearing a white checked shirt and what looks like a pair of cords for his Evening Standard photo, Aitken, promoting a book, catalogues an extraordinary string of experiences had while doggedly retaining both right of centre political views and his job at the BBC. One feels that his forward defensive might be a joy to behold.

"From the sugar queues the police, army and Gezi youths go to the road blocks and from there to the scramble for fertilizer or the lines for maize meal. And everywhere you look the feeling is of the increasingly fragile hold on control. In this one week over 170 women from Woza were arrested for Valentine protests; teachers union leaders were arrested and 14 student union leaders were arrested. Seven years of misery are coming to a head."

Just the latest moving news from Zimbabwe.

An interesting possibility noted by Israellycool here

Do you recognise this face from anywhere?

"The Italian language is the language of song, German is good for philosophy and English for poetry. French is best at precision, it has a rigour to it. It is the safest language for legal purposes...The language of Montesquieu is unbeatable." - CPLDE leader Maurice Druon

The above quote comes from the latest salvo in a campaign to make French the sole language of law in the EU. (via Language Log)

I doubt very much that this is a good idea.

For one thing French was the language of diplomacy in part because its vagueness allowed for all those fudging compromises which glued together the fissiparous European peace (for a while).

For another, the extreme receptiveness of English has absorbed and adopted both French and Latin legalisms and created a virtual language within a language for use in legal contexts. It's made to measure, so to speak.

The problem could be that it's not made to measure for the EU- which is basically another of those relatively frequent admissions that the EU is a kind of greater France, a fulfillment of the Napoleonic fantasy. British English adapted a form specifically to cope with the realm of Common Law, and the Froggies think they've finally found a less sticky wicket to play on where they can promote their language without looking like nutcases (more or less).

Regarding the quote from M. Druon, "English for poetry"- I can't quite believe he means this, and not just because he's French. The man is certainly betraying his ignorance; there are approximately nine words to rhyme with that most central of poetry's abstract nouns, "love"

I suppose M. Druon would make us really the unacknowledged legislators of the EU, which would, no doubt, put us at the heart of Europe as well- metaphorically speaking.

To end on a serious note, in case it seems that this political fixing is just a joke, it's good to remember that the European Court of Justice already uses French as its working language, for no apparent reason other than its location in Luxembourg. From this irrational toe-hold, the French are apparently trying to get their whole foot in the door.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Breaking news from the BBC:

LATEST: Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov wins Turkmenistan presidential election. More soon. (ie. they'll tell us the rest of his name).

Interviewing Mr Klaus

The Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, is one of the few decent politicians on this planet:

"Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't."

Proof here

Wow- this is a fantastic way to start an article:


"The more I think about “global warming”, in light of the most recent United Nations report, the more confident I become in averring that it is a fraud, a political stunt, a criminal imposture, that every intelligent journalist should be helping to expose."

From the great David Warren- continue reading here. Think I'll go and read the rest now... [update: immensely well worth the time]

The Wise Consensus:

The DT's Farndale mulls Cameron's Eurostance via the fancies of Brian Walden:

"Tories who talk about withdrawal from Europe are wasting their energy and ensuring that their party will never be re-elected. They should accept that we are in Europe to stay. The deed is done. But he added this: if you don't like the idea of the EU, simply bide your time. Eventually its own internal contradictions and absurdities will make it implode."

That's a good example of how the British "thinking" classes are so completely letting down their nation. Do they really imagine that implosion of the EU would be painless for us, while we were inside? Is it in any way sensible to tie our medium term policies to an entity whose guarantees are likely to be acrimoniously voided? If this is in fact not the real view of the "thinkers", what kind of a unified Europe can be expected to emerge? More importantly, what kind of Britain would shape up to be a part of it (I think we already have part of the answer with increased- indirect especially- taxation, ID cards, surveillance cameras etc)?

The BBC and truth agree at last:


"Back to cold war?
By Rob Watson
BBC defence and security correspondent, Munich

The Munich security conference was born in the 1960s - the height of the Cold War. Forty years on, there been talk of a new chill"

Meanwhile, back in darkest Russia:

"The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again."

Rather an interesting snippet from Birmingistan

Via Mel as it happens, author of Londonistan, here is a richly realistic view of a neighbourhood in Birmingham.

Too much to quote, but a perspective encompassing radicalised mosques, burkhas, self-segregation, coercive and exploitative arranged marriages, and polygamy- not to mention terrorism and jihad; all in Enoch Powell's backyard.

