Please Help New English Review
For our donors from the UK:
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Follow New English Review On Twitter
Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
The Oil Cringe of the West: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly Vol. 2
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Impact of Islam
by Emmet Scott
Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies
by Ibn Warraq
Fighting the Retreat from Arabia and the Gulf: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly. Vol. 1
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Literary Culture of France
by J. E. G. Dixon
Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays
by David P. Gontar
Farewell Fear
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Eagle and The Bible: Lessons in Liberty from Holy Writ
by Kenneth Hanson
The West Speaks
interviews by Jerry Gordon
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy
Emmet Scott
Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy
Ibn Warraq
Anything Goes
by Theodore Dalrymple
Karimi Hotel
De Nidra Poller
The Left is Seldom Right
by Norman Berdichevsky
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
by Ibn Warraq
An Introduction to Danish Culture
by Norman Berdichevsky
The New Vichy Syndrome:
by Theodore Dalrymple
Jihad and Genocide
by Richard L. Rubenstein
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky

These are all the Blogs posted on Thursday, 18, 2007.
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Runaway Molly to write book about her experiences

The Scotsman reports on an interview with Molly Campbell, following her father’s rejection of her mother’s proposals to settle the question of the child’s residence and contact with her parents. To recap Mrs Campbell has an order that Molly reside with her in Scotland, Molly was enticed/left of her own accord to live with her father in Pakistan. The family court in Pakistan upheld the Scottish order despite the father pleading sharia law. Mrs Campbell indicated that she would allow Molly to stay with her father in Pakistan provided she returned to Scotland several times a year for a holiday and that she was allowed unlimited telephone calls. Meanwhile Molly is said to have shown interest in joining a madrassa alleged to have links with the Taliban, then her father rejected the offer, saying that Molly never wanted to set foot in Scotland again.

This is the 12 year old girl talking to the BBC.

RUNAWAY schoolgirl Molly Campbell has begun writing a book on her experiences. She spoke of her plans on a BBC radio documentary as the custody battle between her parents remained deadlocked.

The case will resume today at the Supreme Court in Islamabad after a hearing yesterday was adjourned when her father rejected an offer by her mother to reach a settlement on visitation rights.

Molly, 12, said she had begun writing the introduction of her book. Laughing, she told It's My Story on Radio 4: "Hopefully, within 12 years I will finish off my book. All I've written is about ten lines of the introduction. I was thinking of [calling the book] Molly's Life. Speaking of her plans, she said: "Hopefully I can stay here [in Pakistan] and I'll study and I'll be able to become a beautician. I want to run a salon."

And on the subject of the change to her life after her parents split and she and her mother moved to the Isle of Lewis, she said “it was a big change. Supposing when someone is living in a massive house, got servants, got everything done for them - they didn't even need to go and get the remote - to going to this wee, small, mini, mini, mini house, a council house."

And there we have it. Beauty treatment for them as wears burkas, presumably so that their husband chooses her and not Wife No 3 tonight and servants to pass the TV remote. 

Posted on 01/18/2007 1:29 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Abu Hamza public funding recovery

According to Sky News an attempt is being made to recover the legal aid money which funded Abu Hamza's defence in his race hate trial. The Legal Services Commission will now ask Old Bailey trial judge Lord Justice Hughes to order Hamza to make a contribution to the defence costs.

Investigations into his finances have centred on property dealings, which resulted in the purchase of a £220,000 house in Greenford, west London. It came while Hamza's wife and children lived on benefits in a council house. According to reports, he registered the house in his son's name, apparently avoiding an order freezing his assets after his arrest.

Today in court here.

Posted on 01/18/2007 6:24 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Bush and Another Result of Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush has decided not to renew a program of domestic spying on terrorism suspects, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Wednesday, ending an law-enforcement tactic criticized for infringing on civil liberties. --from this news item

This is what comes of the nonsense in Iraq. Weakened, Bush throws to the wolves the very things that should be preserved, in order to save or buy time for a policy, in Iraq, that makes no sense, is directed at a goal that is the opposite of what he should be wishing to obtain.

Posted on 01/18/2007 6:32 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Australian Federal Police to investigate Sheik Feiz Mohammed

Good news from The Australian.

FEDERAL police are investigating whether an Australian Islamic leader incited terror by calling on young Muslims to give up their lives in jihad, and by labelling Jews pigs.

Sheik Feiz Mohammed's comments in a collection of DVDs called Death Series have brought widespread condemnation from politicians and community groups.
The Australian Federal Police said it was looking at the DVDs and making inquiries into whether the sheik's comments breached sedition laws and incited acts of violence. If so, the AFP would launch a full investigation and he could face charges.
NSW Premier Morris Iemma said Sheik Mohammed, the leader of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool, in Sydney's west, was inciting terrorism.

I am also impressed at the reporting to the documentary (Channel 4 – Dispatches) on Australian television. If you follow this link here and click the line that says “Video: Sheik Feiz Mohammed you get the TV news report and comment which is such a contrast to UK news and the UK police.

The Aussies have beaten us at cricket, and they put us to shame here as well. 

Update on the UK reaction. I followed a link on JW to this article on Totally Jewish MPs are calling for an official investigation, and the Metropolitan and West Midlands Police are looking into the content of the DVDs.

Posted on 01/18/2007 6:42 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Re: Open Mouth - Insert Trotter. Jews are pigs, says Sydney cleric

In accord with Qur'an 2:62-5; 5:59-60; and 7:166. "Sydney cleric ridicules Jews: report..."
-- from the article below and Robert Spencer's initial comment here.

The important thing here is the canonical quote. Qur'an 2:62-5; 5:59-60. It is the need to constantly make the public aware that these views are not plucked from the ether, but are to be found in the texts. These are the texts that are read, and re-read, and re-read, in every madrasa everywhere in the world. These are texts that those who wish to memorize the Qur'an must memorize, and do. These are the texts that are recited when the Qur'an is recited: there is no Bowdlerized version of the Qur'an that is used when Muslims recite for other Muslims, or for themselves.

