Anti-capitalists - you are no Guy Fawkes

Click on the link for an interesting article on V for Vendetta Fawkes masks being worn by current demonstrators.

So how are this lot like Fawkes and how not?

Like him they are miserable failures in their protest which comes like his from frustration with a government not delivering as hoped. Perhaps like him they are the front foot soldiers for a more sinister plot but I doubt this. Like him they express the frustration of many in a way those many would never do themselves or really approve of. Like Guy they have a fair point of grievance.

Unlike Guy. They are not from Yorkshire. They do not have honourable occupations like mercenary soldier. They are not plotting quietly out of sight. They will not be tortured, hung, drawn and quartered. They have social media to co-ordinate and organise their efforts. It is about economics not religion. No one is going to have a church liturgy for 250 or more years commemorating national deliverance from thir plot. They will soon be forgotten.

Is there no more important news than A levels?

Yesterday morning I switched off "Today" on R4 as I was sick of wall to wall A Levels with the same rubbish about how results had improved. A Level grades are a debased currency like HM's Honours. I rang one young friend to hear her good news only to be told she was delaying opening the envelope. I regard it a my duty to encourage her self confidence! I expect she had done well though she is fearful. I also heard of someone who was told by a uni that she had been accepted the day before she received her results. So uni knows results before pupils do.

Thoughtless for the day

Giles Fraser holds high office in the C of E but his words on Radio 4 this morning were sub-Christian. Topically at Man Booker time he was talking about how difficult it is to write about sex or God. Both are too mysterious.

But God has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ and we have four gospel accounts of him. What more revelation do we need except the Spirit to open the word to us. That work seems lacking in Fraser.

Thought for the day.

I have previously blogged on the gross imbalance between the religious diversity of this country and the diversity of BBC speakers each morning. Faiths other than Christianity are grossly over represented. The one faith still not represented is the secular, not that it bothers me. But my other beef is with the Christians who do speak. I would change them all except Anne Atkins. I expect no better from the likes of Tom Butler but when one successive mornings I hear two supposed evangelicals give pieces which could have come from any faith or none I am angry. The Bishop of Liverpool and Joel Edwards should be better than this. Talk abut what is distinctively Christian. GRACE is what marks out our one true God. Let's hear it or give us people who can proclaim the gospel.

BBC survey on its portrayal of homosexuals

Click on the link and fill it in. I fear the majority of respondents will be those sympathetic to the cause. I do not expect a similar survey on their pathetic portrayal of things Christian.

The Most Newsworthy Events of 2009

Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary lists these.
1. The Inauguration of Barack Obama as President of the United States
2. The Uprising in Iran
3. The Travail of the Global Economy
4. The Death of Michael Jackson and the Nation's Addiction to Celebrity
5. The Rise of Twitter and the Growing Domination of Social Media
6. The Battle over Heath Care Reform
7. The Leftward March of Liberal Protestantism
8. The Climate Summit in Copenhagen
9. The Swine Flu Epidemic and the New International Hygiene
10. The Spotlight on Private Scandals and Public Consequences

I am English so mine are different. I will also choose from an individual Christian perspective as if I was a news editor.

1. The banking scandal. Not just the bonuses and pensions but stealing our money while cheques clear.
2. Parliamentary expenses scandal. Too many snouts in too big a trough.
3. Anti-Christian, secularist dhimmi media bias, especially the BEEB.
4. The Islamist threat compounded by the human rights act.
5. Loss of British lives in Afghanistan where Christians have to be in secret.
6. The scandal of membership of an undemocratic super state which has no audited accounts.
7. The rise of the Nutories and the decline of Nulabour with the rats wanting to change the captain of a sinking ship but no party wanting to roll back the state and dependency culture.
8. The loss of freedom of speech due to hate crime folly.
9. A thermosceptic climate mania critique.
10. The southward move of Christian orthodoxy.

BBC host: Britain needs marriage

The Christian Institute says, 'The presenter of a new BBC documentary on ‘broken Britain’ says the decline of marriage is to blame – but that social liberals will find that hard to accept.

