Anon writes:
Natalie, whoever moderates this site.
The day the left-wing bottom feeders decide to slough off work, whilst promising a summer’s worth of skiving, all the while HOOVERING up licence fee cash from people they threaten and imprison, and this is the best you can do…’Robert Ayers writes to say that you can read an interview with three prominent Iraqi citizens here’…?Caaaaam on, let’s be having you.
**Lady, if you can’t do it, don’t have the time, etc., then step away from the website.
Actually, I am not that interested in the strike. Sure, I think the Beeb is extravagant, that its extravagance is made far worse by its having money on tap from the taxpayer, and that it should be less extravagant. But if the strike ends in complete victory for the management who then go on to make such savings that the licence fee is not only kept static but actually reduced (not that anyone has seriously suggested that’s gonna happen), you know what? I’ll scarcely care. My beefs with the BBC are:
(a) The very existence of a government funded news and entertainment service. Ugh. Only familiarity blinds us to the banana-republic awfulness of this idea. It it should be consigned, along with the idea of government-run newspapers, to the great cat litter-tray of history.
(b) Contrary to its Charter the BBC is not impartial. It’s the Guardian on stilts yet unlike the real Guardian I cannot choose not to buy it.
(c) It justifies taking money by force on the grounds that it promotes the national interest, liberal democratic values and the public good and then affects to be neutral between this country and its enemies and between random killers and their victims.
If one of my fellow posters wants to disagree, that’s fine. Debate is good. If the comments boxes are radioactive with schadenfreude over the strike that’s fine too. For me, though, I am concerned by the waste in the BBC’s budget only in the same way that I am concerned by waste in the NHS or in the schools. It’s a bad thing. But not what I want to blog about.
Hilary wrote,
They will see how trade has benefitted us in the west – they might also notice how unfair trade has benefitted us, at the EXPENSE of others. I concede, the BBC failed to give a fully balanced account of globalisation, the benefits and disadvantages of free trade, however, they have succeeded in getting young people to think a bit about some of the drawbacks to free-trade, which I consider to be a valid endeavour.
Hilary, what exactly is your experience in the private sector, and or with true economic development that you feel so qualified to comment so authoritatively on such issues? (Reading “No Logo” several times over doesn’t count.)
It has been my experience that most people with your sort of views have never worked in the private sector at all, but have bounced from studying something like “media studies” at Univeristy (direct intake of the left-wing canon with little exposure to dissenting views) directly to a job as an “activist” for an NGO (ditto) or a state-financed job (ditto).
Sorry, forgot to close my em tag. The italicization should end after the first paragraph.
Hilary
Excuse the mistakes which follow but booze has been taken on board.
On your health and education points above – if I wish to have my children educated by someone who is selling their abilities in health privatly that is none of your business. It isn’t the government’s business. It’s my business and no-one’s else’s.
If I choose private health care for me and my family then ditto.
Far from publicly funded educaton and health being a morally superior choice, you are choosing the worst for your family.
It is morally right and proper to do the best for yourself and your family. It is morally right to reject state rationing of health care and education for your family. It is morally right to be an individual, to recognise your individuality and choose the best on offer.
Laziness and alcohol mean I won’t expand but if you are serious about learning more then go over to http://www.samizdata.net
Some over there are more lucid and clear thinking about such things than me (Natalie Solent included) and you’ll learn. Be assured though that far from having even one ounce of admiration for your defence of collectivist public services, I have nothing but a tonne of contempt for your foolish and deluded decision. I also hope that your child avoids becoming an intellectual and moral retard, unlike millions of children who have been unfortunate enough to have been afflicted with comprehensive education in the last few decades.
