The BBC is Confused (Again).

Some times I think the BBC's site has been secretly hacked by The Onion. Or maybe they're just stupid, or maybe like most of the MSM, the BBC long ago gave up any pretence of professional journalism. Have a look at this story entitled "Confusion Over Iran's Intentions".

Right. There's a confession of complete journalistic incompetence. Iran, daily and in no certain terms, advises the world of its intentions. The confusion results from the refusal to take the mullahs and their squinting tool of a President at the plain meaning of their words.

Here's the Supreme Grand Poobah:""In case the enemies of Iran intend to use force and violence and act illegally, without a doubt the Iranian nation and officials will use all their capabilities to strike the invading enemies."

Now what exactly was confusing about the intentions expressed in that remark?

Here's the BBC:"It was an oddly defiant and hostile tone to strike for a new year speech." Well, no. Actually, that's the voice of sweet reason compared to the usual fire-and-blood. Perhaps the BBC is just indulging in a bit of British understatement.

Iran

What's this about? My own opinion is that when you add Ahmadi-Nejad's cancellation,the developingdust-up with the Brits, and the Iranians' continuous softening up of public opinion since last May for the inevitable withdrawal from the Non Proliferation Treaty and you come to the conclusion that Tehran has already decided that war is inevitable and probably imminent.

"Leaders" (and whacked out millenarian fanatics) like Ahmadi-Nejad don't lightly give up a chance to beard the Great Satan in his own living room. Think Khrushchev with his shoe pounding, Arafat with his pistol, Castro in his fatigues and Chavez with his comedy act.

Things could start going bang in the night very, very soon. This won't end well.

Autumn reruns

I was back over some old posts and found this one. I quite like it and I think it's still true. Those who defend Islamic racism need to consider just how much they personally are prepared to alter their behaviour in order to accomodate Muslim sensibilities.

"As some of my dissembling commentators know perfectly well, I'm not in the least concerned with private behavior. To clarify for the morally clueless: Are you, personally, prepared to give up drinking alcohol,eating pork or keeping a pet dog; if a woman, are you prepared to cover yourself from neck to ankle in public; if you are gay,are you prepared to go WAY back in the closet; or, if unmarried, to give up public displays of affection? Well, are you?

And those are just the things that offend moderate Muslims.

Why is it that people who have insisted on making a human rights issue out of the public display and public acceptance of their lifestyle at all times and in all places regardless of the offense caused are suddenly so reticent when it comes to Islamist sensibilities? Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Blowhard Fatigue

First Al Gore, now Prince Charlie. It must be the week for hyperwealthy blowhards to tell the rest of us how to be virtuous. I've always known that underneath the liar (invented the Internet, inspired Eric Segal to write Love Story) and the lunatic (remember ALpha Male and Tipper's televised tonsil massage)lay gross hypocrisy.

Prince Charles, product of centuries of careful inbreeding, says why not just ban McDonald's? Very regal of you Chuck, shall we have them drawn and quartered as well?

This all began, at least in its modern, media friendly form with the arch-hypocrite John Lennon. I never liked the idea of some zillionaire stoner with a pink Rolls Royce and a nice piece of Manhattan real estate telling anyone else to "imagine no possessions".