John Ware, whose programme The Death of Respect goes out on BBC2 tonight, says the “post-war experiment in individualism” has left us with a fragmented society.

He said: “This started in the 1970s with the increase in unmarried parents, lone parents, cohabiting parents and step-parents.

“In its wake came generations of children who have been shifted from pillar to post.”

Mr Ware says that in the “rush to sweep away from the 1960s much that was bad”, Britain “also abandoned much that was good, including the institution of marriage.”

But despite “the evidence of marriage being generally best for children”, Mr Ware said the Government had “avoided debating” the issue.

He said: “Despite such authoritative warnings, ministers and their advisors seem reconciled to the relentless rise in family breakdown and single parenthood, seeing this as an irreversible social trend whose expensive consequences we will just have to crisis manage”.

Mr Ware said the only way to reverse the problem is to “accept that the fragmentation of society is closely linked to the decline of marriage.”

Mr Justice Coleridge, a leading family judge who features in Mr Ware’s programme, said the BBC had given it an 11.20pm TV slot because the content on family breakdown was deemed “too dark” for prime time.

He wrote last month of inviting a BBC researcher to spend the day watching a run-of-the-mill High Court case.

He said she was “stunned into silence and remained speechless” when he told her that “within the Royal Courts of Justice, there were 20 or so other judges engaged in similar cases”.

“Across inner London, well over 100 family courts were dealing with family breakdown that day, in one guise or another. Multiply that across the rest of the country, and you get some feel for the scale of the epidemic”, he commented.
Share this page

Follow us
Facebook
Twitter
Headline Widget
News feeds
Mailing list
Related articles
Top Tory defends new pro-marriage tax planCohabitees more likely to divorce‘Delay divorce to save marriages’ says reportTories’ new plan to shore up marriageUnwed dads are twice as likely to leave homeTop news now
CofE offers wedding and infant baptism in one go New York nurse forced to help in late term abortion Humanists call for faith funding cuts Gay activist welcomes Lords free speech win Top Tory defends new pro-marriage tax plan Article categoriesRecent news | Publications | MPs' votes | Apologetics | Contact | Support us

Copyright © BBC host: Britain
needs marriage

Mr Ware said we must “accept that the fragmentation of society is closely linked to the decline of marriage.”
Yes family breakdown IS behind broken Britain (11 July 2009)
BBC: 'family breakdown too dark for prime time' (19 June 2009)
Kids best with two committed parents (03 Feb 2009)
Kids most want to ban divorce (16 Dec 2009)
Thursday, 16 July 2009
The presenter of a new BBC documentary on ‘broken Britain’ says the decline of marriage is to blame – but that social liberals will find that hard to accept.

John Ware, whose programme The Death of Respect goes out on BBC2 tonight, says the “post-war experiment in individualism” has left us with a fragmented society.

He said: “This started in the 1970s with the increase in unmarried parents, lone parents, cohabiting parents and step-parents.

“In its wake came generations of children who have been shifted from pillar to post.”

Mr Ware says that in the “rush to sweep away from the 1960s much that was bad”, Britain “also abandoned much that was good, including the institution of marriage.”

But despite “the evidence of marriage being generally best for children”, Mr Ware said the Government had “avoided debating” the issue.

He said: “Despite such authoritative warnings, ministers and their advisors seem reconciled to the relentless rise in family breakdown and single parenthood, seeing this as an irreversible social trend whose expensive consequences we will just have to crisis manage”.

Mr Ware said the only way to reverse the problem is to “accept that the fragmentation of society is closely linked to the decline of marriage.”

Mr Justice Coleridge, a leading family judge who features in Mr Ware’s programme, said the BBC had given it an 11.20pm TV slot because the content on family breakdown was deemed “too dark” for prime time.

He wrote last month of inviting a BBC researcher to spend the day watching a run-of-the-mill High Court case.

He said she was “stunned into silence and remained speechless” when he told her that “within the Royal Courts of Justice, there were 20 or so other judges engaged in similar cases”.

