Liberals at war

Joe Katzman at Winds of Change has “a Liberal blog-panel on the U.S. Democratic Party & National Security.”

Open hypocrisy

Left-wing Labour MP Diane Abbot has criticized Tony Blair and other members of her party for sending their children to private schools.

Surprisingly, as the BBC reports, Abbot has now decided to send her son to a private school at a cost of £10,000 a year. On Sunday, in an interview with a UK newspaper, she said:

Private schools prop up the class system in society.

It is inconsistent, to put it mildly, for someone who believes in a fairer and more egalitarian society to send their child to a fee-paying school.

Asked about the mismatch between her political position and her private behavior, she said:

I just don't possess that level of principle.

Obviously.

Out and about

Not much blogging today; we’ve just got back from a family day out.

We went to visit some friends who live in a converted falconer’s lodge in the middle of Salisbury Plain. It’s a rural idyll, or would be if they weren’t almost entirely surrounded by a military training area.

Anyway, they have a small apple orchard and every year around this time they make cider. It won’t be ready until the spring, but today we picked, pulped and juiced enough apples to make nigh on five gallons of the stuff. We’d have reached the ten gallon mark but we had to stop for Sunday dinner. By the time we’d finished eating (and drinking some of last year’s cider) none of the grown-ups felt like doing very much.

I don’t know whether it’s the cider or all that fresh clean country air, but I’m bushed and just about blogged out.

Back tomorrow.

Europe's view of Israel

The Guardian reports:

Israel has been described as the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Afghanistan and Iran, by an unpublished European Commission poll of 7,500 Europeans, sparking an international row. The survey, conducted in October, of 500 people from each of the EU's member nations included a list of 15 countries with the question, 'tell me if in your opinion it presents or not a threat to peace in the world'. Israel was reportedly picked by 59 per cent of those interviewed.

Details of the survey results were leaked to the International Herald Tribune, which ran the story FridayThe Guardian seems to think that the results demonstrate “widespread disapproval in Europe of the tactics employed by the government of Ariel Sharon during the present intifada.”

I think that’s how a lot of people over here would like to portray it, but unfortunately most anti-Israel Europeans I have spoken to believe Israel is a threat to world peace simply because it exists.

Chicken Tikka

Stephen Green has been posting some fine Friday recipes lately. A couple of weeks ago, he posted his recipe for Spaghetti with Meat Sauce (it involves a lot of wine) and then yesterday he had a recipe for Szechwan Stir Fry. It sounds nice, I think I'll try it out sometime this week.

Seeing those recipes at Vodkapundit reminded me that I’d been wanting to post this recipe for Chicken Tikka ever since I put up the one for Pilau Rice a while back.

I love Indian food and I cook it a lot at home. It takes time and can seem fiddly, but it's usually worth the effort. A lot of the dishes I cook are a little too spicey for the two younger boys, but they just love Chicken Tikka. Next to my fajitas, and Mac’s Jerk Chicken Casserole, it’s their favorite way to eat chicken.

The measurements are in Imperial.

Chicken Tikka

1lb skinless chicken breasts
1 tsp salt
juice of ½ a lemon
few drops of red food colouring mixed with 1 tbsp tomato puree
2 cloves garlic, peeled and coarsely chopped
½ inch cube of root ginger peeled and coarsely chopped
2 tsps ground coriander
½ tsp garam masala
¼ of a whole nutmeg finely grated
½ tsp ground turmeric
125g/5oz thick set natural yoghurt
4 tbsps vegetable oil
½ tsp chilli powder

Cut the chicken breasts into 1-inch cubes sprinkle with half the salt and the lemon juice mix well, cover and let stand for 30 minutes.

Blend the rest of the ingredients in a food processor then put the marinade through a sieve onto the chicken pieces, mix well, cover and leave to stand for 6-8 hours in the refrigerator.

Preheat the oven to 230C/450F/gas mark 8.

Line a roasting tin with aluminium foil.

Thread the chicken cubes onto skewers leaving ¼ inch gap between each, place the skewers in the prepared tin and spoon over half of the remaining marinade. Cook in the oven for 6-8 minutes.

Remove the tin from the oven turn the skewers over, spoon the remaining marinade over the chicken cubes and return to the oven for a further 6-8 minutes.

Almost forgot the Mint Raita to serve with it.

125g/5oz of thick-set natural yoghurt
1 small onion finely chopped
1 tbsp chopped fresh mint
1 fresh green chilli deseeded and chopped
¼ tsp paprika
½ tsp salt

Beat the yoghurt until smooth. Add the rest of the ingredients except the paprika and beat again. Transfer the raita to a serving dish and sprinkle with paprika.

