You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January, 2007.
Nicolas Sarkozy, the front-runner in the French presidential elections, sought yesterday to woo the tens of thousands of French voters living in Britain with his message of regeneration receiving a rapturous welcome from a crowd of young exiles.
Upwards of 2,000 chic, prosperous supporters chanted “Sarko president” as he told them he wanted their support for his candidacy and his vision of a new France…
…Up to 300,000 French men and women live in Britain. Many are sympathetic to his message of change and deregulation, and about 60,000 are registered to vote.
His ultimate aim is to lure them back to French by making it unnecessary to cross the Channel to seek their fortunes…
Huh. Interestingly, while the French come to Britain to make money, the British move to France to spend theirs:
…homes in the French countryside are affordable – with prices related to salaries and pensions – is another huge attraction. Britons are now buying some 20,000 homes in France a year – spending more than £2 billion…
The eight people arrested by terror police in Birmingham were allegedly planning an Iraq-style kidnapping and beheading, Sky News has learned.
Sky’s Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt says the plot involved randomly snatching an individual off the streets.
The kidnappers then intended to release a video of the hostage being tortured and beheaded.
The suspects were detained under the Terrorism Act after a six-month surveillance operation involving officers from two forces…
Given the long term police investigation, presumably they have already eliminated the possibility of such a plot being a Brummie reaction to Manchester’s yesterday having been awarded the “supercasino“. That being the case, this sort of thing certainly rates as new. But it does make some sense, given the unreliability of suicide bombing.
_____________________________
UPDATE: The Press Association:
…Sources said a target for the alleged plot had already been identified.
He was a young Muslim soldier in the British army who had served in Afghanistan…
Invariably over this, “Iraq” is going to be mentioned in the context of British Muslims’ alienation over the UK’s presence there. However, it is worth bearing in mind when we hear that familiar drumbeat once again that almost all British Muslims are Sunnis (and overwhelmingly from the Indian subcontinent), but almost none are Iraqi Shias. Coincidentally, as we were reminded by Fouad Ajami in yesterday’s WSJ:
…The Sunni Arabs in Iraq and beyond have never accepted the diversity of that land. The “Arabism” of the place was synonymous with their own primacy. Now a binational state in all but name (Arab and Kurdish) has come into being in Iraq, and the Shia underclass have stepped forth and staked a claim commensurate with the weight of their numbers. The Sunni Arabs have recoiled from this change in their fortunes. They have all but “Persianized” the Shia of Iraq, branded them as a fifth column of the state next door. Contemporary Islamism has sharpened this feud, for to the Sunni Islamists the Shia are heretics at odds with the forbidding strictures of the Islamists’ fanatical variant of the faith…
. . . which Mancunians and visitors will no doubt enjoy. But there are wider issues that were apparently never given any thought. For one thing, how exactly can a “supercasino” be made to fit into sharia “law”?
European Union officials yesterday blamed “mixed up” people for letting emotions get in the way of a proper appreciation of the euro.
The remark came in response to a new FT-Harris poll which shows that most of the eurozone’s citizens would like to have their old, comfortable national currencies back…
…Two thirds of Germans now prefer the Deutschmark to the euro and more than half believe that the European single currency has damaged their country’s economy…
What foolish people . . . not appreciating what they are told they are supposed to appreciate? But, as in all matters economic, where there are losers there are also winners. Whether the euro is the reason or not, in Germany, for example, of course “old” jobs like those in coal mines are disappearing, while there is, in contrast, strong job growth in new industries, as the BBC reports:
…Young, good-looking, and available for around 150 euros (£100), more than 300 would-be protesters are marketing themselves on a German rental website…
Indeed, you may even choose your protester right down to the smallest details:
…Next to a black and white posed picture, Melanie lists her details from her jeans size to her shoe size and tells potential protest organisers that she is willing to be deployed up to 100km around Berlin.
Six hours of Melanie bearing your banner or shouting your slogan will set you back 145 euros.
A spokesperson for erento.com was unable to say how many demonstrators had been booked since the service was launched earlier this month, but that there had certainly been demand…
One wonders if the U.S. market has already seen the emergence of similar entrepreneurship?
The BBC reports:
Tens of thousands of protesters have demonstrated in Washington to demand the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq…
…The protesters, chanting “Bring the troops home”, were joined by Vietnam War-era protester, actress Jane Fonda…
…The protesters want Congress, now run by the Democrats, to block funding for the president’s new strategy, our correspondent says…
I didn’t get a chance to write about this over the weekend. My mother in NY had told me on Sunday night that she found it interesting that not a single, major political figure put in an appearance. (The BBC report’s mentioning only the usual suspects — “…only a handful of staunch anti-war Congressmen were present…” — seems to back that observation.) Yet we are also regularly told of the massive and growing support enjoyed by the “anti-war” movement, so, one wonders, why the absence of certain politicians?