“Across inner London, well over 100 family courts were dealing with family breakdown that day, in one guise or another. Multiply that across the rest of the country, and you get some feel for the scale of the epidemic”, he commented. ' © The Christian Institute

One is amazed the liberals at the Beeb broadcast this at all.

BBC ponders secular Thought for the Day

The Christian Institute says, 'The BBC Trust is considering opening Radio 4’s Thought for the Day feature to secular and humanist views.

The announcement, made by Radio 4’s controller Mark Damazer on a listeners’ forum programme, sparked criticism of the BBC’s attitude to religious broadcasting.

Mr Damazer said: “There may well be quite a strong argument for including secularists and humanists” but, he added, “it’s absolutely not a cut and dried issue”.

He said the BBC Trust “is currently considering this question and they will come to some kind of conclusion later on this year”.

Thought for the Day is a regular three minute religious slot on Radio 4’s Today Programme. Contributors represent a wide spectrum of faiths.

Steve Clifford, General Director of the Evangelical Alliance said: “It strikes me that the secularists predominate in the other 2 hours and 55 minutes [of the Today Programme], so is it really asking too much for religion to just have a small chunk of dedicated time?”

The Trust agreed to review the status of Thought for the Day after receiving representations from listeners and secular organisations. Humanist groups have long campaigned for the slot to be opened to non-religious views.

In 2002 Radio 4 allowed atheist Professor Richard Dawkins to present an unofficial Thought slot after the main broadcast, and in January this year a non-religious “Thought for the Afternoon” was included on a Saturday afternoon programme.

Responding to Mr Damazer’s announcement, Prof Dawkins said: “This has been a long running issue. I did a spoof a few years ago as a kind of stunt but I hope that this does happen because religious people do not have the monopoly on morality and ethics.”

Hanne Stinson of the British Humanist Association said: “If it’s right to have a slot within the programme for people to have an ethical perspective on issues, then it should be open to all kinds of people.”

However, others have accused the BBC of caving in to lobbying from secular groups.

Revd Giles Fraser, Vicar of Putney and a regular Thought for the Day contributor, said: “What is at threat here is whether this is a distinctive slot.

“Would you have secularists doing Songs of Praise? It just seems madness. This could be a way of destroying it through the back door, through political correctness.

“I think it is very easy for people to read the BBC as backing away from religious broadcasting.

“One of the main rules about the Thought for the Day slot is that contributors are not allowed to attack other faiths. If we had Richard Dawkins attacking and rubbishing religion, it would change the fundamental nature of it.”

A Church of England spokesman said: “We would strongly resist moves to add non-religious voices to one of the few protected spots in the schedule where religious views on issues of the day can be expressed openly. Thought for the Day is highly valued by people of all faiths and none.”

Leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, said: “All faiths have been sidelined. Thought for the Day is practically the only place where you can hear religious thoughts and it is sad if this important outlet becomes marginalised.

“There is a market for faith and the BBC needs to learn that this is a respected institution which should not be diluted.”

A spokesman for the BBC Trust said that its General Appeals Panel expects to publish a decision on Thought for the Day in the Autumn.' © The Christian Institute All Rights Reserved


It takes a lot for me to agree with the Leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui

Muslim appointed BBC Head of Religion

CCFON says,

'The reaction of many to the appointment of Muslim, Aaqil Ahmed to the post of Head of Religion and Ethics at the BBC must be—'How is this possible?' Until now, our public national broadcaster has been charged with reflecting our Country’s Christian heritage and ethos. Aaqil Ahmed’s appointment is controversial because his background and previous work at Channel 4 has revealed a noticeable bias towards Islam and multiculturalism.

According to The Daily Telegraph, senior bishops wrote to the BBC’s Director General Mark Thompson when it was envisaged that Mr. Ahmed might be appointed, to question the BBC’s commitment to Britain's Christian audience. The Archbishop of Canterbury had also raised concerns with Mr. Thompson that the ‘Christian voice is being sidelined’ after Mr. Ahmed was first connected to the role.

