You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October, 2006.
A Martin Samuel in The Times (via my wife):
…Hitler did not seize power or take power or any of those verbs we are taught that imply some unstoppable show of strength. He passed a Bill, the Enabling Act, supported by 441 of 647 members of the Reichstag, only 288 of whom were National Socialists. As Hitler needed a two thirds majority to achieve totalitarian power and all the Social Democrats that were not in hiding, in prison or dead voted against him, without the support of the Catholic Centre Party he would barely have been able to govern, let alone dictate; which is where Kaas came in. He persuaded his party to vote with Hitler on a law that effectively dissolved democracy in Germany and paved the road to the death camps. And guess what he got in return? Faith schools. Kaas received a guarantee that respected the liberty of the Catholic Church and its involvement in the fields of education, schooling and culture…
Most historians would say there was a tad more to it than what Mr Samuel lays out. Still, his high-energy, well-crafted and seemingly easy-fitting cause and effect explanation seems like a perfectly taken free kick that ends up in the back of the net. And that’s just how it should be . . . given that, as The Times tells us . . . Mr Samuels is a sports writer:
Martin Samuel has been a sports writer and columnist for The Times since 2002. His weekly football column appears every Wednesday.
Thus my previous unfamiliarity with his work, and why it has not appeared on this blog before now. That said, just because his primary expertise is sports does not mean The Times should deny him the right to use their pages to opine on late Weimar history. Far from it. For if we had previously foolishly believed that German politics in 1932-1933 was far more complicated and convoluted than is, say, today’s “beautiful game“, with a few deft sentences Mr Samuel has straightened us all out on that “score”; in fact, we can now all save ourselves the trouble of wading through the 828 page “Weimar Republic Sourcebook (Weimar & Now: German Cultural Criticism).“
His trenchant U.K. faith schools=Nazi comparison also raises another issue. Given that Mr Samuel’s non-sports Times work appears rather thin, it is unclear how he feels about comparing Saddam Hussein (whose horrific regime murdered and displaced millions) to Hitler? Or pre-2003 Iraq (which until that April had been run by Hussein’s Ba’athist party, which had openly modelled itself on European fascist parties) to Nazi Germany? Or for that matter applying the term “Islamic fascists” to Muslim extremists (because they wish to see Jews annihilated), or the use of similar analogies?
But what we do know is that, generally speaking, offering such comparisons in “thoughtful, polite circles” is now considered to be at best oh, so inappropriate and at worst some sort of neo-con plot to mislead. But British voters demanding their elected representatives maintain the British state’s 60 year old policy on faith schools? Well, of course, gosh, that’s bent . . . just like Beckham Hitler.
The Times’ Matthew Parris: “Let me describe to you how the god squad nobbled Alan Johnson“:
…I have the impression that Mr Johnson’s own beliefs are secularist, firmly held and longstanding; that they have not changed; and that he still believes that the proposed quotas should be the rule, not an aspiration or a voluntary code.
I think he was leant on. I reckon by the Prime Minister. The main pressure on the Prime Minister will have come from the Catholic Church. I suspect that Mr Johnson, who has not abandoned all thought of leading the Labour Party, has told himself (or been reminded) that he may be needing Mr Blair’s help and support in the year ahead; and that Mr Blair has told himself (or been reminded) that there is a painful tension between what he and his Catholic wife do for their own family and the plans his Education Secretary was working on…
Here, let me describe to you how Mr Parris’s narrative theory above is disproven through his own words. Parris’s astonishment that a Christian U.K. head of government might actually regularly attend church in this land that is officially Christian notwithstanding (”Christians” exist only in the U.S., you see, and as we know they there spend all their spare time struggling to get evolution out of schools), would Mr Parris in a similar piece so freely toss in the word “Muslim” where, with suitably curled lip, here he so easily repeatedly drops in “Catholic”? We can’t know. But in another piece earlier this year, he states clearly:
…On the whole Christians, for example, take offence less readily than Muslims. The case for treating them, in consequence, differently is obvious, but we should be wary of it. It means groups are allowed to be as thin-skinned as they wish: to dictate for themselves how delicately we must tread with them — to create, as it were, their own definition of respect and require us to observe it. Those who do this may not always realise that that they create serious buried resentments among those of fellow-citizens who are more broad-shouldered about the trading of insult…
Although he doesn’t seem to understand why they are different here in Britain, Parris has just accidently noted that Britain’s Christian “citizens” are themselves firmly rooted in British society and far less insulted by any mocking free-speech critique than are Muslims. Given that Christianity here is 2,000 years old and that Britain today struggles to “integrate” newly arrived, increasingly vocal Muslim immigrants/new “citizens” who possess a faith outlook largely unknown in this country prior to 50 years ago, it seems clear it isn’t just many current government officials who lack any grasp of the integrating role played by Catholic faith schools in this society. Parris has just demonstrated he has no idea either.
_____________________________
Indeed, he seems uninterested — even bored – by the notion of attempting so much as to try to understand, but that take is perfectly consistent for Parris. For even though a former Conservative MP who is now supposedly a wide-ranging ”opinion writer”, gay partnerships and atheism appear to be the main issues upon which he actually holds strong, positive opinions. On one level, being gay and atheist himself (”Not that there’s anything wrong with that” — and, if I might add, not that there’s anything wrong even with being both, of course), that he naturally holds strong opinions on those makes a certain degree of sense and is hardly surprising.