…Jane Fonda, the Hollywood actress who angered many Americans by visiting Hanoi in 1972 during the Vietnam War, told the crowd: “I haven’t spoken at an anti-war rally for 34 years. But silence is no longer an option.”
She added: “I’m so sad that we still have to do this, that we did not learn the lessons from the Vietnam War.”…
Speaking of parents. This isn’t original (I don’t know where I heard it), but it is certainly appropriate here. Ever notice that your father probably had a particular year in which he looked “his best”, and as a consequence, since then he has been dressing pretty much the same way he did at that time? For many, that “best” fell somewhere between 1968-1972 . . . and they’ve not had a new idea since.
_____________________________
UPDATE: The Strategy Page lists “The Myths of the Iraq War“. It is hard to imagine Ms Fonda would appreciate them. Or even — considering how for herself “The End of History” apparently was reached in 1972 — understand them.
…Research by Policy Exchange found that young British Muslims were much more likely to be influenced by a political form of Islam than their parents because of changes to society and loss of shared national identity…
Maybe. But hold the thought. Consider the actual findings, offered by Reuters at the very end of the piece (naturally):
…The study found 37 percent of 16-24-year-old Muslims would prefer to live under Islamic sharia law than under British law compared to just 17 percent of those aged over 55.
There was also far greater support for exhibiting their religious identity in public with 74 percent of young Muslims preferring women to wear a veil or hijab compared to 28 percent of the older generation.
Thirteen percent of those aged 16-24 also agreed with the statement that they “admire organisations like al Qaeda that are prepared to fight the West” as opposed to just 3 percent in the 55 and over age bracket.
“Changes to society” and “loss of shared national identity” may well have something to do with those numbers. But it would seem those “changes” and “loss” apply in this context mostly within the intra-Muslim British sub-society, not British society as a whole.
For it has evidently not dawned on anyone involved in this poll that British Muslims over age 55 are almost entirely immigrants. The natural consequence of that is that they had probably actually lived in Islamic societies earlier in their lives and as a result have real-life, first-hand experience of such “law” in operation. In contrast, the younger generation is far more likely to have been born and raised in this liberal democracy, and lacking their parents’ life experience on the subject, it should not be surprising that (as young people are apt to do) some of those young choose to embrace reveries their parents (of course) ”just don’t get”.
At one time, not trusting anyone “over 30″ meant younger people horrified their parents owing to their short-lived fantasy “counterculture” of bad haircuts, drug-taking and know it all attitude. Today, such a generational disconnect is potentially far more dangerous and (perhaps literally) explosive. Knowing that, government’s huge problem (and that of British society overall) now is that “the Age of Aquarias” was child’s play, compared to the jihadist fantasy.
Tory leader David Cameron has promised a new “crusade for fairness” as he pledged to tackle the oppression of Muslim women prevented from going out to work or attending university…
…However, by invoking the language of the Medieval Crusades - when the Christian crusaders fought a series of bloody campaigns to take Jerusalem from the Muslims - the Conservative leader risked antagonising the Muslim community he was seeking to win over…
“Take”? Hmmm. The Press Association is apparently another “information source” for which history doesn’t go back earlier than (the Christian year) 1095. But if they bothered to have a look, could one perhaps instead note that the crusaders’ goal was, in fact, actually to “re-take” the city? (…”The Arabs conquered Jerusalem around 638 C.E…”) As Infoplease explains:
…With the [Roman] imperial toleration of Christianity (from 313), Jerusalem underwent a revival, greatly aided by St. Helena, who sponsored much building in the early 4th cent. Since that time Jerusalem has been a world pilgrimage spot. Muslims, who believe that the city was visited by Muhammad, treated Jerusalem favorably after they captured it in 637, making it the chief shrine after Mecca. From 688 to 691 the Dome of the Rock mosque was constructed.
In the 11th cent. the Fatimids began to hinder Christian pilgrims; their destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher helped bring on the Crusades…
We spent the weekend up in London and out in Essex (I wrote the Saturday post on Friday, and thanks to WordPress was able to set it to appear on Saturday morning) with the in-laws and brother-in-law (and family). Late Sunday, we drove home . . .
. . . to our new house. It was a bit of an odd feeling being at one point in London at the in-laws’, and only blocks from where we had lived for six years until January 8 (the in-laws live only a short distance from our old house) . . . but not going back there after the visit.
I’m taking Saturday off. We’ve got lots to do, and with the move and all, I’m just beat. I’ll be back on Sunday, probably later in the day.
