Zombie

Hahahah, as Iarwain notes in another place your facility to pluck words and paint such vivid and fantastical images is remarkable. And good luck with your quest

Interesting challenges you set yourself

No man is an island http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/no-man-is-an-island/ .

No I didn't. All I said was "Subjects I'd add as important - maybe missing in the US? - are history, languages and "citizenship"" I don't know if they are missing in the US hence the question - to which you've not responded. And I only referred to the US because I - wrongly - believed AD was in the US instead of Canada - my apologies to AD I avoid labels like "humanities" because they are used pejoratively. No rational person would object to the teaching of language. Likewise history. Likewise geography. The issue, surely, is not the relevance of the subjects but what's in the syllabus and how they're taught - so maybe they don't need to know the capital of Poland but they need have a basic understanding of the planet they live on. "Citizenship" seems to me necessary to fill the knowledge gap so many kids have about the essentials of how to live in a modern society - just look at the shockingly low voting numbers of under 20s. I agree about calculus. I was taught how to do it. I was never taught what it was for. What the fuck was the point of that?? And I still don't know. So, yeah, ditch calculus except for those who want to continue maths to a higher level. But, numeracy is an essential skill. Everyone should be taught the maths they will need for the rest of their lives as a basic life skill.

Trades are necessary but they are not sufficient. Successful economies require much more. And quite frankly "respect" is irrelevant to a blog on educational failings. Social mobility is when the education system enables kids to achieve their full potential - which for some will be trades, but for others will be much more economically productive occupations - by identifying and nurturing their inherent talents and enabling them to move into areas of a country's economic activity for which they are best suited. If they want to - if they don't then at least they had the choice which is denied so many because the system never identifies and nurtures those talents and therefore fails not just the individual but also the wider society and the nation's economy. The reality of how education actually works may be - and is - quite different but that's no reason give up on the goal. There is no "British system" or "British model" of education as the facts I've already given show. Of course there'll be curriculum similarities just as there are diet similarities wherever you look - we all need protein and carbohydrate And I don't know why you're banging on about education in Britain - fascinating as that may be Avocatus diaboli is in Canada so I assume he was referencing fundamental flaws in Canada.

No this is quite wrong. There is no "British system" of education as you describe it. Never has been. Scotland has always retained a separate and distinct education system both before and after the Acts of Union - the Acts guaranteed Scotland would retain its separate and distinct system. And it has nothing to do with devolution. And the tiering - primary / middle / secondary, or primary / secondary - is not significant. Likewise it's wrong to say there is a "British system" of education in the core curriculum you mentioned. The National Curriculum only applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland - Scotland has always had its own separate and quite distinct curriculum. In England, some schools must follow the National Curriculum [those controlled by Local Government Education Authorities] but many others can ignore it and set their own curriculum ["Academies", "free schools" and public schools are free to set their own curriculum]. The position is quite different in Wales and Northern Ireland. So, yeah, however you cut the cake the 4 countries that make up Britain are not "still really close as a system" because there ain't no "British system" But I do agree with you that "an education system needs to serve the population and the student's interest". Unlike you, however, I believe that the education system is key to "social mobility" because, unlike you, I don't define social mobility in terms of earnings. For me it's more than money - it's the ability to move into any area of the economy, not just trades. Don't get me wrong, trades are very important - there are 3 generations of plumbers in my family - but trades do not generate national wealth. For that you need a quality education system. Which, sadly - and with some exceptions - Britain does not have.

It's curious that people who might have no issue with Tarantino's gratuitous and explicit screen violence might balk at non-gratuitous story-relevant depictions of taboos In this thread the prevailing view seems to be that nothing should be off limits. Equally, all these "taboos" should be handled "appropriately". So, if the story justifies it, things can be described - maybe even explicitly. But the qualifier here is that it should not be gratuitous or written to titillate. As for explicitness, sometimes this is needed to make the audience have no doubt about exactly what happens. Explicit need not be gratuitous. And let's be clear about this - there is no horror or depravity you can conceive that has not already been dealt with in fiction, drama or film. Dealt with by respected writers and directors. And you don't get writers more respected than old Bill Shakespeare. And you don't get graphic rape and child cannibalism more shocking than in Titus Andronicus.

