K Havakoz writes:
Found this today at
link“Polls revealed religion as a striking predictor of voting behaviour – the more often a voter attended church, the more likely they were to vote for President Bush, by a wide margin. That is not a good thing in a nation where more than 90% believe in God.”
regards,
K. Havakoz
On similar lines, Will and others have pointed out a piece by Justin Webb.
But in rural America he (Bush) looks at home, and somehow less goofy, less jarring.
In the car park after the Georgia event the locals drifted off to do whatever Georgians do at night (pray I guess), knowing that the Republicans have a fight on their hands but still confident that it can be turned round.
They have not given up and many really do believe in miracles…
UPDATE: Nigel Holland comments that “The first linked article has been edited, it now reads “In a nation where more than 90% believe in God, that is not a good thing for the Democrats.”
The bias displayed on that link is a shocker, even by the BBC’s standards. Anti-Bush, anti-Christian at the same time. I’ll bet that the BBC staff thought that it was clever.
From amongst the vast number of instances of BBC bias highlighted by this blog, this is one of the worst cases.
“Polls revealed religion as a striking predictor of voting behaviour – the more often a voter attended church, the more likely they were to vote for President Bush, by a wide margin. That is not a good thing in a nation where more than 90% believe in God.”
I assume the writer meant to write that it is “not a good thing for the Democracts”. But in any case the report is very sloppy. Which church? Which God?
The implication is that more than 90% of Americans are church-going Christians – which is left-wing shorthand for white, overweight men and women who deny their sexuality- but from the figures I have seen this is not the case (only 75-80% of the population identify themselves as Christians, and presumably they are not all regular churchgoers).
What is the “bad thing”? That people go to church? That they are Christians? What does the reporter mean by the word “church” – places of worship in general, or specifically Christian places of worship?
The report does not mention the existence of non-Christian religions. In fact it seems to be specifically about Catholicism. I hope I have spelled the word Catholicism correctly.
If I was this writer’s editor I would want the writer to go back and have a think and rewrite the piece.
Let’s not stumble past that elephant again. This is worse, far worse, than most Brits realize, because of the implications.
Doesn’t hurt to recall that the BBC is generally seen in the US as the authoritative voice of the British people. How can state-owned media financed under government fiat be anything else, Joe and Jill in Peoria ask? No surprise that they don’t warm to being portrayed as knuckle-headed bible-punching bloodthirsty buffoons.
Makes little difference whether folks like Reith or Webb or Simpson snigger or squeal au contraire or punt sideways (yes…yawn…there’s always nuance). Americans are nothing if not pragmatic: You are judged by what you say and by what you do — and by what you don’t do.
Why should it be otherwise?
In short, the BBC is not just crap but dangerous crap. All the waffle and dissimulation in the BBC’s newsrooms and all the white-knuckled middle-class outrage here and in letters pages around the land won’t change that perception. You are stuck with it and will pay the price.
A full accounting will take years. Thank heavens for the EU, eh?
I have gathered that churchgoing and religion in general tend to be regarded as primitive, reactionary behavior by probable mental deficients by the ‘enlightened’ among our European brethren. Not that the good and great in America think any differently but they don’t dare say it if they want to get back in power.
Speaking as a non-synagogue going Jew I voted for Bush – both times. And frankly I’d rather live alongside Christian fundamentalists than the Moslem variety.
BTW I am sure Georgians do all sorts of things at night, including dining out, theater going, drinking and sex, whatever Mr. Webb might think.
After an event, Justin Webb drifts off to a car park to do what BBC correspondents do at night [remainder deleted]
Edited By Siteowner
Would it have been a “good thing” if the 90% believed in an Islamic version of God?
It is really sad that the BBC go around saying all this Anti-Christian things. Who does the BBC think they are to judge the Christian religion. At least Christian practices do not infringe on any person’s rights, unlike other religious people that want to wage a war over their religion (i.e. jihadists).
Roxana I agree with you, I rather have you as my neighbor than having some Muslim neighbor that I wouldn’t know what their face looks like. It is not a matter of religion, it is a matter of security, and that I am not willing to risk.