The appointment could be seen as the inevitable result of our multicultural society, in which all religions are viewed as of equal value. This is the secularist point of view—that religion should be confined to the home and the church and excluded from the public square and the workplace. A cursory survey of the Christian Legal Centre’s website (www.christianlegalcentre.com) will reveal the increasing intolerance of this ideology as far as Christians are concerned.

It could also be seen as another sign that our country is in danger of becoming Islamised, alongside, for example, the fact that under pressure from Muslims, the Qur’an is now placed on a higher shelf than the Bible in courtrooms, or the fact that Shari’ah Law is used to judge disputes in Muslim Arbitration Tribunals (now officially part of the English Legal System). Our Government appears to make concessions to the Muslim community, in contrast to its marginalisation of Christianity and the rights of Christians in recent years.

Another interpretation is that the appointment is the result of the European Directive of 2000, which was implemented in the UK by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. These ‘equalitarian’ provisions force employers to appoint an applicant to a role who is broadly the ‘best person’ for the job—if the candidate’s religion is ignored, that is. This applies to every role, except where there is a ‘genuine and determining occupational requirement’ that they should be of a particular religion.

According to The Guardian, Jana Bennett, director of BBC Vision, said that the areas of broadcasting that the ‘Knowledge’ jobs commission (such as religion and ethics) ‘go to the very heart of the BBC's public purposes’. Clearly, the BBC did not think that their Head of religion and ethics—in our country where 70% of the population still align themselves with Christianity—needed to be a Christian.

The Lord Jesus said that if the eye is single the whole body will be full of light. He went on to warn that if the light becomes darkness how great will be that darkness (Matt 6:22-3). When Christianity is no longer the light of a nation then the nation becomes full of darkness. Christianity is the only way by which man may know God. What is required today is for Christians in this country to stand up for the Faith and act on what they believe—that Jesus Christ is indeed the way, the truth and the life for all that live in 21st century Britain.

Please see also our web article entitled: Controversial Muslim programme-maker appointed head of BBC religious broadcasting at: http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=736.

Lesbian couple win fertility bid

BBC says,'Julie McMullan and Caroline Harris are now entitled to IVF treatment
A lesbian couple have won the right to NHS treatment to help them have a baby after threatening to sue health chiefs.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GGC) had denied Caroline Harris and Julie McMullan IVF treatment as they were not classified as an infertile couple.

The health board said it had reviewed its position in light of regulations, including the Equality Act.

The women, who were suing the health board for treatment costs, said they had not yet been offered a settlement. '

Perverts for parents on my taxes. Yuck.

Rushdie and Wilders. Why the different treatment?

BBC says,'It is 20 years since Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against the author Salman Rushdie after the publication of The Satanic Verses.
The novel's launch led to widespread protest by Muslims who regarded it as blasphemous, including public burning of the book.
Rushdie had to live in hiding and under special protection for several years.
And while he is now able to live a more public life, he says the affair remains "an albatross around his neck".
Last year, he told BBC's Newsnight that he was considering writing a book about the experience.
Nine days after The Satanic Verses was published in Britain in September 1988, it was banned in India.

Muslims who wanted the book withdrawn in Britain burned a copy at a demonstration in Bradford's main square.
Protests gathered pace in various countries, and on 14 February 1989, the Iranian revolutionary leader issued the fatwa.
There were attacks on people involved in translating or publishing the book.
Although Iran said this week that the fatwa remains valid, the official line laid down in 1998 was that the death sentence should no longer be pursued.
BBC world affairs correspondent Mike Wooldridge said that in Britain the book and its effects remain divisive.
"Some British Muslims say today that the protest tactics damaged the aims of Muslims; some say they helped prevent greater insults to Islam," he said. '

Why was Rushdie feted by liberals for a book I found unreadable while Wilders is banned from England? Could it be that one is an Asian liberal critical of the West, the other as white right winger protective of Western culture?

Brand kettle called Golly Pot Thatcher black?