News round

CNN Ocean pirate attacks surge

The Times Letter boxes sealed as mail strike goes national

CBS News FDA says cloned milk and meat OK

The Guardian Sky TV faces sexual assault claim

BBC Hunters pledge to defy the law

Sky News Virus spreads aboard cruise liner

The Independent The Independent goes tabloid

The GM food debate

The BBC reports that over a hundred scientists have written to Tony Blair complaining about the government’s failure to correct misleading reports in the press about GM crops.

Envirospin Watch has the full text of the letter, along with the names of the 144 scientists who signed it. Here's how it opens:

The results of the Farm Scale Evaluations of three GM crops announced on 16th October were reported across the media as “the end of GM in the UK”. In fact the FSEs did not assess the effects of genetically modifying the crops, but rather the impact of different types of weed control. They had little to do with genetic modification, its processes or potential.

However the government’s reaction to the latest misleading reports on GM was to remain silent. Since 1999, the government has sponsored several protracted deliberations on GM but has consistently neglected opportunities to address any of the unsubstantiated assertions about the process of genetic modification and possible risks.

They’ve got a point. A lot of the press reports I saw on the results of the GM field trials were extremely misleading, and the government hasn’t done much to counteract the false impression they created.

But this isn’t just a dispute between scientists and journalists about how research results are reported. It‘s part of the wider debate on GM foods between environmentalists and technologists. And, on an international scale, it’s part of an ongoing trade dispute between the USA and Europe, as this summary from GreenWatch makes clear:

In 1998, the E.U. banned imports of so-called genetically-modified (GM) crops. American farmers grow 70% of the world's GM crops. Their operations are high-tech and fairly efficient. American farmers have increased their yields by using scientifically-engineered GM seeds that resist disease and need fewer pesticides; they produce high quality food at a cheap price. By contrast, Europe's farms are notoriously inefficient, slow to modernize, and resist adopting new technologies like GM seeds. The result: American farmers under price the Europeans. The only way the E.U. can protect its farmers is by shutting out American GM products.

The EU has since reversed that decision but the regulations governing GM foods have been tightened to make it easier for individual nations within the EU to keep them out. The BBC reported on the changes just a couple of weeks ago:

A new directive comes into force in the European Union on Thursday placing tighter restrictions on genetically modified crops, and the sale of food containing GM ingredients.

The directive says GM foods may pose environmental and health risks, and every country proposing to grow or import them should conduct a detailed assessment of those risks. Governments will also have a statutory duty to consult the public.

Judging by recent events in the UK, it seems clear that whatever the scientists say about the risks of GM foods, the public, ill-served by the media and open to green propaganda, are likely to reject them.

That’ll be just fine by the EU and fine for sophisticated European consumers, who don’t seem to mind paying more for their food than they really have to. But it works out a little differently in Africa, where the BBC reports countries like Zambia have turned down much-needed food aid from the US because it was grown from GM seed.

GM food aid was sent to southern Africa during the current drought, despite strong reservations from Africa. Zambia banned the aid, saying it would rather go hungry than risk losing its export markets in Europe because its crops had been contaminated with GM seed.

The anti-GM meme has gone international. The BBC last year quoted President Mwanawasa of Zambia referring to GM food as "poison". Was that opinion informed by scientific research or gleaned from misleading media reports and the consensus amongst international NGO’s? I find it strange to see organizations like Oxfam and Action Aid arguing against people in Africa being allowed to grow food. I can’t see how that contributes to the relief of hunger.

The precautionary principle sounds fine to me, but if I’m starving I’ll eat anything.

Day by Day

Dean Esmay has a post up over at Blogcritics. It’s an interview with Chris Muir, the author of my favorite strip, Day by Day. It’s a fascinating article that covers Chris’s influences, motivation and techniques, as well featuring a lot of his work.

I’ve heard a number of people compare Day by Day to Doonesbury, but to me Gary Trudeau’s current work looks tired by comparison. Doonesbury embodies political correctness; Day by Day pokes good-natured fun at it. It’s a mainstream strip set in the modern world.

It’s hard to believe it’s only been running twelve months, and even harder to believe it’s not yet been picked up for syndication.

Be afraid, be very afraid

It's Halloween in the Junior household and it's all pumpkins and facepaints right now.

Here's a photo of a four year-old Spud from last year's festivities. He's scary, ain't he?



