It smelled great when I was there

A friend emailed this one, about which she's as baffled as I:
Foul Smell Encircles London

Of course you know who the Brits will blame:

U.K. Media Blames France, but Meterologists Say French Not Responsible

It was so bad, (How bad was it?)

Even the Queen was bothered:

Not even the queen was spared, as newspapers reported that Windsor Castle also suffered from the effects of the putrid smell.

Sheesh! At least the national pride remain intact:

The foul smell was not English, Sarah Holland, a forecaster for the Met Office told the BBC. "The origins of the smell come from Europe," she said.

Here it goes:

British tabloid, The Daily Mail was quick to attack the French for "le stink," reporting that "freak weather" had caused the "French stench" to come to England.

Pepe le Pew?

Alors, non!

according to Helen Chivers, a forecaster at the Met Office, the smell actually came across "from Northern Europe."

Is something rotten in the state of Denmark?

In other French news, Illegal workers
French government wants them out, firms and unions do not.
And the Chinese are po'd at France's suppoort of Tibetan independence.



Share on Facebook

Saturday classic movie: In Which We Serve

Last night for some reason I woke up in the middle of the night and they were playing Noel Coward's excellent film, In Which We Serve, the story of men in the Royal Navy during World War II.

It is a remarkable movie, in many ways, not just because both David Lean and Noel Coward made their directorial film debuts (with David Lean doing most of the work), or because (at least according to Wikipedia)

The Royal Navy deemed Coward's film so authentic, that for the remainder of World War II, future recruits were made to watch the movie as an introduction to Navy life.

What makes In Which We Serve so extraordinary is that it illustrates what the spirit that won World War II was about.

The movie came out in the middle of the War, and there was no guessing who would win. But the commitment of the British was total. That In Which We Serve is Britain. The movie fully illustrates this with the story of the men and women living through the war.

This morning I was also talking to Cassandra, one of the ladies of the Cotillion, and we discussed how different things are now. The notion of a film supporting the war; a film that shows with dignity a hymn, a prayer and a Christmas Carol; a film where people get married because the man is going away to war and may not come back (now they'd just hook up and get it over with); and especially, where the Prime Minister's words are shown with respect and support, is nearly inconceivable.

It's certainly inconceivable to the Hollywood crowd.

The present-day Hollywood crowd, while understanding that there is a war going on, and words are as powerful as weapons, prefers to believe, with the support of the media, of course, that "it's hard to make a feel-good war movie when a country's reputation falls as its body count rises." To them it doesn't matter what the numbers or the news might be.

And imagine, if you will, a modern-day film concluding with these final words,

Here ends the story of a ship, but there will always be other ships; we are an island race, through all our centuries the sea has ruled our destiny. There will always be other ships and men to sail in them. It is these men, in peace or war, to whom we owe so much. Above all victories, beyond all loss, in spite of changing values and a changing world they give to us, their countrymen, eternal and indominitable pride.

The PC crowd would have it banned (think Piglet), much more so if they would have listened to the star/writer/director singing,

We must be kind
And with an open mind
We must endeavour to find
A way-
To let the Germans know that when the war is over
They are not the ones who'll have to pay.
We must be sweet-
And tactful and discreet
And when they've suffered defeat
We mustn't let
Them feel upset
Or ever get
The feeling that we're cross with them or hate them,
Our future policy must be to reinstate them.

Refrain 1

Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
When our victory is ultimately won,
It was just those nasty Nazis who persuaded them to fight
And their Beethoven and Bach are really far worse than their bite
Let's be meek to them-
And turn the other cheek to them
And try to bring out their latent sense of fun.
Let's give them full air parity-
And treat the rats with charity,
But don't let's be beastly to the Hun.

Verse 2

We must be just-
And win their love and trust
And in additon we must
Be wise
And ask the conquered lands to join our hands to aid them.
That would be a wonderful surprise.
For many years-
They've been in floods of tears
Because the poor little dears
Have been so wronged and only longed
To cheat the world,
Deplete the world
And beat
The world to blazes.
This is the moment when we ought to sing their praises.

Refrain 2

Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
When we've definately got them on the run-
Let us treat them very kindly as we would a valued friend
We might send them out some Bishops as a form of lease and lend,
Let's be sweet to them-
And day by day repeat to them
That 'sterilization' simply isn't done.
Let's help the dirty swine again-
To occupy the Rhine again,
But don't let's be beastly to the Hun.

