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, Thursday, October 19, 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, Wednesday, October 18, 2006

  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, Wednesday, October 18, 2006

  "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, Wednesday, October 18, 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, Tuesday, October 17, 2006

  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):

  ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, October 17, 2006

  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, Tuesday, October 17, 2006

  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, Tuesday, October 17, 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, Monday, October 16, 2006

  "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:

  ¶ by Robert, Monday, October 16, 2006

  "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, Monday, October 16, 2006

  "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:

  ¶ by Robert, Monday, October 16, 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, Sunday, October 15, 2006

  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, Sunday, October 15, 2006

  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, Sunday, October 15, 2006