Yet article after article about these matters presents the utterers of this venom as strange creatures, whose views appear not to be comprehensible, rather than as perfectly comprehensible. They are being not bad but good Muslims, not distorters of Islam but treating the contents of the Qur'an with the necessary fidelity. It is those who ignore these verses who are not being true to Islam. We welcome those who are true to Christian principles, and not to their perversion or distortion: "He's a true Christian" means -- he really means it. He actually follows the teachings of Christ.

But to describe someone as a "true Muslim," as real follower and emulater of Muhammad, is to describe someone who for Infidels can mean trouble, and nothing but murderous trouble.

Posted on 01/18/2007 6:44 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 18 January 2007
The Arrogant and Ignorant Mr. D'Souza

Dinesh D'Souza's arrogance, in presuming to write about matters that he could not possibly have studied, arrogance about the most important matters, disqualifies him from ever again being taken seriously about anything.

His dreamy belief that Islamic terrorism dates back to 1979 and the Ayatollah Khomeini returning from Neauphle-le-chateau to Teheran, ignores the entire history of terrorism directed against Israel, Israel as a state, and even before it was a state, the Jews who lived what was, historically, the Land of Israel. D'Souza ignores the terrorism used against the French in Algeria (and though Alistair Horne, who got so much wrong in his history of that conflict, a history which apparently Bush is reading, because Henry Kissiner, ever the Islam-avoider, recommended to Bush as a guide to the situation in Iraq, when a moment's thought would show ten ways in which the situations are different, and Horne's book refuses to recognize the centrality of Islam in the Algerian war against the Infidels, who included not only the French, but all kinds of other non-Muslims -- Spanish, Italians, Jews -- who had been living for a long time in Algeria and whose only crime was to not be Muslim).

But more than that, he ignores the 1350 years of Jihad-conquest, or apparently thinks that because the military means involved did not include bombs on airplanes (no, there were no bombs on airplanes during those 1300 years of Jihad-conquest, nor I.E.D.s blowing up Humvees when the Muslims conquered the Middle East and North Africa, or when the Seljuk Turks conquered most of Anatolia, and the Ottoman Turks finished the rest of the conquering, nor when Sassanian Persia, or Hindu India, were conquered.

But "striking terror" in the hearts of the enemy was always Muslim war policy, and was practiced even without the particular technologies or techniques used today. No airplanes, no airplane hijackings or bombings. No I.E.D.'s, no use of I.E.D.s. Apparently Dinesh D'Souza thinks that that is all that "terrorism" is: not a method, but the precise technologies that go back, on, just a few decades. He might as well suggest that the Muslims have never used propaganda, either, because they lacked, in the old days, audiocassettes, videocassettes, satellite television, and the Internet. That is his level. That is what we are being asked to take seriously.

And then there are the texts. The most obvious apologetics are based on the notion that "everyone does it." All the texts, we are told, are more or less the same. Are they? Are the texts of Judaism and Christianity just as bloodthirsty, just as likely to whip up hatreds and violence, as are the Qur'an and Hadith? We all know that in some of those texts terrible things are written about the ancient Israelites and the Canaanites. But do Jews, have Jews, been going to temple and had rabbis whipping them so that as they leave those temples they grab non-Jews yelling "kill the Canaanites"? Has that been a feature of Judaism for the past hundred years? Thousand years? Two thousand years? It is nonsense to compare the texts of either of the prior two monotheisms with those of Islam. Dinesh D'Souza has not read Arthur Jeffery, Sir William Muir, Willem Noldeke. He has not read Snouck Hurgronje or St. Clair Tisdall or Joseph Schacht or Antoine Fattal. He has not read K. S. Lal, or any of the other Indian historians who might provide him with figures on how many Hindu victims -- 60-70 million of them -- were murdered by Muslims, and the murdering only stopped, and so did the forced conversions, when it was realized that if every Hindu disappeared, then so too would those who could pay the Jizyah.

And if his airy allusion to the possibilities of "selective quotation" which, he thinks, is all that is worrisome in Islam, when the Qur'an is riddled with Jihad verses, when the softer suras are essentially cancelled and superseded by the harsher more violent verses (has Dinesh D'Souza heard about "naskh" or abrogation? And has he taken it seriously? Or has he relied on one of those smiling, plausible Muslim informants who assures him that this doctrine is not used, that it is a figment of the islamophobic imagination -- something concocted in the fervid brain, say, of Ibn Warraq, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, those crazed interpreters of Islam who know so little, while Dinesh D'Souza knows so very much?

What does Dinesh D'Souza make of the contents of the khutbas, sermons, that are delivered in Bangladesh, after which the Muslims streaming out of the mosque feel inspired enough to beat to death passing Hindus? For that matter what does he make of the murder of the most peaceful, programmatically peaceful, Buddhists of southern Thailand by Muslims? What does he think of the strange outward flow of non-Muslims, observable everywhere that Muslims now rule where they once did not -- as in the lands that were once part of the Raj and are now known as Pakistan and Bangladesh, where the Hindu percentage of the population is now 10% what it was in 1947, in Pakistan, and a quarter of what it was in Bangladesh in 1947, and yet, at the same time, the Muslim proportion of India's population has gone steadily up? And what does he think about the steady diminution in the numbers of Christians in Arab lands (never mind the disappearance of a million Jews who, experiencing pogroms in Cairo and Tripoli and Baghdad, were not about to remain to enjoy the famed "tolerance" of Islam?)

Dinesh D'Souza has fallen for that nonsense about "family values" in Islam. He is apparently so offended by the obvious decadence of the Western world that he likes the idea of fine, upstanding, people who don't use tattoos or practice body-piercing, whose children must listen to their parents (as long as those parents are Muslim -- if you convert to Islam, however, you need not have any respect for your non-Muslim parents who have been Left Behind), and who, in the world of Dinesh D'Souza, a humorless and self-preening little world, some kinds of "morality" are accepted -- presumably the official Muslim hatred for homosexuality appeals to straight-laced Dinesh D'Souza -- but others are not.