Refrain 3

Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
When the age of peace and plenty has begun.
We must send them steel and oil and coal and everything they need
For their peaceable intentions can be always guaranteed.
Let's employ with them a sort of 'strength through joy' with them,
They're better than us at honest manly fun.
Let's let them feel they're swell again and bomb us all to hell again,
But don't let's be beastly to the Hun.

Refrain 4

Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
For you can't deprive a ganster of his gun
Though they've been a little naughty to the Czechs and Poles and Dutch
But I don't suppose those countries really minded very much
Let's be free with them and share the B.B.C. with them.
We mustn't prevent them basking in the sun.
Let's soften their defeat again-and build their bloody fleet again,
But don't let's be beastly to the Hun.

Coward, as you can hear in the clip, wrote the song "as a satire directed against a small minority of excessive humanitarians, who, in my opinion, were taking a rather too tolerant view of our enemies".

By the way, the Beeb banned the song.

------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Johnson, who played Noel Coward's wife in In Which We Serve, is my candidate for best film actress ever. She repeatedly played the wife, and was excellent in the very funny Captain's Paradise with Alec Guiness.

Celia Johnson starred in my most favorite film of all time, Brief Encounter, another movie where duty is the main theme.

Here's the final scene:


Here's a nice biography of Celia Johnson:

In Which We Serve was her first feature movie:

In 1941 Celia made a film for the Ministry of Information called A Letter Home. This was followed in 1942 by In Which We Serve, in which she plays Noel Coward's wife. She was cast in this role after approaching Noel (who was an acquaintance) and boldly saying she wanted the part. Such forwardness was very out of character, but was a fortuitous move as it brought her together with the young up and coming film director David Lean, who was later to direct Brief Encounter.

And in real life Celia wore glasses.

Technorati: Noel Coward
Share on Facebook

Melanie Phillips on the new British anti-Semitism

At City Journal, Britain's Anti-Semitic Turn:

But a subtler reason exists for Britain's embrace of the new anti-Semitism. After the Second World War, the radical Left set out to destroy the fundamentals of Western morality, but its campaign played out very differently in America and Britain. In America, it resulted in the culture wars, with conservatives, many churches, and sensible liberals launching a vigorous counterattack in defense of Western moral values—and, as it happened, Israel.

Exhausted by two world wars, shattered by the loss of empire, and hollowed out by the failure of the Church of England or a substantial body of intellectuals and elites to hold the line, Britain was uniquely vulnerable to the predations of the Left. The institutions that underpinned truth and morality - the traditional family and an education system that transmitted the national culture - collapsed. Britain's monolithic intelligentsia soon embraced postmodernism, multiculturalism, victim culture, and a morally inverted hegemony of ideas in which the values of marginalized or transgressive groups replaced the values of the purportedly racist, oppressive West.

Further, people across the political spectrum became increasingly unable to make moral distinctions based on behavior. This erasing of the line between right and wrong produced a tendency to equate, and then invert, the roles of terrorists and of their victims, and to regard self-defense as aggression and the original violence as understandable and even justified. That attitude is, of course, inherently antagonistic to Israel, which was founded on the determination never to allow another genocide of Jews, to defend itself when attacked, and to destroy those who would destroy it. But for the Left, powerlessness is virtue; better for Jews to die than to kill, because only as dead victims can they be moral.

And this general endorsement of surrender feeds straight into a subterranean but potent resentment simmering in Europe. For over 60 years, a major tendency in European thought has sought to distance itself from moral responsibility for the Holocaust. The only way to do so, however, was somehow to blame the Jews for their own destruction; and that monstrous reasoning was inconceivable while the dominant narrative was of Jews as victims.

Now, however, the Palestinians have handed Europe a rival narrative. The misrepresentation of Israeli self-defense as belligerence, suggesting that Jews are not victims but aggressors, implicitly provides Europeans with the means to blame the destruction of European Jewry on its own misdeeds. As one influential left-wing editor said to me: "The Holocaust meant that for decades the Jews were untouchable. It’s such a relief that Israel means we don't have to worry about that any more."