Yet, on another, far wider level, unlike actually principle-holding gays and/or atheists, when it comes to non-gay/non-atheist issues Parris seems to have precious few original opinion-offerings for his readers other than his oh, so worldly, ”late middle age guy”, jaded discourses on why ”________ won’t work“. Indeed, one wonders when was the last time Parris honestly laughed, not guffawed?
Anyway, let’s accept here for the sake of argument that 1) Parris’s knowing and smug jadedness itself constitutes a writing style which other opinion writers ought to aim to emulate (although one has to be careful in that; for it means also believing something might work), as well as 2) his atheist truth that no destiny (if that is the right word?) awaits us beyond the grave other than our eventually serving as worm food.
Let’s take the second part first. Why should any of us care either way about his pre-worm food’s existence’s public declaration of gay fidelity, given that such a partnership means absolutely nothing in the longer term? After all, within a few decades at the most, all of us with whom he shared that pledge will be dead and worm food also? (And while we’re on the subject, a pledge before what or whom, and based upon what exactly?)
As to the first. Regardless of the existence or not of any higher being, let there be no doubt we will all have to be worm food. An increasing shortage of cemetery space is an issue, of course, but crowded cemeteries are undoubtedly not as bad an option as cremation; for we are told the latter, as Parris is surely aware, contributes to “global warming.” And as Parris himself has told us, if that warming’s true there may well be nothing we can do; “we are all doomed“.
There now, I tried. Was that knowingly, smugly, jaded enough?
The Associated Press:
NATO troops fought a six-hour battle with insurgents in southern Afghanistan Monday in a firefight that left 55 militants and one NATO soldier dead, the Western alliance said.
Twenty militants also were wounded in the fight in the Daychopan district of Zabul province, NATO said. The nationality of the dead NATO soldier was not released, though many of the Western troops in Zabul are American.
The battle came on the heels of another major fight between militants and NATO and Afghan troops Saturday in neighboring Uruzgan province in which 70 insurgents were killed after they attacked a military base north of Tarin
Kowt…
Well, this is new. By that I mean with the A.P. quoting numbers of the enemy killed. For we all had the distinct impression that the only people dying in the War on Terror were U.S. soldiers.
David Miliband has drawn up a wide-ranging package of green taxes designed to change people’s behaviour in a bid to offset global warming.
The environment secretary’s proposals, in a leaked letter to Gordon Brown, include hikes on fuel and air passenger duty as well as increased road tax for drivers of the most polluting vehicles…
…“For 150 years we have pumped carbon into the atmosphere, whether through energy or transport, as if it had no price.
“But in fact it has an environmental price and as we are learning from Sir Nicholas Stern, it has an economic price as well.
“And for the future we have to recognise that environmental and economic price of carbon emissions in the way we live and work.”…
Well argued, of course. Also, the BBC reports:
Climate change is already affecting people across Africa and will wipe out efforts to tackle poverty there unless urgent action is taken, a report says.
Droughts are getting worse and climate uncertainty is growing, the research from a coalition of UK aid agencies and environmental groups says…
…The agencies say that greenhouse emissions cuts of 60% - 90% will ultimately be needed - way beyond the targets set in the Kyoto agreement…
So 150 years back is obviously an important benchmark timeframe, and cutting emissions up to 90% is evidently our new goal. First, let’s round that timeframe off ever slightly and remember the Britain of 155 years ago, back in 1851:
…The idea of a Great Exhibition in London was promoted by Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s husband. The main aim was to showcase British goods and skills. Albert was also keen to have contributions from around the world. He got his wish. When the Exhibition opened on 1 May 1851, over 100,000 items were on display. There were tapestries from Persia, furniture from Belgium, machinery from America, cloth from Russian and glassware from Germany, plus British industrial goods and works of art.
The Exhibition was a great success. Victoria commented: “The tremendous cheering, the joy expressed in every face, the vastness of the building, with all its decorations and exhibits, the sounds of the organ, and my beloved husband the creator of this great ‘Peace Festival’, uniting the industry and art of all nations of the earth was quite overwhelming.”…
The history of that era must clearly be re-written. ”Peace Festival”? Hardly. Indeed, forget “The Great Exhibition”. New Labour probably much prefers it retitled, “Victoria: Destroyer of Worlds.”
So given that “emissions” from fossil fuel generation will now need not just to be curtailed but to be eliminated almost completely, those of us who are Jane Austen fans may indeed soon have the opportunity denied us all for the last “150 years”: the chance really to experience a Jane Austen-style “life”. But if you aren’t a fan don’t fret, for various other benefits will certainly come your way. For one thing, although the coming outlawing of the internal combustion engine will of course impact negatively on child car seat manufacturers, the lack of cars overall will make children’s lives much safer.
Yet given this government’s clear determination to “take Britain back” . . . to development along levels (particularly “carbon emission levels”) last seen back around 1850 . . . puzzlingly, the BBC reports:
A new £20 note featuring a portrait of economist Adam Smith is to be issued, the Bank of England has said…
…When Adam Smith replaces composer Edward Elgar on £20 notes, he will also make history as the first Scotsman to appear on a Bank of England note.
