HOW WE ARE

[Dano Sverige]

BBC News - A Point of View: The foibles of four countries

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Dano Sverige]

Lol, i've always loved that "World Series" question.Confuses many Americans in arguments!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Typical BBS reporting.. First word is British. Other letters is BS.....

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[0121stockpicker]

Typical BBS reporting.. First word is British. Other letters is BS.....

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

What news sources do you find better than the bbc?

 

[davest]

Al Jezera always works for me. But I can't get it on the teevee.

 

[Frankn]

Well Dano, that was a good article and now I can see where you are coming from. As for me, it's a bit off. I don't follow sports, so I don't care about those over payed clowns. As for guns, I see them more as a want than need although there is a need. I am basically a target shooter. I haven't hunted in years. Guess I lost the kill instinct at about 50. I look at my nation with pride as to it's past and am sorry at what I am leaving the kids. I guess that makes me a realist. Frank...

 

[Dano Sverige]

Typical BBS reporting.. First word is British. Other letters is BS.....

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Shame the author's American..and he DOES have a dog in this fight!

You a typical American who can't take the outside worlds view of your nation TH? Kinda just reinforces the opinions really. "Insular", "selfish", "arrogant", and that "FTW" mentality (original meaning). They're all very clear to us "outsiders".


It's not really about sports or guns Frank mate. It's about how outsiders see us in those 4 countries. It's pretty tame in it's evaluation, but serves a point. Just one Americans views, but he hits a couple of nails on the head!

 

[Chadeaux]

The guy's a bit looney.

I quit reading when he said:

Americans can't solve their child-killing problem in part because Americans refuse to believe that other rich countries have gun laws that work. Americans refuse to believe that other rich countries have laws at all. The accumulated wisdom of the world on the question of health insurance is completely unknown to most Americans, and enters the debate only to be scoffed at.

At that point, I knew he has no understanding of the situation or was on a propaganda mission. Since you cliam he is American, it is the latter.

We don't believe that England has no laws ("Americans refuse to believe that other rich countries have laws at all" - his words not mine).

We actually believe quite the opposite --- too damned many laws. Too many restrictions on LIBERTY. Too many restrictions on FREEDOM. Too many restrictions on COMMON SENSE.

You are disarmed because you have - not too few, but rather way too many laws. Laws that help make you the target of your less than scrupulous countrymen.

If you don't understand the situation, don't preach to me.

Disgusting display of ignorance.

As far as the sports part, yeah I agree somewhat silly -- but a hell of a lot of fun.

 

[Chadeaux]

BTW, the "Do not preach to me" is NOT directed at Dano, but rather the author of the article.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Shame the author's American..and he DOES have a dog in this fight!

You a typical American who can't take the outside worlds view of your nation TH? Kinda just reinforces the opinions really. "Insular", "selfish", "arrogant", and that "FTW" mentality (original meaning). They're all very clear to us "outsiders".

It's not really about sports or guns Frank mate. It's about how outsiders see us in those 4 countries. It's pretty tame in it's evaluation, but serves a point. Just one Americans views, but he hits a couple of nails on the head!

There have always been those ignorant isolationist "Americans". Thinking that the oceans keep the world problems and our problems separate. Isolationism has NEVER been the right policy for this country.

 

[Dano Sverige]

I worked that out. No worries.

The article is a generalization for the most part, as are all things stereotypical. "All Brit's have rotten teeth!"...umm no they don't. But a lot do. "All Americans are fat!"...umm no they're not. But a lot are. That type of thing really.

I was curious about the "rich countries have no laws" bit too...but took it in the same way as many Americans who spout about "American exceptionalism". I.E. - silliness!

I still don't see the "lot of fun" part of your sports in claiming to be World champions without inviting the rest of the World to take part? Kinda like the London American football team claiming to be world champions by winning the Euro league! Weird.

My post is aimed at Chadeaux. (Stocky posted inbetween)

 

[Chadeaux]

The problem is your source wants the U.S. to be just like all the other countries.

He is another foolish follower of What's his name.

A U.N. Supporter.

He believes that America should be lowered to the level of the poorest of lands.

Only then can all things be right in the world.

Difference is, I don't feel the least bit guilty.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

[h=1]An inquiry into liberal bias at the BBC must be independent[/h]Previous research evidence suggests a tendency for BBC news programmes to be biased towards establishment and elitist views

• • • David Miller
      
    • The Guardian, Thursday 11 October 2012 16.00 EDT
  
  
  

Chris Patten is launching an inquiry into alleged liberal bias at the BBC. Photograph: Clara Molden/PA

So, BBC news is biased? There have been complaints that its coverage is not always impartial. But now the BBC Trust's chairman, former Tory grandee Chris Patten, has set up an inquiry to examine whether its coverage is too liberal.