Dear all,
I find it deeply unfortunate that any attempt to have a reasonable discussion about our divergent views leads back time and again to tirades of personal abuse. I have read your views with interest and respect and do not feel my ‘mind is made up’ – why on earth would I bother to be on this site if it were? I repeat again, I read your views with the greatest respect, something I find sadly lacking in most responses. If I have one hope only for my son it is that he learns and grows to treat the views of others with openness and to engage in dialogue with people without recourse to deflamatory language and insult. I had in fact begun to take very seriously some of the more considered and compelling arguments posted here, yet this becomes increasingly difficult – how much weight exactly can one attach to the views of individuals who back up their opinions with insulting insinuations about ‘mindless morons in the comprehensive system’ and such like? It strikes me as more than a little ironic that a group who bemoan the obvious bias in the BBC have themselves no time at all for conidering a balance of differing viewpoints.
I continue to be interested in the views expressed here, which I take seriously and will continue to explore. However, I see little point in contining any discussion if the result of my genuine expressions of interest are to be met only with sneering derision and prejudiced assumptions about my personal life. It seems a great shame, and in no small way – reflects rather badly your cause.
Hilary, this may surprise you, but some of your own comments could be construed as very condescending and arrogant (“Been there, done that, got the sick bag” etc.).
Perhaps this is why you got similar comments in response?
And yes you did come off, at least to me, as someone who came here with an agenda to “prove,” not someone genuinely interested in dialogue.
Look at your first comment here. (Was it not something on the lines of “What do you want to do, turn the BBC into Fox News?”) I can’t tell you how many times a lefty has come here and posted that exact comment. (Dozens if not scores of times since I’ve been reading this blog.) Yes, people do get tired of hearing the same old non-arguments posted again and again, especially by those who think they are actually posting an original thought.
Maybe you should try again, with out the arrogance, and try to engage some of the people here in a more respectful type of dialogue, if that’s what you really want.
I concede that some of my original comments were rather reactionary and perhaps came accross as condescending. If this is so, and I have openly declared it, it is because I do genuinely find some of the views expressed run counter to my pre-conceived ideas. This, I admit in an earlier post, no doubt colours my view. However, as you will see I have gone on to express genuine and sincere interest in the arguments. If my posts were unconstructive however, it is a product of my genuine incredulity rather than a snooty sneering condescension. I regret that I have given this impression. I do of course realise the arguments I have referred to our not ‘original’ and are open to question, but I do not think this precludes them from being valid topic for discussion. If indeed as you say you have com accross many of them before I would in fact have expected a more considered, constructive response, since I assume you have responded to them many times before. It doesn’t seem to follow logically that I should become fair game for personal insult. If my comments have occasionally been reactionary (eg the sick-bag comment) they were light-hearted – perhaps I am being insensitive and underestimate how offensive they are and if so I regret this. However, I would also point out that much of the language used here to describe many issues, people, views etc uses similarly offensive language, indeed on occasion goes well beyond it.
Again I do regret that my comments have given the impression that I lack respect for the individuals here, I certainly do not, if I have responded negatively it is to the views expressed and not the individuals expressing them. You will note that at no time have I made a personal attack on anybody else, even where I disagree vehemently with their views. It is the unnecessarily personal attacks of which I have been recipient to which I refer when I have described the interchanges as unconstructive and representing a lack of open dialogue.
Hilary,
Some scattered points:
– I’m sorry you feel you’ve had a hard time, but blog comments just ARE like this. Believe me, B-BBC is comparatively mild. If you want to see REAL fights go to Daily Kos (US lefty blog) or Little Green Footballs (US righty blog) or the blog of our own esteemed guest John B, (Shot By Both Sides, at http://www.stalinism.com – yes, really; follow “click here” to find his blog.
– Neither the commenters nor the posters on B-BBC always agree with each other. I think I am the most libertarian poster. The others are more conservative.
– Libertarian views of health, education etc. can be found at the Libertarian Alliance site, or Samizdata, or Brian’s Education Blog (now sleeping but archives are still there).
I dispute the whole thesis that trade happens at the expense of the poorer countries in the trade. In my lifetime East Asia took the route of trade, and made it. East Africa took the route now recommended by Make Poverty Permanent, sorry History, i.e. import substitution etc. and are still mired in poverty. See same sources as above.
