About Me

Name:Greg England
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

The Liberal Bubble

Posted by Greg England on Saturday, April 12, 2008 11:18:08 AM
 
I have drawn this picture to try to describe the all consuming nature of liberalism.
 
 
It is possible to blend a portfolio of ideas whilst remaining trapped in the liberal bubble.  Ironically, this means that most liberals pride themselves in being open-minded intellectuals.  But in the same way that the German Democratic Republic was anything but democratic, modern liberalism is not an objective open-minded mindset.
 
It is instead an all encompassing mindset ... a bit like upside-down land.
 
The tragedy is that liberals continue to intellectualise and embrace all the bad ideas.
Hence they continue to be wrong about almost everything.
 
Escaping from liberalism is like escaping from a cult.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

And did those feet in ancient times ...

Posted by Greg England on Friday, April 11, 2008 5:35:48 PM
Cathedral bans popular hymn Jerusalem:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/10/njerusalem110.xml
 
I quote:
The verses, which were written by William Blake more than two centuries ago, cannot be sung by choirs or congregations at Southwark Cathedral because the words do not praise God and are too nationalistic, according to senior clergy.  Last week the Dean of Southwark, the Very Rev Colin Slee, advised guests at a private memorial service that the hymn would not be sung because it was "not in the glory of God".
 
I suspect that my transatlantic readers are wondering what all the fuss is about.  Well this isn't the first time that a Church of England bishop has asked for a hymn to be banned.
 
In 2004, the Bishop of Hulme called on churches to ban the singing of "I Vow to Thee My Country"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/12/nbish12.xml
 

In both cases, the churchmen were calling for hymns to be banned on the grounds that they were not Christian enough.  However, in both cases the churchmen are using theological masks to hide their true agendas.
 
Check their credentials on the internet:

Dean of Southwark
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/26/religion.uk
 
Bishop of Hulme (scroll to the bottom of the article)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7236174.stm

Once you find out where they are coming from, you realise that their criticisms of these two hymns have nothing to do with theology.  This is about CofE liberals attacking popular national symbols, in this case these two important unifying national hymns, and using demagogic means where necessary (e.g. by comparing patriotism to racist nationalism).
 
This is no less serious than the anti-Americanism of Obama's preacher, except that it is dressed up in gentle liberalism.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Green Card

Posted by Greg England on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 3:09:46 AM
15mph speed limit for eco towns
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7311548.stm
 
Quote:
"Environmental protesters say the plans do not give adequate consideration to other ecological issues, such as the impact building would have on wildlife."
 

Archbishop of Canterbury attacks Western 'greed' in Easter sermon
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/23/narchbishop123.xml
 
Quote:
In his Easter Sunday sermon, Dr Williams said the "comforts and luxuries" people took for granted could not be sustained forever and forecast that civilisation would one day collapse.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Try someone else's blog

Posted by Greg England on Monday, March 10, 2008 6:28:31 PM
Hi folks, if you are looking for a break from my monthly "rant-a-rooney" then why don't you try this blog:
 
 
The author of goodbyeblighty even had the good manners to reply to my email when I said that that I was going to recommend this blog to others.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where are those crazy Christian fundies when you need them?

Posted by Greg England on Sunday, February 10, 2008 10:56:01 AM

The National Secular Society criticised the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent remarks, stating that "it was difficult to imagine a less helpful contribution to the debate on cohesion and social integration than this."

http://www.secularism.org.uk/archbishopscommentsonsharialawma.html

Fair enough, we are on the same page here.  However, rather criticise the Archbishop for his cowardice in the face of an increasingly aggressive Islamism (which would take all of our freedoms away, whether you are a Jew, Christian, Hindu, Sikh, atheist or even moderate Muslim) the NSS instead treats us to the "all religions are as bad as one another" speech:

"All religious groups preach that they are inclusive and work towards social integration in Britain, yet what they practise is exactly the opposite. They want, and get, segregated schools, segregated scout groups, even segregated toilets, and now apparently, social cohesion and integration are to be further achieved by separate laws for separate religious groups. This is truly bizarre.”

No, what is truly bizarre is your lack of a sense of irony and intellectual dishonesty.