The decision to use Smith’s likeness on the notes was made by the Bank’s governor Mervyn King.
Smith was born in Kirkcaldy, Fife - part of Chancellor Gordon Brown’s constituency.
The economist is most famous for his book the Wealth of Nations which many regard as almost inventing the concept of competition and market forces…
Considering Smith is already on a Scottish note, it might seem odd removing an English composer and replacing him on an English note with the Scotsman Smith, but that’s hardly the worst of it. Far more disturbing is the fact that, as we know, Smith’s ghastly theories on the free market have helped lead to today’s disastrous “global warming”. And given Chancellor Brown’s, and this government’s, oft-stated promise to help undo the tremendous environmental damage created by those following Smith’s theories for at least the last 150 years, what sort of signal is the Bank of England sending “to the world” about that very real government commitment by now putting that revolting man’s portrait on English banknotes?
The Guardian, October 27:
The education secretary, Alan Johnson, backed off from a fight with faith schools last night by saying he would no longer try to force them to accept up to a quarter of their pupils from other faiths or with no religion…
…But yesterday, Mr Johnson said a voluntary agreement between the Church of England and the Catholic church had been reached, making the legislation unnecessary. He said he had “made considerable progress” with faith groups and MPs in finding ways to ensure non-believers could be accommodated in new faith schools.
All school governing bodies would have a duty to promote community cohesion and to ensure that the schools inspectorate, Ofsted, could verify that this was happening, he said…
“To promote community cohesion”? Where does that officialist claptrap thoughtful suggestion really lead us? Nowhere at all (What does he really mean by “community”? And what is “cohesion”?), however it also tells us a great deal. It is indeed a wonderful example of the ignorance of not just so many (though, fortunately, by no means all) members of this government, but obviously far too many in the Department of Education. I say that because if there weren’t such ignorance, this entire situation never would have arisen in the first place. But why did it arise?: Read the rest of this entry »
The BBC reports:
…The US executive director of Amnesty International said Mr Cheney’s gaffe revealed the US administration’s true intentions for prisoner interrogation in the future.
“What’s really a no-brainer is that no US official, much less a vice president, should champion torture,” said Larry Cox.
US interrogation techniques have been under the spotlight since evidence emerged of detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the existence of secret CIA prisons.
Gosh, sounds damning that observation from Mr Cox, and from the BBC. Indeed, the Vice President’s clearly endorsing such utterly despicable and unjustifiable behavior and policies (”Secret prisons”?; actually, the “evidence” is they are more like “hostels”, but let’s not quibble over details when we are determined to morally swoon) in confronting an enemy well-known for their full adherence to “international law” regarding military prisoners and their humane and even loving treatment of civilian captives, makes it all the worse. Frankly, our immorality obviously knows no bounds.
However, upon closer reflection, we have heard this drumbeat since shortly after September 11, 2001. None of it ever takes in to account this: interstate agreements on the treatment of wartime captives are not hovering over us like a decree by Jove, which must be iron-clad observed by us mortals merely because those agreements exist to serve as a “moral imperative”.
We aren’t accustomed to thinking about them this way, but we forget that our having agreed them in the first place was as a result mostly of cold, calculating self-interest. For prior to the existence of any agreements on “the rules of war”, the treatment of captives was entirely a matter of the whim (and conscience) of the respective combatants. Interstate covenants first negotiated in the second half of the 19th century attempted to regularize matters, mostly owing to decidedly national and “selfish” (not primarily moral) purposes: in order to better protect one’s own people (both soldiers and civilian) from mistreatment (and worse) when detained (possibly for years) by the other side, one hoped that if your side treated captured enemy decently, your soldiers and civilians who fell captive would, in return, be decently treated by the enemy.
So, has the American moral struggle to try both to prevail in this conflict, while also adhering to those agreements in the face of the current enemy who pays in return not the slightest wit of attention to the notion of humane treatment of people in captivity, made any difference as to how our own people held captive have been treated? Most would probably answer a resounding “no” to that question. That being the case, to be honest, overall U.S. treatment of enemy captured in this conflict has been, in comparison, downright Holiday Inn-like.
Given the nature of this conflict and the behavior of the enemy towards our captives, when it comes to “prisoner abuse” none of us should have any troubled consciences. Our own soldiers know the enemy much better than most of our media, and nearly all of our “human rights” groups do, of course. For can anyone name a single U.S. serviceperson who has been officially returned alive by the enemy — not rescued by U.S. forces — after falling into battlefield captivity? And how many have been “interviewed” and had their detention location inspected by the ICRC?
In stark contrast, far more often than not, those the U.S. supposedly “abused” in captivity return home alive fully limbed after having been well-fed, in order to file lawsuits, give BBC interviews, and join “anti-war” groups. The real “no-brainers”? Our captives, actually. For if we get them back at all we find that they usually lack heads, and that the enemy is quite proud of that “treatment”.
