Highway 99
Friday, January 30, 2004
 
Now is the winter of our discontent? There was an unusual story in the Guardian concerning a protest by BBC employees over Greg Dyke's resignation. It was unusual in that it contained a large number of errors -- spelling (I think -- did the Pied Piper operate in Hamlyn or in Hamlin?); spacing; capitalization; words apparently left out of a paragraph; and one word apparently substituted for another, creating a weird effect.

Something peculiar seems to be going on. Even though the Guardian is usually slanted as hell, I've always known it to be scrupulous about the mechanics of writing.

One slightly cryptic paragraph:
Among those who had gathered outside TV Centre in west London by late this afternoon, including BBC3 presenter Paddy O'Connell, according to estimates. Another 50 walked out of Broadcasting House in central London.
Uh, run that by me again?

And here's my favorite:
Asked whether he should not pay heed to the popular protest, Mr Dyke said: "Sadly the director generalship is not a popularity contrast. . . ."
Since the Guardian didn't remark upon the oddness of this phrase, I'm going to assume that the mistake was the unnamed reporter's, rather than that Dyke misspoke. (Although you could say that, even if he used the phrase popularity contest, Dyke in a sense misspoke -- after all, he seemed to be saying that he thought the Director Generalship of the BBC should in fact be the result of a popularity contest voted on by the employees, rather than a position requiring the policing of those employees when they engaged in the sort of egregiously bad behavior Andrew Gilligan specialized in. You can understand how Dyke might feel that way, considering the situation he's currently in, but he's still dead wrong.)

All of which makes me wonder about how this story got so screwed up. Even if the reporter filed a mistake-laden article, you'd think a proofreader or an editor would have caught some of them. Was the story rushed onto the website in the excitement of the breaking news? Or do the staff members at the Guardian identify so closely with the BBC personnel that they are as rattled and distraught as the Beebers?

******************************************************

I'm probably overreacting myself to the events of the past few days, but I have to say that Britain in its current state is beginning to remind me of Britain in 1979. Not its financial solvency or the condition of its physical well-being -- there's obviously a stark contrast (as opposed to a popularity contrast) between Britain now and Britain then when it comes to those areas -- but rather its psychological and emotional state, a kind of slowly rising irrationality or hysteria that seems to be gradually enveloping the population. I know it's hazardous to judge the atmosphere of a country from thousands of miles away -- look at how people in other countries are constantly misjudging the mood of Americans. And I sincerely hope I'm wrong about this. Maybe it's just a fever running through the British media, and I'm incorrectly extrapolating from the media's overwrought state of mind to the true state of mind of the nation.

But if Britain really is starting to slide into a 1979-style breakdown, there is one enormous and enormously depressing difference today: The Tories, who were a real alternative and a voice of sanity in '79, are now leading the way toward chaos.

 
Re my previous post:

Dyke resigns! Two down, two to go!

Gilligan resigns! Three down, one to go!

Okay, Mr. Sambrook, the ball's in your court!



Wednesday, January 28, 2004
 
Bragging rights! Okay, I 'fessed up to having been completely clueless about the John Kerry surge -- and I didn't even have to, considering I never got around to blogging about who I thought was going to win Iowa.

So, having been honest about the Kerry matter above and beyond the call of duty, I feel justified in claiming my bragging rights concerning the BBC/Blair/Kelly fracas. I was calling this one correctly as far back as July, my first month of blogging. (Note: I was never able to get my earliest posts to accept permalinks, so if you're interested in reading them, you'll have to go into archives and scroll. Permalinks begin with the August posts.)

In one post from July 20 titled "I am Shocked, Shocked . . ." I wrote this:
I went to the BBC's 'Newsnight' homepage to see if I could find a link to the program itself. I did. I also found this program description:

"18 July 2003 Police say that a body found matches the description of Dr David Kelly. If there is an inquiry, how serious might the political fall out be for the government? Plus a report on Guantanamo."

Plus a report on Guantanamo. Of course.

Of course it never dawned on them to ask how serious the political fallout might be for the BBC. At least, it never dawned on them to ask publicly.
In the next post, titled "New Reader Poll for Sky News," also from July 20, I wrote:
Yesterday the homepage of Sky TV News offered its readers a chance to register their opinion of who they thought should resign as a consequence of the death of Dr. David Kelly. I didn't write down the names listed, and I can't find that poll today; however, I'm pretty certain that the four choices on offer were Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell, Geoff Hoon, and "no one." Today there was a new question, asking whether people believed Parliament ought to be recalled as a result of Kelly's death.

Let me suggest another possibility: Keep yesterday's question of who should resign; but update the list of potential resignees to read Greg Dyke, Gavyn Davies, Richard Sambrook, and Andrew Gilligan. I'd be interested in seeing those poll results.
One down, three to go!

In an untitled post that same day, I wrote this:
Is anyone getting as sick as I am of seeing the fruits of victory continually snatched away from Blair?

He was visiting Iraq on a sort of benevolent victory tour, basking in well-deserved appreciation from the locals and getting photographed being hugged and kissed by little Iraqi kids, when back home the whole WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? YOU LIED YOU LIED YOU LIED! nonsense mushroomed, and what should have been a triumphant return home to Britain was more like walking into a minefield.

Now he gives a glorious speech before Congress, receives standing ovation after standing ovation, gets a reception from the Americans worthy of the statesman he has gradually become, gets Geroge Bush to (evidently) hand over the two British citizens facing military trials at Guantanamo to be tried in Britain instead -- and he wakes up the next morning to find a Parliamentary witness/weapons inspector dead of an apparent suicide and his own government being convicted in the media of more or less killing the man.

Has any politician done so much right under such difficult circumstances, and taken such unremitting crap for it? Why the hell does this poor bastard seem so unable to catch a break? God knows he deserves one.
Okay, I was off-target on the British citizens in Guantanamo. But I stand by the rest of it.

On July 24, in a post titled "Call 911. Andrew is Stressed," I wrote about the fact that the BBC had requested that the Parliamentary investigating committee not release the transcript of its session questioning Andrew Gilligan, and the committee chairman acceding to this request, because Gilligan was "stressed" -- this in spite of the fact that a few days earlier Gilligan had been demanding that the transcript be published because it would exonerate him:
I suspect they're actually gun-shy after the apparent suicide of Dr. David Kelly. I can just imagine them picturing Gilligan found with his own wrist slit. If that happened, large sections of the media and the public would probably blame the government for this second death, too, just as the idiots seem intent on groundlessly blaming Kelly's death on the government. . . .

Andrew Gilligan complaining that his evidence had been deliberately misrepresented! The pot calling the kettle black!

And now the Beeb says that publishing the transcript would add dangerously to their man's stress level. Funny that. You'd think such a vindicating document would alleviate a person's stress, wouldn't you?
Next was a post from August 23 titled "Et Tu, Economist?" which included this:
I accept the idea that public opinion has been largely against the government since the start of the Hutton inquiry (even though I think this anti-government reaction is completely unsupported by the evidence and that Hutton is going to clobber the BBC in his post-inquiry report).
In another post that same day, this one titled "Meanwhile, Back on Gilligan's Island . . ." I discussed a newspaper article that obviously turned out to be erroneous:
Great news. According to this article in tomorrow's Telegraph, Andrew Gilligan is about to be fired from the BBC, and at least two of his superiors (if that's the right word) are in deep trouble as well.

