Things I Don’t Understand

It’s just possible that what she means is “drivers of black cabs”, where “black cab” is Londonese for a regularly regulated taxi, as opposed to the mini-cabs.

London would also explain the reference to Kensington.

I’m not saying she isn’t loony for other reasons, but maybe this explains part of it?

see, e.g.,

http://www.londonblackcabs.co.uk/
http://www.londonblack-cab.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cab

it is a bit of a technical term.

#4 shows how you can rewrite the joke to salvage it:
just change ‘Chinese taxi drivers’ to e.g. “Chinese restaurant waiters”, something similar for the Tamil case, and you’re back in business.

And god knows *somebody* should have the job of spitting on likenesses of Tom Friedman.

For a minute there I thought she meant Kensington-Beside-The-Beltway rather than Kensington-Beside-The-Thames. Whew.

Is there an extra tip for “I had that Michael Yon in the back of the cab once?

11–
ah, that’s it: cheap-skatery masquerading as principle.

I embrace it!

From now on, I’m not going to tip any wait-staff who can’t tell me the title of Belle Waring’s latest post!

Don’t tell me I’m cheap: I’m principled!

London cabbies are notorious for giving vic^H^H^Hpassengers their views on every political subject under the sun. I guess that what Carol’s getting at.

…as well as the social norm of not thrusting one’s politics on unfortunate service industry personnel.

Anyway, Yon is a neat microcosm of the Iraq war; he turns up, because the US Army press flacks want him there because he is reliably uncritical, everyone’s nice to him (does he ever wonder why?), he goes out on patrol, everyone looks busy as they go by, they go back in camp, Yon writes about how great everything is going.

And outside the wire, everyone goes back to killing each other.

the commenter is talking about “black-cab” drivers, rather than cab drivers who are black

…of which in fact there don’t seem to be very many.

You sure it isn’t sarcasm?

BTW, what is the sarcasm emoticon?

The opposite of whichever one you mean.

Belle obviously hasn’t gotten a lot smarter since she advocated for the invasion of Iraq back in ’03.

DUH, of course it’s sarcasm. And she doesn’t know what a black cab is?

Some people really should stop blogging.

This is all guesswork, but I suspect those posts may not fall into the sarcasm/irony/humour zone.

Carol’s two comments sound a little reminiscent of a legendary long-term US expat in London, who rattles out a “blog” dedicated to letting the world know that:

– the Englandland she moved to was lovely (a bit Mary Poppins, a bit 84 Charing Cross Road,…), but now it’s a cross between Ceausescu’s Romania and Mogadishu

– UK culture and politics (left, right and centre) is just being mealy-mouthed about its deep anti-semitism (and the Edgeware Road is full of folk wearing sheets who look at her in a funny way)

– and everyone hates Americans

– and of course it’s a tyranny – just look at the way everyone has to pay a TV licence fee to the BBC, which is totally biased, and amid all this deluge of hideousness thank god for the few calm and reasoned voices of deep thinkers like Mark Steyn, Melanie Phillips,…etc, etc, etc, etc.

I am of course ashamed to the point of mortification to be offering a bunch of rigorous critical thinkers like you such a flimsy piece of circumstantial resemblance, but, hey, everywhere else is satisfied with the standards of the old West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, so get used to it!

JSM

Their new idea is that the media isn’t reporting the good news from Iraq

I suddenly feel very old, and very tired.

I’m with #20 and #21 (and not with #24, however, on grounds of abusiveness) in reading that comment, at least in isolation, as intended as mockery. #26, by adding context, makes a strong argument that the absurd comment was meant seriously; nonetheless, I maintain that (1) I’m not willing to read the thread, and (2) I prefer to hope the comment was meant humorously.

On its own I thought the comment might be sarcastic. Then I read the one immediately after it. Unless it’s a complete coincidence and that’s a different Carol, I’m going with the total loon theory.

jsm is indubitably on the ball. It’s Carol Gould, haunter of hookah-festooned cafes and quaker in boots. She comments on the Graun just as “Carol” but the style is unique, thank God.

A minute on Google tells us she ain’t joshing. Here’s her masterpiece from 2004 –

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1328663,00.html

In Britain, America-bashing is so bad that I fear for my safety

Carol Gould
Saturday October 16, 2004

In a later link to Yon, Glenn reveals a dream

And maybe by next year he’ll be reporting from Iran.

Worst of all, Yon and Totten are both capitalizing on the immensely popular idea that there is some sort of all-encompassing liberal media conspiracy designed to paint an inaccurately bleak picture of the situation in Iraq and to malign the actions of US soldiers, while conversely they are almost alone in reporting the true facts on the ground. This idea has been introduced by Rumsfeld and the neocons almost from day one and has been one of the most counterproductive features of the whole US effort in Iraq. Even if Yon and Totten throw in the odd morsel of critical reporting, a look at the comments section shows that this is what their readers want to hear, this is what they believe and this is why these blogs are so successful.

Belle,

Fair point. But I still think that you simplify his take a bit. After all, a lot of his recent reporting in Al Anbar takes pains to point out how counter-productive a lot of the Marine Corps’s earlier, more forceful actions were in alienating civilians who might not otherwise be inclined to sympathize with the various insurgencies.

As for the whole cannibal business, is it anti-Arab racism if you’re writing about something that was done *to* Arabs? >Thinks a bit

Gah, that last post ate the remainder of my comment.

Ah, such is the irredeemable vileness of WordPress.

But why should he be trying to show something – anything – by this sort of rumor-mongering, if he is supposed to be an even-handed truth-telling reporter? Would he report a rumor about US marines baking a child and feeding him to his parents?

“After all, a lot of his recent reporting in Al Anbar takes pains to point out how counter-productive a lot of the Marine Corps’s earlier, more forceful actions were in alienating civilians who might not otherwise be inclined to sympathize with the various insurgencies.”

While I actually think Yon’s reporting is quite good, and I do respect him for putting himself out there, the key point in your point above is that he is pointing out how much earlier actions were counter-productive – compared, of course, to the surge. If the surge passes and a more “forceful” effort appears, I have no doubt that he would also report how counter-productive the current efforts were. The point is that he is reporting the narrative that the establishment wants people to hear – yes, we screwed things up a bit in the past, but our current approach is guaranteed to work. Yon fits right into this narrative, and always has done.

Slocum is right about the vileness of al qaeda. They even spread a rumor that American security companies are allowed to murder Iraqis with impunity, not excluding the guards of the Iraqi president. Imagine! The rumor they started, so vile, from start to finish, is that the State department itself would go so far as to cover up the murder of Iraqis by drunk American mercs by getting them out of Iraq, then covering up their records so they could be rehired to go back to the Middle East.

This is obviously preposterous. No democratic country, especially the U.S., which just idealistically wants to spread democracy around the globe, would countenance repeated acts of pure and simple murder.