U.S. President George Bush has signed a law authorizing construction of more than 1,000 kilometers of fence along America’s border with Mexico. Illegal immigration is an important issue in some of next month’s congressional elections…
Oh, boy. It’s hard to forget this administration’s previously adamant opposition to doing anything substantive to try to prevent Mexicans entering the U.S. illegally via the southern land border (and all while the administration was perfectly willing to try to halt everyone else’s illegal entry via especially air travel); indeed, it was previously pushing for a “guest worker” program for those Mexicans. So for him to sign this into law at this “11th hour”, the administration must really be frightened that dissatisfied conservatives may well stay home on November 7, leading to Republicans getting slaughtered in those elections.
This may well, however, be way too little, way too late.
The Daily Mail:
As childhood sweethearts they had been inseparable for the best part of 60 years. But after a lifetime together the thought of being parted terrified both James and Hilda Bedell.
So, with music playing in the background, they held each other for one last time and said goodbye.
In just a matter of moments they were both dead. In a series of tragic suicide notes they explained how they could not bear to live without each other…
I think most of us find that sad and poignant because we wonder: What we would do in that situation? We don’t want to think about it. Yet, of course it’s inevitable that in any couple one will likely go before the other.
A Danish court on Thursday acquitted daily Jyllands-Posten in a civil case brought by Muslim organizations that accused it of slander for printing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad that triggered widespread Muslim anger…
Reuters sounds all downcast. But they should really look on the bright side. After all, there’s always a chance that the court’s having firmly defended free speech will lead to renewed “anger” . . . and more rioting.
COURTS cannot cope with the large number of terrorist cases coming to trial, the senior prosecutor in charge of counter-terrorism has told The Times.
Sue Hemming, head of the Crown Prosecution Service’s counter-terrorism division, said there was a backlog of 34 terrorist trials involving 99 defendants.
Plans are under way to create a network of high-security courthouses to alleviate the crisis while a cadre of up to 20 specialist High Court judges has also been nominated to deal specifically with terror trials…
Given that “military tribunals” are out, presumably “specialist courts” are okay?
Or does treating terror as “special” and therefore different from a convenience store stick up in itself constitute a violation of “international law”?
…Within London, a growing number of cases will be heard at Woolwich Crown Court, beside Belmarsh prison, where heavily armed police, body scanners and bag searches are a common occurrence.
Defendants on remand at the prison are led to the court through a tunnel, avoiding the need for armoured convoys and police escorts on the streets…
Led through a tunnel rather than seeing the light of day? Sounds very unnecessarily stressful for the suspect. Are tunnels to courts also okay under “international law”?
The BBC reports:
The cost of residents’ parking permits could be linked to car emissions under plans being considered in one of the country’s most affluent areas.
A Lib Dem council in London wants owners of gas-guzzling vehicles to pay more to park outside their homes.
Uh, excuse me, but the BBC should know some of us out here might term them “child-safe vehicles”.
Richmond upon Thames residents with two high-emission cars could pay £750 a year, compared with £200 now, but the greenest cars would be exempt…
Thoughtful plan. However, one thing. In its single-handed battle to save the earth, presumably Richmond council will also be happy to cover the costs of tickets parents receive for transporting their children packed into “the greenest cars” . . . too small to accommodate the (by law) required number of child (and now, nearly teenager) seats?
BBC writer Denise Winterman “steps” in it, so to speak (via my wife):
…To those who do not know the film, it [Dirty Dancing] is often referred to as “the Star Wars for girls”. Just as a generation of men grew up quoting Jedi proverbs, their female equivalents were summoning the above “baby” line to their friends. That might help you get your head round how big a phenomenon it is…
Needless to say, some “girls” and guys don’t agree, while others do. Read the comments after the piece; they are often more interesting and witty than the actual piece itself.
I saw it years ago, and while it’s perfectly ok, it would be much better with some lasers, starships, evil Lords and green dwarves who badly do they speak.
Stephen, London
The British government has announced caps on the number of workers it will admit from Romania and Bulgaria after their accession to the European Union in 2007, with low-skilled workers limited to just 20,000…
What a relief. Holding at that level helpfully should keep the numbers of “unskilled” Romanians and Bulgarians safely well below that of jihadists and their supporters already here.
AOL UK might be forgiven its prominently “reporting” some of most juvenile stories imaginable. (Like breaking news on ”pole-dancing”.) But far worse is its tendency towards some weirdly biased front pages. Consider this photo that is currently (meaning about 3:45 PM UK time) among those rotating at aol.co.uk:
Now what the heck is that all about? Is that a photo of hard-pressed British troops being overwhelmed in an horrendous Iraqi firefight? Has the man with his hands on the ground just been shot?
But Iraqis in the back left in the photo next to the vehicle hardly look as if they are about to run for cover? Certainly able to see what’s going on, they seem to be standing perfectly erect? That they would do so one would think unlikely if bullets are flying? So is it just a photo of a group of soldiers moving off in a hurry, concerned about what’s in front of them (hence the drawn weapons), but no shots have been fired, and one man has simply either been hit by, or avoided, a non-bullet object of some kind, or maybe even had just lost his footing and fell down a second earlier?
Given those two possible scenarios, the second seems the far more likely. But it’s impossible to tell for sure because there’s no caption or background supplied. That said, there doesn’t seem much doubt which scenario AOL UK hopes its web readers will embrace, does there?
