10 thoughts on “One reason I still enjoy the BBC

  1. Exactly, Mr. Clark. As my late lamented father used to say, “How funny is it, now?”
    Democracy can be tough, as some of us learned last year.

  2. Most Americans underestimated that so-many voters would choose an egotistical, irrational and delusional person to be their president.

  3. Come on David. You have a great blog here when you are poking fun at the Anglican and at times their bed partner, the ELCIC leadership who deserve what you throw at them if not more. When you are doing this, I thoroughly enjoy reading what you say. But when you slip into extremist right wing secular politics, which too often you do, you reduce this at times excellent criticism of (so many negative adjectives to describe how horrific they are to even mention) the church leadership to nothing more than just another ranting website of the political right. Stop it please and do what you do best and stick with the church hierarchy; I can get this other stuff from other blogs who are better at it than you.

    Anger at the current church leadership and right wing extremist politics (which you will most likely will deny being part of but trust me, you are) are not the same and are not natural allies. Don’t lose your audience and credibility by going that direction here please.

    It may not be so obvious with this post from the BBC but I just mention it here now because you do it way too often.

    • Don Hansen, you are right that your hypothesis of David “slip[ping] into right wing secular politics” is, as you put it, not so obvious from that post from the BBC. Enjoying something from the BBC that points out that Seth Myers, John Oliver, those who laughed at Ann Coulter, George Clooney, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who so arrogantly thought they had an accurate grasp on the US body politic to predict that he could not become President [1], may be secular, but hardly “right-wing” unless you use a specious definition of that term, such as all in my aforementioned list are moderate centrists. To support your hypothesis you need point to a few examples that are so obvious. Tests show that, on the left-right or liberal-conservative axis, I am a centrist and, on the libertarian-authoritarian axis I am moderately libertarian [ look up, for example, Nolan chart ] and I do not, generally, perceive David as “right-wing” outside of defining Christian orthodoxy as necessarily such. So, come on, yourself, Don.

      On the topic of the BBC and Donald Trump, I have, since the results of the US election, been doing an observational experiment on the BBC World News, which I listen to every weekday morning, keeping tabs on how often they focus on him in an unbalanced and negative way. Let’s just say that a properly colourful way to express my hypothesis re that necessitates vulgarity.

      [1] I too, having very little in common with those in that list, also predicted that Trump was “unelectable”, but for different reasons, mainly to do with overestimating the power of a generally hostile media. I was fully aware of his appeal to the citizens of “flyover country” and those, “deplorable” or otherwise, who had had enough of sanctimonious liberal/progressive presumption.

      • I meant no insult to David. I admire his courage to take on the leadership of the church who can be as vindictive to those who challenge them and as abusive to those they view as inferior as any authority I have known if not more so. I have nothing but admiration for David and this blog. But I do view his occasional comments on secular politics a personal distraction from the otherwise amazing work he does here putting the boots to bishops who use their positions solely to advance themselves and their friends.

        His dry sense of humour and ability to satire those who think they are beyond satire is at times nothing more than pure genius in my opinion.

        I do not condemn David. I envy him and covet his abilities.

        And I deeply apologize to you Anthony if you felt that my comment was somehow insulting or abusive to David in any way. It grieves me to think I may have caused such offense.

        • OK, Don, fair reply. But, I did not feel you were in any way being insulting or abusive to David. I agree that his occasioning into secular politics can be distracting sometimes. (However, for me substance, er, trumps style, and I am hoping that applies to Mr. Trump.) I was questioning that particular instance as being “right-wing” (which is not necessarily negative); note that I dropped your “extreme” modifier to allow you some room if you wanted to rebut.

          • Mainstream media is so consistently biased in their reporting, that I find it refreshing if I can find in any space a word of balance. All politicians are flawed, many are deeply flawed, but frankly some are willing to stand up for my beliefs – or at least for my freedom to hold to those beliefs – and to me that seems relevant on a blog such as this…

Leave a Reply