Read it all, and don't miss Melanie Phillips.com

Late afternoon blogging: Kathleen Ferrier

During this afternoon's class the professor played Blow the Wind Southerly a folk song made popular in the UK by Kathleen Ferrier. I couldn't find a YouTube for it, but here are the lyrics:

Blow the wind Southerly,
Southerly, Southerly,
Blow the wind
South o'er the bonnie blue sea.
Blow the wind Southerly,
Southerly, Southerly
Blow bonnie breeze,
My true lover to me.

They told me last night
There were ships in the offing
And I hurried down
To the deep rolling sea.
But my eye could not see it
Wherever might be it,
The bark that is bearing
My lover to me.

Here's Ferrier singing Handel:

Saturday blogging: the Doody faggots

Here's the Doody family who in spite of their last name, which would have brought chuckles from every preschooler in our area, look very nice:

So nice, they've been crowned The Faggot Family, and

to kick off their reign they will launch National Faggot Week.

which is sponsored by Mr. Brain's faggots.

No, not this Mr. Brain.

Fred Doody, the dad, basks in his enthusiasm for the great British faggot:

"The great British faggot is full of flavour and a great belly warmer at this time of year."

I'll make a mental note of that, since I've never had a great British faggot (at least not to the best of my knowledge), but I really liked spotted dick.

Mr. Doody's not alone; the Beeb article states, "Fans have published the Good Faggot Guide".

Go on...grab some faggots for tea tonight

Update, Sunday 15 April: A friend sent two recipes for spotted dick:
the The Foody's, and the Beeb's which has two parts, the dick and the custard.

No, I didn't need to make any of this up.


Technorati tags faggots, food

Of prawns and pawns

Yesterday around noon I was meeting a friend while trying to navigate the very noisy lobby of the Museum of Modern Art, which was packed to the gills with a very wet crowd of loud people on Easter Break who had ventured in the cold rain. The place felt like an airport the day before Thanksgiving, only with no departures, just arrivals.

My friend and I finally found each other and since the MoMA was mobbed with the crowd we decided to have lunch across the street at Gattopardo. We rushed out of the noisy MoMA across the noisy and rainy cold street, walked into the restaurant and were warmly greeted into a sanctuary of elegant quiet and excellent food.

I had a most excellent plate of prawns that must have come from Paradise. They were that good.

To make a long story short, I had a wonderful afternoon and was totally unaware of anything in the news until evening, when I was reading this post from Siggy (who's as fond of Bond as I am of Bryn). Siggy said,

Mahmoud Ahmadenijad's 'pardon' and release of those 15 British sailors and marines is no more a gesture of Iran's inherent 'goodness' than were Adolph Hitler's displays of affection for his dog - and it is important that we understand that.

Until then I had not heard that Mahmoud Ahmadenijad had been saying that he had pardoned the hostages.

Shortly after, the BBC newscast showed Tony Blair talking about "how much he respects the Iranians".

I couldn't believe my ears.

Yes, the hostages were not yet out of Iran, but for Blair to stoop down to praising a culture of shame with his respect was beyond belief. The same culture of shame who for two weeks publically paraded and humiliated IN COMPLETE DISREGARD OF GENEVA CONVENTIONS PROTOCOL fifteen members of the British forces.

Make no mistake, the hostages were political prisoners and as such were humiliated. For an explanation of this point, listen to the Sanity Squad, and listen to what Siggy had to say about the videos of the hostages.

By expressing his respect, Tony Blair, who apparently got gelded along the way, became a pawn.

Margaret Thatcher would have "pardoned" Ahmadenijad's grubby little butt into the ground from the get-go.

But we live in different times.

While we stand on the shoulders of giants like Thatcher and Reagan and are able to feast on prawns while we still can, undoubtedly because of the sacrifice of people like the hostages, the Democrats have ended the war on terror by banishing the term, because the

Democratic leadership doesn't like the phrase.

(h/t Alcibiades).

Mind you, I don't like the term either, and would definitely prefer to call it the war on Caliphate Islam. But that won't suit the Democrat mindset, whose delicate sensibilites has them doing anti-terror drills against Christians (during Lent, no less), just a few miles away from here. Because of course we don't want to upset Muslims

The real story is that it has become acceptable to discriminate against Christians with bigoted characterizations that portray them as gun wielding psycho killers. Such bigotry is a common occurrence in film, on TV and the internet, in schools and in city halls across America. Newspapers cover such stories with zest and a certain sense of shoulder shrugging normalcy.