Headline for this Andrew Sullivan piece in last weekend’s Sunday Times:
Iraq is no Vietnam – it’s far worse than that
In the column, Sullivan writes as if this is all new to him, but quite a few of us have been saying for some time that it is NOT another “Vietnam” . . . yet. However, it might well become one if “boomer”-dominated media obsessed by that conflict has its collective way. For then that which was previously inflicted on southeast Asia will then have been permitted to be inflicted this time on southwest Asia.
By “boomers” being obsessed by Vietnam, one means that they view EVERY conflict through a prism of that one — even if another one occurs in another time and place, and, indeed, century. Actually, that “neurosis” is so bad it probably doesn’t apply even just to wars fought since Vietnam. For instance, why does one suspect if the NYT had had a reporter present in 1415, his filed story on, say, the English killing prisoners at Agincourt would have noted how those killings were clearly a forerunner to General Nguyen Ngoc Loan’s future execution of a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon?:
Agincourt Killings Evoke Image of War to Come
By the way, don’t think this ”neurosis” problem is restricted merely to a part of the U.S. population. Britain has a similar ”neurosis”: it’s called “Suez.” The Telegraph:
…Anthony Eden, then prime minister, called off the venture hours after British and French troops had landed at Port Said on Nov 5, 1956. America opposed her closest ally and threatened Britain with oil sanctions and Washington’s economic pressure forced Britain’s withdrawal…
…the events of 1956 are seared into the Foreign Office’s collective memory and avoiding “another Suez” is the watchword of every mandarin…
The Telegraph undoubtedly probably just forgot to tell its readers that the U.S. opposed it because it was badly caught off guard diplomatically (Eden didn’t tell Eisenhower it was coming — hardly a way to treat one’s closest ally; Washington didn’t even have a good story prepared), it served to divert attention from the horrific Soviet invasion of Hungary, was perceived as possibly driving Arab states closer to the Soviets (especially given the involvement of Israel), and, above all, over the invasion the Soviet Union appeared scarily willing to drop atomic bombs on London and Paris, which would have meant the U.S. having in response to attack the U.S.S.R. . . . which would have meant a nuclear World War III.
Britain and the rest of Europe are a target for Taleban militants who have been inspired by rebel fighters in Iraq and are now planning attacks abroad for the first time, a Taleban commander has said.
Mullah Mohammed Amin said that “ordinary people” would be killed in revenge for the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
Which makes a degree of sense . . . if you are one of those so lacking in sense as to believe that that US-led invasion had nothing to do with a prior “minor action” undertaken by his then de facto Afghan government . . .
Speaking to Sky News, the reclusive fighter vowed to avenge the death of every Taleban militant with the lives of hundreds of Westerners in a fight that, he said, they will never give up…
That Sky, so “Islamophobic“.
_____________________________
Also in The Times:
…In Basra, soldiers from The Queen’s Royal Hussars met the Duke of Edinburgh yesterday as he made a surprise visit to the southern Iraqi city. Dressed in combat fatigues, Prince Philip, 85, said: “Everyone at home has been following what has been going on in this part of the world with a great deal of sympathy for those of you at the sharp end who are trying to do your best to make life civilised and tolerable for the locals.”
The Iranian “president”, quoted by the BBC, October 20:
…You imposed a group of terrorists… on the region. It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals… This is an ultimatum. Don’t complain tomorrow…
That statement, which forms the basis for the entire piece, wasn’t evidently considered worth being quoted in part in the headline. Indeed, the statement itself doesn’t even appear until paragraph 7:
Thus the BBC, displaying in yet another piece how they are one of media’s most artful practitioners of passive tense, dissembling headlines. For, of course, why note the main thrust of the piece clearly?:
Iran: Europeans, “This is an ultimatum”
Interestingly, though, there are times they can make themselves quite clear — indeed, sometimes too much so. For instance, US State Department official Alberto Fernandez, quoted by the BBC, October 22:
I think there is great room for strong criticism, because without doubt, there was arrogance and stupidity by the United States in Iraq…
BBC page headlining that comment:
Curiously, the BBC chose to edit out the “was” and misrepresent his exact words in quotes: he did not say “arrogant and stupid,” but said “arrogance and stupidity” as part of a wider comment. But that quote in THIS story’s paragraph 7 obviously was believed worth misquoting and even including in this story’s headline. And I think we know why: non-misquotations and watery BBC paraphrases are privileges reserved for an Iranian “president” only, of course.
Concluding, Minette Marrin in The Sunday Times:
…Religious indoctrination and observance don’t belong in state schools, in a multifaith society, not any more.
But is the U.K. really a “multi-faith” society? Or are we just being told to believe that it is by those who think it should be? According to the 2001 census:
There are 37.3 million people in England and Wales who state their religion as Christian. The percentage of Christians is similar between the two countries but the proportion of people who follow other religions is 6.0 per cent in England compared with 1.5 per cent in Wales.
In England, 3.1 per cent of the population state their religion as Muslim (0.7 per cent in Wales), making this the most common religion after Christianity.
For other religions, 1.1 per cent in England and 0.2 per cent in Wales are Hindu, 0.7 per cent in England and 0.1 per cent in Wales are Sikh, 0.5 per cent in England and 0.1 per cent in Wales are Jewish and 0.3 per cent in England and 0.2 per cent in Wales are Buddhist.