From Democratic Senator Jim Webb’s response to the Presidential State of the Union:
…With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world…
…The president took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs…
The Senator might like also to note how the British military — which might be said also to have a measure of “great integrity” and “long experience” in international security matters itself — explains its own presence in Iraq. Having been dispatched “recklessly” into “a mismanaged” and “unnecessary” war is not how they see matters:
…In view of the Iraqi regime’s failure to comply with the will of the United Nations, and based on the authority provided by a series of UN resolutions since 1991, the UK joined a US-led coalition that was prepared to use force as a last resort to secure Iraqi compliance. The Government’s overriding political objective was to disarm Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction, which threatened his neighbours and his people. It also undertook to support the Iraqi people in their desire for peace, prosperity, freedom and good government…
…Since the end of major combat operations in April 2003, the UK has been playing a full part in the re-building of Iraq, both in terms of restoring essential infrastructure and services, and through the establishment of conditions for a stable and law-abiding Iraqi government.
British Forces, along with their US and other allies in the UN-mandated Multi-National Force, continue to work with the new, democratically-elected Iraqi Government to restore normality, maintain security and counter the insurgents determined to bring chaos and undermine the democratic process….
…As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the general who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War II. And as soon as he became president, he brought the Korean War to an end…
Interestingly, in contrast to the U.S., in Britain being a “military man” is an altogether different “public service track” than it is in the U.S. Military experience is not a (supposed) door-opener to a civilian political career. For example, Britain’s most famous WWII hero, Field Marshal Montgomery, moved up to higher command postwar, but was never courted (as Ike was by BOTH parties in the U.S.) by UK political parties looking for him to lead them to postwar electoral success.
That’s normal. Former British servicepeople merely retire from their service and go on to do other things. (Indeed, the military is perhaps the most “royalist” of all walks of British life; the navy BELONGS officially to Her Majesty, and the army and the RAF swear allegiance directly to the Sovereign. It would be fascinating to see what would happen if an elected Government decided to abolish the monarchy. Which side would the Forces take? If the monarch refused to step down, would they support her?) So the idea of a retired British officer or NCO attempting to make political capital out of his prior service in the military as a means to further a political career is utterly inconceivable here.
Sorry to digress. On President Eisenhower’s ending the Korean War, there had been peace talks going on for two years (long before he became president), when, at last, the enemy too was willing to call a halt to the fighting. He was aided in moving negotiations forward by the death of Stalin and his “New Look” defense policy, which emphasized massive — meaning nuclear — retaliation to communist aggression. In the 1953 State of the Union, the new president had told Americans (.pdf):
…In this general discussion of our foreign policy, I must make special mention of the war in Korea.
This war is, for Americans, the most painful phase of Communist aggression throughout the world. It is clearly a part of the same calculated assault that the aggressor is simultaneously pressing in Indochina and in Malaya, and of the strategic situation that manifestly embraces the island of Formosa and the Chinese Nationalist forces there. The working out of any military solution to the Korean war will inevitably affect all these areas.
The administration is giving immediate increased attention to the development of additional Republic of Korea forces. The citizens of that country have proved their capacity as fighting men and their eagerness to take a greater share in the defense of their homeland. Organization, equipment, and training will allow them to do so. Increased assistance to Korea for this purpose conforms fully to our global policies…
Hmm. Seems strangely familiar . . . which it should, given that it strongly resembles many a speech made by the current U.S. president, speeches which the Senator would never dream of applauding. In any event, as a “military man” himself also — as the Senator constantly reminds us he is — presumably he is aware that it takes all warring sides to agree in order to end any war. When they finally did in Korea, that led to the signing of an armistice, which is still in effect; there has never been a formal peace treaty.
Today, 54 years after that armistice (which granted victory to neither side) was agreed, there are still some 30,000 U.S. servicepeople stationed in South Korea. When comes the end? For we eagerly await the final return home of all U.S. forces at long last, following the end of that “unnecessary” (had U.S. troops not been withdrawn from the Korean peninsula in 1948, the war never could have happened), “mismanaged” (one would have thought it could have been won by 2007) and “recklessly” undertaken conflict (initially, President Truman “rushed into the war” with relatively “green” occupation troops who had been based in Japan).
A British politician is calling for the country to scrap Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) and align its clocks with mainland Europe, in a bid to save energy and cut road accidents.
Conservative Tim Yeo put forward a bill, to be discussed in Parliament on Friday, proposing that Britain drop GMT for three years to assess the impact of the change.
