Oh, this is rich. BBC’s Harrabin asks CRU for programming advice

Roger Harrabin and Joe Smith write to UEA warmist Mike Hulme, ask: “What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc?”

 

Email 3757

We are writing to some alumni of the University of Cambridge Media and Environment seminars gathering ideas for the BBC’s coverage of the Rio+10 Earth Summit in a year’s time. Before the Rio summit, the BBC held the One World festival, which included some memorable broadcasting – particularly a feature drama on refugees. Some broadcasting is already in the pipeline that will relate to the themes of Rio+ 10, but this is an open opportunity for you to put forward ideas that will be collated and circulated amongst relevant BBC decision-makers.

* What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc? * How can the BBC convey the theme of sustainable development to viewers and listeners who have probably seen all the issues raised before? * Is there any scope for a global broadcasting initiative? * What are the strongest themes and specific issues that should appear in the media in the months and years following the conference?

If anyone ever needed any proof the the BBC is biased, then this is the prime example. It is the proverbial “tail wagging the dog”, there’s no journalism here, only obedience.

BBC journalist Roger Harrabin

BBC's Roger Harrabin - obedient media poodle -Image via Wikipedia

h/t to Tom Nelson

About these ads

66 thoughts on “Oh, this is rich. BBC’s Harrabin asks CRU for programming advice

  1. Harabin has been parked in some kind of unpaid leave until his shady deals with the Green NGOs are forgotten; anyone know where he is and whether any foundation pays for this leave? Think it was in the Chicago area, some kind of “journalism college” or so…

  2. If you are a UK resident and therefore a BBC license payer, you should copy this email and forward it through the proper channels to the BBC. You should insist on an internal inquiry, because Harrabin may have broken his contractual obligations.

  3. The Remarkable thing about these questions is that they don’t really ask any questions. More to the point they illustrate a lackluster culture of intellectual laziness. The BBC really would like someone else to do their journalism for them!!

  4. A private media network would be asking, “What do our customers want to see?”

    The BBC is asking, “How do we keep on pushing the global warming agenda despite its lack of novelty and interest?”

  5. When I complained about cynical bias by Alex Kirby the BBC replied they would not comment about someone who had left the BBC. Let’s see how they respond this time.

  6. “What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc?”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#
    So not content with talking bollocks on science programmes, they want to slide their subliminal messages into everything else as well. May the fleas of a million camels infest their short and curlies.

  7. It is christmas. Ho ho ho!

    date: Wed Dec 8 08:25:30 2004
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: RE: something on new online.
    to: “Alex Kirby”

    Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
    spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can
    well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we
    are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any
    coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and
    being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an
    expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
    say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it
    clear that we think they are talking through their hats.

    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit

  8. It makes me fume that MY money is funding this bias and corruption in the BBC. Their job should be to present all sides of an argument with no bias whatsoever.

    And this is not the only area in which I feel grossly offended by being forced to fund their grossly inflated salaries and pension, esp as I have no pension at all.

  9. Perhaps, if they are TRULY media journalists and not some Left Wing propaganda mouthpieces, they should start reporting actual NEW(S) and refrain from OLD(S)

  10. Britain: Bad television and bias, all on the taxpayers’ compulsory license. Spent a while in England recently and it made me glad to get back to Toronto where TV isn’t mostly many variants of bad BBC programming…no wonder the Brits drink so much
    We have a problem with the CBC at the taxpayer trough for over $1.1B and giving us un-watchable shows (Little Mosque on The Parries, which is somewhat PC and portrays christian ministers as nincompoops) while out bidding the private sector for hockey programming, but we can ignore it

  11. @roh234 December 27, 2011 at 9:56 am:
    “That’s why the BBC should be shut down or privitised. Same with the CBC here in Canada.”

    If that happens, they won’t even have to pretend they are even-handed. What will that gain? Look at FOX News – one sided in the extreme. Does the UK want that kind of in-your-face bias? Be careful what you ask for…

  12. Are there any BBC journos who aren’t utterly blinkered with the Warmist mindset?

    Just one skeptic would be a miracle…….

  13. Steve Garcia says:
    December 27, 2011 at 10:27 am

    “Look at FOX News – one sided in the extreme.”
    ============================================================
    A much better example would be MSNBC. They no longer even bother to feign objectivity. FOX is the ONLY news network in the USA to report honestly on the AGW fraud.

