You are currently browsing the monthly archive for November, 2006.
Mr Blair must indeed be in his last days in office. For much like President Clinton during his second term, it seems Mr Blair is now also in “apology mode”. The BBC reports:
A Tory MP has made a light-hearted call for the prime minister to apologise for what he called King Henry VIII’s “disgraceful treatment of his wives”.
Veteran Conservative backbencher Sir Peter Tapsell made the suggestion during Women and Equality questions in the House of Commons.
He was mocking Tony Blair’s “statement of regret” earlier this week for the UK’s involvement in the slave trade…
While one understands fully that Henry’s marital misbehavior was directly relevant given that Sir Peter was involved in a Women and Equality question session, the fact that he brought up Henry in the context of Mr Blair’s slavery “regret” statement is interesting for what went unmentioned: it appears to have dawned on none involved that no one is even “light-heartedly” calling for Mr Blair to issue an apology to Great Britain’s Roman Catholics. That said, one cannot also but shudder at the thought of what we might today be facing in terms of apology requests if Henry had not just abused (and murdered) wives, but had also banned burqas?
Reuters tells us that the millions are out in the streets:
Okay, maybe not. By the way, what constitutes a Reuters “dozens”? 36, 48, or even 72 people? Sadly, Reuters doesn’t share that information with us.
Notice also the “Reuters history” slipped unobtrusively into that last paragraph above: “During the Byzantine period, … Istanbul was called Constantinople…” Fascinating. They finally get there, but it takes them until the third to the last paragraph to provide a more accurate explanation:
…On conquering the city in 1453, Sultan Mehmet went to the church and prayed, turning it into a mosque. As part of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s drive to modernise Turkey, it was turned into a museum in 1934.
Meaning it was conquered violently, thus ending “the Byzantine period“. Then, in the second to last:
Nationalist and Islamist Turks were outraged when Pope Paul VI prayed at the museum in 1967, causing a diplomatic incident…
Uh, on that one there: “Islamists” in 1967? Reuters is confusing us here now, for we had all thought Islamists were created as a result of the policies of the Bush administration?
The BBC reports:
British Airways is trying to contact 33,000 passengers after radioactive traces were found on two of its planes.
A third plane, currently in Moscow, is to be flown back to the UK for tests.
The low grade radiation was found by scientists investigating the death of ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko…
…detectives are known to be tracing the movements of those who associated with Mr Litvinenko…
Of course, there is always the chance the planes were exposed to radiation when they were misdirected into flying over CIA ”secret prisons” in Eastern Europe. However, if that’s not the case, at least we can probably discount the possibility that however else the material may have gotten aboard those planes, it certainly was never transported hidden in a water-filled Evian bottle or in (untasted) baby formula. After all, those dangerous items were ”banned”.
The Associated Press, being “objective”:
If your initial reaction based on their headline and subheading is one of surprise at the very small turnout for such an event, and you had perhaps also thought that Catholics might be avoiding him out of fear of a “backlash” in mostly Muslim Turkey, you have gotten a serious misimpression. But that misimpression was probably the A.P.’s intention. For notice that the terribly misleading headline finally gets clarified towards the end of the second paragraph: the mass was invitation only.
Naturally, the A.P. couldn’t find the headline space to have written, say, “250 invited guests attend Pope’s mass in Turkey“. Indeed, that phrasing wouldn’t have been appropriate. After all, it might have actually provided news.
_____________________________
I’ll say it again. If you want “Pope coverage”, don’t bother with the MSM. Spero News is far better.
The BBC reports:
Hundreds of lorry drivers are stranded in Kent after industrial action in France closed the Port of Dover.
No ferries have been sailing from Dover to Calais after a strike by workers led to the French port’s closure…
Why?
…The port of Calais, which has been closed since Tuesday afternoon, is being blockaded by members of the Calais Chamber of Commerce, who are striking over the dismissal of a cleaner.
It can only strike (no pun intended) one as weirdly amusing that employees of the Calais “Chamber of Commerce” . . . have halted commerce. As the wife pointed out, it was a good thing we went last week. But one never knows when there will be strikes on the French side. They occur unpredictably.
“No red carpet for the Pope” said one Turkish headline today — and indeed there were no banners, portraits or flag waving crowds of the kind you normally see on papal trips abroad as Pope Benedict XVI arrived for the most hazardous and delicate trip of his pontificate so far…
Also in The Times:
…it has been made doubly controversial by Benedict’s opposition, voiced before becoming Pope, to Turkey’s membership of the European Union, saying it did not belong there because of its religion and culture…
The reaction to this visit, like the overreaction to his September comments, might well seem to confirm that . . . at least to a degree. Indeed, this might too:
…Christians there number only a few thousand, and suffer increasing harassment, including prosecutions for attempted prosyletising and concocted charges against Muslim converts to Christianity…
It seems inconceivable that any state that engages in such behavior should even be considered for E.U. membership. So, why would any state composed mostly of people of a faith group which is so apparently implacably hostile even to conversion to Christianity, as well as to the spiritual leader of the (by far) largest faith group composing the E.U., be so oddly determined to want to get into that same E.U.? I suspect we know the answers, and they are decidedly “earthly”.
