And if this does not make you smile there is no hope for you
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Thursday, March 28, 2013
A fine review of a good book
I had better start with a declaration of multiple interests: both John O'Sullivan, author of this review and Douglas Murray, author of the book in question, are friends of mine and people with whom I often agree. In fact, make that almost always agree. But not always. For instance, while I am quite fond of Noel Coward's songs and some plays I do not admire him quite to the degree John O'Sullivan does.
The subject in question is serious: Douglas Murray not only attended the Saville inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday but seems to have read the ten volumes of the report before writing his book, Bloody Sunday - Truth, Lies and the Saville Inquiry, which goes beyond the mythology of what that report said and also beyond the mythology of the actual events. Murray takes no sides though he is not too fond of the Provos as who could be. Instead, he analyzes the history behind Bloody Sunday, the many loyalties that led to the tragedy and the immediate events before those fateful shots.
These events are our history as well. We should pay attention to them and not pretend that the province over the water has nothing to do with us.
The subject in question is serious: Douglas Murray not only attended the Saville inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday but seems to have read the ten volumes of the report before writing his book, Bloody Sunday - Truth, Lies and the Saville Inquiry, which goes beyond the mythology of what that report said and also beyond the mythology of the actual events. Murray takes no sides though he is not too fond of the Provos as who could be. Instead, he analyzes the history behind Bloody Sunday, the many loyalties that led to the tragedy and the immediate events before those fateful shots.
These events are our history as well. We should pay attention to them and not pretend that the province over the water has nothing to do with us.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Show time
Everyone needs cheering up and what better way of doing it than by watching Danny Kaye. Here he is in a film I have never seen but intend to as soon as possible, On the Riviera, singing to Gene Tierney. Embedding has been disabled so you will just have to follow the link.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
The answer is no
Lord Stoddart of Swindon put down a Written Question about the BBC:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the Pollard report, they have any plans to withdraw the BBC's Royal Charter when it is next due for renewal.To which HMG in the shape of Lord Gardiner of Kindle replied:
The current BBC Charter expires on 31 December 2016. It remains the Government's position that a Royal Charter is the right vehicle for the BBC, which is established for many good reasons, at arm's-length from politicians.That will be a no, then.
What Cameron ought to have said
A friend who is a true Conservative in every way reminded me of a recent article in the Daily Mail though he did not have the link.
There is a slight problem, though. The real reason for the sanctimonious demands for state control is the fact that a very large number of people do buy the "offending paper and magazine" and the more offending, the better.
Newly released documents show that in 1981, Bruce Forsyth asked Margaret Thatcher to do the same [ as Hugh Grant was asking.] She replied: ‘I share your feelings about the need to maintain standards... but equally it is of crucial importance to keep the press in this country free from government interference. I do not think it is possible to draft a law to deal with these matters. The real sanction, of course, is not to buy the offending paper or magazine.’And that ought to be the real Conservative attitude.
There is a slight problem, though. The real reason for the sanctimonious demands for state control is the fact that a very large number of people do buy the "offending paper and magazine" and the more offending, the better.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
A missed anniversary
Once again, I have had a finger-wagging from a regular reader of the blog and I deserve it. How could I forget the thirtieth anniversary of this speech?
President Ronald Reagan addressing the nation on the subject of defence. Investors.com puts that seminal speech into perspective. President Obama has just returned from his Middle Eastern tour during which his "achievement" seems to have been to allow Israel and Turkey do what they wanted to do anyway and sort out their differences. Those two countries have been allies for a long time and are both more than a little worried about Iran.
President Ronald Reagan addressing the nation on the subject of defence. Investors.com puts that seminal speech into perspective. President Obama has just returned from his Middle Eastern tour during which his "achievement" seems to have been to allow Israel and Turkey do what they wanted to do anyway and sort out their differences. Those two countries have been allies for a long time and are both more than a little worried about Iran.
Islamofascist Iran is now, according to the White House, a year away from nuclear arms, and the "Arab Spring" Obama's apologies helped spawn has turned Egypt from a U.S. ally into a possible foe under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood.Read the whole article and weep.
Compare Obama's failure to realize the havoc he was wreaking to the astonishing prescience of Ronald Reagan.
Addressing the nation, he asked, "What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?"
He knew missile defense was "a formidable technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century."
But by committing America to it, Soviet communism was a few years later relegated to "the ash-heap of history," as Reagan had promised the year before.
Boris Berezovsky and other matters
Readers of this blog would have heard by now of the sudden and unexplained death of Boris Berezovsky, enemy number one for President Putin and his cohorts. Apparently, he was found in his bath at about 11 o'clock this morning. One is awfully tempted to use the old KGB slang мокрое дело or wet business and I shall leave it to my readers to remember or work out what that might stand for.
The way the story broke was interesting. This afternoon I escaped early from yet another conference of seminar about what eurosceptics should do now or this time next year (can't remember) and went to London Library (after conferring with the Boss who is snowed in up north), checked my e-mails and went on Facebook to see if there was anything interesting happening in the world. There I found several postings from Russian friends or British friends who follow Russian affairs that were wondering if Berezovsky was dead. Apparently, some Russian outlets were saying it, at first cautiously then more boldly that they had heard from Berezovsky's son-in-law who posted the information on Facebook that the old man was dead. Others referred to some telephone call from London to Moscow, yet others quoted people "close" to Berezovsky.