In Brusells Journal, '.. it was reported on the 2nd February 2009 that the comedian and Labour Party supporter Jo Brand was being investigated by the police for allegedly inciting criminal acts against her political opponents. While presenting a BBC television programme on the 16th January 2009, she rejoiced that the membership list of the British National Party had been stolen and published on the Internet. Her exact words were: "Hurrah! Now we know who to send the poo to". The natural meaning of her words was that it would be a fine idea to look up members of this party and send excrement to them through the post. The British National Party put in an immediate complaint, using the hate speech laws made during the past generation. According to a BBC spokesman, "We do not comment on police matters. However, we believe the audience would have understood the satirical nature of the remarks". It is relevant to note that Mrs Brand was present when Carol Thatcher ....."

So the ugly mug done it?

Carol Thatcher dropped from BBC show after 'golliwog' gaffe

From The Times February 4, 2009

'Carol Thatcher has been dropped from The One Show by the BBC after referring to a tennis player as a “golliwog” in an off-air conversation.

The journalist daughter of Baroness Thatcher, the former Prime Minister, is understood to have refused a request from the BBC to offer an unconditional apology for her comment.

She used the word during a conversation about the Australian Open tennis tournament in the green room after the programme last Thursday while having a drink with Adrian Chiles, the presenter. It is understood to have been a reference to a player in the men’s competition.

BBC sources said that Chiles and other programme staff took “great offence” at her language. Thatcher adamantly denies that she was being racist and maintains that the remark was off the cuff and a joke. Neither the BBC nor Thatcher’s representatives have identified the male tennis player who was under discussion.

BBC insiders said that Thatcher’s job as a roving reporter for The One Show, on BBC One, required her to report on a wide range of issues and to meet a diverse range of people throughout the country, many of whom would not agree that her comment was acceptable even as a joke.

A source said: “The One Show had hoped that Carol would issue an unconditional apology to those whom she had offended, but she declined to do so.” Because of that it was “no longer tenable” for her to continue working on the programme.

A BBC spokesman said: “We will no longer be working with Carol That- cher on The One Show.” It is understood that she will not be invited back until she acknowledges publicly that using the word “golliwog” is not acceptable, even when apparently in jest.

Thatcher said yesterday that she was surprised by the controversy.

Speaking through an intercom at her home in South London, she said: “I am baffled by all this. I don’t want to talk about anything. I am not coming outside and I won’t be saying anything.”

The corporation said that it considered “any language of a racist nature wholly unacceptable”.

Senior executives are said to be unimpressed by the explanation offered by her spokesman to The Times that the word was used in an off-the-cuff remark intended as a joke.

Thatcher, 55, has been a regular contributor to the evening magazine programme for three years after relaunching her media career by winning the ITV reality show I’m a Celebrity . . . Get Me Out of Here!

Last year she published a memoir that was widely criticised for revealing that her mother had been suffering from dementia for several years.

Her spokesman told The Times: “Carol never intended any racist comment. She made a light aside about this tennis player and his similarity to the golliwog on the jampot when she was growing up. There’s no way, obviously, that she would condone any racist comment — we would refute that entirely. It would not be in her nature to do anything like that.”

The spokesman added that Thatcher had made the reference as “a funny aside”.

Thatcher had apologised to the programme’s producer for any offence but was said to be mortified that the content of an off-air conversation had been disclosed by a BBC employee.

Jo Brand, another regular contributor to The One Show, was understood also to be in the green room when the incident occurred. Her agent said that she had no comment to make.

Brand is the subject of a complaint to police from the British National Party after she joked on another BBC programme about sending excrement to people on a leaked list of members of the far-right group. Scotland Yard said that it was in contact with the Crown Prosecution Service to discuss whether that complaint merited an investigation.

A police spokesman said that no complaint had been received about Thatcher’s “golliwog” comment.''

Note as ever the vicarious nature of the complaint. If she had called someone a gollywog he would be offended. I do not even call people wogs, well not to their face. But I demand the right to free speech, especially in private conversation I still own a Golden Shred gollywog badge but no longer wear it. Perhaps I should offer it for sale on the BNP website.

Never mind Carol. have a cry on your mother's shoulder. She knows all about being badly treated by men not fit to tie he boot laces.

