Thursday, October 19, 2006
RELOCATED
I've decided to relocate the blog completely, but I will keep this "archive" up. The current blog is now at: http://expatyank.wordpress.com.
Hope to see you (and hear from you) at the new site! ¶ by Robert, 10/19/2006 06:46:00 AM
I've decided to relocate the blog completely, but I will keep this "archive" up. The current blog is now at: http://expatyank.wordpress.com.
Hope to see you (and hear from you) at the new site! ¶ by Robert, 10/19/2006 06:46:00 AM
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
BATTLE OF THE TEMPLATE
New posts appear below this one. This is on top for the next few days, so you have some idea what on earth is going on with the potential mess you may be seeing at any given time. The reason I'm changing the template is it just seemed like a good idea; I'd had the same one for nearly 4 years. And we are going to be moving house shortly too, leaving London and relocating to Christchurch, Dorset. So change being "in the air", now's felt like as good a time as any to "freshen" the blog's "look".
4th UPDATE (October 18): For the moment, I'm reverting to the old . . .
3rd UPDATE (October 18): I have again turned off the comments. If it comes down to a choice between Blogger and losing all the accumulated wisdom of all the nice people who've commented over the years thanks to Haloscan, that is no choice. There may be a very radical change made shortly. Stay tuned.
2nd UPDATE (of the update): I've turned off the comments for tonight. I have been trying to get both all the old Haloscan and Blogger on the same template. I've had enough, for now. It obviously isn't meant to be simple; someone doesn't want us to have both.
UPDATE (of the update): I've enabled Blogger's comments for now. I might go back to Haloscan's. Or I'll keep both sets. I'm so confuuuuuuused.
I am going to be doing some template messing about. (And hopefully, not end up trying to recover from a disaster!) So if for the next couple of days (hopefully) the page looks, well . . . funnier than usual, my apologies.
Comments will be down for the moment -- at least until I can figure how to get them into the template. ¶ by Robert, 10/18/2006 06:55:00 PM
New posts appear below this one. This is on top for the next few days, so you have some idea what on earth is going on with the potential mess you may be seeing at any given time. The reason I'm changing the template is it just seemed like a good idea; I'd had the same one for nearly 4 years. And we are going to be moving house shortly too, leaving London and relocating to Christchurch, Dorset. So change being "in the air", now's felt like as good a time as any to "freshen" the blog's "look".
_____________________________
4th UPDATE (October 18): For the moment, I'm reverting to the old . . .
3rd UPDATE (October 18): I have again turned off the comments. If it comes down to a choice between Blogger and losing all the accumulated wisdom of all the nice people who've commented over the years thanks to Haloscan, that is no choice. There may be a very radical change made shortly. Stay tuned.
_____________________________
2nd UPDATE (of the update): I've turned off the comments for tonight. I have been trying to get both all the old Haloscan and Blogger on the same template. I've had enough, for now. It obviously isn't meant to be simple; someone doesn't want us to have both.
_____________________________
UPDATE (of the update): I've enabled Blogger's comments for now. I might go back to Haloscan's. Or I'll keep both sets. I'm so confuuuuuuused.
_____________________________
I am going to be doing some template messing about. (And hopefully, not end up trying to recover from a disaster!) So if for the next couple of days (hopefully) the page looks, well . . . funnier than usual, my apologies.
Comments will be down for the moment -- at least until I can figure how to get them into the template. ¶ by Robert, 10/18/2006 06:55:00 PM
ANOTHER FREEDOM VANISHES
Yesterday, I stumbled on the Charleston Daily Mail purely by accident (typed in .com rather than .co.uk.) and found this story:
Another example of the relentless march of the police state. What's becoming of true freedom these days? ¶ by Robert, 10/18/2006 08:06:00 AM
Yesterday, I stumbled on the Charleston Daily Mail purely by accident (typed in .com rather than .co.uk.) and found this story:
The West Virginia moonshiner is a vanishing breed made all but extinct by economics and modern law enforcement techniques, experts say.
Moonshine is not profitable to make for widespread sale anymore.
And in the modern era of ATVs and helicopter aerial searches, it's harder for a moonshiner to hide.
But moonshine hasn't gone away entirely.
An elderly Roane County man was recently arrested for allegedly shooting his nephew after a night of drinking moonshine. When police found Wayne Howard Mallory passed out in his trailer, they roused him and asked him about the shooting. Mallory couldn't remember anything about it...
Moonshine is not profitable to make for widespread sale anymore.
And in the modern era of ATVs and helicopter aerial searches, it's harder for a moonshiner to hide.
But moonshine hasn't gone away entirely.
An elderly Roane County man was recently arrested for allegedly shooting his nephew after a night of drinking moonshine. When police found Wayne Howard Mallory passed out in his trailer, they roused him and asked him about the shooting. Mallory couldn't remember anything about it...
