of Instapundit fame has up a column in the Guardian that makes some good points and links to this blog. (A good point in itself, we always think.) Here’s a quote:
Those of you across the Atlantic may wish to take a lesson from this. As the BBC’s atrocious handling of the Gilligan affair – and, indeed, its war coverage generally – illustrates, media bias is hardly limited to the United States. In fact, it’s probably stronger elsewhere, and less noted, because there are fewer alternatives. Most countries have nothing like American-style talk radio, for example, because it poses far too great a threat to elites to be permitted. Still, British blogs like Samizdata, Biased BBC, Harry’s Place and Normblog are providing alternative voices. Since I don’t think that elite media have done a very good job during the decades of their dominance, I look forward to seeing alternative media make a difference around the world.
Furthermore, billg, with support for same-sex marriage bans running greater (usually much greater) than 57%, disapproval of gay marriage can’t be regarded as an issue of the religious “fringe”. It’s an issue of the religious mainstream. You (and I) bill, are the fringe.
And, by the way, while I share your distrust of religion in politics, I’ll point out that your characterization of those who base their politics (in part) on their religion as “enemies of democracy” is a) untrue, and b) most unhelpful.
It’s that kind of talk that is going to doom the Democratic Party unless it gets its act together.
Oops, double post! Now I know how not to do that. Well, that’s useful.
hello – just came across this blog and wanted to comment… I’m not an “enemy of democracy”, I’m a reg. Dem, live in NYC (Queens)third generation American, and always voted Dem. I’m not a religious fanatic, either (lapsed Catholic)I voted for Bush. I voted for him for one reason. I will vote for ANYONE who hunts down and kills Islamofacists. I didn’t believe Kerry had the nads to go after them like Bush does. He just seemed to want to win some popularity contest. I don’t believe most European people have the nads either, or maybe they just don’t care. I apologize in advance if I’m offending anyone. Incidentally, NY went 58% Kerry, 40% Bush. In my town, that’s unheard of. Thanks for listening. And the BBC NEVER publishes anything I write to “Have Your Say”.
billg
He’s been trying:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1245668/posts
Angie, I agree the Dems need fixing. They have for years. Don’t equate my comments with agreement with the standard Democrat line. The party is often its own worst enemy. The Dems are often wrongheaded about foreign policy, but they, at least, don’t claim to be channeling God.
But, as well, notice I’m not criticizing religion or religous people. I describe myself as a religous person. I’m criticizing people who believe that they have special knowledge of God’s will and that this knowledge authorizes them to do whatever is necessary to advance God’s will. If it is wrong for Muslims to behave like that, it is wrong for born-again Christians.
Pam
Yes, Yes, Yes.
I am sick and tired of BBC “pundits” and studio guests trying to suggest that Bush is crazy and so are the people who voted for him.
This is a total insult to the people of America.
Pam
Welcome to the land of BBC reality. Do you mean ‘(Don’t) Have Your Say’?
Pete, as far as I’m aware you’re the only person I know who’s got a quote on “Have Your Say”!
So Pam, why do you think Europeans don’t have the “nads” for this war on terror?
What would you like to see Bush do next in this war? How is he going to hunt down and kill everyone who wishes harm on the west? How will we know when we’ve won this war on terror?
Bush marched on in to Iraq on what we now know and what many suspected at the time were weak justifications. OK, Saddam has gone which is good news but it seems to me that Bush has shown his balls for a fight to everyone by fighting a war that wasn’t entirely necessary.
My fear is that reckless actions such as these will lead to a growth in terrorism rather than preventing it. It doesn’t mean I don’t have the “nads” for a fight it’s just a different view to reaching the same goal.
Errr, Pete. Haven’t seen any of what you’re saying. Nearly everything I’ve seen has pretty much said Bush swung the vote because people trusted him to do whatever it takes in this war on terror. Which is exactly what Pam is saying.
Sorry I meant John rather than Pete in the above post!
Mention of the children watching teh soldiers building the bridge, made me think. If this is in the “deadly Sunni triangle of death” can things really be so bad if well dressed school kids are allowed to go off to school by their parents. It was heartening to see their natural curiosity and lack of animosity and the concern of the soldiers for their safety.