What strikes me about the Telegraph's account is that Gilligan is getting the sack because he tried to influence a parliamentary committee looking into the government/media coverage/WMD controversy and because he did not notify his bosses that he was contacting the committee. According to the Telegraph, the BBC only found out about Gilligan's e-mail to the committee when the rest of the world did: when it came out at the Hutton inquiry hearings. (Heh!)

In other words, Gilligan is in trouble with the BBC because of the shitty thing he did to the BBC, not because of the innumerable shitty things he did to so many other people (the BBC backed him to the hilt when he was doing all those shitty things).

But despite my disgust at that angle of the story (which the Telegraph seems not to take note of), and the mention at the end of the story that Gilligan is writing a book on his recent experiences and will probably make a lot of money from it (a nasty but not surprising idea), I am nonetheless heartened that at least someone is losing his job over this and that that someone is Gilligan.

Here's hoping that no one in the Blair government loses his job over anything having to do with the Iraq war, including the Kelly affair. From what I have seen and heard, no one in the government deserves to. The fault in this whole traumatic string of events is the BBC's in particular and the media's in general.

Heads rolling at the BBC. Heads rolling at The New York Times. The still-dangling possibility of one of the Gray Lady's treasured Pulitzers being rescinded. Dan Rather's ratings in the toilet.

THERE IS A TERM WHICH WAS COINED AND POPULARIZED DURING THE VIETNAM WAR DAYS WHICH IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE CURRENT WAR ON TERRORISM. THAT TERM IS NOT "BOGGED DOWN." THAT TERM IS NOT "QUAGMIRE." THE TERM IN QUESTION IS "CREDIBILITY GAP." BUT IN TODAY'S WAR IT IS NEITHER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION NOR THE BLAIR ADMINISTRATION THAT IS SUFFERING THE CREDIBILITY GAP. IT IS THE WORLDWIDE ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA WHOSE CREDIBILITY HAS BEEN TORN TO SHREDS.

I wonder if, even now, the media elites are cognizant of just how much damage they have wreaked -- upon themselves.
Okay, I wish now I hadn't put that part in caps, but I was venting. And I admit that the two administrations' credibility is somewhat dented after David Kay's assessment last week on WMDs -- though not nearly as much as their critics would have us believe. But I still think I was basically right about the credibility gap in this war having afflicted the media more than the politicians.

On September 1, in an untitled post, I linked to the original Downing Street dossier, the analysis of the document's sources as revealed in the document's code, and the revision log from the document that was also dug out of its code.

On September 3, I excerpted an article on testimony by David Kelly's family concerning Dr. Kelly's belief that the Iraq war was an absolute necessity and that the WMD were buried in the sands of the Iraqi desert. I then asked:
It makes me wonder, with more than a little sadness for several different reasons: Why couldn't David Kelly have been the chief weapons inspector giving reports to the U.N. in the run-up to the war, instead of that appeasement addict Hans Blix? How much different might the situation be today, if the inspectors had been represented by a person who cared about disarming Saddam more passionately than he cared about cutting America down to size?
Also on September 3, in a post about a Mark Steyn column titled "'There Are Definitely No Martians Here,' Said Andrew Gilligan" I wrote:
For weeks now I've been increasingly exasperated at the media's coverage of the Hutton inquiry -- most newspapers and TV networks seem to have adopted the line that "no one is coming out of this looking good," whereas it's screamingly obvious to me that it's the BBC's case that's being demolished as witness after witness gives testimony. Apparently most of the world's media identify so closely with the BBC that they feel a need to bend over backwards to ameliorate the PR damage being done to its image.
On September 6, I posted on the testimony of two of Kelly's friends, U.N. arms inspector Olivia Bosch and journalist Tom Mangold, and concluded:
The overall effect of this testimony is to back up what we've been hearing consistently in other testimony over the past few weeks: that Dr. Kelly did not believe the 45-minute claim (though others in the intelligence community did believe it); but that he did strongly believe in the veracity and usefulness of the overall dossier, in the existence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and in the necessity of war to disarm Saddam and so head off a catastrophic attack by Saddam or his agents.

Why is this information not front-page headline news in every newspaper in the world? Why isn't every evening news broadcast leading with this story?

The part that makes me angriest is that we all know the reason why.
And that was right around the time the Hutton inquiry stopped taking testimony, and things went quiet for several months while Lord Hutton digested the information and worked on his report. I have no posts on the Kelly affair in October, November, December, or most of January, though I mention it in passing a few times; yesterday's post, "Thank God, someone's watching out for poor beleaguered Andrew Gilligan," was the first since September 6 to deal directly with Hutton, as Blair coped with the vote on top-up fees and the release date for the Hutton report drew near:
Tomorrow isn't just the moment of truth for the BBC and the British government; it's the moment of truth for me and my powers of prognostication, too. I've been predicting that the government was going to be substantially cleared in the report and that the Beeb was going to be slammed. Tomorrow we'll finally know.
It's always nice to be right, but I've seldom been so glad about it. Good for Blair, good for Jack Straw, good for Geoff Hoon, God bless all of them for the way they've hung tough and stuck by us when so many of our so-called allies were abandoning us. Even if they never do anything nearly this brave again, I will be grateful to these people for the rest of my life.

Tuesday, January 27, 2004
 
Thank God, someone's watching out for poor beleaguered Andrew Gilligan. Namely, al-Jazeera is watching out for Andrew -- not a surprise when you consider that they share nearly the same worldview. And it sounds like a 1970s-style, Winter-of-Discontent sort of labor union is standing up for him, too.
Union vows action if BBC victimises Gilligan
By Arthur Neslen in London

Tuesday 27 January 2004, 21:58 Makka Time, 18:58 GMT

Any attempt by the BBC to sack or discipline the reporter at the centre of the Hutton report will trigger an industrial dispute, a union leader has warned.

The president of the National Union of Journalists, Jeremy Dear, told Aljazeera.net that while he did not expect Andrew Gilligan to be victimised, the union would take action against the BBC if he was.

"Our reaction would be to immediately back him, to represent him at any subsequent hearings, and to argue with our members that they should take whatever action is necessary to protect his position," he said.

"Any investigative journalist performing a public service has to feel that they are being supported. 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."
Translation: We don't give a damn whether Gilligan was right or wrong, he's our man and we'll defend him to the death. He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch.
The Hutton inquiry was launched with a narrow remit to investigate the circumstances of Kelly's death, and Gilligan was served on Tuesday with an advance copy of the findings.