Upon entry, Ankara will find itself suddenly with E.U. subsidies galore. (Turkey will immediately become the poorest E.U. member state.) Turks will also be granted the right to work and to settle permanently wherever they might wish to within any E.U. state. So, obviously Catholicism (and Christianity) and the Pope aren’t all that bad.
American troops have now been embroiled in Iraq for longer than than (sic) their forefathers were fighting in World War II.
Operation Iraqi Freedom has lasted for 1,348 days - and the milestone is being seen increasingly in the US media as more of a millstone…
Like for like comparisons are necessary for fair reporting. Unfortunately, that is not one of those comparisons.
According to CNN, the US military death toll from all causes in Iraq stands at 2,879 as of November 27. Overlooked in that Sky piece is that during WWII nearly 292,000 of their forefathers were killed in battle alone. That is more than 100 times the number who’ve been killed in battle in Iraq thus far.
However, perhaps “US media” believes the US military should have adopted more of WWII’s tactics? Perhaps it should have by now killed a large percentage of Iraqi young men between ages 18-39, firebombed the country from end to end, and dropped atomic bombs on, say, Fallujah and Ramadi? After all, doing such probably would have ended the war before that “milestone” was reached.
The Associated Press:
No moment of Pope Benedict XVI’s upcoming trip may be more closely watched as his walk through the majestic Haghia Sophia, a domed complex whose history spans Istanbul’s stormy evolution from Christianity to Islam…
“Stormy evolution”? Huh. So is that now how we’re to describe this?:
…thousands of Ottoman soldiers were pouring into the city. One after the other the city Gates were opened. The Ottoman flags began appearing on the walls, on the towers, on the Palace at Blachernae. Civilians in panic were rushing to the churches. Others locked themselves in their homes, some continued fighting in the streets, crowds of Greeks and foreigners were rushing towards the port area. The allied ships were still there and began collecting refugees. The Cretan soldiers and sailors, manning three towers near the entrance of the Golden Horn, were still fighting and had no intention of surrendering. At the end, the Ottoman commanders had to agree to a truce and let them sail away, carrying their arms.
The excesses which followed, druing the early hours of the Ottoman victory, are described in detail by eyewitnesses. They were, and unfortunately still are, a common practice, almost a ritual, among all armies capturing enemy strongholds and territory after a prolonged and violent struggle. Thus, bands of soldiers began now looting. Doors were broken, private homes were looted, their tenants were massacred. Shops in the city markets were looted. Monasteries and Convents were broken in. Their tenants were killed, nuns were raped, many, to avoid dishonor, killed themselves. Killing, raping, looting, burning, enslaving, went on and on according to tradition. The troops had to satisfy themselves. The great doors of Saint Sophia were forced open, and crowds of angry soldiers came in and fell upon the unfortunate worshippers. Pillaging and killing in the holy place went on for hours. Similar was the fate of worshippers in most churches in the city. Everything that could be taken from the splendid buildings was taken by the new masters of the Imperial capital. Icons were destroyed, precious manuscripts were lost forever. Thousands of civilians were enslaved, soldiers fought over young boys and young women. Death and enslavement did not distinguish among social classes. Nobles and peasants were treated with equal ruthlessness…
_____________________________
Okay, we get the picture. A.P. headline:
Annan: Iraqis ‘almost’ in civil war
No, not “civil war”. Clearly, the A.P. really meant to term it a ”stormy evolution”.
VOA:
The U.N. refugee agency says desperate people from Somalia continue to make the perilous journey to Yemen. The UNHCR says the number of people seeking asylum from Somalia has increased since the Islamic Courts Union came to power earlier this year…
On one level, it shows how desperate they are . . . in fleeing TO Yemen.
On another, this all must be very confusing for the BBC, since, as they told us back in September:
…Almost all Somalis are Muslim and many agree the idea of being governed according to Islamic law…
Although, presumably, those fleeing are those who may not. But is it a Muslim’s right NOT to want to be governed by Islamic “law”? One gets the distinct impression it isn’t; indeed, why would anyone even wish to, given how as the BBC also explains, “In a society where social problems are endemic, Sharia frees humanity to realise its individual potential“?
The BBC reports:
Thousands of Muslims have taken part in a protest in Istanbul against the Pope’s forthcoming visit to Turkey.