BBC on Jos riots

Click titlel for a BBC programme on Jos but the reporter cannot pronounce the word, Hausa and fails to tell the pre-colonial history of conflict between Hausas and Plateau people. I found it a superficial analysis reflecting the usual BBC dhimmitude. I think the link will last only one week.

Why does our media ignore Africa?

Last Saturday night I received an email from a friend forwarding messages from friends in Jos who were surrounded by riots. I looked on the BBC site and found a report but there was nothing on TV news except a day later a ticker tape message on Sky News and one report on BBC News 24. There was little on any radio and the item soon vanished from the BBC url's front page.

Estimates of deaths in Jos varied but the lowest were at least twice as many as in Mumbai from whence we were getting wall to wall coverage of killings. So does Africa not matter? I often feel I live near India. Now I see it even more.

BBC turns when Labour spins

BBC says,"Chancellor Alistair Darling is due to announce plans to raise the top rate of income tax in his pre-Budget report.

He is expected to say a new 45% rate on earnings over £150,000 will be brought in if Labour win the next election.

Such a move would mark the end of New Labour's long-running pledge not to increase people's income tax rates....

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the increase in the top rate of tax was of "huge symbolic significance", but stressed it would only raise a fraction of the sum needed to get the public finances back in order.

The fact that it would only be brought in if Labour won the next election, meant the party would be able to claim it had not broken its 2005 election promise not to increase income tax rates. "

Why is the BBC publicising Labour spin? Their tax pledge was a trick. They did somteing worse than raising income tax They raised National Insurance contributions by 2%; 1% for both employeees and employers. They said it was to finance the bottomless pit that is the NHS. They lied. The money was not ring fenced. Labour is all spin and the BBC dances to their tune.

More BBC bias

Christian Istitute reports,'A successful Christian children’s author says he was refused appearances on the BBC because it couldn’t be “seen to be promoting Jesus”.

G P Taylor’s first novel, Shadowmancer, spent 15 weeks at the top of the British book charts in 2003. His second book, Wormwood, sold 22,000 copies in one day.

Yet the author claims that invitations for appearances on the BBC stopped once producers found out he was a Christian.

“I had good relations with them until they realised that there were religious allegories in my stories,” he told The Sunday Telegraph.

“Once they had decided that I was promoting Christianity in my books I found the door firmly shut.”

Mr Taylor said his faith meant that he was not welcome on children’s programmes like Blue Peter.

He said: “A BBC producer told me ‘off the record’ that it was a matter of my faith and the fact that I was an Anglican priest. ‘We can’t be seen to be promoting Jesus’, he said with a laugh.”

A spokesman for the BBC denied the allegations. “Programme makers make their own editorial decisions about which guests to have on their shows. There is no truth in the claim that there is a BBC ban on G P Taylor.”

However, Mr Taylor said: “They weren’t turning me down because I was a bad guest, but because of who I am.

“I’m an Anglican priest and sadly while it’s OK to be the next Philip Pullman, it’s not all right to be a Christian writer.” '

MoD to hold bearskin hat meeting

BBC says,The Ministry of Defence is to meet an animal rights group to discuss alternatives to the bearskin hats worn by guards at Buckingham Palace.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) has approached Vivienne Westwood and Stella McCartney to design a new shape for the 18in hat.
The charity has previously called for fake fur to be used, but said the MoD was not happy with prototype designs.
Baroness Taylor, minister for defence procurement, will meet Peta on Tuesday.

The MoD says it is open to alternatives to real bearskin, but that previous attempts to replace it with synthetic fur have failed because the material has not been durable or weatherproof enough.
The ministry also wants to avoid if possible any change in the look of the red-coated sentries guarding Buckingham Palace, whose uniforms have long been one of the top tourist sights in London.
However, Peta is proposing a new hat shape and has also approached designer Marc Bouwer as well as McCartney and Westwood.
Robbie LeBlanc, Peta's director for Europe, said that although the group was proposing a different shape for the hats it did not mean the new design could not become "iconic".
"Most people think it's fake fur and when they find out it's real and it takes one bear to make a hat, they are appalled," he said.
'Inexcusable'
The meeting is the culmination of a media campaign by Peta that has included a naked protest outside Buckingham Palace.
More recently, comedian Ricky Gervais sent an open letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, calling the continued use of real fur inexcusable.'

