Saturday, January 31, 2004
HERE WE GO AGAIN
The A.P. reports:
British Airways and Air France on Saturday announced the cancellation of seven flights to and from the United States because of security concerns. The United States has indications of al-Qaida's continued interest in targeting international flights to America, a government official said.
BA canceled four flights between Heathrow Airport and Washington on Sunday and Monday and one from Heathrow to Miami on Sunday. Air France canceled two Paris-to-Washington flights. There are no plans to raise the terror alert in the United States because of the latest threats, Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said.
We remain concerned about al-Qaida's desire to target aviation, especially international aviation," Roehrkasse said.
"The U.S. intelligence community continues to gather specific credible threat information on international flights, as we have done in an ongoing basis in the past few weeks. We have shared this information with our international partners, and will work with them to put in place the appropriate security measures.". . .
So to say that little has changed since September 11, 2001 is certainly untrue. Unlike that day -- on which it seemed that every jihadist who wanted to hijack an aircraft had little problem getting a boarding pass and clearing "security" -- today even innocent travellers have trouble getting on planes. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 31, 2004
The A.P. reports:
British Airways and Air France on Saturday announced the cancellation of seven flights to and from the United States because of security concerns. The United States has indications of al-Qaida's continued interest in targeting international flights to America, a government official said.
BA canceled four flights between Heathrow Airport and Washington on Sunday and Monday and one from Heathrow to Miami on Sunday. Air France canceled two Paris-to-Washington flights. There are no plans to raise the terror alert in the United States because of the latest threats, Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said.
We remain concerned about al-Qaida's desire to target aviation, especially international aviation," Roehrkasse said.
"The U.S. intelligence community continues to gather specific credible threat information on international flights, as we have done in an ongoing basis in the past few weeks. We have shared this information with our international partners, and will work with them to put in place the appropriate security measures.". . .
So to say that little has changed since September 11, 2001 is certainly untrue. Unlike that day -- on which it seemed that every jihadist who wanted to hijack an aircraft had little problem getting a boarding pass and clearing "security" -- today even innocent travellers have trouble getting on planes. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 31, 2004
AND HOW ABOUT THIS LOOSE CANNON?
Last Night's BBC News illustrates how the BBC's news problems extend well beyond Andrew Gilligan's broadcast just after 6 AM, on May 29, 2003. Consider this "report" from the Middle East by -- of course -- Orla Guerin, on January 28:
. . .Guerin begins her report with the image of an Israeli tank firing a rocket at an unseen target, creating the impression that the IDF started the shooting (when in fact the opposite was the case) which left between 8 and 13 Palestinians dead. She states: "Israeli tanks on Palestinian streets targeting 'militants', the army said."
Note the disbelieving tone of Guerin's report. And who does she think the IDF is really targeting?
She explains: "But look at this young boy [lying down on the street covering his head]. We think he survived."
Guerin knows full well that he survived because if he didn't the Palestinians would have shown their friends in the news media (most especially Orla Guerin) his body.
She continues in full sneer mode: "Israel says that it came here to hunt down gunmen and reduce the number of attacks. But now people here have new dead and new reasons to hate." Then she credulously interviews a woman who claims that her husband, a "fighter", was killed today. "'I'm one of the women who want to be a suicide bomber' she told me."
Guerin is no fool. She understands that these wailing women on a street corner holding up pictures of their allegedly dead husbands are part of an elaborately organised spectacle. These demonstrations are staged for naive, or in Guerin's case, dishonest western reporters.
Guerin concludes: "If Israel killed some enemies today it bred more in the next generation."
This isn't reporting, it's an editorial on some metaphysical "cycle of violence" (always initiated by the Israeli military) that seeks to explain, and justify, Palestinian violence, i.e., terrorism.
One of Lord Hutton's central criticisms of the BBC in the Andrew Gilligan scandal was the organisation's appalling lack of editorial control over its reporters. Oral Guerin's relentlessly dishonest reporting from the Middle East is just another example of a problem that isn't about one misstatement by one journalist at 6:07 am on May 29, 2003. The BBC's problem is deeply-rooted and structural. It extends from the very top of the organisation to its bottom: all too often the BBC wants to be a political party rather than a news organisation.
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 31, 2004
Last Night's BBC News illustrates how the BBC's news problems extend well beyond Andrew Gilligan's broadcast just after 6 AM, on May 29, 2003. Consider this "report" from the Middle East by -- of course -- Orla Guerin, on January 28:
. . .Guerin begins her report with the image of an Israeli tank firing a rocket at an unseen target, creating the impression that the IDF started the shooting (when in fact the opposite was the case) which left between 8 and 13 Palestinians dead. She states: "Israeli tanks on Palestinian streets targeting 'militants', the army said."
Note the disbelieving tone of Guerin's report. And who does she think the IDF is really targeting?
She explains: "But look at this young boy [lying down on the street covering his head]. We think he survived."
Guerin knows full well that he survived because if he didn't the Palestinians would have shown their friends in the news media (most especially Orla Guerin) his body.
She continues in full sneer mode: "Israel says that it came here to hunt down gunmen and reduce the number of attacks. But now people here have new dead and new reasons to hate." Then she credulously interviews a woman who claims that her husband, a "fighter", was killed today. "'I'm one of the women who want to be a suicide bomber' she told me."
Guerin is no fool. She understands that these wailing women on a street corner holding up pictures of their allegedly dead husbands are part of an elaborately organised spectacle. These demonstrations are staged for naive, or in Guerin's case, dishonest western reporters.
Guerin concludes: "If Israel killed some enemies today it bred more in the next generation."
This isn't reporting, it's an editorial on some metaphysical "cycle of violence" (always initiated by the Israeli military) that seeks to explain, and justify, Palestinian violence, i.e., terrorism.
One of Lord Hutton's central criticisms of the BBC in the Andrew Gilligan scandal was the organisation's appalling lack of editorial control over its reporters. Oral Guerin's relentlessly dishonest reporting from the Middle East is just another example of a problem that isn't about one misstatement by one journalist at 6:07 am on May 29, 2003. The BBC's problem is deeply-rooted and structural. It extends from the very top of the organisation to its bottom: all too often the BBC wants to be a political party rather than a news organisation.
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 31, 2004
GILLI-GONE
He probably never thought that his biased, sloppy reporting would cost him his job. It has. The Telegraph reports (login required):
Andrew Gilligan, the BBC reporter whose story provoked the Hutton inquiry and the worst crisis in the corporation's history, bowed to the inevitable last night and resigned.
He admitted that some of his story claiming that the Government had "sexed up" its Iraq weapons dossier was wrong. "I again apologise for that," he said.
But he insisted that the Government did "sex up" the dossier, despite Lord Hutton's finding that it did not. . .
The only bitter-enders ain't found in Fallujah, that's for sure.
Meanwhile, the BBC itself notes:
Meanwhile many BBC staff have backed former director general Greg Dyke in an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph.
Thousands of employees have put their names to a statement which says they are dismayed at his departure.
But they say they are determined to maintain Mr Dyke's vision of the BBC as an independent organisation, serving the public. . .
You would never see such an ad placed by another television channel's news service, or another newspaper, or independent radio. Isn't it wonderful to see TV license tax monies being put to such good use?
Think about it this way. That tax is paying the salaries of journalists who then turn around and buy ads in the Telegraph demanding their "independence". But those same journalists are forever adamant that they deserve to be financed from the public trough. That they see nothing inherently contradictory in those facts speaks volumes about their attitudes -- and their arrogance.
Actually, they are not so much journalists as like rebellious teenagers: They demand parental allowances, but simultaneously also demand their "independence" to use the parents' money any damn way they want to. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 31, 2004
He probably never thought that his biased, sloppy reporting would cost him his job. It has. The Telegraph reports (login required):
Andrew Gilligan, the BBC reporter whose story provoked the Hutton inquiry and the worst crisis in the corporation's history, bowed to the inevitable last night and resigned.
He admitted that some of his story claiming that the Government had "sexed up" its Iraq weapons dossier was wrong. "I again apologise for that," he said.
But he insisted that the Government did "sex up" the dossier, despite Lord Hutton's finding that it did not. . .
The only bitter-enders ain't found in Fallujah, that's for sure.
Meanwhile, the BBC itself notes:
Meanwhile many BBC staff have backed former director general Greg Dyke in an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph.
Thousands of employees have put their names to a statement which says they are dismayed at his departure.
But they say they are determined to maintain Mr Dyke's vision of the BBC as an independent organisation, serving the public. . .
You would never see such an ad placed by another television channel's news service, or another newspaper, or independent radio. Isn't it wonderful to see TV license tax monies being put to such good use?
Think about it this way. That tax is paying the salaries of journalists who then turn around and buy ads in the Telegraph demanding their "independence". But those same journalists are forever adamant that they deserve to be financed from the public trough. That they see nothing inherently contradictory in those facts speaks volumes about their attitudes -- and their arrogance.
Actually, they are not so much journalists as like rebellious teenagers: They demand parental allowances, but simultaneously also demand their "independence" to use the parents' money any damn way they want to. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 31, 2004
THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC CONSERVATIVES
For a little laugh, I thought I'd look at the British Conservative party's web site, on Hutton:
Michael Howard has made a dramatic call to Britain's press and media to stand up to bullying by the Blair regime. . .
. . . Addressing a Kent Journalist of the Year awards ceremony, Mr Howard said: "When all is said and done, no-one should underestimate the vital nature of the role of the free press, broadcast and print, in sustaining a vigorous and healthy democracy. If they were ever to become Government puppets, our democracy would be truly in peril.". . .
Where in heaven's name has Conservative leader Michael Howard been since at least the autumn of 2002? The above utterly misses the point. Freedom of the press is in no danger in this country. (Unless one is Robert Kilroy-Silk, of course.)
Howard manages to overlook the salient point: the BBC is not just any ordinary news-gathering or media service; it is the only one that is taxpayer-funded.
One would think that Howard, supposedly being a conservative, would appreciate any government's choosing to express its disgust at this BBC. After all, it is an entity that increasingly, and openly, behaves not so much as a broadcaster that has been granted a privileged, taxpayer-funded position, but more like an independent political actor all its own.
In fact, the BBC is also one that (at least until last Thursday) appears certain that it has the unchallengeable "right" even to abuse that role. Such smugness has caused the BBC finally to reach the point where it is often broadcasting garbage -- and is proud to do so! Someone at the Beeb might want to step back a moment, dig up a Bible -- they must have one around someplace -- and find Proverbs 16:18: "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
Overall, the Blair government's biggest problem is it is a Labour government. Labour remains at its heart a big spending, socialist party, which rejects the notion of democracy as an end in itself. On the contrary, Labour grandees underneath everything loathe voters who don't fall into line with socialism's premise that the masses were placed on this earth merely to pay increasingly burdensome taxes, in order to fund the socialist revolutionary vanguard's dreams of societal perfection.
Within that framework, the Blair government has made varied domestic missteps an agile and imaginative opposition should have had little trouble opposing and even exploiting. Yet instead of targeting such, for idiotic reasons that remain unclear, the Conservatives -- like too many Democrats in the U.S. -- for example cannot bring themselves to commit themselves fully to the blindingly obvious on one of the major issues of the day: "The liberation of Iraq was correct, and if we [Conservatives] had been in power, we would have done exactly what the Blair government did. However, on other issues -- from taxation, to education, to defense spending, and so on -- we disagree with the Blair government. And if we were elected, here's what we'd do instead. . ."
On Hutton, and increasingly on Iraq, rather than being conservatives, the Conservative Party has inexplicably chosen the same side of the fence as the screwball, Liberal Democrats. Indeed, the Conservatives might consider at last just merging with Lib Dems. The expanded party could simply re-style itself the Liberal Democratic Conservatives, and be done with it.
Doing that will put to rest at long last the silly notion still held by many -- that Britain doesn't already have three leftist parties.
As for real conservatives? Their last major sighting in Britain was some 15 years ago. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 31, 2004
For a little laugh, I thought I'd look at the British Conservative party's web site, on Hutton:
Michael Howard has made a dramatic call to Britain's press and media to stand up to bullying by the Blair regime. . .
. . . Addressing a Kent Journalist of the Year awards ceremony, Mr Howard said: "When all is said and done, no-one should underestimate the vital nature of the role of the free press, broadcast and print, in sustaining a vigorous and healthy democracy. If they were ever to become Government puppets, our democracy would be truly in peril.". . .
Where in heaven's name has Conservative leader Michael Howard been since at least the autumn of 2002? The above utterly misses the point. Freedom of the press is in no danger in this country. (Unless one is Robert Kilroy-Silk, of course.)
Howard manages to overlook the salient point: the BBC is not just any ordinary news-gathering or media service; it is the only one that is taxpayer-funded.
One would think that Howard, supposedly being a conservative, would appreciate any government's choosing to express its disgust at this BBC. After all, it is an entity that increasingly, and openly, behaves not so much as a broadcaster that has been granted a privileged, taxpayer-funded position, but more like an independent political actor all its own.
In fact, the BBC is also one that (at least until last Thursday) appears certain that it has the unchallengeable "right" even to abuse that role. Such smugness has caused the BBC finally to reach the point where it is often broadcasting garbage -- and is proud to do so! Someone at the Beeb might want to step back a moment, dig up a Bible -- they must have one around someplace -- and find Proverbs 16:18: "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
Overall, the Blair government's biggest problem is it is a Labour government. Labour remains at its heart a big spending, socialist party, which rejects the notion of democracy as an end in itself. On the contrary, Labour grandees underneath everything loathe voters who don't fall into line with socialism's premise that the masses were placed on this earth merely to pay increasingly burdensome taxes, in order to fund the socialist revolutionary vanguard's dreams of societal perfection.
Within that framework, the Blair government has made varied domestic missteps an agile and imaginative opposition should have had little trouble opposing and even exploiting. Yet instead of targeting such, for idiotic reasons that remain unclear, the Conservatives -- like too many Democrats in the U.S. -- for example cannot bring themselves to commit themselves fully to the blindingly obvious on one of the major issues of the day: "The liberation of Iraq was correct, and if we [Conservatives] had been in power, we would have done exactly what the Blair government did. However, on other issues -- from taxation, to education, to defense spending, and so on -- we disagree with the Blair government. And if we were elected, here's what we'd do instead. . ."
On Hutton, and increasingly on Iraq, rather than being conservatives, the Conservative Party has inexplicably chosen the same side of the fence as the screwball, Liberal Democrats. Indeed, the Conservatives might consider at last just merging with Lib Dems. The expanded party could simply re-style itself the Liberal Democratic Conservatives, and be done with it.
Doing that will put to rest at long last the silly notion still held by many -- that Britain doesn't already have three leftist parties.
As for real conservatives? Their last major sighting in Britain was some 15 years ago. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 31, 2004
Friday, January 30, 2004
"SERIOUS MORAL GOALS"
It is worth bearing in mind that this photo of Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, accepting a medal from Arafat was -- according to the A.P. -- taken on January 29 . . .
. . . which was the same day one of Arafat's "policemen" blew himself up on a Jerusalem bus.
But just in case we didn't fully realize it, that "policeman" was pursuing his own "serious moral goals." ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 30, 2004
It is worth bearing in mind that this photo of Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, accepting a medal from Arafat was -- according to the A.P. -- taken on January 29 . . .
. . . which was the same day one of Arafat's "policemen" blew himself up on a Jerusalem bus.
But just in case we didn't fully realize it, that "policeman" was pursuing his own "serious moral goals." ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 30, 2004
HERE'S A SOLUTION
Post-Hutton, the National Union of Journalists aims to defend the BBC's Andrew Gilligan. The Evening Standard reports:
Strike action in defence of Andrew Gilligan was today threatened by the National Union of Journalists.
Journalist Mr Gilligan will have the union's "complete support" if the BBC takes disciplinary action following Lord Hutton's report, said NUJ general secretary Jeremy Dear. . .
. . ."The worst thing that could come out of the Hutton report would be for journalists to become timid in the face of government attempts to manipulate the news agenda."
Mr Dear added: "Whatever failings there were in just one of Andrew's reports - and he did no fewer than 19 on that first day alone - there has never been any doubt that his story was in the public interest."
And The Times had this yesterday:
Hundreds of BBC staff today staged walkouts in protest at the departure of Greg Dyke, their Director-General over the Kelly affair.
A small demonstration outside Broadcasting House in central London began shortly after 3pm, a little over an hour after Mr Dyke made his resignation public. The protest lasted about an hour in freezing temperatures. . .
. . .Richard Curtis, 35, an engineer at Radio 4, said: "My main concern is with the climbing down. The news gatherers will stop their task of questioning the Government and holding it to account."
Martin Montague, 31, a producer on digital radio station BBC7, added: "Greg should never have gone, he's done so much for the Corporation. I know that people in local radio think he walks on water because of all that he's put into that.
"As for the Hutton Report, the word whitewash comes to mind."
Harry Matharu, 42, who works in the BBC's technology department, said outside Broadcasting House: "I'm totally shocked and devastated, just like the majority of staff in the BBC. Greg has done more for the BBC than anyone else. He's approachable, caring and listens to staff at all levels. . .
. . .The National Union of Journalists supported the demonstrations as "spontaneous outbursts of anger" over Government "interference" in the BBC.
Jeremy Dear, the union's general secretary said that the corporation's management should have stood up to the Government. . .
If the National Union of Journalists want BBC journalists to be able to report whatever rubbish they see fit, that's fine. However, BBC journalists should not be paid out of my pocket, through the TV license tax.
I can read the Sun if I want to, or not. And I can read the Guardian if I want to, or not. And if enough people don't buy those papers because they are junk, the papers go out of business.
But I am compelled to pay Andrew Gilligan's salary. And the BBC can never go out of business, regardless of the level of its junk reporting. Wonderful work, if one can get it.
Actually, the idea of journalists going on strike is intriguing. Could we live without them? Hmmm?
But maybe there's a solution?
The BBC claims it has only society's best interests at heart, and wishes to stand up to evil government. Very commendable that. As Jefferson and so many others have noted, a free press is essential for a free society.
But that doesn't mean we should be taxed to support that press. Enough is enough. BBC News should be privatized. And just the news division. The rest of the viewing could be kept commercial free. But the newscasts would need sponsors, just as things now work on ITV and on SKY.
And the newly private, BBC news division would begin to learn what it is like to live in the real world -- especially what it is like to be responsible to real authority, like most other journalists. After all, most journalists don't have the same luxury as BBC journalists -- with the latter able to earn livings through what they demand remain essentially unaccountable, yet always taxpayer-supported, media. ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 30, 2004
Post-Hutton, the National Union of Journalists aims to defend the BBC's Andrew Gilligan. The Evening Standard reports:
Strike action in defence of Andrew Gilligan was today threatened by the National Union of Journalists.
Journalist Mr Gilligan will have the union's "complete support" if the BBC takes disciplinary action following Lord Hutton's report, said NUJ general secretary Jeremy Dear. . .
. . ."The worst thing that could come out of the Hutton report would be for journalists to become timid in the face of government attempts to manipulate the news agenda."
Mr Dear added: "Whatever failings there were in just one of Andrew's reports - and he did no fewer than 19 on that first day alone - there has never been any doubt that his story was in the public interest."
And The Times had this yesterday:
Hundreds of BBC staff today staged walkouts in protest at the departure of Greg Dyke, their Director-General over the Kelly affair.
A small demonstration outside Broadcasting House in central London began shortly after 3pm, a little over an hour after Mr Dyke made his resignation public. The protest lasted about an hour in freezing temperatures. . .
. . .Richard Curtis, 35, an engineer at Radio 4, said: "My main concern is with the climbing down. The news gatherers will stop their task of questioning the Government and holding it to account."
Martin Montague, 31, a producer on digital radio station BBC7, added: "Greg should never have gone, he's done so much for the Corporation. I know that people in local radio think he walks on water because of all that he's put into that.
"As for the Hutton Report, the word whitewash comes to mind."
Harry Matharu, 42, who works in the BBC's technology department, said outside Broadcasting House: "I'm totally shocked and devastated, just like the majority of staff in the BBC. Greg has done more for the BBC than anyone else. He's approachable, caring and listens to staff at all levels. . .
. . .The National Union of Journalists supported the demonstrations as "spontaneous outbursts of anger" over Government "interference" in the BBC.
Jeremy Dear, the union's general secretary said that the corporation's management should have stood up to the Government. . .
If the National Union of Journalists want BBC journalists to be able to report whatever rubbish they see fit, that's fine. However, BBC journalists should not be paid out of my pocket, through the TV license tax.
I can read the Sun if I want to, or not. And I can read the Guardian if I want to, or not. And if enough people don't buy those papers because they are junk, the papers go out of business.
But I am compelled to pay Andrew Gilligan's salary. And the BBC can never go out of business, regardless of the level of its junk reporting. Wonderful work, if one can get it.
Actually, the idea of journalists going on strike is intriguing. Could we live without them? Hmmm?
But maybe there's a solution?
The BBC claims it has only society's best interests at heart, and wishes to stand up to evil government. Very commendable that. As Jefferson and so many others have noted, a free press is essential for a free society.
But that doesn't mean we should be taxed to support that press. Enough is enough. BBC News should be privatized. And just the news division. The rest of the viewing could be kept commercial free. But the newscasts would need sponsors, just as things now work on ITV and on SKY.
And the newly private, BBC news division would begin to learn what it is like to live in the real world -- especially what it is like to be responsible to real authority, like most other journalists. After all, most journalists don't have the same luxury as BBC journalists -- with the latter able to earn livings through what they demand remain essentially unaccountable, yet always taxpayer-supported, media. ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 30, 2004
Thursday, January 29, 2004
A U.K. PASSPORT HOLDER?
The A.P. reports:
Peacekeepers and local authorities tightened security in the Afghan capital Thursday as they sought to determine who was behind the suicide attacks that killed two foreign soldiers in the last two days. . .
. . .At the camp of the British contingent in eastern Kabul, meanwhile, troops held a private memorial ceremony for a soldier killed Wednesday by a bomber driving a taxi. . .
. . .Four British soldiers were wounded, two of them seriously, by the blast. An Afghan translator also was slightly injured. . .
From the Press Association, AOL's online news is reporting (and this AOL link probably won't last too long, but if there's anything to this, it will be appearing elsewhere shortly) that:
REPORTS a suicide bomber said to have carried out an attack which killed a British soldier in Afghanistan was a UK passport holder were being checked today by the Foreign Office. . .
. . . According to reports, the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, saying the bomber was an Algerian-born British national in his twenties.
A spokeswoman for the Foreign Office said it had not yet confirmed if the suspected suicide bomber was a British passport holder. "We have heard the rumour that he was an Algerian-born British passport holder, but that was from press reporting,'' she said, adding that the reports were being checked. . .
By the way: About those supposedly "unjustly held", Guantanamo-interned, British passport holders. . .
Oh, never mind. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 29, 2004
The A.P. reports:
Peacekeepers and local authorities tightened security in the Afghan capital Thursday as they sought to determine who was behind the suicide attacks that killed two foreign soldiers in the last two days. . .
. . .At the camp of the British contingent in eastern Kabul, meanwhile, troops held a private memorial ceremony for a soldier killed Wednesday by a bomber driving a taxi. . .
. . .Four British soldiers were wounded, two of them seriously, by the blast. An Afghan translator also was slightly injured. . .
From the Press Association, AOL's online news is reporting (and this AOL link probably won't last too long, but if there's anything to this, it will be appearing elsewhere shortly) that:
REPORTS a suicide bomber said to have carried out an attack which killed a British soldier in Afghanistan was a UK passport holder were being checked today by the Foreign Office. . .
. . . According to reports, the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, saying the bomber was an Algerian-born British national in his twenties.
A spokeswoman for the Foreign Office said it had not yet confirmed if the suspected suicide bomber was a British passport holder. "We have heard the rumour that he was an Algerian-born British passport holder, but that was from press reporting,'' she said, adding that the reports were being checked. . .
By the way: About those supposedly "unjustly held", Guantanamo-interned, British passport holders. . .
Oh, never mind. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 29, 2004
THE HEADS CONTINUE TO ROLL
Yesterday, I had written accidently that the BBC's Greg Dyke had resigned. As it turned out, I was just 24 hours early. Dyke has just resigned. The BBC, reporting on itself, tells us:
Director general Greg Dyke has quit as the BBC's crisis deepens in the wake of Lord Hutton's damning verdict.
Mr Dyke's decision to step down follows BBC chairman Gavyn Davies' resignation on Wednesday, shortly after the law lord's report was published.
The pair quit after the most serious claims in Andrew Gilligan's BBC's reports were branded "unfounded". . .
Gee, what a shock. After all, shouldn't news-gathering organizations be permitted to report blatant untruths, and never be questioned about them? ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 29, 2004
Yesterday, I had written accidently that the BBC's Greg Dyke had resigned. As it turned out, I was just 24 hours early. Dyke has just resigned. The BBC, reporting on itself, tells us:
Director general Greg Dyke has quit as the BBC's crisis deepens in the wake of Lord Hutton's damning verdict.
Mr Dyke's decision to step down follows BBC chairman Gavyn Davies' resignation on Wednesday, shortly after the law lord's report was published.
The pair quit after the most serious claims in Andrew Gilligan's BBC's reports were branded "unfounded". . .
Gee, what a shock. After all, shouldn't news-gathering organizations be permitted to report blatant untruths, and never be questioned about them? ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 29, 2004
WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND. . .
CNN reports:
At least 10 people were killed and 45 wounded -- many seriously -- Thursday morning when a suicide bomber detonated aboard a bus on Azza Street, near Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's residence in Jerusalem, Israeli police and medical sources said.
At least CNN didn't put the killer and the killed into the same paragraph. But the next sentence is clearly a case of reporting the obvious:
The bomber also died in the attack. . .
I suppose we can all presume that somewhere Jenny Tonge is, even now, trying to better understand. . .
FOX News is reporting:
. . .There were no immediate claims of responsibility, but several unconfirmed reports indicated the attacker may have been a woman, Fox News has learned. Palestinian terror groups have recently begun to favor the use of women bombers because of they tend to be less suspicious to Israeli soldiers and police. . .