In England and Wales 7.7 million people state they have no religion (14.6 per cent in England and 18.5 per cent in Wales)…
Thus there are some 5 times as many atheists in England and Wales as there are Muslims. And given that it seems likely that even most atheists come from Christian “backgrounds”, rather than it being “multi-faith” perhaps a better description of the country is that it is — don’t fall over from the shock of reading this, please — “mostly Christian”?
Oh, and also of some note regarding another non-Christian minority faith:
…At the time the Census was carried out, there was an internet campaign that encouraged people to answer the religion question “Jedi Knight”. The number of people who stated Jedi was 390,000 (0.7 per cent of the population)…
No, that’s no joke; that is indeed from an official UK government site. Thus the percentage of Jedi Knights in England and Wales (0.7 per cent) equals the number of Muslims in Wales alone. So considering faith/state funded schools aren’t likely to be scrapped entirely anytime soon, it seems only fair that the overlooked Jedi Knight minority be entitled to a few also.
Israel has admitted for the first time that it used phosphorus bombs to attack Hizbollah targets in Lebanon during the war in August.
Until now, Israel has insisted it restricted its use of the weapons to marking out targets.
The bombs cause severe chemical burns to victims and are banned for use in civilian areas….
Given that the bombs’ use is banned in civilian areas, Israel clearly has a lot of explaining to do. For as everyone knows, Hezbollah-run south Lebanon is 100 percent entirely a “civilian area” possessing no army whatsoever. (Even the rocket launchers are manned by “civilians”.) In fact, all of south Lebanon might easily be considered a Middle East version of Costa Rica.
A little more than a week ago, Pub Philosopher wrote:
Yes, it’s that time of year again, folks, and the Islamic Human Rights Commission (Commissioned by whom, I wonder?) has listed the nominees for its annual Islamophobia Awards…
…Others on the list include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Condoleeza Rice, Vladimir Putin and the entire French government. There are still no bloggers though…
He was probably just premature in that judgement. The nominations page now has the excellent, generally left-of-center UK blog Harry’s Place, which is described as “Another Islamophobic web blog.” Also having made an appearance is a right-of-center American blog by George Weinert, whom we are told less than gramatically is ”A despicable blogger with too much time on his hands guarantees his place in the fire of hell with his endless rants on the American Jihad blog”. The failure to include Little Green Footballs, which has a huge readership and is considered by some perhaps the most “Islamophobic” of all, is baffling; but the slighting of LGF might be said to be hardly the most obvious omission overall.
I think many who visit here are also familiar with “Harry”. I admit that this is the first I’ve heard of Mr Weinert, whose blog does seem rather “hyper-opinionated” to say the least. However, he is hardly unique within the blogosphere in that sense. That said, the posturing self-righteousness of organizations such as the IHRC, especially when they seek or get taxpayer funding and then attack private individuals who are merely exercising their right to speak their minds, is perpetually even more tiresome. For usually to earn one the coveted title ”____________phobic” (or to earn a place in the fire of hell) one need only deign to disagree with any aspect of that particular group’s agenda.
However, such groups may at times also prove themselves to be inadvertently amusing. In this case, the IHRC has provided us with an entire page of witty “indictments” of nearly everyone and everything . . . and then, just before the bottom we are informed:
[Note: The views expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of IHRC.]
That’s strange, especially considering how earlier on the page an IHRC email address is provided for event contact information. So given that there is no separation into a “comment area”, if up to this point we had perhaps understandably believed the IHRC to be responsible for all the content that has appeared under its masthead, we are now perhaps surprised to learn they are “not necessarily” responsible for that content, nor for any views expressed. (Incidentally, did you know that Sky News is “…a prominent vehicle for anti Muslim propaganda, harboring bias in the every report and every question asked“? Well, thanks to the IHRC you know now; but the IHRC isn’t responsible for that view, of course.)
Oh, and no, I haven’t forgotten. I noted near the top there is one glaring omission from the proffered list of last year’s “Islamophobic”. Considering the supposedly horrific views he voiced just last month and for which he has never fully “apologized”, and, as we have been repeatedly reminded, those “Islamophobe” views then created vast amounts of “anger” among hundreds of millions of Muslims, the absence of a Pope nomination is seemingly inexplicable.
Indeed, the Pontiff’s feat in so easily bringing forth such widespread ”anger” is one which, insofar as we are aware, Harry’s Place, Mr Weinert and even LGF have not yet managed to come anywhere near to equaling. Yet just whose fault his omission might be is hard to ascertain. After all, according to the IHRC no one who composed and/or is composing (for “nominations” are still open) the page is actually responsible for anything on it.
The Times’ Matthew Parris:
…We were not invited. We had no mandate. There were no “good” Iraqis to hand over to. We had nothing to latch on to, no legitimacy. It wasn’t a question of being tactful, respectful, munificent, or handing sweets to children. We were impostors, and that is all…
Parris might have saved himself the trouble of spending an inordinate amount of time composing 1,323 undoubtedly sagacious words (inclusive) explaining just why, when what he feels could clearly have been boiled down succinctly to a single phrase: “To all you little people who’ve stuck your necks out (often literally) hoping for a better life at long last: None of you are any ‘good’, so just forget it.”