What does Dinesh D'Souza find "moral" in polygamy, or in the contemptible treatment of women, not least in their inability to make a rape charge stick, or in the unequal punishments for women and men accused of sexual misconduct? How does he like lapidation as a form of execution? And the four male witnesses rule in cases of rape? What kind of "family values" are these? And what about being able to divorce -- for the man -- merely by saying "I divorce you" three times? Does that impress Dinesh D'Souza as an advance on Western ways? Can't one deplore many of the things that go on in the West without embracing or defending Islam?

What does Dinesh D'Souza think of Qutb? He remembers Qutb, doesn't he -- the man who came to America in the late 1940s for two years, the man who was disgusted by those church socials, and above all that hideous and dangerous square-dancing -- "Swing your ladies and dosido, and don't step on your partner's toe"? Does he not realize that it was this, and not Internet pornography or Howard Stern's surpassing vulgarity, that offended and offends Muslims?

And what does he think is the Muslim attitude toward devout, pious, Orthodox Jews, family values and all -- whether in Antwerp, or Jerusalem, or Williamsburg? Does he think that Muslims are so pleased by the "family values" of these people that they find a natural affinity with them, wish them well, do not wish them harm? Is that what it says in the Qur'an: respect and honor Jews and Christians until such time as they begin to exhibit the features of modern, early 21st century, corrupted Western man, and only then? If so, why are the canonical texts full of inculcated hatred, even murderous hatred, of Jews and Christians who were as devout, as self-effacing, as pious, as full of family values, as a hundred Leagues of Decency together could not possibly observe?

He's a fool, but not a fool to be taken in isolation. His foolishness is that of the self-assured know-nothing, the Podsnap of this New Age, who does not know, and does not wish to know, about all kinds of things, for if he did know, they would Offend Him. Like Podsnap, Dinesh D'Souza has the habit of putting all disagreeables about Islam out of sight, out of mind.

With this book, he should lose any residual respect any one of sense might once have harbored for him. He has lost the right to an audience. He should no longer be given a hearing at National Review or, for that matter, anywhere else that wishes to be taken seriously.

This book is beyond the pale. Beyond all pales.

Posted on 01/18/2007 7:04 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 18 January 2007
The Chinese Are Coming… Africa

To modern sensibilities there can be few documents more shocking than Sir Francis Galton’s “Africa for the Chinese” letter published in the London Times on June 5, 1873. Sir Francis, a polymath and explorer, and a member of the great Darwin-Wedgwood clan, held Africans in low esteem, believing that they could not “sustain the burden of any respectable form of civilisation without a large measure of external guidance and support.” Towards the Chinese, by contrast, he expressed admiration, regarding them as “endowed with a remarkable aptitude for a high material civilisation.” In his letter to the Times he put forward the suggestion that Chinese people should be imported to Africa in large numbers, so as to displace the Africans and civilize their continent.

Even in 1873 Sir Francis’s opinions were too much for some Times readers, as the rejoinder by Gilbert Malcolm Sproat illustrates. (Though Mr. Sproat seems to think no better of the Chinese than Sir Francis did of the Africans.)

It would be interesting to know what modern Chinese people make of the Galton letter. There is a widespread vague opinion in Western countries that the Chinese are unblushing racists, who hold black people in contempt. Such well-known stories as that of Darlie toothpaste are offered as illustrating instances.

In fact matters are much more complicated than that. Modern Chinese racial pride certainly exists, but it is more defensive than offensive, founded more on resentment at past wrongs — the Opium Wars, the Boxer Indemnity, and so on — than in notions of innate superiority. Since none of those historical wrongs were committed by Africans, anti-black feeling is well-nigh absent from the modern Chinese psyche. To the degree — and it is not in any case a very high degree — that Chinese people see the world as an arena of racial conflict, Africans are hors de combat.

There is even some feeling among educated Chinese people of solidarity with Africans, as fellow victims of European imperialism. This strain of thought found fullest expression in the later Mao Tse-tung period, following the Sino-Soviet split, when third-worldism was going strong and the Chinese Communists promoted themselves as champions of that movement, in opposition to the world-dominating ambitions of the West and the “hegemonists” (i.e. the U.S.S.R.). Visitors to China during that period found themselves confronted at the airport with numerous posters and murals on the theme: “We have friends all over the world!” The accompanying artwork always showed a selection of beaming peasants and proletarians as exquisitely race-balanced as in a present-day U.S. college prospectus, black Africans well represented. Much was made, too, of the voyages to East Africa by the “eunuch admiral” Zheng He in 1417-22, even though those voyages established no permanent China-Africa connection, and likely included military action against obstreperous African rulers.

The reality of Mao-era Afrophilia was not always as sunny as the propaganda. As part of their outreach to Africa, the Maoists imported students from African nations to their universities. This led to many incidents in which male African students were accused of molesting Chinese women, with riots often resulting as Chinese students stormed the dormitories reserved to Africans and other foreigners. (In one case reported to me by an African in Beijing, the college authorities solved the problem by holding periodic parties for African male students only, the other guests at these parties being Chinese prostitutes bused in for the occasion.) Nor did things always go smoothly at higher levels. Ghanaian despot Kwame Nkrumah was deposed in a military coup while on a state visit to Beijing, to the great embarrassment of his hosts.

the rest is here

Posted on 01/18/2007 7:31 AM by John Derbyshire
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Wheeler on Obama

Dr. Jack Wheeler writes in Brooksnews (thanks to Andrew Bostom):

One of the most entertaining opportunities that will emerge in 2007 will be using Barack Obama to fight Islamofascism. He is the product of a black Moslem from Kenya, Barrack Hussein Obama, and a white atheist from Kansas, Shirley Ann Dunham, who met at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu. That is why his middle name is the same as Saddam’s: Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. His first name is taken from the Islamic term in Arabic for “blessed,” baraka, used in the Koran.

His father deserted the family when Barack Jr. was two and returned to Kenya. His mother then married another Moslem studying at UH, Lolo Soetoro from Indonesia. He moved with his mother and stepfather to Jakarta when he was six, where he attended a Moslem medressa (religious school). That makes him a Moslem. There is no mention of this in the chapter of his book, The Audacity of Hope, where he discusses his religion, My Spiritual Journey (reprinted in Time Magazine). Obama claims he is a Christian, that he and his wife Michelle are members of the United Church of Christ.