That's right, Jenny -- it is carefully conceived, war tactic.
UPDATE: It now appears that FOX's "unconfirmed reports" were wrong, but only insofar as THIS attacker having been male. The BBC tells us:
. . .Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a militia loosely tied to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, claimed responsibility in calls to news organisations.
The bomber was named as Ali Munir Ja'ara a policeman from the Aida refugee camp near the West Bank town of Bethlehem. . .
Curious that the BBC describes it as the "West Bank town of Bethlehem." Several billion people would be more likely to think of it as Christ's birthplace. Such is the level of the depravity: From the vicinity of Christ's birth come, nowadays, suicide bombers, aiming to kill as many Jews as possible.
Oh, and although not female, the policeman attacker, part of an organization at war with the state of Israel, must nevertheless have been full of that despair with which Jenny Tonge identified so closely. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 29, 2004
CNN reports:
At least 10 people were killed and 45 wounded -- many seriously -- Thursday morning when a suicide bomber detonated aboard a bus on Azza Street, near Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's residence in Jerusalem, Israeli police and medical sources said.
At least CNN didn't put the killer and the killed into the same paragraph. But the next sentence is clearly a case of reporting the obvious:
The bomber also died in the attack. . .
I suppose we can all presume that somewhere Jenny Tonge is, even now, trying to better understand. . .
FOX News is reporting:
. . .There were no immediate claims of responsibility, but several unconfirmed reports indicated the attacker may have been a woman, Fox News has learned. Palestinian terror groups have recently begun to favor the use of women bombers because of they tend to be less suspicious to Israeli soldiers and police. . .
That's right, Jenny -- it is carefully conceived, war tactic.
UPDATE: It now appears that FOX's "unconfirmed reports" were wrong, but only insofar as THIS attacker having been male. The BBC tells us:
. . .Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a militia loosely tied to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, claimed responsibility in calls to news organisations.
The bomber was named as Ali Munir Ja'ara a policeman from the Aida refugee camp near the West Bank town of Bethlehem. . .
Curious that the BBC describes it as the "West Bank town of Bethlehem." Several billion people would be more likely to think of it as Christ's birthplace. Such is the level of the depravity: From the vicinity of Christ's birth come, nowadays, suicide bombers, aiming to kill as many Jews as possible.
Oh, and although not female, the policeman attacker, part of an organization at war with the state of Israel, must nevertheless have been full of that despair with which Jenny Tonge identified so closely. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 29, 2004
IT WAS TOO GOOD?
On Hutton, the BBC's Andrew Marr had been quoted as saying:
. . ."In the end what it comes down to is a judgement by Lord Hutton - who he believes, whose motives he trusts most and in that, again and again, he comes down on the side of politicians and officials.". . .
Indeed, the report makes Blair look "too good", if Andrew Marr's piece below is to be believed. Marr writes:
It was so good for Tony Blair that some of his closest allies in the government were worried that it was frankly too good.
Ah, "closest allies in the government." And those people would be? How about some names?
Sorry. I forgot. The BBC doesn't do names -- only character assassination through insinuations, accusations and mischaracterizations of and by (hopefully) unnamed sources. That, we are told, is supposed to be "good journalism".
Did Lord Hutton's unexpectedly unambiguous and full-hearted endorsement of almost every act by ministers and civil servants in the Kelly affair look like a whitewash?
Certainly, it could hardly have been better for Mr Blair.
Maybe that's simply because Blair and his team were unfairly treated? Nah, couldn't be that.
He was cleared in detail and in general of almost every accusation that had been levelled at him; and where there was an apparent contradiction, as with his statement to reporters about having no involvement in the release of Dr Kelly's name, the prime minister was given the benefit of the doubt.
Speaking of "apparent." Marr "apparently" chooses to overlook that granting an accused the "benefit of the doubt" is what is generally done in the routine, criminal justice system. Or would Marr prefer that we didn't?
Oh, well. Just details.
Yet aren't those what got the BBC into hot water in the first place over all this? ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 29, 2004
On Hutton, the BBC's Andrew Marr had been quoted as saying:
. . ."In the end what it comes down to is a judgement by Lord Hutton - who he believes, whose motives he trusts most and in that, again and again, he comes down on the side of politicians and officials.". . .
Indeed, the report makes Blair look "too good", if Andrew Marr's piece below is to be believed. Marr writes:
It was so good for Tony Blair that some of his closest allies in the government were worried that it was frankly too good.
Ah, "closest allies in the government." And those people would be? How about some names?
Sorry. I forgot. The BBC doesn't do names -- only character assassination through insinuations, accusations and mischaracterizations of and by (hopefully) unnamed sources. That, we are told, is supposed to be "good journalism".
Did Lord Hutton's unexpectedly unambiguous and full-hearted endorsement of almost every act by ministers and civil servants in the Kelly affair look like a whitewash?
Certainly, it could hardly have been better for Mr Blair.
Maybe that's simply because Blair and his team were unfairly treated? Nah, couldn't be that.
He was cleared in detail and in general of almost every accusation that had been levelled at him; and where there was an apparent contradiction, as with his statement to reporters about having no involvement in the release of Dr Kelly's name, the prime minister was given the benefit of the doubt.
Speaking of "apparent." Marr "apparently" chooses to overlook that granting an accused the "benefit of the doubt" is what is generally done in the routine, criminal justice system. Or would Marr prefer that we didn't?
Oh, well. Just details.
Yet aren't those what got the BBC into hot water in the first place over all this? ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 29, 2004
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
BUT WILL THE BBC LEARN ANYTHING?
The BBC -- reporting objectively on itself, of course -- tells us:
Lord Hutton has criticised the BBC as he cleared the government of embellishing its Iraq weapons dossier in his long-awaited report on the death of Dr David Kelly.
The claim in BBC reports that the government "sexed up" its dossier on Iraq's weapons was "unfounded", he said.
The retired law lord highlighted "defective" BBC editorial processes over defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan's broadcasts of the claims on the Today programme. . .
They spent a great deal of time and presumably a large amount of money on this inquiry. And it agrees more or less with what many bloggers have been stating in various forms -- and for free! -- from the inquiry's outset. (For examples by yours truly, see here and here and here, and here, among others.)
Now -- and reasonably -- Blair wants an apology. The Beeb continues:
Tony Blair has called on those who accused him of lying about Iraq's weapons to withdraw their allegations in the wake of Lord Hutton's report.
Mr Blair said the "real lie" was the claim he had misled the country by falsifying intelligence on weapons of mass destruction or lied to MPs.
Despite the claims being "completely untrue" the BBC had never "clearly and visibly withdrawn this allegation". . .
And the BBC must have had particular difficulty posting this. The evil Campbell is "exonerated":
Former Downing Street press chief Alastair Campbell did not "sex-up" the Iraq dossier with a claim he knew to be untrue, Lord Hutton has found.
BBC correspondent Andrew Gilligan's story alleging the government had embellished the dossier by adding the 45-minute claim was "unfounded", Lord Hutton said. . .
About an hour ago, BBC Chairman Gavyn Davies (UPDATE: I had mistakenly written Greg Dyke) resigned:
BBC chairman Gavyn Davies has resigned in the wake of Lord Hutton's criticisms of the corporation's reports.
Mr Davies told the corporation's governors of his decision as they met at 1700 GMT.
It comes after Lord Hutton said the suggestion in BBC reports that the government "sexed up" its dossier on Iraq's weapons with unreliable intelligence was "unfounded". . .
Oh, and this observation by the BBC's Andrew Marr is nearly worth framing:
. . ."In the end what it comes down to is a judgement by Lord Hutton - who he believes, whose motives he trusts most and in that, again and again, he comes down on the side of politicians and officials.". . .
No, Andrew. Actually, it is about lying and manipulation of facts by a publicly financed broadcasting corporation, which apparently believes it has the right to say anything it likes, fundamental accuracy be damned.
And the post-Hutton "second-guessing" has begun. Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats remain as clueless as they were pre-Hutton:
. . .For the Tories, Michael Howard said his party too accepted Lord Hutton's report but asked for a wider independent inquiry into the circumstances that led to Britain going to war with Iraq. . .
And taking time out from dealing with frontbenchers who could see themselves as suicide bombers, Charles Kennedy opines:
. . .Lord Hutton's inquiry had not been allowed to look into the "most fundamental question" which was why the UK went to war with Iraq. . .
Brilliant, gentlemen.
Interesting also is this. The Sun (not considered by most to represent "quality journalism") reported the truth, even if gathered from a leak, apparently.
That is unlike the BBC, which was purportedly reporting from a leak, too. In the BBC's case, it stretched the truth beyond the breaking point.
Bettered by the Sun. How sad for the Beeb -- and for its pompous Andrew Marr. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 28, 2004
The BBC -- reporting objectively on itself, of course -- tells us:
Lord Hutton has criticised the BBC as he cleared the government of embellishing its Iraq weapons dossier in his long-awaited report on the death of Dr David Kelly.
The claim in BBC reports that the government "sexed up" its dossier on Iraq's weapons was "unfounded", he said.
The retired law lord highlighted "defective" BBC editorial processes over defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan's broadcasts of the claims on the Today programme. . .
They spent a great deal of time and presumably a large amount of money on this inquiry. And it agrees more or less with what many bloggers have been stating in various forms -- and for free! -- from the inquiry's outset. (For examples by yours truly, see here and here and here, and here, among others.)
Now -- and reasonably -- Blair wants an apology. The Beeb continues:
Tony Blair has called on those who accused him of lying about Iraq's weapons to withdraw their allegations in the wake of Lord Hutton's report.
Mr Blair said the "real lie" was the claim he had misled the country by falsifying intelligence on weapons of mass destruction or lied to MPs.
Despite the claims being "completely untrue" the BBC had never "clearly and visibly withdrawn this allegation". . .
And the BBC must have had particular difficulty posting this. The evil Campbell is "exonerated":
Former Downing Street press chief Alastair Campbell did not "sex-up" the Iraq dossier with a claim he knew to be untrue, Lord Hutton has found.
BBC correspondent Andrew Gilligan's story alleging the government had embellished the dossier by adding the 45-minute claim was "unfounded", Lord Hutton said. . .
About an hour ago, BBC Chairman Gavyn Davies (UPDATE: I had mistakenly written Greg Dyke) resigned:
BBC chairman Gavyn Davies has resigned in the wake of Lord Hutton's criticisms of the corporation's reports.
Mr Davies told the corporation's governors of his decision as they met at 1700 GMT.
It comes after Lord Hutton said the suggestion in BBC reports that the government "sexed up" its dossier on Iraq's weapons with unreliable intelligence was "unfounded". . .
Oh, and this observation by the BBC's Andrew Marr is nearly worth framing:
. . ."In the end what it comes down to is a judgement by Lord Hutton - who he believes, whose motives he trusts most and in that, again and again, he comes down on the side of politicians and officials.". . .
No, Andrew. Actually, it is about lying and manipulation of facts by a publicly financed broadcasting corporation, which apparently believes it has the right to say anything it likes, fundamental accuracy be damned.
And the post-Hutton "second-guessing" has begun. Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats remain as clueless as they were pre-Hutton:
. . .For the Tories, Michael Howard said his party too accepted Lord Hutton's report but asked for a wider independent inquiry into the circumstances that led to Britain going to war with Iraq. . .
And taking time out from dealing with frontbenchers who could see themselves as suicide bombers, Charles Kennedy opines:
. . .Lord Hutton's inquiry had not been allowed to look into the "most fundamental question" which was why the UK went to war with Iraq. . .
Brilliant, gentlemen.
Interesting also is this. The Sun (not considered by most to represent "quality journalism") reported the truth, even if gathered from a leak, apparently.
That is unlike the BBC, which was purportedly reporting from a leak, too. In the BBC's case, it stretched the truth beyond the breaking point.
Bettered by the Sun. How sad for the Beeb -- and for its pompous Andrew Marr. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 28, 2004
GEORGE IN LE MONDE
The French newspaper Le Monde, not exactly a friend of the coalition's overthrow of Saddam Hussein, has published a list of some people it claims were paid by Saddam.
And look who gets a paragraph, all to himself:
Georges Gallaway, ancien député travailliste aux Communes, figure en bonne place dans la liste. Son nom est mentionné dans six contrats et le journal publie une lettre de la SOMO en date du 31 décembre 1999, signée par Saddam Zbin, cousin de Saddam Hussein qui gérait cette société et dans laquelle il demande au ministère du pétrole de lui accorder des contrats. Apparemment, ce parlementaire britannique a été particulièrement bien traité. Mais il n'est pas le seul.
That's right -- former Labour MP and Saddam apologist, George Galloway. Instapundit provides this Google translation -- which isn't fantastic, but it gives one the gist:
George Gallaway, former Labour deputy with the Communes, appears in good place in the list. Its name is mentioned in six contracts and the newspaper publishes a letter of the SOMO on December 31, 1999, signed by Saddam Zbin, cousin of Saddam Hussein which managed this company and in which it asks for the ministry for oil of grant contracts to him. Apparently, this British member of Parliament was particularly well treated. But it is not only.
Presumably, Galloway now has someone else to sue.
Interestingly, British MP Galloway gets no mention in this BBC report on the issue, even though Galloway's name appears prominently in the Le Monde article. The BBC report even links to Le Monde, which itself cites, and as the BBC report states, that the al Mada piece is the original source.
So the BBC report here chooses to emphasize the French former Interior Minister Charles Pasqua without mentioning the British Galloway. But isn't it supposed to be the "British Broadcasting Corporation"? Clearly, there should be an, urrr, inquiry into this. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 28, 2004
The French newspaper Le Monde, not exactly a friend of the coalition's overthrow of Saddam Hussein, has published a list of some people it claims were paid by Saddam.
And look who gets a paragraph, all to himself:
Georges Gallaway, ancien député travailliste aux Communes, figure en bonne place dans la liste. Son nom est mentionné dans six contrats et le journal publie une lettre de la SOMO en date du 31 décembre 1999, signée par Saddam Zbin, cousin de Saddam Hussein qui gérait cette société et dans laquelle il demande au ministère du pétrole de lui accorder des contrats. Apparemment, ce parlementaire britannique a été particulièrement bien traité. Mais il n'est pas le seul.
That's right -- former Labour MP and Saddam apologist, George Galloway. Instapundit provides this Google translation -- which isn't fantastic, but it gives one the gist:
George Gallaway, former Labour deputy with the Communes, appears in good place in the list. Its name is mentioned in six contracts and the newspaper publishes a letter of the SOMO on December 31, 1999, signed by Saddam Zbin, cousin of Saddam Hussein which managed this company and in which it asks for the ministry for oil of grant contracts to him. Apparently, this British member of Parliament was particularly well treated. But it is not only.
Presumably, Galloway now has someone else to sue.
Interestingly, British MP Galloway gets no mention in this BBC report on the issue, even though Galloway's name appears prominently in the Le Monde article. The BBC report even links to Le Monde, which itself cites, and as the BBC report states, that the al Mada piece is the original source.
So the BBC report here chooses to emphasize the French former Interior Minister Charles Pasqua without mentioning the British Galloway. But isn't it supposed to be the "British Broadcasting Corporation"? Clearly, there should be an, urrr, inquiry into this. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 28, 2004
THE CHILLING PHONE CALL
We hadn't heard this publicly before. CNN reports:
The flight attendant's voice was calm and composed, but her telephoned words to the American Airlines operations center the morning of September 11, 2001, were chilling.
"The cockpit's not answering," flight attendant Betty Ong said. "Somebody's stabbed in business class, and, um, I think there's Mace that we can't breathe. I don't know; I think we are getting hijacked."
Ong, 45, was on board American Airlines Flight 11, the Boeing 767 en route from Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles, California, that was flown into the north tower of the World Trade Center. . .
And John Kerry would do what as president, if a "President Kerry" faced the same attacks on the U.S. that President Bush faced?
Presumably, Kerry would ask for speedy indictments to be handed down . . .
. . . Cause that would show 'em! ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 28, 2004
We hadn't heard this publicly before. CNN reports:
The flight attendant's voice was calm and composed, but her telephoned words to the American Airlines operations center the morning of September 11, 2001, were chilling.
"The cockpit's not answering," flight attendant Betty Ong said. "Somebody's stabbed in business class, and, um, I think there's Mace that we can't breathe. I don't know; I think we are getting hijacked."
Ong, 45, was on board American Airlines Flight 11, the Boeing 767 en route from Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles, California, that was flown into the north tower of the World Trade Center. . .
And John Kerry would do what as president, if a "President Kerry" faced the same attacks on the U.S. that President Bush faced?
Presumably, Kerry would ask for speedy indictments to be handed down . . .
. . . Cause that would show 'em! ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 28, 2004
WHAT IS NEEDED IS AN INVESTIGATION
The BBC, on an issue in which it is a major player, and not a disinterested third party, reports:
Lord Hutton is to deliver his long-awaited verdict on the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly in a few hours.
His findings were due as a row grew over what appeared to be leaked details of the report in the Sun newspaper.
It claims Tony Blair is cleared of any "dishonourable conduct", but the BBC is accused of a series of failings. . .
A "series of failings." That's putting it mildly, if what the Sun has this morning is accurate:
TONY Blair is today sensationally cleared of any “dishonourable or underhand” conduct leading to the suicide of tragic scientist David Kelly.
Lord Hutton’s long-awaited report into Dr Kelly’s death also exonerates ex-Downing Street media boss Alastair Campbell.
And it makes only passing criticism of the Defence ministry headed by embattled Geoff Hoon.
But the document — top secret until it is published officially at noon today — is a devastating indictment of the BBC and its defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan.
Gilligan is effectively accused of LYING in a bombshell broadcast blaming Number Ten for “sexing up” a dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Beeb bosses are blasted for failing to check the notes of the journalist, who was already under a cloud over his misuse of language. . .
Since it appears that Blair may not be pilloried, the opposition Conservatives have chosen to yelp about the need for -- you guessed it -- an inquiry. Good grief:
. . .Tory party leader Michael Howard called for the Metropolitan Police commissioner to conduct a full inquiry into the "disgraceful" leak. . .
So, we are supposed to have an inquiry into a leak about the findings of an inquiry into a leak.
"Yes, Prime Minister", anyone?
Well, we will find out for sure about all this after Lord Hutton speaks to the largest television audience he ever had -- or ever will have -- in his entire career, at 12:30. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 28, 2004
The BBC, on an issue in which it is a major player, and not a disinterested third party, reports:
Lord Hutton is to deliver his long-awaited verdict on the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly in a few hours.
His findings were due as a row grew over what appeared to be leaked details of the report in the Sun newspaper.
It claims Tony Blair is cleared of any "dishonourable conduct", but the BBC is accused of a series of failings. . .
A "series of failings." That's putting it mildly, if what the Sun has this morning is accurate:
TONY Blair is today sensationally cleared of any “dishonourable or underhand” conduct leading to the suicide of tragic scientist David Kelly.
Lord Hutton’s long-awaited report into Dr Kelly’s death also exonerates ex-Downing Street media boss Alastair Campbell.
And it makes only passing criticism of the Defence ministry headed by embattled Geoff Hoon.
But the document — top secret until it is published officially at noon today — is a devastating indictment of the BBC and its defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan.
Gilligan is effectively accused of LYING in a bombshell broadcast blaming Number Ten for “sexing up” a dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Beeb bosses are blasted for failing to check the notes of the journalist, who was already under a cloud over his misuse of language. . .
Since it appears that Blair may not be pilloried, the opposition Conservatives have chosen to yelp about the need for -- you guessed it -- an inquiry. Good grief:
. . .Tory party leader Michael Howard called for the Metropolitan Police commissioner to conduct a full inquiry into the "disgraceful" leak. . .
So, we are supposed to have an inquiry into a leak about the findings of an inquiry into a leak.
"Yes, Prime Minister", anyone?
Well, we will find out for sure about all this after Lord Hutton speaks to the largest television audience he ever had -- or ever will have -- in his entire career, at 12:30. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 28, 2004
IT'S LOOKING MORE KERRYISH THIS MORNING
CNN Reports:
Sen. John Kerry claimed victory Tuesday night in New Hampshire's Democratic presidential primary, reveling in his second consecutive and decisive win in his party's hotly contested nomination battle.
"I make this pledge to you tonight," a beaming Kerry told supporters. "I have spent my whole life fighting for what I think is right and against powerful special interests, and I have only just begun to fight."
With 97 percent of precincts reporting, the U.S. senator from neighboring Massachusetts was at 39 percent, followed by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean at 26 percent. . .
I liked particularly Joe Lieberman's way of putting a good face on coming in, essentially, fifth:
. . ."I'm not dropping out because there's a virtual split decision for third and no one thought that I would have ended up this close to Wes Clark and John Edwards," he told CNN. . .
That's telling 'em, Joe. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 28, 2004
CNN Reports:
Sen. John Kerry claimed victory Tuesday night in New Hampshire's Democratic presidential primary, reveling in his second consecutive and decisive win in his party's hotly contested nomination battle.
"I make this pledge to you tonight," a beaming Kerry told supporters. "I have spent my whole life fighting for what I think is right and against powerful special interests, and I have only just begun to fight."
With 97 percent of precincts reporting, the U.S. senator from neighboring Massachusetts was at 39 percent, followed by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean at 26 percent. . .
I liked particularly Joe Lieberman's way of putting a good face on coming in, essentially, fifth:
. . ."I'm not dropping out because there's a virtual split decision for third and no one thought that I would have ended up this close to Wes Clark and John Edwards," he told CNN. . .
That's telling 'em, Joe. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
TODAY IS APRIL 23, 1944
Huh?
April, 1944?
From Switzerland, Tom Devine explained yesterday:
I was thinking about this over the weekend. In historical perspective, we are on April 22, 1944 in terms of our war with terrorism which started on September 11, 2001.
Confused?
If September 11, 2001 is December 7, 1941 and we take into account the things that happened from 12.7.41 to the VE day on 5.8.45, then we are currently in the 22nd of April in 1944 if each present day equated to each day after '41. . .
And as he points out, things weren't always great, even after it was becoming clear by then that victory would happen eventually:
. . .we need to keep this in mind - the Germans launched a massive and devastating surprise attack through the Ardennes about 5 seconds after some bright guy said Germany's days were numbered. The Japanese fought ferociously until the day of surrender - and them some even after that.
The snake is never dead until the head has been cut-off and stuck on a pike. That has to be our mission.
Listen America, you can play in the Presidential drama all you want, but, we are still at risk in a big way. . .
Absolutely.
On a different, but somewhat related, note. I forgot to mention the other day how I smiled when I read that Tom shares his "Gettysburg" with only those he trusts will promptly return it:
A 'Loaner Hog' is someone you loan a DVD to who never gives it back. So, you find yourself saying, "honey, I can't find 'Gettysburg' anywhere, have you seen it?"
"I think Susan borrowed it that time they were here for dinner."
"Wasn't that like 8 months ago? Do you think they've had time to watch it yet?"
So, you give a call to Susan who can't remember but then says, "I think I lent it to Jim."
- The Double Loaner -
My prized Gettysburg movie has just be lent to another person - unauthorized.
Not cool.
Now I gotta hunt down the person who has my video of Pickett's charge. . .
To be honest, I think my wife won't tell me that she hates that film. The last time I had it on, she happened to stroll into the lounge and exclaim, "Gettysburg! You're watching Gettysburg!"
No, correct that. Actually, she is probably more fed up with "The Longest Day".
Just humo(u)r, gorgeous. . .
Oh, and if my sister-in-law Noreen is reading this: It is time to write that book. You're Irish. For heaven sake, you have at least ONE book in you! ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Huh?
April, 1944?
From Switzerland, Tom Devine explained yesterday:
I was thinking about this over the weekend. In historical perspective, we are on April 22, 1944 in terms of our war with terrorism which started on September 11, 2001.
Confused?
If September 11, 2001 is December 7, 1941 and we take into account the things that happened from 12.7.41 to the VE day on 5.8.45, then we are currently in the 22nd of April in 1944 if each present day equated to each day after '41. . .
And as he points out, things weren't always great, even after it was becoming clear by then that victory would happen eventually:
. . .we need to keep this in mind - the Germans launched a massive and devastating surprise attack through the Ardennes about 5 seconds after some bright guy said Germany's days were numbered. The Japanese fought ferociously until the day of surrender - and them some even after that.
The snake is never dead until the head has been cut-off and stuck on a pike. That has to be our mission.
Listen America, you can play in the Presidential drama all you want, but, we are still at risk in a big way. . .
Absolutely.
On a different, but somewhat related, note. I forgot to mention the other day how I smiled when I read that Tom shares his "Gettysburg" with only those he trusts will promptly return it:
A 'Loaner Hog' is someone you loan a DVD to who never gives it back. So, you find yourself saying, "honey, I can't find 'Gettysburg' anywhere, have you seen it?"
"I think Susan borrowed it that time they were here for dinner."
"Wasn't that like 8 months ago? Do you think they've had time to watch it yet?"
So, you give a call to Susan who can't remember but then says, "I think I lent it to Jim."
- The Double Loaner -
My prized Gettysburg movie has just be lent to another person - unauthorized.
Not cool.
Now I gotta hunt down the person who has my video of Pickett's charge. . .
To be honest, I think my wife won't tell me that she hates that film. The last time I had it on, she happened to stroll into the lounge and exclaim, "Gettysburg! You're watching Gettysburg!"
No, correct that. Actually, she is probably more fed up with "The Longest Day".
Just humo(u)r, gorgeous. . .
Oh, and if my sister-in-law Noreen is reading this: It is time to write that book. You're Irish. For heaven sake, you have at least ONE book in you! ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, January 27, 2004
JACK FIRES BACK
Not content to sit quietly and let the "Bush lied!/Blair lied!", pro-Saddam brigades have the field all to themselves, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw added some welcome rationality to the discussion. He is worth quoting at length. The BBC reports:
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says it is "disappointing" no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, but insisted the war was justified.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today he believed the world was a safer place as a result of the removal of a "terrible tyrant".