Unlikely I think - since there is no "British model" If Bush and Blair had bothered to understand history then maybe we wouldn't have got ourselves in such a mess in Afghanistan. And Latin isn't the only language taught in schools The most important outcome from a good education is developing the ability to think, to reason and to be creative / inventive. Those are the skills that drove the Industrial Revolution, those are the skills that continue to drive progress, and those are the skills that distinguish us from the 21st century machines.

I think you mean "nothing to do with their sexual orientation"?

Excellent blog Subjects I'd add as important - maybe missing in the US? - are history, languages and "citizenship". History If we don't understand where we've come from how can we have useful input into where we're going? Things like voting and decision-making? If we've no knowledge or understanding of the past, and past mistakes, how can we possibly expect to become effective voters and good decision-makers? Languages. Learning another language is, in my experience, the most effective way to learn your own language and to learn about other world cultures. And it broadens the mind. And it's intellectually demanding. Citizenship Kids are expected to lean all this from their mums and dads - voting, mortgages, retirement, health, driving cars and stuff - but we know this doesn't work for many. But there are good jobs in these areas too - as well as equipping kids with practical skills on how to live independent lives as adults they may pick up on career ideas too. As I see it the purpose of "education" is to expand the mind and enable kids to develop intellectual skills and tools to help them identify where their natural talents are so they can live happy and productive lives. Good career guidance is an essential part of identifying where those skills can be used but it is not the purpose of education to churn out drones for employment. Vocational skills may be important for many - crucial even - but they can and should be learned and developed towards the end of the education process.

The way I see it there are four separate issues here - imposed censorship, self-censorship, the idea of "normal", and compliance with site rules / standards. Compliance is easy - the site has rules / standards. You either accept them or you don't. Likewise the starting point for imposed censorship, which is the thread title, is easy - "no". But sometimes it needs to be "yes" for example kids TV, games etc. Beyond that it starts to get more difficult ... Self censorship, as Iarwain explained, is different and is also easy - you are free to choose, you decide, based on your own standards and your own agenda, no-one else's. As to the notion of "normalisation" I disagree with Graeme - what is "natural"? - and I agree again with Iarwain In fact I'd go further - this is abhorrent to me. There is no such thing as "normal" human behaviour. There are cultural "norms" such as "moral standards", "right" and "wrong", "good" and "bad", behaviour that is "acceptable" and "unacceptable", legal compliance and lawbreaking etc etc. We all do things - and think things - that fall both sides of whatever is the dividing line. Does that then make us "normal" or "abnormal"? And who sets those dividing lines anyway? And wherever they are set they are most definitely not fixed - they move and change over time and place. Nope, the last thing I want to do is to lead my life in order to please others - be true to yourself! - nor do I want to be "normal", and I certainly don't want to be "normalized", thank you. Good thread question though, Ron

Ah, yes, but even the World Tiddlywinks tournaments have foreign foes

How's about some gay fic faves - Brett or Brad [the quarterback], sexy farm boi Seth, and Randy (no explanation needed )

"World" Series??? Guys, guys ... this is the World :funny:

What, no Mary-Lou? No Tammy-Lee??

This is about the future? But the shuttle's in the past .... *is confused, like brink's aliens ... head hurts .... starts to moan ...* Btw nice spoilers, guys

Oh mein Gott, was für ein Horror! Yeah, a lotta peeps are gonna hate on this big time. Don't care, I like it so there! Brazillian composer Eumir Deodato stuck a groove on Richard Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra - famously used by Stanley Kubrick in 2001: A Space Odyssey - and this charted in 1973. It's been glued to some stunning NASA video of the ISS and our home planet

Google bleats "Don't be evil" but - as my grandma would have said - "actions speak louder than words" and "evil is as evil does"

must be this nurse ... Seriously, get fully recovered soon, KC Time for another hospital joke ...

Except Burke wasn't talking about "abstract liberty" - and you don't get more abstract than God . The liberty he was talking about "inheres in some sensible object; and every nation has formed to itself some favourite point, which by way of eminence becomes the criterion of their happiness". Anyway, what's the big deal about 300 years - that's only yesterday But to get back to the point - bringing the constitution out of the 17th century and making it fit for purpose in the modern world - constitutional reform could begin by outlawing the corrupt practice of allowing Governors to determine Congressional Districts to favour their party's candidates and require, instead, boundaries to be drawn by an independent commission only using non-party political determinants, that way Class A dicks like Mark Meadows - who wanted, and got, the govt shutdown - would not have been elected. Other countries manage to do this - even the UK . If you could put men on the Moon you can make an itsey bitsey teensey weensey reform like this - because *drum roll, and all together in a loud voice* ... IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!