No, you're not supposed to say he's cute. Grrr!

Looking for a Halloween blog? Check out Michele's place, she's got dripping blood and everything!

Hopefully, normal blogging will resume shortly. In the meantime, the boys insisted I include this link to "The Monster Mash" by Bobby "Boris" Pickett and The Crypt-Kickers.

Happy Halloween.

Clark v Bush

In his TCS column on Monday, Michael Totten worried about the increasing polarization of political debate and called for Democrats to co-operate with Bush over the War on Terror.

We can hardly expect other nations to stand with us if we can't even stand with ourselves.

This isn't to say that the party out of power ought to be rubber-stampers. Excessive bipartisanship is the functional equivalent of a one-party state. What we need is an implicit understanding that despite our disagreements we are on the same side. Because we are on the same side. Murderous fanatics are trying to kill us. Save the talk of "enemies" and "evil" for them.

A noble sentiment, but I thought Totten’s plea would likely fall on deaf ears. Even so, I never imagined any of the Democratic candidates would attack Bush over 9/11. Yet, according to the New York Times, that’s precisely what General Wesley Clark did in his American Prospect speech on Tuesday.

David Adesnik at Oxblog was so surprised by the news, he went fishing for a transcript. Here’s what he found:

And then there is 9/11. There is no way this administration can walk away from its responsibilities. This wasn't something that could be blamed on lower level intelligence officers. Our great Democratic President Harry Truman said, the "buck stops here." And when it comes to our nation's foreign policy, the buck sits on George W. Bush's desk. And we must say it again and again until the American people understand it. National security, next to upholding the Constitution, is the most important duty of any President.

So, Clark is suggesting that 9/11 wasn’t the result of intelligence failures; it happened because Bush’s foreign policy failed to deliver national security. In short: Bush was to blame for 9/11.

The Democrats have gone nuts.

A Nickel’s Worth of Free Advice has a more considered response.

Eric Schlosser

I was over at Normblog picking up a link for the previous post, when I came across Norm’s take on Eric Schlosser’s Guardian article about anti-Americanism in Britain.

Schlosser has been visiting Britain for almost thirty years.

I can't remember another time when having an American accent provoked as much immediate hostility from Brits of every race, creed, class, and sexual orientation.

I have to agree with him. I can also understand it when he says that, in certain situations, if he could put on a British accent with any skill he would. The traditional defense is pretending to be Canadian; most people over here can’t tell the difference.

Instead, when the anti-Americanisms start coming my way, I patiently explain that I love my country but not my government, that I oppose almost every single thing that George Bush has done since taking office, that he lost the 2000 election by at least half a million votes, etc, etc. Those points usually take the edge off things. And then I try to shift the conversation to Tony Blair. You can blame us for a hell of a lot of things - but not for him.

I often find myself in similar situations, and I will (contrary to State Department advice) loudly and visibly identify myself as an American. I’m not one of those “my country right or wrong” types, but I can’t just sit and listen while some anti-American bigot tirades ill-informed nonsense at me.

I’m not suggesting Schlosser should do the same. I’d just prefer it if he'd pretend to be Canadian instead of playing the same game as the Dixie Chicks.

Because you know what? I didn’t vote for George Bush either, and I can do a British accent. But I don’t think either of those things gives me licence to stand and nod while foreigners mock my country, slander my fellow citizens and demand my humble contrition for America's supposed sins.

It sounds like you’re more timid than I am, Mr Schlosser; that Canadian act should work just fine for you.

Editorial criticism

It seems some people were upset by a recent Normblog post about copy editors.

This was the gist of it.

[C]opy editors need to be tied to a post and have over-ripe fruit thrown at them the first time they veer from the straight and narrow by degrading the stuff they're there to improve; the procedure to be repeated periodically until they've thoroughly absorbed the lesson.

I took Norm’s post to be a playful rant, but it contains more than a grain of truth: any writer who hasn’t, at least once, felt like venting their rage at a copy editor, probably doesn’t put too much into their writing.

I found the piece amusing (I thought this was pretty funny as well) but from the sounds of it, some people took Norm’s words far too seriously.

Personally, for the same reasons Susanna mentions, I‘m strongly in favor of copy editors. I just didn’t realize some of them could be so sensitive.

Sussex burning

The BBC reports that a caravan containing effigies of Gypsies has been burnt as part of a bonfire party in Sussex.