Another example of the relentless march of the police state. What's becoming of true freedom these days? ¶ by Robert, 10/18/2006 08:06:00 AM
"ANGER" OF A DIFFERENT SORT
With the type of post we have missed sorely since the blogosphere passings of The Diplomad and The Daily Demarche, Consul-at-Arms:
He then goes on to share with us the conflict inherent in being an F.S.O., but manages to finish on an "up note":
It's worth reading from the very top . . . ¶ by Robert, 10/18/2006 08:02:00 AM
With the type of post we have missed sorely since the blogosphere passings of The Diplomad and The Daily Demarche, Consul-at-Arms:
...It succeeded in pissing me off. He frankly and unvarnishedly lays out facts and chains of events that, taken together, can not but make any decent American steaming mad...
He then goes on to share with us the conflict inherent in being an F.S.O., but manages to finish on an "up note":
...the [State] Department along with DHS does a much better job than perhaps we used to do in scrutinizing travelers and visa applicants from that part of the world. Still this great increase is a little worrisome. I'm greatly heartened by the recent stories about the Egyptian students who decided to strike out on their own rather than go the school which was sponsoring their student visa. Within a very short time they were missed, reported missing, and being sought nation-wide. That tells me something's working.
It's worth reading from the very top . . . ¶ by Robert, 10/18/2006 08:02:00 AM
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
BREAKING THE HABIT
Sky News:
As we know, breaking the habit of "dependency" is likely to prove "very challenging" indeed:
And, as we can see, air travel is obviously supposedly okay for some . . . ¶ by Robert, 10/17/2006 11:09:00 AM
Sky News:
Britain has to curb its approach to air travel if it is serious about tackling climate change, a report claims. A hard-hitting document, by Oxford University researchers, seeks to make clear the case for urgent Government action on the aviation industry. It says Britain is becoming "air dependent", putting at risk the Government's target of a 60% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050...
As we know, breaking the habit of "dependency" is likely to prove "very challenging" indeed:
...The Beit Fund is used for any purpose that will promote the study of the History of the British Empire and Commonwealth in the University of Oxford...
...Grants to examine archives in this country or abroad are available to cover the cost of travel and, where this is not already covered from existing sources, the cost of subsistence and accommodation... Applicants should obtain several competitive quotations for airfares...
...Grants to examine archives in this country or abroad are available to cover the cost of travel and, where this is not already covered from existing sources, the cost of subsistence and accommodation... Applicants should obtain several competitive quotations for airfares...
And, as we can see, air travel is obviously supposedly okay for some . . . ¶ by Robert, 10/17/2006 11:09:00 AM
MACSHANE WAFFLED!
It is said that the General's candor is refreshing. So too is this, from Labour's Denis MacShane, in The Telegraph (via my wife):
It is said that the General's candor is refreshing. So too is this, from Labour's Denis MacShane, in The Telegraph (via my wife):
...The Home Office, in addition to allowing Hamza to poison the minds of a generation, refused to return to France Rashid Ramda, who was wanted for questioning in connection with the 1995 Paris Metro bombings – a foretaste of our own 7/7. I hated having to go on French television and waffle defensively at a policy of not extraditing this evil man. But the prevailing culture was to deal with religious leaders, not elected politicians. Whitehall sought the advice of friendly theologians from Cairo, or Muslim ideologues such as Tariq Ramadan. This denied political space to British citizens of Muslim faith, women as well as men...
¶ by Robert, 10/17/2006 10:39:00 AM
WE THOUGHT THAT NEED HAD BEEN ELIMINATED?
The BBC reports:
The licence fee is one issue. What caught my eye was that they employed private nannies? IN Sweden?
One understands that they must have had their personal reasons for doing so. But, still, we all thought Sweden was the ultimate "nanny state"?:
So even in the ultimate nanny state, people still feel a need to "go private" at times? ¶ by Robert, 10/17/2006 07:45:00 AM
The BBC reports:
Sweden's culture minister has become the second minister to resign over financial irregularities, only days since the new government took office.
Cecilia Stego Chilo admitted she had not paid her television licence fee for 16 years, and had not paid employer taxes when taking on a nanny.
On Saturday Trade Minister Maria Borelius resigned for similar reasons...
...Ms Borelius quit after admitting hiring nannies without paying taxes and employer's fees...
Cecilia Stego Chilo admitted she had not paid her television licence fee for 16 years, and had not paid employer taxes when taking on a nanny.
On Saturday Trade Minister Maria Borelius resigned for similar reasons...
...Ms Borelius quit after admitting hiring nannies without paying taxes and employer's fees...
The licence fee is one issue. What caught my eye was that they employed private nannies? IN Sweden?
One understands that they must have had their personal reasons for doing so. But, still, we all thought Sweden was the ultimate "nanny state"?:
...Sweden has very generous welfare provision - for instance, every Swede whether they have worked or not is entitled to a generous state pension. And every Swedish child is entitled to state-funded child care...
So even in the ultimate nanny state, people still feel a need to "go private" at times? ¶ by Robert, 10/17/2006 07:45:00 AM
FAMILY GUYS
Adolf Hitler, from his Last Will, April 1945:
Saddam Hussein, from his recent "open letter", quoted by the A.P., October 16, 2006:
Both such caring, considerate, humane and misunderstood family men. . . ¶ by Robert, 10/17/2006 06:29:00 AM
Adolf Hitler, from his Last Will, April 1945:
...As I did not consider that I could take responsibility, during the years of struggle, of contracting a marriage, I have now decided, before the closing of my earthly career, to take as my wife that girl who, after many years of faithful friendship, entered, of her own free will, the practically besieged town in order to share her destiny with me.