Instead of the war on terror, we now have 'The War That Must Not Be Named'.

That way we can digest our prawns with ease. While my friend and I found temporary shelter from the daily grind at a lovely restaurant, the Dems are seeking permanent shelter from reality through a linguistic trick. This has become part and parcel of their grab for power.

The Dem's grab for power at any price includes having Nancy playing pretend at being Secretary of State, making new friends with our enemies, lying about our friends, and veiling herself with an Hermes scarf,

The Reform Party of Syria, which is not playing pretend because it can not afford to, explains what's really behind the veil:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was seen roaming the streets of Damascus flaunting a Hijab. The Hijab worn by women across the Muslim world has come to symbolize either one of three things: 1) a symbol that men control women by forcing piety, or 2) a return to religiosity because of oppressive rulers, or 3) a fashion statement. If you ask any expert on the Middle East, you would get any one of three answers. The ones who usually claim it is a fashion statement are the political rulers who usually oppress people in general. A Hijab is NOT a confirmation of the rights of women in the Middle East but rather a symbol of their suppression.

At least Siggy was able to look at the bright side,

she could have been photograped wearing a Palestinian keffiyah.

Because a pawn is a pawn is a pawn no matter how expensive a scarf she wears.

Special thanks to Maria and Larwyn.
Update: Pratfall in Damascus
(Note To those who asked, my friend's a vegetarian - she had the spinach)

Technorati tags Nancy Pelosi

The Falklands, the Iranians, and Britain's provocative weakness

In yesterday's podcast my guest Monica Showalter discussed the renewed claim Argentina's making over the Falklands Islands.

As I posted earlier, these renewed claim can not be seen as an isolated incident. Last week, after the Iranians took the 15 hostages two weeks ago, Argentina unilaterally scrapped an oil and gas exploration treaty with the UK. All indicators point to Argentina taking advantage of Britain's weakness.

Monica stressed the point that,

This Argentina-Iran axis is a completely odd coincidence... Iran has injured Argentina, too.

While it's arguably an odd coincidence, it's not an illogical one. The government in Argentina continues to have huge problems, and rehashing this old Brits-against-us enmity on an anniversary can serve a purpose.

Twenty-five years ago the old conflict was a double-edge sword:

Monica's editorial in today's Investor's Business Daily explains what happened after the Argentineans invaded the Falklands:

Led by the dauntless Lady Thatcher, the Falklands victory kept Britain and her territories safe from other military predators in subsequent decades. The United Nations Charter, which Argentina and Britain both signed, guaranteed that every nation, regardless of ancient claims, was entitled to its current territorial sovereignty, and Britain's victory underlined that.

The junta's attack on the only territory in the region characterized by rule of law — Britain's — was no accident. Its successful defense also heralded the first flowering of democracy in South America after decades of fascist military rule.

Thatcher's victory sent shock waves that toppled Argentina's notorious Dirty War generals. Their brutal air force had already hurled 30,000 Argentine dissidents out of airplanes over the South Atlantic. Only after its loss in the Falklands did Argentina become a democracy and the venal nationalist rationale of the junta become clear.

The repercussions of one action resonated much more profoundly than the act of the defeated invasion itself, both for the countries involved, and for South America.

That was then.

This is now, and the stakes are much higher:

Predators like Iran's mullahs and their ally in the region, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, are already stirring up trouble.

Chavez is urging Argentina to press anew its Falklands claims. He may also be encouraging another invasion. British MPs are warning that the Argentine government has "adopted a more aggressive stance" than diplomacy.

Meanwhile, Chavez is threatening one of Britain's former colonies, Guyana, where Venezuela has a 19th-century claim on half the territory.

On Monday he raised the stakes by threatening to cut off oil to the U.S. if it acts against Iran for its U.K. hostage-taking.

Meanwhile, British embassies came under siege a day apart. In Tehran, the embassy was engulfed on Sunday by violent "student" protests. And on Monday in Caracas, the embassy was cleared out after an Argentine-accented man called in a bomb threat on the Falklands anniversary.

If Argentina demands that Britain hand back the Falklands at the same time Venezuela moves on Guyana, Britain will face a severe test. But it will have no one to blame but itself.

Read the whole article.

After you do, ponder how Hezbollah, which is ideologically and politically close to Iran, has established itself in Latin America.