The opportunity in this is not accusing him of being a “closet Moslem.” It requires taking him at his word that he has become a Christian — for that means he is an apostate. There is no dispute among either ancient or modern Moslem scholars that under Islamic law, a murtadd, “one who turns his back on Islam,” an apostate, must be put to death. Irtidad, apostasy, is committing treason against God, and traitors deserve to be killed.  

Should Obama deny he ever was a Moslem, it will compound the problem in the eyes of Moslems. He was born of a Moslem father, raised by a Moslem stepfather, and received his first education at a Moslem school. That he subsequently went to a Catholic school in Jakarta before living with his mother’s parents back in Honolulu makes no difference. In the eyes of Moslems, he originally was a Moslem. How can he not be in those eyes, with a Koranic first name and his middle name that of the grandson of Mohammed? For him to become a Christian means he is, for them, a murtadd, an apostate.  

Which provides the perfect opportunity for an enterprising journalist to ask him at a press conference if he is: 1. Afraid of Moslem assassination attempts as punishment for being in Islamic eyes an apostate? 2. Willing to publicly call upon all Moslems around the world to renounce such punishment and declare instead that Moslems are fully free to convert to another religion?  

The odds are high that he will answer no to the first and yes to the second. As an oily politician, he will try to squirm out of a clear definitive yes with no wiggle room. But it should not be difficult for a smart journalist to get him to agree without reservation that Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states...  

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief.

...applies to Muslims

Once Obama condemns the Moslem tradition of death for apostasy, then he can be asked:  

The Koran famously quotes Allah as saying in chapter (sura) 2, verse 256 that there should be ‘no compulsion in religion.' Yet numerous sayings of Mohammed known as hadith which form the basis of Islamic Sharia law quote Mohammed as saying ‘If a Moslem discards his religion, kill him.' So are you telling Moslems that Allah was right but Mohammed was misquoted, and their Sharia law tradition on apostasy is wrong?

You can see how much fun there is to be had with this. Again, the key is taking Obama at his word that he is a Christian and not secretly a Moslem. No accusations necessary. The point is that Moslems view him as first a Moslem, not that he does. If done right with honest, straightforward, and persistent questioning Obama can serve as a quite useful anti-islamofascist tool...

Posted on 01/18/2007 7:43 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Take a Pair of Sparkling Eyes

In a post yesterday about how Islam takes away one’s imagination and independent will, Robert urged us not to take his word for it:


Examine the eyes of the true believers, if you dare.  Is there life in them or is there not?  Is there intelligence left there or is there not?


Let’s see. Look into the eyes of Richard Reid:




Nothing. How about Mohammed Atta:


Dead. Two black holes. Someone with those eyes is incapable of moral choices. He is resigned to the will of Allah. A similar emptiness could be seen in the eyes of the child brides of Afghanistan, slaves to wizened older men. Acceptance of Allah’s will is the only option for them. But perhaps in their all-too-brief childhood, the eyes of these girls sparkled. Islam soon took that away from them.


The cliché says that eyes are the window to the soul. This cliché is so general that it tells us nothing. But you can certainly tell a great deal from looking at a person’s eyes, not only about their health and vitality, but also their character, and this regardless of age or sex. You can see almost immediately whether they are warm or cold people.  Before they speak, you can tell if they are humorous or not. And a person’s eyes, their sparkle or lack of one, are a clear guide to intelligence, far more so, in my experience, than qualifications or IQ tests. 


A man with the dead eyes of Richard Reid or Mohammed Atta would probably not perceive the sparkle in someone’s eyes, or would at best perceive it as a challenge or a sexual invitation. Islam, more than any other religion, can take a pair of sparkling eyes and turn them into black holes.


On a lighter note, “Take a Pair of Sparkling Eyes” is a song by Gilbert and Sullivan. Much as I love Gilbert and Sullivan, and quite like this song, I confess I wince at this bit:


Take a tender little hand

Fringed with dainty fingerettes


Dainty fingerettes belong on a dolly, or indeed a doily, not on a human being.  

Posted on 01/18/2007 7:50 AM by Mary Jackson
Thursday, 18 January 2007
History of England, épisode un

In "Les Anglo-Saxons," an opinion piece in today's NY Sun, Daniel Johnson seems to slip on his way from Helen Mirren and the Queen to his conclusion that Sarkozy is the man of the hour to lead France. He says,

English monarchs did once rule over large tracts of France. From the time of Edward III in the 14th century, all English monarchs styled themselves "King (or Queen) of France." They dropped the claim only two centuries ago — soon after the French themselves had guillotined Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong:  technically, I suppose, it is true that Edward III, a Plantagenet, was King of England, hence an English monarch, but in a piece that employs for its title a French term for the English, Johnson might be confusing his readers needlessly.  Outside of some precincts in France, who refers any longer to the English as Anglo-Saxons?

(And re the phrase "stiff upper lip," when did it morph from describing the mien of a particular class to a universal metaphor for resolve?  WWI or II?  On a Hollywood backlot?  I've sent my O.E.D. out to the cleaners.)

Posted on 01/18/2007 8:25 AM by Robert Bove
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Ni tout à fait le même, ni tout à fait un autre

"Who do you consider the essential Western character? What I mean is, do you envision an ideal, modern, Western society to be a society of "Voltaires", "Hegels", "Leopold Blooms", "Walt Whitmans", what? I know it isn't a society of "Podsnaps"!-- from a reader

The mix of real people with fictional characters (Bloom, Podsnap) in your list is a tribute to the creators of those fictional characters (Joyce, Dickens) Can't imagine any one person being the "essential Western character" -- that is, the embodiment of the Western world. But wily Odysseus comes close.

How about just setting down your own list several dozen representative though differently remarkable people, including necessarily Shakespeare and Pushkin and Dante and Chateaubriand and many others, including my personal favorite -- my mother. As for the others, use your own sense of things, and add names as you wish. You don't have to include on your list my mother. She would probably be furious to have me bring her into this at all. Lists will overlap, but each list will differ or should, from every other list. In other words: Ni tout à fait le même, ni tout à fait un autre.