  14. It saddens me to see the BBC this way, a mouth piece for the greens. The BBC was once the home of great and honest journalists – Charles Wheeler, Alistair Cooke, Richard Dimbleby

    Now all that is left are Hacks. It is time for us to get rid of the BBC.

  15. Further BBC bias just a couple of days ago, when the BBC refused to report that multiple bombs had gone off in Baghdad AFTER the Americans had left (according to the BBC, only America causes trouble).

    This was doubly highlighted on BBC World News, when the presenter led on the Baghdad bombs and then stopped, and apologised, saying he had the wrong headlines! They then started the whole news bulletin again!

    It is about time that 50% of the BBCs funding is given to Channel 4 (Channel 4 is actually government owned, but keeps mighty quiet about this odd fact).

    .

  16. I’ve never bought or owned a TV in my life and at 66 years I’ve got no need for one, especially since the advent of the blogs.

  17. Re Alex Kirby:

    May 12th 2004, his review and comments on “the blockbuster climate disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3707873.stm

    …a few direct quotes…

    “Sir David King, the government’s chief scientific adviser, said he hoped many ordinary Americans would see the film.”

    ” US Vice-President Al Gore said the risks the film portrayed were a threat to our common future.”

    “Sir David said: “The film brings events together into a highly unlikely or even impossible scenario. It’s very difficult to explain the physics of it.

    “But what’s good is that while my colleagues and I have just spent half an hour presenting you with the scientific understanding of climate change, the movie gets the basic message across in a few sentences of dialogue. It’s a beautiful piece of script-writing.”

    …my translation…It is untrue, but it is an effective way for to communicate these untrue statements…

    Dr Geoff Jenkins, head of climate prediction at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research… said: “It’s a movie, and we shouldn’t get too po-faced about it. Hollywood’s not going to make money out of a bunch of scientists discussing uncertainties.”

    Dr Jenkins said scientists thought a collapse of the THC was a low-probability but high-impact event. But they did not know how low the probability was, and in principle it could happen.

    Dr David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, told BBC News Online: “The film got a lot of the detail wrong, and the direction of change as well – cooling of this sort is very unlikely with global warming.

    “But the fact that The Day After Tomorrow raises awareness about climate change must be a good thing.”

    Images copyright 2004 Twentieth Century Fox.

    …hmmm the film was produced by News Corp…so much for that “Rupert Murdoch is out to get us theory”, lol.

    Andrew

  18. Jan says:
    December 27, 2011 at 10:22 am

    I’m surprised to see an email reply address as harrabin1@aol.com. Doesn’t the BBC have it’s own domain name c/w email server?

    ——

    I’m sure the BBC does, but the nice thing about private email addresses is that they aren’t subject to FOIA.

  19. Steve Garcia says:
    December 27, 2011 at 10:27 am
    If that happens, they won’t even have to pretend they are even-handed. What will that gain? Look at FOX News – one sided in the extreme. Does the UK want that kind of in-your-face bias? Be careful what you ask for…”
    Fox news is centrist… yes when fox news came out all the other news networks dropped any pretense of being centrist and went hail stalin left to left.

    What really needs to happen is for FBN(fox business news) to go mainstream. They are a center-right network. Every time I turn it on someones calling obama and socialist and AGW pure propaganda. It would be nice if the right had at least one semi-rightwing network to watch and put out capitalist and anarchy view points unlike the current mainstream main including fox which are basically obama’s lapdogs.

  20. The apparent AGW promoting bias at BBC is not entirely due to its natural sycophantic alliance with left wing liberal causes. I believe that it stems from a lack of professional journalism within BBC. In order for anyone to be ‘fair and balanced’, as its charter states, the journalist must have taken the time to investigate the topic for themselves, even to the point of analysing sources which might seem contrary. Therefore, some familiarity with the sceptic viewpoint is necessary before passing judgement. However, not only do they fail to do this with the sceptical case, but it is apparent that BBC merely pass on material that promotes the AGW cause, without introspection.

    The organisation does not add value to its sources, nor attempt a knowledge driven comparative analysis. The fundamental problem is that BBC does not know how to deal with issues which are more complex than can be covered by a straight to camera piece. This is in turn a fundamental problem of all one-way legacy media, who stand in poor comparison with Web media, which are the only ones now capable of the extended dialogues and detailed analysis demanded by their tech-savvy participants.

    It is not just bias which is being exposed here by the request from a media organisation for material which supports its stated cause, but also a recognition that BBC is floundering in the face of new media and is being superseded by them in coverage of the deeper issues.