The crowds booed - and shouted slogans such as “Don’t come Pope” - as pictures of Benedict XVI were shown on a giant screen in a square in the city suburbs…
So presumably the Associated Press considers such to be evidence that if he decided to emigrate to Turkey, he might still find himself a bit uncomfortable . . . even if he chose also to dye his hair?
…A huge poster on the square showed pictures of a crusader and of violence in the Middle East.
“Who brought evil and inhumanity?” the poster asked, addressing the Pope. “Now don’t come here, unless you apologise.”…
Actually, the lady doth protest too much, methinks. Anyway, gee, but Constantinople has sure changed, hasn’t it? Must have been as a result of peaceful “immigration”.
…In his September speech, the Pope quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, who said Muhammad had brought only “evil and inhuman” things.
The Pope stressed that these were not his own words and later expressed regret for any offence his words caused.
However many Muslim leaders have been demanding an unequivocal apology.
What certain people clearly fail to understand is that a pope is far more important than any bunch of mere “leaders”. So there’s no way he could ever apologize to such. However, upon production of an Islamic version of a pope and a structured set of beliefs which the Muslim faithful themselves all come to agree upon, there might then actually begin to be a basis for the ”dialogue” we keep hearing those certain people so urgently desire.
_____________________________
UPDATE: If you wish non-MSM coverage of the Pope’s visit, Spero News is the web place to be:
…Western media coverage of foreign humanitarian disasters took a quantum leap forward after the tsunami of 26 December 2004. Of course, no single factor could ever be credited with generating the huge media attention that story received and the outpouring of aid that followed, but Egeland’s controversial comments the very next day did play a significant part, challenging rich countries to account for their response and dig deep to assist:
“It is beyond me why we are so stingy, really. Christmastime should remind many Western countries how rich we have become, and if actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy, really.”
This caused a massive uproar in the US, where Americans interpreted Egeland’s remarks as solely targeting their country — the lady doth protest too much, methinks — but it helped draw attention to the crisis and deliver relief results, from donors there and elsewhere…
I wasn’t aware that pointing out what might be the shortcomings of Mr Egeland’s critique constituted “a massive uproar”. In any event, if doing so did one also wonders how this new ”Doth Protesting Too Much Means One Must Be Unconsciously Very Guilty Over One’s Shortcomings” litmus test might also be helpfully applied when it comes to other “massive” “uproars“?
Unfortunately, the author of the piece – “Former journalist Andrew Stroehlein is Media Director of the International Crisis Group, the conflict resolution organisation, where he promotes responsible coverage of current and potential conflicts and helps draw attention to forgotten wars around the world” — doesn’t venture towards that question. Yet the issue is relevant, given that blogged as the above is for “Alertnet”, Reuters itself then tells us at the bottom of the page . . .
Any views expressed in this article are those of the author and not of Reuters
. . . and if I might say, the lady doth protest too much, methinks.
From an interesting Christian Science Monitor piece:
…”The insurgents are creative and have advantages,” says Maj. Jeffrey O’Neill, the Bravo Company commander from Novi, Mich. “If the Chinese invaded your [American] neighborhood, you would know where to hide, which dumpster behind the 7-11 to stash things. If we don’t catch them red-handed, they will probably be on the street again.”
However, would the Chinese worry about catching anyone “red-handed”? I ask that for a very specific reason, which will become clear shortly:
A few weeks ago, Commentary South Africa wrote:
In which direction do you think South Africa is heading? Is it heading for collapse and failure or set to be a shining beacon in your opinion? Truth be told it’s likely heading for neither, instead muddling along some vague path towards something that is neither oblivion nor utopia…
But muddling and vagaries do not make for particularly compelling reading, of course. However, interestingly, at about the same time Slate Money writer Daniel Gross was on a “study tour” of South Africa “sponsored by the German Marshall Fund of the United States“. What he learned he first shared with us about the country’s past and present in a “snazzy” discourse on oil, the Third Reich, the apartheid regime and Sasol . . . and the U.S.
Yet, in doing so, inexplicably he failed to include the required commentaries on V-2 developer Wernher von Braun later having helped the U.S. get to the Moon ahead of the Soviets and how Nazi jet planes are the forerunners of those the U.S. flies today over Iraq. Nor was there any mention of how Sasol sponsors South Africa’s national rugby team — an especially inexcusable oversight.
Still, we do understand those omissions; he probably just ran out of space. But hardly muddled or vague was his take on what he did include. And nor was his take muddled or vague also, when, in another piece a few days later, he put his funding to work even more dramatically in taking us to . . . a shopping area:
In full-blown, ”Oh, woe is me” mode, The Associated Press:
Nacera Berrouba, a young Algerian in Paris, says she couldn’t get the job she dreamed of until she dyed her hair blond.