At her own desire she goes as my wife with me into death. It will compensate us for what we both lost through my work in the service of my people...
At her own desire she goes as my wife with me into death. It will compensate us for what we both lost through my work in the service of my people...
Saddam Hussein, from his recent "open letter", quoted by the A.P., October 16, 2006:
...you must show genuine forgiveness and put aside revenge over the spilled blood of your sons and brothers, including the sons of Saddam Hussein...
Both such caring, considerate, humane and misunderstood family men. . . ¶ by Robert, 10/17/2006 06:29:00 AM
Monday, October 16, 2006
OUT OF CONTROL
The BBC reports:
If he is indeed "on the run", it doesn't seem he is particularly "under control" then, does it?
UPDATE, October 17. Bringing out she who is apparently on permanent BBC consultative retainer, the BBC reports:
All perfectly valid points. But naturally in her criticisms, Ms Chakrabarti claims no role for herself or for her organization in helping push this government into creating this "farce". For it is the likes of "Liberty" (alongside many others) who, for one thing, have demanded this government's evidentiary/trial policy towards any terror suspect be essentially the same as it is towards someone arrested for, say, holding up a petrol station. ¶ by Robert, 10/16/2006 08:50:00 PM
The BBC reports:
A terror suspect under a control order has escaped from a mental health unit and is on the run, the BBC has learned...
If he is indeed "on the run", it doesn't seem he is particularly "under control" then, does it?
_____________________________
UPDATE, October 17. Bringing out she who is apparently on permanent BBC consultative retainer, the BBC reports:
...Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said control orders did not work.
"This confirms our worst fears about the farce that is the control orders regime. They are both unsafe and fundamentally unfair," she said.
"If someone is truly a dangerous terror suspect, why would you leave them at large?
"On the other hand it is completely cruel and unfair to label someone a terrorist and to subject them to a range of punishments for years on end without ever charging them or putting them on trial."...
"This confirms our worst fears about the farce that is the control orders regime. They are both unsafe and fundamentally unfair," she said.
"If someone is truly a dangerous terror suspect, why would you leave them at large?
"On the other hand it is completely cruel and unfair to label someone a terrorist and to subject them to a range of punishments for years on end without ever charging them or putting them on trial."...
All perfectly valid points. But naturally in her criticisms, Ms Chakrabarti claims no role for herself or for her organization in helping push this government into creating this "farce". For it is the likes of "Liberty" (alongside many others) who, for one thing, have demanded this government's evidentiary/trial policy towards any terror suspect be essentially the same as it is towards someone arrested for, say, holding up a petrol station. ¶ by Robert, 10/16/2006 08:50:00 PM
"WHYS" THAT AREN'T ALL THEY SEEM
Her personal regrets regarding her personal opinions of her own personal reactions personally to seeing the current U.S. president on TV notwithstanding, The Times' Alice Miles presents to us several "explanations" of "whys" that . . . well, aren't really "whys", but make good "whys"-reading, one supposes:
That's one that no one can seem to put a stake through. Again, "the administration" dismantled nothing. Paul Bremer, in the NRO, January 10, 2006:
Next, another of Ms Miles' "whys":
So what exactly would the U.S. have done differently regarding North Korea had the U.S. not destroyed the Hussein regime? Let's think. Attacked North Korea? Or yelled at it with greater nodding "world approval" than the U.S. supposedly gets currently?
What is now is much as what had been the case, indeed had been long before there was ever a Saddam ruling Iraq: South Korea did not, and does not, desire to bring on a military confrontation with the North; it is, in fact, hard to conceive of a situation in which it would offensively. And without the South's approval, there was, and is, no way the U.S. would undertake such action. (Remember, the horrific Korean War from 1950-1953 began when the North invaded the South; the South has since possessed an almost entirely "defensive" view of the North.)
All that's left is what has been the norm since 1953: "Negotiation". In short, "the muck" the U.S. has supposedly made of Iraq since 2003 has nothing substantive to do with its response to North Korea's nuclear test.
And another:
Finally, if the U.S. had indeed "prioritised" North Korea over Iraq, "the world" and Ms Miles would not now be wondering aloud on TV and in editorial pages, why, oh why the U.S. is seemingly "hypnotised" by the weak, little dictator starving his people on the north of the Korean peninsula, ignoring other, more vital issues, all while of course the South, Japan and China could better handle the situation?
And "the world" and Ms Miles certainly would not now also be demanding why, oh why the U.S. were not paying much closer attention to the danger a potentially WMD and nuclear armed, oil-financed Saddam presents to the wider Middle East, especially given that his brutal regime remains a tremendous obstacle to achieving "real peace" between Israel and the Palestinians (which is, as we all "know", the "real cause" of every single problem befalling "the Muslim world")?