"Both he and the BBC feel that they will come in for some criticism," Dear said. "But they don't necessarily accept that it will all be justified."
Yeah, I'll bet they feel they're coming in for some criticism. Especially now that they've seen the report.
There was support for the NUJ's stand from Dr Anas al-Tikriti, spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britian.
Al-Tikriti? Gee, wonder where his clan originated? (After seeing Blair win the top-up fees vote today, and expecting the government to be cleared in tomorrow's Hutton report, I'm in such a good mood I'm not even going to bother making fun of Dr. Anas al-Tikriti's first name. Some jokes are just too damn easy.)
Meanwhile, protests are planned to coincide with the release of the Hutton report to parliament.

A spokesman for the Stop the War Coalition told Aljazeera.net there would be a demonstration of around 200 people outside Parliament on Wednesday, and a picket of up to a thousand people outside 10 Downing St on Saturday.

Both actions would be "photo opportunities", he said.
Tomorrow isn't just the moment of truth for the BBC and the British government; it's the moment of truth for me and my powers of prognostication, too. I've been predicting that the government was going to be substantially cleared in the report and that the Beeb was going to be slammed. Tomorrow we'll finally know.

By the way, in the al-Jazeera story, the time the story was filed is given in two forms: Greenwich Mean Time and "Makka Time." Is "Makka" a variant spelling of Mecca? If so, why hasn't the secular Left made a big deal of the fact that a news service is orienting itself in time in reference to a sacred city? You can bet they'd be screaming about it if a news service gave the time of filing in GMT and Vatican time.

Update: The link above now connects to a later version of the same story, so some details of my excerpt are no longer present. The two versions of the story appear to be substantially the same, though.

 
What a difference a week makes. This week's issue of TV Guide obviously got caught in a timewarp on its way to people's houses. I've just watched John Kerry win the New Hampshire primary, his second win in a row after the Iowa caucuses last week, and this is the TV Guide listing for our local NBC station for 9:00 p.m.:
Coverage of the voting in New Hampshire's Democratic presidential primary. It's likely that Vermonter Howard Dean will prevail there, so what's the news hook? "The real race is for No. 2," says University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato.
Oh well, you can't win 'em all.

Monday, January 26, 2004
 
A couple of notable letters to the editor in this week's (January 24th) issue of The Economist. First,
A lengthy war

SIR - If Europeans believe that Americans do not realise that the "war on terror" will continue throughout our lifetimes and has no definitive end they are sorely mistaken ("Still out there", January 10th). George Bush and other officials regularly speak to those facts, but you make it sound as if we are clueless about the reality of the situation on this side of the Atlantic. We use the term "war" because it signifies the seriousness of the struggle and the greater investment of resources, not because we think that a few battles from now we can all sleep peacefully again.
J.D. BOLICK
Denver, North Carolina
The letter writer has an unfortunate surname; I can imagine people who disagree with the war making "bollocks" jokes about it. But it's a good letter and one a lot of Europeans need to read.

And the second one:
Is that a gun in your pocket?

SIR - Contrary to your claims of the Americanisation of armed robbery in Britain, one could only hope that robbery in England and Wales was truly becoming Americanised ("You're history", January 3rd). The International Crime Victimisation Survey shows that for 2000, the latest year available, the robbery rate in England and Wales was twice America's rate.

Equally tellingly, your figure shows that armed robberies stopped falling in England and Wales in 1997 and started rising dramatically almost immediately afterwards. Was not the 1997 handgun ban in Britain supposed to reduce armed robberies? By contrast, American robbery rates have fallen during the 1990s just as more and more Americans have been able to carry concealed handguns for protection.
JOHN LOTT
American Enterprise Institute
Washington, DC
A lot of Europeans need to start reading John Lott, too.

 
Heh-heh-heh . . .
Ratings figures for the BBC's digital channels - which showed last week that more than 1,000 hours of BBC digital television were watched by so few people that they were zero-rated - don't help the BBC's funding case.
. . . heh-heh-heh . . .

 
OF COURSE! WHY DIDN'T I REALIZE THIS BEFORE? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE BBC IS -- IT'S NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT ENOUGH!
 
Happy New Year, C-SPAN. Now, you wouldn't think that keeping track of which year it is would present a challenge to a TV network whose reason for being is to keep on top of current events. But for a couple of weeks into this month -- through January 16, I think it was -- C-SPAN's copyright declaration along the bottom of the screen was still giving the year as 2003. Starting on the 17th, it corrected the year to 2004, and I thought that was the end of it . . . until this morning, when Washington Journal was once again declaring itself with Copyright 2003. Hey, C-SPAN, hire a proofreader!
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
 
For several weeks now I have been posting on any indications I find of people, particularly Americans and/or people of Irish heritage, either making intelligent criticisms of Ireland or condemning the IRA. If you would like to check out my previous posts on the subject, you can find them here, here, and here. I'm pleased to report that I have an additional two people to add to this growing honor roll.

William Sjostrom of AtlanticBlog has a post in which he links to and comments on a post by Maria Farrell of Crooked Timber, who takes apart a New York Times review of a book by Gerry Adams. William and Maria are both right on target in their disgust with the IRA and with people who make excuses for the IRA.

(It's interesting to note that, at least as of the time I am writing this, the comments on the AtlanticBlog post are largely positive whereas the comments on the Crooked Timber post skew much more negative. Wonder why? Perhaps because AtlanticBlog is somewhat conservative, whereas Crooked Timber is more liberal, and this difference is reflected in their respective readerships?)

After going through literally years of aggravation when I could find no trace of criticism of the IRA, or indeed even of Ireland on those occasions when it deserved criticism, I have now come across several notable examples within a few weeks. Is this a new trend, or am I just more aware of anti-IRA comments that have been out there all along because the blogs are bringing them to me? I lean toward believing it's the former, because I've been reading blogs pretty regularly since last spring and it's only been since December that I've been seeing these examples (except for my hazy memory of having read anti-IRA remarks on Andrew Sullivan's blog).

I hope it is a trend, and I fervently hope it not only continues but accelerates. It's long overdue, and it's very heartening.
 
Were you aware that the World Social Forum was being held?
"It was an unjust war. I am very angry with the U.S. So many people died in Iraq and I believe this rally will make a difference. It will drive out the U.S. and UK troops from Iraq," said South Korean anti-war activist Moon Myung Joo.
Were you aware that a rally was being held?
"We are against the occupation in Iraq, we are against war, we are for freedom for all the people in the world," Vittorio Agnoletto, a member of the organising committee, told a news conference.
I wonder if even once in Vittorio's worthless brain-damaged life it has occurred to him that most of the people in the world who are free got that way through war.
"Live and let live. That is my motto," said Indian gay rights activist Ganesh, dressed in red pants and a polka-dot bandana with "GAY" emblazoned across his chest.
Reuters is a British news service and it often uses British terms. I wonder if they mean "pants" in the British sense, i.e. underpants.

