 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Wrong sir!
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:29 PM found this - very dramatic wouldn't you say? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:34 PM Ho Lee Shit. What a GREAT SPEECH. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:40 PM For anyone who can't access youtube, I will gladly send you the text of the speech via message. Just let me know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Big Mick Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:41 PM That dude will be named an unlawful enemy combatant. He is spot on, IMO. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:44 PM He'll be sharing a cell with you for that remark. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Big Mick Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:49 PM Next to yours, LOL. Piss on these maniacs. It's time for some protest folksingers to go to jail again. This idiot might have finally removed my songwriting mindblock. We can't count on the friggin' apologists in the halls of Congress to have any damn guts. It ain't in the nature of politicians. The guts will have to come from the street, and from the voices of those who are willing to use their gifts to call attention to these folks. I said several years ago that this man might be the most dangerous man to ever inhabit the White House. He has now proven me right. I would rather be wrong. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,memyself Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:53 PM Who is that guy, anyway? And was his speech made in a forum in which many people would have heard it? (I'm serious). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:56 PM I have a terrible feeling in my guts that bad shit is about to happen. (OK, so I'm paranoid. But remember what Kissinger said about paranoids.) There are Homeland Security exercises happening before, during and after the elections. What will happen if it looks like Dems are going to gain control of one or both Houses? Tie that back to the rejuvenation of 'camps' all over the US, and troops moving from place to place within the US and what does that look like? Two to one there will be an increase in level on the Terrorist Thread board. The picture THIS paranoid gets is not a pretty one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: skipy Date: 21 Oct 06 - 01:14 PM Heavy. Skipy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Don Firth Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:33 PM One of my favorite scenes from on of my favorite movies/plays. The same things Sir Thomas More says about laws in this scene also apply to Constitutional protections: William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!No further comment necessary. I think that about says it all. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:39 PM WOW! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Amos Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:45 PM His name is Keith Olberman. He runs a TV program called Countdown on MSNBC. He's ruthless in excoriation and very funny in humor. Here's a lecture on Rumsfeld of similar eloquence. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,memyself Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:56 PM Thanks! Now, I'm not familiar with MSNBC - an off-shoot of NBC? (Hey, I've been in the bush for quite a while now ...) Would he have much of an audience - say, compared to something like the Colbert Report? I'm just wondering if the people who really need to hear what he's saying are likely to hear it, or if he's just preaching to the choir ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,lox Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:09 PM I think realistically you're probably right memyself. It is a great speech, but it kind of rates as "what you should have said was ...". You know, when two people exchange disparaging witticisms and one goes off, having been bullied off the court by his stupider but bigger opponent, saying to his friends "what I should have said was ..." These kind of things can be great, but this looks like being an anthem for the outraged rather than a milestone or turning point in the debate. More like a piece of relevant art, though that should not be considered to be to it's detriment. Art as a political tool should not be underestimated, and this guy has created something very powerful. It scared the hell out of peace and skipy. Let's hope it's not just the choir who get to hear it and indeed who open their ears to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Amos Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:11 PM He has a wide audience in the liberal community, but probably only a fraction of Jon Stewart's and probably less than Colbert's whose popularity still hasn't reached Stewart's in spite of his desperate efforts. :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:17 PM The Neocon agenda has scared the hell outta me for about two decades now. Bush is one of the most 'powerful' figureheads they have had for a long time. I think he's personally too stupid to think this stuff up, but he's not too stupid to carry it out. It's like that old stroy about congestion on the LA Freeway (written by a sci-fi author whose name I forget) and as cars keep merging into the flow the traffic gets slower and slower, until at last there is a loud CLICK, and the traffic stops completely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,lox Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:22 PM have a look at this |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:46 PM We can but hope . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:56 PM The truth revealed . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Bill D Date: 21 Oct 06 - 04:08 PM Yeah....might be! We already see that about 30% of the right would keep voting Republican if you could SEE the horns and tail on their candidate! Promise 'em tax cuts and guns and no abortions and allow religious instruction in the schools, and they'd elect the village idiot!...Oh...wait... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Don Firth Date: 21 Oct 06 - 04:53 PM 'Fraid you're right Bill. After all, they did! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,wordy Date: 21 Oct 06 - 06:09 PM A match struck in the darkness. I hope it's not blown out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: katlaughing Date: 21 Oct 06 - 07:39 PM Finally someone REALLY telling it like it is! Thanks for the link. I heard the beginning of it when it ran, but had to leave before I heard anymore. And, it's one, two, three, what are we fightin' for! Next thing ya know we'll be doing a fundraiser to bail Big Mick out, after his next song gets out!:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:03 PM "next stop is ..." Hey! did you realise that "Iran" rhymes with "Vietnam" - just gotta bend the scanning slightly... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: JohnInKansas Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:05 PM A text transcript appears at the first link now, but may have been added since the thread started. The opening link also is available directly from MSNBC, with transcript, at 'Beginning of the end of America' You can find transcripts of recent Countdown shows, among others, at MSNBC Transcripts The program for the first "Special Report" in this thread appears at the end of the 18 October 2006 program transcript. I'm still looking for a transcript of the piece on Rumsfeld that Amos linked up above. I think I remember loading the video somewhile back, but I'd rather have text, and the link doesn't - as far as I can tell - have any broadcast date shown. Searching was interrupted by the need for a battery transplant on my mouse. You don't suppose "they" killed it on purpose? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:08 PM "Old Iran" firs... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: katlaughing Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:19 PM Here ya go, JohninKS: Here is the full text of Olbermann's commentary (on Rumsfeld): The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack. Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet. Mr. Rumsfeld's remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American. For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration's track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve. Dissent and disagreement with government is the life's blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as "his" troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq. It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong. In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld's speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless. That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld's, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the "secret information." It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld's -- questioning their intellect and their morality. That government was England's, in the 1930's. It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England. It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords. It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed. The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth. Most relevant of all — it "knew" that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused. That critic's name was Winston Churchill. Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill. History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts. Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy. Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards. His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis. It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain. But back to today's Omniscient ones. That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely. And, as such, all voices count -- not just his. Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden's plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein's weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina's impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their "omniscience" as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego. But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris. Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically. And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer's New Clothes? In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America? The confusion we -- as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding. But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart — that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too. The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought. And about Mr. Rumsfeld's other main assertion, that this country faces a "new type of fascism." As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it. This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed. Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow. But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: "confused" or "immoral." Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954. "We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular." And so good night, and good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Bobert Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:34 PM Ahhhhh, like what here is new business??? No offense, great speech, but it's all been said before... Heck, even I've taken a few shots of late here in Mudville against this dumbass and very unconstitutional act that Congress has passed... 800 years of accepted lagal principles laid out in the Magna Carta down the drain... But I don't blame Bush as much as the chickenhawk Republican Congress which punted on this one... Especially big-mouth John McCain who woof-woofed about this 'n that but in the end he caved like a man without a spine... Yeah, a perfectly gutless performance on his part... Now it goes to a Supreme Courth which is about as feeble and spineless as Congress has just been... Beam me up, Scotty, 'cause Bush is tryin' to burn this country down... An' doin' a good job at it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 09:28 PM . . . and? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: John O'L Date: 21 Oct 06 - 10:17 PM From what I see I get the idea that, as in Australia, there is a realisation slowly dawning on the great mindless mass of the population that they have been hoodwinked, but it seems that, as in Australia, there is no viable opposition; no alternate government worth voting for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,cigilteach Date: 21 Oct 06 - 11:31 PM Nope, there will be no opposition. Perhaps some people might change the channel more often in search of something more comforting on the tube. Or maybe take a trip to Walmart or McDonalds to liven their spirits but that's about it. It starts from about four, this sheeple business. This is a country where people WILLING drug young children for not shutting up and sitting still. Critical thought is actively discourage in our schools. By the time people reach adulthood their expectations about being a useful and happy citizen are as low as you can get. Nothing will happen until we are run right into the ground and what will happen then is we will wait for some other despicable lot to take over because we are completely dependant on a non-existent, better-than-ourselves other. Just like we learned in school, we will shut up and sit still and wait to be told what to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: autolycus Date: 22 Oct 06 - 07:22 AM If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a miority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution - certainly would if such a right were a vital one. First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861 Abraham Lincoln What is Lincoln's reputation in deepest Republican territory? I ask 'cos I don't know, partly thru being the UK side of the waters. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Bunnahabhain Date: 22 Oct 06 - 09:20 AM On that logic, Blair has given us grounds for revolution ( as opposed to mere revulsion) many times over. One of the cornerstones of Britian's mainly unwritten constuition is the principal that we can do anything that is not banned. The number of assults on various liberties he has made for the tempory approval of a majority (often, just a majority of his back benchers) is amazing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 22 Oct 06 - 10:01 AM That speech really dynamized (if there's such a word) my Beautiful Wife and me. We have volunteered to the local Democratic organization for driving duty, driving voters who need it to the polls, or on her part possibly babysitting while mama votes. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: katlaughing Date: 22 Oct 06 - 10:18 AM Good for you, Uncle DaveO! *aside* what is the deal with the unwritten constitution of Great Britain? How do you know what is guaranteed when it is unwritten? Who decides? Just wondering.:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Donuel Date: 22 Oct 06 - 11:36 AM Peace, Obama wtites of hope but my eyes see a realism less kind. The crimes against the Constitution are now so great that the tyrants who are respondsible are protected. There will be a reversal of all accusation and indictment. A reversal in all attempts to restore Democracy and Liberty in this country will be based on my running theme that Republican tyrants will simply blame Democrats for the sins the Republicans have actually commited. An example: Just like Dan Rather taking the fall for discussing the service record of George Bush, The Democrats will take the fall for Diebold manipulation of elections. A burglary of Diebold software will be reported in MD and then charges against key Democrats will accuse them of trying to change millions of votes. It is no longer enough to give awards to Cheney, Rumsfeld and other screw ups, now opponents will be prosecuted, sued or worse. Journalists and defense lawyers are now in prison for speaking up or shutting up. My pictorial editorial voice was ripped from me. People are in fear. The wealthy are nearly satisfied and their bunkers have been built. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: DMcG Date: 22 Oct 06 - 12:08 PM *aside* what is the deal with the unwritten constitution of Great Britain? How do you know what is guaranteed when it is unwritten? It's easy enough ... we don't. There have been campaigns many times for a written constitition for the UK. Maggie Thatcher dismissed a campaign in her time with words that were more prophetic than she realised: "Some of the worst abuses of the law and human rights have been carried out by countries with written constitutions." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 22 Oct 06 - 01:19 PM Cut-n-paste from the Chicago Sun-Times "When the Supreme Court recently decided that the Conventions did apply to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees, the possibility of criminal liability for high-level administration officials reared its ugly head again." "What to do? The administration has apparently decided to secure immunity from prosecution through legislation. Under cover of the controversy involving the military tribunals and whether they could use hearsay or coerced evidence, the administration is trying to pardon itself, hoping that no one will notice. The urgent timetable has to do more than anything with the possibility that the next Congress may be controlled by Democrats, who will not permit such a provision to be adopted." I sure wish George W. Bush would take a 'little walk with Jesus' before it's too late. I pray for him every day. ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 22 Oct 06 - 06:20 PM for a little inspiration, look here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: katlaughing Date: 22 Oct 06 - 06:48 PM Love it, Lox! Thanks, DMcG. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: autolycus Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:05 PM Also,katlaughing,re our lack of constitution, that fits with the thought (source unknown) "The gentlemen of England play the game, but change the rules if they feel they are losing," which could hardly be done under a written constitution. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:12 PM The british constitution is not non existant. That is a myth. It is different, being enshrined in the common law. There are pro's and cons to doing it the British way and to doing it the French way. Having it all spelt out in a single document doesn't make it free from abuse. The british constitution evolves very slowly, and has done for hundreds of years. It is a fascinating thing to study and I actually think it is a superb foundation for Britains political and legal culture. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Don Firth Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:16 PM ". . . which could hardly be done under a written constitution." Well, Ivor, I don't know about that. If the Constitution proves "inconvenient," one could just ignore it, I guess. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Bobert Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:36 PM ttr, I used to pray for Bush but I have given up on him... Jesus told us to "shake the dust from out robes" and Bush has brought way too much Satanic crap down on the Earth that I've done just that... He will ***not*** change... He is in the grips of all that is evil... He has had plenty of opportunities to come clean but he refuses... So, unless a miracle happens in his life and he comes to accept and understand what he professes to accept and understand, he is lost... Which really doesn't bother me one bit... Some folks have been so evil that they don't deserve a get-outta-Hell card... Bush is one of those people... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 22 Oct 06 - 10:14 PM Aw shucks, Bobert ol' boy... Handin me the tail o the bull yer facin' the sitiation with... ah mean... are you that there mighty judge an jury with a keen sense fer deaf'nitions of 'evil doers'? Yer makin' it soun' as plain as the nose on yer face... kinder like yer shoutin' 'bout what ol George is a doin'... like makin all them shades o grey inta technicolor black an white assumtions? Believe you me, ol' boy... Ah ain' got no such preesentiments, an' ahm none to fond o yer arn clad con-victions an jushments 'bout folks ya don' even know... Ah cuts a wide berth 'round them bear snappin traps 'cause they way ya down and make it hard ta hold yer head up fer all the pain an' such. Seems ta me, ifs ah remembers kina correct like... Jesus also said sumpin 'bout lettin' him who is without sin ta be throwin them first stones... hmmmmm? But heck if it ain't so... Ah loves yer melodromatic meanerin's... an' that you, ma frayund, aw one spunky ol' beacon o light... an we needja ta shine it cayfully. Ja heah... ehu wippasnappa? ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 23 Oct 06 - 09:02 AM From: GUEST,cigilteach - PM Date: 21 Oct 06 - 11:31 PM "It starts from about four, this sheeple business. This is a country where people WILLING drug young children for not shutting up and sitting still. Critical thought is actively discourage in our schools. By the time people reach adulthood their expectations about being a useful and happy citizen are as low as you can get." Is this what you're talking about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,cigilteach Date: 23 Oct 06 - 09:27 AM Yes, just like that!! It is really frightening but it rings a bell, doesn't it. I think if we all think back a bit we can come up with loads of examples just like that from our own schooling. I really don't think I am way out there in thinking that is where it starts - the complacency, the ennui, the total lack of connection to the stark realities. We are trained in this from five or younger. Since the use of psychotropic drugs prescribed to children under 12 went up 400% last year alone, it is only getting worse. But bring up the subject of approaching "education" a little differently (like unschooling or whatever) and people baulk - and often not ten minutes after launching into some story about how their child is struggling so in school because of this or that completely inane and contrived circumstance.... Meanwhile, it is as if you were some crazy renegade promoting child abuse when you say TAKE THEM OUT, stop dancing around in circles talking shite while the light is stamped out of your child's eyes. DUHHHH. The educational system is clearly beyond repair (yes, there are exceptions but few) and we need to step out of it. But like I said in my oh so bubbly and optimistic mood the other night, it isn't going to happen. Instead, they might curb the kid's TV schedule or bar McDonalds for a semester until the kids conform. What will these kids do about the frightening state of affairs when their time comes - even less than we do, if that is possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: John O'L Date: 23 Oct 06 - 09:44 AM "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted all else follows." - George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: katlaughing Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:04 AM Thanks, Ivor and Lox. I am off to study about the British unconstitution, some more!:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 23 Oct 06 - 03:15 PM GUEST,cigilteach, this is the other alternative Kat, The subject to look up would be "british constitutional law". You would be able to learn what the building blocks of the British constitution really are and how the courts make it work rather than just getting a political synopsis which might be far less fascinating (certainly in my subjective view). It might be hard going, but it has such a long and deep history and such a depth of accumulated wisdom that it is worth it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: DougR Date: 23 Oct 06 - 04:32 PM Oops! Watch out! The sky is falling again. You folks. I suspect maybe fifty people heard Keith Oberman's opiniion piece on MSNBC. That's about the size of the audience on that cable channel. But don't let me get in the way of your crepe hanging. Whatever turns you on. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: autolycus Date: 23 Oct 06 - 04:55 PM It's tough being a citizen, one who's informed, critical, has a grasp of how their society works, how the system they live in works, knows how to read the media and journalism. then there's the power system; and then look what Gandhi managed. Clearly there are resources and resources. Most of us are easily bought off with bread and circuses,i.e. cars, TVs,computers, steady incomes, and steady 'entertainment', "shopping opprtunities", to keep us quiet and pliant and accepting. There are plenty of exceptions, and that's what they are, exceptions. Simply marginalised. So it hardly matters that those with the power may be fools,or power-hungry, or corrupt. Ivor PS - LOx - "pro's and cons" !!?? I think you meant "pros and cons"; hope so, anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: JohnInKansas Date: 23 Oct 06 - 04:58 PM In actual practice, the US applies "Common Law" quite generally in all matters not specifically limited by our US Constitution (and by individual State Constitutions except in Louisianna which uses "Napoleonic Law" for their court processes and other legal forms). There are naturally some differences between the US and UK application, but early development of the US "traditions" and case history quite commonly cited the UK common law, and such references still appear and are generally accepted in legal arguments in US courts. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 23 Oct 06 - 05:15 PM Ivor Well it is the domain of the legal profession ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 23 Oct 06 - 05:31 PM JohnInKansas And likewise in the UK the legal set up is drifting further and further from its common law roots with the supercedence of European law. In terms of the constitution though, the actual definitions are still to be found in the common law, whereas the USA has a much more absolute definition provided by a specific document. There remains no EU constitution so looks like the essential backbone of the UK remains pretty much intact. until such time as europeans can agree on one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: JohnInKansas Date: 23 Oct 06 - 07:47 PM Even the US Constitution is pretty limited. The main body of the law is pretty much the Common Law, although of course each decision becomes part of that law, so it's not a static thing. An example of how it all works is that the Constitution says one is entitled to "due process," but that's pretty vague. It's largely in the common law that the right of habeus corpus, the right to counsel, and the implementations of the bars against self-incrimination are made functional parts of the "due process." China has a very nice constitution too.(?) The Weimar Constitution was a classic one.(?) I've even heard the French have one, but they can't agree on what it says.(?) John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 24 Oct 06 - 10:25 AM lol I knew that precedent played an important part in the US courts, but wasn't aware that it constituted common law as such. Sounds to me that you are lucky to have a fairly healthy core to your society, including aspects of evolution combined with the stability that enshrining a few basic ideals has to offer. I'm trying to imagine how frustrating it must be for Bush to have to negotiate the obstacle that it must create for him. I can see how it must be a frustrating quagmire for a megolomaniac to pass through on his path to destruction. Of course he would do his best to chip away at its most essential features. Lets hope it is old, deep and strong enough to survive his presidency. He is probably the exact type of concern that the founding fathers envisioned when they wrote it's first drafts. Lets hope America chooses somebody who can repair it and make it strong and shiny again, so that americans may continue to enjoy its protection and the rest of the world may begin to admire it once again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Oct 06 - 10:31 AM The problem is not Bush - but his 'advisors and fellow travellers'.... to use an 'old phrase'... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Oct 06 - 06:49 PM "I sure wish George W. Bush would take a 'little walk with Jesus' before it's too late. I pray for him every day." I suspect that there are many around the world who wish that he would go and LIVE with Jesus, and sooner rather than later. And I reserve my prayers for the victims of his warmongering, among whom I number the entire population of the United States. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: JohnInKansas Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:22 PM lox - One of the bills introduced in each of the last several US Congressional sessions purportedly would throw out much of the Constitution, prohibit the Supreme Court from questioning anything done "in the name of God," and prohibit the application of any Common Law citations prior to the ratification of the Constitution. A majority of members of the US Congress claim to be licensed attorneys, but I see NO RESPECT for the law when it gets in the way of "getting the vote" and the the campaign funds. Of course the function of most Corporate Lawyers is not to tell management what's "legal" and what's "illegal." Their only function is to tell them how likely it is that they'll get caught, and how much it will cost to get out of it when they do. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:03 AM thanks john. This is the real danger of bush isn't it. Some people are just naturally destructive. Sounds like uncle sam is being quietly euthenased while his elected spokesperson opens the gates of hell. Get rid of him folks. We in the rest of the world are begging you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: autolycus Date: 25 Oct 06 - 12:02 PM Still requires an informed electorate. have you got one? Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Oct 06 - 09:35 PM That was the first problem "they" dealt with.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: autolycus Date: 26 Oct 06 - 06:28 PM Interesting. How did 'they' do that? Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Oct 06 - 07:55 AM It worked, didn't it - since you obviously don't know how "they" did it... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,lox Date: 27 Oct 06 - 10:07 AM autolycus (ivor) to answer your question: by teaching creationism at school for starters as an apparently credible alternative to evolution. The rigours of scientific thinking and the methodology employed therein are the cornerstone of academic pursuit in the 21st century. To completely discard the essential contribution of darwin to our understanding of animal biology and then present the story of adam and eve as historical fact (rather than as a metaphor for innocence lost which it is it's obvious intention) is a gross corrosion of the type of cognitive process necessary to engage in useful political discourse. I am sure many of our American brothers and sisters could furnish us with numerous less obvious examples of the same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: autolycus Date: 27 Oct 06 - 12:41 PM Foulestroupe = their method(s) worked,as you say, and that doesn't say what the methods were. Do you, or anybody, know? GUEST Lox - your correct observation can only be the merest start to saying how "they" did. It hardly amounts to answering my question. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 27 Oct 06 - 01:48 PM Yes It is only one example and many more would be required to back up the answer that I imply, but I think the implication is clear enough. People are uninformed because they are taught rubbish at school, because "they" have tampered withh the education system. I suppose we must examine who "they" might be. Instantly my anti-conspiracy-bullshit heckles rise, yet I can see that someone (perhaps they?) is responsible for (dare I say it) an evolutionary step backwards in the academic development of the average American. And what is their agenda? We certainly see the religious right sticking their fingers in many pies that would be better left unspoiled. Is that who "they" are? How religious are the religious right? what is their agenda? are they applying that old adage that religion is the opiate of the masses? and how come I'm talking in this language? I would never describe myself as a marxist so please noonemake any assumptions about my agendabased on what you read above. I'm asking questions as circumstances dictate them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: John O'L Date: 28 Oct 06 - 09:42 AM "They" are the multinational corporations. The religious fundamentalists are merely tools in their hands, and it is they who work hardest to keep the electorate uninformed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: autolycus Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:35 AM And is there some reason so many choose not to inform themselves? Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 29 Oct 06 - 07:40 AM That's a fair question Ivor, My opinion is best summed up by the adage "You need to have had an education to understand the value of education". I think kids are naturally curious but that they have their curiosity ironed out of them by their experience at an early age. There are huge super-schools in the UK that have been formed out of smaller schools in poor areas, where the kids of families that noone cares about are dumped. They don't have a chance. I know, I've seen it with my own eyes. The kids have their hopes and aspirations completely squashed by the age of 10. Those teachers who care battle through a living hell of indiscipline and apathy, while those pupils with a little ambition learn very quickly to hide it, redirect it into more culturally acceptable goals (in the context of the culture of the school, so we're talking football, or if you can't do that, petty crime, status, drink, drugs and sex), and if you insist on having academic aspirations you risk getting bullied. Bullying in these schools is something else. It doesn't even stop when the kids are in class. As the teachers break up one fight, another erupts on the other side of the classroom. Menwhile the girls do each others make up, chat on their mobile phones and yell at other girls they know out the window. If my daughter were to end up at that school, I would hold myself personally responsible for effectiveley putting her in an abusive situation and would hold myself guilty of abuse. Yet is is a reality for so many kids in britain. My guess is that the USA isn't much better. How this translates to "them" having a part to play isn't something I would like to make any concrete assertions about, though I could speculate that the amalgamation of schools into massive education complexes where kids become anonymous and disenfranchised from an early age is a bad policy, the consequences of which the policy makers must be aware of. It's not a viewpoint that I express with any confidence, but I wonder if the questions it poses could inspire someone with greater knowledge than I to contribute. Is it arguably a policy of "them" that they deliberateley advocate a process of brainwashing, through advertising and much of the lifestyle and philosophy messages that are contained therein, backed up by a process of discouraging critical thought and increasing apathy for the lower classes. Are we witnessing the subtle and subliminal creation of a version of Aldous Huxleys Utopia, as described in "brave new world". Discuss - ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: autolycus Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:32 PM Your points are well-made as far as children are concerned. My question was directed even more at adults than children. I've heard recently on a UK radio phone-in ,where the subject was the environment, emailers asking to be informed about the subject. I emailed the programme to say that libraries,newspapers,bookshops,organisations in the field and so on were awash with information and when were people going to read the stuff. When the information is there aplenty, what's going on for people that they ask to be informed? It's as tho' they really want to be injected with knowledge without having to do anything. Or maybe they don't actually want to know, and the request to be informed is a way of shifting responsibility for becoming informed onto others without saying as much. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: John O'L Date: 29 Oct 06 - 05:51 PM People have been dumbed-down by tabloid newspapers, commercial television and saturation advertising. It does require an effort to be well informed, and many people simply don't have the time, energy or know-how. They are told what to think and they think what they are told. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: autolycus Date: 29 Oct 06 - 07:22 PM "They are told what to think and they think what they're told." That isn't the position of people who are free. Reminds me of what I understood was the situation of so many in the old Soviet Union. So the causes of our lack of freedom include being too busy, not making eternal vigilance a priority and devaluing education. Great. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: John O'L Date: 29 Oct 06 - 07:30 PM Educated electorate = healthy democracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Amos Date: 29 Oct 06 - 08:20 PM SUppressing the large middle of the bell curve is a good way to make people too anxious and pressured to become well informed or be able to think clearly, too. One way to do this is of course to shift the flow of benefits to the already wealthy in various ways. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,cigilteach Date: 30 Oct 06 - 01:59 PM To understand what is behind the behavior of the adult, one must start with the child. I find John Taylor Gatto's "Dumbing Us Down" to be a simple and straightforward place to begin to understand what effect the educational system has had on the populace. I don't know how to do a clicky thing but here is the address of his website http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/. Also John Holt has very insightful thoughts about the American educational system and inspiring educational alternatives for children and adults. http://www.holtgws.com These guys are dead on. This is where it all starts and it is getting worse. Many well-meaning parents are playing right into it by choosing to drug their children instead of removing them from a harmful and crushing system. Meanwhile a media campaign to portray homeschooling as damaging and "out there" is in full force. Worthy figures like Dr. Phil are right there, towing the line, using the most extreme and deviant examples of home based education to alienate their audiences from any reasonable consideration of the many feasible alternatives to the failing educational system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: autolycus Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:03 PM Do people realise they are ill-informed? Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,lox Date: 30 Oct 06 - 05:26 PM Beautiful Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 31 Oct 06 - 07:49 AM "their method(s) worked, as you say, and that doesn't say what the methods were. Do you, or anybody, know?" I'm not really sure that even "they" were aware of where things would end up, once "they" started down the path where "they" thought "they" were going to just make more money... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: autolycus Date: 31 Oct 06 - 12:12 PM You're most kind, lox. Incidentally, came across this quote, "Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another." I see the point which is half magnificent. It also looks half wrong to me because that's how bigots, bigheads and , dare I say it, the ill-informed also function. Can I help it if the author of the quote is one of the greatest minds ever, one Immanuel Kant !!!!!!!!?? Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,lox Date: 31 Oct 06 - 03:37 PM Interesting. I would have said the opposite. Kids believe they are always right. It is only when we get older (or should I say wiser as it does not always follow that age and wisdom have a proportional relationship) that we really begin to understand how miniscule our perspective is relative to the full spectrum of knowledge and understanding. I would have argued that 'Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding WITH the guidance of another' - implying that one is incapable of seeing beyond ones ego. Oh well, "...emmanuel kant was a real pissant..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: autolycus Date: 31 Oct 06 - 04:03 PM Actually, my preferred definition of maturity, from anon.:- Maturity is what you do after you've tried everything else. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,lox Date: 31 Oct 06 - 04:34 PM So when all the brie and emmenthal has gone that's the time to have a bit of cheddar? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Mr Happy Date: 01 Nov 06 - 12:11 PM it just says: 'this video is no longer available' Censorship?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: autolycus Date: 02 Nov 06 - 02:25 AM What was also interesting from the first post of thid thread was that our prime minister and president often say,"We have no choice but to ......." I thougfht the point of the drift of the last 25 years had been in the direction of 'choice'. What happened? Ivor |