But do trade in Hegel for Robert Benchley.

Posted on 01/18/2007 8:55 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 18 January 2007
D'Souza and Islam

One more posting re the humorlessness ("There is no humor in Islam." Ayatollah Khomeini) and joylessness of Islam, with its phony "morality," a morality that is phony because it is merely the outward face of hidden decadence. Does Dinesh D'Souza not know that Saudi Arabia, where "morality" on the street is a function of the mutawwa, the Saudi version of religious enforcers for which there are analogues in other Muslim countries with rigorously faith-based legal systems, the real behavior of any Saudi who can get away with it is far more decadent than anything that could be dreamed up by the most decadent Westerners? Has he no idea how Saudis and other rich Arabs behave in the capitals of the West? Does he not know what they all do behind their palace walls in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E.? What does he think goes on? And aside from the sexual behavior, what does he make of the camel-racing in which four and five year old boys, Pakistanis for the most part, are tied to the camels, and frequently are severely wounded or killed, and are treated as expendable beings, as are so many non-Arabs all over those horrific countries?

Dinesh D'Souza is in some ways akin to Pat Buchanan. Buchanan's antisemitism prevents him from supporting Israel or understanding that the Lesser Jihad against Israel is no different in kind from the Jihad now pursued against non-Muslims in Western Europe and elsewhere. In Dinesh D'Souza's case, he seems to have become such a Moralist of the cheapest, most narrow and obvious League-of-Decency kind, that he has, seeing Muslim girls, for example, modestly dressed, to forget all the rest of Islam: the Islam that divides the world between Believer and Infidel.

Part of the sinister missionary work being undertaken by the members of Hizb al Tahrir is devoted to converting prisoners, especially those who are black or Hispanic, appealing to them by claiming that Islam is all about "social justice." It isn't. It is in the Muslim countries where whoever seizes or inherits power manages to steal much of the country's wealth: think of the Mubarak in Egypt. Think of the Hashemites in Jordan (not much wealth, so the CIA has been supplementing, or at least used to, the call-girl bills of the ruler). Think of the al-Saud princes, tens of thousands of them, helping themselves to trillions of dollars of money that rightly belongs to every person in "Saudi" Arabia. And the same is true in Kuwait, in the U.A.E., in Qatar. And in Algeria, and Syria, and Morocco and Pakistan This business of "social justice" is nonsense, a misunderstanding of the fact that people can attend the same mosque, and prostrate themselves next to someone much richer or much poorer. But that has no effect on political power or the sharing or proper distribution of the national wealth.

Dinesh D'Souza is, on the right, the equivalent of Richard Reid or Jose Padilla or any black radical who converts to Islam or joins the Nation of Islam (which is not strictly orthodox Islam), thinking that this will hasten the day of "social justice."

In Dinesh D'Souza's case, he sees Islam, the true and good and conservative family-values Islam, as the natural ally of all those who are offended by Western decadence. You don't like body-piercing or cocaine sniffing or non-stop sex at some bathhouse? Well, Dinesh D'Souza apparently believes that help is on the way-- help in the form of the inoffensive Qur'an, the innocent Hadith, the mild-mannered "peacemaker" (Karen Armstrong's epithet) Muhammad as described in the Sira.

Dinesh D'Souza -- brother under the skin to Richard Reid. To Jose Padilla. To Mahdi Bray.

They joined an imaginary Islam of "social justice." And Dinesh D'Souza defends an imaginary Islam of "family values."

The first two are behind bars (Padilla is awaiting trial). Dinesh D'Souza, however, is published by National Review, and is not being denounced by his colleagues, or sent to permanent Coventry.

When the day of reckoning comes, when those who wrote truthfully and intelligently about Islam, liberal or conservative, are validated in every way, and the assorted "liberals" and "conservatives" who told nonsense and lies about Islam are exposed, then all kinds of things will happen, and many will, or should, lose their Important Positions.

Posted on 01/18/2007 9:26 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 18 January 2007
A Mathematician on Prayer

I have been reading up Leonhard Euler, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, for a magazine piece.  (It's his tercentenary this year.)  Euler was a Calvinist in doctrine.  Here is an Euler quote on the subject of prayer.  I thought it was interesting as a way of squaring Calvinist belief in predestination with belief in the power of prayer.  (I have taken it from an essay by B.F. Finkel in the American Mathematical Monthly for December 1897, reproduced in a book titled The Genius of Euler, just published by the MAA, Ed. William Dunham.)  Here's Euler:

"I remark, first, that when God established the course of the universe, and arranged all the events which must come to pass in it, he paid attention to all the circumstances which should accompany each event; and particularly to the dispositions, to the desires, and prayers of every intelligent being; and that the arrangement of all events was disposed in perfect harmony with all these circumstances.  When, therefore, a man addresses God a prayer worthy of being heard it must not be imagined that such a prayer came not to the knowledge of God till the moment it was formed.  That prayer was already heard from all eternity; and if the Father of Mercies deemed it worthy of being answered, he arranged the world expressly in favor of that prayer, so that the accomplishment should be a consequence of the natural course of events.  It is thus that God answers the prayers of men without working a miracle." 

Posted on 01/18/2007 9:38 AM by John Derbyshire
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Re: Ni tout...

Odysseus, yes: Homer's, Virgil's, Dante's and Joyce's come to mind immediately.  (But not, somehow, Walcott's Omeros.)

Great mothers?  Grendles modor, of course.

Posted on 01/18/2007 9:40 AM by Robert Bove
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Sayyid Qutb and the Decadence of Square Dancing

Here's one more posting about Qutb, first put up at JW on December 24, 2005:

"You know that Qutb, the spiritual father of so many now running around in Iraq and Afghanistan today (not to mention London, Paris, and Rome), wrote his Signposts Along the Way (Ma-alim fi al-tariq) partly prompted by his disgust with the West. And that disgust was the result of two years he spent in the United States in the late 1940s. How decadent it all was, how thoroughly un-Islamic. And do you remember what it was that offended him the most? It was the horrifying spectacle of a church social, and a square dance sponsored by a church -- where American girls and boys could swing their partners and do-si-do, and try not to step on your neighbor's toe, and now promenade. The horror, the sheer horror of it!