President George W. Bush met on Saturday with top U.S. military commanders to discuss the Iraq war and said he would “make every necessary change” in tactics to try to control spiraling violence there…
Of course leave it to Reuters utterly to miss the significance of a high-level meeting that aims to discuss measures that might reduce a war’s . . . violence.
Israeli forces killed a Palestinian civilian during a raid in southern Gaza on Saturday, hospital officials and residents said, as the army pressed on with a four-month-old offensive against militants…
No, no, no, not “during a raid in southern Gaza.” That must be a typo. What media means to write is it was actually a “cross-border raid.”
This is merely a local, personal complaint. We are dogsitting my brother’s-in-law’s dogs; they are staying with us a few days. Tonight, we have been in, with the TV blasting trying to obscure the noise because all around us here in north London, idiots in back gardens are setting off fireworks.
And why? The 5th of November is over 2 weeks off. Is today maybe some country’s little-known independence day or something?
If it keeps up after 11 PM, the wife says she’s calling the police. Of course that will not have the slightest impact. But exclaiming that to yourself at least helps you feel better.
UPDATE: Didn’t know it, but calling the police would be of absolutely no help tonight; we just saw that it is the Hindu festival of Diwali. So, it isn’t “little minds” after all. The dogs will just have to cope tonight.
Agence France-Presse is clearly impressed:
More than a thousand Iraqi Shiite protesters have taken to the streets of Baghdad, Basra and Najaf to condemn Israel and demand that Jerusalem be handed over to Palestinian control…
But why they are impressed is unclear? After all, these days, one can get twice that number out to demand an East Timor PM resign:
More than two-thousand protestors have gathered in the East Timorese capital, Dili, calling for the resignation of the prime minister, Mari Alkatiri.
And three times that many out to try to protect a Scottish hospital’s A & E:
More than 3,000 people have taken to the streets of Ayr in protest at the health board’s plans to remove emergency surgery from its hospital.
And, in AFP’s own backyard, 80 times that many to protest . . . striking:
…Miss Herold found herself addressing crowds of up to 80,000 three years ago when she became the spearhead of a campaign against crippling anti-government strikes by public sector workers…
The BBC reports:
Four Muslim baggage handlers are appealing against a decision to bar them from working at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris.
They say that the local government’s decision to revoke their security passes is evidence of anti-Muslim discrimination…
…The four men, who are of North African origin, say they were summoned by security officials for interviews concerning their employment in August…
…The head of a local government office, Jacques Lebrot, said the ban had nothing to do with religion.
The reason?:
“For us, someone who goes on holiday to Pakistan several times raises questions,” he told Reuters News Agency…
You mean it is actually not routine for people of “North African origin” living in France and working at de Gaulle as baggage handlers to take several “holidays” to Pakistan? Huh. And to think, we had all thought Pakistan was a destination normally on every such person’s “Places to See Before You Die” list?
Or, then again, maybe it is?
The Daily Mail:
Chancellor Gordon Brown is “mesmerised” by George Bush’s US administration and neo-conservative economics, left-wing Labour leadership challenger John McDonnell has claimed in an interview…
…In an interview with the Parliamentary Monitor magazine, the Hayes and Harlington MP said: “Gordon Brown and the leadership of the party seem mesmerised by the right-wing administration in Washington.
Actually, the only people who have ever not just “seemed” but actually been “mesmerised” by the “right-wing” administration in Washington are those who’ve perpetually and weirdly obsessed on the fact . . . that there is a “right-wing” administration in Washington. Nicholas, sitting in for Murdoc, rationally and reasonably points out:
Last night my uncle said he thinks George W. Bush is “evil”…
…I never personally liked Mr. G. W. Bush or his father and would not have voted for him if I were an American citizen—at least not initially. I also do not believe Clinton was as bad as many conservatives make him out to be. But I will not stand by while otherwise educated people make crazy judgements about important issues…
One suspects that Mr McDonnell favors the “evil” view of the current White House resident. Anyway, back to Mr McDonnell in the Mail:
“In terms of foreign policy, they look to George Bush, and in terms of domestic policy, they look to the neo-conservatives.
One aspect of their weird “mesmerization” is that “the George Bush” foreign policy is substantially different — and of course, much worse — than that of his predecessors. However, if one stops hyperventilating long enough to look closely at its actual record one sees that this U.S. administration’s foreign policy is overall substantively little different to that of every previous administration since 1941, and is to a large degree rooted in a world view not dissimilar to that first espoused (and to great “world approval” at that time) in 1917-1918. But, obviously, Mr McDonnell and others — “…Blair’s craven support for the extremism of US neoconservative foreign policy…” — find it more satisfying to hyperventilate.
“Brown is ideologically obsessed with the free market, and not what works in terms of delivering the best public services.”…
Yes, and speaking of but one example of “what works” when “delivering the best public services”, the BBC, March 2004:
Tube workers have backed strike action on London Underground (LU) to support maintenance staff who were sacked after alcohol was found in a staff room…
…Fifteen track maintenance workers were suspended after more than 100 cans of lager and a brandy bottle were found in a mess room at Farringdon Tube station in the City of London.
…Eight workers were dismissed following disciplinary hearings in November.