He highlighted progress on WMD in talks with Libya, Iran and North Korea.
"The decision we made to take military action was justified then in terms of enforcing international law and is still more justified now," he said. . .
. . .Mr Straw said: "I accept from a personal point of view that it is certainly disappointing that the inspectors, including those of the ISG, have not so far produced further evidence."
. . ."Our judgment was, and my judgment remains, that Saddam Hussein did indeed pose a threat to Britain's security, as to the European Union's and the rest of the world.
"And if we look at what has happened in the last year I will repeat the point that we have removed a terrible tyrant.". . .
. . ."Since the fall of Saddam Hussein you have Libya, which has made a very full declaration about its concealed nuclear weapons programme. You have Iran doing more or less the same.
"You have a process of negotiation with North Korea. If you then looked at what would have happened had we not intervened at the time we did, and if you think about the nature of world security today, I think the prime minister's comment on 20 March last year was entirely justified.". . .
Of course, the "We Miss Saddam!" forces remain unconvinced:
. . .Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said Mr Blair's judgement on WMD was in question. . .
Oh, and speaking of judgement. Charles Kennedy leads a party that includes a frontbencher whom he dismissed the other day, owing to her repeated and very public, "I might just consider becoming [a suicide bomber] myself" reveries. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Not content to sit quietly and let the "Bush lied!/Blair lied!", pro-Saddam brigades have the field all to themselves, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw added some welcome rationality to the discussion. He is worth quoting at length. The BBC reports:
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says it is "disappointing" no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, but insisted the war was justified.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today he believed the world was a safer place as a result of the removal of a "terrible tyrant".
He highlighted progress on WMD in talks with Libya, Iran and North Korea.
"The decision we made to take military action was justified then in terms of enforcing international law and is still more justified now," he said. . .
. . .Mr Straw said: "I accept from a personal point of view that it is certainly disappointing that the inspectors, including those of the ISG, have not so far produced further evidence."
. . ."Our judgment was, and my judgment remains, that Saddam Hussein did indeed pose a threat to Britain's security, as to the European Union's and the rest of the world.
"And if we look at what has happened in the last year I will repeat the point that we have removed a terrible tyrant.". . .
. . ."Since the fall of Saddam Hussein you have Libya, which has made a very full declaration about its concealed nuclear weapons programme. You have Iran doing more or less the same.
"You have a process of negotiation with North Korea. If you then looked at what would have happened had we not intervened at the time we did, and if you think about the nature of world security today, I think the prime minister's comment on 20 March last year was entirely justified.". . .
Of course, the "We Miss Saddam!" forces remain unconvinced:
. . .Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said Mr Blair's judgement on WMD was in question. . .
Oh, and speaking of judgement. Charles Kennedy leads a party that includes a frontbencher whom he dismissed the other day, owing to her repeated and very public, "I might just consider becoming [a suicide bomber] myself" reveries. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Monday, January 26, 2004
SOMETIMES, IT TAKES A WHILE
And off the coast of Norway, Reuters (via Tim Blair) tells us there is a large WMD problem:
Six decades after the defeat of Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler's chemical weapons are coming back to haunt Europe as they ooze from rusting and poorly mapped graves on the seabed.
Far from the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, corrosion, deeper fishing by trawlers and seabed cables or oil pipelines are disturbing stockpiles in what once seemed inaccessible dumps from the Baltic to the Atlantic. . .
. . .The environmental group Greenpeace says they should be recovered. Apart from the threat to people working at sea, a sudden release of nerve gas could kill fish stocks. Other poisons might sink into the sediment and damage the food chain. . .
It being Reuters, you can guess which countries they chose to single out to jam into the same sentence alongside Nazi Germany. (Hint: It's not the former Soviet Union, not the former East Germany, not even France.):
. . .Most dumps around Europe are from Nazi Germany but other countries from Britain to the United States have disposed of munitions at sea since World War One. . .
Surprise, surprise. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 26, 2004
And off the coast of Norway, Reuters (via Tim Blair) tells us there is a large WMD problem:
Six decades after the defeat of Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler's chemical weapons are coming back to haunt Europe as they ooze from rusting and poorly mapped graves on the seabed.
Far from the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, corrosion, deeper fishing by trawlers and seabed cables or oil pipelines are disturbing stockpiles in what once seemed inaccessible dumps from the Baltic to the Atlantic. . .
. . .The environmental group Greenpeace says they should be recovered. Apart from the threat to people working at sea, a sudden release of nerve gas could kill fish stocks. Other poisons might sink into the sediment and damage the food chain. . .
It being Reuters, you can guess which countries they chose to single out to jam into the same sentence alongside Nazi Germany. (Hint: It's not the former Soviet Union, not the former East Germany, not even France.):
. . .Most dumps around Europe are from Nazi Germany but other countries from Britain to the United States have disposed of munitions at sea since World War One. . .
Surprise, surprise. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 26, 2004
WHAT WOULD BILL HAVE DONE?
Jay Nordlinger, writing in the National Review, has some nice things to say about Bill:
. . .Bill Clinton is King of Davos, the World Economic Forum's favorite American, by far, just as Shimon Peres is its favorite Israeli (you may detect a pattern here). There is almost a worshipful attitude about Clinton here in Davos, as people get adoring looks in their eyes, and follow his every move like bobby-soxers in thrall to Sinatra. No wonder the ex-prez so loves coming here; he is bathed in uncritical love. . .
. . .any time he referred to the Bush administration, or alluded to it, it was in a complimentary way. He told this crowd — again, a crowd that could use hearing it, especially from this source — that much of what we're doing, successfully, in the War on Terror never makes the newspapers. For example, "cells are rolled up," which you never hear about. The administration has achieved "cooperation with other governments" that is not "inherently sensational" but "has saved a lot of people's lives." You never hear about this bomb found in this container on this cargo ship destined for this port — and "I could give you 50 other examples.". . .
That's because the former president knows that "There but for the grace of God. . ." After all, he could well have been the man in the White House for an attack on the same scale that Bush had to deal with after September 11, 2001.
However, Nordlinger notes also that:
. . .One final word about Clinton, old slippery Bill: Just as you could never be sure whether he supported the '91 Gulf War, you can't be sure now whether he supported last year's Iraq war. You just can't — which is a little weird, don't you think, given that we all have opinions, and this is an ex-president of the United States. . .
Somewhat non-committal he may be. But it is worth bearing in mind that on his trips to Britain, I am unaware of Clinton ever attacking Bush over Iraq. That is in stark contrast to every, urr, "politically aware" singer and actor -- with a few notable exceptions, like Tom Cruise -- who seemed to mouth off at Heathrow before they had so much as cleared passport control.
Indeed, Clinton's March 2003 defense of the Blair/Bush policy towards the Hussein regime appeared in the pro-Hussein, Guardian.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice. Now, I begin to remember why I did.
Someone ought to tell John Kerry how things are. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 26, 2004
Jay Nordlinger, writing in the National Review, has some nice things to say about Bill:
. . .Bill Clinton is King of Davos, the World Economic Forum's favorite American, by far, just as Shimon Peres is its favorite Israeli (you may detect a pattern here). There is almost a worshipful attitude about Clinton here in Davos, as people get adoring looks in their eyes, and follow his every move like bobby-soxers in thrall to Sinatra. No wonder the ex-prez so loves coming here; he is bathed in uncritical love. . .
. . .any time he referred to the Bush administration, or alluded to it, it was in a complimentary way. He told this crowd — again, a crowd that could use hearing it, especially from this source — that much of what we're doing, successfully, in the War on Terror never makes the newspapers. For example, "cells are rolled up," which you never hear about. The administration has achieved "cooperation with other governments" that is not "inherently sensational" but "has saved a lot of people's lives." You never hear about this bomb found in this container on this cargo ship destined for this port — and "I could give you 50 other examples.". . .
That's because the former president knows that "There but for the grace of God. . ." After all, he could well have been the man in the White House for an attack on the same scale that Bush had to deal with after September 11, 2001.
However, Nordlinger notes also that:
. . .One final word about Clinton, old slippery Bill: Just as you could never be sure whether he supported the '91 Gulf War, you can't be sure now whether he supported last year's Iraq war. You just can't — which is a little weird, don't you think, given that we all have opinions, and this is an ex-president of the United States. . .
Somewhat non-committal he may be. But it is worth bearing in mind that on his trips to Britain, I am unaware of Clinton ever attacking Bush over Iraq. That is in stark contrast to every, urr, "politically aware" singer and actor -- with a few notable exceptions, like Tom Cruise -- who seemed to mouth off at Heathrow before they had so much as cleared passport control.
Indeed, Clinton's March 2003 defense of the Blair/Bush policy towards the Hussein regime appeared in the pro-Hussein, Guardian.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice. Now, I begin to remember why I did.
Someone ought to tell John Kerry how things are. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 26, 2004
Sunday, January 25, 2004
RHYS-DAVIES TO GET KILROY-SILKED?
I haven't posted on this, mostly because it too closely resembles the Kilroy-Silk nonsense of several weeks ago -- and that lunacy almost wore me out. But others have stayed the course. Being American in T.O. notes:
I guess it was predictable that there would be a backlash against John Rhys-Davies for remarks he made asserting the worth of Western Civilization and declaring it and its accomplishments worth defending. . .
Robert Spencer's article in FrontPage magazine, defending Rhys-Davies (quoted by Being American), is the single best response I've seen:
. . .Naz Malik of All Wales Ethnic Minority Association (Awema), piled on: “I do not know why he has said these things. If 50 per cent of people in Holland under 18 are Muslims in 16 years time, so what? . . . We live in a global society - we celebrate what is good in cultures and challenge what is bad in civilisations. Does he ever listen to any music other than European? Does he eat Indian food? Does he ever appreciate art other than that from Europe? I feel sorry for this actor because he must feel very insecure about his future. I feel sorry for his close mindedness.”
Well, I don’t know how much Rhys-Davies knows about Islam. But I would be glad to discuss with Malik the reasons why non-Muslim Westerners are concerned about growing Muslim populations. In reality, it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the fact that Islamic law, the Sharia, makes no provision for non-Muslims to live as equals with Muslims in an Islamic society. It has to do with the fact that Islamic law institutionalizes the subjugation of women and a panoply of draconian punishments. This isn’t about food and music. It’s about human rights. . .
And that is really the crux of the problem. Do the likes of Malik ever listen to such? Of course not. After all, playing the "offended" card is oh, so much easier than confronting some very hard truths. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, January 25, 2004
I haven't posted on this, mostly because it too closely resembles the Kilroy-Silk nonsense of several weeks ago -- and that lunacy almost wore me out. But others have stayed the course. Being American in T.O. notes:
I guess it was predictable that there would be a backlash against John Rhys-Davies for remarks he made asserting the worth of Western Civilization and declaring it and its accomplishments worth defending. . .
Robert Spencer's article in FrontPage magazine, defending Rhys-Davies (quoted by Being American), is the single best response I've seen:
. . .Naz Malik of All Wales Ethnic Minority Association (Awema), piled on: “I do not know why he has said these things. If 50 per cent of people in Holland under 18 are Muslims in 16 years time, so what? . . . We live in a global society - we celebrate what is good in cultures and challenge what is bad in civilisations. Does he ever listen to any music other than European? Does he eat Indian food? Does he ever appreciate art other than that from Europe? I feel sorry for this actor because he must feel very insecure about his future. I feel sorry for his close mindedness.”
Well, I don’t know how much Rhys-Davies knows about Islam. But I would be glad to discuss with Malik the reasons why non-Muslim Westerners are concerned about growing Muslim populations. In reality, it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the fact that Islamic law, the Sharia, makes no provision for non-Muslims to live as equals with Muslims in an Islamic society. It has to do with the fact that Islamic law institutionalizes the subjugation of women and a panoply of draconian punishments. This isn’t about food and music. It’s about human rights. . .
And that is really the crux of the problem. Do the likes of Malik ever listen to such? Of course not. After all, playing the "offended" card is oh, so much easier than confronting some very hard truths. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, January 25, 2004
Saturday, January 24, 2004
OF GNOMES AND MEN
He never really goes away. He's always available for interviews. The BBC reports:
That no WMD have yet been found is irrevelant. In the current context, this is worth repeating:
It was never Tony Blair's and George Bush's job to have to convince us that Saddam had WMDs. The reason is this: Saddam used them in the past, and after the 1991 defeat he was supposed to come clean with us under the United Nations' inspection regime.
So it was Saddam who was supposed to convince us that he did not have WMDs.
Yet, Saddam continued to behave as if HE DID have them.
Now, if he did have loads of them, they will be found eventually. But if he didn't have loads of them, but chose to behave as if HE DID, when a huge army was poised to strike and bring his regime down because WE took HIM at HIS word . . . then he was a rank IDIOT. He played chicken with superpowers and lost.
And after September 11, 2001, no one is going to play chicken with the U.S. again. Civilized people around the world have seen what can happen if such gameplaying is permitted, and if we fail to take our enemies -- the "Kill all Americans!" "Slaughter the Infidels!" "Bring many tears to their Evil American Mothers!" crowd -- at THEIR word.
Call it the "New Realism" policy: If you repeatedly chant about how you want to slaughter us all, we will then realistically assume that you mean to try to do just that.
UPDATE: But if "personal attacks" are not appropriate, why do I call Cook a gnome? Simple:
And as I wrote back in May, 2003:
. . . The now "distinguished" back bencher -- who, come to think of it, really does resemble a gnome -- (he thinks Bush is a moron and Blair is a poodle, and I think Cook is a gnome -- it's fair). . . ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 24, 2004
He never really goes away. He's always available for interviews. The BBC reports:
The prime minister must admit defeat on the issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Robin Cook has demanded.This feckless Cook, who thought it was okay to bomb Yugoslavia in 1999, just could never bring himself to understand why Bush and Blair might want to protect Britain and the U.S. from the threat posed -- especially post-September 11 -- by the Hussein regime.
The ex-foreign secretary spoke out after US official David Kay quit as head of the search for WMD in Iraq, saying the weapons do not exist.
Mr Cook told the BBC he believed Mr Blair had been driven to war by "missionary zeal" and the desire to show loyalty to US President George Bush. . .
That no WMD have yet been found is irrevelant. In the current context, this is worth repeating:
It was never Tony Blair's and George Bush's job to have to convince us that Saddam had WMDs. The reason is this: Saddam used them in the past, and after the 1991 defeat he was supposed to come clean with us under the United Nations' inspection regime.
So it was Saddam who was supposed to convince us that he did not have WMDs.
Yet, Saddam continued to behave as if HE DID have them.
Now, if he did have loads of them, they will be found eventually. But if he didn't have loads of them, but chose to behave as if HE DID, when a huge army was poised to strike and bring his regime down because WE took HIM at HIS word . . . then he was a rank IDIOT. He played chicken with superpowers and lost.
And after September 11, 2001, no one is going to play chicken with the U.S. again. Civilized people around the world have seen what can happen if such gameplaying is permitted, and if we fail to take our enemies -- the "Kill all Americans!" "Slaughter the Infidels!" "Bring many tears to their Evil American Mothers!" crowd -- at THEIR word.
Call it the "New Realism" policy: If you repeatedly chant about how you want to slaughter us all, we will then realistically assume that you mean to try to do just that.
UPDATE: But if "personal attacks" are not appropriate, why do I call Cook a gnome? Simple:
And as I wrote back in May, 2003:
. . . The now "distinguished" back bencher -- who, come to think of it, really does resemble a gnome -- (he thinks Bush is a moron and Blair is a poodle, and I think Cook is a gnome -- it's fair). . . ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 24, 2004
AND THE WINNER IS. . .
Scott Burgess shares the background on the winner of a truly prestigious award -- or at least it once seemed to be prestigious:
You may have missed the announcement of year's Sonning Prize, a biannual award for "outstanding contribution to the advancement of European civilization."
Joining past winners like Winston Churchill, Albert Schweitzer, Niels Bohr, Bertrand Russell and Vaclav Havel will be Mona Hatoum, a Palestinian artist now living in London. . .
For example, it's not hard to see why the prize committee was impressed by Roadworks. As one commentator put it: "By tying a pair of military-type Doc Martens boots to her bare ankles and dragging them behind her in the street, Hatoum created a metaphor for the frustration and helplessness characteristic of the times."
Powerful stuff.
Entrails Carpet is equally impressive. As the curator cited above notes: "although the rubbery surface texture of Entrails Carpet might repel the viewer at first, the sinewy undulations of the endless intestinal passage become abstractions the longer the viewer gazes at them."
Hold it. Wait a second. Is it just me, or do you too sense an Edward Saidish, "post-colonial" moment approaching? Oh, yes . . . and here it is now:
The video installation So Much I Want to Say exemplifies
"my experience of living in the West as a person from the Third World, about being an outsider, about occupying a marginal position, being excluded, being defined as ‘Other’ or as one of ‘Them’."
Oh, being "Other". That less than original thought should at some point be forced into some unfortunate graduate student's paper.
Scott continues:
Perhaps this German curator best sums up her contribution:
"she repeatedly addresses the violence inherent in institutional power structures and, by contrast, the isolation and vulnerability of the individual."
Or, as another great social commentator once put it:
"Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm bein' repressed!"
Now that she is no longer a Liberal Democratic front bencher -- and wouldn't you know it, all because she was trying to understand where suicide bombers were coming from -- Jenny Tonge will undoubtedly have an increasing amount of free time to be "challenged" and "confronted" by "artists" like that one.
Jenny, enjoy. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 24, 2004
Scott Burgess shares the background on the winner of a truly prestigious award -- or at least it once seemed to be prestigious:
You may have missed the announcement of year's Sonning Prize, a biannual award for "outstanding contribution to the advancement of European civilization."
Joining past winners like Winston Churchill, Albert Schweitzer, Niels Bohr, Bertrand Russell and Vaclav Havel will be Mona Hatoum, a Palestinian artist now living in London. . .
For example, it's not hard to see why the prize committee was impressed by Roadworks. As one commentator put it: "By tying a pair of military-type Doc Martens boots to her bare ankles and dragging them behind her in the street, Hatoum created a metaphor for the frustration and helplessness characteristic of the times."
Powerful stuff.
Entrails Carpet is equally impressive. As the curator cited above notes: "although the rubbery surface texture of Entrails Carpet might repel the viewer at first, the sinewy undulations of the endless intestinal passage become abstractions the longer the viewer gazes at them."
Hold it. Wait a second. Is it just me, or do you too sense an Edward Saidish, "post-colonial" moment approaching? Oh, yes . . . and here it is now:
The video installation So Much I Want to Say exemplifies
"my experience of living in the West as a person from the Third World, about being an outsider, about occupying a marginal position, being excluded, being defined as ‘Other’ or as one of ‘Them’."
Oh, being "Other". That less than original thought should at some point be forced into some unfortunate graduate student's paper.
Scott continues:
Perhaps this German curator best sums up her contribution:
"she repeatedly addresses the violence inherent in institutional power structures and, by contrast, the isolation and vulnerability of the individual."
Or, as another great social commentator once put it:
"Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm bein' repressed!"
Now that she is no longer a Liberal Democratic front bencher -- and wouldn't you know it, all because she was trying to understand where suicide bombers were coming from -- Jenny Tonge will undoubtedly have an increasing amount of free time to be "challenged" and "confronted" by "artists" like that one.
Jenny, enjoy. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 24, 2004
Friday, January 23, 2004
THE "BOOMING" PARTY
Created by the merger of the moribund (from the 1920s into the 1980s) Liberals and the short-lived 1980s "moderate alternative" to wild-eyed old Labour, the Social Democrats, the Liberal Democrats remain a third party, and have never quite figured out what they are supposed to be.
By most accounts, when in charge they are relatively good at running local government. Making sure the trash is collected and the streetlights are working seems comfortably within Lib Dem capacities. However, place the party on a national stage, and it is too often revealed as including way too many freaks, given its relatively small size. The BBC reports:
A Liberal Democrat MP has insisted she does not condone suicide bombings despite saying she would consider becoming one if she were Palestinian.
Jenny Tonge's remarks about the bombers have caused outrage among pro-Israel politicians and sparked calls for her party to condemn what she said. . .
. . ."I was just trying to say how, having seen the violence and the humiliation and the provocation that the Palestinian people live under every day and have done since their land was occupied by Israel, I could understand and was trying to understand where [suicide bombers] were coming from," Dr Tonge told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. . .
And even if we don't really know what the Lib Dems stand for, at least we know where Jenny's coming from: the "booming" wing of the party.
What Jenny's appraisal fails to account for is that if people who have it tough tend to become suicide bombers, becoming a suicide bomber has somehow remarkably been limited to those of a certain faith, especially from a particular part of the world.
After all, going out a-booming (and taking others with one) just hasn't caught on in the same way in South America, central America, southern Africa, and other places where local levels of poverty and despair, relatively speaking, make living on the West Bank and Gaza under "the occupation" look like the good life. Homes in the so-called "refugee camps" often have running water and al Jazeera on their satellite TV. In stark contrast, how many people in places like Mozambique never get a taste of even drinkable standing water? (That they don't have satellite is a given.)
That's probably because suicide bombing is not an outlet for the expression of personal frustration. Most suicide bombers are not the poorest of the poor. They are usually well-educated people, with reasonable incomes. They are usually recruited by violent, well-organized groups. (Only on the rarest of occasions do we hear of someone building a bomb quietly at home, and wandering out in despair, to do the dirty deed utterly alone.)
What is far more telling than Jenny's "feel the suicide bombers' pain" analysis is that the groups which recruit and organize suicide bombers are invariably at war with Israel -- and with America and, yes, with Britain. And they utilize suicide bombing akin to how half-trained Japanese pilots suicidally crashed planes into U.S. aircraft carriers and other ships off Okinawa in 1945.
Suicide bombing is not a cry for what the odd-bods -- especially on the left -- would term "social justice"; it is a war tactic. ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 23, 2004
Created by the merger of the moribund (from the 1920s into the 1980s) Liberals and the short-lived 1980s "moderate alternative" to wild-eyed old Labour, the Social Democrats, the Liberal Democrats remain a third party, and have never quite figured out what they are supposed to be.
By most accounts, when in charge they are relatively good at running local government. Making sure the trash is collected and the streetlights are working seems comfortably within Lib Dem capacities. However, place the party on a national stage, and it is too often revealed as including way too many freaks, given its relatively small size. The BBC reports:
A Liberal Democrat MP has insisted she does not condone suicide bombings despite saying she would consider becoming one if she were Palestinian.
Jenny Tonge's remarks about the bombers have caused outrage among pro-Israel politicians and sparked calls for her party to condemn what she said. . .
. . ."I was just trying to say how, having seen the violence and the humiliation and the provocation that the Palestinian people live under every day and have done since their land was occupied by Israel, I could understand and was trying to understand where [suicide bombers] were coming from," Dr Tonge told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. . .
And even if we don't really know what the Lib Dems stand for, at least we know where Jenny's coming from: the "booming" wing of the party.
What Jenny's appraisal fails to account for is that if people who have it tough tend to become suicide bombers, becoming a suicide bomber has somehow remarkably been limited to those of a certain faith, especially from a particular part of the world.
After all, going out a-booming (and taking others with one) just hasn't caught on in the same way in South America, central America, southern Africa, and other places where local levels of poverty and despair, relatively speaking, make living on the West Bank and Gaza under "the occupation" look like the good life. Homes in the so-called "refugee camps" often have running water and al Jazeera on their satellite TV. In stark contrast, how many people in places like Mozambique never get a taste of even drinkable standing water? (That they don't have satellite is a given.)
That's probably because suicide bombing is not an outlet for the expression of personal frustration. Most suicide bombers are not the poorest of the poor. They are usually well-educated people, with reasonable incomes. They are usually recruited by violent, well-organized groups. (Only on the rarest of occasions do we hear of someone building a bomb quietly at home, and wandering out in despair, to do the dirty deed utterly alone.)
What is far more telling than Jenny's "feel the suicide bombers' pain" analysis is that the groups which recruit and organize suicide bombers are invariably at war with Israel -- and with America and, yes, with Britain. And they utilize suicide bombing akin to how half-trained Japanese pilots suicidally crashed planes into U.S. aircraft carriers and other ships off Okinawa in 1945.
Suicide bombing is not a cry for what the odd-bods -- especially on the left -- would term "social justice"; it is a war tactic. ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 23, 2004
IS THIS TOO MUCH FOR A FRIDAY?
. . .eternity becomes known from two characteristics: first, from the fact that whatever is in eternity is interminable, that is, lacking beginning and end, taking terminus as applicable to both; second, from the fact that eternity itself lacks successiveness, existing entirely at once. -- Thomas Aquinas.
Whew. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 23, 2004
. . .eternity becomes known from two characteristics: first, from the fact that whatever is in eternity is interminable, that is, lacking beginning and end, taking terminus as applicable to both; second, from the fact that eternity itself lacks successiveness, existing entirely at once. -- Thomas Aquinas.
Whew. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 23, 2004
JOHN KERRY: GUN OWNER AND HUNTER
CNN reports:
In their only debate before next week's New Hampshire primary, Democratic presidential candidates hit hard at President Bush on many of the issues he raised in his State of the Union speech, ranging from tax cuts to Iraq to same-sex marriage.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who got the first question, went into the debate at Saint Anselm College armed with several new endorsements and the lead in most polls.
He said he looked forward to fighting the Republican incumbent over the issue of taxes and defending himself against accusations that Democrats would raise taxes. . .
I wrote just yesterday that I look forward to hearing more from the senator.
Personally, I liked especially where in the debate he described himself -- and I'm paraphrasing -- as a gun owner, hunter, veteran, a prosecutor who sent people to jail for lifetimes, and a defender of the environment.
And excellent was when he said this (as quoted in the CNN page sidebar gallery):
"I can pledge this to the American people: I will never conduct a war or start a war because we want to; the United States of America should only go to war because we have to. And if you live by that guidance, you'll never have veterans throwing away their medals or standing up in protest."
Whether it is Kerry or just about any of the others, it seems clear that the two differing viewpoints are indeed going to collide on the ballot in November.