Ricky really should stick to his Office job. McCartney and Westwood could be better employed designing dunce's caps for themselves and PETA, AFAIK an American group. The Guards have distinguished historic battle honours. I doubt if the will add PETA beneath the likes of Waterloo. The question is, can we rely on the Ministry of Defence to defend them? But it is intersting how the skin that keeps the rain off a bear is the most effective in protecting humans too.

An "alternative" convention speech

David Brooks, op-ed columnist in the New York Times, writes on August 29, 2008.

'My fellow Americans, it is an honor to address the Democratic National
Convention at this defining moment in history. We stand at a
crossroads at a pivot point, near a fork in the road on the edge of a
precipice in the midst of the most consequential election since last
year's "American Idol."

One path before us leads to the past, and the extinction of the human
race. The other path leads to the future, when we will all be dead. We
must choose wisely.

We must close the book on the bleeding wounds of the old politics of
division and sail our ship up a mountain of hope and plant our flag on
the sunrise of a thousand tomorrows with an American promise that will
never die! For this election isn't about the past or the present, or
even the pluperfect conditional. It's about the future, and Barack
Obama loves the future because that's where all his accomplishments
are.

We meet today to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans, a
generation that came of age amidst iced chais and mocha strawberry
Frappuccinos(R), a generation with a historical memory that doesn't
extend back past Coke Zero.

We meet today to heal the divisions that have torn this country. For
we are all one country and one American family, whether we are caring
and thoughtful Democrats or hate-filled and war-crazed Republicans. We
must bring together left and right, marinara and carbonara, John and
Elizabeth Edwards. On United we stand, on US Airways, there's a
25-minute delay.

Ladies and gentleman, I never expected to be speaking before you
today. Like so many of our speakers at this convention, I come from a
hard-working, middle-class family. I was leading a miserable little
life, but, nevertheless, overcame great odds to live the American
Dream. My great-grandfather fought in Patton's Army, along with Barack
Obama's great-grand uncles' fourth cousin once removed.

As a child, I was abandoned by my parents and lived with a colony of
ants. We didn't have much in the way of material possession, but we
did have each other and the ability to carry far more than our own
body weights. When I was young, I was temporarily paralyzed in a
horrible anteater accident, but I never gave up my dream: the dream of
speaking at a national political convention so my speech could be
talked over by Wolf Blitzer and a gang of pundits.

And today we Democrats meet in Denver, a suburb of Boulder, a city
whose motto is, "A Taxi? You Must be Dreaming."

And in Denver, we Democrats showed America that we have cute daughters
who will someday provide us with prestigious car-window stickers. We
heard Hillary Clinton's ringing endorsement of "the weak-looking thin
guy who's bound to lose."

We heard from Joe Biden, whose 643 years in the Senate make him
uniquely qualified to talk to the middle class, whose family has been
riding the Acela and before that the Metroliner for generations, who
has been given a lifetime ban from the quiet car and who is himself a
verbal train wreck waiting to happen.

We got to know Barack and Michelle Obama, two tall, thin, rich,
beautiful people who don't perspire, but who nonetheless feel
compassion for their squatter and smellier fellow citizens. We know
that Barack could have gone to a prestigious law firm, like his big
donors in the luxury boxes, but he chose to put his ego aside to
become a professional politician, president of the United States and
redeemer of the human race. We heard about his time as a community
organizer, the three most fulfilling months of his life.

We were thrilled by his speech in front of the Greek columns, which
were conscientiously recycled from the concert, "Yanni, Live at the
Acropolis." We were honored by his pledge, that if elected president,
he will serve at least four months before running for higher office.
We were moved by his campaign slogan, "Vote Obama: He's better than
you'll ever be." We were inspired by dozens of Democratic senators who
declared their lifelong love of John McCain before denouncing him as a
reactionary opportunist who would destroy the country.