We have been here before. Conservatives have agitated against the BBC for decades. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, they raised the issue of liberal or left bias at the corporation. Norman Tebbit famously attacked Kate Adie over the coverage of the US bombing of Libya in 1986. During the Iraq war, the BBC was accused of being biased in favour of Stop the War, against all the evidence that they swallowed the WMD story whole. Then, as now, it might be instructive for the "independent" review to take account of the evidence on the alleged bias of television news.

Part of the review will cover the topics of Europe, immigration and religion. But the research evidence that we have does not suggest a liberal bias. On the contrary, it suggests a routine tendency for BBC news programmes to give more time and context to, and less interrogation of, establishment and elitist views.

On Europe, for instance, the BBC has been found to be more negative and critical of the EU than the German media. On the European constitution, this finding held, even when reporters were relatively more Europhile. A study of BBC online coverage of immigration found that it "invites a reading that might, most positively, be described as unease" in relation to immigration.

There seems to be some suggestion that the review of the BBC may also examine religion in general, and Islamophobia in particular. No shortage of material there. A variety of academic studies has examined how the BBC and other media have covered Islam, especially since September 2001. One found that "the framing of Islam as a security threat can be inferred from the very large numbers of news items in which Muslim political and military or paramilitary actors have been shown in postures of hostility towards aspects of [western] societies".

The authors contend that "while distinctions are made between dangerous, fanatical, politically driven Islamism and Islam as a religion, these distinctions are not always made clear, so there is a persistent danger of conveying the issues in terms of an all-embracing clash of civilisations". Not a lot of support in these studies for the contention in a Daily Mail leader column last week that the BBC "consistently attacks Christianity (though never Islam)".

There have been virtually no rigorous studies that concluded that the BBC was either "objective" or biased to the left. Almost every single study undertaken since the earliest, by the Glasgow University Media Group in the 1970s and 1980s, concludes that elite perspectives dominate the news. On the one occasion that an apparently serious study found the opposite (Martin Harrison's on the 1984-5 miners' strike), it was later revealed that the research was flawed (not to mention being subsidised by ITN).

An examination of the TV coverage of the current economic crisis concluded that "there was an overwhelming bias in the direction of narratives deriving from an elite perspective on what matters and what is thus newsworthy".

Whoever oversees the forthcoming BBC review must be allowed to undertake rigorous research. In the past, when truly independent academics have been commissioned, the results have not been what the Mail might have expected.

Those familiar with the research will not be surprised to hear that elite sources and explanations dominate news on Europe, immigration and religion. If the BBC Trust is serious about living up to its obligations to tackle bias, it will start a process that ensures a wider range of views is accessed, explained and contextualised.

David Miller is professor of sociology at the University of Bath and a director of Spinwatch

An inquiry into liberal bias at the BBC must be independent | David Miller | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

[h=1]We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News[/h]By SIMON WALTERS, Mail on Sunday
Last updated at 21:11 21 October 2006

• Comments (0)
• Share

Sue Lawley led the discussions during the summit.


It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'

In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen ) known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat - was a guest on the programme Room 101.

On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.
Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.

In a debate on whether the BBC should interview Osama Bin Laden if he approached them, it was decided the Al Qaeda leader would be given a platform to explain his views.

And the BBC's 'diversity tsar', Mary Fitzpatrick, said women newsreaders should be able to wear whatever they wanted while on TV, including veils.

Ms Fitzpatrick spoke out after criticism was raised at the summit of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce, who recently wore on air a necklace with a cross.

The full account of the meeting shows how senior BBC figures queued up to lambast their employer.

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'

Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King'.

There was another heated debate when the summit discussed whether the BBC was too sensitive about criticising black families for failing to take responsibility for their children.

Head of news Helen Boaden disclosed that a Radio 4 programme which blamed black youths at a young offenders', institution for bullying white inmates faced the axe until she stepped in.

But Ms Fitzpatrick, who has said that the BBC should not use white reporters in non-white countries, argued it had a duty to 'contextualise' why black youngsters behaved in such a way.

Andrew Marr told The Mail on Sunday last night: 'The BBC must always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial, middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a mirror image of the BBC or the people who work for it.'