So a simple change of hair color got her the job? Wow, clearly the job required solid qualifications, and her c.v. was closely scrutinized. But one is still left with many questions about that ”blond” assertion which the A.P. here dramatically accepts unquestioningly. After all, how many naturally blond Frenchwomen are there out there really? Not all that many, actually.
And as we can see just above, one now seeking the presidency certainly isn’t.
Karima Ramani, who calls herself “addicted to freedom,” says the Dutch love her hip black jeans and bright red nails but can’t accept her Moroccan mind.
Huh? What is a “Moroccan mind” exactly?
People who visited a hotel and sushi bar on the same day as a poisoned former Russian spy are being urged to contact the NHS.
The appeal follows the death of former KGB Colonel Alexander Litvinenko, who was infected with radioactive Polonium 210.
Traces of radiation have since been found at his north London home as well as the Itsu sushi bar, Piccadilly, and the Millennium hotel’s Pine Bar, Grosvenor Square….
…Mr Putin insisted there was no proof that Mr Litvinenko’s death was “violent”.
Indeed, we don’t want to judge before “all the facts” are in. And as we all well know, death as a result of Polonium exposure in North and Central London is perfectly routine.
Scotland Yard’s counter terrorism unit is investigating the poisoning and has appealed for help from the Kremlin…
Oh, yes, one can only presume “the Kremlin” is surely to prove immensely helpful in this investigation.
The BBC reports:
…The airline said it had to reconsider “in the light of the public debate”…
…chief executive Willie Walsh said BA would now consider allowing religious symbols worn as lapel badges.
But, he said it was unfair that BA had been accused of being anti-Christian.
Mr Walsh said: “The criticism of British Airways has been misplaced and unjustified.
“I am proud to lead an airline that has a track record on diversity and inclusion which is second to none.”
BBC Home Editor Mark Easton said the airline had been forced to change its policy because of mounting pressure from MPs, religious leaders and the press.
Ms Eweida, 55, from London, said she was effectively forced to take unpaid leave after refusing to hide the cross symbol she wore round her neck when people of other faiths were allowed to wear visible religious symbols such as headscarves…
The BBC’s Mr Easton ought not to overlook the most vital constituency of all in the public debate: actual BA customers.
Ms Eweida’s confrontation with her bosses over her wishing to wear visibly the Christian symbol of religious devotion, which is certainly no more “health and safety” problematic than is a large turban or a headscarf, has brought into the public eye that which had not been common knowledge: that BA has long allowed staff of those latter faiths to wear openly those symbols . . . because those faiths’ religious symbols are so large that they do not fit under the uniform and (under the law) reasonable allowances had to be made to accommodate them. Yet the airline has simultaneously gotten away with treating the small Christian crucifix simply as “health and safety” endangering dangling jewellery that falls under a visible jewellery ban which is applicable to all. An interesting muddle that . . . which stumbled along until some Christian staff member finally was willing to go to the mat in questioning it.
As a frequent-flier BA customer and big fan of the airline, I had been unaware of its effective staff crucifix ”ban” that is, urrr, actually a “non-ban” of course . . . and I don’t like what I’m seeing. At last BA appears to be realizing that the perceived differing treatment of non-Christians and Christians is heart of the matter, and is trying to get out of the PR mess into which it has dropped itself. Good.
Here’s a post-election email exchange I’d had with a family member back in the States. He does not generally agree with me . . . to put it mildly; but we are on very good terms otherwise. First, the relevant bits of his post-Nov 7 email:
…How happy are we–at long last major changes.
Now we will see how this all turns out and if the Dems can do any better than these characters and that should not be too hard. Although, you never know–
A good day for America–
Finally–man I thought this nightmare would never end…
Now, the concluding bit of my email (minus all the personal stuff), in response, the other day:
…On the dramatic electoral change that has come about in recent days, yes, I knew you’d be pleased. And I do also think we need something of a change. Enough is enough.
So shortly we will indeed finally begin to enjoy witnessing the implementation of the encyclopedic list of brilliant ideas that have been long shared with us in newspaper columns, on Sunday morning talk programs, on NPR’s “Morning Edition”, and of course at awards’ galas. And it’s darn well about time. After all, for over five years now, we’ve all felt inside, deep down, really, that such people would truly handle everything all so much better.
And as I think further about it now, I can’t understand how our country had for so long even half-functioned with such a plethora of life experience and elevated counsel being disgracefully ignored, all while we pandered to the completely ridiculous outlook of the reactionary right? So, much like yourself, I’m relieved. I too look forward to the “New Direction” eagerly.
“Peace, Bread, Land”
Presumably, after he figured out I was being sarcastic . . . he probably thought something unprintable.