"The world" would also not now be crying out that the U.S. refuses obstinately to do anything about Saddam because Saddam has oil and therefore the U.S. wishes to "do a deal" with him, while, on the other hand, the U.S. chooses (for no good reason anyone can ascertain) to "take its eye off the ball" and "pick on" the obviously hapless North Korea?
No, no, of course, none of that would be the case. Right?
Relatedly, also in The Times, William Rees-Moog:
Hmmmmm. However, also worth bearing in mind, this, from The Wall Street Journal, November 2003:
Her personal regrets regarding her personal opinions of her own personal reactions personally to seeing the current U.S. president on TV notwithstanding, The Times' Alice Miles presents to us several "explanations" of "whys" that . . . well, aren't really "whys", but make good "whys"-reading, one supposes:
...the whole administration is portrayed as dysfunctional, fragile, unable to admit or unwilling even to see, let alone correct, possible mistakes such as the dismantling of the Iraqi military...
That's one that no one can seem to put a stake through. Again, "the administration" dismantled nothing. Paul Bremer, in the NRO, January 10, 2006:
...The facts are these: There was not a single Iraqi army unit intact in the country at Liberation. There was no army to “disband.” It had “self-demobilized,” in the Pentagon’s phrase. Hundreds of thousand of Shia draftees, seeing which way the war was going, had simply gone home. They were not going to come back into a hated army.
The army and intelligence services had been vital instruments of Saddam’s brutal regime. He had used the army in a years’ long campaign against the Kurds, killing tens of thousands of them, culminating in the use of chemical weapons against men, women, and children in 1988. The army had brutally suppressed the Shia uprising after the first Gulf war, machine gunning tens of thousands of Shia civilians into mass graves in the south. Together these two groups make up about 80 percent of the population.
So recalling the Iraqi army (which would have meant sending American soldiers into Shia homes, farms, and villages and forcing them back into the army under their Sunni officers) would have had dire political consequences. The Kurds told me clearly that they would not have accepted it, and would have seceded from Iraq. Such a move would probably have ended Shia cooperation with the Coalition and perhaps even led to a Shia uprising, initially against such an Iraqi army, and eventually against the Coalition.
But we knew we had to find a place in Iraqi society for the former army men. So we welcomed them back into the new army, including officers up to the level of colonel. And we started paying the other officers a monthly stipend, which continued right to the end of the occupation...
The army and intelligence services had been vital instruments of Saddam’s brutal regime. He had used the army in a years’ long campaign against the Kurds, killing tens of thousands of them, culminating in the use of chemical weapons against men, women, and children in 1988. The army had brutally suppressed the Shia uprising after the first Gulf war, machine gunning tens of thousands of Shia civilians into mass graves in the south. Together these two groups make up about 80 percent of the population.
So recalling the Iraqi army (which would have meant sending American soldiers into Shia homes, farms, and villages and forcing them back into the army under their Sunni officers) would have had dire political consequences. The Kurds told me clearly that they would not have accepted it, and would have seceded from Iraq. Such a move would probably have ended Shia cooperation with the Coalition and perhaps even led to a Shia uprising, initially against such an Iraqi army, and eventually against the Coalition.
But we knew we had to find a place in Iraqi society for the former army men. So we welcomed them back into the new army, including officers up to the level of colonel. And we started paying the other officers a monthly stipend, which continued right to the end of the occupation...
Next, another of Ms Miles' "whys":
...it is clear that the US cannot respond as it once might have to the test conducted in North Korea. Because of the muck it has made in Iraq, it lacks the political and moral authority to do so
So what exactly would the U.S. have done differently regarding North Korea had the U.S. not destroyed the Hussein regime? Let's think. Attacked North Korea? Or yelled at it with greater nodding "world approval" than the U.S. supposedly gets currently?
What is now is much as what had been the case, indeed had been long before there was ever a Saddam ruling Iraq: South Korea did not, and does not, desire to bring on a military confrontation with the North; it is, in fact, hard to conceive of a situation in which it would offensively. And without the South's approval, there was, and is, no way the U.S. would undertake such action. (Remember, the horrific Korean War from 1950-1953 began when the North invaded the South; the South has since possessed an almost entirely "defensive" view of the North.)
All that's left is what has been the norm since 1953: "Negotiation". In short, "the muck" the U.S. has supposedly made of Iraq since 2003 has nothing substantive to do with its response to North Korea's nuclear test.
And another:
Were it to have wanted to address North Korea’s nuclear pretensions, it should have prioritised it over Iraq; the world knew Kim was a brutal tyrant with a nuclear weapon within his reach...
Finally, if the U.S. had indeed "prioritised" North Korea over Iraq, "the world" and Ms Miles would not now be wondering aloud on TV and in editorial pages, why, oh why the U.S. is seemingly "hypnotised" by the weak, little dictator starving his people on the north of the Korean peninsula, ignoring other, more vital issues, all while of course the South, Japan and China could better handle the situation?
And "the world" and Ms Miles certainly would not now also be demanding why, oh why the U.S. were not paying much closer attention to the danger a potentially WMD and nuclear armed, oil-financed Saddam presents to the wider Middle East, especially given that his brutal regime remains a tremendous obstacle to achieving "real peace" between Israel and the Palestinians (which is, as we all "know", the "real cause" of every single problem befalling "the Muslim world")?