Sorry got to go, no time to add links, but I’m sure you can find them via Google.
Teddy Bear,
Can you supply a link to a newspaper report or other source on that Hans Blix thing?
Why are free trade and ‘fair trade’ mutually exclusive? If a company can get consumers to pay a premium for ‘fair trade’ branded products by targeting ‘concerned’ consumers, then that is surely a prime example of tapping a previously unexploited market in the best capitalist tradition.
Those blustering because the concept somewhat contradicts their quasi-religious belief in textbook market economics are surely missing the wood for the trees.
A very good point Cockney. I might cite the new Jeff Sachs book ‘The End of Poverty’ that makes a case for globalisation AND free AND fair trade AND ending poverty. Quite sure you’re familiar with it.
The ‘Make Poverty History’ people aren’t staunch anti-market, anti-globalisation protestors, admittedly the celeb ads are crass, but their point is actually that a practical way to relieve poverty that WON’T damage economies is possible. They argue for a threefold plan, 1) yes, they do want aid to be increased in the short term at least. To relieve immediate suffering and help break the visious cycle 2) yes, they also argue for debt cancellation – seems logical that if a place is going to raise itself out of poverty via trade it will do so more quickly without the downward drag of exponentially incresing debt repayments 3) Yes, they argue for fairer trade, NOT an end to free trade, but precisely by using free trade rules and making them available more fairly. ie, getting rid of EU subsidies, and damaging trade tarrifs.
There isn’t necessarily something incommensurable about wanting to work toward ending poverty in Africa and recognising the potential of trade to do it.
“No rightwinger, not even a centrist has ever shown up to defend the Beeb at this blog. Only hardcore Guardianistas like yourself.”
I very much doubt that any Communists have shown up to defend the Beeb from the bashings it gets at Medialens and Indymedia for being right-wing, either. This proves little.
(and I have spotted centrists trying to defend the BBC here, although I’m aware some commenters here view anyone to the left of Mrs Thatcher as a Red third-columnist…)
Cockney, Hilary
By its very definition, free trade IS fair trade, whatever spin others would like to put on it. But rather than blunder on here the work had already been done here:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/005713.html
which links to hear:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/archives/000237.php
Read the comments too, not just the original post.
Hilary
You ask above:
“I’d be very interested to hear why you feel that an emphasis on environmental issues is something children shouldn’t be exposed to.”
For my part, it’s because children should be allowed to be children. Environmental issues do not concern children. They don’t want to know. The left seems to have a pathological need to turn infants straight into adults, bypassing the child stage. They don’t need to know about this or drugs or sex. Leave them alone and allow them to develop naturally.
They will encounter all of these issues when they are older anyway, but will be far more able to deal with them in a sensible, informed way if parents, with the help of schools, have brought them up to be rational, well-educated (not indoctrinated) young adults.
Hmm, you might think it entirely laughable, but I actually consider myself fairly middle-left moderate. No hardcore Guardianista for sure. The A L Kennedy article in the Guardian quoted by Burgess (link from here) churns my guts as much as it does yours. I have no time for mindless anti-Bush rhetoric or the ludicrous half-truths spun by the likes of Michael Moore et al. True, I am to the left of Maggie, I do subscribe broadly to a redistributive politic, but this alone hardly makes me ‘hardcore’.
Interestingly one of my close friends, a Conservative and until recently a city stockk brokeractually does defend the BBC. Maybe I’ll ask if he’d mind me passing on some of his thoughts. If anyone is interested?
I rather feel my self-declared leftiness has disqualified me from having any legitmiacy at all here.
Cockney, Hilary – Fair trade branding is fine by me. I will even buy it sometimes.
There is sometimes a problem. The fair trade premium can deceive African producers into moving into/staying in markets such as coffee that are in fact a bad bet. This effect could be mitigated in various ways.
The trouble is that the view of Fair Trade put out by Fair Trade fortnight is not confined to this. And the view of Make Poverty History, especially as promoted by Christian Aid in their recent Guardian ad goes further still. They say “It’s not called slavery nowadays. It’s called free trade.”. Then they say free trade is like getting mugged every day. They say they want developing countries to “have the freedom to protect their farms and infant industries.”