This doesn't mandate the US constitution to be "fixed". Burke is presenting the various notions of freedom at issue in the American cause, in particular freedom "upon the question of taxing" and from "arbitrary and boundless authority" 3,000 miles away. But I think we knew that. He also points out that the colonialists' notion of liberty is "according to English ideas and on English principles". There is nothing unique or special about American views on liberty

Sorry, W_L, I don't identify myself with, or belong to, any party or ideology. Never have, never will - they're all flawed. I prefer to work things out for myself

Ouch! Well, that was clearly aimed at me One of the things I love about language is its fluidity. So whilst the definitions you gave still hold good the word has developed wider meaning. So, since 2000, it's also come to mean bigoted, loutish reactionaries who are opposed to modern ways [Dictionary of American Slang, 2008]. You'll also find Collins World English Dictionary [10th ed 2009] includes this definition a person or institution that is extremely reactionary. I'm sure there are many other sources too As to the etymology ... according to the Oxford English Dictionary the first known printed reference to "rednecks" in America occurred in 1830. It came in a three-volume travel narrative called Mrs. Royal's Southern Tour. In it, the author defined the term as "a name bestowed upon the Presbyterians in Fayetteville" (presumably North Carolina). "Red neck" was applied specifically to Presbyterians, one scholar explains, because, in the early 1640s, some members of that group signed their names in blood to documents declaring their separation from the Church of England. They signified their strong opposition to the Church, so the story goes, by wearing red pieces of cloth around their necks. Many of their descendants later immigrated to America and settled in the South. The name eventually faded, however. In the 1954 edition of the massive Webster's New International Dictionary Unabridged, it doesn't even show up as a noun. http://www.cmt.com/news/country-music/1488680/rednecks-on-the-rebound.jhtml .

You're right about the British system of representative democracy. And that's a good thing It's probably best described by Edmund Burke in his seminal speech to his electoral constituency in November 1774: "Your representative owes you ... his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion ... government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination ... Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole" (if you don't know it - and I'm sure you do - the whole thing should be read here http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html) It's a short speech but it powerfully encapsulates the nature of democracy in Britain. MPs are not mere delegates and Burke understood the dangers of angry passions being fomented by rabble rousers - boy, was he prescient with what has happened in the US with the rise of the Tea Party and your toxic rabble-rousing media! And he was true to his word - in 1778 he ignored constituency demands to oppose free trade with Ireland because "his judgment assured him they were wrong". The fact is "Democracy" can be just as evil as any other system, ending up with the majority bullying and oppressing the minorities. So it needs to be controlled. And Burke explained how it's done in Britain. This is how we abandoned capital punishment, and why we are getting gay marriage There are always pressures to revoke this principle. And they must always be resisted. As for Henry Ford, we was quite happy to let the Model T run and run for ever!! Just like the US constitution - as you've explained it - his approach was one of "getting it right and then keeping it the same". In his view the Model T was all the car a person would, or could, ever need. But - and here's the important bit - after 19 years, and with falling sales, he finally accepted that the world had moved on and he was losing market share. So despite his original philosophy the Model T was updated and new cars have been introduced ever since to keep up with the constantly changing world Where would Ford be today if all the shareholders had said "sorry, Henry, we don't want you a-changin' nothin' - that car served my Uncle Silas just swell, and it'll do me an' Momma just fine, and little Billy-Bob here too when he's all growed up in another 10 year or more" :funny: The world doesn't stand still

I understand what you've said, but consider this - the Model T was an excellent car in its day, but who would want to drive the freeway in one today? Or in 50 years time? Or for the rest of time? Road and driving conditions today are unrecogniseable to what they were 105 years ago just as the world of politics and government is unrecogniseable to how it was in 1789. The US govt system has presented itself to the world as a broken down old croc [it ceased to function!] in need of a revamp to bring itself up to a standard fit for the modern world - no-one's talking about "removing" the constitution. But if you're saying the US has condemned itself to remain a hostage to the past then you're in for a lot more grief And nothing is fixed for all time ... except fundamental particles