UPDATE: I can't believe I pushed publish, having forgotten to include this, from Mark Steyn, in the Spectator:
. . .John Kerry won Iowa and will get a bounce going into New Hampshire. But, even in his moment of triumph, the Massachusetts senator seemed tired — not just in the sore-throat up-all-night sense, but intellectually. His Iowa victory speech was way too long, especially when you consider it was basically his New Hampshire stump speech with the heartwarming human-interest stories from the Granite State replaced by heart-warming human-interest stories from the Hawkeye State. But the themes are stale — the ‘special interests’, Halliburton, Enron. It’s the genteel, house-trained. Massachusetts-patrician version of Dean dead-endism. And his big line of the night — that he was now the ‘Comeback Kerry’ — amply testifies to the sparkling quality of his rhetoric. He is, in fact, the Ketchup Kid, the wife of Big Ketchup heiress Theresa Heinz, and the question now is whether he can ketchup to Dean by Tuesday, and whether his cash-strapped campaign (he’s just mortgaged his home) gets rewarded for the way he left the Governor lying in a pool of the red stuff. Kerry’s campaign has got better (it could hardly have got worse), but Kerry hasn’t.
So I’d say the big winner from Iowa was the number two guy: John Edwards, the pretty-boy trial lawyer from North Carolina. He made by far the best speech and he’s a poor boy who pulled himself up from hardscrabble roots. Self-made is an easier sell than John Kerry and his Swiss finishing school. He’s from the south, which makes him more appealing than Kerry in electoral-college terms, and he’s likeable, which neutralises one of George W. Bush’s biggest advantages. Right about now, the mainstream media will be figuring that out and deciding he’s their new dreamboat, now that Dean’s gone bananas and Clark’s kinda weird. . .
So, we will see. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 23, 2004
CNN reports:
In their only debate before next week's New Hampshire primary, Democratic presidential candidates hit hard at President Bush on many of the issues he raised in his State of the Union speech, ranging from tax cuts to Iraq to same-sex marriage.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who got the first question, went into the debate at Saint Anselm College armed with several new endorsements and the lead in most polls.
He said he looked forward to fighting the Republican incumbent over the issue of taxes and defending himself against accusations that Democrats would raise taxes. . .
I wrote just yesterday that I look forward to hearing more from the senator.
Personally, I liked especially where in the debate he described himself -- and I'm paraphrasing -- as a gun owner, hunter, veteran, a prosecutor who sent people to jail for lifetimes, and a defender of the environment.
And excellent was when he said this (as quoted in the CNN page sidebar gallery):
"I can pledge this to the American people: I will never conduct a war or start a war because we want to; the United States of America should only go to war because we have to. And if you live by that guidance, you'll never have veterans throwing away their medals or standing up in protest."
Whether it is Kerry or just about any of the others, it seems clear that the two differing viewpoints are indeed going to collide on the ballot in November.
UPDATE: I can't believe I pushed publish, having forgotten to include this, from Mark Steyn, in the Spectator:
. . .John Kerry won Iowa and will get a bounce going into New Hampshire. But, even in his moment of triumph, the Massachusetts senator seemed tired — not just in the sore-throat up-all-night sense, but intellectually. His Iowa victory speech was way too long, especially when you consider it was basically his New Hampshire stump speech with the heartwarming human-interest stories from the Granite State replaced by heart-warming human-interest stories from the Hawkeye State. But the themes are stale — the ‘special interests’, Halliburton, Enron. It’s the genteel, house-trained. Massachusetts-patrician version of Dean dead-endism. And his big line of the night — that he was now the ‘Comeback Kerry’ — amply testifies to the sparkling quality of his rhetoric. He is, in fact, the Ketchup Kid, the wife of Big Ketchup heiress Theresa Heinz, and the question now is whether he can ketchup to Dean by Tuesday, and whether his cash-strapped campaign (he’s just mortgaged his home) gets rewarded for the way he left the Governor lying in a pool of the red stuff. Kerry’s campaign has got better (it could hardly have got worse), but Kerry hasn’t.
So I’d say the big winner from Iowa was the number two guy: John Edwards, the pretty-boy trial lawyer from North Carolina. He made by far the best speech and he’s a poor boy who pulled himself up from hardscrabble roots. Self-made is an easier sell than John Kerry and his Swiss finishing school. He’s from the south, which makes him more appealing than Kerry in electoral-college terms, and he’s likeable, which neutralises one of George W. Bush’s biggest advantages. Right about now, the mainstream media will be figuring that out and deciding he’s their new dreamboat, now that Dean’s gone bananas and Clark’s kinda weird. . .
So, we will see. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 23, 2004
Thursday, January 22, 2004
IT'S STILL FUNNY
You've seen it many times, of course. But there's a reason: Howard Dean's televised carryings on after losing in Iowa is just plain funny, as well as troublesome. Talk about "Dr Angry":
I just wanted to see it one more time. . .
Now, someone get the hook.
And consider this. If President Bush ever addressed his supporters on national television in that way, you know that Dean's people wouldn't fail to compare Bush's speaking style to, ummm . . . you guessed it: Hitler's. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 22, 2004
You've seen it many times, of course. But there's a reason: Howard Dean's televised carryings on after losing in Iowa is just plain funny, as well as troublesome. Talk about "Dr Angry":
I just wanted to see it one more time. . .
Now, someone get the hook.
And consider this. If President Bush ever addressed his supporters on national television in that way, you know that Dean's people wouldn't fail to compare Bush's speaking style to, ummm . . . you guessed it: Hitler's. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 22, 2004
IMPOSSIBLE!
CNN reports:
A Minnesota man has been indicted on charges he provided material support to al Qaeda for more than three years, the Justice Department said Wednesday.
Authorities say Mohammed Abdullah Warsame, 30, attended an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan at which Osama bin Laden was present.
Warsame was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury in Minneapolis. The indictment was unsealed Wednesday after he appeared in federal court in New York and ordered held without bond pending his return to Minnesota to face the charges. . .
Another one who's "not guilty", I suppose. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 22, 2004
CNN reports:
A Minnesota man has been indicted on charges he provided material support to al Qaeda for more than three years, the Justice Department said Wednesday.
Authorities say Mohammed Abdullah Warsame, 30, attended an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan at which Osama bin Laden was present.
Warsame was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury in Minneapolis. The indictment was unsealed Wednesday after he appeared in federal court in New York and ordered held without bond pending his return to Minnesota to face the charges. . .
Another one who's "not guilty", I suppose. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 22, 2004
THIS MULTI-CULTI STUFF GETS CONFUSING
CNN reports:
In the middle of a former granary-turned-U.S. military base in Samarra, Iraq, a U.S. soldier gently folds a Kenyan flag and puts it away. For Pfc. Michael Giraudo, a white 20-year-old with a slim build and quiet demeanor, the flag isn't a souvenir -- it is a symbol of home.
"People get a kick out of me. I'm from Kenya and I'm white," he says with a laugh. "It's not what people expect when they think of Kenya."
Giraudo, the son of a British nurse and American safari guide, was born and raised in the East African nation. Giraudo split his childhood between Nairobi's upscale, expatriate-heavy Karen district and the bush. . .
I just thought that was worth noting.
A white, African-American.
Never be afraid to be yourself. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 22, 2004
CNN reports:
In the middle of a former granary-turned-U.S. military base in Samarra, Iraq, a U.S. soldier gently folds a Kenyan flag and puts it away. For Pfc. Michael Giraudo, a white 20-year-old with a slim build and quiet demeanor, the flag isn't a souvenir -- it is a symbol of home.
"People get a kick out of me. I'm from Kenya and I'm white," he says with a laugh. "It's not what people expect when they think of Kenya."
Giraudo, the son of a British nurse and American safari guide, was born and raised in the East African nation. Giraudo split his childhood between Nairobi's upscale, expatriate-heavy Karen district and the bush. . .
I just thought that was worth noting.
A white, African-American.
Never be afraid to be yourself. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 22, 2004
THIS IS THE DEBATE WE NEED
If you drop by here regularly, you probably know that I consider what happened on September 11, 2001 a war event, not a "handcuff 'em and read 'em their rights", police matter.
But many other Democrats (yes, I am a Democrat, although why I am still is a mystery even to myself) clearly don't agree, preferring to see attacks like those dealt with through the routine, criminal justice system.
That view is baffling, given that the 1993 truck bombing in the then underground parking garage of the WTC was treated in exactly that way, even though it had become pretty clear that foreign support was involved.
Foreign support and having to deal with a wider movement means "complications". (Especially if they are from a "group" deemed to fall within what we now know as the "Kilroy-Silk", never "offend" boundaries.) It's easier to round up a small bunch -- remember the dimwit who returned to the Ryder rental place in New Jersey AFTER the bombing, to try to get his deposit back? -- and pack them off to Federal prison for a criminal act.
A fat lot of good that did. After all, the bombing was part of a war strategy on their part; it wasn't a gas station stick-up. Funded by foreign thugocracies, like that of the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, those enemies merely redoubled their efforts, including changing tactics from using truck bombs to suicidal attacks with hijacked civilian airliners.
This week's Democratic front-runner John Kerry appears to have missed all that. As Best of the Web notes:
In an October debate, Kerry declared: "This war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement operation". . .
However in the "State of the Union", the president obviously disagrees with the Kerry (and general Democratic) view:
. . ."After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.". . .
As BoTW concludes:
Once the Dems have settled on a nominee, we look forward to the debate over this point.
Considering that the war began semi-officially on September 11, 2001 (for it can be reasonably argued that the American struggle with Islamism had been going on since at least the November 1979 taking of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by "radical students"), this election is going to be far more telling than that which preceded it, in 2000.
In 1864 -- which was probably America's worst, single calendar year -- the Northern public was asked to choose between the "anti-war" Democratic party's General George McClellan (who himself claimed to want victory, but that he would fight the war differently, whatever that meant) and "fight it out to victory" President Abraham Lincoln. We all know how that election went.
Now, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the 2004 presidential election will be contested on similar lines. It will be in large part a referendum between these two competing viewpoints: Is this a war to be fought and won? Or has it been an oversold, criminal irritation, which can be better addressed with breezy jargon, parking tickets, fines and jail terms for a select few who are dumb enough to get caught, and whom we somehow manage to convict?
Yes, let's have this debate, Senator Kerry. Yes, indeed, let's have this debate. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 22, 2004
If you drop by here regularly, you probably know that I consider what happened on September 11, 2001 a war event, not a "handcuff 'em and read 'em their rights", police matter.
But many other Democrats (yes, I am a Democrat, although why I am still is a mystery even to myself) clearly don't agree, preferring to see attacks like those dealt with through the routine, criminal justice system.
That view is baffling, given that the 1993 truck bombing in the then underground parking garage of the WTC was treated in exactly that way, even though it had become pretty clear that foreign support was involved.
Foreign support and having to deal with a wider movement means "complications". (Especially if they are from a "group" deemed to fall within what we now know as the "Kilroy-Silk", never "offend" boundaries.) It's easier to round up a small bunch -- remember the dimwit who returned to the Ryder rental place in New Jersey AFTER the bombing, to try to get his deposit back? -- and pack them off to Federal prison for a criminal act.
A fat lot of good that did. After all, the bombing was part of a war strategy on their part; it wasn't a gas station stick-up. Funded by foreign thugocracies, like that of the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, those enemies merely redoubled their efforts, including changing tactics from using truck bombs to suicidal attacks with hijacked civilian airliners.
This week's Democratic front-runner John Kerry appears to have missed all that. As Best of the Web notes:
In an October debate, Kerry declared: "This war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement operation". . .
However in the "State of the Union", the president obviously disagrees with the Kerry (and general Democratic) view:
. . ."After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.". . .
As BoTW concludes:
Once the Dems have settled on a nominee, we look forward to the debate over this point.
Considering that the war began semi-officially on September 11, 2001 (for it can be reasonably argued that the American struggle with Islamism had been going on since at least the November 1979 taking of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by "radical students"), this election is going to be far more telling than that which preceded it, in 2000.
In 1864 -- which was probably America's worst, single calendar year -- the Northern public was asked to choose between the "anti-war" Democratic party's General George McClellan (who himself claimed to want victory, but that he would fight the war differently, whatever that meant) and "fight it out to victory" President Abraham Lincoln. We all know how that election went.
Now, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the 2004 presidential election will be contested on similar lines. It will be in large part a referendum between these two competing viewpoints: Is this a war to be fought and won? Or has it been an oversold, criminal irritation, which can be better addressed with breezy jargon, parking tickets, fines and jail terms for a select few who are dumb enough to get caught, and whom we somehow manage to convict?
Yes, let's have this debate, Senator Kerry. Yes, indeed, let's have this debate. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 22, 2004
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
KELLY CONTRADICTS KELLY?
CNN reports:
The late UK government scientist David Kelly believed Iraq did have banned weapons and posed an immediate threat, according to a previously unbroadcast interview. . .
. . .In one excerpt of the interview seen by CNN, Kelly was asked if "they" posed an "immediate threat." It was not entirely clear if the reporter was referring to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
Kelly replied: "Yes they are. Even if they are not actually filled and deployed today the capability exists to get them filled and deployed within a matter of days or weeks. So yes, they are a real threat.". . .
And CNN adds that:
. . .The BBC's Web site also reported that Kelly said Saddam's biological weapons program posed a "real threat" to neighboring countries. . .
Hmmmmm. And here it is:
The late weapons expert Dr David Kelly said it would take Iraq "days or weeks" to deploy weapons of mass destruction. . .
And the BBC glides effortlessly -- and without comment -- over this next "fun fact":
. . .The interview with Dr Kelly was recorded for Panorama in October 2002, a month after the prime minister presented the dossier to Parliament, but never broadcast. . .
Kelly did not commit suicide until July 2003. It's curious that given all the air time the BBC devoted between October 2002 and July 2003 to attacking Blair and the justifications for the liberation of Iraq, somehow the Beeb just never found time on any of its 5 channels -- BBC 1, 2, 3, 4, and News 24 -- to broadcast that interview with Kelly. Maybe there should be an inquiry into the reasons for that non-broadcast?
Thus does the taxpayer funded BBC continue to report on "the Kelly scandal" as if it were a disinterested, third party, and not an active player in it.
Utterly revolting. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 21, 2004
CNN reports:
The late UK government scientist David Kelly believed Iraq did have banned weapons and posed an immediate threat, according to a previously unbroadcast interview. . .
. . .In one excerpt of the interview seen by CNN, Kelly was asked if "they" posed an "immediate threat." It was not entirely clear if the reporter was referring to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
Kelly replied: "Yes they are. Even if they are not actually filled and deployed today the capability exists to get them filled and deployed within a matter of days or weeks. So yes, they are a real threat.". . .
And CNN adds that:
. . .The BBC's Web site also reported that Kelly said Saddam's biological weapons program posed a "real threat" to neighboring countries. . .
Hmmmmm. And here it is:
The late weapons expert Dr David Kelly said it would take Iraq "days or weeks" to deploy weapons of mass destruction. . .
And the BBC glides effortlessly -- and without comment -- over this next "fun fact":
. . .The interview with Dr Kelly was recorded for Panorama in October 2002, a month after the prime minister presented the dossier to Parliament, but never broadcast. . .
Kelly did not commit suicide until July 2003. It's curious that given all the air time the BBC devoted between October 2002 and July 2003 to attacking Blair and the justifications for the liberation of Iraq, somehow the Beeb just never found time on any of its 5 channels -- BBC 1, 2, 3, 4, and News 24 -- to broadcast that interview with Kelly. Maybe there should be an inquiry into the reasons for that non-broadcast?
Thus does the taxpayer funded BBC continue to report on "the Kelly scandal" as if it were a disinterested, third party, and not an active player in it.
Utterly revolting. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 21, 2004
TO BE 19 AGAIN
Stephen Pollard has clearly had enough:
. . .in looking for the cause of what now seems a likely triumph by Tony Blair in next week’s Commons vote on top-up fees, one can ignore all the obvious factors: yesterday’s favourable OECD report, the concessions made by Charles Clarke, and the inept tactics of the rebellion’s leaders. Rather, one should point to the decision of a nineteen year old student, Julia Prague, to read medicine at Guy’s, King’s and St Thomas’ School of Medicine.
On Monday night, Miss Prague appeared alongside some fellow students on a special Newsnight interview with the Prime Minister. After confronting him with her outrage at the idea of students contributing towards the cost of their education, Miss Prague was yesterday adopted as the poster girl of the opponents of top-up fees, her face splashed across the media. It is thus all the more delicious that she should have contributed so magnificently to turning the odds in Mr Blair’s favour, since her intention was precisely the opposite - to convince viewers of the iniquity of the proposals. What she actually did, however, was to make clear to any objective observer that Mr Blair has a watertight case, and that the opponents have no arguments beyond the assertion that the rest of us are for some reason obligated to support anyone who decides that they want to become a student.
Whine, moan, bleat. I want to be a student. Bleat, moan, whine. You owe me a living. Moan, bleat, whine. Cough up.
What lifted Miss Prague beyond the usual rent-a-gob student activist was the fact she is training to be a doctor. In a double whammy which could not have played more perfectly into the Prime Minister’s hands, she managed to combine the ‘you owe me a living’ mentality of the National Union of Students at its worst with the moral righteousness of the medical profession, who seem to expect to be treated by right as living gods, free to behave as they wish and when they wish, financed ad infinitum by the rest of us. . .
And she barked at the prime minister how the dustman (trash collector, or garbage collector or sanitary engineer in American) should pay for her education because it is a social good, and he will be happy she is a doctor when he has a heart attack and she is there to care for him.
How about this: That the dustman may well end up with a premature heart attack, due to the strain of spending his life barely making ends meet, paying increasingly burdensome taxes, so she DOESN'T have to fork over anything to become a doctor -- which is her personal choice, remember; in contrast, paying taxes is no one's choice! -- apparently never entered her head. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Stephen Pollard has clearly had enough:
. . .in looking for the cause of what now seems a likely triumph by Tony Blair in next week’s Commons vote on top-up fees, one can ignore all the obvious factors: yesterday’s favourable OECD report, the concessions made by Charles Clarke, and the inept tactics of the rebellion’s leaders. Rather, one should point to the decision of a nineteen year old student, Julia Prague, to read medicine at Guy’s, King’s and St Thomas’ School of Medicine.
On Monday night, Miss Prague appeared alongside some fellow students on a special Newsnight interview with the Prime Minister. After confronting him with her outrage at the idea of students contributing towards the cost of their education, Miss Prague was yesterday adopted as the poster girl of the opponents of top-up fees, her face splashed across the media. It is thus all the more delicious that she should have contributed so magnificently to turning the odds in Mr Blair’s favour, since her intention was precisely the opposite - to convince viewers of the iniquity of the proposals. What she actually did, however, was to make clear to any objective observer that Mr Blair has a watertight case, and that the opponents have no arguments beyond the assertion that the rest of us are for some reason obligated to support anyone who decides that they want to become a student.
Whine, moan, bleat. I want to be a student. Bleat, moan, whine. You owe me a living. Moan, bleat, whine. Cough up.
What lifted Miss Prague beyond the usual rent-a-gob student activist was the fact she is training to be a doctor. In a double whammy which could not have played more perfectly into the Prime Minister’s hands, she managed to combine the ‘you owe me a living’ mentality of the National Union of Students at its worst with the moral righteousness of the medical profession, who seem to expect to be treated by right as living gods, free to behave as they wish and when they wish, financed ad infinitum by the rest of us. . .
And she barked at the prime minister how the dustman (trash collector, or garbage collector or sanitary engineer in American) should pay for her education because it is a social good, and he will be happy she is a doctor when he has a heart attack and she is there to care for him.
How about this: That the dustman may well end up with a premature heart attack, due to the strain of spending his life barely making ends meet, paying increasingly burdensome taxes, so she DOESN'T have to fork over anything to become a doctor -- which is her personal choice, remember; in contrast, paying taxes is no one's choice! -- apparently never entered her head. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 21, 2004
HATE CRIMES IN EUROPE
Reuters notes:
. . ."What I notice in both cases is the context and the timing in connection with last Saturday's protest where violently anti-Semitic speeches were given," said Pierre Levy, regional representative of the CRIF umbrella group of French Jewish organisations.
Jewish groups say attacks on Jewish property have been rare in Strasbourg but anti-Semitic insults are common.
The Jewish human rights group Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the Paris daily Le Monde on Monday both denounced Mohamed Latreche, organiser of the pro-headscarf protests, for a fiery speech he gave at the Paris demonstration. In his speech, Latreche denounced Jews and assailed Zionism as apartheid. . .
Interestingly, Best of the Web points out:
Oh well, at least the French take some crimes seriously. Agence France-Presse reports that an 82-year-old French priest has been fined 800 euros, or nearly $1,000, "for uttering derogatory remarks about the Holy Quran."
What we have here are practical examples of the application of the "Kilroy-Silk" boundaries: Speech that is deemed by certain "offended" people to be "offensive" is not just curtailed, but made criminal. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Reuters notes:
. . ."What I notice in both cases is the context and the timing in connection with last Saturday's protest where violently anti-Semitic speeches were given," said Pierre Levy, regional representative of the CRIF umbrella group of French Jewish organisations.
Jewish groups say attacks on Jewish property have been rare in Strasbourg but anti-Semitic insults are common.
The Jewish human rights group Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the Paris daily Le Monde on Monday both denounced Mohamed Latreche, organiser of the pro-headscarf protests, for a fiery speech he gave at the Paris demonstration. In his speech, Latreche denounced Jews and assailed Zionism as apartheid. . .
Interestingly, Best of the Web points out:
Oh well, at least the French take some crimes seriously. Agence France-Presse reports that an 82-year-old French priest has been fined 800 euros, or nearly $1,000, "for uttering derogatory remarks about the Holy Quran."
What we have here are practical examples of the application of the "Kilroy-Silk" boundaries: Speech that is deemed by certain "offended" people to be "offensive" is not just curtailed, but made criminal. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
THE SAME OLD DEBATE
More on Guantanamo. The BBC reports:
The families of British detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay are to launch a fresh bid to campaign for the human rights of their loved ones.
Actors Corin and Vanessa Redgrave have founded the Guantanamo Human Rights Commission to unite detainees' families and lawyers from around Europe. . .
Interestingly, back in July, the BBC printed excerpts from letters purportedly from a Guantanamo detainee to his parents:
"November 2002. To Dad, today is the first day of Ramadan and it is going as well as can be expected. Our meals are all arranged, now, to the dark hours. As the weather has become quite cold, now we have been issued with warm thermal underclothes. Boredom here is extreme. I have not seen the sun for over seven months except once, for around two minutes. I wish you all the best for the blessed month of Ramadan and a happy Eid!!! Your son, Moazzam"
Sounds like Auschwitz, doesn't it?
And how about this gem:
"January 2003. Dear Mum and Dad, I have done a lot of reading in the past few months (45 books or so), just having read about the United States' war of independence and Civil War. I had a discussion recently with someone about the US's major contribution to civilisation (after talking about Ancient Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China etc). I pondered for many hours and then came up with the answer - peanut butter (both smooth and crunchy). My co-debater was not amused with the results of my hours of research. I have that every now and then and it tastes fairly good! My salaam and love to you all."
Funny that he chose to overlook another of America's big contributions to the modern world: Powered flight. After all, as we all know, compatriots of his remain quite keen on exploiting the myriad of possibilities afforded by mass, civilian air travel. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, January 20, 2004
More on Guantanamo. The BBC reports:
The families of British detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay are to launch a fresh bid to campaign for the human rights of their loved ones.
Actors Corin and Vanessa Redgrave have founded the Guantanamo Human Rights Commission to unite detainees' families and lawyers from around Europe. . .
Interestingly, back in July, the BBC printed excerpts from letters purportedly from a Guantanamo detainee to his parents:
"November 2002. To Dad, today is the first day of Ramadan and it is going as well as can be expected. Our meals are all arranged, now, to the dark hours. As the weather has become quite cold, now we have been issued with warm thermal underclothes. Boredom here is extreme. I have not seen the sun for over seven months except once, for around two minutes. I wish you all the best for the blessed month of Ramadan and a happy Eid!!! Your son, Moazzam"
Sounds like Auschwitz, doesn't it?
And how about this gem:
"January 2003. Dear Mum and Dad, I have done a lot of reading in the past few months (45 books or so), just having read about the United States' war of independence and Civil War. I had a discussion recently with someone about the US's major contribution to civilisation (after talking about Ancient Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China etc). I pondered for many hours and then came up with the answer - peanut butter (both smooth and crunchy). My co-debater was not amused with the results of my hours of research. I have that every now and then and it tastes fairly good! My salaam and love to you all."
Funny that he chose to overlook another of America's big contributions to the modern world: Powered flight. After all, as we all know, compatriots of his remain quite keen on exploiting the myriad of possibilities afforded by mass, civilian air travel. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, January 20, 2004
IN IOWA
There has been, naturally, a great amount of "predictioning" about who would finish where. Viking Pundit had a varied bunch. Some were close. None was absolutely correct:
Iowa Predictions
Viking Pundit: DGKE
Bush Blog: DGKE
Between the Coasts: DGKE
Outside the Beltway: DGKE
Left Coast Conservative: DGKE
Mark Kilmer: EKDG
Tomfoolery: DKGE
Ryne McClaren: DKGE
Hedgehog Report: DKEG
Insignificant Thoughts: KGDE
Jonah Goldberg: DGKE
Right Thinking: DKGE
Cornfield Commentary: GDKE
Daily Kos: DGKE
Michael Graham: DEGK
Duck Season: EDKG
Later, after the winners had been determined, Viking Pundit noted:
Mark Kilmer, please forgive me
I asked Mark to "turn in his pundit badge" after predicting an Edwards win, but with a KEDG finish, his EKDG prediction was the closest. Vinny was the only one on my list who picked a Kerry win but his other picks were off. Of course, my prediction was utterly useless.
I hadn't followed the race closely enough to try to make a good guess. But from everything I had seen, the Kerry victory is not that surprising. After all, he was presumed to be a high finisher by just about everyone.