We know the triangle is dangerous for Western soldiers but are we being told the whole trutth about the place. Is it really as “lawless” and dysfunctional as we are being told? Or is it another example of mind-bending techniq
David
Hello again – I got busy and have just returned to this site, I’m new to “blogging” and really didn’t think anyone would respond back to my comments. First, I do apologize about the European remark (missing nads)I shouldn’t generalize, as I don’t appreciate the same when applied to Americans. As to what Bush will do re terrorism, I have no idea, but my opinion is that he is not as easily influenced by outside ( read UN) opinion as Kerry would be. I didn’t want to entrust my security to Kerry’s “global test” (whatever that means, it sounded vague and scary). I do support consensus building between allies, but how many years can one talk about an issue and never act? Even if I’m only kidding myself, I feel safer with GWB running things. I’m not saying I’m right, just why I voted Bush. I’m still waiting for my party ( Dem) to ask me why, but apparently they aren’t interested.
Pam, as a Dem who voted for Kerry, I’d agree Bush packages himself better re: terrorism. That’s what all the “I mean what I say” stuff is about. But, except for that difference in style, I really doubt a Kerry presidency could have been less effective against terror than Bush.
Bush leads right-wing extremists who want to turn the clock back. They don’t like America as it is today. They want to destroy Social Security and end Medicare. They want increased ties between church and state.
They are the heirs of Barry Goldwater, mixed with hostile white reaction to the civil rights and gender advances of recent decades. That’s the true root of the so-called born-again conservative Christian movement: among whites who were angered by civil rights legislation and by women asserting their own independence. (That’s why the South and any non-urban areas are solidly Red.)
That’s the enemy everyone needs to fight, not just Democrats. Unless you want to live in an American t
Oops, make that last bit “American theocracy.”
That’s fine Pam, I can totally understand why people voted Bush this election. In fact I always thought he’d win it. He had such a simple message and it was a very comforting one. No wishy washiness about it. He’d do whatever it takes, and its hard to come up against that with a differing point of view.
You hit the nail on the head with the global test thing. It did sound vague and it probably put a lot of people off. In fact in that debate Kerry was killing it until that one comment.
Pam:
There’ll usually be someone ready to respond! Wasn’t it beastly of Bush to decide that talking in the UN would have to stop at some point? I mean, how are French, Russian, German and many other politicians, bureaucrats, oligarchs and sons of UN Secretaries General supposed to cream millions from the Oil for Food Programme if Bush is just going to waltz in and break up the whole damned rotten party?
What a sod.
billg:
“They want to destroy Social Security …”
Hmmm … nope, can’t see the problem there.
Pam:
I’ve never had a comment posted by the “Beeb” either.
billg:
“among whites who were angered by civil rights legislation and by women asserting their own independence. (That’s why the South and any non-urban areas are solidly Red.)”
Is this an example of the tolerance we could have expected from a Kerry admin? Bigotry against southerns would be a good issue for the Dems to pick up, don’t you think? No, can’t do that, then they’d be out another rationalization for losing.
billg
As long as people like you scorn the ordinary people of America, the Dems will never see the inside of the white house for a long time.
Its over. Swallow. Vox populi and all that. Calling half your country religious zealots is plain stupid.
Oh – and try reading Mark Steyn. IKt might explain why your sort of sneering and condescension upset so many US voters :
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11288119%5E7583,00.html
John, please note that I am not “scorning” the “ordinary people” of America. The ordinary people of America are not relgious zealots who believe God has told them to use government to force the rest of the country to conform to their beliefs.
But, the roughly 20% of the population who consider themselves born-again evangelicals — quite ordinary Americans — are being manipulated and misled by a coalition of proto-fascist clerics (e.g., Pat Robertson) and politicians (e.g., Karl Rove) to support undemocratic goals.
So, I’m not “sneering” at Americans who believe in democracy. I’m raising a battle cry against Americans who don’t believe in democracy and want to take it away from the rest of us.
Pete, if you want to destroy Social Security, then I can only conlude that your trapped in your own ideology, as well as being on the Wrong Side.
John:
Learn your history. The South was solidly Democratic until the Congress passed the civil and voting rights bills in the 1960’s. When that happened, a number of segregationist Democrats switched parties, and the South has voted Republican ever since.