Roxanna: my wife could be your twin sister, and I’m a Wasp who turned atheist more than thirty years ago. We have voted Republican more than once.
The BBC could have heeded this recent Harris poll (but of course they didn’t):
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061031/nytu183.html?.v=56
..Though American women (62%) believe in God slightly more than do men (54%), fully 42% of all US adults say they are not “absolutely certain” there is a God. Yet the BBC drones on and on and on….
And nearly all you Brits doff your forelocks and keep on paying. Some of you wonder why you get no respect from Americans. Well now…
Is it still possible to email BBC employees using firstname.secondname@bbc.co.uk?
I’d love to drop Jane Little a line.
knacker: “Some of you wonder why you get no respect from Americans. Well now…”
It’s very presumptuous of you to speak on behalf of all Americans regarding their view of all Britons. It’s that kind of arrogance that gets some Americans a bad name 🙂
Can you imagine an al-BBC story about an islamic country that said
“That is not a good thing in a nation where more than 90% believe in God.”
or
“In the car park after the event the locals drifted off to do whatever muslims do at night (pray I guess),”
The whole tone of Webb’s piece is filled with that smug, snobbish, liberal bias that most al-bbc hacks have against white,working class Christian Americans. That Webb’s over-inflated wages, which allow him to sneer at those less well-off than him, come from ordinary Britons is a disgrace. Time to turn al-BBC and it’s pampered elites over to the private sector where they can sink or swim.
very odd tone in the coverage on the ten o’clock news. all iraq war, and not a single mention of the U.S. economy.
the rapid decline in house prices is a big issue over there – not a single mention of that. quite a lot of slurs about “praying”. racism thrown into the mix by the reporter asking a SINGLE person about whether she’d like to see a black governor in Tennesee.
so it wasnt really a report from america – more like the bbc impression of america.
“And nearly all you Brits doff your forelocks and keep on paying.
knacker | 03.11.06 – 7:38 pm | # ”
nothing to do with doffing forelocks – i just dont want to have a criminal record.
“It is really sad that the BBC go around saying all this Anti-Christian things. Who does the BBC think they are to judge the Christian religion. At least Christian practices do not infringe on any person’s rights, unlike other religious people that want to wage a war over their religion (i.e. jihadists).”
Straw man alert.
And nearly all you Brits doff your forelocks…
Get out the scissors!
knacker: “Some of you wonder why you get no respect from Americans. Well now…”
Knaker – who do you think set up and contributes to this site the most. Who is it who are exposing the Anti American stance by the BBC? It is very easy for you to sit back and tell people to break the law – when it does not affect you. Breaking the law is not something I would not even think about. That is because I am a law abiding Brit. Do you honestly think that most Britains hate America? Well they don’t but it is arogance like yours that really gets peoples backs up.
“And nearly all you Yanks doff your forelocks and keep on paying. Some of you wonder why you get no respect from Britains. Well now” – Can you see what it sounds like now?
Thank you, Jon. I was trying to figure out the best way to ream out Knacker, and you said it sooner and better :).
Andrew: Yes, of course it’s a generalization and of course there are lots of exceptions. Do you really think any one person can speak for 300 million? To be precise, I should have said: “Some of you wonder why some of you get no respect from some Americans. Well now…” Bit of a non-point, that, and hardly deathless prose, but if it confused you, I’m sorry.
Les autres: Sorry girls, it isn’t arrogance but contempt. You can shoot the messenger as often as you want — in this case more like being gummed by blancmange — but it doesn’t change a damned thing. You either fix your wagon or you don’t.
Spurious invocations of the rule of law don’t cut it either. Exactly how many folks have been jailed by the BBC in the last year? ten years? And how does that prevent you from actually doing something about it and lifting your little fingers off the cucumber sandwiches? Do you need a primer on how a healthy democracy works? (Actually, in many cases, yes, you do.)
Ultimately, it’s a question of character, as many of you will know, but this isn’t group therapy and I’m not your mother, so let’s walk away from that.