"The world" would also not now be crying out that the U.S. refuses obstinately to do anything about Saddam because Saddam has oil and therefore the U.S. wishes to "do a deal" with him, while, on the other hand, the U.S. chooses (for no good reason anyone can ascertain) to "take its eye off the ball" and "pick on" the obviously hapless North Korea?
No, no, of course, none of that would be the case. Right?
_____________________________
Relatedly, also in The Times, William Rees-Moog:
...The President gave the post-war responsibility for the reconstruction of Iraq to the Pentagon under Mr Rumsfeld rather than the State Department under Colin Powell. He preferred the unqualified and, in this respect, the incompetent department...
Hmmmmm. However, also worth bearing in mind, this, from The Wall Street Journal, November 2003:
...No one outside the Council on Foreign Relations ever imagined the plan was for even a semi-permanent U.S. occupation. The idea was to liberate the country from Saddam, then establish a political process in which Iraqis could compete and govern themselves. If the Bush Administration has made a mistake in Iraq, it was in not beginning that process well before the war, with a government-in-exile and a large Iraqi security force. President Bush came down on the side of the State Department and CIA officials who opposed such an effort...
¶ by Robert, 10/16/2006 07:32:00 PM
"CONTENT" PROVIDED FOREVER
Reuters tells us today in this headline:
That's strange. For one thing, we had thought Reuters had been producing what at best could be considered "virtual news" for some time already? But even worse, now, we are told, death will provide no escape; we will all be subjected to Reuters "news" for all eternity, too? ¶ by Robert, 10/16/2006 10:36:00 AM
Reuters tells us today in this headline:
Reuters opens virtual news bureau in Second Life
That's strange. For one thing, we had thought Reuters had been producing what at best could be considered "virtual news" for some time already? But even worse, now, we are told, death will provide no escape; we will all be subjected to Reuters "news" for all eternity, too? ¶ by Robert, 10/16/2006 10:36:00 AM
"SPYING" WITHOUT EVEN USING A TELEPHONE?
The Guardian:
Sounds pretty scary. . .
So the Department of Education is debating over how possibly to react (or not) to what . . . is distributed publicly? THAT The Guardian classifies as "spying"?
An example of how the Guardian is just as bad as Reuters. Hang on, check that: Reuters is still worse. For at least the Guardian makes no pretense about being "objective" and reporting just "facts".
UPDATE: Agence France-Presse obviously also considers the description apt:
The Guardian:
Lecturers and university staff across Britain are to be asked to spy on "Asian-looking" and Muslim students they suspect of involvement in Islamic extremism and supporting terrorist violence, the Guardian has learned.
The document, which has been obtained by the Guardian, was sent within the last month to selected official bodies for consultation and reveals the full extent of what the authorities fear is happening in universities.
The document, which has been obtained by the Guardian, was sent within the last month to selected official bodies for consultation and reveals the full extent of what the authorities fear is happening in universities.
Sounds pretty scary. . .
The Department for Education has drawn up a series of proposals which are to be sent to universities and other centres of higher education before the end of the year. The 18-page document acknowledges that universities will be anxious about passing information to special branch, for fear it amounts to "collaborating with the 'secret police'". It says there will be "concerns about police targeting certain sections of the student population (eg Muslims)"...
...It claims that Islamic societies at universities have become increasingly political in recent years and discusses monitoring their leaflets and speakers. The document warns of talent-spotting by terrorists on campuses and of students being "groomed" for extremism...
...It claims that Islamic societies at universities have become increasingly political in recent years and discusses monitoring their leaflets and speakers. The document warns of talent-spotting by terrorists on campuses and of students being "groomed" for extremism...
So the Department of Education is debating over how possibly to react (or not) to what . . . is distributed publicly? THAT The Guardian classifies as "spying"?
An example of how the Guardian is just as bad as Reuters. Hang on, check that: Reuters is still worse. For at least the Guardian makes no pretense about being "objective" and reporting just "facts".
_____________________________
UPDATE: Agence France-Presse obviously also considers the description apt:
Lecturers and staff at British universities will be asked to spy on "Asian-looking" and Muslim students they suspect of supporting terrorist acts and involvement in Islamic extremism, The Guardian reported...
¶ by Robert, 10/16/2006 06:59:00 AM
Sunday, October 15, 2006
ONE PERSON'S "SPY" IS ANOTHER'S "CAREFUL LISTENER"
Honest Reporting, quoting Reuters global managing editor, as reported in the New York Times, September 2004:
Curiously, the "news" service has no problem using "emotive words", nor with its "editorial integrity", when it comes to U.S. War on Terror issues. Here's another Reuters example of what makes for supposedly reporting "facts" and not using an "emotive term":
"Spying" is a deadly serious term, and Americans have always had great worries over any possibility of their government spying on themselves. But is "spying on Americans" really the case here? It doesn't even appear so.