But I recently came across in a dusty bookstore, the kind where you find in the backroom a certain forgotten book that, once you realize its contents, leads you on a frightening journey into the deep dark past, or perhaps causes you to live in fear for your life, as others, afraid of what you have discovered in that manuscript, begin to chase you down (in either case, Soon To Be A Major Motion Picture), a book that prompted me to think of Sayyid Qutb. No, I am not speaking of the Qur'an -- though some will no doubt attribute Qutb's behavior to his fervent belief in the Qur'an and Sunnah.

The book I have in mind, one which I recently bought, is called Honor Your Partner. It is described as "Eighty-one American Square, Circle and Contra Dances, with Complete Instructions for Doing Them," compiled by Ed Durlacher, with musical arrangements by Ken MacDonald and photography by Dr. Ira Zasloff. It was published by Devin-Adair in 1949, while Qutb was in this country, seeing that fiendish and insensate whirl of boy and girl. It was a sight he could never forget.

Check out the book yourself. You will not believe the things you find therein. I would like to draw your attention in particular to "A Word to the Caller" and the "rules to all dancers for a successful evening":

(1) When instructions are being given DO be quiet so that all may hear and understand.

(2) Each person will be dancing with three or more others. One person can spoil the dance for everyone by being a "showoff" or ill-mannered.

(3) Have a GOOD time.

That last -- "Have a GOOD time" -- is particularly disturbing. What would Bin Laden, what would Ayatollah Khomeini, what would al-Qaradawi, what would Hassan al-Banna, what would al-Ghazzali, what would the earliest caliphs, say about that -- "Have a GOOD Time"?

No wonder Qutb went home, intent on preaching Jihad. Don't, as is fashionable, blame American "racism." Blame those square-dance fiends. Blame all those who preach "Have a GOOD time." Blame Ed Durlacher."

Posted on 01/18/2007 9:41 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Zulu in the flea pit

Seeing this still of Stanley Baker and Michael Caine from Zulu reminded me of how picture going has changed since I first saw that film. I don’t get to the cinema (see, I even call it cinema now, not “the pictures”) much these days.  Everything I want to see seems to be timed to start too late or too early to fit in with family requirements.

Which brings me to how I first saw Zulu in the ABC on Leyton High Road in 1964. I don’t know how things worked in the US but at that time in England the system was this.

A film would be released and would show Up West in one of the prestigious London cinemas for several weeks after its premier. There were two distributors who usually had a cinema each in most London boroughs, either an ABC or an Odeon.  There were other names but the Gaumont, Coliseum or Roxy would come under one or the other distribution umbrella. Each week 2 films would leave the west end and go on general release, starting with London north of the river, for 1 week only. The next week those films spent a week in London south of the river and North London got 2 new films. After south London the films were shown in other parts of the country. No multi screen complexes or film season events.

The cinemas operated on a system of continuous showings of 2 films the A and the B, in between them was Pathe News and adverts, some local.

After the film have fish and chips at Alf’s Fish bar – only 2 minutes from this theatre.

These local adverts were only discontinued about 2 years ago in favour of national syndicating. Shame.

Nobody knew what time the main film would start, so you got to the cinema whenever was convenient, started watching and left once the programme started to repeat itself.

We arrived about an hour and a half into Zulu and the Battle of Rourkes Drift was in full swing. It was standing room only, up the back, and as soon as anyone left (“Come on dear, this is where we came in”) there was a jostle for the vacated seats. I can’t remember anything about the B film, then we watched Zulu from the beginning. And I wanted to watch the end again, to see the whole thing in context, although I couldn’t have explained it then in those terms. But my parents wanted to get home. And having been watching films in odd bits all their lives they couldn’t understand why I didn’t want to leave.  I eventually saw the film in its entirety on television years later; sadly it has not been repeated recently.

The one time I was indulged was with The Fighting Prince of Donegal.  My mother was in hospital so Dad and I couldn’t see it when it was on nearby. As a special treat Dad looked up cinemas the other side of the river (another world in those days) and we travelled across to Stockwell to see it, and I got to watch it from beginning to end. I really enjoyed it and wondered if people could own films to watch whenever they liked, if they were rich enough. 40 years later people can own films. Unfortunately The Fighting Prince of Donegal, despite being a Disney film with a good cast has never been released on DVD.  It was released for a brief period on video for the rental market only, which I missed. Very occasionally a copy comes up on Ebay, and bidding always goes beyond what I am willing to risk on elderly VHS.

If anybody from Disney reads this please release it on DVD, Susan Hampshire and Peter McEnery are still working and have a good fan base.


Posted on 01/18/2007 12:40 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Afghanis thwart terror attack

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Two civilians thwarted an attempted terrorist attack Tuesday when a vehicle loaded with explosives attempted to crash through the front gate of a U.S. base in the Afghan capital, according to the U.S. military.

The two men, an interpreter and a security guard, dragged the apparent suicide bomber from the vehicle before he could detonate explosives, said Col. Tom Collins, the chief spokesman for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.--from this news item

"The two men, an interpreter and a security guard..."

Presumably both were working for the Americans. The security guard's job was to guard that very base, I assume, and the interpreter's job was to translate from English into whatever language, among the many possiblities in Afghanistan, was spoken.

Are these, then, properly identified when they are described as "civilians" merely because they are not part of the Afghan army?

Posted on 01/18/2007 1:19 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 18 January 2007
More On Dinesh D'Souza's Book

D'Souza begins his book thus:

In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11. … In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world.

Also from this idiotic book by D'Souza:

Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage—some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice, but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left. Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.

I realize that this is a strong charge, one that no one has made before. But it is a neglected aspect of the 9/11 debate, and it is critical to understanding the current controversy over the ‘war against terrorism.’ … I intend to show that the left has actively fostered the intense hatred of America that has led to numerous attacks such as 9/11. If I am right, then no war against terrorism can be effectively fought using the left-wing premises that are now accepted doctrine among mainstream liberals and Democrats.