The overall point is straightforward, unsentimental and largely about self-interest: you need us more than we need you, and since you can’t be bothered to help yourselves, why the hell should we help you?
Guess what? Been there, done that, and we won’t do it again. We have better allies elsewhere.
That is not a good thing in a nation where more than 90% believe in God
It is also totally misleading. The popular vote in last Presidential election was approximately 50:50. Clearly believers in God are not necessarily voters for Bush or necessarily voters, at all
‘It is also totally misleading’
The BBC claimed most American Jews supported Bush so why not lie even more?
“The overall point is straightforward, unsentimental and largely about self-interest: you need us more than we need you” (Knacker)
Is that right? Perhaps more and more of us in the UK think that we should find out if you are right.
Knacker has done the impossible: with an open goal, with the BBC utterly absent – neither John Reith nor any other Anon showed up to defend the indefensible – he managed to score not one, but half a dozen own goals. His bizarre reasoning about the rule of law amounts to saying that America is strong because Americans don’t respect their laws – something that would offend most Americans. His “we have better allies” asks the question, who? His unimaginable arrogance, vicious underlying racism, clearly stated ignorance, are typical of the stereotypical American as imagined by Der Spiegel magazine and San Francisco Democrats. He is a fool, and is trying his best to look like the enemies of his country and his people want him to look.
Knacker
If you are caught in possession of a tv which can receive signals and you have not got a license you will be fined. If you don’t pay the fine (you must still buy a license as well, remember) you will be imprisoned. Research shows that most households that don’t have a license are on or below the poverty line, where families often intend to pay but often postpone the purchase due to other essential expenses.
Total imprisonments for the decade 1991-2000 were 4062. Forty percent of these were women of which half were single mothers. Just over 800 single mothers were therefore seperated from their children during the nineties thanks to the BBC. With any luck, this will breed a generation of anti-BBC militants hell bent on revenge!
Knacker: “…but if it confused you, I’m sorry”
No confusion here old chap – what you said was quite clear, and quite clearly different from your subsequent position.
Knacker: Les autres: Sorry girls, it isn’t arrogance…
QED.
Knacker: Spurious invocations of the rule of law don’t cut it either. Exactly how many folks have been jailed by the BBC in the last year?
TVLA reckon they catch about 1,000 licence evaders every day. Thousands are prosecuted every week. Those that don’t pay fines get jailed. Most of us can do without the hassle – it’s not that big a deal for a service that most of us actually use, even if we’re not happy with some aspects of that service.
Knacker: Do you need a primer on how a healthy democracy works? (Actually, in many cases, yes, you do.)
Thank you for your lecture on law and democracy. Would now be a good time to ask about Guantanamo Bay?
Knacker: Ultimately, it’s a question of character, as many of you will know, but this isn’t group therapy and I’m not your mother, so let’s walk away from that.
Spare us oh mighty one with you superior character!
Knacker: The overall point is straightforward, unsentimental and largely about self-interest: you need us more than we need you, and since you can’t be bothered to help yourselves, why the hell should we help you?
Just like you were there for us in 1939, eh! Sorry, December 1941…
Just like you were there for us during the Falklands War…
(For those Americans not up on self-appointed high horses, I am well aware that there was a big difference between your government’s public stance and its behind the scenes assistance in both of these cases, and am thankful for that).
Knacker: Guess what? Been there, done that, and we won’t do it again. We have better allies elsewhere.
Ta ta then. Oh, but before you go, who are those ‘better allies elsewhere’ (Saudi Arabia perhaps?), and when can we expect a public statement from your government confirming your pronouncements on their behalf?
“You need us more than we need you”
The US couldn’t even occupy Iraq without British assistance.
And it’s worth noting that the bits of Iraq under British military control tend to be generally orderly (with occasional violent eruptions).
Those parts nominally under US military occupation appear to be largely in the hands of the insurgents.