Environmental and road safety researchers say a better alignment of waking hours and daylight hours would reduce demand for electricity and save lives during the evening rush hour…
I’ve never understood the “obsession” with brightening primarily “the evening rush”. For, if anything, winter mornings are darker and more congested since schools and work usually both start by 9, making for a more compressed, daily travel routine which demands many more people be out and about at exactly the same hours, resulting naturally in that much more potential for accidents. In contrast, in later afternoons and early evenings people leave school earlier and work later, thus creating more staggered travel times between 4 and 7 PM. As a result, compared to “mornings”, “the evening rush” tends to be broader than it is “deep”.
But such a time change suggestion might make sense based on “waking hours”. Apparently, “waking hours” for environmentalists, road safety campaigners and MPs begin around 9 AM in winter. However, for most normal people (who don’t decide anything in life as weighty as clock “waking hours”) each day commences around 6 to 7 AM, year ’round. (The M25 is full by 7 AM.)
Also, although it isn’t mentioned, presumably Mr Yeo’s (who incidentally happens to represent a Suffolk constituency, the most easterly English county) suggestion means that Northern Ireland and Cornwall would remain on GMT, thus dividing the UK into two time zones? If not, and if they were instead also attached to CET (is Belfast part of “central Europe”?), that will mean that “7 AM” in Paris must be the same “time” each day as “7 AM” in Belfast and Penzance.
Come to think of it, that might not be a bad idea. For, logically, that will mean daybreak in Belfast in winter around, oh, “noon-ish”, but darkness a bit later than the usual 3 PM. So that should make it eminently the safest part of the UK each evening. Who says Northern Ireland’s “troubles” are unsolvable after all?
From The Evening Standard:
Environment Secretary David Miliband has been criticised by for flying to India to discuss climate change.
The Green Party accused him of “actively contributing” to aviation emissions and suggested he could have conducted meetings via videolink instead…
…The trip follows criticism of the Prince of Wales by green campaigners for flying to the US to collect an award for promoting green issues.
Mr Miliband joked about whether the award was “particularly heavy” after it emerged that Charles was taking a 20-strong entourage with him.
Later in the same interview, Mr Miliband observed that there were alternatives to air travel.
“I think a lot of business can be done by telephone and videolink these days,” he said in a newspaper interview…
…An aide to Mr Miliband stressed that he was not telling anybody to stop flying and certainly not to high-level meetings such as those he is attending in India, adding that all his flights are offset for carbon.
Apparently, video links to India (for “high-level meetings“) are much less reliable than those to Switzerland. We know already that in order to reduce his “carbon footprint” Prince Charles had opted not to fly to Switzerland for his annual ski holiday. Unfortunately, though, another well-known environmentalist has evidently succumbed to the demonic seductiveness of air travel in order to reach that same general location. According to The Times today:
…Some 1,000 business leaders are in Davos this year, but what is comrade Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, doing here?…
Actually, from the above, we don’t know for sure the Mayor utilized powered flight as his means to get to Davos. He might well have taken several trains, true. Or he might even have walked — the, by far, most environmentally sensitive method. However, given that he was in London on the 20th offering his thoughtful views on the existence of the state of Israel — “I would not have created an Israel” — London’s eminent mayor’s having strolled (or even cycled) to Switzerland for the 25th seems rather unlikely.
The BBC reports:
The view of the US’s role in the world has deteriorated both internationally and domestically, a BBC poll suggests…
Really? In some places, perhaps. But look carefully at who is supportive of the U.S:
…Respondents were also asked about the Bush administration’s handling of six areas of foreign policy:
* The war in Iraq: an average of 73% of respondents disapproved (57% in the US). Disapproval was strongest in Argentina and France, while people in Nigeria, Kenya and the Philippines were more likely to approve.
* Detainees in Guantanamo: 67% disapproved (50% in the US). Backing for America on this issue was highest in Nigeria, where 49% approved.
* Israeli-Hezbollah war: Washington’s role met with approval from respondents in Nigeria and Philippines, but on average 65% disapproved across the 25 countries (50% in the US).
* Iran’s nuclear programme: again, support for US actions appeared strongest in Kenya (62%), Nigeria (53%) and the Philippines (52%). But, overall 60% of respondents disapproved (50% in the US).
* Global warming: more than 80% of respondents in Argentina, France and Germany disapproved compared to 56% overall (54% in the US). But the White House had 50% or more support among those polled in Nigeria, Kenya, the Philippines and South Korea…
Nigeria happens to be Africa’s largest country, and Kenya and the Philippines happen to be important regional players in east Africa and southeast Asia. But positive views offered from respondents from those places constitutes for the BBC a less than vital body of opinion? Apparently so. For given the tenor of the piece (”has deteriorated“), others’ negatives are deemed of more substantive value, so it must follow that their more positive views are deemed less relevant. Also perhaps worth noting (although, interestingly, the BBC chooses not to mention it), is how those three countries are either mostly Christian (the Philippines, Kenya) or about 40 percent Christian (Nigeria), and are beset by Islamist movements, or face a jihadist insurgency.