I also wonder whether Ganesh knows what the Taliban did to any gay people it discovered.
But all the sound and the fury from the forum delegates did not produce any declaration or action plan after a six-day meeting that discussed an alphabet soup of issues from AIDS to WTO.
Of course not. An action plan would involve actually, you know, doing stuff -- or at least planning to. These losers obviously aren't up to actually, you know, doing stuff. Except, perhaps, raping each other and/or filing false charges of rape against each other.
Punching their fists in the air, the screaming protesters vented their fury against the war in Iraq with slogans such as "No war, George Bush terrorist" and placards saying "US/UK troops out of Iraq now" and "Bush, Blair Butchers".
I don't suppose all members of the anti-war brigade are insane, but sometimes it's hard to be sure.

The Left is disintegrating as we watch.

Tuesday, January 20, 2004
 
I wish I could more readily get information about our allies. News on our Coalition partners, with the exception of Tony Blair, is irritatingly scarce.

Take John Howard, Australian Prime Minister and as unflinching an ally as Blair. When I do manage to hear about Howard, it's usually by way of Tim Blair's blog, and it isn't nearly as much information as I'd like. When I check out Google News, I routinely go through Google's Australian news page as well, and I'm continually amazed at how little actual news about Australia is featured there -- the headlines seem to overwhelmingly feature American and British news stories. I can't figure out whether this is a built-in bias of the Google site, or whether this accurately reflects a predilection of the Australian media to prominently cover U.S. and British goings-on. For all I know, that could be what Australians are actually interested in.

When news of John Howard does leak out, it often has a familiar ring to it. The political culture of Australia (at least as described by Tim Blair, my near-exclusive source on this sort of thing) is so close to that of America that reading about it is like deja vu all over again.

Example: There's an interesting brouhaha currently going on involving comments Howard made about political correctness in the public schools.

What particularly caught my eye was the way his critics kept dragging in the issue of the war:
"To suggest our teachers are values-free simply shows the Prime Minister's prejudices," she said. "What are John Howard's values? That working women don't deserve paid maternity leave? Is it a system of pre-emptive strikes and war at any costs?"
The more I learn about JoHo, the more I like him.

 
Thank heavens we heartless Western capitalist oppressors have these shining examples of goodness and humanity populating the anti-globalist community to show us the way.
Monday, January 19, 2004
 
One thing really puzzles me about the Iowa caucus drama that's played out over the last few days, and I haven't heard anyone else addressing it.

Within the context of the range of Democratic candidate-wannabees, John Edwards did not strike me as particularly extreme-left.

Yet Dennis Kucinich recommended to his followers that, in the event he did not achieve the "viability" threshold of 15% at their particular caucus site, they should join the Edwards supporters and caucus for Edwards instead.

This seems strange, on the face of it. I would have guessed that Kucinich would release his supporters to Howard Dean, if to anyone -- Dean and Kucinich seem more closely in agreement on most issues and of more similar temperaments than Edwards and Kucinich.

Perhaps Edwards is more radical than he's let on so far?

 
Thank God for procrastination. Sometimes being slow on the blog can save a person some big-time embarrassment.

A week ago yesterday, John Kerry was making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, giving the usual spiel that all politicians give, about how there was a groundswell developing in his favor in Iowa, things were really starting to break in his direction, yes sirree the excitement was just unbelievable, big things were in the offing, no matter that he was polling in fourth place there was no doubt he was going to surge ahead just in time for the caucuses . . .

I thought this was crap.

And I was planning to say so in a post. I even had the transcript paragraphs marked that I wanted to excerpt, showing what an incoherent jerk Kerry was. (And I still think that most of what he was babbling a week ago was incoherent drivel.)

In other words, I was on the verge of making an idiot of myself by proclaiming what an idiot John Kerry was making of himself.

I am now watching the late stages of coverage of the Iowa caucuses. Kerry has, of course, won handily.

I am usually chagrined that it's so difficult for me to find time to blog. Tonight, I'm relieved.

 
Mirror, mirror, on the wall . . . who's the fairest of them all? Among search-engine news services, it's Google News, hands down.

Last spring, around the time of the start of war in Iraq, I began checking the headlines throughout the day on every news service I heard about.

It started with Yahoo, since at the time that was my default search engine. I soon added Alta Vista and Ask Jeeves, then Google News. Within a few weeks it became apparent that each web site had its own distrinctive pattern of news sources, and that three of the four sites were suffering from a nasty case of bias.

The headlines as listed on Yahoo, Alta Vista, and Ask Jeeves were almost uniformly negative, anti-American, and anti-Israel. And I began to notice that the same names kept cropping up time and again as sources of these slanted headlines.

A few weeks ago I decided to count how many times each news source was used on each web site. The results are pretty revealing of what the proprietors of each site consider legitimate sources of information.

Of the 30 headlines listed on Ask Jeeves, eight came from the New York Times and five came from the International Herald Tribune, which is owned by the New York Times (that's nearly half the headlines right there); seven came from the BBC and another seven from CNN; two came from the Washington Post and one came from Guardian Unlimited, the online edition of Britain's Guardian newspaper.

Of the 35 headlines on Alta Vista News, 14 (or 40%) were from the New York Times, with the other 21 scattered among a variety of sources (including one from the UK's generally pro-American Daily Telegraph). (This result occurred after I brought up the site, clicked on one headline, then backed up to the news site's home screen, which had changed from the lineup of headlines it had presented originally.)

The Yahoo headline I clicked on, "Saddam Denies Having Prohibited Weapons," gave the following list under the heading of Providers: AP, Reuters, AFP, the New York Times, WashingtonPost.com, USAToday.com, U.S. News & World Report, NPR, and Reuters Features.

Actually, I was suprised to see U.S. News listed: Most Yahoo stories don't list even one centrist news source, if you want to consider U.S. News a centrist news source.

(AFP, a particularly odious "news" agency, merits a post all its own. I hope to do that later.)

Then there's Google, an oasis in a desert.

The wide variety of news sources drawn on by Google puts it in a class by itself. You get Fox News as well as CNN, the New York Post as well as the New York Times, the Washington Times as well as the Washington Post. National Review Online and the Weekly Standard -- and even Reason.com -- make occasional appearances. Google is where I first read ChronWatch and discovered Townhall.com, Front Page Magazine, NewsMax, Men's News Daily, the Sierra Times (which I liked at first but later grew wary of -- it seems to be a paleo site, though I haven't read it often enough to have an informed opinion), and the quite likable BetterHumans.com, a transhumanist site.

It appears to me that there's an Amazon-style algorithm at work on the Google News site that gives you more of what you seem to want: Click on a National Review story, for instance, and it appears you get more National Review stories at the top of your headline queues over the following days and weeks. This is a very handy mechanism if you prefer your news sources to come from outside the standard establishment mainstream (i.e. the liberal establishment sources that fill up the other three news-portal headline services).

I've almost completely given up on Yahoo, Ask Jeeves, and Alta Vista. I'm voting with my feet -- well, with my mouse -- in favor of fairness, and sticking with Google.

Wednesday, January 14, 2004
 
Paul O'Neill's big 60 Minutes interview was on Sunday night.

Today is Wednesday.

I didn't notice any really new developments in this story today. There were a couple of pathetic attempts to milk it and keep it going by Terry McAuliffe and Ted Kennedy. But nothing anybody was really paying attention to.