Tsk, tsk girls, lots of dross there, and, mercifully, a couple of nuggets:
BillyQuiz: Thanks for those numbers. Do you have a link to the source, and do you know what kind of sentences are actually handed out — are you talking about actual jail time? Brit jails are often, and recently, said to be full to overflowing — but with licence evaders? Also, impoverished single mothers and their kids aren’t likely to be in the front line of the fight against the BBC. That seems, currently, to be in the fey, sweaty hands of folks like Andrew.
Vulcan: I think you should find out, too. Vote with your feet as you wish.
RWB: Can’t argue with you in any detail about the occupied areas since I just don’t know, although we read about British supply issues with bootlaces and toothpaste (and no, I didn’t keep the link). Are you saying that the invasion would have failed without the British contingent?
The dross:
— Fabio: Oh dear.
— Andrew: QED nothing, old chap. In your case, it’s contempt. You really, really don’t know why, do you?
It is undeniable that Britain is the only ally in Europe worth having and losing her would be a painful blow. But a fatal one? That’s another story.
Anyway the real point here is condescending articles dripping contempt do not add to American appreciation of our cousins across the pond and make some of us angry enough to say things we don’t quite mean.
Knacker:
Andrew:
Knacker, at 04.11.06 – 7:32 am you ended your pop at Andrew thus:
“The overall point is straightforward, unsentimental and largely about self-interest: you need us more than we need you, and since you can’t be bothered to help yourselves, why the hell should we help you?”
Here’s why. Whether consciously or not –
john | 04.11.06 – 4:48 pm
– drew attention to the biggest, most difficult-to-fix flaws in the British media • its self-serving cliquey homogeneousness.
Yes, the Mail and the Telegraph titles do indeed air valid articles about BBC bias • and grateful we all are on this blog that they do so. But they don’t do so out of any moral principle. They do so because they know that stories exposing BBC bias will appeal to their conservative readerships. In other words, they do it to sell newspapers.
When push comes to shove, all newspapers in this country band together, feed off each other, and generally act in one stinking homogeneous back-slapping high-fiving rabble. The Mail takes copy from The Guardian on a regular basis. Journalists hop from The Guardian to the Telegraph and vice versa without having to undergo any conversion of belief (not that they had any).
For example, the political editor of the leftwing Sunday newspaper The Observer, Gaby Hisliff, up to a few years ago used to be a political reporter for the Daily Mail.
With all broadcasters in the grip of the Left in this country, and the Mail and the Telegraph fully embracing the “dog doesn’t eat dog” tradition of the British press while enjoying little known business tie-ups like shared print plants and other joint ventures, the press in Britain has so many conflicts of interest there isn’t an organisation that can do anything to put it right.
Orwell’s 1984 was no fantasy but rather allegorical of his own observations working at the BBC. And the BBC, thanks to its clout, sets the thinking of the world’s media, including Al Jazeera, which seems to be stuffed to the rafters with ex-BBC staffers.
Anti-Americanism, global warming mania, Tory sleaze, you name it, they’re all products of the BBC Guardian axis.
So, Knacker, that’s why we Brits need the Yanks to focus their firepower on the British media. It’s too far gone over here for anyone to be able to do anything about it.
But to find out why the Americans ought to heed our call in their own interest, check out:
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A4488_0_4_0_C/
and
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A4723_0_4_0_C/
– or ignore the threat that the Brits present the U.S. at your peril.
Knacker, I see you’re now down to the level of personal insults rather than engaging in discussion in a civilised manner. Too bad.
P.S. Am still curious, in a car crash sort of a way, about who those ‘better allies’ are. Can you spare the time to educate us dumb, ungrateful Brits with a brief list please?
Knacker
Figures and much more here:
http://www.spiderbomb.com/tv/
(links don’t always work when I’m using my pda, so you might have to copy and paste.)
Figures for imprisonment have declined significantly in the last 8 years due to parliamentary pressure and overcrowded jails.
Whilst jail time is usually short (3-11 days), it is still devastating for many families and having a criminal record can often have further repercussions such as refusal of an entry visa to the USA, but enough about the plus points.