…When asked about US military presence in the Middle East, an average of 68% of respondents across the 25 countries answered that it “provokes more conflict than it prevents”.
In Nigeria, 49% of respondents said it was a “stabilising force”, as did 41% in the Philippines, 40% in Kenya and 33% in the US…
Thus it seems that, in a “poll percentage sense” at least, Nigerians, Filipinos and Kenyans have more confidence in the U.S. military . . . than many Americans do. But what might be of more concern to the BBC is the answer to another potential poll question. Considering the BBC appears to care so little about what Nigerians, Filipinos and Kenyans believe when compared to the views of those in, say, Argentina and France, one is left wondering: What might tens of millions of BBC listeners and viewers in Nigeria, the Philippines and Kenya think about that fact?
Playwright Alistair Beaton put Prime Minister Tony Blair on trial over the Iraq war. Now he wonders what would happen if a British monarch married a Muslim…
Sadly for the context of his play obviously, the answer is personally nothing. An unmarried British monarch, or heir to the throne, is legally entitled to marry anyone . . . although, if he or she wishes actually to sit on the throne, the choice becomes a matter of state, and therefore, law, which of course means the choice is no longer entirely his or her own to make.
…As the country searches its soul over the success of its multicultural society, the timing of his new play “King of Hearts” could not be more topical…
…”The young heir to the throne is handsome and dashing. Then they discover he is having secret meetings with a Muslim girl, is in love and wants to marry her and convert.”…
Yes, how romantic for them both. And we would all hope they would be very happy in their chosen, private married life together, because he will not be crowned King . . . for as King he must lead the (Christian) Church of England. And therefore, he must remain a Christian. Yes, perhaps that “requirement” is asking a lot, since it does sometimes appear as if Christianity has scarcely little to do with the established Church . . . but in fact — and perhaps, yes, surprising as this may be — a Muslim as of yet cannot head the Christian Church of England.
…Beaton first had the idea for the play while reading about the 1936 abdication crisis when King Edward VIII gave up the throne because of his love for American divorcee Wallis Simpson…
Apparently, in going all the way back to 1936 for his theatrical inspiration, the perceptive playwright evidently missed a very public situation that nearly created a very similar “crisis” much more recently. No matter. But this is a different issue. Edward was fully entitled to marry Mrs Simpson; he was not converting to another faith. However, he was not simultaneously entitled to marry her if he wished to remain King. The reason for that was not because she was American (although, some might, ahem, have seen that as a problem), but because she was divorced. Islam never entered into it . . . at least, not insofar as we know.
…He was also intrigued by what he called the “bizarre” 1701 Act of Settlement under which the monarch, as titular head of the Church of England, is barred from marrying a Catholic.
Actually, also intriguing is the playwright’s lack of historical perspective. For if he has heard of Edward VIII presumably he’s heard passingly also of Charles I, Oliver Cromwell, Charles II and William and Mary. In the context of the latters’ era (when in the wake of the Reformation, adherence to a particular sect of Christianity supposedly mattered in European governance), that 1701 act, which was promulgated in order to preserve the throne only for adherents to the Church of England –…That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, …– and particularly to bar the ascension of a Roman Catholic, was not bizarre at all, really . . . except perhaps to a 21st century playwright.
No mention is made of wedding a Muslim…
Nor, amazingly, is any mention made of wedding a Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Mormon, Jew, Eastern Orthodox, Wiccan, Zoroastrian, Nascar driver, Shintoist, Daoist, Beach Volleyball star, Leninist, Stoic, Vegan, republican, Republican, Democrat or transgendered, or any in combination, among the uncountable number of other omissions. But given that the early 18th century non-mention of Muslims in the Act whetted the playwright’s intellectual appetite early in our 21st, he is obviously singularly let down to have discovered the parliament of the 18th didn’t see fit to legislate a barring of a Muslim heir. For, unfortunately from a ticket-selling perspective in our era, any production on ”multiculturalism” that revolves around Roman Catholics seems rather less likely to draw the rapt attention of a Reuters reporter . . . unless at least some small reference were made to Islam, of course:
Less than knowledgable MSM writers may have gullibly accepted at face value Mr Ellison’s use of “Mr Jefferson’s Koran” based upon Mr Ellison’s pedestrian reasoning – that since Mr Jefferson had had a Koran in his library, using it for a swearing in therefore demonstrates Mr Jefferson’s belief in religious freedom — but those of us who know a bit more about Mr Jefferson can spot third-class posturing when we see it.