More important perhaps are John Edwards' -- who was not in most people's vocabulary of contenders 48 hours ago -- good showing and "Dr Angry's" near non-showing.
This result will of course influence to whom money and support flows. And because of that, we can now begin to discern that in all likelihood one of these must be the Democratic nominee: Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Lieberman. The cast of characters has just been narrowed substantially.
It is now election year -- for real. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, January 20, 2004
There has been, naturally, a great amount of "predictioning" about who would finish where. Viking Pundit had a varied bunch. Some were close. None was absolutely correct:
Iowa Predictions
Viking Pundit: DGKE
Bush Blog: DGKE
Between the Coasts: DGKE
Outside the Beltway: DGKE
Left Coast Conservative: DGKE
Mark Kilmer: EKDG
Tomfoolery: DKGE
Ryne McClaren: DKGE
Hedgehog Report: DKEG
Insignificant Thoughts: KGDE
Jonah Goldberg: DGKE
Right Thinking: DKGE
Cornfield Commentary: GDKE
Daily Kos: DGKE
Michael Graham: DEGK
Duck Season: EDKG
Later, after the winners had been determined, Viking Pundit noted:
Mark Kilmer, please forgive me
I asked Mark to "turn in his pundit badge" after predicting an Edwards win, but with a KEDG finish, his EKDG prediction was the closest. Vinny was the only one on my list who picked a Kerry win but his other picks were off. Of course, my prediction was utterly useless.
I hadn't followed the race closely enough to try to make a good guess. But from everything I had seen, the Kerry victory is not that surprising. After all, he was presumed to be a high finisher by just about everyone.
More important perhaps are John Edwards' -- who was not in most people's vocabulary of contenders 48 hours ago -- good showing and "Dr Angry's" near non-showing.
This result will of course influence to whom money and support flows. And because of that, we can now begin to discern that in all likelihood one of these must be the Democratic nominee: Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Lieberman. The cast of characters has just been narrowed substantially.
It is now election year -- for real. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Monday, January 19, 2004
BUSH GETS CLINCHING ENDORSEMENT
Gore endorsing Dean? That was nothing compared to this. Tom Devine at last lets the nation rest easier:
I'm endorsing President Bush.
With all the weight I have in this world, this should matter.
At any moment, the phone should start ringing and I'll have to do those annoying interviews with Peter, Tom, and Dan - Ted might even call wanting to run a special segment on Nightline.
I think I'll snub CNN this time since I really don't like them. Fox can stay a few nights at my house, maybe O'Reilly will drop in and we can take a few days to ski in the Swiss Alps. . .
Tomorrow's headline on the NYT will read something like this:
Nation Stunned: Devine Endorses Bush - Markets Rally
For details, make sure you read his official statement, made through his personal spokesperson/assistant. A major point is this:
Through careful study and analysis, I have come to the conclusion that the current line-up of Democratic candidates are idiots. Or, more appropriately given my new disdain for profanity, they are bloody idiots. I have labeled them the 'Cast of Clowns.'
Clearly, the Bush administration is now as good as re-elected. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 19, 2004
Gore endorsing Dean? That was nothing compared to this. Tom Devine at last lets the nation rest easier:
I'm endorsing President Bush.
With all the weight I have in this world, this should matter.
At any moment, the phone should start ringing and I'll have to do those annoying interviews with Peter, Tom, and Dan - Ted might even call wanting to run a special segment on Nightline.
I think I'll snub CNN this time since I really don't like them. Fox can stay a few nights at my house, maybe O'Reilly will drop in and we can take a few days to ski in the Swiss Alps. . .
Tomorrow's headline on the NYT will read something like this:
Nation Stunned: Devine Endorses Bush - Markets Rally
For details, make sure you read his official statement, made through his personal spokesperson/assistant. A major point is this:
Through careful study and analysis, I have come to the conclusion that the current line-up of Democratic candidates are idiots. Or, more appropriately given my new disdain for profanity, they are bloody idiots. I have labeled them the 'Cast of Clowns.'
Clearly, the Bush administration is now as good as re-elected. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 19, 2004
OF THE MOON AND MARS
I've stayed away from the "land on Mars" plan. But on the naysaying about how it is soooooooo expensive, I find I tend to agree with Homer Hickam, writing in the Wall Street Journal:
. . .All I've got to say is please, for pity's sake, stop worrying about NASA stealing money from your favorite federal program and adding to the deficit. Out of a $2 trillion-plus budget in 2004, human resources programs (Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Social Security, etc.) will get an astounding 34%! In contrast, NASA has the smallest budget of all the major agencies in the federal government. In fact, its budget has represented less than 1% of the total budget each year since 1977 and it will probably never get more than a fraction above that, even with this new plan.
Before they complain about it, I wish the moaners would take the time to find out a few things about NASA's measly 1%. It has added billions of dollars back to our economy. It's about the only program in the federal budget that has a track record of doing that. When NASA does cutting-edge work, new products are devised and people, Americans, are put to work producing them. To keep our economy steaming and pay our bills, we have to stay ahead in product innovation. That means inventing and manufacturing new products. One proven way to do that is to get the space program going with some real work. . .
. . .If the president's space proposals seem overly bold, it's because no president has ever thought it important enough to spend any political capital to see a cogent plan in space all the way through. I don't agree with President Bush about everything but he's starting to remind me of Harry S. Truman. He gets with the program. You can argue with him about what he does and you might even be right, but you can't fault the man for getting out front and leading. That is, after all, what we hire our presidents to do.
As for you moaners, move your humongous 34% around any way you want but please stop badgering the folks at NASA about their scrawny little stipend. You see, to help pay your bills, they've got some real work to do.
And on a variation on an old joke. At a White House press conference, a reporter cries out, "Mr President! Mr President! When will we finally send a human to Mars?"
The President responds, "Whenever Governor Dean wants to go."
Not that funny, I know. Still, how about a little humor and optimism, everyone? When did we get so down and pessimistic about EVERYTHING?! Good grief. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 19, 2004
I've stayed away from the "land on Mars" plan. But on the naysaying about how it is soooooooo expensive, I find I tend to agree with Homer Hickam, writing in the Wall Street Journal:
. . .All I've got to say is please, for pity's sake, stop worrying about NASA stealing money from your favorite federal program and adding to the deficit. Out of a $2 trillion-plus budget in 2004, human resources programs (Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Social Security, etc.) will get an astounding 34%! In contrast, NASA has the smallest budget of all the major agencies in the federal government. In fact, its budget has represented less than 1% of the total budget each year since 1977 and it will probably never get more than a fraction above that, even with this new plan.
Before they complain about it, I wish the moaners would take the time to find out a few things about NASA's measly 1%. It has added billions of dollars back to our economy. It's about the only program in the federal budget that has a track record of doing that. When NASA does cutting-edge work, new products are devised and people, Americans, are put to work producing them. To keep our economy steaming and pay our bills, we have to stay ahead in product innovation. That means inventing and manufacturing new products. One proven way to do that is to get the space program going with some real work. . .
. . .If the president's space proposals seem overly bold, it's because no president has ever thought it important enough to spend any political capital to see a cogent plan in space all the way through. I don't agree with President Bush about everything but he's starting to remind me of Harry S. Truman. He gets with the program. You can argue with him about what he does and you might even be right, but you can't fault the man for getting out front and leading. That is, after all, what we hire our presidents to do.
As for you moaners, move your humongous 34% around any way you want but please stop badgering the folks at NASA about their scrawny little stipend. You see, to help pay your bills, they've got some real work to do.
And on a variation on an old joke. At a White House press conference, a reporter cries out, "Mr President! Mr President! When will we finally send a human to Mars?"
The President responds, "Whenever Governor Dean wants to go."
Not that funny, I know. Still, how about a little humor and optimism, everyone? When did we get so down and pessimistic about EVERYTHING?! Good grief. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 19, 2004
THE "IRAQI RESISTANCE"
Tim Blair explains who the "Iraqi resistance" are:
Latest reports of the suicide bomber attack in Baghdad indicate that 18 people have died, all of them civilians -- 16 Iraqis and two Americans. The first BBC account I saw of this referred, of course, to "the resistance". That's the BBC's term for "the people who used to kill Iraqi civilians, and are still killing them today."
. . . Best definition I've seen thus far. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 19, 2004
Tim Blair explains who the "Iraqi resistance" are:
Latest reports of the suicide bomber attack in Baghdad indicate that 18 people have died, all of them civilians -- 16 Iraqis and two Americans. The first BBC account I saw of this referred, of course, to "the resistance". That's the BBC's term for "the people who used to kill Iraqi civilians, and are still killing them today."
. . . Best definition I've seen thus far. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 19, 2004
COULDN'T REACH 'EM, EH?
Remember, the BBC's Paul Wood in Cairo told us that the "black boxes" from the recent Egyptian plane disaster were:
. . .in very deep water, perhaps too deep to recover. . .
Well, he wasn't right; they weren't unreachable after all.
A French submarine robot has retrieved the second flight recorder from an Egyptian plane that crashed into the Red Sea on 3 January.
The cockpit voice recorder was brought to the surface from a depth of about 1,000 metres (3,000 ft). . .
So, we may actually find out what really happened . . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 19, 2004
Remember, the BBC's Paul Wood in Cairo told us that the "black boxes" from the recent Egyptian plane disaster were:
. . .in very deep water, perhaps too deep to recover. . .
Well, he wasn't right; they weren't unreachable after all.
A French submarine robot has retrieved the second flight recorder from an Egyptian plane that crashed into the Red Sea on 3 January.
The cockpit voice recorder was brought to the surface from a depth of about 1,000 metres (3,000 ft). . .
So, we may actually find out what really happened . . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 19, 2004
A READY EXCUSE AND A "SHOCKING" FINDING
The BBC reports:
Government scientists are considering whether to tell people to cut down on the amount of liver they eat.
It follows concern that people are getting too much vitamin A in their diet, with liver being a prime suspect. . .
Clearly, the world has officially gone insane.
Oh, and from the department of "I'm shocked, shocked to discover that gambling is going on in here". . .
Eight out of ten secondary school pupils worry about exams, a report by a children's charity suggests.
The NSPCC also found that 10% were so concerned by problems at school that they were anxious about leaving home in the morning.
Meanwhile, a third of the 750 children interviewed across the UK said they were always worried about something. . .
Good that we have the BBC around to share the obvious with us. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 19, 2004
The BBC reports:
Government scientists are considering whether to tell people to cut down on the amount of liver they eat.
It follows concern that people are getting too much vitamin A in their diet, with liver being a prime suspect. . .
Clearly, the world has officially gone insane.
Oh, and from the department of "I'm shocked, shocked to discover that gambling is going on in here". . .
Eight out of ten secondary school pupils worry about exams, a report by a children's charity suggests.
The NSPCC also found that 10% were so concerned by problems at school that they were anxious about leaving home in the morning.
Meanwhile, a third of the 750 children interviewed across the UK said they were always worried about something. . .
Good that we have the BBC around to share the obvious with us. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 19, 2004
Sunday, January 18, 2004
SUCH "NUANCE"
Want a laugh? "Scholar" and "activist" Arundhati Roy shares this "nuanced interpretation" of liberated Iraq with the rest of us. AFP reports:
. . .Writer Arundhati Roy, one of India's best known activists, urged the diverse anti-globalisation movement to focus during the six-day conference on picking two US companies that benefitted from the Iraq war and launching a campaign to shut them down.
Speaking Sunday at the Mumbai Resistance, a nearby leftist gathering that believes the World Social Forum is too moderate, Roy said both meetings should work to "make it materially impossible for the empire to achieve its aims."
"Iraq is no longer a country. It's an asset," Roy said . . .
So, in Roy's view, free Iraq is not a "country", although it was a "country" under the Hussein regime.
For a "deep thinker", Roy's a real dope. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, January 18, 2004
Want a laugh? "Scholar" and "activist" Arundhati Roy shares this "nuanced interpretation" of liberated Iraq with the rest of us. AFP reports:
. . .Writer Arundhati Roy, one of India's best known activists, urged the diverse anti-globalisation movement to focus during the six-day conference on picking two US companies that benefitted from the Iraq war and launching a campaign to shut them down.
Speaking Sunday at the Mumbai Resistance, a nearby leftist gathering that believes the World Social Forum is too moderate, Roy said both meetings should work to "make it materially impossible for the empire to achieve its aims."
"Iraq is no longer a country. It's an asset," Roy said . . .
So, in Roy's view, free Iraq is not a "country", although it was a "country" under the Hussein regime.
For a "deep thinker", Roy's a real dope. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, January 18, 2004
Saturday, January 17, 2004
THIS ABOUT SUMS IT UP
Jonah Goldberg points out:
. . .First let me admit that I think the failure to find significant evidence of weapons of mass destruction easily constitutes one of the greatest intelligence blunders since Pearl Harbor. There's still a chance we'll find something. But if we do, it will probably be too little, too late to change this basic assessment.
Critics of the Bush Administration are probably cheering, "Finally! Goldberg's stopped drinking the White House's Kool-Aid!"
But hold on. To argue that this was a huge intelligence blunder is to largely let George Bush off the hook for the even-more-popular Bush critique: that he lied to the American people about Iraq.
For Bush to have lied, he had to have known that there were no WMDs, right? It's not a lie unless you know the truth. If you say something you think is true that later turns out to be false, we don't call that a "lie," we call that a "mistake.". . .
And as been pointed out by numerous other people, Jonah notes:
. . .But nobody has made a remotely persuasive case that Bush lied. The German, Russian, French, Israeli, British, Chinese and U.S. governments all agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The German assessment was even more dire than our own. They were convinced Saddam would have a nuclear weapon by 2005. . .
Unfortunately, being unable to spot the difference between a "lie" and a "mistake" is not a problem that is altogether new to the current generation of Democrats.
Let's remember. The Hussein regime ADMITTED to the UN that it possessed WMD. What Jonah writes is not really new. It bears a striking resemblance to what Robert Kagan wrote in the Washington Post in June, 2003:
. . .the Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX. Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer that question for years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the logical presumption was that he had hidden them. As my colleague, nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, put it bluntly in a report last year: "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons." The only thing not known was where they were and how far the Iraqi weapons programs had advanced since the inspectors left in 1998.
Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin". . .
. . .if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they're not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats. . .
For unfathomable reasons, too many seem to be altogether too willing to accept the word of dictators/ mass killers. Have we not learned as Americans since, especially, September 11, 2001, that we ignore enemies like Saddam Hussein at our peril? That they are now capable of causing damage and death in manners unthinkable even a generation ago?
After all, who in their wildest dreams ever envisaged hijacked, civilian airliners suicidally being crashed into the WTC?
Perhaps my children's generation will be able to be more trusting than I will ever again. I will never forget -- as I'm sure never will most of you, if you are dropping by to read me -- the images and death of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington. Such is my fate. Such is maybe my generation's fate.
I cannot for the life of me understand why some are so determined to bend over backwards to accept the word of an enemy like Hussein. To such appeasers, everyone prominent in this battle -- Bush, Blair, Hoon, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz -- are guilty of something unsavory. Yet Saddam Hussein somehow is the only one who isn't.
Much of this "debate" sounds way too much like, "Yeh, Hitler had Bergen-Belsen, but Ike's troops killed people, too".
Whether Saddam Hussein actually had WMD in his hot, little Baathist hands in March 2003, or not, or whether he hid them or not, he sure as heck went out of his way for years before to convince everyone -- including the UN -- that he did have them. And most everyone in the position to know -- even those against unseating his foul regime -- believed Hussein's Iraq had them. The argument was never IF, but whether they and Hussein were actually dangerous.
That was the context in which the U.S. government had to face Hussein's regime. It is not that complicated: After September 11, 2001, it was entirely expected that OUR government (be it Democratic or Republican) would not fail to deal with a threat such as that presented by the Hussein regime.
My conscience is clear. And so should be everyone else's -- at least if one believes in unseating an unspeakably depraved regime, which routinely had used WMD in the past, attacked its neighbors and domestically maintained rape rooms, torture chambers and utilized just about every sick means possible to frighten and control the populace.
But if you are still obsessed about the lack of uncovered WMD, consider this: As has been pointed out by others, one reason our forces have probably not found any WMD in Iraq thus far is because everywhere they dig for the stuff, they seem to keep hitting mass graves. . .
. . . The Hussein regime was even worse than we thought it was.
You want to defend such a regime? Be my guest. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 17, 2004
Jonah Goldberg points out:
. . .First let me admit that I think the failure to find significant evidence of weapons of mass destruction easily constitutes one of the greatest intelligence blunders since Pearl Harbor. There's still a chance we'll find something. But if we do, it will probably be too little, too late to change this basic assessment.
Critics of the Bush Administration are probably cheering, "Finally! Goldberg's stopped drinking the White House's Kool-Aid!"
But hold on. To argue that this was a huge intelligence blunder is to largely let George Bush off the hook for the even-more-popular Bush critique: that he lied to the American people about Iraq.
For Bush to have lied, he had to have known that there were no WMDs, right? It's not a lie unless you know the truth. If you say something you think is true that later turns out to be false, we don't call that a "lie," we call that a "mistake.". . .
And as been pointed out by numerous other people, Jonah notes:
. . .But nobody has made a remotely persuasive case that Bush lied. The German, Russian, French, Israeli, British, Chinese and U.S. governments all agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The German assessment was even more dire than our own. They were convinced Saddam would have a nuclear weapon by 2005. . .
Unfortunately, being unable to spot the difference between a "lie" and a "mistake" is not a problem that is altogether new to the current generation of Democrats.
Let's remember. The Hussein regime ADMITTED to the UN that it possessed WMD. What Jonah writes is not really new. It bears a striking resemblance to what Robert Kagan wrote in the Washington Post in June, 2003:
. . .the Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX. Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer that question for years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the logical presumption was that he had hidden them. As my colleague, nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, put it bluntly in a report last year: "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons." The only thing not known was where they were and how far the Iraqi weapons programs had advanced since the inspectors left in 1998.
Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin". . .
. . .if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they're not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats. . .
For unfathomable reasons, too many seem to be altogether too willing to accept the word of dictators/ mass killers. Have we not learned as Americans since, especially, September 11, 2001, that we ignore enemies like Saddam Hussein at our peril? That they are now capable of causing damage and death in manners unthinkable even a generation ago?
After all, who in their wildest dreams ever envisaged hijacked, civilian airliners suicidally being crashed into the WTC?
Perhaps my children's generation will be able to be more trusting than I will ever again. I will never forget -- as I'm sure never will most of you, if you are dropping by to read me -- the images and death of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington. Such is my fate. Such is maybe my generation's fate.
I cannot for the life of me understand why some are so determined to bend over backwards to accept the word of an enemy like Hussein. To such appeasers, everyone prominent in this battle -- Bush, Blair, Hoon, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz -- are guilty of something unsavory. Yet Saddam Hussein somehow is the only one who isn't.
Much of this "debate" sounds way too much like, "Yeh, Hitler had Bergen-Belsen, but Ike's troops killed people, too".
Whether Saddam Hussein actually had WMD in his hot, little Baathist hands in March 2003, or not, or whether he hid them or not, he sure as heck went out of his way for years before to convince everyone -- including the UN -- that he did have them. And most everyone in the position to know -- even those against unseating his foul regime -- believed Hussein's Iraq had them. The argument was never IF, but whether they and Hussein were actually dangerous.
That was the context in which the U.S. government had to face Hussein's regime. It is not that complicated: After September 11, 2001, it was entirely expected that OUR government (be it Democratic or Republican) would not fail to deal with a threat such as that presented by the Hussein regime.
My conscience is clear. And so should be everyone else's -- at least if one believes in unseating an unspeakably depraved regime, which routinely had used WMD in the past, attacked its neighbors and domestically maintained rape rooms, torture chambers and utilized just about every sick means possible to frighten and control the populace.
But if you are still obsessed about the lack of uncovered WMD, consider this: As has been pointed out by others, one reason our forces have probably not found any WMD in Iraq thus far is because everywhere they dig for the stuff, they seem to keep hitting mass graves. . .
. . . The Hussein regime was even worse than we thought it was.
You want to defend such a regime? Be my guest. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 17, 2004
Friday, January 16, 2004
AND NOW, THIS. . .
Provided with an understandably grieving widow and a recording offered by her subsequently doomed soldier/husband, in which he complains about inadequate kit, the BBC is unable to resist shooting at a stationary target -- Geoff Hoon:
The defence secretary has said he is "extremely sorry" a soldier killed in Iraq had to hand back his body armour - but is resisting calls to resign.
Geoff Hoon has agreed to meet Sergeant Steve Roberts' widow, Samantha, after she released her husband's audio diary.
In the diary, Sgt Roberts told how he had to hand his armour to another unit because of kit shortages. . .
This is not specifically Geoff Hoon's fault. If anything, it is more the fault of people who will apparently happily pay appallingly high taxes to support every hare-brained scheme and social program imaginable, but suddenly become tight when it comes to funding an adequate military.
That report also caused me sadly to recall this infamous undersupply, in an earlier war:
There just wasn't enough to go around. . . .
Unfortunately for all concerned, his [Patton's] genius was curtailed and his victorious advance stopped because of the initial failure to carry out the Chastity plan, needed to keep him supplied. By September 1st, his army was short of everything-gas, rations, blankets, winter clothing. . .
I'm sure someone, somewhere, has already totalled the number of G.I.'s who subsequently got "trench foot" -- many of whom ended up with amputations, because of the lack of dry and warm winter boots -- and otherwise suffered and died during the winter of 1944-1945 owing to those shortages.
But even if there were virtually unlimited funds, every army would still go into battle imperfect, because armies are made up of and directed by humans, and humans are imperfect. As Omar Bradley's U.S. soldiers discovered in 1944-1945, even the greatest industrial machine the world had ever seen -- which provided them with most everything needed to destroy both Nazi Germany and militarist Japan simultaneously -- might not be able on occasion to get enough blankets and boots to the front in time for winter.
I guess the only solution, then, in the current situation, is to bring back Saddam Hussein and be done with it. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 16, 2004
Provided with an understandably grieving widow and a recording offered by her subsequently doomed soldier/husband, in which he complains about inadequate kit, the BBC is unable to resist shooting at a stationary target -- Geoff Hoon:
The defence secretary has said he is "extremely sorry" a soldier killed in Iraq had to hand back his body armour - but is resisting calls to resign.
Geoff Hoon has agreed to meet Sergeant Steve Roberts' widow, Samantha, after she released her husband's audio diary.
In the diary, Sgt Roberts told how he had to hand his armour to another unit because of kit shortages. . .
This is not specifically Geoff Hoon's fault. If anything, it is more the fault of people who will apparently happily pay appallingly high taxes to support every hare-brained scheme and social program imaginable, but suddenly become tight when it comes to funding an adequate military.
That report also caused me sadly to recall this infamous undersupply, in an earlier war:
There just wasn't enough to go around. . . .
Unfortunately for all concerned, his [Patton's] genius was curtailed and his victorious advance stopped because of the initial failure to carry out the Chastity plan, needed to keep him supplied. By September 1st, his army was short of everything-gas, rations, blankets, winter clothing. . .
I'm sure someone, somewhere, has already totalled the number of G.I.'s who subsequently got "trench foot" -- many of whom ended up with amputations, because of the lack of dry and warm winter boots -- and otherwise suffered and died during the winter of 1944-1945 owing to those shortages.
But even if there were virtually unlimited funds, every army would still go into battle imperfect, because armies are made up of and directed by humans, and humans are imperfect. As Omar Bradley's U.S. soldiers discovered in 1944-1945, even the greatest industrial machine the world had ever seen -- which provided them with most everything needed to destroy both Nazi Germany and militarist Japan simultaneously -- might not be able on occasion to get enough blankets and boots to the front in time for winter.
I guess the only solution, then, in the current situation, is to bring back Saddam Hussein and be done with it. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 16, 2004
Thursday, January 15, 2004
DIVERSITY AT THE BBC
Scott Burgess has a really good one here:
Last week I had noticed that the Corporation had a post of "Senior Diversity Manager," which of course prompted a chuckle. I imagined a single individual in this role, setting up a differently-abled art exhibition here and attending a multicultural dinner there.
Boy was I wrong.
As a tiny reference in this week's edition tantilisingly refers to "the diversity centre," I felt that some research was in order. It turns out that there's an entire diversity department, employing a full-time staff of 21 people, which is according to one report "dedicated to promoting race, gender, sexuality and disability initiatives across the BBC" ["sexuality initiatives"?].
With a little more digging I've so far been able to identify:
1 Head of Diversity (A Welsh black woman)
4 Senior Diversity Managers
4 Diversity Managers
2 "Diversity Champions". . .
I can't say that I'm all that surprised, though. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 15, 2004
Scott Burgess has a really good one here:
Last week I had noticed that the Corporation had a post of "Senior Diversity Manager," which of course prompted a chuckle. I imagined a single individual in this role, setting up a differently-abled art exhibition here and attending a multicultural dinner there.
Boy was I wrong.
As a tiny reference in this week's edition tantilisingly refers to "the diversity centre," I felt that some research was in order. It turns out that there's an entire diversity department, employing a full-time staff of 21 people, which is according to one report "dedicated to promoting race, gender, sexuality and disability initiatives across the BBC" ["sexuality initiatives"?].
With a little more digging I've so far been able to identify:
1 Head of Diversity (A Welsh black woman)
4 Senior Diversity Managers
4 Diversity Managers
2 "Diversity Champions". . .
I can't say that I'm all that surprised, though. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 15, 2004
LOSE THAT WORD!
From Switzerland, Tom Devine shares his battle to overcome a verbal expression problem -- one which I (and probably many of you reading this) well appreciate:
In my lifelong struggle to erase the rather undelicate term F*ck from my lingo - I am replacing this with the term 'bloody'.
The Scottish chaps tell me that bloody is the equivalent of the US usage of F*ck but I hardly understand how that can be. Apparently, bloody is quite a cuss word in the UK. And, since bloody absolutely means nothing in the US other than something to describe a drive by shooting, bloody is my replacement word. I get to swear but I don't have to offend anyone.