And the Jihad -- Col. Ojukwu's own word -- against the Nigerian Christians, that led to the 1967-1969 Biafran War -- was caused by what "cultural left" among the Ibo? Doesn't Dinesh D'Souza know that the most straitlaced and conservative Anglicans in the world are the black African Anglicans?

And what "cultural left" is on display among the Buddhist monks and schoolteachers of southern Thailand, being killed by the thousands? Have they been handing out Gramsci and Susan Sontag, and showing videos of Harvey Fierstein in those Thai one-room schoolhouses and temples? Is that what gets the Muslims into such a murderous mood?

And those Hindus murdered or driven out of Bangladesh, of Pakistan, of Kashmir -- what is that "cultural left" they must, in the vision of D'Souza, have been part of? How many subscriptions to the New Left Review go to Hindu homes in Dacca or Rawalpindi? How many secret sympathizers with that "cultural left" that is such an enemy of Islam -- you know, people like Arundhati Roy, or Ken Livingstone, well-known to send Muslims into a fury?

What a total ass this Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution turns out to be. How can a place that once had Sidney Hook and Robert Conquest as fellows continue to subsidize and permit to sully its walks someone at the level of Dinesh D'Souza, spouting such nonsense, and dangerous nonsense?

The Hoover Institution is a repository for many things, but above all other things, for material on the Russian Revolution, the emigration, and Soviet Russia. It is maintained by a smooth Development Office that obtains funds from so-called conservative contributors and their foundations. But the Cold War is no more, and the main totalitarian threat today comes from Islam, a belief-system that is naturally collectivist. It includes both a Complete Regulation of Life a Total Explanation of the Universe, and is much more than a religion, but a Way that appeals to the primitive and the primitivizing, those who seek simple answers to the universe -- as Dinesh D'Souza does.

From the Dartmouth Review days on, he has not been a thinker, but a figure in opposition to some perceived "leftist" threat or piety. Now he has gone over the edge, still thinking that Islam, the true, good, Islam that we all know -- don't we? -- is there, the Islam that is "conservative" only in the sense of not admitting change for a millennium or so, of being rigid and fixated on seventh-century Arabia and on a few biographers and jurisconsults and muhaddithin, all of whom appeared within the first few hundred years of Islam and made immutable and therefore permanent doctrines, including that which was always in Islam, that division between Believer and Infidel, and between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, about which Dinesh D'Souza appears to know so very little.

Posted on 01/18/2007 2:38 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 18 January 2007
The Border Patrol

The buzz being put out by (presumably) the White House is that the govt. feels that Ramos and Compean should do SOME time for violating their rules of engagement, but that one year's jail time will likely do it, and the President will pardon the guys next Christmas.  O'Reilly repeated this line on his show last night.  Possibly it's true.  I don't think anyone wants the agents to get off scot free; but there's an awful lot of distance between an administrative reprimand and twelve years in the slammer.

What has really outraged people is the effort and resources poured into this case by the feds, by comparison with the effort and resources so conspicuously NOT poured into enforcing immigration laws.  However theoretically justifiable considered in isolation, the full court press on Ramos and Compean is just grossly disproportionate to federal efforts in other areas of the immigration issue.  That's what really has people ticked off—that, and the smirking face of the Mexican drug smuggler who is apparently our Justice Department's pet foreigner of the month.

I have heard, but been unable to confirm, that during court proceedings the prosecutor told the jury that Ramos and Compean had "turned their back on their own people."  If that is true, it is absolutely scandalous, coming from a federal prosecutor.  I should very much like to see it confirmed or denied dispositively.  Can anyone locate the court transcripts?

Posted on 01/18/2007 3:11 PM by John Derbyshire
Thursday, 18 January 2007
So young. So innocent. So deadly.

Speaking of creepy eyes.

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, we all went to sleep, every one of us.  When we awoke and looked around, the streets of our little village were filled with hostile, alien children.  

Repeat after me:  It's only a movie.  It's only a movie.  It's only a movie. 

Posted on 01/18/2007 3:03 PM by Robert Bove
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Bringing Hope and Order

Twenty years ago, or thirty, one was told -- and one believed -- that the Nation of Islam was a Good Thing. It was good because it gave its followers discipline. They wore dark suits, white shirts. They even wore ties. They were not gang members. They did not deal drugs. What else could one ask for?

There is Mussolini, waving his arms, pugnacious and prognathic, Il Granitico orating from the balcony of the Palazzo Venezia, overlooking the Piazza Venezia, and never mind the killing of Matteotti or many other brave Socialist and Republican mayors (to the Dinesh D'Souzas of the day, the expendable "left"). Mussolini would bring Hope. He would bring Order (here are the cute little black-shirted boys of the balilla, just like the black-balaclaved bezonians, all Qur'an and Kalashnikovs, goose-stepping through the boulevards of Beirut and Gaza, and points east, west, north, and south if we were to fall for the Dinesh D'Souza view of things). But Mussolini stood for The Family. He promoted Family Values. He stood for the Farmer -- he promoted the old rustic values. He stood for the Worker, and drained the swamps, and made those trains run on time: il Rapido, il Rapidissimo.

And don't forget Adolf Hitler, offering Hope to those sickened by the chaos and disorder of Weimar Germany, "decadent" Weimar Germany, with Brecht and Lotte Lenya (yes, a former streetwalker) and those nightclubs, and those Grosz and Kirschner drawings making fun of our hardworking capitalist princes and our straight-thinking bourgeoisie). Join Hitlerjugend und march, march, march together, always together. Make your salutes Together. Think the same thoughts -- Together. Be orderly, be mannerly, be Clean In thought, word, and deed, as Hitler and the Party require.

Nothing to worry Dinesh D'Souza about any of that. Nothing of the messy "cultural left" in any of that.

His view is dangerous, and so is he -- if not yet in esse, quite, still he is now seen to be so in posse. And the Conservative Book Club, in selecting his book, and all those who treat him with respect, are similarly deserving of much more than a raised eyebrow.