Compared to MPH the Sachs book (not read it, seen lots of quotes) or the Guardian itself is a model of reasonabless, calling as they do for the abolition of all tariffs and subsidies.
Aid? Most aid apart from emergency aid is a transfer from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries, as the late Peter Bauer used to say.
Debt cancellation – depends. I don’t see why democratic countries should pay for the follies of dictators they have overthrown, for instance.
I’m beginning to think I’m coming to the end of what I can usefully say in this comments thread. Have been inspired to write a new post on CBBC treatment of trade issues, though.
Natalie –
The problem with Maggie was that she wasn’t very bright and the Tory leftie/grandee types were always running rings around her. If she had been brighter she could have got her way on Kings and Battles. She was constantly pressing levers that didn’t respond.
The same goes for an independent public broadcasting organisation. It IS possible to establish one that functions properly – supportive of democracy and freedom; impartial; open to argument. You simply have to be clever about how you go about establishing the rules and making them enforceable. And you have to have the political will.
David
Hurrah for that David. I agree entirely (on the BBC).
The idea of a truly impartial broadcasting body is a chimera. It has been tried – the BBC – and has failed. Anyone with any experience of public administration knows that the best laid plans… gang aft agley. There is simply no way to reform the BBC.
End it. It is not needed any more.
Natalie, you can start with the
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2268819.stm the BBC’s own report on the subject, although they say that Saddam’s nuclear weapons programme was actually discovered following the Iraq war in 1991, and not in reality when Israel destroyed their reactor.
There is also the Guardian article on the subject http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,684984,00.html
Naturally these articles are couched in the words of their particular bias – for a more scathing opinion piece try http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31617
Otherwise if you punch in something along the lines of ‘Hans Blix Atomic Scandal’ into your search engine you can get a host of articles on the subject.
Natalie – Re Hans Blix;
You can start with the BBC’s own article on the subject at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2268819.stm
Although they claim that it was only following the Iraq war in 1991 that Saddam’s nuclear weapons program weas discovered and not the fact that it was when Israel blew up his reactor.
Then there is the Guardian article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,684984,00.html but naturally both of the above are couched in the bias of these media (mis)reporters.
For a more scathing opinion read http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31617 or else just type in something along the lines of ‘Hans Blix Nuclear Scandal’ into your search engine and see what comes up.
Sorry about duplicating it, I thought I had lost it when I first tried to post, and rewrote it.
Hilary’s an extremely long-winded troll. This is not how you do “research”. The world is stuffed with research on the BBC and opinions about the BBC. Has anyone ever read an entire dreary Hilary post all the way through? Hilary’s a yawn-a-thon.
I don’t think Hilary is a troll.
I just think she is naive, wet behind the ears, has a very narrow vision of the world. A “useful idiot”.
http://www.teriobrien.com/usefulidiots/default.asp
I think that all those thickets of verbiage are employed to give the impression that Hilary is a naive little quester genuinely interested in getting at the truth. The length of those posts tells me Hilary is trying to “subtly” insinuate his/her own ideas – and on and on and on and on with the little snippets of personal details. This person has an agenda.
Hilary:
1) yes, they do want aid to be increased in the short term at least.
I’m skeptical about that “aid increase.” When has welfare ever done anyone any good? In the US we have spent more than 10 trillion dollars since the mid-60s in a so-called “War on Poverty.” What we did was encourage people to stay poor. Our “fight poverty” welfare measures just encouraged the creation of more poor people (i.e., the babies of teen-age unwed single mothers.)
Africa’s problems have to do with corrupt governance and cultural issues that have nothing to do with the West. When you give them aid all you do is:
1.) encourage the corrupt governance to continue, rather than fall as it would do without artificial propping up by “aid”; and
2.) encourage the continuance of cultural practices that contribute to poor economic development. Example: If people in Nigeria are really ignorant enough to believe that polio vaccines are a Western plot meant to make Muslim women sterile, how is that our fault? Polio is spreading in Nigeria now thanks to cultural superstition, and this is the kind of thing that contributes to poverty and instability.