😉
Andrew: Knacker descended to insults? I thought he had to swim upwards to reach that level. His natural level is to be blind and deaf to anything that his little remain of mind is not capable of processing.
Andrew:
P.S. Am still curious, in a car crash sort of a way, about who those ‘better allies’ are. Can you spare the time to educate us dumb, ungrateful Brits with a brief list please?
I’d like to second this request – maybe some other American could send us a list – if Knacker’s PDA isn’t up to it.
JBH — Agree with much of that, and I appreciate the reply. Much of the detail was news to me.
This is a massive subject, going well beyond the BBC or British media as a whole — the ‘self-serving cliquey homogeneousness’ has its counterpart in the US, as you know, but it seems to me that the rot goes far deeper and wider in the UK. The current crop of British elites is very much of a kind, not just those in the media, but in politics, academia, senior ranks of the civil service, industry, the church — in short, all the institutions that underpin what remains of the British state. The reasons? They are legion, and not the sort you can measure with Gordon Brown’s tape measure at the Treasury. And definitely not for discussion here.
I do not fear the presence of the Guardian/BBC axis in the US, though I share your concerns. The US economy is so vast and the population — enough of it, anyway — so engaged and fractious and smart that the sloppy-minded lazy-assed Beeb/Grauniad style just won’t survive the killing fields of the American blogosphere. And there are other reasons.
One road forward: Yes, there is mutual interest — UK and US — in destroying the statist privileges of the BBC, and of casting them adrift to float or flounder in the real world.
Many, including me, believe that the BBC is a potent source of evil in the world, and that Beeb news divisions would sink fast and forever once compelled to descend from Olympus. But hey, that could be nonsense. If you believe it is (as does Reith, one supposes, along with a number of his bag-carriers and fellow-travellers), what’s wrong with finding out? All you’ve got to lose is job security, a mere bagatelle to a principled man of the left.
[An aside, nearly irrelevant to the above but not quite: Does anyone know what Red Ken thinks of the BBC?]
Roxana: Not quite chicken soup for the soul, but thank you for that. Sometimes gasoline pours better than oil — like now.
Next year may be a make-or-break year for Britain, especially if the US economy rolls over into recession (likely). New council tax levies, HIPs (home info packs that may well cripple the middle-class housing market), massive pension shortfalls, continuing deterioration of NHS and schools….a long, long list. Brit pols have run out of places to hide. They will, of course, blame the US.
Billyquiz: Thank you. That link isn’t working for me either, but I currently have a lousy connection.
The Dross: Well, I believe there’s Kiribati and nearby Phoenix Island, Navassa, Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef, and don’t forget Tokelau and Wallis and Futuna, currently said to be eager to shed its (their?) gallic yoke. Then you’ve got the Hmong — the only friend they have is the US — and Samoa, whose military has actually done brave work guarding payrolls throughout Iraq.
Moving up the ladder you’ve got, oh, I dunno, India, Japan, more of S and Central America than you care to know about, and a long, long list of others. Most worrying to you may be Australia, Poland and Spain — in all cases, the roots are deep, abiding and powerful, and have little to do with the current government (Spain, especially). You plainly haven’t a clue how much Americans generally like and admire Australia, and it has little to do with Howard or Iraq. You may note that Spain + Poland = 80 million plus, all in the EU and many of them unhappy.
You also have little understanding of US demographics. Around 100 million Americans trace their roots to the British Isles, nearly 30 mill from your Celtic fringes, few of whom feel warm and fuzzy about Essex or Estuary English or the horses many of you ride. Some 15 mill come from what’s now Eire; most, of course, can’t think of a bad word to say about the English. Around 100 million others have direct links to Germany. The rest come from everywhere, especially including Poland and Hispanics of all kinds. That, you will note, leaves the whiney limey on the short end.
You seem to loathe the Saudis — maybe you’d explain why they are inherently less trustworthy and more obnoxious than you are. On second thoughts, don’t bother.
Still got the brass neck to show your face around here Knacker. You surely are a Merkin.
