Wiley Miller nicely sums up what seems to be a common defense against those who criticise Trump and Brexit.
Most importantly, Adams and Trump both offer the working class cheap, stupid, and forgettable entertainment that placates dissatisfaction for a moment before a swift return to late-capitalist dread. We deserve better.
Ouch! I can’t say that I agree with every word of this. I have stopped reading Adams’ blog, but I still read Dilbert.
Free speech must include the right to offend. Granted, there are limitations upon free speech which do serve valuable and necessary functions – such as the prohibition against incitement to violence, or the prohibition concerning the deliberate causing of a panic that would likely result in imminent injury, etc – yet such limitations are not a valid basis for arguments that seek to increase restrictions on free speech. Put simply, the existence of common-sense limitations on free speech in no way testify to the alleged benefits of restricting speech that offends or hurts people’s feelings. Feelings should never be placed above fundamental human rights, particularly when the human right in question is the primary mechanism by which societies and cultures progress. George Bernard Shaw penned upon the lips of one of his fictional characters, “All great truths begin as blasphemies”. The validity of this noble and enlightened sentiment has been…
View original post 652 more words
Dear Mr Stewart,
I write to you as a Beckenham constituent concerned that the country will be railroaded into a hard Brexit by a Prime Minister who seems more concerned to pander to the Leave faction of the Conservative Party than consider what is best for the country as a whole. Removing ourselves from the world’s largest trading bloc and customs union, while relying on the aspiration to attain trade deals elsewhere is reckless and irresponsible, especially considering that most of our non-EU trade is already covered by trade agreements agreed by the EU. Pushing for a hard Brexit ignores both those who voted to Remain entirely and many millions more who voted to leave but for a so-called ‘soft Brexit’.
The argument that there is a mandate for Brexit is feeble. No major country would make a change to its constitution or deprive its citizens of important rights on anything less than a supermajority—60% or 66%—two-thirds of the electorate, or of those people who voted on the day of a referendum. Only that would be regarded as sufficient for making a change of this importance. The advisory nature of the referendum was made clear in the House of Commons Library Briefing Paper 07212 issued on 03 June 2015:
Section 5 says, “This Referendum is advisory only. It doesn’t bind either Parliament or the Government to act on its outcome.”
Section 6 of that document says, “If there were any suggestion whatsoever, that there would be a change such as leaving the EU would involve—a major constitutional change, a change in the rights of the citizens of the UK—then a supermajority would be required.”
This is a document that was sent to MPs in advance of the debate in the House of Commons on the 2015 Referendum Bill.
The result of the referendum means that only 37% of the electorate voted to leave the EU; many voters were persuaded by the lie that £350 million per week would be saved and spent on the NHS.
The view propounded by Boris Johnson and David Davies among others seems to be “it’ll be all right on the night” and the foolish notion that the UK holds the stronger hand in negotiations. The world does not owe the UK any favours.
Personally, I would prefer that the majority of MPs who want the UK to remain in the EU will have the guts to stand up for what they think is best for the country and not kowtow to the false notion that Brexit is the will of the people. However, I doubt that this will happen despite the fact that ours is a representative democracy with a sovereign Parliament and where these things have to be discussed by that Parliament. And discussed in a way which is properly and genuinely informed and in the interests of the country and not of MPs keeping their seats.
Brexit does not have to happen. I urge you to fight against it, failing that I urge you to do all you can to avoid a hard Brexit. Staying part of the Single Market and customs union is the option that is very much more likely to ensure the future prosperity of the country and its citizens. I urge you to act in the best interests of your constituents.
I look forward to receiving your confirmation.
There is already a special place reserved in Hell for Donald Trump. If Theresa May isn’t careful she will find herself next to him, his hand clasping hers, as they endure an eternal, infernal press conference.
May’s refusal to condemn Trump’s US travel ban on people from seven Muslim majority countries, which, like Peter denying Jesus, she repeated three times, ruined the afterglow of her visit to Washington DC.
May makes great play of being a vicar’s daughter. What would her father think of such squirming appeasal?
Make Votes Matter – Parliamentary Petition for PR: Tim Ivorson responds to the Government’s Response
Make Votes Matter team member, Tim Ivorson, started a Parliamentary Petition calling for Proportional Representation near the end of 2016. The Government formally responded on it reaching 10,000 signatures. This is Tim’s reply to the Government response.
My DayOne journal reminded me that I wrote this entry two years ago today. Given what’s happened in the world this year, it seemed appropriate to make it the first post for this year. I’m quite sure that this is not my original material, unfortunately, I carelessly omitted to note the source in my journal. So apologies to whoever it is I am ripping off and and Happy New Year to everyone.
Critical thinking is:
- Questioning information rather than merely receiving it (trust but verify),
- A constant skill applied to all knowledge and belief (not to be compartmentalised).
- Not an exercise; but a tool for belief testing and filtering (defence against false beliefs).
- Must be applied to yourself as well as others (self-question, self-test, self-critique).
- Not radical scepticism (work out when information is enough to settle a conclusion).
Step 1: Check the facts (check multiple sources and evaluate their reliability).
Step 2: Check for biases and fallacies (your own and those of others).
Step 3: Consider alternative explanations of the evidence and test them.
- Find the best defences of either side of a dispute and compare them.
- Consider your existing background knowledge and endeavour to acquire more of it.
- Rely on facts & evidence, not assumptions.
- Update your beliefs when evidence goes against them.
- Restate all your beliefs as probabilities; then justify those probabilities (or change them if you can’t).
Have yourself a merry little Christmas,
Let your heart be light
From now on,
Our troubles will be out of sight
Have yourself a merry little Christmas,
Make the Yule-tide gay,
Here we are as in olden days,
Happy golden days of yore.
Faithful friends who are dear to us
Gather near to us once more.
Through the years we all will be together
If the Fates allow
For the choice of Trump reveals most Americans as immature and prone to juvenile behavior. To vote for Trump is the ultimate act of political immaturity. There are, of course, identifiable reasons why many were drawn to the flamboyant candidate, why his demagoguery resonated, why his exaggerated imagery struck a receptive nerve. However, for that emotional response to translate into the actual selection of this man to be president crosses a critical threshold. Children – at times – let emotion rule their conduct. Children only weakly feel the imperative to impose logic and a modicum reason on their impulses. Children disregard consequences. Children overlook the downside in their implicit weighing of the balance in giving in to those impulses or not. Grown-ups do not.
To be strictly accurate, more Americans voted for Hillary than The Donald, but I can’t help thinking, “For US, read UK; for presidential elections, read Brexit referendum.”