Read more: We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News | Mail Online

We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News | Mail Online​

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

[h=1]The BBC to investigate its liberal bias? Yeah, right[/h]
By James Delingpole Society Last updated: October 11th, 2012
3044 Comments Comment on this article


Chris Patten wants to launch an inquiry into BBC bias. This is about as convincing as King Herod launching an inquiry into the mysterious disappearance of first-born children from Judea.

Fat Pang, as most of us were aware long before his appointment as BBC chairman, is very much part of the problem, not the solution. He is the very embodiment of bien-pensant, metropolitan, gag-makingly politically correct BBC values.

Patten has said that he wants the inquiry to concentrate on the BBC's coverage of religion, immigration and Europe. Gosh, that's lucky for him. That means he won't have to address the awkward issue of the BBC's woefully inadequate and one-sided coverage of the great climate change scare (see Christopher Booker's devastating report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation), nor will he have to deal with the sinister and disturbing way in which the BBC appears to be acting as cheerleader for the animal rights extremists who are bullying and terrorising those farmers trying to cull badgers in order to – not unreasonably – protect their herds from dying miserable deaths from TB.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

[h=1]BBC Veteran: Liberal Bias 'In Its Very DNA'[/h]

By Lachlan Markay | January 28, 2011 | 18:03 1 0Reddit 0 0

A A

While liberal media bias is often easy to spot, it's rare to see veteran journalists come clean on the biases of their own news outlets. But when one does, it's hard to dispute the first hand account of the newsroom's consistently leftist politics.

In his new memoirs, veteran BBC news anchor Peter Sissons details the startling depths of leftist politics that pervade coverage at Britain's state-owned broadcaster. Leftism is "in its very DNA," Sissions claims of the BBC.

In excerpts from the memoirs, titled "When One Door Closes", published in Britain's Daily Mail newspaper, Sissons details the groupthink mentality at the BBC:

At any given time there is a BBC line on everything of importance, a line usually adopted in the light of which way its senior echelons believe the political wind is ­blowing. This line is rarely spelled out explicitly, but percolates subtly throughout the organisation.

Whatever the United Nations is associated with is good — it is heresy to question any of its activities. The EU is also a good thing, but not quite as good as the UN. Soaking the rich is good, despite well-founded economic arguments that the more you tax, the less you get. And Government spending is a good thing, although most BBC ­people prefer to call it investment, in line with New Labour’s terminology.

All green and environmental groups are very good things. Al Gore is a saint. George Bush was a bad thing, and thick into the bargain. Obama was not just the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House, he was the BBC’s. Blair was good, Brown bad, but the BBC has now lost interest in both.

Trade unions are mostly good things, especially when they are fighting BBC managers. Quangos are also mostly good, and the reports they produce are usually handled uncritically. The Royal Family is a bore. Islam must not be offended at any price, although ­Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.

In short, pick the default leftist position on any issue, and odds are it is the position held and espoused on air by the BBC.

And while leftist politics color the news at the channel, they also dictate its corporate structure and inner workings, according to Sissons. One's politics, he writes, can dictate one's success or failure in climbing the Comany's corporate ladder.

If Human Resources — or Personnel, as it used to be known — advise that it’s time a woman or someone from an ethnic minority (or a combination of the two) was appointed to the job for which you, a white male, have applied, then that’s who gets it.

But whatever your talent, sex or ethnicity, there’s one sure-fire way at a BBC promotions board to ensure you don’t get the job, indeed to bring your career to a grinding halt. And that’s if, when asked which post-war politician you most admire, you reply: ‘Margaret Thatcher’.

Sissons also offers what might be anecdotal warnings to all proponents of government-funded journalism in the United States. As he tells it, British politicians consistently attempted to sway the content of the BBC's news programming.

All Governments work hard on influencing the news agenda, but what I found uncomfortable during my years presenting the Nine O’clock and Ten O’clock News was how blatant those attempts to pressurise the BBC became, particularly at General Election time.

The party machines all had the internal BBC telephone numbers of the editors of the major news ­programmes, whom they would try to bully in person, both before and after the programmes went out.

I remember a night when the ­editor’s phone rang after the Nine O’Clock News. It was a direct call from No 10, questioning her judgment and complaining about our political coverage that night. This wasn’t a call to the director-general, or the head of news, but to a harassed and tired editor who had been on duty for 14 hours.

This will all come as little surprise to people who have watched the BBC consistently. Its left wing bias is hardly inconspicuous. But Sissons's exposé demonstrates the extent to which this type of ideology was ingrained in virtually everything the channel did - from its management to its news department.