“Justin Webb must go”.
What is the purpose of this website if not to right wrongs for the licence payer?
For that matter why and for how much money was Humphrys sent to Basra? Of what worth were his ramblings as opposed to the rubbish we already get from the loons based there?
Why and how much does it cost to maintain “reporters” in the USA, a country that speaks a perfectly understandable form of English and where many good “feeds” can be tapped for a fraction of what we have to pay to staff from here?
“We have better allies elsewhere.”
The knackered anglophobe suddenly went all coy and took a vacation hike to Samoa, but by “better allies elsewhere” he may well have meant…the French. Sure, we may chuckle but a small and dimwitted minority of Americans have revered France ever since she baled them out in their war of independence. It is ironic, because France at that time was a despotic state and a million miles from any Jeffersonian ideal. Its intervention was pure realpolitik.
Despite their numbers these people have long held disproportionate sway over US policy. In 1812 they supported Napoleon and were behind Madison’s thuggish and cowardly attempt to annex Canada (the barbequed White House that was his prize was apparently all our fault). After the fall of France in May 1940 they temporarily persuaded a majority of Americans* not only to continue appeasement (spun as ‘isolationism’ in its US setting) but also to oppose any specific aid to the remaining allies. France had gone and nothing else really mattered, and so Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand could all go to kingdom come. FDR ignored them – as best he could – and went ahead with the aid anyway.
They are a little band of ignorant and chippy jerks who are persistently anti-British and a perennial thorn in the relations between the two countries, far more so that the Left over here who are anti-Republican rather than anti-American (remember the BBC’s admiration of Clinton). When it comes to our war of independence, they will instinctively cheer for the Franco-centric EU. We founded their country and they will do their best to kill ours. We may depend upon it.
============================================================
*A useful • if occasionally crass – overview of the anti-British sentiment in America during the first years of WW2 is to found in the observations of Richard Casey, the then Australian Minister to the USA • see this document (PDF). It is in section V (on page 11) that Casey lets rip:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/51/32/WP30Bridge.pdf
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/51/32/WP30Bridge.pdf.
“The overall point is straightforward, unsentimental and largely about self-interest: you need us more than we need you…”
Unfortunately, that last bit is not true. A dangerous and permanent failing of the USA • and therefore a current failing of the entire Western world • is its lack of confidence in international affairs. The USA’s independence is strictly internal, for, in all its long history, it has very little experience of going to war without allies: it has won only against Mexico and Spain (in Cuba), and neither of those events was exactly glorious.
It is not in America’s character to be as Britain was in the 1800s: globally self-confident and expansionist and yet wilfully lonesome at the same time. When America steps over her own borders she has a sentimental need for entanglements, and that is her failing.
Phil Jackson: I dont have any idea about knacker’s agenda, but he isn’t an anglophobe and he does not run from issues. Are you dyslexic?
Interested bystanders may care to know that Anon at 3.28pm today is using the same US wireless ISP as Knacker at 6.31pm on the 4th, so while Anon says he doesn’t have any idea about Knacker’s agenda it’s somewhat curious that he’s so certain in his apparent knowledge that knacker isn’t an Anglophobe.
Looks to me as if Knacker and Anon are one and the same, but do feel free to draw your own conclusions.
Phil – You are absolutely correct, Democratic Franco-philia goes all the way back to Jefferson.
IMO anybody who thinks the French are better allies than Great Britain are out of their everloving blue eyed minds!
It has always been my opinion that the United States, the British Commonwealth and Israel could if necessary take on the world and win. Current events suggest we may have to.
Roxanna,
Shame on you for leaving out the Aussies.
I included them under ‘British Commonwealth’ Australia *IS* still a member of same isn’t it?
Mind you I doubt we – the US that is – would get much support from Canada.
US isolationism and feelings about France are not what this website is supposed to be about.
Doesn’t anyone talk about what I posted at 8.04am yesterday? Justin Webb must go!
The first linked article has been edited, it now reads “In a nation where more than 90% believe in God, that is not a good thing for the Democrats.”