Boy, scandals come and go quickly these days.

 
In next week's TV Guide (January 17-23), there's a brief profile of a two-part show titled Barbarians, to be broadcast Monday and Tuesday on the History Channel.
Barbarians at a Glance

Conan the Barbarian was a pussycat compared with the Mongols, who built towers of human heads. But then, the term barbarian is a subjective one, according to Robert Gardiner, who made Barbarians, a documentary chronicling history's bad boys . . . The producer says he takes "the opposite of the Ken Burns approach," using reenactments "to keep the story moving." And like all stories, it has at least two sides. "The Goths thought the Romans were barbarians," he points out. In fact, one reason the Roman Empire collapsed "like a wet paper sack" was because they underestimated their opponents. "If we are having a clash of civilizations now," he says, "it's because we don't understand the culture."
GOT THAT? If there's a clash going on now between Western and Arab civilizations, it's because WE don't understand enough, according to Robert Gardiner.

And of course one can't really make claims of superiority of one culture over another, can one? That's so racist/philistine/primitive/unenlightened/simplistic. IT'S ALL RELATIVE, you see. MORAL EQUIVALENCE between the so-called civilized and the so-called barbaric. So says Mr. Gardiner.

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that Robert Gardiner is a BBC producer?

Now let's look at reality, rather than the addled musings of a politically correct showbiz asshole.

NO, Mr. Gardiner, if we are having a clash of civilizations now, it is most definitely NOT because of anything that WE in the West don't understand; it is because our enemies -- our primitive, barbaric, Islamofascist enemies -- DON'T UNDERSTAND quite a few things, such as entrepreneurship, individualism, capitalism, inventiveness, tolerance, freedom, practical know-how, a work ethic, experimentation . . . In short, Mr. Gardiner, our enemies DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TO CREATE A FUNCTIONING SOCIETY, LET ALONE A SUCCESSFUL AND FLOURISHING ONE, and in their no-hoper bitterness they are lashing out at us because we are what they desperately want to be.

And there is no moral equivalence. I'm assuming that when you speak of the Romans, you mean it as code for America -- that's usually what people like you mean these days when they mention the Romans. There is no moral equivalence between the fascist totalitarian monsters we are fighting, and ourselves. Does that strike you as simplistic, black-and-white, fundamentalist-Christian, neo-con cowboyism? It's none of those things. It's just a recognition of reality.

If Mr. Gardiner were trapped in a war zone and heard a rumor that an Islamofascist army or paramilitary was headed toward him from one direction and that the American army was headed toward him from another direction, and he was unarmed and vulnerable, I wonder which direction he would run in? Would he vote with his feet, and with his life, in favor of the Americans or the barbarians? Would he figure that it didn't matter which army reached him first, because the two groups were morally equivalent? Would he really believe at that moment that the biggest problem in the world today is that "we don't understand the culture?"

Monday, January 12, 2004
 
Keep your eyes wide, the chance won't come again. Just watched CNBC's Special Report with Maria Bartiromo. The middle segment had Richard Perle as a guest, talking about the interview Paul O'Neill gave last night on 60 Minutes concerning life in the Bush White House.

The next and last guest was David Byrne, former lead singer of Talking Heads, who spent his first few minutes talking against Bush and the war and the rest of his interview time discussing his new project, a parody of Microsoft PowerPoint that tries to illustrate Byrne's contention that the pervasive use of PowerPoint is starting to exercise a limiting and constricting influence on people's thought processes. One of the subtitles that was put up on the screen a couple of times read "Byrne Says Powerpoint Turns People Into 'Pod People.'"

I believe it was Andrew Sullivan who, shortly after 9/11, said that the cultural left was going to self-destruct as one of the side effects of the War on Terrorism.

Andrew was right. You see it happening everywhere, all around you, all day, every day. We're watching one of the great social and political movements of the last two centuries -- one of the great social and political movements of all time -- exploding in slow motion like a suicide bomber caught on video and played back in slo-mo. Keep your eyes open. Destruction on this scale happens rarely in the history of ideas. It probably will not happen again in our lifetime.

 
Question about the quotation in my last post.

In the first paragraph I excerpted, the word "focused" was used -- but isn't this the American spelling? Wouldn't the British spelling use two S's instead of one?

And in the last paragraph I excerpted, the word "jailers" is used. Again, isn't this an American spelling? At least when I was growing up, the Brits would've spelled it "gaolers."

Is British spelling becoming Americanized? Or is the Guardian/Observer website programmed to insert American spellings in place of British ones if it picks up on the fact that a reader is using a computer connection originating in the United States?

And, if the latter explanation is true, I wonder if this -- or any other -- website would substitute different sentences or phrases, not just alternative spellings of the same words, depending on the physical location of the site's visitor?

Wouldn't be a whole lot different from the BBC's routine stealth editing, would it?

Good morning, Mr. Orwell.

It's late. I'm tired. Paranoia strikes deep.

 
The Guardian and its related Observer website share a split personality: They are among the most virulently anti-American and anti-Israel news sources around, and yet on those rare occasions when they set aside the politicking and actually concentrate on giving factual information, they can do a damn good job.

Case in point:
For at least a year, investigators claim, the 30-year-old Algerian had been a key part of a network of Islamic militants dedicated to recruiting and dispatching suicide bombers to the Middle East. Several volunteers had got through, wreaking havoc in a series of attacks in Iraq. Many more were on their way, along with bombers focused on targets in Europe.

Even worse, his associates were planning bombs in Western Europe. At least two European intelligence services had made previous attempts to take Mahdjoub out. Now, finally, it was the Germans' turn. This weekend, just over a month after his arrest, Mahdjoub remains in prison at an undisclosed location. He is likely to remain incarcerated for some time.
Amazing, isn't it, that the bombers are now targeting the weasels? After all, the root causes of terrorism have to do with American bullying and American support of Israel. Surely the Islamofascist homicidal maniacs should have nothing against the enlightened masses of Europe, who, unlike the brutal Americans, have provided the Arab world with unstinting love, money, and emotional support during this past difficult year.
When the Italians arrested Ciise they put him in the same cell as another Islamic radical known as 'Mera'i'. Again, the conversation was bugged; it gives a chilling insight into the mind of a hardened militant.

Mera'i tells Ciise that he hates their jailers: 'They like life, I want to be a martyr, I live for jihad. In this life there is nothing, life is afterward, the indescribable sensation of dying a martyr.'
In the mood for a good scare? Read the whole thing. Keep you awake tonight more effectively than a horror movie.

Sunday, January 11, 2004
 
Easy come, easy go. I feel vindicated. Okay, so this is trivial compared to the Robert Kilroy-Silk controversy -- but, hey, I'll take my bragging rights where I can find them.

On December 27 I noted in a post that Fox News had begun an advertising blitz about the upcoming 2004 campaign featuring itself as "The Channel of Political Record." I pointed out that this was strikingly close to the description of itself that C-SPAN has been using for years: "The Political Network of Record." I said that if Fox News suddenly dropped its new slogan, I would suspect that it had received a cease-and-desist letter from C-SPAN.