Yet Reuters obviously wants to portray it in that manner . . . given that they didn't phrase that opening accurately to reflect the "facts" as to what constitutes the actual program. You know, as in the following:
One wonders why Reuters might choose not to phrase such a report more in that manner? Perhaps because such truth in advertising might not actually get most people all riled up? Could Reuters' willingness to use a hot-button term like "spying" be because Reuters knows full well that there is no reason to be concerned about its reporters' safety in the U.S.? And not even from the evil Bush administration? And as The National Review told us in September 2001:
Remember that? If it can so willingly play down "terror" in the interest of "non-emotionalism", it should logically also not use a word like "spying" in the above context. For in not doing both, one is left only with the reasonable assumption that Reuters' casual use of words like "domestic spying", while recoiling from using a word like "terrorist", demonstrates a determination to play down jihadism while portraying U.S. government policies in the worst possible light. Why? Maybe because Reuters is sympathetic to the jihadists?
Not true that, you say? Well, if not, Reuters is doing absolutely nothing to allay that impression.
Reuters' odd reporting methods aside. Listening in to international phone calls of suspected jihadists in a targeted manner hardly seems a problem considering that those so upset over such "international privacy" don't seem to have the slightest reservations over U.S. Customs and immigration having long had the right for any reason to question and even strip search anyone they wish (even U.S. citizens -- no warrant necessary) upon their arrival at a U.S. port of entry . . . except, ahem, Mexicans crossing illegally by land from Mexico, of course. ¶ by Robert, 10/15/2006 10:10:00 AM
Honest Reporting, quoting Reuters global managing editor, as reported in the New York Times, September 2004:
"Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor...
..."My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity," he said...
..."My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity," he said...
Curiously, the "news" service has no problem using "emotive words", nor with its "editorial integrity", when it comes to U.S. War on Terror issues. Here's another Reuters example of what makes for supposedly reporting "facts" and not using an "emotive term":
The Bush administration on Friday appealed a federal judge's ruling this summer that a controversial post-September 11, 2001, domestic spying program was illegal...
"Spying" is a deadly serious term, and Americans have always had great worries over any possibility of their government spying on themselves. But is "spying on Americans" really the case here? It doesn't even appear so.
Yet Reuters obviously wants to portray it in that manner . . . given that they didn't phrase that opening accurately to reflect the "facts" as to what constitutes the actual program. You know, as in the following:
The Bush administration on Friday appealed a federal judge's ruling this summer that the post-September 11, 2001 program of targeted eavesdropping of suspected jihadists' international telephone calls was illegal...
One wonders why Reuters might choose not to phrase such a report more in that manner? Perhaps because such truth in advertising might not actually get most people all riled up? Could Reuters' willingness to use a hot-button term like "spying" be because Reuters knows full well that there is no reason to be concerned about its reporters' safety in the U.S.? And not even from the evil Bush administration? And as The National Review told us in September 2001:
...Steven Jukes, Reuter's global head of news, wrote in a memo to his staff in an internal memo (made available to the world by media critic Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post): "We all know," he wrote, "that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist . . ."
In an interview Jukes explained this ruling on the grounds that "We're trying to treat everyone on a level playing field, however tragic it's been and however awful and cataclysmic for the American people . . ."
And he added that "we don't want to jeopardize the safety of our staff . . . in Gaza, the West Bank and Afghanistan . . ."'
In an interview Jukes explained this ruling on the grounds that "We're trying to treat everyone on a level playing field, however tragic it's been and however awful and cataclysmic for the American people . . ."
And he added that "we don't want to jeopardize the safety of our staff . . . in Gaza, the West Bank and Afghanistan . . ."'
Remember that? If it can so willingly play down "terror" in the interest of "non-emotionalism", it should logically also not use a word like "spying" in the above context. For in not doing both, one is left only with the reasonable assumption that Reuters' casual use of words like "domestic spying", while recoiling from using a word like "terrorist", demonstrates a determination to play down jihadism while portraying U.S. government policies in the worst possible light. Why? Maybe because Reuters is sympathetic to the jihadists?
Not true that, you say? Well, if not, Reuters is doing absolutely nothing to allay that impression.
Reuters' odd reporting methods aside. Listening in to international phone calls of suspected jihadists in a targeted manner hardly seems a problem considering that those so upset over such "international privacy" don't seem to have the slightest reservations over U.S. Customs and immigration having long had the right for any reason to question and even strip search anyone they wish (even U.S. citizens -- no warrant necessary) upon their arrival at a U.S. port of entry . . . except, ahem, Mexicans crossing illegally by land from Mexico, of course. ¶ by Robert, 10/15/2006 10:10:00 AM
BLACKPOOL OR CHAMP DE MARS
This story earlier in the week isn't important. But, still, it's worth reflecting upon -- for a Sunday semi-laugh or two at least. (I suspect we all could use one.) ITN tells us:
This (if we might say) apparently "veiled" attempt to market France by Wines of France of course has nothing to do with any desire to improve wine sales? For as Scotland on Sunday told us back in May:
Okay, we'll assume that, errr, nothing so capitalist could possibly be a motivation. Back to ITN:
Why not? All after, those are as good as any other perceived reasons. One can say whatever one likes. (And like lots of people, I happened to have liked "The Da Vinci Code", but certainly don't want to be French. Indeed, I think most of us like lots of films about non-American or non-British places, but that doesn't mean we want to be the nationality depicted in that film of the moment, or to live in whatever is its portrayed location.)