At my age, certain terms that were the norm as a youngster are no longer socially acceptable. And that's a shame because sometimes that word just fits perfectly.
"Hey, bloody you" just doesn't cut it.
"Go bloody yourself" has a meaning but doesn't work either.
"This is bloody ridiculous," seems to work. . .
But since saying "bloody" in Britain doesn't work, I've tried a variety of other "descriptive terms" for when I'm off the wall -- most commonly, when a D.I.Y. job is going awry. (Such as when recently I tried to repair several old door handles, and several of the similarly old woodscrew heads insisted on breaking off! Arrggh!)
One replacement I've tried is "fudge". It does have some promise. But the big problem is my wife always seems to be somewhere within earshot whenever I happen to forget to use that word. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 15, 2004
From Switzerland, Tom Devine shares his battle to overcome a verbal expression problem -- one which I (and probably many of you reading this) well appreciate:
In my lifelong struggle to erase the rather undelicate term F*ck from my lingo - I am replacing this with the term 'bloody'.
The Scottish chaps tell me that bloody is the equivalent of the US usage of F*ck but I hardly understand how that can be. Apparently, bloody is quite a cuss word in the UK. And, since bloody absolutely means nothing in the US other than something to describe a drive by shooting, bloody is my replacement word. I get to swear but I don't have to offend anyone.
At my age, certain terms that were the norm as a youngster are no longer socially acceptable. And that's a shame because sometimes that word just fits perfectly.
"Hey, bloody you" just doesn't cut it.
"Go bloody yourself" has a meaning but doesn't work either.
"This is bloody ridiculous," seems to work. . .
But since saying "bloody" in Britain doesn't work, I've tried a variety of other "descriptive terms" for when I'm off the wall -- most commonly, when a D.I.Y. job is going awry. (Such as when recently I tried to repair several old door handles, and several of the similarly old woodscrew heads insisted on breaking off! Arrggh!)
One replacement I've tried is "fudge". It does have some promise. But the big problem is my wife always seems to be somewhere within earshot whenever I happen to forget to use that word. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 15, 2004
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
WHAT IS ALWAYS OVERLOOKED
The BBC reports:
A British peace activist shot in the head while observing the Israeli army in Gaza last year has died in hospital.
Tom Hurndall, 22, of north London, had been in a coma since being shot in a Palestinian refugee camp.
An Israeli soldier has already been indicted on six charges, including one of aggravated assault.
Mr Hurndall was with the International Solidarity Movement, a Palestinian-led group which campaigns against Israeli occupation using non-violence.
Mr Hurndall's family now want a murder charge to be brought.
The soldier initially said he had returned fire at a man armed with a pistol - but under interrogation admitted firing a shot near an unarmed civilian, according to the Israeli army. . .
Well, at least the BBC finally refer to it as a Palestinian-led group.
The ISM's actions and statements make it perfectly clear that they -- including the unfortunate Tom Hurndall, the late Rachel Corrie, and all who are part of the group -- have consciously thrown in their lots with the Palestinian cause. That's their choice.
Interesting, though, is this much overlooked fact: the ISM's tactics rely on one particular assumption -- they know that the state of Israel and its army fundamentally respect the rule of law.
On the other hand, there seem no takers clamoring to be "human shields" in order to ride on Israeli buses or stand in Israeli restaurants to "prevent" or "protest" Palestinian suicide bombings. ISM tactics would stand not a chance if the positions were reversed -- because Palestinian extremists have no respect whatsoever for the rule of law. The BBC reports:
The Islamic militant group Hamas has used a female bomber for the first time in a suicide attack which killed four Israelis on the border with Gaza.
Hamas vowed to intensify attacks against Israel following the bombing at the main Erez crossing.
Until now, only secular Palestinian groups have deployed women in suicide attacks against Israeli targets. . .
Talk about paying no heed to the Geneva Conventions.
As we all know, this is an increasingly ugly war. Anyone who so much as even finds oneself standing on the sidelines might still find oneself blown up. So, if one is going to place oneself in the midst of "no man's land" voluntarily (even for ostensibly non-violent reasons), there is a very good chance one could get shot. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 14, 2004
The BBC reports:
A British peace activist shot in the head while observing the Israeli army in Gaza last year has died in hospital.
Tom Hurndall, 22, of north London, had been in a coma since being shot in a Palestinian refugee camp.
An Israeli soldier has already been indicted on six charges, including one of aggravated assault.
Mr Hurndall was with the International Solidarity Movement, a Palestinian-led group which campaigns against Israeli occupation using non-violence.
Mr Hurndall's family now want a murder charge to be brought.
The soldier initially said he had returned fire at a man armed with a pistol - but under interrogation admitted firing a shot near an unarmed civilian, according to the Israeli army. . .
Well, at least the BBC finally refer to it as a Palestinian-led group.
The ISM's actions and statements make it perfectly clear that they -- including the unfortunate Tom Hurndall, the late Rachel Corrie, and all who are part of the group -- have consciously thrown in their lots with the Palestinian cause. That's their choice.
Interesting, though, is this much overlooked fact: the ISM's tactics rely on one particular assumption -- they know that the state of Israel and its army fundamentally respect the rule of law.
On the other hand, there seem no takers clamoring to be "human shields" in order to ride on Israeli buses or stand in Israeli restaurants to "prevent" or "protest" Palestinian suicide bombings. ISM tactics would stand not a chance if the positions were reversed -- because Palestinian extremists have no respect whatsoever for the rule of law. The BBC reports:
The Islamic militant group Hamas has used a female bomber for the first time in a suicide attack which killed four Israelis on the border with Gaza.
Hamas vowed to intensify attacks against Israel following the bombing at the main Erez crossing.
Until now, only secular Palestinian groups have deployed women in suicide attacks against Israeli targets. . .
Talk about paying no heed to the Geneva Conventions.
As we all know, this is an increasingly ugly war. Anyone who so much as even finds oneself standing on the sidelines might still find oneself blown up. So, if one is going to place oneself in the midst of "no man's land" voluntarily (even for ostensibly non-violent reasons), there is a very good chance one could get shot. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 14, 2004
"YOU WOULD ONLY". . .
Robert, "In Notts Forest", points out:
You would only find this on an America Army post in Germany: a Mercedes Benz with a Dale Earnhardt NASCAR sticker.
Fantastic. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Robert, "In Notts Forest", points out:
You would only find this on an America Army post in Germany: a Mercedes Benz with a Dale Earnhardt NASCAR sticker.
Fantastic. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 14, 2004
AND IN STEYN'S VIEW. . .
On the Kilroy-Silk idiocy, Mark Steyn writes:
. . ."What Robert could do," suggested the CRE's Trevor Phillips helpfully, "is issue a proper apology, not for the fact that people were offended, but for saying this stuff in the first place. Secondly he could learn something about Muslims and Arabs – they gave us maths and medicine – and thirdly he could use some of his vast earnings to support a Muslim charity. Then I would say he has been properly contrite."
Extravagant public contrition. Re-education camp. "Voluntary" surrender of assets. It's not unknown for officials at government agencies to lean on troublemaking citizens in this way, but not usually in functioning democracies.
When Catholic groups complain about things like Terrence McNally's Broadway play Corpus Christi (in which a gay Jesus enjoys anal sex with Judas), the arts crowd says a healthy society has to have "artists" with the "courage" to "explore" "transgressive" "ideas", etc. But, when Cincinnati Muslims complained about the local theatre's new play about a Palestinian suicide bomber, the production was immediately cancelled: the courageous transgressive arts guys folded like a Bedouin tent. The play was almost laughably pro-Palestinian, but that wasn't the point: the Muslim community leaders didn't care whether the play was pro- or anti-Islam: for them, Islam was beyond discussion. End of subject. And so it was. . .
. . .when free speech, artistic expression, feminism and other totems of western pluralism clash directly with the Islamic lobby, Islam more often than not wins – and all the noisy types who run around crying "Censorship!" if a Texas radio station refuses to play the Bush-bashing Dixie Chicks suddenly fall silent. I don't know about you, but this "multicultural Britain" business is beginning to feel like an interim phase.
Worryingly accurate. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 14, 2004
On the Kilroy-Silk idiocy, Mark Steyn writes:
. . ."What Robert could do," suggested the CRE's Trevor Phillips helpfully, "is issue a proper apology, not for the fact that people were offended, but for saying this stuff in the first place. Secondly he could learn something about Muslims and Arabs – they gave us maths and medicine – and thirdly he could use some of his vast earnings to support a Muslim charity. Then I would say he has been properly contrite."
Extravagant public contrition. Re-education camp. "Voluntary" surrender of assets. It's not unknown for officials at government agencies to lean on troublemaking citizens in this way, but not usually in functioning democracies.
When Catholic groups complain about things like Terrence McNally's Broadway play Corpus Christi (in which a gay Jesus enjoys anal sex with Judas), the arts crowd says a healthy society has to have "artists" with the "courage" to "explore" "transgressive" "ideas", etc. But, when Cincinnati Muslims complained about the local theatre's new play about a Palestinian suicide bomber, the production was immediately cancelled: the courageous transgressive arts guys folded like a Bedouin tent. The play was almost laughably pro-Palestinian, but that wasn't the point: the Muslim community leaders didn't care whether the play was pro- or anti-Islam: for them, Islam was beyond discussion. End of subject. And so it was. . .
. . .when free speech, artistic expression, feminism and other totems of western pluralism clash directly with the Islamic lobby, Islam more often than not wins – and all the noisy types who run around crying "Censorship!" if a Texas radio station refuses to play the Bush-bashing Dixie Chicks suddenly fall silent. I don't know about you, but this "multicultural Britain" business is beginning to feel like an interim phase.
Worryingly accurate. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 14, 2004
OH, THE DISTRESS
The BBC reports:
Staff at the Queen's Sandringham estate have apologised after schoolchildren became distressed at the sight of pheasants being killed.
The head teacher and pupils at St George's Middle School at Dersingham, Norfolk, complained after a shooting party killed birds on a field next to the school on Friday.
More than 200 children, some as young as eight, are understood to have seen the birds being killed during morning break.
Teachers said many were distressed and the school had written to officials at Sandringham to complain. . .
And some say that we are not raising gentle, decent children?
Actually, maybe many are too decent, and too gentle? After all, this group was badly disturbed by a pheasant shoot, and apparently became all upset over it.
In contrast, in some other places on this globe, children are made to parade around, dressed up to resemble suicide bombers . . .
. . . although we aren't supposed to note that distinction, of course. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 14, 2004
The BBC reports:
Staff at the Queen's Sandringham estate have apologised after schoolchildren became distressed at the sight of pheasants being killed.
The head teacher and pupils at St George's Middle School at Dersingham, Norfolk, complained after a shooting party killed birds on a field next to the school on Friday.
More than 200 children, some as young as eight, are understood to have seen the birds being killed during morning break.
Teachers said many were distressed and the school had written to officials at Sandringham to complain. . .
And some say that we are not raising gentle, decent children?
Actually, maybe many are too decent, and too gentle? After all, this group was badly disturbed by a pheasant shoot, and apparently became all upset over it.
In contrast, in some other places on this globe, children are made to parade around, dressed up to resemble suicide bombers . . .
. . . although we aren't supposed to note that distinction, of course. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 14, 2004
THERE'S A SOLUTION!
Townhall has this absurdity:
A pro-Second Amendment group calls it outrageous that a suburban Chicago homeowner faces criminal charges for defending his family - by shooting a burglar who broke into his home several times. . .
. . .DeMar reportedly shot and wounded a masked burglar in his kitchen one night last month -- the second time the man broke into his home.
Press reports quoted Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter as saying that people who find themselves in DeMar's situation should, "for the safety of the home...immediately lock the door of the room he's in and dial 911.". . .
Assuming (remember, just assuming!) that the Chief is actually right in that suggestion, someone should have asked him to address this: What is one supposed to do if the door doesn't have a lock, and the guy is in the same room as the telephone? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Townhall has this absurdity:
A pro-Second Amendment group calls it outrageous that a suburban Chicago homeowner faces criminal charges for defending his family - by shooting a burglar who broke into his home several times. . .
. . .DeMar reportedly shot and wounded a masked burglar in his kitchen one night last month -- the second time the man broke into his home.
Press reports quoted Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter as saying that people who find themselves in DeMar's situation should, "for the safety of the home...immediately lock the door of the room he's in and dial 911.". . .
Assuming (remember, just assuming!) that the Chief is actually right in that suggestion, someone should have asked him to address this: What is one supposed to do if the door doesn't have a lock, and the guy is in the same room as the telephone? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
SHOULD KILROY HAVE BEEN TAKEN OFF THE AIR?
Sometimes, the stuff that appears on a BBC Talking Points page is worth noting. The Kilroy-Silk affair is one of those times the page is good reading. Here's a few choice quotes from BBC listeners/viewers/readers (at least, until the BBC changes them, without telling us of course):
The BBC broadcast to a multi-ethnic, multi-faith community. They are absolutely correct to ditch people who's personal philosophy is racist and inflammatory. This may be fine for newspapers but not the sort person for public service broadcasting. Well done BBC for acting quickly!
Andrew Johnson, Wallingford, Oxfordshire
That despite the fact that Kilroy has never said any such thing on his program. He voiced his views in a newspaper.
Interestingly, BBC demi-god John Humphrys has written some real junk in his Sunday Times column over the years -- especiallly about Americans. And John offers views like this, at his Today show Radio 4 microphone:
Humphrys: "What, Thomas Friedman, could cause the Americans to pull back from this?"
Tom Friedman: "From what? Iraq?"
Humphrys: "No, this position that 'we are the masters and we can do whatever we want'".
Apparently that above would rate as "circumspect" and taking a "much, much longer period of history into account," for this next opinion-offerer:
Trouble is, he's apologised for the article but is unrepentant about its content. Which just goes to show he's not as intelligent as many (including himself) thinks he is - anyone with half a brain would have been much more circumspect and taken a much, much longer period of history into account.
Steve, UK
Which means apparently that if things were passable in, say, Mecca, in, say, 651 A.D. (to risk using the Christian calendar), the problems of today are being overemphasized. Can't argue with logic like that. . .
The right to free speech? When are we going to understand that with our rights come responsibilities? Kilroy's piece was at best irresponsible. As for not linking his Express article with his BBC show, rubbish. If I wrote a similar piece for our local rag, my employer would probably sack me too. Not because of the moonlighting, (I am an engineer) but because of the content.
Alistair, Wakefield, UK
Ah, so that's what it's all about: freedom of speech is only for those who are both in the media and own the newspaper -- so they aren't beholden to a boss like Alistair's.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean the right to talk without any kind of judgement. Someone who know at least a little of Arab history must agree that this region of the world was the front leaders of science and technology once upon a time and they preserved and nurtured ancient sciences from other civilizations for a long time. Ignorance of this real fact doesn't make someone a great tv presenter whoever he or she is!
Hasan, Sydney, Australia
Of course, the "once upon a time", golden age view was lacking. . .
I didn't believe that Kilroy should be taken off air until I read the original article that he wrote. It completely fails to distinguish between Arab states, individuals and terrorists; it is biased against all Arabs because it assumes that they all have the same beliefs and places all Arab nations in the same boat. The article is racist, it is disgraceful and against my previous judgement, made after reading snippets of the article I now believe his show should be permanently suspended.
Nina, London, UK
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that Nina actually can read.
As a great supporter of the BBC and one who makes no complaint about paying the licence fee, I could never understand why part of it should be spent on the excremental Kilroy show. Now that a perfectly sound reason has been found to suspend it, I trust we have seen the last of a programme which insults the intelligence of BBC viewers.
David Isaacs, Whitley Bay, England
Hmmm. Okay. And oh, good. I guess we can look forward to "Question Time" being cancelled at last?
Absolutely not! What is the country coming too? I thought we had freedom of speech and that gives us the right to express our opinions. Obviously I was given the wrong information when growing up! Perhaps we should attack countries who refer to all English holiday makers as drunken trouble makers?
Sarah, Nantwich, Cheshire
And talk about stereotyping an entire people! Right on, Sarah.
Try reading an Arab newspaper and see what they have to say about the Britain, and the West, before being too judgmental of Kilroy.
Nick, Maidenhead
And of course, writers in those papers -- incidentally, mostly government (meaning thug state) controlled/approved (remember that when criticising Kilroy for criticising Arab STATES) -- never would even dream of generalising about anything or anyone, now would they?
Bwwaaaaaahhhhaaaa!
The beauty of the freedom of speech is that you have the freedom to reply.
K O'Mahony, Sawbridgeworth, UK
That is, unless Trevor Phillips decrees that your views are "indisputably stupid", of course. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Sometimes, the stuff that appears on a BBC Talking Points page is worth noting. The Kilroy-Silk affair is one of those times the page is good reading. Here's a few choice quotes from BBC listeners/viewers/readers (at least, until the BBC changes them, without telling us of course):
The BBC broadcast to a multi-ethnic, multi-faith community. They are absolutely correct to ditch people who's personal philosophy is racist and inflammatory. This may be fine for newspapers but not the sort person for public service broadcasting. Well done BBC for acting quickly!
Andrew Johnson, Wallingford, Oxfordshire
That despite the fact that Kilroy has never said any such thing on his program. He voiced his views in a newspaper.
Interestingly, BBC demi-god John Humphrys has written some real junk in his Sunday Times column over the years -- especiallly about Americans. And John offers views like this, at his Today show Radio 4 microphone:
Humphrys: "What, Thomas Friedman, could cause the Americans to pull back from this?"
Tom Friedman: "From what? Iraq?"
Humphrys: "No, this position that 'we are the masters and we can do whatever we want'".
Apparently that above would rate as "circumspect" and taking a "much, much longer period of history into account," for this next opinion-offerer:
Trouble is, he's apologised for the article but is unrepentant about its content. Which just goes to show he's not as intelligent as many (including himself) thinks he is - anyone with half a brain would have been much more circumspect and taken a much, much longer period of history into account.
Steve, UK
Which means apparently that if things were passable in, say, Mecca, in, say, 651 A.D. (to risk using the Christian calendar), the problems of today are being overemphasized. Can't argue with logic like that. . .
The right to free speech? When are we going to understand that with our rights come responsibilities? Kilroy's piece was at best irresponsible. As for not linking his Express article with his BBC show, rubbish. If I wrote a similar piece for our local rag, my employer would probably sack me too. Not because of the moonlighting, (I am an engineer) but because of the content.
Alistair, Wakefield, UK
Ah, so that's what it's all about: freedom of speech is only for those who are both in the media and own the newspaper -- so they aren't beholden to a boss like Alistair's.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean the right to talk without any kind of judgement. Someone who know at least a little of Arab history must agree that this region of the world was the front leaders of science and technology once upon a time and they preserved and nurtured ancient sciences from other civilizations for a long time. Ignorance of this real fact doesn't make someone a great tv presenter whoever he or she is!
Hasan, Sydney, Australia
Of course, the "once upon a time", golden age view was lacking. . .
I didn't believe that Kilroy should be taken off air until I read the original article that he wrote. It completely fails to distinguish between Arab states, individuals and terrorists; it is biased against all Arabs because it assumes that they all have the same beliefs and places all Arab nations in the same boat. The article is racist, it is disgraceful and against my previous judgement, made after reading snippets of the article I now believe his show should be permanently suspended.
Nina, London, UK
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that Nina actually can read.
As a great supporter of the BBC and one who makes no complaint about paying the licence fee, I could never understand why part of it should be spent on the excremental Kilroy show. Now that a perfectly sound reason has been found to suspend it, I trust we have seen the last of a programme which insults the intelligence of BBC viewers.
David Isaacs, Whitley Bay, England
Hmmm. Okay. And oh, good. I guess we can look forward to "Question Time" being cancelled at last?
Absolutely not! What is the country coming too? I thought we had freedom of speech and that gives us the right to express our opinions. Obviously I was given the wrong information when growing up! Perhaps we should attack countries who refer to all English holiday makers as drunken trouble makers?
Sarah, Nantwich, Cheshire
And talk about stereotyping an entire people! Right on, Sarah.
Try reading an Arab newspaper and see what they have to say about the Britain, and the West, before being too judgmental of Kilroy.
Nick, Maidenhead
And of course, writers in those papers -- incidentally, mostly government (meaning thug state) controlled/approved (remember that when criticising Kilroy for criticising Arab STATES) -- never would even dream of generalising about anything or anyone, now would they?
Bwwaaaaaahhhhaaaa!
The beauty of the freedom of speech is that you have the freedom to reply.
K O'Mahony, Sawbridgeworth, UK
That is, unless Trevor Phillips decrees that your views are "indisputably stupid", of course. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Monday, January 12, 2004
THEY MAY BE DISAPPOINTED
CNN reports:
The Supreme Court Monday allowed the government to keep secret information about hundreds of people rounded up under suspicion of terrorism in the months following the September 11, 2001 attacks.
The justices without comment refused to accept an appeal bought by the Center for National Security Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank representing Arab-American groups and some civil rights activists. . .
For some time, the BBC has been in the forefront of reporting on those determined to free the "unfairly detained" men of Guantanamo. The Beeb put it this way, back in December, when two circuit courts ruled rather unfavorably on two different War on Islamist Terror issues:
The Bush administration has suffered two legal setbacks in its efforts to curtail the rights of those it accuses of being involved in terrorism.
A federal appeals court has ruled US authorities do not have the power to detain a US citizen seized on US soil as an "enemy combatant".
And a court said detainees being held by the US military at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba should have access to lawyers. . .
Yours truly pointed out at the time:
. . .In the end, both of these lower court rulings may be necessary. They will likely force the U.S. Supreme Court to take up both issues -- and will hopefully put them to bed, until the war is over. . .
Whenever Islamist terror cases have ended up in front of the 9 justices, the Bush administration is virtually unbeatable. And the highest court is, in the war on Islamist terror, the only court that counts.
Interestingly, in comparison to its December coverage of the two lower court decisions, the BBC today is rather restrained and perhaps wary of the highest court's refusal to hear this case:
The US Supreme Court has allowed the Bush administration to keep secret the names and other basic details of terror suspects it has detained.
Hundreds of people were arrested or detained and questioned in the US after the 11 September 2001 attacks.
The US court refused to hear an appeal by civil liberties groups challenging the arrests as violating the Freedom of Information Act and free speech rights.
Judges ruled that disclosing the names could harm US national security. . .
The court's track record is such that unless a case against the administration is close to air-tight, in the current environment the court will likely come down on the side of national security.
Remember this, from May, 2003:
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal over the government's detention of hundreds of Afghan war prisoners in Cuba.
Without comment, the high court Monday turned away a coalition of clergy, lawyers and professors who sued the United States on behalf of more than 600 detainees in a military prison at Guantanamo Bay. . .
Two of those planes on September 11, 2001 were hijacked toward Washington, D.C. The defenders of the "unfairly detained" men of Guantanamo had better remember that little fun fact. The Washington, D.C.-housed U.S. Supreme Court seems to. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 12, 2004
CNN reports:
The Supreme Court Monday allowed the government to keep secret information about hundreds of people rounded up under suspicion of terrorism in the months following the September 11, 2001 attacks.
The justices without comment refused to accept an appeal bought by the Center for National Security Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank representing Arab-American groups and some civil rights activists. . .
For some time, the BBC has been in the forefront of reporting on those determined to free the "unfairly detained" men of Guantanamo. The Beeb put it this way, back in December, when two circuit courts ruled rather unfavorably on two different War on Islamist Terror issues:
The Bush administration has suffered two legal setbacks in its efforts to curtail the rights of those it accuses of being involved in terrorism.
A federal appeals court has ruled US authorities do not have the power to detain a US citizen seized on US soil as an "enemy combatant".
And a court said detainees being held by the US military at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba should have access to lawyers. . .
Yours truly pointed out at the time:
. . .In the end, both of these lower court rulings may be necessary. They will likely force the U.S. Supreme Court to take up both issues -- and will hopefully put them to bed, until the war is over. . .
Whenever Islamist terror cases have ended up in front of the 9 justices, the Bush administration is virtually unbeatable. And the highest court is, in the war on Islamist terror, the only court that counts.
Interestingly, in comparison to its December coverage of the two lower court decisions, the BBC today is rather restrained and perhaps wary of the highest court's refusal to hear this case:
The US Supreme Court has allowed the Bush administration to keep secret the names and other basic details of terror suspects it has detained.
Hundreds of people were arrested or detained and questioned in the US after the 11 September 2001 attacks.
The US court refused to hear an appeal by civil liberties groups challenging the arrests as violating the Freedom of Information Act and free speech rights.
Judges ruled that disclosing the names could harm US national security. . .
The court's track record is such that unless a case against the administration is close to air-tight, in the current environment the court will likely come down on the side of national security.
Remember this, from May, 2003:
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal over the government's detention of hundreds of Afghan war prisoners in Cuba.
Without comment, the high court Monday turned away a coalition of clergy, lawyers and professors who sued the United States on behalf of more than 600 detainees in a military prison at Guantanamo Bay. . .
Two of those planes on September 11, 2001 were hijacked toward Washington, D.C. The defenders of the "unfairly detained" men of Guantanamo had better remember that little fun fact. The Washington, D.C.-housed U.S. Supreme Court seems to. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 12, 2004
IT TAKES ALL KINDS
Someone recently found this blog by Googling "Smack a yank".
Eh, well, to each his own. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 12, 2004
Someone recently found this blog by Googling "Smack a yank".
Eh, well, to each his own. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 12, 2004
Sunday, January 11, 2004
THE KILROY FUN CONTINUES. . .
The BBC reports (at least until they change the page without telling us, that is):
BBC presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk has argued that he has a right to say "there are Arab states that are evil, despotic and treat women abominably".
In interviews with Sunday papers he also said he was "disappointed" the BBC suspended his TV show, after an article he wrote led to accusations of racism.
He had already said he "regretted" the piece, calling Arabs "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors".
But the Muslim Council of Britain has demanded a full apology. . .
They want a full apology? For what? For terming evil and despotic regimes . . . evil and despotic? Oh, please.
. . .Mr Kilroy-Silk said: "I clearly do not believe that all Arabs are suicide bombers etc. That would be stupid.