I don't know whether any letter got sent, but I can't help noticing that Fox News's new slogan seems to have disappeared suddenly and without a trace. For about a week now, Fox has had a new-new campaign ad blitz featuring a new-new slogan: It is billing itself as "America's Newsroom."

This minor trademark/copyright melodrama has apparently unfolded under everybody's radar screen, and I'm fervently hoping that Al Franken hasn't noticed it. He'd probably get a certain amount of satisfaction out of it, and I hate thinking of that guy getting any satisfaction out of anything.

 
Robert Kilroy-Silk has lost his job as host of the BBC program Kilroy. (See my last post for the reasons why, in case you don't already know.)

Scott Burgess of The Daily Ablution has jumped all over this story. He first mentions it in a post on endangered freedom of speech in Britain, in which he also links to Kilroy-Silk's original article. He follows that up with a post examining the accuracy of the article, and his most recent post, as I write this, concerns the BBC's vicious double standard where anti-Arab commentary is condemned but anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and anti-American commentary is positively encouraged (which was also the main subject of my previous post).

Robert Tumminello of Expat Yank also took on the hypocrisy angle in his original post, in which he announced that Kilroy-Silk had just lost his BBC job; and he goes into more detail on Beeb hypocrisy in his next post. Robert then links to the letter from the Muslim Council of Britain to the BBC and reproduces the entire original Kilroy-Silk article. And in his most recent post (as I write this), Robert reports on Kilroy-Silk's publicly stated regret that he carelessly included all Arabs in his criticism (something I mentioned I had a problem with in my previous post).

Mr. Free Market over at Free Market Fairy Tales also made the announcement that Kilroy-Silk had been fired and invoked the Thought Police-like behavior of "the Big Brother Corporation."

Since I've now had the opportunity to read the original article, I want to point out that in it Kilroy-Silk uses the term "axis of evil" unsarcastically and unironically, to mean exactly what it's supposed to mean. How many Europeans, or European media outlets, would even consider doing such a thing?

Kilroy-Silk hasn't given the "full apology" that some of his critics are howling for. Good. I think he's the one who deserves the apology.

Friday, January 09, 2004
 
The BBC revels 24/7 in its anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, but God help the BBC program host who slams Arab culture.
As the host of Kilroy, BBC1's version of The Oprah Winfrey Show, the television presenter built up a following among housewives for his lively, and often controversial, morning discussion show. . . .

In his article, Kilroy-Silk began by expressing contempt at the anti-war campaigners of the Iraq war. He said: "What do [Arabs] think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way 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, Yemen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressors? I don't think the Arab states should start a debate about what is really loathsome."

He suggested that the destruction of the "despotic, barbarous and corrupt Arab states" and their replacement by democratic governments could be a "war aim".

He said: "After all, the Arab countries are not exactly shining examples of civilisation, are they? Few of them make much contribution to the welfare 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? Anything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without?"

The West had been singled out, he said, despite providing Arabs with science, medicine and technology.

"They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States," he said.

Although the Sunday Express refused to discuss Kilroy-Silk's future, his article invited censure from the wider community.

Trevor Phillips, the head of the CRE, called the article "indisputably stupid" and said it might incite some to feel an animosity towards Arabs.
Wonder if Trevor lies awake nights worrying that biased media might incite some people to violence against Jews or Americans?

That quote above came from the Independent.

Reuters also brings up the Oprah comparison:
Kilroy-Silk, who presents a daily chat show: "Kilroy" along the lines of the U.S. "Oprah Winfrey Show," could not be reached for comment.
From the Scotsman:
TV presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk could be investigated by police after expressing scathing views on Arabs. . . .

The former MP will also face a BBC probe into how his position as a Sunday Express columnist fits with his on-screen appearances. . . .

His article appeared at the weekend under the headline "We owe Arabs nothing".

It has now prompted the Commission for Racial Equality to refer the matter to police for investigation.
There's a slightly fuller Scotsman article on the subject here.

From the BBC's website:
The presenter was unable to give a comment due to his mother's funeral.

Mr Kilroy-Silk's piece started: "We are told by some of the more hysterical critics of the war on terror that 'it is destroying the Arab world'. So? Should we be worried about that?"
From Islam Online:
It asked why "a publicly funded body such as the BBC" would tolerate such "ignorant, extremely derogatory and indisputably racist" remarks by one of its staff at a time when all its other employees are being forbidden to express controversial views in the press.

"We wonder whether you would consider it proper to give the same kind of prominence to a presenter who was so openly anti-black or anti-Jewish?" Bunglawala wrote.

He charged that Kilroy has clearly violated the BBC Producer's Guidelines which states: "Our audiences rightly expect the highest...ethical standards from the BBC...values such as impartiality, accuracy, fairness, editorial independence and our commitment to appropriate standards of taste and decency."
I'm not kidding. It really says that.

From the Guardian:
The chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk came under fire yesterday for atacking Arabs in a newspaper article at a time when the BBC's other employees are being forbidden to express controversial views in the press. . . .

BBC guidelines introduced in the wake of the Hutton inquiry say that freelance writing by staff "should not bring the BBC into disrepute or undermine the integrity or impartiality of BBC programmes or presenters".

The BBC ran into trouble during the Hutton inquiry over remarks by its reporter Andrew Gilligan on the Today programme.

Gilligan got into deeper water by writing an article for the Mail on Sunday in which he named Alastair Campbell, then director of communications at Downing Street, as being responsible for "sexing up" the government's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass descruction.

As part of a tightening-up on external journalism by BBC staff, high-profile figures including the Today presenter John Humphreys, the world affairs editor, John Simpson, and the business editor, Jeff Randall, have been told to give up lucrative newspaper columns in return for pay rises. Some exceptions, such as non-controversial restaurant reviews, are allowed under the guidelines but in these cases they have to be vetted by the BBC.

The rules are being introduced gradually because some staff are legally bound by freelance contracts.
A similar article can be found at Ananova.

I haven't had a chance yet to read Kilroy-Silk's original column, but it sounds as if he should have included some sort of caveat to the effect that not all Arabs or all Muslims should be tarred with the same brush.

Even taking that into account, however, what strikes me most forcefully about this episode is the hypocrisy of the BBC and the European media in general.

Thursday, January 08, 2004
 
Paranoid thought for the day: Bush just announced a major shift in immigration policy with his proposal of a guest-worker program; now the rumor today is that he's about to announce a major new space initiative, including plans for sending Americans to Mars and the moon and for a permanent presence of some sort on the moon.

I can't help wondering . . . could the timing of these attention-grabbing announcements have anything to do with pulling the media spotlight off of Howard Dean, who has been putting his foot in his mouth with notable frequency lately, with the goal of keeping Dean the front-runner among the Democrats, and consequently the Democratic candidate Bush will face in the November election?

Ye gods, I'm getting cynical in my old age.