Residents are reported to have been sickened and shocked, and the Commission for Racial Equality has called for the organizers to be prosecuted. Trevor Phillips, the CRE’s chairman said:

This is clearly an example of incitement to racial hatred. You couldn't really get more provocative than this. The police have to take it seriously. If we are asked at the CRE, we will say this case should be pursued and the people involved should be punished - which can lead to seven years in prison.

Sounds about right to me.

But I can’t help thinking that the condemnation involves a fair amount of hypocrisy, seeing as how the whole nation is gearing up for Bonfire Night on November 5. In the coming weeks, well-attended parties will take place all over the country, there will be firework displays and an effigy of Guy Fawkes will be ritually burnt.

Fawkes was the central figure in a Catholic conspiracy to blow up the Houses of Parliament during the reign of King James I. The plot was foiled and Fawkes was captured and executed. Fawkes wasn’t burnt at the stake, he was hung for treason. But a grateful King declared November 5 a public holiday, both to commemorate the event and to promote anti-Catholic feeling. Bonfire Night is, in origin, a specifically anti-Catholic ritual and it still persists in that form today, particularly in parts of Sussex.

I don’t know if it’s old prejudices at work, but most people see nothing wrong with celebrating November 5. When I ask my friends about it, they either profess to having no idea what I’m talking about, or they admit the ritual has sectarian roots but “that was all a long time ago” or “most people don’t know about all that”, so it’s okay.

I just don’t get it. Why is it okay to do it to Catholics but not okay to do it to Gypsies?

Bonfire Night in Lewes is a particularly ugly affair. The BBC knows this, yet it still promotes the event.

Lewes, East Sussex: liberal Middle England, a nice quiet place. Except on 05 November that is, when the town immerses itself in a night of booze, political sloganeering and pyromania.

Ostensibly, the members of the town’s five bonfire societies march in memory of the Protestant martyrs of 1556. Hence the “No Popery” and “Death To Rome” banners. But this is no sectarian hate-fest, more an excuse for a thoroughly hazardous knees-up.

I imagine that’s how the Klan might like to describe its gatherings these days, “Hate-fest? Hell, no! Sure, we’re renacting a lynching, and we’ve got all those banners saying “White Power” and stuff, but really it’s just an excuse to party.”

The BBC reported on the situation in Lewes back in 1997, acknowledging the history of the event and the way it is used to stoke hatred of Catholics. But the CRE was nowhere to be seen, and the BBC seems to think that what goes on in Sussex year after year is only a problem for the Catholic Church.

Tonight 3,000 people will parade through the town in what has become one of Britain's wildest nights out. For most of the thousands of people who line the streets every year it's a party - with banners, flaming torches and singing. But for the Catholic Church as long as the Cliff society continues to burn its effigies - which last year included the current Catholic bishop - it's an anti-Catholic ritual that's got to stop.

You’d think the recognition that burning Gypsies in effigy is wrong, might lead to the realization that doing the same thing to Catholics is equally worthy of condemnation.

Regarding the burning of the caravan and dummy occupants, I think the authorities should act immediately to prevent it happening again. Not least because, if it becomes a popular annual event, after a few hundred years people won’t see anything wrong with it at all.

California’s burning

New Scientist has a satellite picture of the fires and offers the following explanation.

The severity of the fires - the worst seen in the 45 years service of one fire chief - is being blamed on the concurrence of several factors. There has been no rain in Los Angeles since early May, meaning the region is extremely dry. On top of that, the last five years have seen drought conditions, while budget problems are reported to have led to insufficient clearance of brush.

Yesterday, Citizen Smash posted about the extent and impact of the fires. Today, he’s providing a rolling update. So far, there’s good news and bad.

Force de frappe

The Independent reports today that France is rethinking its policy on nuclear weapons to include the possibility of launching first strikes against "rogue states" that threaten to use weapons of mass destruction.

The former head of the French institute of higher defence studies, General Bernard Norlain, said a shift in doctrine was inevitable. "We have been working under the concept of non-use and deterrence," he said. "We said, 'This weapon is not designed to be used'. Now, faced with a potential enemy that is quite irrational, we are going to have to reverse that concept."

The change in French policy would bring France closer to the new US doctrine expressed in January last year. Defence sources told Libération that France was also looking at the implications of the American review's backing of "first-strike" miniature nuclear weapons, intended to attack command bunkers in "rogue" states.

I wonder who the French have in mind?

Syrian media

In the Guardian today, Brian Whitaker writes about press freedom in Syria. There isn’t any.