“They say we’re being victimised. We’re not. The truth is coming out at last, but it’s 20 years too late.”

Journalist Mary-Anne Sieghart seems to have sat down with the Pakistani- or rather, British- lady interviewed and listened long and hard over a coffee or two. That's the stuff.

Cameron: Not a good thing

I haven't completely decided what my view of Conservative leader David Cameron is, but I don't think he's a good thing.

I was struck by a quote made by his spokesman in response to critics from the Cornerstone grouping of MPs:

"ultimately, the party has got to change and be relevant to modern Britain. Edward Leigh is completely wrong".

I have little doubt Cameron knows how to ride the beast of modern Britain, for a while, but I think the Conservatives need to think not just of "modern Britain", but of Britain in the world. "modern Britain" in any case is an abstraction and as such a luxury. Leigh cannot by any means be said to be "completely wrong". Blinkered and myopic from the Con. leadership: that's not a good thing.

The Middle East: an end to US primacy? Good.

Jonathan Marcus of the BBC exemplifies the MSM commentator's urge to explain breathlessly the myriad ways W miscalculated in his Iraq "adventure".

"The US invasion of Iraq and its quest to spread democracy throughout the region has had a series of profound but unintended consequences. Of these, the most important is the rise of Iran."

Ah yes, those "unintended consequences" of the "quest". Oh how dreadful that we're hearing so much about Iran.

Marcus sets off merrily enough as well, talking of "the barrage of bad news from Iraq"- no loaded language there then. I'll take "barrage of bad news" to mean "news the BBC is conveying".

The main contention of the article, though, is deeply contentious. Did the 2003 invasion of Iraq release Iran from fear and increase its involvement in the rest of the Middle East, or did it mean in fact that there was one less sugar daddy in the field and so terrorists had to look more directly to Iran for assistance?

To put it another way, isn't it good to talk about Iran?

Was it even the 2003 invasion that strengthened Iran- rather than the 1990 invasion and subsequent sanctions plus inspections which hamstrung Iraq, indirectly making Iran top dog?

Marcus devotes the rest of his article to demonstrating the weak position the US is apparently in, and how its era of "primacy" is over. Well, if you define primacy as preening over the powder keg and waiting benignly for it to explode in your face, perhaps so.

And if you think that the leadership of Bill Clinton, during the wait 'n' do nuthin but dabble nineties with his oh-so-successful Oslo accords and schmoozing with Arafat (with Monica under the table), was strong, then fine.

I prefer to define my primacy differently. So sod off, al-Beeb- go and sell it to Bashar, instead. No difficulty there.

Apologies for the lack of posts. I plead unusual busyness, physical unwellness, and a few items of bad news which have had me preoccupied.

I've still kept in touch with news online, I think. One the issues that really involves me emotionally is the Iraq situation- everything seems quite emotional to me at the moment.

This, for starters, is an insightful foray into understanding one part of the Iraq insurgency- coming from a man who has subsequently been killed. More of his work here. I wonder, partly in the light of this, whether some individuals in the Coalition are targeted for their effectiveness- implying a kind of surveillance and intelligence operation against the Coalition. Could be.

Then I was also moved by this account of a true shahid (martyr) in Iraq.

Tim Montgomerie makes an excellent point:

Right-wing commentators may despair at the drift of “their” party towards the BBC world view but they are wrong to lay all blame on the shoulders of David Cameron. The Tory leadership lacks the resources to change cultural attitudes that have been carefully nurtured by lavishly funded quangos, the universities and other pillars of today’s Establishment.


Read the whole thing.

Just a repost of something I posted at B-BBC, but I consider really encapsulates the BBC's bias:

---------

The reason is the death of hope, caused by a cocktail of Israel's military activities, land expropriation and settlement building – and the financial sanctions imposed on the Hamas led government which are destroying Palestinian institutions that were anyway flawed and fragile.

The "death of hope", eh? Sounds pretty comprehensive to me.

I thought about the leaked email from Jeremy Bowen when I made comparison between this November 2006 BBC report of a Christian exodus from Bethleham, and this January 07 article from the Jerusalem Post. What you notice as the BBC journalist attempts to explain a massive lurch from Christian to Muslim domination is that somehow Israel is to blame for it. Two thirds of the article is devoted to the actions and restrictions meted out by Israel.

Most pathetic is the attempt made to tick the old "public/private" box when interviewing the locals:

"Publicly Christians here insist there is no friction with the Muslim majority.

Earlier this year though the Islamist Hamas movement came to power.

And in private some say they now dress more conservatively. There have also been fights between Christian and Muslim families."