 
This is a sketchy initial report, but if it's true, it's significant:
Report: Syria, Iran sent arms to Hizbullah on aid planes

Iran, last week, sent several planes filled with weapons to the Hizbullah in Lebanon via Syria, Channel One reported Thursday night.

According to the report, Iran is supplying the arms with direct assistance from the regime of Bashar Assad, who has made recent peace overtures directed at Israel.

Several planes sent last week by Syria to Iran under the guise of humanitarian airlifts following the earthquake in the city of Bam, returned to Syria filled with arms, which were then transferred to the Hizbullah, the report said.
Update: It appears that the Jerusalem Post has replaced the story I quoted above with a new story on the same subject, keeping the same link as the earlier story had. However, the new story conveys essentially the same information, just with a lot more detail. Certainly worth a look. I wonder whether the major media -- or for that matter the blogosphere -- will pick up on this one.

Wednesday, January 07, 2004
 
Okay, I've picked on Blair enough for one day (see previous post). To make up for it, let me point out that, when I checked a minute ago, ThankYouTony.com showed a count of 26,437 people who have sent messages to Downing Street expressing gratitude for Blair's support in the War on Terror. A startling number, a gratifying number, an appropriate number. Let's hope it continues rising indefinitely.
 
CHICO IS THE MAN. Here is a piece of literature Tony Blair probably wishes would disappear down the memory hole forever.
General Election
Thursday, 9th June 1983

SEDGEFIELD
THE NEW CONSTITUENCY

VOTE LABOUR

TONY BLAIR

YOUR LABOUR CANDIDATE
Page 1. Good grief! That smile! Would you buy a used car from this man?

Why does looking at this picture cause the theme song from Chico and the Man to start running through my mind?

Now here is a nasty, horrible, cynical thought. Am I the only one who thinks that the sheer passage of time is inadequate to account for the startling difference between Blair's appearance then, and Blair's appearance now?

Page 2: THE MISERABLE TORY RECORD.
DEFENCE MADNESS
*The incompetent Tories, got us into the Falklands war - now the Falkland Fortress policy is costing us billions.
*The Tories would rather spend [pound sign]10 billion on Trident missiles, than try to stop the growing nuclear arms race.
You know, if I thought this blog had more than five readers, and if I didn't believe that all five of my readers were Blair supporters, I wouldn't have the heart to reproduce this stuff. It would just be too darn mean to Blair.

Page 3: LABOUR'S SENSIBLE ANSWERS: There must be a better way and there is.
*We'll protect British industry against unfair foreign competition.
Free trade? Moi?
*We'll negotiate a withdrawal from the E.E.C. which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs.
The E.E.C. was, of course, the European Economic Community, the forerunner of the European Union. Jeez, Tony, that was one 1983 campaign promise you should have kept!
A MORE SANE DEFENCE POLICY
*Labour believes in defence and in membership of N.A.T.O. but we don't need dangerous and costly Trident and Cruise missiles, which just escalate the nuclear arms race.
AAARRRGH! Tony Blair mouthing the platitudes of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Greenham Common crowd! Say it ain't so! Does George W. know about this? (The deployment of these very missiles was instrumental in forcing the Cold War to its successful [from our point of view] conclusion.) Excuse me while I grab a Kleenex, I think I'm about to start crying.

Page 4: A PERSONAL MESSAGE . . .
Since graduating from Oxford University I have been a practising barrister specialising in trade union and industrial law. . . .

Britain in general and the North East in particular have suffered appallingly under the misrule of Mrs. Thatcher. Her hardline policies are both cruel and wrong. Caring and compassion for Mrs. Thatcher are dirty words.
I'm crying . . . I'm sobbing . . .

Well, no, actually I'm not. If it seems that I'm treating this pamphlet pretty lightheartedly, it's because I'm convinced that Tony Blair is a thoroughly changed man; and because I imagine a lot of the material in this pamphlet was required of all its candidates by the Labour Party; and because I had a few political opinions back in 1983 that (to put it mildly) I no longer hold, and I'd find it excruciatingly embarrassing if they were to be unearthed and revealed.

So, as far as I'm concerned, all's forgiven, if not entirely forgotten.

Now, if only we could get Blair to reconsider that "withdrawal from the European Union" idea . . .

 
While prowling on the internet, I have on several occasions come across the e-mail address bennett@anglosphere.com. I assume this is the address of Jim Bennett, whose Anglosphere Primer I have blogrolled to the right and whose soon-to-be-published book can now be pre-ordered on Amazon.

Bennett's domain name, anglosphere.com, certainly sounded intriguing, but when I tried getting to it, I got an error message.

So I googled "anglosphere.com" to see what I could find -- and in so doing, I stumbled onto an interesting web page at http://www.kc3.co.uk/~dt/Government.htm.

The main web site, http://www.kc3.co.uk/~dt/, is titled "European Union Follies and Myths" and is maintained by a man named David Delaney. It features a lot of news-story synopses and links of interest to anti-EU Brits in particular.

I hope to be posting on some of these synopses in the near future. In fact, the first such post, on some opinions once but presumably no longer held by Tony Blair, follows immediately.

 
HR 2977: The Space Preservation Act of 2001.
A BILL: To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.
The problem: This bill -- which is real, by the way -- prohibits the placing of space weaponry by the United States but does not address space weaponry by any other country. And even if it did cover other countries, how many of those countries do you suppose would feel bound by it?
SEC. 4. WORLD AGREEMENT BANNING SPACE-BASED WEAPONS. The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons.
Oh, well, that's different! As long as the U.N. is enforcing this thing, I feel safe!

At least the bill manages to be really, er, comprehensive:
(2)(A) The terms 'weapon' and 'weapon system' mean a device capable of any of the following:

. . . (ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--

. . . (II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations . . .

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

. . . (vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

(C) The term 'exotic weapons system' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.
This would actually sound pretty good if I had any confidence that no nation would ever put weapons in space. The problem is that I have no confidence whatsoever that no nation will put weapons in space -- in fact I regard it as a practical certainty that countries will be tripping over themselves and each other racing to get weaponry into space as soon as it's technologically feasible.

And if there exist weapons that can affect people's thoughts or moods, influence the weather, induce earthquakes, etc. (what's a chemtrail?) -- I want the United States to be the first country to get them.

Any weapon that can be invented, sooner or later will be invented. And I don't believe that an equality of power could ever be maintained for long -- some nation or group of nations will always have hegemony. I want America to be the nation with the edge, and weapons are necessary to maintain that edge.

Weapons treaties are a flimsy protection at best. Nations that will stand by their word and live up to their treaty commitments are generally not nations we need to worry about. But how many nations qualify for that status?

The only way to cope with the rest of the nations is through aerospace & defense R & D. And I assume we're already going at it full blast, no matter what gets admitted in public. I certainly hope that we are. Surely other, unfriendly nations are doing the same. The race is on, and America absolutely needs to keep winning.

(Question: Section (2)(A)(ii)(II) above mentions "information war" as one of the banned activities. But wasn't information war one of the forms of battle we successfully waged against Saddam Hussein in Gulf War I? And didn't that successful form of battle undoubtedly save many lives, Iraqi and Kuwaiti as well as Allied, in that war?)