Whether the Argentineans are thinking about Hezbollah remains to be seen, but undoubtedly Hezbollah will do its outmost to take advantage of the situation. And don't think America won't be affected.

Go tell it to the Iranians, Hans; and today's other items

Former U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix will present a lecture titled "Is It Time for a Revival of Disarmament?" at PU this afternoon. If Hans had guts, he'd be speaking at Tehran University: Iran announces suspension of co-operation with UN nuclear watchdog

But then, the Q&A session would involve Name, Rank and Serial Number.

In other Iranian news, US Troops Would Have Fought Iranian Captors
------------------------------------------------------
Via Blue Star Chronicles, Arab Sources: Shalit Will Die If a Rescue is Attempted

The UN will send a strongly-worded letter, of course.
------------------------------------------------------
Read Cinnamon Stillwell's From Kandahar to Congress: Interview with Retired U.S. Army LTC. Allen B. West

Q: What do you see as the single most important issue facing America in the 21st Century?

Sun Tzu once stated, "Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated." America must regain a sense of herself. If we do not embrace our core beliefs, defend them and educate our generations about them, then this great experiment of government of the people, by the people and for the people will perish from this earth.

------------------------------------------------------
SoCal Pundit notices how the media's Slapping Make-Up On The Pig That Is Organized Labor
------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Phillips writes about The enslavement of history (emphasis added)

...The whole point of this anniversary was that Britain took a historic lead in challenging and stopping it.

This initiative, which sprang from Christian principles about the equality and dignity of every human being, gave the lead for other similar movements against slavery around the western world.

Furthermore, it did not merely abolish the British slave trade, but provided the template for a host of other social reform movements during the 19th century, from the democratic franchise to votes for women and the abolition of child labour, along with the great campaigns against poverty, drinking and prostitution.

The anti-slavery movement was thus nothing less than the motor of social justice and decency with which Britain came to be identified. It forged a sense of collective conscience, encapsulating the belief that society could be changed for the better and evil deeds resisted — the belief which lies at the very heart of progressive politics and a civilised society.

Of course the Beeb had some guy asking for the payment of reparation$$$. I'm sure he expects to be one of the beneficiaries.

From Catherine, to Henry

Theodore Dalrymple was commenting on the complete absence of any religious sentiment or reference on tombstones at a parish churchyard, and ended his article with (emphasis added),

Katherine of Aragon's last letter to the man she considered still, and always, her husband:

My most dear lord, king and husband,
The hour of my death now approaching, I cannot choose but out of the love I bear for you, advise you of your soul's health, which you ought to prefer before all considerations of the world or flesh whatsoever. For which you have cast me into many calamities, and your self into many troubles. But I forgive you all, and pray God do so likewise. For the rest, I commend unto you Mary, our daughter, beseeching you to be a good father to her, as I have heretofore desired. I must entreat you also, to respect my maids, and give them in marriage, which is not much, they being but three; and to all my other servants, a year's pay, besides their due, lest otherwise they should be unprovided for; lastly, I make this vow, that mine eyes desire you above all things. Farewell.
Katherine, Queene of England

Catherine of Aragon was married to Henry VIII for 24 years.

As was the rule, due to her circumstances her first marriage was arranged for entirely political motives: Since she was the youngest surviving daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, her parents had arranged her marriage with Arthur, oldest son and heir to Henry VII of England, which she married when she was 16, in 1501. After Arthur died six months later,

The English king was interested in keeping Catherine's dowry, so 14 months after her husband's death, she was betrothed to the future Henry VIII, who was too young to marry at the time.

By 1505, when Henry was old enough to wed, Henry VII wasn't as keen on a Spanish alliance, and young Henry was forced to repudiate the betrothal. Catherine's future was uncertain for the next four years. When Henry VII died in 1509 and one of the new young king's actions was to marry Catherine. She was finally crowned Queen of England in a joint coronation ceremony with her husband Henry VIII on June 24, 1509.

We've all seen enough movies and PBS series to know this was a harsh man to be married to.

The reason Henry didn't dispose of Catherine the way he did with Anne Boleyn and Kathryn Howard was because Catherine's siblings were respectively the king of Spain and the queen of Portugal, and her nephew was emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, and they would have declared war.

Confining her to house arrest was the easy way out for him. That she loved Henry enough to forgive him shows who won that match in the end.

Because sometimes the soul you save is your own.