We may be four years on but.... this is a fascinating observation from The Captain's Quarters about an largely overlooked article which appeared in the State-owned Iraqi newspaper Al-Nasiriyah two months prior to 9/11.

There's a killer point of course, which I'll come to, but almost as interesting is the way the writing treats the psychology of Iraqis. One really important realisation is how a state-owned (and controlled) newspaper could be so supportive of Osama Bin Laden, before his full post-9/11 Arab hero status:

'The phenomenon of Bin Ladin is a healthy phenomenon in the Arab spirit. It is a decision and a determination that the stolen Arab self has come to realize after it got bored with promises of its rulers: After it disgusted itself from their abomination and their corruption, the man had to carry the book of God and the Kalashnikov and write on some off white paper ``If you are unable to drive off the Marines from the Kaaba, I will do so.''

Talk about the 'stolen Arab self' reminds me of our own Orla 'Israel stole thirty-eight years from them; today, many were ready to take back anything they could' Guerin. But the pseudo-psychology reminds me of the typical western analysis of the self nonsense (link randomly plucked from a morass). One can't forget that Saddam drew for inspiration on the kind of mystical revolutionary Arabist socialism of Euro-educated Michel Aflaq.

One can't also emphasise enough that this article was carried in the Saddam-worshipping and brutally controlled press- yet sang the praises of Bin laden. It was a product of a newspaper in a Shia area, so I'd say we can assume its purpose was partly to intimidate, shackle and, if possible, indocrinate the local population with propaganda.

Given the recent declaration of war against the Shia by Al Qaeda, Iraq branch, this is more interesting still.

But the real crux of interest in the article is that it mentions all three of the targets on 9/11 in connection with Bin Laden. The last apparent reference may actually not be one, but it is certainly curious: 'the revolutionary Bin Ladin is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. That the man will not be swayed by the plant leaves of Whitman nor by the ``Adventures of Indiana Jones'' and will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.'. (boldenings mine)

It's so interesting- I'd like to read a better translation, but one can see that there is some clever name-dropping going on, and that someone like Bin Laden is quite philosophically consistent with the Baathist presses' mission. It's old stuff, true, but what strikes me is that on so many occasions in not being willing to believe we have an enemy that is widespread and charged with ideology and hatred towards us we've missed many things (like the clear Al Qaeda links to the London bombings, of which many are stupidly sceptical). It wouldn't surprise me if these really were references to 9/11, or that Al Qaeda reps were boasting in the coffee bars of Baghdad and elsewhere before, as well as after, the attack. (hat-tip to Mark Steyn- again)

Tranzi Frenzi- and a hope

Melanie Phillips adds some info about the Israeli General's escape from the risiblly overextended arm of the law:

'Israel’s Maj.-Gen. Doron Almog who flew to Britain to raise money for a charitable cause, was warned by Israel’s ambassador to London not to disembark from his El Al flight at Heathrow because British detectives were waiting to arrest him. The arrest warrant had been issued on Saturday by the Bow Street Magistrate's Court at the request of a pro-Palestinian group. The warrant alleged that in 2002 Almog had ordered the demolition of 59 Palestinian homes in Rafah. Gen. Almog decided not to alight from the plane, and remained aboard until it turned around and returned to Israel.' (bold lettering mine)

I was incensed by this action of the part of the authorities- and I will be even more upset if the they take some actions aginst the sensible Israeli ambassador. Britain used to be a country which had a rational regard for Israel and its position, which understood the difference between soldiers and mobsters, and distinguished sensitively between types of government. Now we don't, even though the distinctions are ever more relevant and important for our own understanding of the world.

There's a perfect evil twin to this misuse of judicial power in the surrendering of British sovereignty to European law courts- as explained by Peter Glover. Essentially what's likely to happen is the harmonisation of EU criminal law- certainly the EU powers have that power now. As well as an abdication of real power (the opposite of the extension of false power), it's an abdication of thought- and to think is what we need more than ever to do. (hat tip, ATW)

Our law used to be decent, even if imperfect and limited in many ways by the eras in which it worked. Now the limitations are few, the boundaries are eroding away to nothing, but the results is illiberalism and powercrazy behaviour.

But, despite this gloom, there is an answer. The answer is not to be too negative, but to look for positive judgements and actions to outweigh the negative ones that have such high profile. From somewhere we have to find within the law some wise decision-making. I believe it might be possible since I've been proved wrong once before. I never believed that Lord Hutton would be as immune from the popular gossip as to blame the BBC for their behaviour surrounding the Kelly affair. From almost nowhere (well, Northern Ireland ;-)), came this decent, rational man to seemingly bunker-down and deliver a rational account of affairs.