Mr Jefferson likely also had a long-term relationship with his dead wife’s part-black and slave (possible) half-sister, but his anti-slavery beliefs helped lead to slavery’s eventual abolition. (Nowadays, for the first time in history as we know, slavery supporters are few and far between.) He also had a bust of Napoleon Bonaparte on prominent display at Monticello, while loathing the Emperor. One could well reasonably imagine Mr Jefferson, if he were with us today, having a portrait of the ”hero” bin Laden in his entrance hall . . . to serve as a reminder of what an evil ogre the man is.
So just because Mr Jefferson happened to have “possessed” anything, or any person, hardly meant he personally endorsed what he also . . . possessed. In any event, the (now) Rep Ellison’s sudden discovery of Jeffersonianism aside, one rather obvious question remains: Why, despite the new congressman’s powerfully proclaimed Islamic faith, does he insist to continue to be publicly known by his decidedly non-Islamic name? For “Keith Ellison” is rooted, after all, in the (non-Islamic) British Isles, and given the Representative’s unquestionable moral grounding (based on his strong faith, of course), keeping (in particular) that non-Islamic surname can only be said to demonstrate that he is inexplicably untroubled about being identified by the very same name as . . . a prominent British “sheinfidel“ who also possesses it.
A 72-year-old former soldier chased one of the alleged July 21 bombers as he fled from the London Underground.
Arthur Burton-Garbett, from Morden, south London, leapt from the Northern Line tube train in hot pursuit of Ramzi Mohammed, the alleged Oval tube bomber.
He charged down the platform “hugging the wall” as he shouted and pointed at the fleeing man…
…”He was about nine to 10 steps ahead of me but about half way up I started to run out of steam. I realised that he was gaining and that I couldn’t catch up.”
Mr Burton-Garbett said he had to give up his chase but shouted at London Underground staff to stop him.
“He was going so fast, he just fled past them. When I got to the top of the stairs he was nowhere to be seen.”…
Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. A brave retreat by brave . . . jihad-ist.
From the UK’s MOD:
Dramatic pictures and video footage can now be seen of the daring rescue attempt of Lance Corporal Mathew Ford, carried out by Royal Marines on Apache helicopters in Afghanistan on Monday 15 January 2007.
It was with great sadness that the Marines discovered Lance Corporal Mathew Ford, from 45 Commando Royal Marines, had been killed in action…
…Having fought for a period, the Marines regrouped. Discovering Lance Corporal Ford was missing, four marines flew back strapped to Apaches, to find their fallen comrade, in a unique rescue mission attempt…
Here’s one photo of the attempt:
In fact, when word of this first got out several days ago, even the BBC seemed impressed. But afterwards, one of the four, Marine Gary Robinson, said:
…”All that was going through my head was basically what to do when we got on the ground and just make sure I knew exactly where I was going so I could reach Lance Corporal Ford as soon as possible and get out myself.
“As far as I’m concerned any of my colleagues would have done the same thing if the roles were reversed. I don’t think it was heroic or dangerous in any way. “…
Absolutely remarkable.
That quotation/non-quotation is a bit of misleading writing. The comment is NOT a true quote, but a paraphrase. It comes from the opening paragraph:
Western forces need more money and troops for a year-long push that would defeat the Taleban, the British head of Nato forces in Afghanistan has said. “We should and can win in Afghanistan, but we need to put more military effort into the country . . . We must apply ourselves more energetically for one more year in order to win,” General David Richards said in an interview…
. . . But, no matter. According to that British general, victory can be achieved by one year from now, if the requisite effort is made.
On another front, VOA News reports:
The deputy commander of coalition forces in Iraq says the early stages of the new Baghdad security operation are going well, and he sees good signs for the future of the week-old effort. British Lieutenant General Graeme Lamb spoke from Baghdad with reporters at the Pentagon, and VOA’s Al Pessin reports.
Senior U.S. officials have said they will be watching very closely whether Iraq’s leaders and their military and police forces do what they have promised to do in the Baghdad operation. General Lamb says, so far so good.
General Lamb says it will not be easy to turn around the Baghdad security situation, but he believes it can be done with the new U.S. deployment President Bush announced last week, and what he calls a “huge commitment” by the Iraqi government and military…
Another British general, and another cautiously optimistic appraisal. Interestingly, when it comes to the BBC, quotations from British generals and retired generals are normally quite high visibility . . . when they are being critical, that is. But, curiously, when British generals have somewhat positive things to say, for some reason the BBC finds no space for their comments . . . or chooses a rather different emphasis:
Scores of people flocked to the site of a shipwreck on the southern English coast on Monday to scavenge among beached containers for cargo including a BMW motorcycle, shoes and wine, police said.