  21. Steve Garcia says:
    December 27, 2011 at 10:27 am
    “@roh234 December 27, 2011 at 9:56 am:
    “That’s why the BBC should be shut down or privitised. Same with the CBC here in Canada.”

    If that happens, they won’t even have to pretend they are even-handed. What will that gain? Look at FOX News – one sided in the extreme. Does the UK want that kind of in-your-face bias? Be careful what you ask for…”

    We have it in the US with NPR (National Public Radio). NPR broadcasts elicit a response of “Lefty BS” from everyone who is not a regular listener. Seems to me that it is fine that it exists but not on the taxpayers’ dime.

  22. “If that happens, they won’t even have to pretend they are even-handed. What will that gain?”

    The British people wouldn’t be forced to pay for it, with the threat of fines or imprisonment if they don’t.

    Why would anyone care about the BBC’s political stance if they weren’t forced to pay for it? Those who want politically correct TV could continue to watch and pay while the rest of the country could watch whatever they want, or better yet, nothing at all.

    The BBC has always been biased, but in the last decade or so it seems to haven risen to absurd levels; before Tony Blair became Prime Minister they were presumably constrained by the need to keep the level of offence low enough that the Tories wouldn’t de-fund them. The level of political correctness in many BBC shows I’ve seen recently was hilarious.

  23. @ Theo

    In fairness, NPR does get most of its support privately, I think…

    However, I am not a big fan of the likes of Bill Moyers and Ken Burns making millions in a quasi-tax payer funded operation. Because our grandchildren will be stuck with the bill…even if it is a tiny amount.

  24. Edward Bancroft says:
    December 27, 2011 at 12:36 pm
    “The apparent AGW promoting bias at BBC is not entirely due to its natural sycophantic alliance with left wing liberal causes. [...]
    However, not only do they fail to do this with the sceptical case, but it is apparent that BBC merely pass on material that promotes the AGW cause, without introspection.”

    They do have introspection, and use it actively to make their reporters conform; much like in a re-education camp; Richard Black being one of the calfactors keeping the other ones in line.
    The re-education camp is called “BBC College of Journalism”; example link:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/blog/2011/11/video-alejandro-litovsky—rep.shtml

  25. Andrew says:
    December 27, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    @ Theo

    In fairness, NPR does get most of its support privately, I think…

    However, I am not a big fan of the likes of Bill Moyers and Ken Burns making millions in a quasi-tax payer funded operation. Because our grandchildren will be stuck with the bill…even if it is a tiny amount.”

    No one really knows what NPR gets from where… they have closed all info on they’re funding aspects. They also even when “open” used classic “government accounting”. When their funding was threatened they released two competing messages.

    On one hand they say they get most of their funding from private sources and thus the “tiny” 300 million+ they get from the government can be easily covered.

    Then a week later they start screaming if they lose the government money NPR will shut down forever.

    Much like global warming its all PR to fit whatever imagine they want or think they need to give off at the time. I would wager over 50% of NPR’s funding comes from the government directly and more likely a total of 70%+ after everything is included through the round about ways they take in funding.

  26. It pains me to see David Attenborough peddling the Global Warming myth. Reminds me of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle losing his marbles in later life and claiming that there was photographic evidence of the existence of faeries.

  27. Lo, how the mighty have fallen. The BBC should be sold off or shut down The same can be said of the ABC in Australia and the CBC in Canada. The have all turned from News Organisations into Propaganda Outlets for extremist views

  28. Theo Goodwin said
    “If that happens, they won’t even have to pretend they are even-handed. What will that gain? ”
    What good is there pretending to be objective when you are not, to the public

    Getting rid of the BBC would get rid of the Licence fee which in 2008 cost UK people £3.3B – not insubstantial gain

  29. Theo Goodwin says:
    December 27, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    Look at FOX News – one sided in the extreme. Does the UK want that kind of in-your-face bias? Be careful what you ask for…”

    I would suggest that the UK already has in your face bias – with the BBC – that every-one HAS pay for.

    And I do not believe that privatisation equals Fox News?

    In Australia we have the ABC (much the same as the BBC), a group of different commercial national and regional commercial channels and pay satellite TV which as well as SPORT, ENTERTAINMENT, MOVIES etc has NEWS AND DOCUMENTARIES which gives you a selection of international channels (including Fox, CNN, US ABC, BBC and SKY NEWS).