British political comic relief continues to be supplied in ample amounts by the Liberal Democrats. First, a reminder. The BBC, September 2005:
Some of the greatest governments of the future will be Liberal Democrat, party president Simon Hughes has said.
In a speech to the party’s conference in Blackpool, Mr Hughes pledged to “deliver Liberal Democracy” across Britain “soon” and “in our time”.
But he warned it would only come if the party increased the “breadth and depth” of its support.
Mr Hughes also hailed the Lib Dems general election result and attacked the UK’s “rigged electoral system“…
Presumably, this following is one means to “deliver Liberal Democracy” and end the UK’s “rigged electoral system“. The BBC reports, November 23:
Two Liberal Democrat councillors from Lancashire have been jailed for trying to rig a local election.
Manzur Hussain, 58, and Mozaquir Ali, 44, defrauded dozens of voters during the 2004 local government elections.
The men, who were sitting on Burnley Council at the time, collected signed proxy vote forms door-to-door and filled them in themselves…
Most amusing of all, the judge’s comments:
…Judge Andrew Gilbart QC said it was “ironic” that many of the voters who were duped said they would have voted Lib Dem anyway…
Yes, they tried to rig a vote they probably would have won anyway. Do political operatives get any slicker? However, ”George Booosh” not having been involved, national Liberal Democrats of stature (please, no laughing at that assertion that such people may actually exist) evidently feel no urgency to offer a view on this little matter of members trying to “rig” an election.
The lack of neo-con involvement may be one reason for the party’s quiet. But leader Sir Menzies Campbell has also been a bit extra-busy of late criticizing democracy itself. For instance, as he told us back in June:
…The heady talk in Republican circles of a ripple of democracy through the Middle East has been quietened…
That “ripple” perhaps having “been quietened” is, to Sir Menzies, obviously a good thing. After all, we wouldn’t want any democratic ripples out there. And as those former Burnley councillors’ actions abundantly demonstrate, his local Lib Dems are evidently quite willing to make extra sure democracy here, in England, is controlled carefully.
…Under my leadership I am challenging our party to be bolder, to be more ambitious and to be more thoughtful…
Sir Menzies might indeed also be relieved. He is asking for great things from the party. Yet even before his leadership began, it may well be said that in their action Messrs Hussain and Ali were already “bold”, “ambitious” and “more thoughtful”.
French think Royal would make best president: poll
How Reuters tells us “the French” got there is particularly interesting:
French voters believe Socialist candidate Segolene Royal does not have the authority or competence of conservative frontrunner Nicolas Sarkozy, but would make a better president, according to an opinion poll released on Tuesday.
The BVA survey for L’Express magazine said 42 percent of people thought Royal would make the best head of state against 36 percent who backed Sarkozy.
One problem, though: even in the reported “poll”, she comes out behind in most categories one considers “presidential”:
However, when asked which of the two was the most authoritative, 71 percent replied Sarkozy and only 20 percent backed Royal.
Some 58 percent also thought Sarkozy would be more capable in an international crisis against 26 percent for Royal and 48 percent said the conservative leader was more competent compared with 34 percent who backed the Socialist favorite.
Sarkozy was also seen as more statesman-like than Royal (44 percent against 38 percent) and better placed to represent France on the international stage (46 percent to 39 percent).
Then, we get this:
However, when it came to values and personality, Royal came out on top. The Socialist candidate was seen as nicer than Sarkozy (65 percent to 22), more modern (49 percent to 36) and more honest (45 percent to 26 percent)…
Thus she’s not just “more modern” and “more honest” (that latter actually might be considered important), but she’s “nicer”? Wouldn’t you just love to see the methodology used in this “poll”? It must have been a beaut . . . to have managed to have made her the preferred presidential choice AFTER having come in second (and sometimes badly second) on nearly every major issue one usually considers important to being a president, but first on questions such as “modernity” and whether she is in the running to be the next Doris Day.
So, having rushed her to the nomination, we see now the beginnings of media attempting to stampede her to the Élysée Palace. Indeed, one wonders, why bother with an election? After all, as their headline tells us, Reuters has already called it.
The BBC reports:
…The funeral of murdered anti-Syrian politician Pierre Gemayel has taken place in Lebanon, with tens of thousands of people paying tribute…
…He was the fifth anti-Syrian Lebanese politician to be killed in two years, and his murder has intensified an acute political crisis in Lebanon.
Despite certain “circumstantial” evidence — particularly that it seems being anti-Syrian inexplicably heightens the risk of a shorter lifespan, while, in contrast, being pro-Syrian doesn’t seem to carry the same long-term health risk — the Syrian government has pointed out that such evidence is not what it seems:
In a statement issued on Thursday, the Syrian government again strongly condemned Mr Gemayel’s murder, which it said was “aimed at Lebanon’s stability”, and accused unnamed people of “exploiting the crime for personal ends”….