As the coastguard fought to contain the stricken ship’s oil, locals scoured a debris-strewn beach for goods washed up from the MSC Napoli…
Sadly, they are getting no credit for doing so. Yet, all things considered, it is very environmentally conscious. For they could also have simply ignored the mess, and looked the other way, while waiting ages for the local council to get around to clearing it all away.
…Police said they wouldn’t stop people from taking goods from Branscombe Beach in Devon. Officers handed out leaflets explaining that they must report anything they find to the authorities…
…Under the Merchant Shipping Act, salvage remains the property of the original owner. Anyone who finds washed up goods must contact a government official, called the receiver of the wreck, within 28 days…
Reuters doesn’t tell us the current postholder’s name, but given the title itself . . . I think we have our suspicions as to the person’s identity.
Scotland Yard is at the centre of a new dispute over religious customs clashing with professional duties after a Muslim woman police cadet refused to shake hands with Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
The incident happened at a recent graduation ceremony where Sir Ian was inspecting a passing-out parade of 200 new recruits.
The woman, who has not been named, told officers just before the ceremony began that her strict Muslim beliefs meant that she could not exchange the traditional congratulatory handshake with the commissioner.
She also refused to be photograped with Sir Ian, reportedly claiming that she did not want the image to be used for “propaganda purposes” as the Yard endeavours to recruit more female Muslim officers.
She might eschew being used for “propaganda”, but she is evidently more than happy to accept a Met pay stub.
Sir Ian was said to be incensed when told of the woman’s refusal…
At graduation:
…The woman took part in the parade wearing a hijab, explaining that her faith dictates that she must not take shake hands with or kiss a man other than her father and close relative. She assured training staff that her religious code would not prevent her arresting a man.The woman is understood to have begun patrol duties in West London as part of her two-year probation period while superiors assess her suitability for the job…
Regarding all that, the expected allocades roll in:
…Tahir Butt, spokesman for the Association of Muslim Police, supported the woman’s behaviour. “The actions demonstrate strength of character, challenge social norms and educate others as to the diverse practices of communities of London,” he said…
What is perpetually remarkable is the lowest common denominator on “diverse practices” is always a one way street. It never seems to dawn on those who make such observations that perhaps SHE should demonstrate strength of character, challenge social norms and educate others – meaning here, Muslims – as to diverse practices by making allowances for Sir Ian’s (and non-Muslim Britain’s) everyday “cultural practices”. In this case, these: declining for whatever reasons to be photographed and refusing to shake hands with one’s new top boss at a public event is outright insulting behavior.
The BBC reports:
Two containers thought to contain hazardous chemicals have been washed overboard from a stricken cargo ship beached off the Devon coast.
The containers, which are thought to contain battery acid and perfume, fell from the MSC Napoli during storms on Saturday evening.
Coastguards fear the ship, in Lyme Bay, could capsize “at any time”…
For two weeks now, the gales here on the Dorset coast have been incredible. So, it is completely understandable that that ship is foundering off nearby Devon. Last night, around us (Poole/Bournemouth/Christchurch) was, in particular, really bad: the winds howled all night, relentlessly. They didn’t drop off much until about 5 AM. Now, at a little after midday, although the sun is shining, it is still windy outside.
…The 26 crew were airlifted to safety after it was holed off Lizard Point, Cornwall, in the English Channel on Thursday.
“Airlifted”? Presumably, David Miliband had granted special dispensation for that repeated, unnecessary use of fossil fuel powered flight. After all, the crew could have instead, of course, chosen to swim.
Well, it took 12 days, including endless phone calls to the “help” desk, and finally a complaint letter to the chairman. We suspect it was that latter that finally led to this moment, rather than the inconclusive passing on from one “helper” to the next, each in turn telling us, “Ring back tomorrow” . . . since less than 24 hours after that letter was dropped in a mailbox, we got a phone call from his assistant, asking how he could help. That was Thursday.
Suddenly, about an hour ago, we saw it: the “internet” light suddenly appeared brightly illuminated on our router. We are on broadband again. Thank goodness. We can now at last say, “We have moved“. Everything’s working.