Read more: BBC Veteran: Liberal Bias 'In Its Very DNA' | NewsBusters

BBC Veteran: Liberal Bias 'In Its Very DNA' | NewsBusters​

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

[h=2]Jimmy Savile: The BBC’s rotten Liberal Heart[/h]

Written by Tim Heydon

The new Director – General of the BBC, George Entwistle, has announced an enquiry by an independent person into the cancelling of the Newsnight programme about Jimmy Savile .

How did he get away with it for so long?

Whatever this or his other enquiry might find, the real issue around Savile’s exploits which is: How did he get away with it for so long, when from many accounts his predatory ways were common knowledge in the corporation for years, decades even, will be probably be ignored or sidelined.

Other Institutions did not complain?

It will be argued that Savile molested young girls and possibly boys as well in other institutions such as the Leeds General Infirmary and Stoke Mandeville Hospital and that there was no official complaint about him from them either. To which the rejoinder ought to be that there might well have been had it not been for the demi-god star status bestowed on him by the BBC. It was the BBC which got him entrée to these institutions in the first place.

No one at the top in the BBC knew the Truth? Pull the other one

We are apparently expected to think that those at the top (and there are a lot of them in the BBC) were unaware of the rumours about Savile. It is however frankly incredible that all of the BBC’s top brass were ignorant of them. And what’s more, ignorant of all the other dubious sexual goings-on which (we can shrewdly surmise) are rampant in that organisation.

Left-Liberalism: The Real Reason for the BBC’s lack of Interest

One very good reason for the lack of real BBC interest in Savile’s activities is, it is suggested here, its left-liberal ethos and in particular its liberal attitudes to sex. And the BBC is very liberal indeed on such matters (as on so many others), isn’t it? In fact, it is defined by its liberalism, albeit of an extreme egalitarian leftist bent. It propagandises all manner of what might be called deviant sexual practices, not just homosexuality and lesbianism, in the name of individual freedom of choice.

However, if one has religious or other principled objections to homosexuality or lesbianism one is liable to find oneself smeared as a bigot by the BBC. (Freedom of choice and equality, you see, are not extended to those who object to the leftist/liberal agenda. A curious ‘liberalism’ and ‘equality’ indeed).

Smut and the Language of the Gutter

A organisation where smut and the language of the gutter are now the common coin of everyday broadcasting; where scenes of lesbian lovemaking (‘Tipping the Velvet’) have been shown approvingly and titillatingly; which thought it OK actually to depict a dog raping a woman (‘Love Soup’), and the corpses of viewers’ relatives (‘Malcom and Barbara: Love’s Farewell’), is an organisation which is not going to be all that distressed when it hears about the sexually predatory ways of one of its stars like Jimmy Savile, at least not to the point of doing something about it.

The BBC is not alone
Nor is it alone on its journey down the slippery slope to the very pits of the liberal cesspool. Channel Four has shown scenes of live love making (‘Sex Inspectors’) and has devoted a programmes (‘Beyond Love’) to those who are attracted to the idea of having sex with dead bodies and (‘Animal Passions’) those who have had sex with animals. A final taboo was approached when a documentary screened by Channel 4 in 2003 involved an act of cannibalism when a Chinese man ate a dead baby
.
The Paedophile Priests of the RC Church are morally superior because they have Standards to fall from but the Hypocrites of the BBC have none

The Roman Catholic Church which the BBC has gleefully embarrassed and chastised over the paedophile priests affair is genuinely sorry for its fall from grace. (A Christian term, let it be noted). The BBC however is only truly sorry that its attitudes have been exposed for what they are: the licence of those who believe in nothing - except Cultural Marxism, naturally.

The BBC is morally rotten to the core. That’s why Jimmy Savile got away with it for so long. And that too is why it cheerfully lies about being politically impartial when it is no such thing.

The British Resistance - Jimmy Savile: The BBC?s rotten Liberal Heart

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

[h=1]Survey: BBC Is Liberal, Anti-Christian[/h]









By Ariel R. Rey , Christian Post Reporter
June 1, 2011|9:44 pm
[h=2]Viewers of the BBC believe the British broadcaster treats Christianity unfairly compared to other religions, the company’s own research found.[/h]According to the survey conducted by the BBC, viewers say that the corporation has a politically “left-wing" or “liberal bias” and that more minority religions are better represented than Christianity.
“In terms of religion, there were many who perceived the BBC to be anti-Christian and as such misrepresenting Christianity,” the BBC report states.