Natalie is correct: the East Asian “little tigers” opted to work their way out of poverty with trade, hard work and capitalism. They did it in one generation — pretty amazing, what?
Only 32 years ago, a friend of mine went to South Korea on a college trip. This friend reported seeing abject poverty everywhere.
Today South Korea is a functioning democracy and one of the richest countries in the world.
Was it “aid” that did it? (Aside of course from the US military aid which kept them from being swallowed by their “enlightened” neighbors to the north.)?
No, it was hard work and the intellectual capital of their people. They had nothing else to offer.
Same with Singapore.
Same with war-devastated Japan.
Same with Taiwan.
Get a job in the private sector, Hilary. Learn the difference between creating wealth, and merely consuming it (with “redistributive” policies.) That is the only thing that will really challenge your world view 🙂
Susan
You missed out Hong Kong. And now much of China.
Thirty-two years ago Singapore was one of the up and coming countries in the world and had as its leader a brilliant, articulate man, improbably with a First from Oxford (and his wife had a double First). The history of Singapore is unique and cannot in any way be compared with S Korea, Japan or Taiwan, all thousands of miles north. For one thing, Singapore had always been a free port, since the days of Sir Stamford Raffles. Japan lost the war and its military were guilty of inhuman, repulsive, loathesome war crimes, like making British and Australian soldiers stand at attention for 36 hours at a time. And the Brits and the Aussies would do it out of pride. I won’t go into other details because they are too grim. Japan has a different history (one of great cruelty; ask any Korean) and cannot be included in the same category as Singapore, which was part of the Federated States of Malaya.
I hate this sloppy kind of thinking. It’s actually worthy of the BBC itself. Just because they all have “slanty eyes” doesn’t mean they have anything in common.
“War devastated Japan” got bottomless buckets of American aid. Let’s get our facts straight here.
Singapore has zero natural resources. By which I mean zero, except their brilliant people. They don’t even have that most basic of resourceds, water. It has to be imported from across the Straits of Malacca from Malaysia.
Plus, Japan is a country of tens of millions, and it’s around the same size of Britain. It had/has an imperial family which exercised a strange power over the people.
Singapore, in 1960, had 3m people. That was it. And the island is the size of a city – much, much smaller than, say, Houston. It was cut loose from Malaysia, mainly Malay/Muslim population. Singapore was a former state, and the population was immigrant Chinese (as opposed to the indigenes, the Malays, in Malaysia).
There was never any such thing as “little tigers”. The term was, and is, “Asian tigers”.
I don’t know whether S Korea is a truly capitalistic society or whether its per capita household earns more than Singapore, although I very much doubt it, as Singaporeans are very rich. Singapore constantly tops the list of all the countries in the world that are the most liberal free traders. It used to come number two to Hong Kong, but Hong Kong is now a part of China so doesn’t count as a country any more.
I hate this kind of facile misinformation taking hold. Sorry, Susan, no offence. But I just hate it.
Verity,
The point I made is that they are all better off societies than Africa or the Communist/socialist countries and they are indeed all capitalist with varying degrees of democracy. (You seem to know better than I about how varying.)
I did not mean to make any other comparisons.
Frankly this comment is over the top and extremely offensive:
I hate this sloppy kind of thinking. It’s actually worthy of the BBC itself. Just because they all have “slanty eyes” doesn’t mean they have anything in common.
I was commenting on and comparing economic systems, not race.
PS — I worked in the international shipping industry for more than a dozen years and yes, the term “Asian tigers” and “little tigers” was used interchangeably.
Susan, I appreciate that you were making a point, otherwise why would you be posting?, but you were not comparing like with like. Japan had squillions of dollars in aid to help it get over the trauma of losing the war, Singapore and Hong Kong (both Chinese) made it under their own steam with truly liberal trade values. As in “free trade”. Japan was spoon-fed success.