"As we all know most Arabs are educated, civilised and urbane.". . .
Absolutely. After all, since 200 million of them are around -- according to the Muslim Council of Britain -- it is a gimme that most Arabs don't actually blow themselves up.
Clearly someone is trying to change the subject -- and it isn't Kilroy-Silk. While most Arabs and Muslims are of course NOT suicide bombers, it must not be forgotten that, disturbingly, somewhat around 100 percent of suicide bombers in the world of today are, in fact, Muslims.
Would the Muslim Council care to comment on that? Nah. It's too much fun demanding apologies for being "offended". ¶ by Robert, Sunday, January 11, 2004
The BBC reports (at least until they change the page without telling us, that is):
BBC presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk has argued that he has a right to say "there are Arab states that are evil, despotic and treat women abominably".
In interviews with Sunday papers he also said he was "disappointed" the BBC suspended his TV show, after an article he wrote led to accusations of racism.
He had already said he "regretted" the piece, calling Arabs "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors".
But the Muslim Council of Britain has demanded a full apology. . .
They want a full apology? For what? For terming evil and despotic regimes . . . evil and despotic? Oh, please.
. . .Mr Kilroy-Silk said: "I clearly do not believe that all Arabs are suicide bombers etc. That would be stupid.
"As we all know most Arabs are educated, civilised and urbane.". . .
Absolutely. After all, since 200 million of them are around -- according to the Muslim Council of Britain -- it is a gimme that most Arabs don't actually blow themselves up.
Clearly someone is trying to change the subject -- and it isn't Kilroy-Silk. While most Arabs and Muslims are of course NOT suicide bombers, it must not be forgotten that, disturbingly, somewhat around 100 percent of suicide bombers in the world of today are, in fact, Muslims.
Would the Muslim Council care to comment on that? Nah. It's too much fun demanding apologies for being "offended". ¶ by Robert, Sunday, January 11, 2004
Saturday, January 10, 2004
DIRECT FROM THE OFFENDED
Click here for the text of the letter to the BBC from the Muslim Council of Britain.
Reproducing their complaint letter is not something I will do -- it is so asinine, banal and predictable, I will not bore you with it.
However, below is what they cite Kilroy-Silk wrote, which is "offensive":
Original Kilroy article, Express on Sunday, 4th January 2004
We owe Arabs nothing.
WE ARE told by some of the more hysterical critics of the war on terror that "it is destroying the Arab world". So? Should w e be worried about that? Shouldn't the destruction of the despotic, barbarous and corrupt Arab states and their replacement by democratic governments be a war aim? After all, the Arab countries are not exactly shining examples of civilisation, are they? Few of them make much contribution to the w elfare of the rest of the world. Indeed, apart from oil - which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the West - what do they contribute? Can you think of anything? A nything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without? No, nor can I. Indeed, the Arab countries put together export less than Finland.
We're told that the Arabs loathe us. Really? For liberating the Iraqis? For subsidising the lifestyles of people in Egypt and Jordan, to name but two, for giving them vast amounts of aid? For providing them w ith science, medicine, technology and all the other benefits of the West? They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States. What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the w ay they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders?
That we admire them for the cold-blooded killings in Mombasa, Y emen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, womenrepressors? I don't think the Arab states should start a debate about what is really loathsome.
But why, in any case, should we be concerned that they feel angry and loathe us? The Arab world has not exactly earned our respect, has it? Iran is a vile, terrorist-supporting regime - part of the axis of evil. So is the Saddam Hussein-supporting Syria. So is Libya. Indeed, most of them chant support for Saddam.
That is to say they support an evil dictator who has gassed hundreds of thousands of their fellow Arabs and tortured and murdered thousands more. How can they do this and expect our respect?
Why do they imagine that only they can feel anger, call people loathsome? It is the equivalent of all the European nations coming out in support of Hitler the moment he was attacked by the US, because he was European, despite the fact that he was attempting to exterminate the Jews - and Arabs.
Moreover, the people who claim we are loathsome are currently threatening our civilian populations with chemical and biological weapons. They are promising to let suicide bombers loose in Western and American cities. They are trying to terrorise us, disrupt our lives.
And then they expect us to be careful of their sensibilities? We have thousands of asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries living happily in this country on social security.
This shows what their own people think of the Arab regimes, doesn't it? There is not one single British asylum seeker in any Arab country. That says it all about which country deserves the epithet loathsome. GEORGE GALLOWAY, the member of parliament for Baghdad Central, as his tormentors describe him, called the British and American troops "wolves" and called for the Arab countries to rise up and fight them and to cut off oil from the combatants. Later he called upon British troops to refuse to obey "illegal orders".He has, predictably, been vilified. His comments have been termed a disgrace, disgusting, outrageous and so on.
He has been called a loony, naive, gullible and a traitor. There have been demands that George's constituency party should deselect him, that his constituents should not vote for him at the next general election, and that he should be deported to Iraq. No one, as yet, has demanded that he be put in the stocks or burnt at the stake, though no doubt this will come.
But why all the fuss? Why is everyone getting into such an excitable lather over the predictable remarks of a no-mark?
Who with any sense cares an Iraqi dinar for what dear George thinks? Like Clare Short, George is a licensed court jester. He acts the buffoon while she's the straight part of the act, though she exaggerates her sanctimonious seriousness.
Neither are taken seriously. Both are totally discredited laughing stocks that add to the variety of political life. At least George is open, honest and sincere.
(c) Copyright Express Newspapers 2004 The Express on Sunday
If this gets them upset, they are pretty darn easy to upset. Thicker skins are in order, ladies and gentlemen. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 10, 2004
Click here for the text of the letter to the BBC from the Muslim Council of Britain.
Reproducing their complaint letter is not something I will do -- it is so asinine, banal and predictable, I will not bore you with it.
However, below is what they cite Kilroy-Silk wrote, which is "offensive":
Original Kilroy article, Express on Sunday, 4th January 2004
We owe Arabs nothing.
WE ARE told by some of the more hysterical critics of the war on terror that "it is destroying the Arab world". So? Should w e be worried about that? Shouldn't the destruction of the despotic, barbarous and corrupt Arab states and their replacement by democratic governments be a war aim? After all, the Arab countries are not exactly shining examples of civilisation, are they? Few of them make much contribution to the w elfare of the rest of the world. Indeed, apart from oil - which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the West - what do they contribute? Can you think of anything? A nything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without? No, nor can I. Indeed, the Arab countries put together export less than Finland.
We're told that the Arabs loathe us. Really? For liberating the Iraqis? For subsidising the lifestyles of people in Egypt and Jordan, to name but two, for giving them vast amounts of aid? For providing them w ith science, medicine, technology and all the other benefits of the West? They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States. What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the w ay they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders?
That we admire them for the cold-blooded killings in Mombasa, Y emen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, womenrepressors? I don't think the Arab states should start a debate about what is really loathsome.
But why, in any case, should we be concerned that they feel angry and loathe us? The Arab world has not exactly earned our respect, has it? Iran is a vile, terrorist-supporting regime - part of the axis of evil. So is the Saddam Hussein-supporting Syria. So is Libya. Indeed, most of them chant support for Saddam.
That is to say they support an evil dictator who has gassed hundreds of thousands of their fellow Arabs and tortured and murdered thousands more. How can they do this and expect our respect?
Why do they imagine that only they can feel anger, call people loathsome? It is the equivalent of all the European nations coming out in support of Hitler the moment he was attacked by the US, because he was European, despite the fact that he was attempting to exterminate the Jews - and Arabs.
Moreover, the people who claim we are loathsome are currently threatening our civilian populations with chemical and biological weapons. They are promising to let suicide bombers loose in Western and American cities. They are trying to terrorise us, disrupt our lives.
And then they expect us to be careful of their sensibilities? We have thousands of asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries living happily in this country on social security.
This shows what their own people think of the Arab regimes, doesn't it? There is not one single British asylum seeker in any Arab country. That says it all about which country deserves the epithet loathsome. GEORGE GALLOWAY, the member of parliament for Baghdad Central, as his tormentors describe him, called the British and American troops "wolves" and called for the Arab countries to rise up and fight them and to cut off oil from the combatants. Later he called upon British troops to refuse to obey "illegal orders".He has, predictably, been vilified. His comments have been termed a disgrace, disgusting, outrageous and so on.
He has been called a loony, naive, gullible and a traitor. There have been demands that George's constituency party should deselect him, that his constituents should not vote for him at the next general election, and that he should be deported to Iraq. No one, as yet, has demanded that he be put in the stocks or burnt at the stake, though no doubt this will come.
But why all the fuss? Why is everyone getting into such an excitable lather over the predictable remarks of a no-mark?
Who with any sense cares an Iraqi dinar for what dear George thinks? Like Clare Short, George is a licensed court jester. He acts the buffoon while she's the straight part of the act, though she exaggerates her sanctimonious seriousness.
Neither are taken seriously. Both are totally discredited laughing stocks that add to the variety of political life. At least George is open, honest and sincere.
(c) Copyright Express Newspapers 2004 The Express on Sunday
If this gets them upset, they are pretty darn easy to upset. Thicker skins are in order, ladies and gentlemen. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 10, 2004
SUNDAY EXPRESS BACKS KILROY
The "shocked response" continues. The Sunday Express web site defends Kilroy-Silk:
The Sunday Express has rejected suggestions the article it published by BBC presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk was racist.
The BBC has suspended Kilroy-Silk's daytime discussion show pending an internal investigation and the presenter himself has apologised for his controversial remarks about Arabs in last Sunday's paper.
But the Sunday Express, quoted in today's Daily Express, said: "The article was not racist. It was legalled by lawyers and there is absolutely no case to answer.". . .
. . .Kilroy-Silk apologised saying: "I greatly regret the offence which has been caused by the article published in last weekend's Sunday Express.". . .
Kilroy-Silk says the article was written in April, and it has been taken seriously out of current context:
. . ."It was originally written as a response to the views of opponents to the war in Iraq that Arab States 'loathe' the West and my piece referred to 'Arab States' rather than 'Arabs',". . .
Little good that will do him. After all, he caused "offense".
Come to think of it, I am often "offended," too. As a group, Americans are regularly -- and apparently easily -- targeted for a group condemnation by, to quote Trevor Phillips, "the weak-minded."
(NOTE: Since yours truly posted this yesterday, the BBC has followed usual form, altering Phillips' quotations. Now that section of the BBC page reads:
. . .CRE chairman Trevor Phillips, who commended the BBC for taking swift action on the matter, said: "It is unbelievable. It's not just what he says, but the way he says it, which is completely offensive, and the level of ignorance he shows."
Such comments had to be challenged or law-abiding Muslims would be made to feel that the extremists were right and that most non-Muslims actually hated them, Mr Phillips added. . .
Nothing like honest, BBC journalism. Yesterday's quotation of Phillips in the previous post is accurate.)
From an "anti-war" protest in another E.U. member state in February 2003, here is just one example of the numerous nasty things often said about Americans -- and as a whole people, by the way:
. . .The only thing everyone seemed to agree on is that Americans are evil. "Go home, killers!". . .
Well, it doesn't get much clearer than that, does it? That seems to be at least as rude as what Kilroy-Silk wrote, which supposedly "offended" so many.
Hmm, maybe that sort of rhetoric used within a European state and directed at Americans should be dealt with in the European Court of Human Rights? And has anyone thought to ring up Trevor Phillips and the CRE about such "indisputably stupid" comments? After all, that above appears on what is apparently a British-based, web site.
No, Americans would not look to pursue either avenue of possible redress or retaliation. That's because Americans believe in the freedom to shout out all manner of stupidity. And neither do Americans want anyone to try to use oppressive law to muzzle what might be considered "offensive" commentary about us.
We would rather have the freedom to shout back. One wonders, though, just how much longer we may have the freedom to do that? For it seems we are rapidly approaching a time where it is inappropriate to "offend" anyone EXCEPT Americans.
At least SOMEONE in this idiotic situation possesses some sense of what freedom is all about:
. . .Judith Vidal Hall, the editor of Index on Censorship magazine, said taking people off air was not the way to tackle racism.
She told Today: "I don't think in a country with a free media and a plural society and a commitment to a right of reply, you ever solve anything by banning, removing, censoring."
Censorship could lead to driving debate "underground, where it festers", she said.
"You're doing nothing to cancel out the very real hurt and damage to a community that this has caused. You're making a martyr to a rather nasty cause."
Instead, she said, Mr Kilroy-Silk should be challenged to an on-air debate with people like Mr Sacranie. . .
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 10, 2004
The "shocked response" continues. The Sunday Express web site defends Kilroy-Silk:
The Sunday Express has rejected suggestions the article it published by BBC presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk was racist.
The BBC has suspended Kilroy-Silk's daytime discussion show pending an internal investigation and the presenter himself has apologised for his controversial remarks about Arabs in last Sunday's paper.
But the Sunday Express, quoted in today's Daily Express, said: "The article was not racist. It was legalled by lawyers and there is absolutely no case to answer.". . .
. . .Kilroy-Silk apologised saying: "I greatly regret the offence which has been caused by the article published in last weekend's Sunday Express.". . .
Kilroy-Silk says the article was written in April, and it has been taken seriously out of current context:
. . ."It was originally written as a response to the views of opponents to the war in Iraq that Arab States 'loathe' the West and my piece referred to 'Arab States' rather than 'Arabs',". . .
Little good that will do him. After all, he caused "offense".
Come to think of it, I am often "offended," too. As a group, Americans are regularly -- and apparently easily -- targeted for a group condemnation by, to quote Trevor Phillips, "the weak-minded."
(NOTE: Since yours truly posted this yesterday, the BBC has followed usual form, altering Phillips' quotations. Now that section of the BBC page reads:
. . .CRE chairman Trevor Phillips, who commended the BBC for taking swift action on the matter, said: "It is unbelievable. It's not just what he says, but the way he says it, which is completely offensive, and the level of ignorance he shows."
Such comments had to be challenged or law-abiding Muslims would be made to feel that the extremists were right and that most non-Muslims actually hated them, Mr Phillips added. . .
Nothing like honest, BBC journalism. Yesterday's quotation of Phillips in the previous post is accurate.)
From an "anti-war" protest in another E.U. member state in February 2003, here is just one example of the numerous nasty things often said about Americans -- and as a whole people, by the way:
. . .The only thing everyone seemed to agree on is that Americans are evil. "Go home, killers!". . .
Well, it doesn't get much clearer than that, does it? That seems to be at least as rude as what Kilroy-Silk wrote, which supposedly "offended" so many.
Hmm, maybe that sort of rhetoric used within a European state and directed at Americans should be dealt with in the European Court of Human Rights? And has anyone thought to ring up Trevor Phillips and the CRE about such "indisputably stupid" comments? After all, that above appears on what is apparently a British-based, web site.
No, Americans would not look to pursue either avenue of possible redress or retaliation. That's because Americans believe in the freedom to shout out all manner of stupidity. And neither do Americans want anyone to try to use oppressive law to muzzle what might be considered "offensive" commentary about us.
We would rather have the freedom to shout back. One wonders, though, just how much longer we may have the freedom to do that? For it seems we are rapidly approaching a time where it is inappropriate to "offend" anyone EXCEPT Americans.
At least SOMEONE in this idiotic situation possesses some sense of what freedom is all about:
. . .Judith Vidal Hall, the editor of Index on Censorship magazine, said taking people off air was not the way to tackle racism.
She told Today: "I don't think in a country with a free media and a plural society and a commitment to a right of reply, you ever solve anything by banning, removing, censoring."
Censorship could lead to driving debate "underground, where it festers", she said.
"You're doing nothing to cancel out the very real hurt and damage to a community that this has caused. You're making a martyr to a rather nasty cause."
Instead, she said, Mr Kilroy-Silk should be challenged to an on-air debate with people like Mr Sacranie. . .
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 10, 2004
Friday, January 09, 2004
WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT BUSH BEING A THREAT TO FREEDOM?
Here in Britain, BBC-TV shows an old style, daytime Donahue-like talk show, starring former Labour MP, Robert Kilroy-Silk. Called simply "Kilroy", the show does all the typical talk-tv stuff. Not worth mentioning more about it, right?
His program will not appear on the BBC again. Why? Well, Mr Kilroy-Silk also writes a newspaper column in the Sunday Express. And what he wrote in his column last Sunday has gotten some people steamed, to say the least. The BBC reports:
The Kilroy programme will be taken off air immediately following comments made by Robert Kilroy-Silk in a newspaper article, the BBC has announced.
The presenter branded Arabs "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors" and asked what they had given to the world other than oil. . .
. . .The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) described the piece written by the discussion show host in last week's Sunday Express as a "gratuitous anti-Arab rant".
Mr Kilroy-Silk's article included comments saying the toppling of despotic regimes in the Middle East should be a war aim, and questioned the contribution of the Arab nations to world welfare and civilisation.
He referred to how Arabs "murdered more than 3,000 civilians on 11 September" and then "danced in the streets" to celebrate.
The MCB secretary general Iqbal Sacranie wrote in a letter to BBC One controller Lorraine Heggessey that Mr Kilroy-Silk had failed to distinguish between the terrorists behind the 11 September attacks and 200 million "ordinary Arab peoples".
Mr Sacranie condemned the "bigoted and ill-informed ideas" in the piece, which he said was "ignorant, extremely derogatory and indisputably racist". . .
. . .The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) reported the matter to the police.
CRE chair Trevor Phillips said: "This article is indisputably stupid and its main effect will be to give comfort to the weak-minded. . .
For an American, what is most shocking is not so much Kilroy-Silk's opinions (such as they are), but those last two sentences: In Britain, expressing an opinion about "race" that someone else might be "offended" by could well get you reported to the police by the Commission for Racial Equality.
Indeed, if George W. Bush had the power to pronounce a newspaper writer's article "indisputably stupid" and then call in the police, I'm sure the likes of Phillips would be bananas over that.
Rather than name-calling, in the style of Phillips and Sacranie, how about asking some hard questions.
Is it not true that, when it comes to the "dancing in the streets" and "murdered more than 3,000 civilians on 11 September," Kilroy-Silk is essentially correct? After all, it is well documented that some Palestinians did indeed dance in joy when they heard of the attacks of September 11, 2001. And even the BBC admits that 19 Arab men, most of whom were Saudi nationals, undertook the hijackings which killed 3,000 people in New York and Washington.
Now, if someone is intent on splitting hairs perhaps about the Pentagon's dead not being civilians, and the NYPD and Port Authority police dead in NYC and others in official positions not being technically "civilians", such are eminently debatable. So perhaps only "2,124" of the dead were "civilians"? But that is the point.
One would think that the appropriate response in a democracy would be for Kilroy-Silk's comments to be challenged in print by those, like the Muslim Council of Britain, who disagree. That's called freedom.
Interestingly, George Bush has nothing to do with the fact that in Britain it is apparently borderline illegal to so much as suggest that in too many Arab countries there might be a few too many "suicide bombers, limb amputators," and "women repressors".
Talk about chilling.
Anyway, all that aside, let's see if we are clear about this:
1) Kilroy-Silk could face police for offering opinions in a newspaper column. (Kilroy-Silk did not say those things on his publicly funded by licence fee, BBC TV show.)
and
2) On the other hand, we have been beset since early 2002 about the "mistreatment" of captured al Qaeda British citizens held at Guantanamo. They are men captured by the U.S. while fighting for and/or supporting a group with which Britain too is technically at war, and which group planned (and plans) to do a lot more damage than might ever be done by a newspaper columnist.
Good that everyone has their priorities straight. ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 09, 2004
Here in Britain, BBC-TV shows an old style, daytime Donahue-like talk show, starring former Labour MP, Robert Kilroy-Silk. Called simply "Kilroy", the show does all the typical talk-tv stuff. Not worth mentioning more about it, right?
His program will not appear on the BBC again. Why? Well, Mr Kilroy-Silk also writes a newspaper column in the Sunday Express. And what he wrote in his column last Sunday has gotten some people steamed, to say the least. The BBC reports:
The Kilroy programme will be taken off air immediately following comments made by Robert Kilroy-Silk in a newspaper article, the BBC has announced.
The presenter branded Arabs "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors" and asked what they had given to the world other than oil. . .
. . .The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) described the piece written by the discussion show host in last week's Sunday Express as a "gratuitous anti-Arab rant".
Mr Kilroy-Silk's article included comments saying the toppling of despotic regimes in the Middle East should be a war aim, and questioned the contribution of the Arab nations to world welfare and civilisation.
He referred to how Arabs "murdered more than 3,000 civilians on 11 September" and then "danced in the streets" to celebrate.
The MCB secretary general Iqbal Sacranie wrote in a letter to BBC One controller Lorraine Heggessey that Mr Kilroy-Silk had failed to distinguish between the terrorists behind the 11 September attacks and 200 million "ordinary Arab peoples".
Mr Sacranie condemned the "bigoted and ill-informed ideas" in the piece, which he said was "ignorant, extremely derogatory and indisputably racist". . .
. . .The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) reported the matter to the police.
CRE chair Trevor Phillips said: "This article is indisputably stupid and its main effect will be to give comfort to the weak-minded. . .
For an American, what is most shocking is not so much Kilroy-Silk's opinions (such as they are), but those last two sentences: In Britain, expressing an opinion about "race" that someone else might be "offended" by could well get you reported to the police by the Commission for Racial Equality.
Indeed, if George W. Bush had the power to pronounce a newspaper writer's article "indisputably stupid" and then call in the police, I'm sure the likes of Phillips would be bananas over that.
Rather than name-calling, in the style of Phillips and Sacranie, how about asking some hard questions.
Is it not true that, when it comes to the "dancing in the streets" and "murdered more than 3,000 civilians on 11 September," Kilroy-Silk is essentially correct? After all, it is well documented that some Palestinians did indeed dance in joy when they heard of the attacks of September 11, 2001. And even the BBC admits that 19 Arab men, most of whom were Saudi nationals, undertook the hijackings which killed 3,000 people in New York and Washington.
Now, if someone is intent on splitting hairs perhaps about the Pentagon's dead not being civilians, and the NYPD and Port Authority police dead in NYC and others in official positions not being technically "civilians", such are eminently debatable. So perhaps only "2,124" of the dead were "civilians"? But that is the point.
One would think that the appropriate response in a democracy would be for Kilroy-Silk's comments to be challenged in print by those, like the Muslim Council of Britain, who disagree. That's called freedom.
Interestingly, George Bush has nothing to do with the fact that in Britain it is apparently borderline illegal to so much as suggest that in too many Arab countries there might be a few too many "suicide bombers, limb amputators," and "women repressors".
Talk about chilling.
Anyway, all that aside, let's see if we are clear about this:
1) Kilroy-Silk could face police for offering opinions in a newspaper column. (Kilroy-Silk did not say those things on his publicly funded by licence fee, BBC TV show.)
and
2) On the other hand, we have been beset since early 2002 about the "mistreatment" of captured al Qaeda British citizens held at Guantanamo. They are men captured by the U.S. while fighting for and/or supporting a group with which Britain too is technically at war, and which group planned (and plans) to do a lot more damage than might ever be done by a newspaper columnist.
Good that everyone has their priorities straight. ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 09, 2004
LEFTIST MATH
Cox and Forkum have a superb cartoon pointing out how asinine it is to compare a U.S. president with the "mother of all dictators". ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 09, 2004
Cox and Forkum have a superb cartoon pointing out how asinine it is to compare a U.S. president with the "mother of all dictators". ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 09, 2004
Thursday, January 08, 2004
FROM DOWNED BLACK HAWK TO ANNOYED "HUMAN RIGHTS" ADVOCATES
An AP writer, ummmm, reports:
A U.S. Black Hawk medivac helicopter crashed Thursday near this stronghold of the anti-American insurgency, killing all nine soldiers aboard, the U.S. military said. A witness said the helicopter, which bore red crosses, was hit in the tail by a rocket. . .
Shooting at the Red Cross. Well, it isn't the first time, as we all know.
We all await "international condemnation" of the "insurgency" for failing to adhere to the Geneva Conventions.
Hell should freeze over first. . .
And this, of course, is not a first in the area, as the AP helpfully reminds us. . .
. . . Fallujah, west of Baghdad, is a flash point of the resistance against the U.S. occupation where rebels previously have shot down U.S. helicopters. . .
. . .A U.S. helicopter was shot down Jan. 2 in the Fallujah area, killing one soldier, and military officials said it almost certainly was shot down by rebels. . .
"U.S. occupation". "Insurgency". "Rebels".
Just when will "rebels" morph into "freedom fighters"?
Meanwhile. . .
At Abu Ghraib, hundreds of people waited in frustration for hours, hoping relatives would be among the first detainees that coalition officials said would be freed in what U.S. officials portrayed as a goodwill gesture.
U.S. guards said they had no orders to release anyone, and an Iraqi lawyer, Mohammed al-Tamimi, expressed doubt anyone would be freed Thursday from Abu Ghraib, where Saddam's regime tortured and murdered political opponents. . .
Not that the AP would DARE to insinuate that the U.S. is treating these people like the Hussein regime treated ITS prisoners? Of course not!
But an official said it was a routine release of about 80 prisoners that had nothing to do with the amnesty announced Wednesday by U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer. . .
. . . Bremer had said 506 of some 12,800 detainees would be released and that the first 100 would be freed Thursday from Abu Ghraib. . .
. . .Relatives at the prison said people were being arrested unjustly and there were dozens of tales of men detained because they were near the scene of an attack. . .
. . .The release of detainees has been a top demand of the country's community and tribal leaders, as well as human rights advocates.
And the AP fails to see the stunning significance of that final sentence: Iraq now has vocal community and tribal leaders and living, breathing, outspoken human rights advocates, who offer criticism and make demands without fear of getting their testicles ripped off in some darkened, forgotten cell.
In the AP's world, the coalition are "occupiers" opposed by "rebels", who presumably have the best interests of Iraq at heart. . .