No, this country cannot afford to elect John Bushmccain. Under
Republican rule, locusts have stripped the land, adults wear crocs in
public and M&M's have lost their flavor. We must instead ride to the
uplands of hope!

For as Barack Obama suggested Thursday night, wherever there is a
president who needs to tap our natural-gas reserves, I'll be there.
Wherever there is a need for a capital-gains readjustment for targeted
small businesses, I'll be there. Wherever there is a president
committed to direct diplomacy with nuclear proliferators, I'll be
there, too! God bless the Democrats, and God Bless America!'

I do not understand all the humour but it's worth blogging as I was disgusted by our biased BBC TV news describing Obama's speech as magisterial. Gone are the days when the BBC gave news as news not comments dressed as news.

New pressure over faith schools

BBC says,'Ministers are being urged to stop faith schools in England selecting pupils and staff on the basis of their religion.
Accord, a new coalition of secular and religious figures, wants the government to stop state-funded schools engaging in what they say is "discrimination".
It argues that all children should have equal access to good local schools and that segregating them on religious grounds harms community cohesion.
The government argues faith schools can help boost standards in deprived areas.
There are about 6,850 faith schools in England out of a total of 21,000 schools. The vast majority of these are Roman Catholic or Church of England.
But they also include about 40 Jewish schools and a handful of Muslim, Sikh and Greek Orthodox schools.

In September 2007, Schools Secretary Ed Balls said the government would open more faith schools where there was parental demand.
But the move has angered some teachers who complain of discriminatory employment practices.
The Accord coalition is made up of religious leaders, humanists and teachers who have come together to call for, not an end to, but a change to faith schools.

It is being chaired by Rabbi Jonathan Romain, the minister of Maidenhead Synagogue.
He said: "Our aim is for every single school to welcome children from all backgrounds. It is a simple goal, strongly supported by the public, educationalists and students."
He added that as a rabbi he was committed to Jewish values but he also understood that no one would gain if this was done in a way that damages community relations.
Faith schools can be very over-subscribed because they often do better than local authority-controlled state schools.
And many have claimed their ability to select pupils on the basis of their faith means they can engage in covert forms of academic selection.

Accord claims that forthcoming research shows the family wealth of pupils, rather than the religious ethos of the school leads to better than average grades.
One of the coalition's supporters, Reverend Iain McDonald, Minister of Southernhay United Reformed Church in Exeter, Devon said the present system "encouraged hypocrisy".
"There are those who attend church in order that their children qualify for admission to a particular school and never set foot in the church again after the children have been accepted."
General Secretary of Association of Teachers and Lecturers Dr Mary Bousted said: "All children - regardless of their religion, culture, and family income - should have equal access to the best possible education in a good local school.
"Allowing schools to pick and choose pupils is not the best way to achieve this or to create young adults with the confidence and personal skills to live and work in our vibrant multi-cultural society."
Children's minister Kevin Brennan said faith schools were a long-established part of the state school system in England.
"Parents should be able to choose the type of education and ethos they want for their children. The bottom line is that faith schools are successful, thriving, popular and here to stay.
"It is down to locally accountable councils and communities themselves, not some campaign group, to decide what sort of schools they should have."
As well as changes to the admissions and staffing criteria, Accord wants to see faith schools follow an objective and balanced religious education syllabus - covering a range of religious and non-religious beliefs.
It wants compulsory acts of worship to be replaced with stimulating multi-faith and secular assemblies.
These might feature religious leaders from different faith groups coming into the school to give talks in assemblies.
It says: "Given the dangers of segregation and the importance of community cohesion we need schools that welcome all and are committed to non-discrimination."'


Liberals whether secular or apparently religious are often united in their beliefs. The one thing I can agree with in their report is that present selection on C of E schools encourages the hypocrisy of temporary church attendance. But Accord seems to me to be wedded to the comprehensive and opposed to all selection. Its proposals go against the raison d'etre of faith schools and if implemented would lead to the loss of their distinctiveness and achievements. For once I am on the side of the government. However, in the light of our post 9/11 world I believe Muslim schools require very close supervision.