I lived in SEA for a long time and travelled in Asia frequently and I have never heard the term “little tigers”.
Susan – I shouldn’t have used the term “sloppy thinking” in relation to you because you have a mind like cut glass. I was referring to the thoughtless (to my way of thinking) repetition of commonly-bruited about “facts” that are not facts. This isn’t like you. When you make a point, your research is normally scrupulous.
“Sloppy thinking” was probably unfair, in retrospect, and I will downgrade the charge to “not up to your normal standard of mastery of the subject on which you are commenting.” I hope this is acceptable.
Play nice LOL
“Singapore and Hong Kong (both Chinese) made it under their own steam with truly liberal trade values.”
To a degree, Verity. But they ‘made it’ without having to fund their own defence, and thus didn’t have to endure the impact of that on their economies. Of course, this is true to some extent of all of the free world during the cold war (thanks USA). But, nukes aside, Japan could give communist China a bloody nose should it attempt invasion. Taiwan too. Hong Kong has already been lost, and Singapore wouldn’t last five minutes.
Other than that, I agree with you.
.
PFJ – It is wrong to pursue these arguments on a blog meant to highlight the theft from the BBC licence payer of sane and unbiased thought. However, here we are.
Taiwan could not give China a bloody nose. Do not talk moonbat rubbish.
Singapore is one of the world’s powerful military nations, believe it or not. They are trained by the British – yes, true to some extent, but they are also very, very trained by the Israelis, whose country they most resemble- a tiny state surrounded by militant Muslims.
Singapore wouldn’t last five minutes? You know nothing about the region. Fortunately, China does, and will not be invading Singapore in the foreseeable future.
What a load of old rubbish.
Could Japan take on China? Are you kidding? The answer is: No. No bloody nose.
Good grief, Verity.
I lived in Singapore for two years, and Malaysia for another two. Although it was a long time ago I have followed ‘the region’ with some interest since.
I stand by my remarks, but wish to emphasise they are in the context of defence in the cold war; and against massive communist attack, obviously China (please see my post). I do appreciate that Singapore spends a very large percentage of its GDP on defence, but that is primarily related to her likely local threats – against which she is undoubtedly rather well poised. Nevertheless, she is a small state with limited resources.
Japan and Taiwan could both give an invading China a bloody nose (again, nukes aside) – a very bloody one in the case of Japan. Taiwan might fall eventually without US assistance, but I doubt China would prevail in Japan at all. Singapore would not survive a theoretical mass assault by China. You’re right that China won’t be invading Singapore any time soon, but that has little to do with Singapore’s defence capabilities.
All of the free world has lived under the defence wing of the USA since the end of the Second World War; if they’d had to defend themselves against communism they wouldn’t be so wealthy. That doesn’t mean that some countries don’t defend themselves to some degree, it just means that the only real buttress against communism has been the USA. Lee Kwuan Yew knew it, and stated as such.
I’m no moonbat. I follow political and military matters fairly closely. Here’s a couple of non-moonbat links that might interest you:
http://strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/default.asp
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:2N1aX-VPC2IJ:belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/04/taiwan-and-china-this-is-copy-of.html+taiwan+defense+china+belmont&hl=en&start=1
sorry, the original Belmont Club page is down – grab the cache while you can.
.
LKY never thought that S’pore was a buttress against communism! He had all he could do to ferret them out of the jungle after S’pore left Malaya.
Why are you posting about “defence of the Cold War” which has been over for 20 years? We are speaking in different contexts these days. Besides, this doesn’t have anything to do with BBC bias.
I stand second to none in my admiration for the military might and will of the US. As you dismiss Singapore because China isn’t going to attack it – of course not! Why would they? – are you willing to dismiss Israel, same size population, surrounded by Muslim states, muscular military? No? I thought not.
The Cold War is hardly over as far as China is concerned.
Singapore is well out of the firing line compared with Taiwan and even Japan.