Oh, by the way, did I mention who sponsored this bill?
Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Yeah, I'll bet the Armed Services Committee just loved this bill. I wonder how many seconds it took them to make it land in the wastebasket.

(Thanks to Combustible Boy, who mentioned the bill in a comment he left at a post of Tim Blair's).

Monday, January 05, 2004
 
This one's a bit dated, but it's worth mentioning. Spotted by James Griffith a few weeks ago:
. . . written in the mud splatter on the back of a British Telecom van in Oxford today:
George W Bush welcome to UK.

Chirac go home.
Makes me proud to have been an exchange student at Oxford. I just hope it was one of the locals who wrote that nice bit of graffiti, not an American tourist.

 
Pssssst . . . wanna see a dirty picture of Dick Gephardt?
Sunday, January 04, 2004
 
News I haven't seen elsewhere, from the current (January 3rd) issue of The Economist:
Arab economies: Improving?

Despite the region's instability, some economies are doing better than usual


When war in Iraq loomed, the country's Arab neighbours predicted dire economic consequences for themselves. Egypt's government said it expected the country to lose $2 billion-3 billion, with tourists flocking elsewhere and fat contracts with Iraq abandoned. Jordan and Syria dreaded a cut-off of cheap Iraqi oil. Bahrain and Dubai feared a flight of investors. Regional shippers bemoaned hefty increases in their insurance bills.

In fact, Arab countries have done quite nicely, thank you. Several of the biggest oil exporters saw their incomes surge by a good 30% last year, as prices stuck at the comfortable end of OPEC's $22-28 target range. Saudi Arabia earned a delicious $74 billion from oil, letting its government bank a budget surplus of $12 billion, marking only the second time in 20 years it has balanced its books. Throughout the Gulf, the windfall has encouraged governments to invest in infrastructure on a scale unseen since the 1970s' oil boom. The reckoning that economists have long predicted, with oil monarchs failing to pamper their growing number of subjects, has again been put off.

But it is not just governments and contractors cashing in. The All-Arab Index, which tracks 79 stocks in 12 Arab countries, posted a gain of 50% in dollar terms in 2003. Another index reckoned that Kuwait's shares, boosted by heady profits for local firms servicing the American army and by the surge of joy due to the end of an Iraqi invasion threat, have doubled in value. Saudi Arabia's soared by a more modest 74%. Even the dowdy Cairo exchange, stalled for years by local troubles including an inexorable slide in the value of Egypt's currency, advanced by 60% in dollar terms.

Awash with cash, banks in Saudi Arabia saw profits rise by 15% in the first nine months of last year, and those in the United Arab Emirates by an average of 30%. Egypt's Suez Canal, whose revenues have stayed flat at $2 billion a year for a decade, last year earned 32% more. Arab firms are also starting to do well out of reconstruction in Iraq. Egyptian and Kuwaiti ones are building the country's mobile-phone networks, with contracts for restoring power generation, water supplies and other such huge projects likely to follow.

As for those fickle tourists, they seem to have more nerve than expected. Lebanon has enjoyed its best year since 1974, the last year before civil war wrecked its reputation as the Switzerland of the Middle East. And Egypt hosted a record 6m tourists last year, up 20% on 2002.
I'm not sure this is entirely good news. The idea that the boom times can allow Arab governments to put off vital reforms yet again is troubling. But it does go to show that yet another dire prediction by the anti-war crowd has turned out to be completely wrong. So far, when it comes to pre-war invocations of doom, these people are batting a thousand.

 
In case this week's issue of Time magazine (the one with "Person of the Year: The American Soldier" on the cover) is still on your local magazine racks and you were thinking of getting it, please take my advice: Don't.

When I first heard that Time was planning to make the American soldier Person of the Year, I was inclined to feel pleased -- yet I couldn't, because something about Time's choice made me uneasy. Within a few seconds I had started to wonder whether Time wasn't just using praise of the American soldier as a backhanded way of slamming Bush and the Iraq war.

I've now read the issue -- not the whole thing; I got so disgusted partway through that I couldn't stand to finish it -- and I have to say that it's far worse than I thought it would be. Virtually every paragraph I read reverberates with intentional overtones of Vietnam and aren't-these-brave-boys-and-girls-putting-up-nobly-with-what-that-moronic-Texas-chickenhawk-is-putting-them-through. It's relentlessly negative.

It's hard to know what part to quote from, because the bias is present everywhere. Here's one very small example. In a sidebar profile of Sgt. Marquette Whiteside, the black soldier pictured on the left in Time's cover photo, reporter Cathy Booth Thomas describes Whiteside's mother's fears for his safety and some of the grim experiences he's undergone while in Iraq. At one point she writes, "But without telling his mother, he signed up for an additional three-year Army stint." Absolutely nowhere does it mention why Marquette re-upped; presumably it would have involved Marquette feeling that he was doing worthwhile work in spite of the danger, but we won't know, because Time didn't see fit to ask him and publicize his motives. The fact of his reenlistment is presented purely in terms of giving his poor mother something more to worry about -- certainly a newsworthy aspect of the story, but one which might have been put in some kind of perspective if we'd been given Marquette's reasons for wanting to stay voluntarily under fire in Iraq. And who does Marquette's mother blame for her anxiety? Do you really need to ask?
Asked how she's holding up, Catherine picks up a prescription bottle of Zoloft from the coffee table and checks the date. September. That's when she found out that Marquette had re-upped and that the youngest of her three children, Shamario, 18, also a soldier, would be going to Iraq early in the new year. . . .

She is angry now, angry that the war might claim two of her children. "I don't worry too much about Marquette because of how crazy he is. But my 18-year-old? He's not ready," she says. "Every time I see the President, I turn from him. There's nothing he can say unless he says he's bringing all the kids home."
Two questions: (1) If her 18-year-old is not ready, why the hell did he voluntarily join the military? Shamario could not have joined when he was 16; if he's 18 now, that means he had to have joined some time in the last two years, after the 9/11 attacks, after he knew he would be joining the military during a time when his country was at war; and (2) if Marquette was already in the middle of combat and willingly reenlisted, isn't that something of a tribute to the President, rather than the sort of thing that should cause Marquette's mother to be angry at the President? If Catherine Whiteside is angry that her son reenlisted, let her direct her anger at Marquette, not misdirect it at Bush.

I could go on giving examples, but there'd be no point. The Bush-bashing goes on page after page. In fact, I'm not even going to link to it. It's Time magazine -- if you want to read it, you know where to find it.

But I advise you that if you have to read it, at least read the online edition. Don't fork over any good money to buy the dead-tree version. Do something more worthwhile with your money -- for example, flush it down a toilet.

Update 1/5/04: One more thing about Time. This being an end-of-year round-up issue, there was a section on people who died during 2003. One was Edward Teller, whom Time described as "a rabid and controversial anticommunist in the 1950s."

I wonder -- when Robert Oppenheimer died, did Time describe him as "a rabid and controversial antifascist?"


Powered by Blogger