    In my opinion the most balanced station by far in Australia is SKY NEWS. You pay for this whereas the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) is paid by the taxpayer and like the BBC is in your face green tinged left wing bias from the way news headlines are subtly compiled, to the one side of the story only given and the especially selected academic “experts” that the ABC brainwash the national audience with from dawn to dusk on TV, radio and now the internet.

    On the other hand SKY NEWS is commendably diligent in always presenting all sides of the argument especially in political debate. I believe it does this to reach to the maximum extent of audience not just one section (like Fox News?) and if it is to survive in the future competitive world of electronic media it will have to do that.

    I am sure that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation would do the same if rather than being exorbitantly funded by the tax payer it had to fight for an audience and compete for respect, balance and quality. And the same goes for the BBC.

    Let us see how the BBC, CBC and ABC would go with a voluntary taxpayer donation rather than a compulsory one.

  30. Don’t buy Garcia’s BS. Fox News channel has a larger audience than its next 4 competitors combined (including CNN and MSNBC). The reason for this, believe me, is not the stupidity of the American public. Quite the reverse.

  31. Ralph says:
    December 27, 2011 at 11:32 am
    “Further BBC bias just a couple of days ago, when the BBC refused to report that multiple bombs had gone off in Baghdad AFTER the Americans had left (according to the BBC, only America causes trouble).

    This was doubly highlighted on BBC World News, when the presenter led on the Baghdad bombs and then stopped, and apologised, saying he had the wrong headlines! They then started the whole news bulletin again!

    It is about time that 50% of the BBCs funding is given to Channel 4 (Channel 4 is actually government owned, but keeps mighty quiet about this odd fact).”

    How odd – I get my news from the radio (BBC Radio 4 or World Service) as I have no television and Radio 4 had no problem both reporting that the bombs had gone off and that it was AFTER (sic) the Americans had left – not once but several times.

  32. “What are the strongest themes and specific issues that should appear in the media in the months and years following the conference?”

    And this is asked by a journalist? My goodness, what a complete loser.
    He does a good job as an ecofascist though. You can almost hear him think: Befehl ist Befehl.
    Maybe he should move to North-Korea. He will feel very comfortable being led by their Ruler.
    Unbelievable how low the BBC has fallen. It hit rock bottom with this one. Disgusting.

  33. Only in Canada.
    As A ex pat and a Canadian I can echo many of the complaints against the BBC. or the ABC in Australia and most definitely the CBC in Canada. But a last we have a new Canadian SUN TV news and opinion network that reports on all things newsworthy and on the Global warming scam, The SUN hates political correctness and all things the MSM won’t touch,. Like any news or reporting I don’t agree with everything they say, but I sure love having a different slant and voice especially the anti political left leaning CBC/BBC/ABC style.The SUNS straight shooting news and editorials are is music to my ears, and drives the socialist elite Eco watermelons crazy, they can’t help but watch it spite of their hatred of the SUN and write furious emails and letters of complaint, which the Sun guys happily read on the air without censuring.
    And as a CAGW skeptic something I thoroughly enjoy, I a regular diet of global warning exposure from many skeptical scientists and authors.
    Oh the Joy.

  34. BBC output has always been a major organ of propagandist ‘British’ political influence but it was always going to be the case that a supra-national hyper-pontificating broadcasting entity such as Auntie would feel the pinch. Trouble is, they can’t quite bring themselves to believe its happening. Now. Recent contractions in World Service provision, London-centric production externalisation, staff journ-o-list pay-offs measured in 000’s, etc., – this is a bastion of UK arrogance in irreversible suppuration and decline, propped up solely by failing government statute hell-bent on continued media manipulation.

    Harrabin is damned by the various CG released content, not only by dint of his clandestine-like activities, his consistent and purposeful insistence on propagating well-recognised scientific fraud, but also because he made sure there was a compliant and receptive unwitting public tax-paying funded audience. No man, in my book, ever gets lower than that.

  35. Brian H says:
    December 27, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    Don’t buy Garcia’s BS. Fox News channel has a larger audience than its next 4 competitors combined (including CNN and MSNBC). The reason for this, believe me, is not the stupidity of the American public. Quite the reverse.

    You are correct. And for the same reason, talk radio in America thrives when it is objective and truthful, and craters when it isn’t . Every attempt at liberal talk radio has failed and I’ll let the reader figure out why.