So presumably the Syrian government has already begun its latest search for the real killers. But also, according to The Times:
…”If there were any Syrian who is involved in this crime, then he is a murderer and will be punished because criminals are penalised by the just Syrian judiciary,” Faisal Mekdad, the Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister, said in al-Hayat newspaper…
Hmm. That sounds a bit like an attempt at a “confession“?
If you are reading this in the States, “Happy Thanksgiving”!
A couple of hours before we got the ferry back from Calais this morning, we were having breakfast where we’d stayed Wednesday night in Escalles (a small village not far from what previously had been a town undeservedly infamous in Britain), when the wife’s mobile unexpectedly rang. It was the brother-in-law, in the process of driving ”Number 1″ son to school (and being an hour behind back in Britain). He just wanted a (if I may emphasize also, hands-free) word:
WIFE: …Ello [mimicking his delivery]. Hmmm, you’re very talkative. Oh, you want to talk to your brother-in-law? [Wife hands phone over.]
BROTHER-IN-LAW [in a very deliberately exaggerated accent]: …I just wanted to wish me brother-in-law a appy Thanksgiving. Say “ello” to your uncle…
NEPHEW: [Heard off in distance -- meaning in the back seat] Hello.
MYSELF: Tell my Nephew, hello, too. Yes, brother-in-law, I am now having a Thanksgiving croissant.
BROTHER-IN-LAW: [Laughing] Huh, huh. We’re looking forward to my very dear sister’s cooking us that promised Thanksgiving feast with all the trimmings tomorrow…
We are having ours, here, on Friday evening.
_____________________________
So, the “holiday season” is now upon us. And given the Church of England re-raising the issue of the 1998 re-branding of Birmingham’s “Christmas” as Winterval, I thought this sort of related email (via my wife) was worth noting:
From: “Christchurch Borough Council”
To: “List Member”
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:05 AM
Subject: Christmas will still be lit in Christchurch
25 October 2006
Christmas lights throughout the Borough of Christchurch will go ahead, albeit in a slightly different format, despite concerns raised by a change in management of street lighting, Councillors have confirmed.
From 1 December 2006 the management of highway street lighting in
Christchurch transfers from Christchurch Council to Dorset County Council who has awarded a 25-year maintenance contract under a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) to EDF Energy.
Dorset County Council has informed Christchurch Council that, for health and safety reasons, Christmas lights should not be attached to lampposts unless they have been specifically designed to take them.
This restriction does not affect the High Street, Priory quarter, Burton or Hurn, as lights there are fixed to buildings and will still go ahead. But 14 lampposts in Highcliffe, 12 in Bargates and four on the approaches to Fountain roundabout would be bare this Christmas under the new ruling.
However, Christchurch Council has come up with a plan to prevent these areas being dark during the festive season. Instead of framed displays on these lampposts, flexi-lighting will be wound around them. An extra Christmas tree will be placed in Highcliffe at the end of Lymington Road, three more trees in Bargates will be decorated, making seven in all, and more lights will be put on the tree outside Pettengells in Highcliffe…
Health and safety, of course. But also, huh, imagine that?: Christmas lights, and Christmas trees in Christchurch? What’s the world coming to nowadays? (Actually, it is probably but a matter of time before someone suggests renaming the town itself.)
Anyway, Happy Holidays! By the way, don’t want this getting around, because it appears many have forgotten “holiday” is derived from “holy day“:
[Middle English holidai, holy day, from Old English hlig dæg : hlig, holy; see holy + dæg, day; see day.]
We are just about to head out the door for the ferry: we’re taking the opportunity for a quick trip over to Calais, where, with the in-laws, we plan to do some Christmas shopping. I’ll see you again on Thursday.
This astonishingly crass Reuters photo (credited to a photographer named Toby Melville) was published on November 15. It would appear that it is either 1) staged with the consent of the subject, in which case it is probably nothing but just in bad taste, or 2) it was taken without the subject’s knowledge and might therefore be said to border on the sort of inappropriate use of a camera in public that might well risk getting one picked up for being, shall we say, “intrusive beyond the generally perceived as being socially acceptable”:
The full description for the photo as appearing on Yahoo! is the following:
A passenger waits for a delayed flight at Heathrow airport’s terminal four in London August 12, 2006. Obesity could knock economic output as severely as malnutrition, which shaves as much as 3 percent off production in the poorest countries, a World Bank specialist said on Wednesday. (Toby Melville/Reuters)
It isn’t easy to know if this is a “repeat viewing” of this photo. It might have been published initially sometime back around August 12, nearer to when it was taken. The reason I suspect it might be a “re-run” now mostly recaptioned is because of the terror investigation header confusingly followed by the November 15 caption that discusses mostly obesity.