Mmm- it would seem these "fights" were a little one-sided, given statistics which show that what was once an 85% Christian town is now 15% Christian (must be all the Jews moving in and grabbing land as usual, eh, Jeremy?).

Maybe the BBC could learn a little more, and so could we, from attending to the report (a second link here to the JP's eyeopener) of Palestinian Muslim Khaled Abu Toameh. The brutal truth is out there, Aunty, but you don't care.

"A number of Christian families have finally decided to break their silence and talk openly about what they describe as Muslim persecution of the Christian minority in this city.

The move comes as a result of increased attacks on Christians by Muslims over the past few months. The families said they wrote letters to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, the Vatican, Church leaders and European governments complaining about the attacks, but their appeals have fallen on deaf ears."

Feeling a bit environMental

Or, rather, since I could be driven (environ)mental by the sheer redundancy of the thinking of most in the environmental lobby, I was pleased to hear from the lovely Mary Katharine Ham about the release of a new film exposing environmentalists as empty-headed, prejudiced, and pampered. It's called "Mine Your Own Business" and its promo website is here.

I also responded to one of the more foolish BBC articles on environmentalists' concerns about "compassion" for sharks, in the longish post you will find below.

Things that annoy me... sharks plus

The regaling of stupid so-called "urban myths", and related tripe, in place of discussion.

The BBC, you see, is full of it.

Having plastered the screen with news of a lurid shark attack, having raked in the readers with one of the scariest shark pictures I can recall seeing, the BBC proceed to "educate them".

It is tiresome to have to go through the steps the blinkered, short-sighted, prejudiced journalist takes to do this, but perhaps he thought he'd just read this, and tone it down a bit.

The Humane Society International's article on the matter begins

"In a case of apparent mistaken identity, abalone fisherman Eric Nerhus was attacked by a shark while diving in Eden, an area with an extensive seal population..."

in the same vein in which the BBC's previous news report on a shark attack on Eric Nerhus concludes

"Experts have said that there is a possibility the shark mistook the wetsuit-clad Mr Nerhus for a seal."

See the style: take the pressure group's words, tone them down, call them experts (doubtless they have their academic fellow travellers somewhere; let's assume).

Actually the potential "urban myth" of the seals was not the one I intended to concentrate on. There's some sense in the idea that wetsuit clad divers and seals may similarly entice sharks, although it's rather silly to think we don't make a good meal for a hungry shark, or to suggest that sharks have a 'humane' diet that somehow excludes creatures like man- especially when in the next breath one asserts the equal rights of animals to x, y and z, which rather makes us as fair a game as any.

On the other hand, if we're getting mistaken for seals why aren't they testing designs of wetsuits including flashing lights or wavy flurescent lines to warn off the sharks? I haven't heard of such a common or garden advantage taken of the clear fact that sharks don't attack humans just because.

No, no, my main focus was intended to be the contention made directly by HSI in the BBC article that "The risks are minimal,"... "You have more chance of being killed by a falling vending machine than you do by a great white shark. The odds are infinitesimal."

Well, indeed, I do feel that infinitesimality, sitting as I do behind my computer screen around a thousand kilometers from the nearest salt water agglomeration- and all of the millions of people so cocooned by land would think similarly. But were I to be a sea goer, and to enjoy dipping in and out of the sea at all times and in many places, the minimality of the risk would somewhat change, and would depend on my wits and commonsense, matched against my ambitions to get jiggy with Madam Ocean.

But no, no, that was not my point. I digress.

No, my real point was the one about the darned "falling vending machine"

My first thought when hearing the notion that you had more chance of dying from a falling vending machine than from a shark was to think of all the frail drunks and children I've seen pushing these things forward and back in an attempt to made the evil machines either show altruism or adequate performance.

I googled, natch, and found this this snippet of no provenance except its match with my common sense:

"I can also tell you (from experience, as a vendor) that these accidents DO happen. One of the most tragic occurred several years ago and involved three boys between the ages of 11 and 12. The plan was that two of the boys would rock a soda machine until it tipped forward. The third would catch the machine and hold it while the other two got free sodas for all of them. Since even a small soda machine weighs about 300 lbs. empty, you can imagine the end result.

Most injuries and deaths involving vending machines involve soda machines. Not only are they the heaviest, they are also top-heavy by design. Stop by a vending company and ask them to show you the inside of one and you'll see what I mean. The only vending machine accident I've ever seen (literally) that did not involve attempted theft happened when a coffee machine which was being taken off a truck fell and one employee didn't get out of the way in time. Not a fatality but he now has several pins in his right leg."