  36. BBC Radio 4 reported the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq quite extensively, almost sarcastically emphasising that no Iraqi politicians attended the departing ceremony, and that the departure to Kuwait was under cover of darkness, and that Obama would not be declaring “mission accomplished”. They also reported the subsequent bombings in Baghdad, and they could hardly fail to connect the two events.

    It is not true that it’s compulsory to own a television licence in the UK. You only need it legally to watch live TV as it’s being broadcast. I haven’t owned a licence for more several years. After an initial amount of hassle I haven’t been bothered by the authorities.

    It wasn’t because of anti-American bias that I gave up buying the BBC’s licence, though. It was because of apparent BBC bias towards a war-mongering foreign policy by an earlier US Democrat administration that I really began to dislike the BBC.

  37. Brent Hargreaves says:
    December 27, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    It pains me to see David Attenborough peddling the Global Warming myth. Reminds me of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle losing his marbles in later life and claiming that there was photographic evidence of the existence of faeries.

    He also peddles the Malthusian myth; he is a patron of the Optimum Population Truss Trust.

  38. Still no reply to my request to the BBC for clarification of the £15000 paid to Harrabin by CRU, not even a denial that payment was made. The longer silence continues the stronger the evidence that monies changed hands.

  39. RockyRoad says:
    December 27, 2011 at 9:10 pm
    Brian H says:
    December 27, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    Don’t buy Garcia’s BS. Fox News channel has a larger audience than its next 4 competitors combined (including CNN and MSNBC). The reason for this, believe me, is not the stupidity of the American public. Quite the reverse.

    You are correct. And for the same reason, talk radio in America thrives when it is objective and truthful, and craters when it isn’t . Every attempt at liberal talk radio has failed and I’ll let the reader figure out why.

    =============================

    Hmm, Fox news fully supported all the Bush trashing of the US constitution, how intelligent do you think the audience who agrees with that?

    Clever media playing mind games is all you’re seeing here.

  40. I have a suggestion – do some properly-researched effing journalism – you know, what you are (or were) actually paid to do…

  41. @Jan says:
    December 27, 2011 at 10:22 am

    I’m surprised to see an email reply address as harrabin1@aol.com. Doesn’t the BBC have it’s own domain name c/w email server?
    ———————————————————————————————————————–
    yes @bbc.co.uk

    The name was roger.harrabin, right?

  42. So, the term “climate scientists” really means “media/propaganda officers” (analogs of the “political officers” of the old Soviet Union or Mao China). That explains alot — official audits of the US gooberment funding for “climate-science” showed ~80% went to “media services”.

    That’s our hard-earned tax money at work there, folks.

  43. From 3846.txt

    from: Mike Hulme
    subject: what is Tyndall Centre?
    to: harrabin_roger

    Thank you for your contribution to the Advisory Board yesterday – challenging the way we
    see ourselves and others perceive us is very important…….. Our stated vision…

    ……….”To become an internationally recognised source of high quality and integrated
    climate-change research, and to exert a seminal influence on the design and achievability
    of the long-term strategic objectives of UK and international climate policy.”……..

    ….”Global climate change – enabling solutions through research and dialogue”….

    …Our research goes beyond the question, “Is it happening?”, to ask “What can we do about it?”

  44. Myrrh says:
    December 28, 2011 at 4:42 am

    Hmm, Fox news fully supported all the Bush trashing of the US constitution, how intelligent do you think the audience who agrees with that?

    Clever media playing mind games is all you’re seeing here.”

    Fox news is centrist really they’re “hard news” is center left. The US Constitution is the most right wing document pretty much any government has ever written… hmmm doesn’t take a genius to figure out that fox news want some scaling back toward the center. Bush II was of course center left so also not surprising Fox news supported him.

    • son of mulder says:
      December 28, 2011 at 1:59 pm

      I like it…but I did have to read it twice…and then my snarky side took over…

      “A flute without holes, is not a flute. A donut without a hole, is a Danish.” – T. Webb

  45. temp says:
    December 28, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    The US Constitution is the most right wing document pretty much any government has ever written…

    I strongly reject your assertion my friend. The US Constitution, was an attempt by the Framers to limit the role of the central government. Building off of the Declaration of Independence in which the Founding Fathers had acknowledged:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    The Framers said:

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    Nothing left or right about that! Ironically if you look into the entire concept of the left/right political spectrum you will find it to be rather bogus. Stalin and Hitler were both Socialists and also bitter enemies…the spectrum was an artificial creation to accommodate two totalitarian dictators.