Oh, and during our minor ordeal, we learned something, too. It took them over a week finally to admit the problem was theirs, not ours (as in our setup in the house). Having gotten there, we discovered that when your provider tells you, “Yes, your problem will be dealt with within 48 hours”, that you’d better pin them down. For they probably mean 48 WORKING hours: as in 6, eight hour days. NOT 48 consecutive hours on the clock. We discovered that when I pressed them on how long this all might take, and we ended up on that number and I jokingly (but seriously) raised the issue of days, and the guy at the “help” desk (perhaps inadvertently) admitted it was “working hours” not clock hours. Later, in a separate discussion with the chairman’s assistant, the wife termed their phrasing their response time in that hours’ manner to be really underhanded; they should say days, not hours.
_____________________________
Yes, and I see that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has announced she is running for president. How nice for her. But WE have our broadband back . . . and that’s far more important!
Nowadays, what is a (weak) attempt at humorous satire one moment . . . becomes all too scarily real life the next.
The Telegraph, January 19:
Peter Hain attacked President George Bush and the Iraq war yesterday…
Mr Hain here demonstrates how he is clearly a first class statesman in the making. For talk about being ahead of the curve. Indeed, it takes a particular brand of moral courage to stand up bravely and offer a controversial view on a vital issue . . . before everyone else.
British Airways on Friday said it had changed uniform rules to allow staff to wear religious symbols openly, after coming under heavy criticism for banning an employee from wearing a crucifix over her uniform.
Following consultations with representatives from a wide range of religious groups, the airline said it would permit staff to wear a lapel pin symbol such as a Christian cross or Jewish Star of David, the company said.
In addition, and in response to complaints by some Christians, it “would allow some flexibility” in its usual policy banning staff from wearing chains over their uniforms…
While BA has finally shown some common sense, that last comment demonstrates the airline amazingly still does not understand what the issue actually is. It is not about treating Christians “differently”. Rather, it is about conveniently having a uniform regulation that did not permit a Christian symbol, but did permit the wearing of far more prominent, personal symbols of non-Christian devotion.
Sex and dance culture drug crystal meth has been reclassified as a Class A drug…
Explaining why . . .
…Home Office minister Vernon Coaker said: “Crystal meth is a very harmful drug but fortunately it is not widespread in the UK…
Mr Coaker has a rather unfortunate sounding name, given this subject matter.
(That is satire, obviously.)
Strong winds expected across Britain on Thursday could affect electricity networks and damage buildings, the Met Office said on Wednesday.
“Predicted wind speeds could lead to widespread disruption to transport and power networks,” the Met Office said…
Those are the downsides, true. Yet for some reason, Reuters chose not to mention the upsides: that widespread power failures and transport disruptions can only but assist in the fight against climate change.
From an interesting email yesterday:
I was just reading Mark Humphrys page via your link and I was wondering why you’re so keen on the man when you’re a practicing Christian (I seem to remember you mentioning you’re a regular churchgoer some time ago) and Mark’s a flat-out atheist. Not that I’ve got anything against that, you understand, it just seems a curious when the way I read it is that I imagine MH would make the case that his atheism is an integral part of his whole philosophy and not just an add-on option?…
Actually, I have never thought much on Mark’s stated atheism, because in the context of what he writes on the War on Terror, I find it irrelevant. Religion being the ultimate in “the personal”, he is free to believe what he wishes to or not, as are all the rest of us. And none of us agree 100 percent with each other on everything, of course.
What matters most (to myself, anyway) is his commitment to freedom of the mind (in the manner of famous atheists like Mr Hitchens and the late Ms Fallaci), his belief in the right of all of us to question and live our lives as we each individually see fit, and above all his unapologetic defense of “the West”. On the link that reader refers to, I wrote that I believe Mark has pulled together what no one else (despite the mass of partisan yapping going on out there) has yet managed to: he has given us a “first draft” of the “history” of the (as yet unfinished) Long Global War on Terror. Simply put, I think that Mark deserves great praise for his undertaking.
The BBC reports:
Tony Blair has said that setting up a separate English parliament would be “unworkable” and “unnecessary”.
Since when have stumbling blocks like “unworkable” and “unnecessary” ever prevented this government from undertaking a myriad of other creative projects? However, in this case, this government cites them as important reasons for not doing the obvious.
The population of England accounted for the “vast majority” of people in the UK and did not need more representation, he told his monthly news conference…
What Mr Blair is defending is roughly this U.S. arrangement. Imagine, say, only the states of Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas and Louisiana were deemed by Washington as entitled to strong state governments AND representatives in Washington. However, the most populous areas got only representatives to Washington, and were legally denied the right to have state governments.
That’s what has essentially gone on here since devolution. There are four constituent parts of this union: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, by far the largest, England. The first three now have their own local parliament or assembly.
However, as for that last one, an assembly of its own is dismissed out of hand because the English do not “need” more representation. Yet, the other three – in total accounting for but 10 million of the union’s 6o million total population — somehow did?