Since I never intend to force one of these machines to do anything against its nature I pronounce the risk to myself to be virtually nil.

I often, however, long for the ocean (I have done a sailing trip or two and loved wave hopping as a child)- and a healthy, robust, and confident engagement with that ought to be on the manifesto of any "humane society". Which ought to include a willingness to kill without compunction rogue sharks.

It is not likely that such an attitude will come from the kind of craven posture toward nature which is a result of believing, as the BBC's final source does, the canard that 'the great white shark "is the greatest predator on the planet next to man"'

Light entertainment

BlameBush is fantastic; so good in fact it's well capable of outlasting the Bush presidency (which many now feel they can outlast, unfortunately).

But, I was thinking about the website, and something about it struck a chord, and I remembered who it reminded me of- Peter Simple, the Michael Wharton column.

In the persona of LiberalLarry, we get such gems as this:


"Putting aside for a moment the severe physical trauma a grown adult’s open hand can inflict on a little baby’s backside, a child who is spanked can also develop serious psychological disorders, such as self-discipline and respect for authority. As studies have further shown, parents who were disciplined as children are 78% more likely to discipline their own kids. It’s an endless cycle of abuse that no one has had the courage to fight until now."

Items of Interest

Paul Dacre (Daily Mail editor) weighed in against the BBC recently. Some quotable quotes ensued but I have to say I disagreed with plenty in his arguments, especially in the latter part of his speech.

Still, I agree with this:

The BBC "is hostile to conservatism and the traditional right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values"

Perhaps better is an academic blogger at the Augean Stables (great blog for occasional reading at least), transcribing an address he made to an Israeli audience on the bias of the media against it.

"There has been much discussion of whether or not the MSM has been unfair to Israel, including formal investigations into particularly obnoxious organizations like the BBC, and, by and large the answer is, “well, maybe… but it’s not so bad.” And Israelis, like the protagonist in Richard Farina’s novel, have been down so long it looks like up to them. “It could be worse… it has been worse… it’s getting better.”

But all of this is not nearly good enough."

"the right-wing blogosphere stands revealed as what they are -- a pack of gossip-mongering hysterics who routinely attack any press reports that reflect poorly on their Leader or his policies, with rank innuendo, Internet gossip, base speculation, and wholesale error as their most frequent tools of the trade. The operate in packs, constantly repeating each other's innuendo and expanding on it incrementally, and they then cite to each other endlessly in one self-feeding, self-affirming orgy of links, as though that constitutes proof."

Ooh, I love it when they get nasty!

The above quote is from Glenn Greenwald, who waxes verbose at just about anything.

The topic at hand is the "Jamil Hussein case". Capt. Jamil Hussein of the Iraqi police force was the named source for a large number of AP reports. US bloggers like Michelle Malkin and especially Patterico began to be suspicious of the veracity of the AP's source, and upon enquiry got the response from both the Iraqi Government and the Coalition authorities that they had no record of such a man's existence within the ranks of the Iraq police in Baghdad- a response that was later rescinded on the Iraqi Government's part.

You would indeed expect that a Captain in the Iraqi Police would be known to the authorities, but the key issue was not his existence- that was just the shocked afterthought, that maybe the source was somehow fabricated. The main concern was the truth of the reports he was giving. Michelle Malkin has confirmed the validity of that concern while in Iraq recently.

Greenwald and friends get in a lather over the acceptance of the Iraqi government's word over the non-existence in the Iraqi police of the AP's source. Which rather begs the question as to why they are accepting it now.

Of course they think it shows the authoritarianism of the right that they would accept the Iraqi Government's initial word. Au contraire, amis, it shows that the right doesn't discount the authorities when it suits them, and accept them when they please- unlike the left. The left loves authority when it's their sort. Other sorts, not so much.

There has never, to my satisfaction, been an analysis (let alone a good one) demonstrated by the MSM of their approach to on-the-ground sources in Iraq (and elsewhere in sensitive regions)- a hugely complicated scenario where everyone may have political purposes. Being a partial war zone, the other means of action (war taken as being politics by other means) is political; and both are rife in Iraq. Yet the MSM wants us to gaily take its word for it time and again without regard to the political context, where we know "insurgents" and "police officers" can be sometimes interchangeable. There is no sense in trusting everything a potentially incompetent Iraqi Govt or partially sighted coalition says- there is equally no sense in believing even the ordinary Iraqi in the street as being without political motivation, let alone the sort who in a sense risks his life providing information.