    Andrew

  46. Andrew says:
    December 28, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    “Nothing left or right about that! Ironically if you look into the entire concept of the left/right political spectrum you will find it to be rather bogus. Stalin and Hitler were both Socialists and also bitter enemies…the spectrum was an artificial creation to accommodate two totalitarian dictators.”

    Your confusing the propaganda version with the science version.

    All socialists are leftwing period. Both hitler and stalin where leftwing just a matter of how leftwing.
    To sum up the propaganda version we can use the old quote when dealing with it.

    “Stalin is a moderate, hitler’s rightwing.

    This quote sums up how the commies view the world… because they see the “center” being communist. Thus in turn hitler who was not a pure socialist(aka commie) was to the right along with everyone else on the planet.

    Most ppl use this socialist scale when talking about right/left as they believe the only thing that can exist are collectivists. Others use this scale because they know nothing but propaganda.

    In the true scale you have left/right as they should be… opposites because they are.

    The scale is leftwing collectivists/ rightwing individualists.

    The leftwing collectivists break down into the type of government and economic scale of totalitarianism or 100% government and socialism 100% government control of the economy.

    ALL socialists are collectivists which are totalitarians which are socialists.

    On the other side you have the rightwing individualists which break down into anarchy and capitalism. Anarchy being of course no government and capitalism being no government in the economy.

    ALL anarchists are individualists which are capitalists which are anarchists.

    It is impossible for someone to be say an anarchist and a socialist. Socialists demand 100% government control of the economy while anarchists believe no government should exist.

    Ppl often confuse socialists/totalitarian for anarchists… the easy way to tell them apart is that socialists oppose the “current” government(because each collective/socialist/totalitarian group sees itself as the one that should be on top) and thus simply want to replace the “current” government with there “better” collective/socialist/totalitarian government vs anarchists who oppose government and simply want it gone.

    The US Constitution is very clearly about the most rightwing document any government can ever write. It was intend to heavily limit government power in every aspect. This means that its just short of anarchy in the way it restricts government. Thus in turn it is rightwing.

    • @ temp…

      If I appear to be “confusing” the issue it must be either my failure to communicate or the limits we find ourselves dealing with via this communication medium.

      Your point about the propaganda version and the science version is excellent. Since I spent most of my academic career in the company of political science profs rather than the chem/bio profs, I am a bit more familiar with this particular subject. (my copy of The Federalist Papers gets pulled off the shelf often, while my chem and bio books were sold back to the bookstore)

      Anyway…based upon the context in which you have subsequently provided; regarding your statement…touche!

      …and thank you, that was some good stuff you wrote, and I agree.

      Andrew

  47. @Andrew

    Didn’t mean for it to come off as somehow heavy handed in it its just that the line about “Nothing left or right about that!” is what i see the “new” propaganda line being. AKA repubs and democrats are the same party there is no right or left and a bunch of other arguments along that line. Slight differences does not make polar opposites and while I agree for the most part their is no major difference between the two party that just means they are the same aka either both left or both right or both something.

    The old communist style is starting to be looked down on as it is clearly retarded on its face with hitler and stalin at opposing sides when they are almost exactly the same.

    The new line being “everyones the same” is just continuing this propaganda in another type of word play but still holding true to the “we see the world as everyone being collectivists/socialists” ideology.

    Other things that drive me up the wall for stuff like that is that some being moderate, centrists, “we should compromise”.

    Nothing drives me up the wall more then “we should compromise” and “a compromise where no one is happy is a good compromise”.

    O which i always love o respond “well the jews want to be free and treated like humans… and the hitlers wants them all rounded up and killed… so a great compromise is the jews all being locked up because neither the jews nor hitlier will be happy with the “great” compromise…

    Much the same where any action to avoid war is seen as somehow a good action… much as in the run up to WW2.

    I want to cut off the “its not left/right issue” before it takes hold because everything is a left/right(at least some much so in that polar opposites do exist) issue in reality… at least if their is a difference. The problem always is no one know what left or right or even the center is because they don’t really time about what the terms mean or even

  48. Whenever you see the propaganda phrase “Sustainable Development” it is a direct line to the “Agenda 21″ garbage (of which the IPCC and Carbon Cap and Tax is only one manifestation).

    That the BBC is hooking for guidance on how to spin it says they are clearly “on board” with that anti-economic development-hostile agency. Just another propaganda organ looking for taxpayer funded ideas to sell.

Comments are closed.