BBC CAUGHT OUT AGAIN

It is to be expected that the far-Leftists at the BBC would be hostile to the monarchy. It is a tribute to the Queen that she has given them no real ammunition



THE BBC has apologised to Queen Elizabeth for wrongly implying that she had stormed out of a photo shoot with American celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz. The British broadcaster backtracked on its implication that the monarch had lost her temper when asked to remove her crown.

The story became headline news around the world after a promotional trailer for a BBC documentary A Year with the Queen, due to be shown later this year, was shown to journalists. "In this trailer there is a sequence that implies that the Queen left a sitting prematurely," it said. "This was not the case and the actual sequence of events was misrepresented. "The BBC would like to apologise to both the Queen and Annie Leibowitz for any upset this may have caused."

Source

***************************

The Mind Of Modern Liberals

Their "ethics" are just a pretense. Power is the only thing they believe in

Of course, if anyone should need no convincing that withdrawal would be unethical, it is modern liberals. For it is they who, in their rhetoric, advocate the most sweeping ethics-based restrictions on the conduct of foreign policy. The record of modern liberalism is another story, as witness its penchant for defending tyrants, from totalizing ideologues such as Stalin and Mao to machete-wielding, "anti-colonialist" jungle thugs. Where war is concerned, however, liberal impulses are consistently pacifistic. The post-Vietnam Left looks upon all war as morally suspect for the reason that it maims and kills innocent people. So deep does this feeling run in liberal bones that the Left has opposed using force even against regimes which flagrantly violate human rights, and even when overwhelming strategic reasons to topple these regimes have emerged. (The most obvious recent case is the adulteress- and homosexual-murdering Taliban.)

If liberals took their rhetoric seriously, the politicians aligned most closely with the pacifist Left - Nancy Pelosi being the paradigmatic example - would suffer insomnia each night as they contemplated the probable human cost of U.S. failure in Iraq. They would recognize that their moral opposition to starting this war - or even a universalized opposition to starting any war - is consistent with the view that there are compelling moral reasons to continue it. More: that if the war was unjust, we have a unique interest in minimizing its harms, just as one feels a special obligation of kindness toward a person one has offended. Instead we have Mrs. Pelosi voting with the majority of her caucus for immediate withdrawal.

These votes would be defensible, and consistent with liberal principles, if it were true either that the U.S. could do nothing to win the war, or that pulling out of Iraq would - cue deus ex machina - improve its security. In the latter case, withdrawal would be morally and not just strategically desirable; in the former, we would have no alternative but to withdraw and feel a guilt commensurate to the weight of the resultant catastrophe. Neither of these claims is plausible, or borne out by recent events (there is a reason the Iraqi government is begging us to stay). This may be why Pelosi and her Democrats make no argument for them.

Their apparent indifference to the consequences of their votes only highlights their immorality: for the case that withdrawal would destroy Iraq is a compelling one, and in any event it is the advocate of the new policy who must prove that it will not come at an unbearable cost. The most charitable thing that can be said of the Democratic majority is that it is morally thoughtless, in which case it is committing the political equivalent of criminal negligence. If it has its way and Iraq survives, it will have been lucky, not good. And if, as is more probable, our worst fears come true, then it will have been something else altogether.

Source

***********************

ELSEWHERE



A good example for the TSA from Canada: "Air travellers in Canada who make comments about bombs and guns will from now on only be arrested if it is clear they are making a serious threat, officials have said. The Canadian Air Transport Safety Authority, trying to clamp down on screeners who alert police every time they hear alarming words, has issued a bulletin urging staff to show more discretion. A person who announces "You better look through my suitcase carefully, because there's a bomb in there", "I am going to set fire to this airplane with this blowtorch" or "The man in seat 32F has a machine gun" will still be arrested. But someone who remarks "Your hockey team is going to get bombed (badly beaten) tonight", "Hi Jack!" or "You don't need to frisk me, I'm not carrying a weapon" will first be warned about their behaviour"

Farm folly: "America's prodigiously productive farmers are never more so than when a minority of them are cultivating Capitol Hill. Their lobbyists have toiled to preserve the New Deal approach. They stress the romance of the family farm, but their fog of sentimentality obscures pertinent facts: Fifty-seven percent of farms receive no payments; two-thirds of those that do receive less than $10,000. The largest 8 percent of farms receive 58 percent of the payments. Farms with revenues of $250,000 or more receive payments averaging $70,000. Lugar wants to redirect the flow of federal funds, from subsidizing favored crops to rural development, because fewer than 14 percent of residents in rural areas work on farms. Under the continuing New Deal approach, five commodities - corn, soybeans, cotton, rice and wheat - got about 90 percent of last year's $19 billion in subsidies. This is a perverse incentive for overproduction of the five, which depresses prices, which triggers federal supports."

Byrd and Clinton want to surrender: "I will not mince words. The call to bring our troops home from Iraq is nothing short of a surrender that will move the theater of war from Baghdad to the streets of the United States. Unlike Vietnam, the enemy will follow our soldiers home. On Sunday, the New York Times called for a surrender in Iraq. In so doing, the newspaper abandoned any pretense of liberalism, of decency and of compassion for one's fellow man. Consider this passage in its lengthy editorial: "There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs." Got that? The editors of the New York Times think it is OK to slaughter anyone in Iraq who worked with Americans and gives the approval to "even genocide" in its call for the immediate withdrawal of American forces as soon as the Pentagon can distribute the white flags to its soldiers."

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here

****************************

"Why should the German be interested in the liberation of the Jew, if the Jew is not interested in the liberation of the German?... We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time... In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.... Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade... Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist". Who said that? Hitler? No. It was Karl Marx. See also here and here and here.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party".

****************************