What do you thnk Nixon’s Southern Strategy was all about? Why do you think the Republicans have followed it ever since?
I live in the South, and have for more than 30 years. It is no more racist than any other part of the country. But it is also no less racist than the rest of the country. Facts are facts.
So, don’t make the bogus assertion that pointing to reality is tantamount to discrimination.
Hi all – back from a break again, not used to this “blogging” :).
billg – I believe your genuinely concerned about a theocracy, I just don’t buy that, if I did, I would run in a heartbeat, truly. I think there’s been far too much melodrama surrounding this election. Myself, I was far more turned off by the Michael Moore’s of my own party, talk about feeling alienated! He was very offensive to me. Mean spirited and nasty, and who the hell is he anyway??? Am I nuts? I mean, whose brilliant idea was it to sit him next to Jimmy Carter at the convention? Jimmy Carter was a PRESIDENT for goodness sake! I was shocked. Did you want to turn over the White House to his ilk? I guess I need to know, and you can help me, is that where the Dems are these days? Seriously.
Pete_London – Could NOT agree more!
Oh and Pete? To your earlier post – Arafat is on ice, rest assured. No doubt they’re stalling due to the inevitable car swarms they’ll have on their hands. You know how that goes. Also, Suha is probably still refusing to tell Chirac and Co. we’re the money is. He may start to stink pretty soon, they better stop pussyfooting around with her.
Pam: Moore repels me. I haven’t seen his movie, and won’t. It is an obvious piece of propaganda. Moore is no more representative of real Democrats than Bush is of real Republicans. Real Democrats are concerend about expanding democracy and economic wealth everywhere, as are, it must be said, real Republicans. But people like Moore — out of touch with most of America — deserve their America-hating counterparts among the cynical and manipulative ideologues who have mortgaged the Republican Party to extreme fundamentalists. America has as much to fear from Christian fundamentalists as we do from Islamic fundamentalists. And they have more in common with each other than with the heritage of the Founding Fathers.
I haven’t been happy with the Democrats since they abandoned the legacy of people like JFK and Henry Jackson. The party needs to be fixed, but at least it isn’t wallowing in the moral corruption of the Republicans.
billg – I didn’t change my registration. All I did, one time, was vote Republican. It’s not the end of the world. I really am more comfortable with Bush. I was NOT comfortable with Kerry. I considered my priorities, and the overwhelming one was not to be attacked by OBL again. All I wanted to offer to this forum was that I voted for Bush and I wasn’t a right wing, reactionary, bible thumping, red state resident. My hope is that the coalition will bomb all the evil bastards to smithereens before they get us again. Or at least, as Bush keeps saying, fight them over there, not HERE. Please appreciate, there is a giant bulls-eye painted on my neighborhood. And that’s probably another reason I’m not concerned about Christian fundamentalists at the moment, I have never met one in my life. I have, however, had an extreme taste of the Islamic variety.
Pam
Some of us get what you are saying, your rationale for many people distrusting Kerry against terrorist threats.
London too is a bullseye target, of course. I think a lot of Brit views would change in a flash if there was a serious incident here. And the BBC would suddenly find it a lot harder to be soft on Islam, on Middle east terorism, while sneering at other religions.
Hi JohninLondon – Thanks, like I said, I have no idea if I’m right or wrong, just that I only had 2 choices, so… I know you folks are at great risk, more so than ever since you hooked up with us. Here’s my take on the BBC – They seem to be a bunch of self-loathing, wannabe Islamists. Is Islam considered “cool” over there? Attaining “coolness” is a major objective of our left wingers. “Sneering” is a staple feature, too. ( and I’ve still got enough of the Cathoilc school girl in me to resent the religious attacks) Are they pathetic, or what? They STILL haven’t accepted the loss over here, and they’re STILL calling us( Bush voters)stupid. Don’t know why, but I feel obliged to inform my party that if that don’t knock it off, they’ll lose the next election, too. And the next one after that. Begs the question: Who REALLY is stupid? Do you agree?
P.S JohninLondon- Mark Steyn is my favorite columnist!!!! (I have a huge immature crush on him, he’s my ideal kind of guy!) I entered his election contest, sadly, no signed book for me. ( I didn’t even come close in any of the categories, but I did call NH for Kerry)
billg
Go and have a read of Steyn’s article.