For all practical purposes the newspapers, radio and television are part of the government bureaucracy and their task at the moment, as the US prepares to impose sanctions, is to show that the rest of the world is rallying to support Syria in its conflict with Washington.

Last week, in Damascus, Whitaker interviewed Farouk al-Sharaa, Syria's foreign minister.

Just as the interview was about to start, a man with a TV camera came in and filmed us sitting with the minister. It was later shown on Syrian television and, according to someone who saw the programme, all our job titles had been changed to make us seem more important. One of the journalists, a freelance who sometimes writes for Paris Match, was described as the magazine's editor.

It may not be much on the Richter scale of dishonesty, but these little tweaks of the truth gradually add up a self-flattering picture in which the world's most senior journalists, as well as its leading statesmen, are supposedly queuing to pay tribute in Damascus.

It’s a fascinating article that also provides a glimpse of Syrian life from Whitaker’s source, the mysterious Mrs X. But I can’t recommend it without reservation. I baulked when I read this.

If only Washington would worry less about Hizbullah and the Palestinian militants and turn its attention to economic terrorism by the Syrian elite, there might be some progress.

Progress towards what?

BBC activision

Blog.org highlights a new service coming soon from the BBC.

iCan from the BBC is a long-awaited site (still in beta) designed to enable and encourage community activism. It includes advice from activists, tools to link grassroots campaigns to larger organizations, and roving reporters who will publicise success stories. If it is done right this could be big (but if it is too successful it could involve the BBC in some interesting rows!).

I've got a problem with it already.

Check out the main picture on the iCan page to get an idea of the kind of community activists the BBC wants to help. You see that red, white and blue MAB placard at the bottom of the picture that says "FREEDOM FOR..."? The missing word is "PALESTINE".

The posters were produced by the Muslim Association of Britain for use in the 'Don't Attack Iraq & Freedom for Palestine' demonstration that took place in London on February 15.

I guess, at a stretch, you could describe the Intifada as a "local community project" but I don't think that's quite what the BBC had in mind. Was it?

Political propaganda

The BBC has a report on the “anti-war” protest in Washington on Saturday. Typically, the BBC seems determined to overplay the significance of ANSWER’s campaign.

The BBC correspondent in Washington says the demonstration reflects the mood of many Americans, who are becoming increasingly concerned about the cost of the occupation and the rising number of casualties.

Well, no. As this round-up of polls on Iraq suggests, there is increasing concern among Americans about US led action in Iraq, but to equate that concern with support for the ANSWER organized rally is unjustified and just plain wrong.

Another thing I found remarkable was the BBC’s selective use of adjectives: referring to Free Republic as a “conservative” organization but failing to mention that ANSWER‘s steering committee is full of communists and apologists for North Korea’s brutal regime. Organizations like the Korean Truth Commission, for instance, which regularly attempts to present North Korea as a communist utopia.

If you want to know what I think…

George Junior in England says the BBC’s coverage of the demonstration reflects the mood of many of the BBC’s correspondents, who are becoming increasingly concerned that most people regard ANSWER’s protests as unthinking, politically motivated dissent.

For a closer look at the protests go visit Anna at Belligerent Bunny Blog, who has a photo essay about the event, and Michelle at A Small Victory, who blogged C-SPAN’s live coverage of the rally on Saturday.

Update
I missed this earlier. Michael J Totten provides more background on ANSWER's Stalinist links.

Bye bye Blogspot!

George Junior's blog has moved to juniorabroad.com.

Thanks for reading and be sure to come visit me at my new home. Did I tell you I've got a comments section? And Monday, there'll be some fresh posts up.

See you there!

Blogging about

I’ve been spending a lot of time over the last couple of days struggling to amend the stylesheet for my new Moveable Type blog. Hopefully, it’ll be up and running sometime over the weekend but I make no promises.

In the meantime, I won’t be blogging much. Which doesn’t mean there’s nothing to blog about, it just means I’m not going to get round to commenting on things.

Luckily, the blogs I link to pretty much covered most of the stuff I was going to post about anyway. If you’re interested, go take a look at:

Norm Geras on Linda Colley’s Guardian article on America.
Biased BBC on the BBC’s coverage of AIDS initiatives from Bush and Clinton.
Oxblog’s David Adesnik on misplaced optimism regarding Iran’s agreement to nuclear inspections.
Roger L Simon on that Rumsfeld memo.
Citizen Smash on Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin’s widely reported remarks.

I’ve got to get back to those stylesheets, so that’s all my posting done for the day.

See you Saturday.