For a man like Jamil Hussein, there has to be something in it for him, and there have to be ways he is retaining his security while providing a news feed to the West. How does that work- not by adopting a pseudonym, apparently. Then how? How? How?

Questioning minds (and creative ones), of which there are many on the right, would like to know.

World as Stage

My previous two posts were a nod to the Czech political reality- which probably you knew very little about. Sorry for the irrelevance, but I actually think it should be relevant. After all, if Europe can't raise a mite of interest in the futures of 10 million of its inhabitants, what counts for anything? Big Brother and Jade's little outbursts?

Mark Steyn has a brilliant article in today's Chicago Times asking questions of the parochialism of US politics.

His main target is the Barak Obama love-in in the US media.

But, if the US is displaying a strong tendency to prefer talking about Iowa over Iraq, for instance, this at least has some apparent self-interest going for it.

However, quite rightly and incisively he speculates, amidst all this all-America dramatizing : "Whether the rest of the planet will be content with a non-speaking part".

And one just says, "quite".

I'm led to reflect on the fact that the world's most incisive columnist is a theatre critic. If we never go beyond the theatre concept in our understanding of the world we will be in trouble. This is no criticism of Steyn- he always points beyond the theatre but few are interested to follow his gaze.

It's what happens stage right that should concern, and the European media is not just parochial- if only- it's balkanised to a point where it cannot interest itself in its neighbours sharing its own interests.

Failure to support (maybe even school), for instance, the emerging Eastern democracies is a factor in their low birth rates (nb. the exception of Albania being above replacement level) which cannot be excused by conventional explanations of civilisational maturity etc. Eastern Europe has lowest low birth rates which endanger its emergence as a set of allies for a european future.

Here of course the EU is far more hindrance than help, entrenching outmoded social systems above economic necessity.

Failure to make due note of Imadinnerjacket's foray into South America, and Chavez's declaration of self-rule, and the trend towards formalising axes of evil, could lead to some pretty painful twists in the plot, rather than Shakespearian comedy.

And these are just two of the unfolding dramas that either never reach the limelight or only in the form of rough comedy for the lower orders.

Maybe Ahmadinejad will meet his Waterloo at home, but maybe that's not the fundamental drama anyway on the part of Iran.

Ah well,

The Czech Republic finally has a Government confirmed, and few in the media care. There is of course not much enthusiasm in the MSM for a right of centre Government (yet bizarrely they all- BBC, VOA- produced articles when the leftists said they would not help form a government just a few days ago), but I'd have thought that finally having a certified "Government" after having seven months without one would be reason for the BBC to make at least one measly report. But no; in that they're following the pathetically hip and idiotic Prague Post who are mainly concerned about what the public think about Prime Minister Toplanek's affair with a colleague or whether he got the TV coverage he wanted.

The Government, now confirmed, probably won't be functional- but that would be news, and pave the way for another election once it falls apart. One would hope.

A Big Day

... for the Czech Republic (for the time being chez moi) as they might get a government for the first time in seven months since their elections. A good flavour of the nature of the CR politics can be got here from a small quote on the prospect of two MPs acting decisively:

"CSSD president Jiri Paroubek announced expulsion from the party procedures would be launched against Pohanka and Melcak as well as charges on suspicion on bribery.

Topolanek has praised the two parliamentarians as 'constructive.' He rejected the CSSD's charges of corruption and said Pohanka and Melcak had achieved changes in the coalition's tax and health policies"

CSSD are the leftists. Toplanek the rightist Prime Minister (since a few months ago). Paroubeck the fat controller former PM, and the two men mentioned apparently plan to leave the voting room and their CSSD party to break the 100-100 deadlock and allow democracy to allow democracy to get on with things again.

Michelle Malkin and Bryan Preston are back from Iraq (what? You didn't know they were away? or "who are they?"), and Bryan has some fascinating observations to make about Iraq on the ground.

"Calling Iraq a “civil war” misunderstands the nature of Iraq and the term “civil war.” Most of Iraq’s warring parties don’t have any chance at taking over the entire country and don’t seem interested in doing so. Most of them are reacting to the vaccuum of power since the iron grip of Saddam slipped off the country. Most of them are reacting to threats they perceive are either coming from the presence of foreign troops, or from the presence of Wahhabi-influence terrorists (al Qaeda) or from fellow Iraqis who belong to the other major sect of Islam, or from Iran. Most militia fighters would probably lay down their weapons if the overall environment improved, and by that I mean improvements in the basics: the economy and education as well as the security environment."