“The party needs to be fixed, but at least it isn’t wallowing in the moral corruption of the Republicans.”
Beyond parody.
Pam
As you say, sneering is a staple feature of the left. This is because the pacifist left has nothing else to offer (notwithstanding the fact that Keery’s stance was not pacifistic – the left couldn’t even get that right.)
con’t …
I often recall a quote by John Stuart Mill when I hear the pacifistic left whine and sneer:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
Pam – I recommend http://www.samizdata.net to you.
Pete,
Thank you for that quote…I’ve never heard it before, and it made me think of my own time in the US Navy. And then I thought of those millions before me…
My daughter and I were out this morning and I gave to a bloke for the Poppy Appeal, he gave both of us a poppy to wear. She asked me what it was for…Anyway, I was a bit overcome thinking about it and got a lump in my throat and a tear in my eye trying to explain about people who have sacrificed so much for us, whether it was there intention or not..Like the bloke on the cover of today’s Independent…Anyway, I decided to just tell her it was for people who had been in the military…
Anyway, thanks…I’m still a bit overcome.
Good morning, Pete – I DO read samizdata, thanks! I posted there once, but I felt a bit out of my depth,(those folks are brilliant)so I’m shy about commenting. NOT to cast aspersions about intelligence on this site, please! Natalie Solent is another big favorite of mine, I read her daily. billg ( sorry, billg!) won’t like this, but the only party that has interested me of late is the Libertarian. I believe that site is primarily Libertarian, correct? Now that the election is over, I want to learn more about their platform. As I’ve indicated, I’m very concerned about the direction of the Democratic party, which I’ve clung to because they USED to believe in states rights. As I am now officially stupid, I thought I should start shopping around. I think the founding fathers had a pretty good concept for governance, I can’t help but feel they’re spinning wildly in their graves these days.
Pam:
I wasn’t disparaging your vote. If I wasn’t convinced that Kerry would have followed essentially the same anti-terror policy as Bush, I woud not have voted for him. Bush’s language is certainly more assertive and reassuring, but I’ve learned to pay little attention to the language of any politicians.
I’m not fond of Islamic terrorists either. I’ve lived in an Islamic country. (BTW, not every fundamentalist is a terrorist; not every terrorist is a fundamentalist, or even very devout.) There were days I stayed home because it wasn’t safe to show my American face. I want terrorists gone. But, I’m not willing to pay for that by turning my country over to people who, like Islamic terrorists, loathe and fear their own culture and seek to destroy it. The first requirement of democracy is tolerance, and the religious right is not tolerant.
billg – I am aware of the difference between Muslims and Islamofacists, thanks. The all knowing BBC did a piece on my neighborhood fairly recently, look up Woodside, Queens. My personal run in with intolerance came from 1)the LEFT, anytime I dared mention I was voting for Bush, so I just shut up about eventually and 2) the day Islamic extremists attacked my city, and I inhaled, literally, the DNA of approx. 3,000 of my fellow citizens. Why should I pick a fight with people who have never done anything to me, c’mon!! I told you why I voted Bush, now he’s in, Kerry’s out, it’s over. Maybe you and I should swap cities, you would love it here (CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST FREE ZONE)and I’m dying to get out. Jeez, Bill!
Why, Pam, do you seem to equate Democrat with leftist? I’m a Democract, but I’m no leftist. Nor are all Christians fundamentalists or intolerant, and I don’t believe I said as much. I don’t care what people believe, atheist or born-again. I do care very much if they think they have the right to use government to force me to behave according to their beliefs. No one, anywhere, has that right. Bush owes his election to a minority that includes people who want to do just that. Whether they use guns or bombs or the Congress is irrelevant. There are also ideologues on the other side who also think they’ve got a direct line to The Truth. But, Kerry lost, so they’re not the immediate problem.
“I want terrorists gone. But, I’m not willing to pay for that by turning my country over to people who, like Islamic terrorists, loathe and fear their own culture and seek to destroy it.”
Me either. Which is why this not very devout Jewish girl voted for Bush.
I include my religious affiliation only to demonstrate I am not one of your feared Christian Fundamentalists.