Of course I am aware that legal decisions which give the EU such powers as have been given are difficult to cope with from my perspective, but the legal position and what happens in reality can be two different things. Thus Israel might find it has some British champions and the EU might find it gets its fingers well and truly burnt at some time in the future. I wish I could say I was active in this matter, but I'm open to suggestions. For now I'll retain a little hope that our legal system can find some fibre from somewhere.

Talking About Rotten- this graph and map shows the way the UN views the world, describing the frequency of UN human rights complaints against different countries. If you look closely at the middle of the global map you can see a little sliver of red that highlights Israel. It's part of a great site, Eye on the UN.

I'm going to file it in my blogroll some time soon, but under which category I wonder?

Sometimes I feel I get this categorisation business a bit wrong, and maybe it's the fault of my slightly poetic filing system. However, in Natalie Solent's case I'm sure I was right to file her under 'pastoral talk', as is amply proved by this posting recalling Sept 11th. It's great sermon material for anyone who does that kind of thing. Or maybe it already was sermon material and Natalie was a beneficiary? In any case it ought to be in sermons somewhere.

And btw the way I must thank that fine 'surfing dude' Mark Steyn for his excellent links.

Rotten inside

A number of things have made me realise that the problem with the War on Terrorism is that most Western politicians share the analyses of the terrorists.

The clearest example is the one staring us in the face, the one that people from outside the UK most remark on, the savagery on our doorstep that's found in Northern Ireland. Peter Hain is a classic example of a politician who has agreed with every so-called colonial grievance that's ever been aired. When you read his CV, you know that in founding the anti-Nazi league he intended to create a pressure group that would identify what he would call the 'nazi within' ie. the colonial legacy, and enshrine political correctness. Through this prism we have to see his dramatic concessions to the IRA following their latest P.R. stunt.

Moving on, look at how the British Government are dealing with Israel nowadays: trying to arrest retired Israeli Generals. Now of course it was only the idiot judiciary who were trying this on, but the British Government are not far behind. It also shows how the judiciary are becoming ever more activist. Again the establishment are agreeing with the terrorists, accepting their lines- even repeating them.

And finally, what are we to make of the War on Terror when most politicians would be horrified at any mention of a further military step- even a step- against such terrorist regimes as Iran and Syria?

Even Bin Laden, I suspect, only needs to hang around for his anti-imperialist needs to be met.

I think the current generation of politicians, especially our British ones, are unblushing hypocrites. They can't stand the bombs exploding anywhere near their political eardrums, so they act tough, but they agree with the terrorists' analyses: poverty is our fault; colonialist fascism is to blame etc etc. They won't tell us they agree, because that's not their style. I don't think the public in any western country agrees with them (and I would except a number of US politicians and thinkers from this charge, though their will is weak).

Why then are people fighting and dying in Iraq? Simply because politicians like Blair are realistic enough to know what kind of concessions are required, and that these can't be offered overnight. If you're going to allow for reverse colonisation you can't do it just like that. He is therefore at war with the unrealism of the terrorists, not their causes. People like Ken Clarke, meanwhile, are too short-sighted to understand that the terrorists have a meaningful mindset that requires appeasing or destroying.

An article to file alongside the UK's attempt to bring Turkey into the fold, from Melanie Phillips:

'The EU is a profoundly anti-democratic project. Its concept of democracy amounts to the will of the collective trampling down individual national interests — a collective without even a language in common.'

Cutting to the Quick

Two posts made a major impact on me today- this from Michelle Malkin, and this from Slugger O'Toole, showcasing the talented Newton Emerson. Both are on US politics- in the first case the memorial planned for the heroic crashed aircraft on 9/11, the second on why Bush's Katrina critics are stupid. Of the first, I can only say that only US Liberals could be that cruel; on the second, well, the same sentence with 'stupid' at the end.

The British Fantasists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then, after the emotion, comes the assertion:

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

and then the ballast:

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

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

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

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

Mr Straw though gives us an ultimatum:

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

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

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

Admired the unfree world over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total Philosophical Disjuncture.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prediction Time Again:

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

The Truth according to Matt Wells

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It stinks of utter bovine stupidity.

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

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

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

Wise words on the Gulf coast disaster from David Frum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it's working

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two small dreams to chalk on a wall somewhere:

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

These people lose. Well, they deserve to.

It must be said that this fellow is rather cool-

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

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

Intellectual looting at the Beeb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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