The Trouble with posting about good news (see below tentative post) is that with it comes a sense that one has to report bad news too.

HotAir carries a pretty good round up of rather bad news from Iraq (not difficult to compile thanks to the tendresse of the MSM), beginning with the shocking and evil bombing of the university today in Baghdad.

Iraq- better than you thought.

Or at least that would be the conclusion to make based on this interesting article from a senior British officer there.

So far in January the casualty rate among coalition soldiers has been low (about 1 death per day), and the civilian rate seems to have gone down too.

Somalia Update

It appears that Eritrea has been strongly supporting- with ground troops- what was presented by the BBC as being plucky little Islamic Courts Somalia. The secular government just wasn't wanted we were informed. No special reason, except for an Islamic government who made the trains run on time, so to speak.

2000 Eritrean troops deployed in various places and fought alongside the Islamic Courts, who have now thankfully been dumped out of their last major stronghold. That news comes via a leaked UN report. The Eritreans had been there since August 06, apparently.

The BBC, I note, have not produced a report on that but have slipped a new line into their profile of who supports whom. So they know what they're doing then. Strange how none of their wonderful on the ground journalists deigned to notice it.

The slowly slowly slowly approach to good US news.

Being captivated by a Las Vegas Porn show the BBC appears not to have noticed that the US Federal deficit has fallen to its lowest level in four years. No hurry Beeb, only a few hundred outlets scooped you.

The BBC is comfortable with the idea of hard spending porn-guzzling ham-burger consuming deficit running vehically challenged Bush Americans- a streamlined US economy boosted by tax cuts, not so much.

Beating Insurgencies

Ok, it's just a guess, of course, but I'm of the opinion one of my favourite moments from a favourite film might help, certainly in Iraq.

The film in question is Silverado, one of the great westerns from a time when westerns were going through their bleakest out of season period (they aren't exactly "in" now).

The big hero, Emmett, played by Kevin Kline, dives into the hideout of some ne'r do wells who've robbed some fetching young settlers, and his cover is provided by just a couple of friends shooting frantically trying to appear like some big posse who Emmett claims are pursuing him. The aim is to distract the bad guys long enough for Emmett to sneak the money box away. They succeed.

Emmett retrieves the booty, but not before he's rumbled. Short but immortal lines:

"BAXTER
  (indicating Emmett)
 Brave man.

   DAWSON
 I think there's only a couple of
 guys up there and this asshole's one
 of them."

It's a great moment, full of irony.

I only say this because I was inspired to think about it by this very realistic, if overly pessimistic, Slate article from Robert Kaplan on the Bush surge and his clever new general. My response is that we should remember what chaos a few assholes can create, trying to appear a big posse. And be clear who the good guys are on this occasion.

"As I always say, there is no “stability”. We thought we’d “contained” Soviet Communism. Instead, the social pathologies that took hold during the Russian people’s half-century of “containment” will have profound consequences for us and the rest of the world long after the last Commie is dead and buried".

- Mark Steyn. Rest of article found here.

Over Christmas I read America Alone. I don't think any writer has made me sit up in my chair more, ever. It may explain the deeper reason why I was thinking along the lines I wrote about in my last post, largely about the fall of communism. The People's Tragedy is another book I've read- that one specifically about Russia- and its title is adequate to its subject.

Contrary to many people's imagination, there is nothing crackpot about Mark Steyn's reasoning.

"The Toronto Star (which is Canada’s biggest-selling newspaper and impeccably liberal) recently noted that by 2015 Muslims will make up a majority of Russia’s army."

The great Melanie Phillips is back in action

I was always going to link to it and then I was stung into action by the Instapundit.

The fight in Washington with the army top brass has not just been over whether more or fewer troops are needed in Iraq. It’s also been over a major difference in strategic perception. In order to win in Iraq, it is essential to defeat Iran. This is for the blindingly obvious reason that the principal instigator of the war in Iraq is… Iran. I have never understood how anyone could think that you can win a war by refusing to fight the aggressors and instead running around trying vainly to put out the fires they are starting. As I said last month here and on many other occasions, the coalition cannot secure Iraq without first defeating Iran.

It triggers in me one of those occasions for updating the evolving philosophy of Ed.

Here goes...

The history of the 20th century was of course dominated by the rise and fall of communism. Even events such as the rise of Hitler and the eclipse of the Shah of Iran by Ayatollah Khomenei can be neatly seen as reactions to the rise and fall respectively of Soviet communism.