Technorati seems to have no links to it other than this one. And, interestingly, while the photo appears in the Yahoo gallery, it does not seem to appear currently under a photo search of Mr Melville’s overall recent Yahoo! posted Reuters work.
(Thanks to Dan for the — as usual — great email tip!)
The wife (who possesses a rather wicked sense of humo[u]r) noticed these unintentionally telling photos in this morning’s Times . . .
. . . and Telegraph . . .
. . . and found she couldn’t suppress a chuckle, and just HAD to point them out to me.
Being myself a little over 5′ 10″ and married to she who is around 5′ 9″, I do understand Mr Cruise’s “dilemma” to an extent. (Hmm, is “extent” the right word there?) The only way to handle the matter is this: Stand as tall as possible, sir . . . and it helps also always to be a little more uphill than she is, too.
It’s really not a good idea to blow off bloggers who are trying to expose MSM errors that undermine the military.
Michelle’s one liner there isn’t entirely accurate, as the blogger himself points out that he doesn’t feel that way “entirely”:
…I should probably make it clear that I did not feel entirely “blown off” by the Press Desk. I exchanged several e-mails with a couple of different press officers before I received the message quoted in the post above. They were trying to be as helpful as possible, but I was seeking a definitive statement that the lower-ranking press officers seemed unable to provide. Perhaps for that reason, one of them apparently got a Captain involved — at which point I got my definitive statement, but was also told not to contact them again without “media credentials” (whatever those are)….
The many comments on this on his blog are worth reading through. What caught my attention was how there seems way too much self-important “chatter, chatter, chatter,” including from some bloggers. It’s enough to make one’s head hurt.
Myself, I see the issue simply this way. I’ve had some contact with the (very polite) press people at Centcom, too — but they have always initiated it. If I can in some little way aid them when asked, I certainly try to. But I don’t think we should go bothering them unduly; they have jobs to do . . . and we are not “the press”.
Yes, as bloggers we fact check and offer differing interpretations, and generally aim to keep our often far too puffed up MSM in line. But speaking only for myself, I feel it is important to remember that (for most of us, anyway) this is an avocation, not a vocation. We woke up “on a Wednesday” and decided to offer up our own small contributions — usually buttressed by personal experiences and perhaps a knowledge base that it appears far too many reporters who were college “communications” majors sorely lack — to “the debate”.
Some bloggers see themselves as being on something of the same plane as our beloved MSM. Of course, that’s their right. (And why they would actually want to be is an issue for themselves alone.) However, overall, I believe we must never lose sight of the real distinction between Centcom press people, the MSM, and bloggers . . . and, being the latter, never get too “puffed up” ourselves.
…Mr Livingstone said: “Over recent weeks we have seen a demonisation of Muslims only comparable to the demonisation of Jews from the end of the 19th century. As at that time, the attack on Muslims in reality threatens freedoms for all of us, which took hundreds of years to win - freedom of conscience and freedom of cultural expression. Every person who values their right to follow the religion of their choice or none should stand with the Muslim communities today.”…
Powerfully expressed by the mayor. And a necessary clearing of the debate air. For until now, none of us had known how utterly ignorant we had been in never appreciating how Capt. Dreyfus. . .
. . . had been so overtly outspoken and unapologetically threatening.
British Airways proves once again that when you’ve dug a deep PR hole . . . just keep digging. The BBC reports:
…Nadia Eweida, 55, of Twickenham, has been on unpaid leave since her bosses told her she could not visibly wear her cross at the check-in counter.
She found out she had lost her appeal against the decision by BA when she met with the airline bosses on Monday.
BA denied it had banned the wearing of crosses and said Ms Eweida had a right to a second appeal…
BA explains for us (yet again):
…”British Airways has 34,000 uniformed staff, all of whom know they must abide by our uniform policy.”The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform. Other airlines have the same policy.
“The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols - such as turbans and hijabs - to be worn underneath the uniform. This is purely a question of practicality. There is no discrimination between faiths.
“In Nadia Eweida’s case, she is not suspended and we want her to come back to work. We have explained to her the need to comply with the uniform policy like all her colleagues whatever their faith.”…
Thus BA insists that it doesn’t ban Christian symbols, but merely makes allowances for faiths that have religious symbols that are conveniently so large that they cannot be worn underneath a BA uniform. Ms Eweida ought to take BA at its word that this is not really about jewellery or Christian forms of observance. She therefore should take her crucifix, sew it into a tasteful scarf so the crucifix itself doesn’t dangle and is eminently visible . . . and then wrap the scarf prominently around the top of her head.
Problem solved then. No?