Posted on 01/18/2007 3:14 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Victory in Iraq

Winning in Iraq is important. And we need a return on our investment: 3,000 dead, nearly 25,000 wounded, about $700 billion so far spent or committed in future unavoidable costs, with estimates for the total ranging between $1 trillion and $2 trillion.

And winning can only be done if the definition of "victory" is first made clear.

What is the correct definition of "victory" for the United States? It is the Camp of Islam and Jihad rendered weaker than it was before? The Administration keeps saying that bringing "democracy" itself somehow weakens the appeal of what it inaccurately describes as "extremists who have hijacked a great religion," but since those "extremists" or merely the more religious and less secular have only increased their power whenever free elections have been held -- in Algeria, in Egypt, in the "Palestinian"-controlled territories -- the clash of theory and reality is never explained. How can the Camp of Islam be weakened if American efforts are directed at ensuring a united, stable, and prosperous Iraq?

And if that impossible goal were somehow attained after another few years of expensive and depleting American efforts and expense, and focus remains on Iraq while every other matter is somehow pushed to the back or the side, including that of Iran's steady nuclear project, how would this Iraq serve as a Model? How could an Iraq that was once the place of the Abbasid Caliphate be lost to the Shi'a? After all, that was where so much of that "glorious Islamic past" upon which Muslims like to dwell took place. It is a place so important to their sense of themselves and their rightful role in the universe, that if it were lost by the Sunni Arabs and came to be dominated by the Shi'a, those "Persians," those Rafidite dogs, this would be worse in the eyes of both the Egyptian press and Saudi clerics than Jews and Christians dominating Iraq. Yes, that's just how bad those Shi'a are.

How would the achievement of the stated goals of the Bush Administration in Iraq weaken the Camp of Islam?

The way to weaken the Camp of Islam, and thus to justify the incredible expense in men, money, matériel, and morale both civilian and military, is to allow a situation within Iraq to be created (and still better if that situation is entirely a creation of the people in Iraq -- not "the Iraqis" who do not exist – themselves) in which Muslims who would otherwise be waging jihad against us are divided and demoralized. This will weaken the Camp of Islam. Two of the three major fissures within Islam -- sectarian and ethnic -- are pre-existing conditions. Their origins can be found in the first century of Islam.

The ethnic fissure is that between Arabs and Kurds. The Americans did not cause the mistreatment of the Kurds by both kinds of Arabs, but a not-impossible Kurdish state would serve American interests in two ways. It could weaken both Syria and Iran, that have circumjacent Kurdish populations. And in the case of Iran, not only Iranian Kurds but other non-Persian minorities (Arabs, Azeris, Baluchis) might be inspired by an independent Kurdistan. And the very existence of an independent Kurdistan could have effects far beyond the immediate area for other non-Arabs, including Berbers in North Africa and black Africans in Darfur. They might be heartened by the example of a non-Arab Muslim people throwing off the Arab yoke. And in the "war of ideas" that some like to refer to, anything that reveals Islam to have been and to remain a vehicle of Arab imperialism, cultural, linguistic, economic, and political, is to be encouraged -- so that non-Arab Muslims will begin to view Islam in a new, more accurate, less attractive and more disturbing light.

The much larger fissure is that between Sunni and Shi'a. It goes back to the seventh century and the proper succession, after the Four Rightly-Guided Caliphs, to Muhammad. But it became a difference in ritual and in some doctrines as well, though not in the teachings about, and attitudes exhibited, toward non-Muslims. This too was not encouraged by the Americans. The war being conducted on Shi'a by Sunnis centuries ago led to the former adopting the doctrine of taqiyya (which is now essentially practiced by Sunni Muslims as well, relying on Qur'an and Hadith for justification), that is, religiously-sanctioned dissimulation about the faith. Sunni-Shi'a tensions, and Sunni discrimination against or persecution of the Shi'a, including deliberate campaigns of murder as in both Iraq and in Pakistan, will go on whatever the Americans do. These tensions can be seen in Saudi Arabia, in Pakistan, in Lebanon, in Bahrain, in Kuwait.

The "victory" in Iraq that would result from the continuation, and enlargement, even beyond Iraq's borders, of ethnic and sectarian hostilities and warfare within the Camp of Islam, is the only kind of "victory" that makes sense. And though it was made possible by the removal of the iron regime and mailed fist of Saddam Hussein, the conditions that cause those fissures were none of America's doing. All the Americans have done is try to prevent the very things that they should be deliberately not preventing, but exploiting.

A topsy-turvy strategy. A crazy quilt of plans and counter-plans that miss the essential point.

Posted on 01/18/2007 3:37 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Re: Take a Pair of Sparkling Eyes

A reader writes me re Mary's earlier post: "If those two dead-eyed guys were horses, they'd be shot."

Posted on 01/18/2007 3:52 PM by Robert Bove
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Abu Hamza must pay £1m for trial

More good news.

Jailed radical Islamic cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri has been told to pay back more than £1m in legal aid spent defending him against race-hate charges.

The cleric was jailed for seven years in February 2006 for soliciting to murder and inciting racial hatred.

A judge at the Old Bailey said Abu Hamza might not be able to pay, but the decision would allow the Legal Services Commission to seize his assets. He accused the London-based cleric of lying about his financial interests.

Lord Justice Hughes made the order for the recovery of the full costs of the defence. This will allow the Legal Services Commission to apply to seize a £220,000 house in Greenford, west London, which Abu Hamza had claimed belonged to his sister.

The court was told that Abu Hamza's defence solicitors were seeking to recover costs of just over £1m but the judge warned that sum could rise. 

Posted on 01/18/2007 3:54 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Watch This Space

"I have waited in the last 6 months for you to say this."-- from a reader referring to this post

But I've been boringly repeating the same thing on the matter of Iraq, even deliberately repeating the same fixed phrases, for the past three years -- since the begining of 2004. Go back into the Archives at JW and look around.

And over the past six months how many have said the same thing? A hundred postings? Two hundred?

But that's okay. If you missed it the first 200 times, or thousand times, here it is again. And it will be posted here at NER again.

Watch This Space.

Posted on 01/18/2007 4:08 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Showing 1-26 of 30 [Next 25]

Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:
The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31    

Via: email  RSS