Actually, what that 83 percent who could name the Blackpool Tower really demonstrates is not ignorance, but actually how self-aware the British are. For even though Blackpool Tower is not so much an "international icon" as a British one (for example, most Americans would have heard of the various sights of London, but far fewer would ever have heard of Blackpool), it is supposed to be considered an equivalent to the Eiffel Tower?
And presumably the poll asked people within the UK who might never have been to Blackpool, but who might well have been to Paris? Similarly, how many Americans have been to Paris but never been to, say, Sioux Falls, South Dakota? And how many Brits might have been to Paris but never been to, say, Cardiff? (And let's just say that the 7 percent who'd apparently never heard even of the Eiffel Tower are probably not exactly . . . uh, well, to put it this way, the only views that might really matter are the other 7 percent, who'd at least heard of the Eiffel Tower but NOT of Blackpool's.) But, unsurprisingly, ITN doesn't see such as relevant.
So, making a comparison between the regional Blackpool Tower (height, 519 ft) and the Eiffel Tower (height 324 m, or 1062 ft, which makes the Eiffel twice the height of the Blackpool) strikes me as a lot like asking Americans in Illinois, Montana, Texas and Virginia this: What's the name of the eastern American structural bridge icon that is -- to stretch matters somewhat, but not that much -- the equivalent to San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge? Answer: Of course, as everyone knows, it's the Throgs Neck Bridge.
Again, the UK is far less influenced by London than the more centralized France is by Paris. And the Arc is a far more "internationally renowned" symbol than is Marble Arch. Yes, Londoners would surely have heard of it, but someone in Blackpool who might have never been to London, much less to Marble Arch itself?
Bottom line: if some broadcaster is going to use "a report" (in most other contexts, such "reports" are usually called advertising) to slam Britain, at least they ought to try to do so using honestly like for like comparisons.
Speaking of "like for like" comparisons. Willing to share with us the British equivalents to a French tower and arch, ITN for some reason did not offer a suggestion of Ms Tautou's female British equivalent.
However, this blog, and, especially, its vast number of sharp-minded readers, does not simply make demands without offering suggestions. That being the case, in the spirit of Sky's picture gallery on the story, so, Ms Tautou . . .
. . . is the French equivalent to __________________ of Britain? Feel free in the comments to nominate your choice. (Brave enough on many another front perhaps, on this serious issue I'm not willing to identify one without some support!) ¶ by Robert, 10/15/2006 09:10:00 AM
This story earlier in the week isn't important. But, still, it's worth reflecting upon -- for a Sunday semi-laugh or two at least. (I suspect we all could use one.) ITN tells us:
One in five Britons would prefer to have been born French thanks to the "Thierry Factor", according to a new report.
British residents are said to have been charmed by the rise of French celebrities such as Arsenal footballer Thierry Henry in the UK.
The love of French culture was revealed after more than 1,000 people were asked for their views on Europe, as part of the French Wines Week Report...
British residents are said to have been charmed by the rise of French celebrities such as Arsenal footballer Thierry Henry in the UK.
The love of French culture was revealed after more than 1,000 people were asked for their views on Europe, as part of the French Wines Week Report...
This (if we might say) apparently "veiled" attempt to market France by Wines of France of course has nothing to do with any desire to improve wine sales? For as Scotland on Sunday told us back in May:
WE HAVE been sozzled but now we may be saturated. After a spectacular 25 years of rising wine consumption in Britain, sales have now gone into decline...
Okay, we'll assume that, errr, nothing so capitalist could possibly be a motivation. Back to ITN:
...Nick Wall, editor of France magazine, said the "Thierry Factor" was a major influence in how Britons viewed the French.
Films such as The Da Vinci Code, starring Audrey Tautou and Jean Reno, as well as Russell Crowe's A Good Year, are said to have had an impact on the way we regard the country.
Films such as The Da Vinci Code, starring Audrey Tautou and Jean Reno, as well as Russell Crowe's A Good Year, are said to have had an impact on the way we regard the country.
Why not? All after, those are as good as any other perceived reasons. One can say whatever one likes. (And like lots of people, I happened to have liked "The Da Vinci Code", but certainly don't want to be French. Indeed, I think most of us like lots of films about non-American or non-British places, but that doesn't mean we want to be the nationality depicted in that film of the moment, or to live in whatever is its portrayed location.)
The report, which polled 1,010 adults across the UK this summer, showed Brits seemed to be more aware of French cultural and historic icons than their own ones.
While 93 per cent of British people could name the Eiffel Tower, only 83 per cent could identify Blackpool's equivalent.
While 93 per cent of British people could name the Eiffel Tower, only 83 per cent could identify Blackpool's equivalent.
Actually, what that 83 percent who could name the Blackpool Tower really demonstrates is not ignorance, but actually how self-aware the British are. For even though Blackpool Tower is not so much an "international icon" as a British one (for example, most Americans would have heard of the various sights of London, but far fewer would ever have heard of Blackpool), it is supposed to be considered an equivalent to the Eiffel Tower?