David Hale must be spinning in his grave. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 08, 2004
An AP writer, ummmm, reports:
A U.S. Black Hawk medivac helicopter crashed Thursday near this stronghold of the anti-American insurgency, killing all nine soldiers aboard, the U.S. military said. A witness said the helicopter, which bore red crosses, was hit in the tail by a rocket. . .
Shooting at the Red Cross. Well, it isn't the first time, as we all know.
We all await "international condemnation" of the "insurgency" for failing to adhere to the Geneva Conventions.
Hell should freeze over first. . .
And this, of course, is not a first in the area, as the AP helpfully reminds us. . .
. . . Fallujah, west of Baghdad, is a flash point of the resistance against the U.S. occupation where rebels previously have shot down U.S. helicopters. . .
. . .A U.S. helicopter was shot down Jan. 2 in the Fallujah area, killing one soldier, and military officials said it almost certainly was shot down by rebels. . .
"U.S. occupation". "Insurgency". "Rebels".
Just when will "rebels" morph into "freedom fighters"?
Meanwhile. . .
At Abu Ghraib, hundreds of people waited in frustration for hours, hoping relatives would be among the first detainees that coalition officials said would be freed in what U.S. officials portrayed as a goodwill gesture.
U.S. guards said they had no orders to release anyone, and an Iraqi lawyer, Mohammed al-Tamimi, expressed doubt anyone would be freed Thursday from Abu Ghraib, where Saddam's regime tortured and murdered political opponents. . .
Not that the AP would DARE to insinuate that the U.S. is treating these people like the Hussein regime treated ITS prisoners? Of course not!
But an official said it was a routine release of about 80 prisoners that had nothing to do with the amnesty announced Wednesday by U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer. . .
. . . Bremer had said 506 of some 12,800 detainees would be released and that the first 100 would be freed Thursday from Abu Ghraib. . .
. . .Relatives at the prison said people were being arrested unjustly and there were dozens of tales of men detained because they were near the scene of an attack. . .
. . .The release of detainees has been a top demand of the country's community and tribal leaders, as well as human rights advocates.
And the AP fails to see the stunning significance of that final sentence: Iraq now has vocal community and tribal leaders and living, breathing, outspoken human rights advocates, who offer criticism and make demands without fear of getting their testicles ripped off in some darkened, forgotten cell.
In the AP's world, the coalition are "occupiers" opposed by "rebels", who presumably have the best interests of Iraq at heart. . .
David Hale must be spinning in his grave. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 08, 2004
GUEST WORKERS. . .
. . . are essentially what President Bush's work permit plan allows. And we see how, errrr, well such has worked in Europe, since the 1950s: "Guests" don't much like to leave.
CNN reports, in a sidebar -- and this is THE key problem with the plan:
. . .Those workers then can apply for permanent U.S. residency, but they will receive no preferential consideration. . .
. . .These workers receive a temporary three-year visa, renewable once. They are expected to return to their countries once their visas expire. . .
Let's think on it this way: Does anyone REALLY believe that those who get work in the U.S. will then LEAVE the U.S. after only SIX years, total? What illegal immigrant looking to move to the U.S. to work INDEFINITELY is going to apply, and risk finding his or herself in the immigration net? After all, he or she hopes to stay INDEFINITELY, not for just six years. Providing no extra benefit toward permanent residency means that for such people -- whom we are told are the MAJOR concern -- the plan provides nothing. And even if such people did apply and got a full six years, what's to keep them from staying on illegally beyond that, as before?
About the only thing the plan would provide is work for people abroad who might want to work in the U.S. for a time, and then honestly return home.
If one doesn't support this plan, there is no reason to get excited. Nothing is going to change in a substantive manner. The reason is that one point -- which is a huge, unresolved mess waiting to happen.
And that is the mess that they are trying -- ostensibly, anyway -- to correct.
What a waste of time. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 08, 2004
. . . are essentially what President Bush's work permit plan allows. And we see how, errrr, well such has worked in Europe, since the 1950s: "Guests" don't much like to leave.
CNN reports, in a sidebar -- and this is THE key problem with the plan:
. . .Those workers then can apply for permanent U.S. residency, but they will receive no preferential consideration. . .
. . .These workers receive a temporary three-year visa, renewable once. They are expected to return to their countries once their visas expire. . .
Let's think on it this way: Does anyone REALLY believe that those who get work in the U.S. will then LEAVE the U.S. after only SIX years, total? What illegal immigrant looking to move to the U.S. to work INDEFINITELY is going to apply, and risk finding his or herself in the immigration net? After all, he or she hopes to stay INDEFINITELY, not for just six years. Providing no extra benefit toward permanent residency means that for such people -- whom we are told are the MAJOR concern -- the plan provides nothing. And even if such people did apply and got a full six years, what's to keep them from staying on illegally beyond that, as before?
About the only thing the plan would provide is work for people abroad who might want to work in the U.S. for a time, and then honestly return home.
If one doesn't support this plan, there is no reason to get excited. Nothing is going to change in a substantive manner. The reason is that one point -- which is a huge, unresolved mess waiting to happen.
And that is the mess that they are trying -- ostensibly, anyway -- to correct.
What a waste of time. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 08, 2004
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
THE BIGGEST "NON-SCANDAL" OF RECENT TIMES
Well, it's been quiet for a few months. Lord Hutton has been getting ready. The BBC (which continues to report on this as if it were a disinterested third party, and not a major player) notes:
Tory leader Michael Howard has stepped up the pressure on Tony Blair ahead of the report into the death of Iraq weapons expert Dr David Kelly.
Mr Howard quizzed Mr Blair over his role in Dr Kelly being named as the possible source of BBC reports that the threat from Iraq had been exaggerated. . .
As Americans, we are used to everything being termed "another Watergate." In Britain, this "non-scandal" beats out even many of those, when it comes to boosting irrelevancy to the profound. Why?
Because it matters not one iota whether Tony Blair authorized the "naming" of Dr Kelly or not. As was pointed out some time ago in the American press, if anyone owed anyone a duty of confidentially, it was Dr Kelly who owed THAT to the government he served, not the reverse.
The reason for that is simple: The moment the scientist started chatting with a BBC reporter, all bets were off. He went public first, not the other way 'round.
The real scandal here is that anyone actually thinks this "affair" rates as a scandal. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 07, 2004
Well, it's been quiet for a few months. Lord Hutton has been getting ready. The BBC (which continues to report on this as if it were a disinterested third party, and not a major player) notes:
Tory leader Michael Howard has stepped up the pressure on Tony Blair ahead of the report into the death of Iraq weapons expert Dr David Kelly.
Mr Howard quizzed Mr Blair over his role in Dr Kelly being named as the possible source of BBC reports that the threat from Iraq had been exaggerated. . .
As Americans, we are used to everything being termed "another Watergate." In Britain, this "non-scandal" beats out even many of those, when it comes to boosting irrelevancy to the profound. Why?
Because it matters not one iota whether Tony Blair authorized the "naming" of Dr Kelly or not. As was pointed out some time ago in the American press, if anyone owed anyone a duty of confidentially, it was Dr Kelly who owed THAT to the government he served, not the reverse.
The reason for that is simple: The moment the scientist started chatting with a BBC reporter, all bets were off. He went public first, not the other way 'round.
The real scandal here is that anyone actually thinks this "affair" rates as a scandal. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, January 07, 2004
Monday, January 05, 2004
IT WAS NEVER GONNA HAPPEN, RIGHT?
Few thought in November 2001 that they'd be here by January 2004. It hasn't been easy of course, but Afghanistan now has a democratic constitution. The Washington Post reports:
Afghan delegates agreed on a new constitution Sunday, overcoming weeks of division and mistrust to hammer out a historic compromise meant to bind together the war-ravaged nation's mosaic of ethnic groups. . .
And even the UN thinks its terrific. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 05, 2004
Few thought in November 2001 that they'd be here by January 2004. It hasn't been easy of course, but Afghanistan now has a democratic constitution. The Washington Post reports:
Afghan delegates agreed on a new constitution Sunday, overcoming weeks of division and mistrust to hammer out a historic compromise meant to bind together the war-ravaged nation's mosaic of ethnic groups. . .
And even the UN thinks its terrific. ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 05, 2004
A FIGURE OF SPEECH
Tim Blair:
Idiot leftists. They try to help, and in their blind, shivering madness end up the unwitting inspiration for mass murder. Enjoy the next few months of sleepless nights, Doc.
Click over to find out which genius Tim is talking about. What a, urrrrr, "scholar". ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 05, 2004
Tim Blair:
Idiot leftists. They try to help, and in their blind, shivering madness end up the unwitting inspiration for mass murder. Enjoy the next few months of sleepless nights, Doc.
Click over to find out which genius Tim is talking about. What a, urrrrr, "scholar". ¶ by Robert, Monday, January 05, 2004
Sunday, January 04, 2004
BLAIR IN BASRA
About 10.30 AM British time, BBC News 24 broadcast live a Tony Blair speech to U.K. troops in Iraq. (The full transcript is not online yet. When it is, it is worth reading.) ¶ by Robert, Sunday, January 04, 2004
About 10.30 AM British time, BBC News 24 broadcast live a Tony Blair speech to U.K. troops in Iraq. (The full transcript is not online yet. When it is, it is worth reading.) ¶ by Robert, Sunday, January 04, 2004
HALLIBURTON CONTRACT CANCELLED
The BBC reports:
The US military says a special energy unit has taking over supervising oil imports to Iraq, ending a controversial Pentagon deal with Halliburton.
The move comes after an official report saying a Halliburton subsidiary, which has close links to the White House, may have overcharged for fuel deliveries.
. . .Houston-based oil services giant Halliburton - run by Dick Cheney until he successfully ran for the office of Vice President in 2000 - strongly denies wrongdoing. . .
Well, so much for the notion that the war was waged to enrich Halliburton. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, January 04, 2004
The BBC reports:
The US military says a special energy unit has taking over supervising oil imports to Iraq, ending a controversial Pentagon deal with Halliburton.
The move comes after an official report saying a Halliburton subsidiary, which has close links to the White House, may have overcharged for fuel deliveries.
. . .Houston-based oil services giant Halliburton - run by Dick Cheney until he successfully ran for the office of Vice President in 2000 - strongly denies wrongdoing. . .
Well, so much for the notion that the war was waged to enrich Halliburton. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, January 04, 2004
Saturday, January 03, 2004
THIS IS SICKENINGLY FAMILIAR, NO?
The BBC reports:
An Egyptian charter plane has crashed into the Red Sea, killing all 148 passengers and crew on board.
The plane went down shortly after leaving the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.
Most of the passengers were French tourists, including many children, returning from holiday to Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris.
French and Egyptian officials have said preliminary findings suggest the crash was caused by technical failure, developed minutes after take-off. . .
In most such situations, that would seem to be about it.
This crash may indeed just be technically-related. But the fact is we also live in an era in which we can discount absolutely nothing Islamists might try -- including someone suicidally crashing a plane.
And it is worth noting, in light of the heightened recent alerts on British and, interestingly, French carriers, that this planeload of French ended up, according to local divers. . .
. . .in very deep water, perhaps too deep to recover either the majority of the dead or the black box flight recorder, reports the BBC's Paul Wood in Cairo. . .
Given that they don't have the flight recorders, it is curious how quickly they have claimed "technical" problems were the reason. Remember, experts can get intact black boxes from just about anywhere -- just as they've previously fished them out of the North Atlantic. Remember the EgyptAir 990 crash in 1999?:
"EgyptAir 990 crew actions were determined to be inconsistent with the performance of standard Boeing recommended operating procedures and training for the 767 airplane."
. . .Boeing does not believe that the loss of EgyptAir 990 was the result of a mechanical failure of the aircraft or aircraft systems. . .
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board completed its investigation and reported in 2002:
. . .The accident airplane's nose-down movements did not result from a failure in the elevator control system or any other airplane failure.
There was no evidence of any failure condition within the elevator system of the accident airplane that would have caused or contributed to the initial pitchover or prevented a successful recovery.
No mechanical failure scenario resulted in airplane movements that matched the flight data recorder data from the accident airplane.
Even assuming that one of the four examined failure scenarios that the investigation evaluated in depth had occurred, the accident airplane would still have been recoverable because of the capabilities of the Boeing 767's redundant elevator system.
The accident airplane's movements during the initial part of the accident sequence were the result of the relief first officer's manipulation of the controls.
At the relief first officer's suggestion, a transfer of control at the first officer's position occurred earlier than normal during the accident flight.
The relief first officer was alone in the cockpit when he manually disconnected the autopilot and moved the throttle levers from cruise to idle; there was no evidence of any airplane system malfunction, conflicting air traffic, or other event that would have prompted these actions.
The nature and degree of the subsequent nose-down elevator movements were not consistent with those that might have resulted from a mechanical failure but could be explained by pilot input.
There was no apparent reason for the relief first officer's nose-down elevator inputs.
The relief first officer's calm repetition of the phrase "I rely on God," beginning about 74 seconds before the airplane's dive began and continuing until just after the captain returned to the cockpit (about 14 seconds into the dive), without any call for help or other audible reaction of surprise or alarm from the relief first officer after the sudden dive is not consistent with the reaction that would be expected from a pilot who is encountering an unexpected or uncommanded flight condition.
The absence of any attempt by the relief first officer to recover from the accident airplane's sudden dive is also inconsistent with his having encountered an unexpected or uncommanded flight condition.
The relief first officer's failure to respond to the command captain's questions ("What's happening? What's happening?") upon the captain's return to the cockpit is also inconsistent with the reaction that would be expected from a pilot who is encountering an uncommanded or undesired flight condition.
The accident airplane's movements after the command captain returned to the cockpit were the result of both pilots' inputs, including opposing elevator inputs where the relief first officer continued to command nose-down and the captain commanded nose-up elevator movements.
Nose-up elevator movements began only after the captain returned to the cockpit.
Testing showed that recovery of the airplane was possible but not accomplished.
Seconds after the nose-up elevator movements began, the elevator surfaces began moving in different directions, with the captain's control column commanding nose-up movement and the relief first officer's control column commanding nose-down movement.
After the elevator split began, the relief first officer shut down the engines.
The captain repeatedly asked the relief first officer to "pull with me," but the relief first officer continued to command nose-down elevator movement.
The captain's actions were consistent with an attempt to recover the accident airplane and the relief first officer's were not.
Probable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the EgyptAir flight 990 accident is the airplane's departure from normal cruise flight and subsequent impact with the Atlantic Ocean as a result of the relief first officer's flight control inputs. The reason for the relief first officer's actions was not determined.
Just worth considering. . . ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 03, 2004
The BBC reports:
An Egyptian charter plane has crashed into the Red Sea, killing all 148 passengers and crew on board.
The plane went down shortly after leaving the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.
Most of the passengers were French tourists, including many children, returning from holiday to Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris.
French and Egyptian officials have said preliminary findings suggest the crash was caused by technical failure, developed minutes after take-off. . .
In most such situations, that would seem to be about it.
This crash may indeed just be technically-related. But the fact is we also live in an era in which we can discount absolutely nothing Islamists might try -- including someone suicidally crashing a plane.
And it is worth noting, in light of the heightened recent alerts on British and, interestingly, French carriers, that this planeload of French ended up, according to local divers. . .
. . .in very deep water, perhaps too deep to recover either the majority of the dead or the black box flight recorder, reports the BBC's Paul Wood in Cairo. . .
Given that they don't have the flight recorders, it is curious how quickly they have claimed "technical" problems were the reason. Remember, experts can get intact black boxes from just about anywhere -- just as they've previously fished them out of the North Atlantic. Remember the EgyptAir 990 crash in 1999?:
"EgyptAir 990 crew actions were determined to be inconsistent with the performance of standard Boeing recommended operating procedures and training for the 767 airplane."
. . .Boeing does not believe that the loss of EgyptAir 990 was the result of a mechanical failure of the aircraft or aircraft systems. . .
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board completed its investigation and reported in 2002:
. . .The accident airplane's nose-down movements did not result from a failure in the elevator control system or any other airplane failure.
There was no evidence of any failure condition within the elevator system of the accident airplane that would have caused or contributed to the initial pitchover or prevented a successful recovery.
No mechanical failure scenario resulted in airplane movements that matched the flight data recorder data from the accident airplane.
Even assuming that one of the four examined failure scenarios that the investigation evaluated in depth had occurred, the accident airplane would still have been recoverable because of the capabilities of the Boeing 767's redundant elevator system.
The accident airplane's movements during the initial part of the accident sequence were the result of the relief first officer's manipulation of the controls.
At the relief first officer's suggestion, a transfer of control at the first officer's position occurred earlier than normal during the accident flight.
The relief first officer was alone in the cockpit when he manually disconnected the autopilot and moved the throttle levers from cruise to idle; there was no evidence of any airplane system malfunction, conflicting air traffic, or other event that would have prompted these actions.
The nature and degree of the subsequent nose-down elevator movements were not consistent with those that might have resulted from a mechanical failure but could be explained by pilot input.
There was no apparent reason for the relief first officer's nose-down elevator inputs.
The relief first officer's calm repetition of the phrase "I rely on God," beginning about 74 seconds before the airplane's dive began and continuing until just after the captain returned to the cockpit (about 14 seconds into the dive), without any call for help or other audible reaction of surprise or alarm from the relief first officer after the sudden dive is not consistent with the reaction that would be expected from a pilot who is encountering an unexpected or uncommanded flight condition.
The absence of any attempt by the relief first officer to recover from the accident airplane's sudden dive is also inconsistent with his having encountered an unexpected or uncommanded flight condition.
The relief first officer's failure to respond to the command captain's questions ("What's happening? What's happening?") upon the captain's return to the cockpit is also inconsistent with the reaction that would be expected from a pilot who is encountering an uncommanded or undesired flight condition.
The accident airplane's movements after the command captain returned to the cockpit were the result of both pilots' inputs, including opposing elevator inputs where the relief first officer continued to command nose-down and the captain commanded nose-up elevator movements.
Nose-up elevator movements began only after the captain returned to the cockpit.
Testing showed that recovery of the airplane was possible but not accomplished.
Seconds after the nose-up elevator movements began, the elevator surfaces began moving in different directions, with the captain's control column commanding nose-up movement and the relief first officer's control column commanding nose-down movement.
After the elevator split began, the relief first officer shut down the engines.
The captain repeatedly asked the relief first officer to "pull with me," but the relief first officer continued to command nose-down elevator movement.
The captain's actions were consistent with an attempt to recover the accident airplane and the relief first officer's were not.
Probable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the EgyptAir flight 990 accident is the airplane's departure from normal cruise flight and subsequent impact with the Atlantic Ocean as a result of the relief first officer's flight control inputs. The reason for the relief first officer's actions was not determined.
Just worth considering. . . ¶ by Robert, Saturday, January 03, 2004
Friday, January 02, 2004
SCHROEDER AT D-DAY
The BBC reports:
Germany's Gerhard Schroeder has accepted a French invitation to events marking the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings. . .
Should Germany be there officially? Opinion on the BBC "Talking Points" web page is divided. Most seem to say, yes, it is time. This is typical:
Yes they should be allowed to attend. It is about time people got over what happened and begin to live together. The people that started the war are mostly dead, and the ones that are left should not pay for ever more for what they did. You only have to look at Ireland to see what happens when people pass hatred down to future generations.
June Faulkner, England
Someone else compares it to inviting America's enemies of today to the dedication of a new WTC:
Would we invite Saddam Hussain and members of the Taleban to the opening of the newly reconstructed World Trade Centre when it's completed? It's the same principle ... some old wounds will never heal.
Marcus Mowforth, London
Both points are valid. But there is a happy medium.
Regarding D-Day, Germany should be there. The German government of today, and the German people of today, have disavowed the Hitler regime.
In contrast, the war with Islamism continues. Perhaps on September 11, 2061, after Islamism too has become a dead letter, confined to history books, renounced by Islam in general, that the descendants of those who today espouse Islamism might be invited to attend a remembrance of the attacks of September 11, 2001. But such reconciliation can hardly take place before that.
¶ by Robert, Friday, January 02, 2004
The BBC reports:
Germany's Gerhard Schroeder has accepted a French invitation to events marking the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings. . .
Should Germany be there officially? Opinion on the BBC "Talking Points" web page is divided. Most seem to say, yes, it is time. This is typical:
Yes they should be allowed to attend. It is about time people got over what happened and begin to live together. The people that started the war are mostly dead, and the ones that are left should not pay for ever more for what they did. You only have to look at Ireland to see what happens when people pass hatred down to future generations.
June Faulkner, England
Someone else compares it to inviting America's enemies of today to the dedication of a new WTC:
Would we invite Saddam Hussain and members of the Taleban to the opening of the newly reconstructed World Trade Centre when it's completed? It's the same principle ... some old wounds will never heal.
Marcus Mowforth, London
Both points are valid. But there is a happy medium.
Regarding D-Day, Germany should be there. The German government of today, and the German people of today, have disavowed the Hitler regime.
In contrast, the war with Islamism continues. Perhaps on September 11, 2061, after Islamism too has become a dead letter, confined to history books, renounced by Islam in general, that the descendants of those who today espouse Islamism might be invited to attend a remembrance of the attacks of September 11, 2001. But such reconciliation can hardly take place before that.
¶ by Robert, Friday, January 02, 2004
ISOLATIONISM
Being American in T.O. on the U.S.A., Americans and isolationism:
. . .Anericans are isolationists, and the French agitation about hyperpuissance went below our radar. The fact that we could conquer the world was flawed: we'd have to leave home to do it, and we don't want to. The world is a nice place to visit, but.
Look at how many times al Qaeda attacked us and killed Americans before we finally got collectively angry enough to fight back? They were forced to attack us on our home soil before we stopped firing across their bow. . .
Right on target. Hardly the mentality of a people bent on global conquest. ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 02, 2004
Being American in T.O. on the U.S.A., Americans and isolationism:
. . .Anericans are isolationists, and the French agitation about hyperpuissance went below our radar. The fact that we could conquer the world was flawed: we'd have to leave home to do it, and we don't want to. The world is a nice place to visit, but.
Look at how many times al Qaeda attacked us and killed Americans before we finally got collectively angry enough to fight back? They were forced to attack us on our home soil before we stopped firing across their bow. . .
Right on target. Hardly the mentality of a people bent on global conquest. ¶ by Robert, Friday, January 02, 2004
Thursday, January 01, 2004
AS WE MOVE INTO ANOTHER YEAR
We spent New Year's Eve in Southampton, hoping to catch a glimpse of the Queen Mary 2 at dockside (we didn't see her), doing some shopping, and were at home for midnight.
Nothing too exciting.
My uncle got married in Rhode Island last night. My parents were there. So was my sister. Such caused me to think on things. . .
My parents are wonderful people. My father busted his behind for 40 years, and fully deserves his retirement. Of course, whether my mother deserves him home all day is another question.
My sister may spend time at the Sorbonne during the summer. She speaks French like a Frenchwoman (according to French people), Italian like an Italian woman (according to Italian people), and even a bit of Russian (according to Russian people). So much for Americans not speaking foreign languages well. And she is a wonderful person, pure and simple.
Not only do I have good parents, but I'm lucky to have great in-laws. In them, I have, in fact, really a second set of parents. Most married men should be so lucky. And in my brothers-in-law and their families, I have a wider second family. I never had a brother, and now I have two. And I never thought I would like children. But my nieces and nephews are just extraordinary. But if you have your own children, you probably already knew that. . .
Most of all, I have a lovely wife. Helen is her name. I never told you that? Nope, never did. She deserves a name at last. She considers blogging the most anti-social of activities. But, then again, she knows that instead of my standing in the lounge debating one way with BBC News 24, she knows I will vanish, pull out the laptop or go to the desktop and slam the keyboard. So she does appreciate that blogging means a quieter home.
Without my wife I would simply be drifting through this life. But if you have a wife/husband and are in a happy marriage, or if you have a long-term partner, you probably already knew that. . .
Blogs are vanity. We all know that. But so what? They allow us the freedom to ramble on. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes not. Just as with life.
If you have stopped here from time to time for a while, I thank you. And if you are new to this site, of course I thank you, too. It is amazing how many good people I have gotten to know because I have undertaken this. Your emails are always welcomed -- even if I can't always answer them, I always read them.
Again, have a Happy 2004. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 01, 2004
We spent New Year's Eve in Southampton, hoping to catch a glimpse of the Queen Mary 2 at dockside (we didn't see her), doing some shopping, and were at home for midnight.
Nothing too exciting.
My uncle got married in Rhode Island last night. My parents were there. So was my sister. Such caused me to think on things. . .
My parents are wonderful people. My father busted his behind for 40 years, and fully deserves his retirement. Of course, whether my mother deserves him home all day is another question.
My sister may spend time at the Sorbonne during the summer. She speaks French like a Frenchwoman (according to French people), Italian like an Italian woman (according to Italian people), and even a bit of Russian (according to Russian people). So much for Americans not speaking foreign languages well. And she is a wonderful person, pure and simple.
Not only do I have good parents, but I'm lucky to have great in-laws. In them, I have, in fact, really a second set of parents. Most married men should be so lucky. And in my brothers-in-law and their families, I have a wider second family. I never had a brother, and now I have two. And I never thought I would like children. But my nieces and nephews are just extraordinary. But if you have your own children, you probably already knew that. . .
Most of all, I have a lovely wife. Helen is her name. I never told you that? Nope, never did. She deserves a name at last. She considers blogging the most anti-social of activities. But, then again, she knows that instead of my standing in the lounge debating one way with BBC News 24, she knows I will vanish, pull out the laptop or go to the desktop and slam the keyboard. So she does appreciate that blogging means a quieter home.
Without my wife I would simply be drifting through this life. But if you have a wife/husband and are in a happy marriage, or if you have a long-term partner, you probably already knew that. . .
Blogs are vanity. We all know that. But so what? They allow us the freedom to ramble on. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes not. Just as with life.
If you have stopped here from time to time for a while, I thank you. And if you are new to this site, of course I thank you, too. It is amazing how many good people I have gotten to know because I have undertaken this. Your emails are always welcomed -- even if I can't always answer them, I always read them.
Again, have a Happy 2004. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, January 01, 2004