By this time it was about half past four in the afternoon, several hours after the body had been found. Or so it seems.
Meanwhile the western media was desperately trying to confirm the story and were, therefore, keeping quiet. I am delighted to say that I tweeted about it a while before the Wall Street Journal came up with "Breaking: Boris Berezovsky dead". Before confirmation came and the police said "in a statement they had launched a "full inquiry" into what they described as "the unexplained death" of a 67-year-old man at a property near London" the Russian media started saying that this was definitely a suicide, that he had been depressed, was facing bankruptcy and was, in general, feeling that he was a failure. Presumably, this was an effort to get in there first as most of us thought of some other explanation when we first heard the news. (Jokes about ice picks have already been made.)
There have also been news from Russia and not just about the Cyprus shenanigans. Readers of this blog might recall last year's law that "foreign-funded non-governmental groups (NGOs) involved in political activity to register as "foreign agents" in Russia". The term has a very special and sinister sound in a country where not so long ago you were imprisoned for many years at best if you were named a "foreign agent".
A number of NGOs that could be said to have some foreign funding and foreign links have been raided by the police and tax inspectors. Among these were Memorial that tries to reconstruct what happened to the millions of victims of the Soviet system and also deals with human rights issues since its collapse.
The legislation against NGOs that get foreign funding and have foreign links is seen as a response to the agitation around the Magnitsky Act that was signed into law by President Obama in December of last year and campaigns against so-called foreign agents have intensified.
Meanwhile, the Russian investigation into Magnitsky's death in prison has been dropped.
However, the Magnitsky case is not dead even if the man is. His posthumous trial has opened in Moscow but has been adjourned till the 27th. Gogol, the author of Dead Souls, should be alive now. He, alone could do justice to this tragic farce.
The way the story broke was interesting. This afternoon I escaped early from yet another conference of seminar about what eurosceptics should do now or this time next year (can't remember) and went to London Library (after conferring with the Boss who is snowed in up north), checked my e-mails and went on Facebook to see if there was anything interesting happening in the world. There I found several postings from Russian friends or British friends who follow Russian affairs that were wondering if Berezovsky was dead. Apparently, some Russian outlets were saying it, at first cautiously then more boldly that they had heard from Berezovsky's son-in-law who posted the information on Facebook that the old man was dead. Others referred to some telephone call from London to Moscow, yet others quoted people "close" to Berezovsky.
By this time it was about half past four in the afternoon, several hours after the body had been found. Or so it seems.
Meanwhile the western media was desperately trying to confirm the story and were, therefore, keeping quiet. I am delighted to say that I tweeted about it a while before the Wall Street Journal came up with "Breaking: Boris Berezovsky dead". Before confirmation came and the police said "in a statement they had launched a "full inquiry" into what they described as "the unexplained death" of a 67-year-old man at a property near London" the Russian media started saying that this was definitely a suicide, that he had been depressed, was facing bankruptcy and was, in general, feeling that he was a failure. Presumably, this was an effort to get in there first as most of us thought of some other explanation when we first heard the news. (Jokes about ice picks have already been made.)
There have also been news from Russia and not just about the Cyprus shenanigans. Readers of this blog might recall last year's law that "foreign-funded non-governmental groups (NGOs) involved in political activity to register as "foreign agents" in Russia". The term has a very special and sinister sound in a country where not so long ago you were imprisoned for many years at best if you were named a "foreign agent".
A number of NGOs that could be said to have some foreign funding and foreign links have been raided by the police and tax inspectors. Among these were Memorial that tries to reconstruct what happened to the millions of victims of the Soviet system and also deals with human rights issues since its collapse.
Memorial says inspectors returned to its Moscow offices on Friday, having already seized 600 documents including accounts on Thursday.Helpfully, as the picture in the story shows, somebody (could one possibly guess who) has written a graffiti on the wall of Memorial offices, describing them as "a foreign agent".
A statement on the Memorial website said the inspections were directly linked to the new law on NGOs and the targeted groups' compliance with it.
Memorial director Arseny Roginsky, quoted by the Russian news website Vesti, said it was "a complete check on everything concerned with our sources of funding".
He insisted that the NGO law "will not change our position at all". "We won't refuse foreign donations, nor will we register as a 'foreign agent'," he said.
The legislation against NGOs that get foreign funding and have foreign links is seen as a response to the agitation around the Magnitsky Act that was signed into law by President Obama in December of last year and campaigns against so-called foreign agents have intensified.
Meanwhile, the Russian investigation into Magnitsky's death in prison has been dropped.
The committee posted a statement on its official website on March 19 saying Magnitsky was placed legally in pretrial detention and died there from heart complications in 2009. The committee said there was no evidence of a crime.Indeed, how could there be a crime? The man was arrested for trying to find out what happened to the companies he was supposed to be working for that had been stolen in order to claim enormous tax rebates by people linked to the security services, kept in appalling conditions for a year without any charges, denied medical attention, evidently tortured and was eventually found dead in his cell. All very normal.
However, the Magnitsky case is not dead even if the man is. His posthumous trial has opened in Moscow but has been adjourned till the 27th. Gogol, the author of Dead Souls, should be alive now. He, alone could do justice to this tragic farce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)