And presumably the poll asked people within the UK who might never have been to Blackpool, but who might well have been to Paris? Similarly, how many Americans have been to Paris but never been to, say, Sioux Falls, South Dakota? And how many Brits might have been to Paris but never been to, say, Cardiff? (And let's just say that the 7 percent who'd apparently never heard even of the Eiffel Tower are probably not exactly . . . uh, well, to put it this way, the only views that might really matter are the other 7 percent, who'd at least heard of the Eiffel Tower but NOT of Blackpool's.) But, unsurprisingly, ITN doesn't see such as relevant.
So, making a comparison between the regional Blackpool Tower (height, 519 ft) and the Eiffel Tower (height 324 m, or 1062 ft, which makes the Eiffel twice the height of the Blackpool) strikes me as a lot like asking Americans in Illinois, Montana, Texas and Virginia this: What's the name of the eastern American structural bridge icon that is -- to stretch matters somewhat, but not that much -- the equivalent to San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge? Answer: Of course, as everyone knows, it's the Throgs Neck Bridge.
And more people could name Paris' Arc de Triomphe (69 per cent) than London's Marble Arch (40 per cent).
Again, the UK is far less influenced by London than the more centralized France is by Paris. And the Arc is a far more "internationally renowned" symbol than is Marble Arch. Yes, Londoners would surely have heard of it, but someone in Blackpool who might have never been to London, much less to Marble Arch itself?
Bottom line: if some broadcaster is going to use "a report" (in most other contexts, such "reports" are usually called advertising) to slam Britain, at least they ought to try to do so using honestly like for like comparisons.
_____________________________
Speaking of "like for like" comparisons. Willing to share with us the British equivalents to a French tower and arch, ITN for some reason did not offer a suggestion of Ms Tautou's female British equivalent.
However, this blog, and, especially, its vast number of sharp-minded readers, does not simply make demands without offering suggestions. That being the case, in the spirit of Sky's picture gallery on the story, so, Ms Tautou . . .
. . . is the French equivalent to __________________ of Britain? Feel free in the comments to nominate your choice. (Brave enough on many another front perhaps, on this serious issue I'm not willing to identify one without some support!) ¶ by Robert, 10/15/2006 09:10:00 AM
NOT A VEIL FOR ALL OCCASIONS
The BBC reports:
It may sound as if she were teaching in a Christian school. She wasn't. C of E schools are essentially English versions of US public schools; Christianity plays little to no role in C of E schools. And a "junior school" is for ages 7-11.
So she is willing to teach a classroom solely of blind children? That despite the fact that the point raised is that children did not understand her lessons as well as they might have.
In any event, that very young, non-Muslim children unused to seeing that outfit might have been too frightened to say anything in class to her directly is apparently not worth considering. But given that we know now how it is an arrestable offense for children to question anything in a classroom, it is probably for the best that none did . . . or we might have come to this issue first via another story on how some 8 year old was tossed into a lock-up for espousing "racism".
Very interesting that admission from her. So what she claims is a required religious duty in all situations adult and male oriented, wasn't so important to observe that she was unwilling to "unveil" herself in front of the male from whom she got the job. ¶ by Robert, 10/15/2006 09:00:00 AM
The BBC reports:
...Kirklees Council said she was asked to take off her veil in class at Headfield Church of England Junior School because the children had difficulty understanding her in English lessons.
It may sound as if she were teaching in a Christian school. She wasn't. C of E schools are essentially English versions of US public schools; Christianity plays little to no role in C of E schools. And a "junior school" is for ages 7-11.
After she refused to remove the veil, it was decided to suspend her pending an employment tribunal.
Ms Azmi told the BBC her veil had not caused problems with the children, with whom she had a "brilliant relationship".
"The children are aware of my body language, my eye expressions, the way I'm saying things.
"If people think it is a problem, what about blind children? They can't see anything but they have a brilliant education, so I don't think my wearing the veil affects the children at all."
Ms Azmi told the BBC her veil had not caused problems with the children, with whom she had a "brilliant relationship".
"The children are aware of my body language, my eye expressions, the way I'm saying things.
"If people think it is a problem, what about blind children? They can't see anything but they have a brilliant education, so I don't think my wearing the veil affects the children at all."
So she is willing to teach a classroom solely of blind children? That despite the fact that the point raised is that children did not understand her lessons as well as they might have.
In any event, that very young, non-Muslim children unused to seeing that outfit might have been too frightened to say anything in class to her directly is apparently not worth considering. But given that we know now how it is an arrestable offense for children to question anything in a classroom, it is probably for the best that none did . . . or we might have come to this issue first via another story on how some 8 year old was tossed into a lock-up for espousing "racism".
But Ms Azmi later admitted she had taken the veil off to be interviewed for the job by a male governor...
Very interesting that admission from her. So what she claims is a required religious duty in all situations adult and male oriented, wasn't so important to observe that she was unwilling to "unveil" herself in front of the male from whom she got the job. ¶ by Robert, 10/15/2006 09:00:00 AM