The report, based on a poll of 4,500 people and including BBC staff, is part of the broadcaster’s “Diversity Strategy,” a service to meet BBC’s responsibility to both the Royal Charter and the Equality Act 2010.

It notes from the results: “Christians are specifically mentioned as being badly treated, with a suggestion that more minority religions are better represented despite Christianity being the most widely observed religion within Britain.”

Some viewers said that Christians were treated with “derogatory stereotypes” which ended up portraying them as “weak” or “bigoted.”

One participant said, “As a Christian I find that the BBC's representation of Christianity is mainly inaccurate, portraying incorrect, often derogatory stereotypes.”

Another person agreed and added, “Seldom do we find a Christian portrayed in drama, and when we do, it is usually a 'weak' person or a ‘bigot.’”

In 2005, the BBC drew wide complaints from Christian groups when it aired “Jerry Springer: The Opera,” a British musical based on the popular show “The Jerry Springer Show,” which is known for its irreverent treatment of Judeo-Christian themes. It was the top complained show in television history.

In response to the report’s conclusion, a BBC spokesman said, “We have strict editorial guidelines on impartiality, including religious perspectives, and Christian programming forms the majority and the cornerstone of our religion and ethical output.”


Read more at Survey: BBC Is Liberal, Anti-Christian ​

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

ABOUT CONTACT CONTRIBUTE FAQs ARCHIVES

[h=2]Report details how the BBC buried negative news on the NHS Bill[/h]
by Shantel Burns
10:58 am - September 29th 2012

Share on Tumblr

OpenDemocracy’s ourBeeb project have published a report which details how the BBC has failed in its responsibilities to inform the British public about the truth surrounding the highly controversial NHS Bill.

Titled: How the BBC betrayed the NHS: an exclusive report on two years of censorship and distortion, it gives a thorough account of a silence around the NHS bill within the BBC.

It details the apparent keenness of the BBC to follow the government’s positive privatised NHS spiel (The…Bill will allow GPs to get control … of the NHS budget) and ignore the many reports that tell a whole new, accurate story.

They say that on the day the Health and Social Care Act was approved and passed through the House of Lords (19th March 2012), not one article was published on the BBC’s online news page on the NHS.

Similarly, the BBC failed to report that former Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, received £21,000 to his personal office from John Nash the then chairman of Care UK – a health firm with a substantial income from the NHS. Nash also founded Sovereign Capital which runs a number of private health firms.

The Daily Mail reported on the business activities of Andrew Lansley’s wife, Sally Low. ‘Low Associates’ which was found to be boasting of its ability to help ‘make the link between the public and private sectors’ – sounds familiar.

Labour MP Grahame Morris said it constituted a “clear conflict of interest” and suggested Lansley’s position was no longer tenable. This still failed to make a ripple of news within the BBC.
A number of unreported stories follow a similar tone including a story from Liberal Conspiracy which reported that the University Hospital of North Staffordshire (UNSH) had been charging A&E patients for any drugs they needed.

The report notes the BBC have refused an FOI request to find out how many complaints have been made about the lack of news surrounding the NHS bill.

The report also highlights a strange influx of reports from the BBC after the NHS bill had safely been passed through the House of Lords
.
Besides the live streams on Democracy Live, the climax of one of the most controversial bills in recent history merited not a single article. With the bill safely passed, however, the next day saw a stream of seven articles.

The report focuses on mainly the output of BBC Online, in its news and analysis.

It concludes: “It is not in the government that the strength of the BBC lies – a parliamentary system captured by forces inherently opposed to its existence – but in the British public, the support of which it should rigorously protect.”

Report details how the BBC buried negative news on the NHS Bill | Liberal Conspiracy

 

[dieselram94]

I worked that out. No worries.

The article is a generalization for the most part, as are all things stereotypical. "All Brit's have rotten teeth!"...umm no they don't. But a lot do. "All Americans are fat!"...umm no they're not. But a lot are. That type of thing really.

I was curious about the "rich countries have no laws" bit too...but took it in the same way as many Americans who spout about "American exceptionalism". I.E. - silliness!

I still don't see the "lot of fun" part of your sports in claiming to be World champions without inviting the rest of the World to take part? Kinda like the London American football team claiming to be world champions by winning the Euro league! Weird.

My post is aimed at Chadeaux. (Stocky posted inbetween)

Dano, American exceptionalism is not silliness. That in itself is offensive. America is home to many, many innovations and liberties. How is that silliness?