No disciplinary action was taken against the remaining seven and they are now back at work
I know, I know. Like yourself, I thought: Can photojournalism possibly ever get any more groundbreaking than the likes of that? Definitely award winning.
The Sunday Times (via my wife):
…Yellowstone, you see, holds a special place in both American and worldwide hearts, as its unique and mystical gifts inspired the very idea of preserving wild and special places as national parks, and it thus attracts 3m visitors a year. As the overwhelming majority bring a car along for the ride, there’s a considerable risk of the landscape being loved to death. Commuter rush hours are established by the timetables for likely geyser eruptions, as the massed ranks hurry for the best view, while roadside animal encounters, of which there are many, produce chaotic temporary car parks of zoom-lens wielding naturalists, crowding for the perfect wilderness image of a bison scratching its arse on a tree stump. And, all the time, the park rangers in their Hanna-Barbera hats patiently spend their days pointing out that: “Ma’am, that’s a 140-stone wild animal you’re standing three feet from/trying to pet/placing your child on top of… please reconsider.”…
Allowing for writer Brian Schofield’s speaking to a mostly British readership, in having a Yellowstone park ranger cite a wild animal’s weight in a manner that is hard to imagine a real ranger there would, Schofield’s article is worthwhile reading. (We agree that one can’t say enough good things about the place.)
The BBC reports:
Al-Qaeda has become more organised and sophisticated and has made Britain its top target, counter-terrorism officials have told the BBC.
Security sources say the situation has never been so grim, said BBC home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore…
Most revealing of all, according to the BBC, this truly startling and new information:
…The network is targeting “carefully selected” new recruits - mainly young Muslim men - according to the Guardian newspaper, which also quotes security sources…
So al Qaeda has not yet embraced a non-ageist, multi-faith, non-sexist outlook? Shocking.
UPDATE: Al Qaeda has so much to learn about inclusivity. For example, Reuters:
Gays hope ally becomes first black Mass. governor
George Bush has for the first time conceded that there may be parallels between the raging violence in Iraq and the Vietnam War…
Ah, yes, thus is media’s latest sequel to “The World According to 1968” released. . .
One of the reasons we’ve mostly stopped going into central London (and have ceased going in at all with a car during the week), is London mayor Ken Livingstone’s exorbitant “tax”. (It is currently £ 8 every day — almost $15.) Yet, of course, yesterday, we had Reuters, (there’s a surprise) trying to stir things up:
The U.S. Embassy in London owes more than 1 million pounds ($1.9 million) for a vehicle “congestion charge” in the capital, the mayor’s office said on Wednesday.London authorities say the charge on driving in the centre of the city is a road toll and diplomats have to pay it like anyone else. Washington says it is a tax and diplomats are exempt…
But we all know it’s a tax; before it was imposed, even the BBC at least once referred to it as a “tax”. Ken doesn’t like calling it what it is, though, and does everything he can to try to murky the waters:
…”It is for the British authorities to decide what is a tax and what is not a tax in the UK,” Livingstone said. “Both the UK government and the Greater London Authority consider the congestion charge a charge for a service — reduced congestion. The U.S. Embassy benefits from the reduction in congestion.”
A “toll” is primarily a user fee imposed to maintain a piece of road or bridge infrastructure. In contrast, the London CC “tax” is an extra fee levied on all vehicles simply for using the roads of central London, roads which have already been paid for by those drivers through their yearly “road tax”, among other taxes. So the £ 1 (for cars) Dartford Bridge/Tunnel Crossing is a “toll”; but imposing a blanket fee on vehicles entering a geographical section of London in order to alter behavior (i.e. get people out of their cars) makes the “congestion charge” a “tax”.
He said British diplomats in the United States paid American tolls and charges. “U.S. diplomats should respect British law and pay the congestion charge,” he added…
However, “charge” not “toll” says Ken? Ooops, obviously a slip of the tongue. Anyway, trying to disparage the U.S. (as he loves to do) is always going to get some applause, but substantively his argument doesn’t cut it . . . based on the above.
For only if U.S. diplomats refuse to pay the Dartford toll, and similar UK bridge and road tolls, does Ken have a point there. (I am unaware that they refuse to do so. And why does one suspect that if they refused to, Ken would have been the first to tell us?) Also, diplomacy is indeed first and foremost about “reciprocation”. So, when US diplomats in London refuse to pay the London charge, while Washington D.C. or New York imposes similar “congestion charges” on British consular vehicles which must be paid daily the moment every one leaves UK embassy or consular grounds and the Foreign Office pays those, then, again, Ken will have won this diplomatic argument, but not before.
And think about this: how about everyone else who have capitals that do NOT possess such — to use Ken’s mischaracterization — a “toll”? For instance, do British diplomats pay to use their vehicles the instant they leave the British embassy, say, in Paris? (And since Ken chooses to single out the U.S. for non-payment, presumably every other mission currently within the zone is coughing up?) And after the zone is extended early next year, will the French happily pay what is essentially London’s vehicular motion “tax” the moment one of their vehicles ventures out into Knightsbridge? Or will they resort to a more “passive” means of evasion: the use of only French-registered cars?
To be honest, all businesses and embassies should give “the UK government” and “the Great