The Telegraph (via my wife):
Ségolène Royal, the Socialist candidate for the French presidency, wants Britain to choose between being a “vassal” of the United States, and embracing a French-led drive for European integration, her adviser on Europe has revealed…
So, slowly, identifiable policies begin to emerge. For from the above, we now learn that socialist Ms Royal does indeed have a foreign policy. It just happens to be Gaullist.
…While the world’s attention has been focused on Baghdad’s slide into sectarian warfare, something remarkable has been happening in Ramadi, a city of 400,000 inhabitants that al-Qaeda and its Iraqi allies have controlled since mid-2004 and would like to make the capital of their cherished Islamic caliphate…
It is of course hardly a surprise “the world’s attention” has been ”focused” on Baghdad. As we know, most of our august mainstream media can focus intently only on one story at any given time . . . a reality made more complicated by the fact that they also well know that there are many vital non-Iraq stories that require urgent attention.
Blair says Afghan desert key to world security
In presenting us all with that big, condescending and yawning, “Oh, yeh, Blair, surrrrrre it is” headline, Reuters evidently chooses to overlook how out of Afghanistan came a group who thought they could level lower Manhattan by suicidally crashing hijacked civilian planes into skyscrapers.
The BBC reports:
A former Russian KGB colonel living in Britain and poisoned by the toxic chemical thallium remains in a serious condition in hospital.
Alexander Litvinenko, an ex-KGB colonel and critic of President Vladimir Putin, fell ill on 1 November after a meeting at a London sushi bar.
A clinical toxicologist said Mr Litvinenko, 43, had been poisoned with a potentially lethal dose of the metal…
Despite some of them enjoying sushi coupled with many years of speaking out clearly and forcefully against his horrific and dictatorial misrule, nothing like this has ever happened to a “critic of President George W. Bush“. (Bush is clearly too sly to resort to such easy to detect methods of trying to eliminate critics, of course.)
A quick (but hardly exhaustive) search tells us:
Iraq war ‘fuelling UK terrorism’
Bush’s ‘war on terror’ fuels terrorism!
Illegal immigration fuels terrorism
Perceived US Cowardice Fuels Terrorism, Former CIA Head Declares
Opium cash fuels terror, experts say
Language of Violence Fuels Terrorism
Israeli minister says army fuels `terror to come’
Media Coverage Fuels Terrorism
Washington’s Foreign Policies Fuel Terrorism
Banning Internet Gambling Fuels
Terrorism
Report: Buying “Conflict” Timber Fuels Terror
Abuses in Iraq ‘fuel terrorism at home’
How It Happened Here: A Fantasy Fuels Terror
Palestinian Self-Governance Fuels Terrorism
Fanaticism, Not Religion, Fuels the Fire of Terrorism
“US foreign policies of supporting Israel, supporting other repressive regimes and now the war in Iraq, fuel terrorism” (according to Chomsky)
A war on terror fuels terrorism
Kerry: Bush policies fuel terrorist recruitment
“Economic crime fuels terrorism”
“Muslim resentment has become so great that it fuels terrorism…”
Fear of Free Iraq Fuels Terror Attacks
“Let’s not fuel terrorism with our own fear…” (said a statement issued by — of course — the Embassy of France in Washington; btw, “our own fear” is probably part of Mr de Villepin’s “everything”)
“Cultural rhetoric fuels terrorism” (since “culture” is mentioned, it is probably necessary to note that right after a French assertion. Interestingly, though, Chomsky doesn’t mention “culture”)
“…driving an SUV fuels terrorism…”
A sense of deprivation helps fuel terrorism
‘Rejection of Israel fuels terror’
“The misplaced sympathy towards such groups from interests groups in far away places fuels terrorism“
Coalition Forces Join Together to Fuel Global War on Terrorism
Bush’s use of term encourages terrorism
Face the facts; our economy fuels terrorism
Indonesians warn that Israeli attacks could fuel terrorism
Anti-Muslim cartoons ‘will fuel terrorism’
UN adviser Jeffrey Sachs warns poverty fuels terror
Study: Foreign teens attitudes toward U.S. likely to fuel terrorism
Closer U.S.-India Ties Fuel Terrorism: Afghan Minister
Do Sensationalist Headlines Fuel Terrorism?
Bush fuels terrorism, says Canadian MP
Incidentally, on that last one there, we seem to have some real and current proof. The A.P.:
Indonesian police warned Saturday that the threat of an attack by al Qaeda-linked militants has increased sharply ahead of U.S. President George W. Bush’s visit to the world’s most populous Muslim country…
And now we know that we can add to the above list that ”Bush visits fuel terror”. So what exactly is it that may be done in the world today that will NOT increase “the threat of an attack by al Qaeda-linked militants“? It’s hard to say, but the U.S. doesn’t apparently rate so much as a single positive nod for allowing burqas.
The