With the final collapse of Communism in 1989 came a kind of phony peace, where threats were evolving more quickly from their relatively unevolved forms once the settlement of the world order was freer and the USA refrained from asserting its authority. Events such as those transpiring in Rwanda, Somalia, and Bosnia were unusual in that they weren't fallout from some intractable international stasis owing to disagreements among powers, but rather the result of local factions struggling to assert themselves when no great power was really interested.

The lack of colonial policing in a world used to it has resulted in the evolution of threat into philosophy, into religion, and back into more violent threat once more.

The US, partially in Afghanistan, and wholly in Iraq, strode boldly back into the field of disorder. As Melanie points out, colonial policing is not a linear game: you attack one party partly to get to others or to achieve wider objectives. The question is, do the Americans understand that Iraq is the route to Iran? It's only geography, after all.

A cynicism I can endorse

Earlier I mentioned the Jamil Hussein case. It's been running and running. And now it's stopped.

Helen Szamuely has the necessary response.

I wonder if it's true...

That Ayatollah ali Khamenei is dead.

If so Pajamas Media scooped the BBC. If not, I'll update this post referring to the unreliability of rumours.

....

Update: As PM have updated their post, it's time I did too. The Ayatollah is clearly not a well man, and god speed him on his way, but he appears to remain in the land of the living. Rumours, eh?

SomaliaTheModel?

I have to confess I have been surprised by the rapid success of the Ethiopian army in routing the Islamic Courts movement and installing the Somalian transitional government- which was assembled long ago through negotiation in Nairobi. This process had seemed a lame duck, but the Ethiopians, and the Somali Govt. in waiting, it would seem, had a plan.

Not as surprised as some though, apparently. This comprehensive report from Pajamas Media describes how " an American military intelligence officer told Pajamas Media that the ICU “will overrun Baidoa,” where the transitional government has been headquartered, and that the only question was when Baidoa would fall. "

So much for the Americans being the secret mover behind Ethiopian action. Or maybe looking silly is part of their cunning secret scheme.

Anyway, it's obviously not all over, but things look promising, as the report points out as it lists the reasons for the success to date.

Although the !United Nations! warns that “the ICU is fully capable of turning Somalia into what is currently an Iraq-type scenario, replete with roadside and suicide bombers, assassinations and other forms of terrorist and insurgent-type activities” , it seems unlikely in the light of recent events that the Ethiopians and the Somali transitional Government will be soft enough to let them.

Hopefully we can watch and learn the lesson. Stand up, stay strong, and watch them run.

David Vance brings the latest on Somalia (heh heh):

"Once again we see that the mighty forces of militant Islam are little more than girly-men when it comes to real fighting. Sure, they know how to decapitate a defenceless woman, or cut the throat of a helpless Air Stewardess, or detonate themselves at a Wedding Party - but when it comes to standing toe to toe with an opponent, they scarper. What cowards they are. "

Happy New Year, Jihadis!

Somalia update

Douglas Farah:


"Yesterday Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, the ICU leader most closely identified with al Qaeda and bin Laden, said Somalia was now at war with Ethiopia and that “All Somalis should now take part is [sic] this struggle against Ethiopia.” The statement came the day after an EU envoy happily proclaimed that both sides had agreed to negotiate an end to the hostilities and that peace was at hand. Someone must be living in an alternate universe where pledges made by radicals with a history of duplicity are viewed binding."

Ah, the EU- ever the partner for (ap)peace(ment).

This is brilliant. Scrappleface has the 'translation' of the latest Ayman Al Zawahiri tape. I hope it really gets up his nose. Kind of a Christmas message. (via LGF)

...

which goes rather well placed alongside Ammedinejad's latest pronouncements. WWJD?

Winning in Iraq? Follow the money. (via Instapundit)

And so,

Making the best of my new format, comes the pleasurable task of replenishing it with links. There were a great many blogs which I have grown to know and like which were not included in my previous format. It's now easier to load them onto my blog, so expect quite a flurry of them.

One of those going in shortly will be Hugh Hewitt's blog. Always interesting, occasionally inspirational.

Today Hugh has a big spread up about Somalia and Ethiopia. This region of Africa has been of special interest to me for a long time; I lived in Kenya for half a year and met a number of Somalians and Ethiopians while there. My interest, or, perhaps more accurately, deep affection, has never left. Now, it looks as though a conflict is brewing. Rather, it looks like the Islamists are going to pick their fight.

