BS: Wrong sir!

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