I have just a few thoughts about this myself. One is that if Somalia and Ethiopia fight, Eritrea will treat it as a proxy war, a continuation of their long enmity with their western neighbours. Another is that Sudan will use the cover of another regional conflict to make yet more inroads into their western neighbour, Chad. A third is that Somalia will receive support from the Arabian peninsular. Is there a pattern emerging here? An expansionism from East to West? Yes, there is, or there will be.

The war that Sheik Aweys- the long-time Al-Qaeda associate and veteran of Somali tribal warfare who is now at the heart of the Islamic Courts movement- is trumpeting for is a war that has been going on through the ages, where the Christian "lion of Africa", Ethiopia, stood stubbornly in the way of the spread of Islam.

Nowadays, though, Ethiopia is getting on for 50 percent Muslim. It doesn't take a genius to see what the Islamists have in mind. Toppling Christian-oriented Ethiopia would represent one of those great historic goals of the neo-Caliphist agenda.

The Big Brave Beeb

Nick Robinson attracts a fine flock of sycophants following his question to Bush suggesting that he was "in denial" over Iraq: "Well done Nick! I admire your guts" etc

Obviously I'm too detached from the journalistic world to realise how 'brave' a question this was.

It is true that Bush floundered but, far from being floored by the originality of the question, perhaps it was simply his incredulity at being asked the same question in different forms again, and again, and again?

All this talk about detailed plans for Iraq and all the Beeb can manage is "are you quite sane, Mr Bush?"

Richard Sambrook, it seems, found this an electric moment.

What I find is, first, that Bush's view of Iraq is still limited in its detailed feel for how to proceed, but that, secondly and most importantly, the media has absolutely no desire to point out where the confusions may lie and what their solutions might be. The BBC and fellow-travellers have no interest even in minimising US loss of life through highlighting what the sources of disorder in Iraq might be- militias, Al Sadrs, Iran and Syria- in all their gruesome detail, and how they might be dealt with. Instead, they want a humiliated president and a USA with as bloody a bloody nose as possible.

So, I logged in to Blogger and...

They asked me if I wanted to upgrade to BetaBlogger. Being a little bored I thought, "why not?", and before I knew it sweeping changes had unfolded. I apologise to commenters as Haloscan seems to have been swept away in the general tsunami of change. I will see what can be done about that. But not now. Now, as was the Almighty on the seventh day, or as one might have thought he was, I am tired. So I shall rest.

In the meantime, take a look at this terrific Hotair video from Robert Spencer on Blair's slinking retreat from multicultiism. Stirring stuff for a Brit, I'd say, and a rare degree of insight from across the Atlantic. But then that Robert Spencer is quite a remarkable man all round.

"we may hope that [Britain] will re-emerge not just as Blair's geographical location for anything at all and nothing in particular" indeed.

Apologies for my absence.

I've been making a lot of arrangements for a project I have at the moment.

Meantime, Melanie Phillips is spot on in her analysis of the ISG report and aftermath:

"Bush is now surrounded by vultures sharpening their murderous claws. Does he have the inner resources to rise above them? To do so, he would have to not merely acknowledge the strategic errors he has made but transform the way he has run his office. This is a President who, until now, has operated through consensus. He has required his administration to present him not with a series of alternative options but with a settled view to which they all agree. This has been nothing short of disastrous, since his administration has been constantly at war within itself, with the State Department, Defence, the CIA, the generals in the field and sub-groups within those groups and others all fighting each other. Bush’s failure to choose between these warring perspectives and instead to operate on the basis of a ‘consensus’ which amounts merely to the lowest common denominator is in itself a major cause of the difficulties in Iraq."

Kofi's lingering goodbye.

Iraq the Model pronounces:

"Isn't it a shame that the secretary general of the UN is whining about he wasn't able to save a murderous dictator?"

Well, yes.

Hot Air today confronts the Jamil Hussein saga mentioned in one of the Sunday posts below. Mrs Malkin's in storming form and reminds me so much of my idealised notion of a female gym teacher. Come on people- especially you, MSM, at the back-, keep up!

Borat versus Bond.

I went to the movies this weekend. Borat won my attention. I have to say I agree with this site on the latest Bond. Daniel Craig is the kind of Bond everyone's dad can be set alongside without embarrassment.

Setting his self interest to one side for a moment, I have to say that James Murdoch is spot-on.

"From the very start UK broadcasting regulation was skewed," Murdoch said.

"Not to protect people against real harm, but to ensure that broadcasting was a sort of moral and educative crusade.

"There is a tougher but truer description for this approach. It was and is authoritarian."