Here we have the most liberal Archbishop of recent times:

 

A man who paraded about with druids:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2172918.stm

A man who opposes the War on Terror ... when the WoT meant Afghanistan!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2606971.stm

A man whose Christmas message was a gift to atheists:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/20/nwise120.xml

 

As for his views on homosexuality and priests ... do you know what they are?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1856222,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4445242.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/27/ngay27.xml

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3054277.ece

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/527

 

Even the lefty newspaper the Guardian admits that “in many respects, Williams, not helped by his preachy beard and imperious eyebrows, has come to resemble the caricature of the C of E vicar: someone who has strong views on everything except God.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/10/anglicanism.religion

 

And now the latest debacle about sharia law.

You see, the problem with the Archbishop of Canterbury is NOT that he is advancing a fundy Christian religious agenda.  The problem with the Archbishop of Canterbury is that he doesn't appear to stand for anything.  He may be an intelligent theologian.  He may even be a thoughtful and kindly man.

But truth be told ... he's just another lib.

For compensation, at least we have the delicious irony of listening to liberal organisations having to criticise the Archbishop of Canterbury for being ... erm, a liberal?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (21) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Words fail me

Posted by Greg England on Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:59:32 PM
Yet again, the Archbishop of Canterbury opens his mouth and makes matters worse:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/07/nwilliams107.xml

If you are a devout Muslim, then that's fine by me.  But right now, I cannot articulate the depth of my anger towards this man.  For years he has been systematically undermining Christian traditions, using the pulpit to preach his wacky liberal views.  The Church of England has always had its lefties, but these were usually social reformers and anti-poverty campaigners.  But this man ...

Why doesn't he just join the National Secular Society and be done with it?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Paradise or Bust

Posted by Greg England on Monday, January 21, 2008 5:04:53 PM

Once again the BBC is wasting our money ... my money, on enviro-wacko projects.

This time it’s in the form of a five part documentary, following a couple of entrepreneurs who are busy setting up an ‘eco tourist’ village.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk4/unplaced.shtml#unplaced_paradise

If you are an environmentalist, and if you have a bag of cash to make TV programming, then by all means go ahead and present documentaries about alternative energy.  I would quite happily watch a series about geo-thermal power, nuclear power, and oil security.  Given that the oil is a finite resource, tell me where all the plastics and polymers of the future are going to come from.

But give me a break!  An ‘eco tourist’ village?  I can ‘read the stitches on the fast-ball’ and this has nothing to do with environmentalism.  It has everything to do with loony liberalism.  It’s the myth of the noble savage again; about listening to ancient tribes, about returning to a simpler way of life ...

Can I have my licence fee back please?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Auld Lang Syne

Posted by Greg England on Monday, December 31, 2007 1:11:17 PM

Archbishop says nativity a legend
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/20/nwise120.xml

Archbishop’s Christmas Sermon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7159849.stm

Archbishop warns of dangers of waste culture
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/31/earural531.xml

Fairy lights an ecological disaster, Royals told
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/31/nlights131.xml

Government to go ahead with nuclear stations
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/31/npower131.xml

Country braced for Siberian blast of cold
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/31/nweather231.xml

 

(Write your own editorial ... this is beyond parody).

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberty Bell

Posted by Greg England on Saturday, October 20, 2007 5:46:30 PM

What business is it of mine anyway?
I’m a British subject, and I’m obviously proud of my country, of all it has achieved (and God Save the Queen).  And I’m not here to dismiss an ancient form of government (the character of the UK’s constitutional monarchy is a discussion for another day).

Nevertheless, it’s time I nailed my colours to the mast.  I’m an American Exceptionalist – that is, I believe that there is something truly special about the US.  I’m no historian, so bear with me because this comes from the heart:

For me, the magic is best encapsulated in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...”

Self-evident truths:
This isn’t an exercise in creating utopia.  This is an attempt to get at the fundamental truths of existence.

All men are created equal:
All human beings are created with equal worth.  This is not utopian.  It doesn’t say that everyone is going to have the same deal in life.  It doesn’t even promise that America will be perfect (but it did provide a philosophy to inspire Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King ... the crack in Liberty Bell?)

Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights:

Life:
I have a right to be here.  These words are life affirming.

Liberty:
Not only do I have a right to be here, but my natural state is freedom.

Pursuit of Happiness:
Not pursuit of advancement of the fatherland.  Not pursuit of a brotherhood of man.  Not a struggle against the bourgeoisie, or a social contract that you can’t even remember signing. 

But a unique affirmation of individual dignity.

I could never express this sentiment within the UK, I would be laughed at by elites who would rather spend their time sneering at the US, and rattling off their long list of talking points and the US is to blame for everything.  I bet such sophisticates exist in the US as well.

Let them laugh.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (23) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Outrageous Waste of my money

Posted by Greg England on Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:16:31 PM

On BBC3 the other evening I stumbled across a TV programme called “Outrageous Wasters”.  The basic premise is that a bunch of do-good-know-it-all-pinko-Commie-libs take the average wasteful but successful capitalist family, and preach their enviro-wacko views at them in an re-education camp until they are converted to the noble cause of saving the planet from the wickedness of mankind.  The family collect water from a stream, grow their own vegetables, and generally engage in a series of pointless Third World acts, turning their backs on the glories of the Industrial Revolution.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/programmes/outrageous_wasters/index.shtml

Meanwhile, as the family have their brains turned into mush, the BBC sets about destroying their home, fitting solar panels, wind turbines, compost toilets and timers on their showers so that when the Manchurian candidates finally return to their home they will be able to indulge their new found liberal guilt.

 “But if you don’t like what’s on TV, you know where the off button is!”
Yeah, that’s easy for you to say.  But who do you think paid for this show?  I did!

In the United Kingdom, we are compelled by LAW to purchase a television licence every year, if we want watch television.  This year the licence fee is £135.50 ... which is equivalent to $274.42 at the time of writing this blog.  This is regardless of whether or not we even want to watch the BBC.  And anyway, the last time I tried living without a television was during 2001, which was not a good year to be without a TV.

Now consider this cost comparison folks ...
In July 2006, the Iranian backed Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) was gleefully complaining about the Iraq war costing the UK a TOTAL of £4 billion.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2006/07/iraq-060711-irna01.htm


Peanuts!  The BBC is not far off spending this amount of money in ONE YEAR!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC  and http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/  (Page 90)

Don't misunderestimate me.  I'm not suggesting for a moment that the war in Iraq can be regarded purely in financial terms.  But when you look at the BBC budget ... well, comparatively speaking they are rolling in cash.

Cash is coming out of their ears, and eyes and noses.  What do you suppose the size of their carbon footprint is?  I bet we could save the planet simply by closing down the Beeb!  But instead, BBC3 treats me to Dan, the ‘self-styled anarchist’ and Joanna who wears ‘hemp clothes’.  Compost toilets?  I have two words to say to you:  Joseph Bazalgette!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/bazalgette_joseph.shtml


Final word on environmentalism
For any liberals out there who think I’m beyond redemption, I am going to break Ann Coulter’s second rule of talking to liberals (Rule 2: Don’t be defensive) in the vain attempt that you might also meet me half-way and realise just how crazy this fanaticism is.

As I have stated on numerous occasions, I’m not actually opposed to looking after the environment.  I recycle bottles and cans, and my newspapers.  I have energy saving light-bulbs fitted.  If the enviro-wackos would consider nuclear power as a serious option for our future energy needs hey I might even take them seriously!

But because I take a more considered view, do my own research, and refuse to join the shrill liberal drumbeat that we are all going to drown rather inconveniently under 20 foot high waves unless we live in mudhuts ... well, I’m an outcast!  I’m a greedy wicked capitalist!  I am a denier!

Let me tell you something ... these people have no idea what wickedness is!Thankfully, there are others out there who share my frustrations and are far better than I am at articulating an enviro-realist worldview.  Take the following view for example:

 “... human life is sacred and that God placed man in a position of having dominion over nature; that environmental awareness is healthy, but that apocalyptic environmentalism based on disinformation and hysteria is destructive to society and man’s best interests.”

Now where do you think this paragraph came from?  Sounds like something a moderate Christian ecologist would come out with doesn’t it?

Well, I’ll tell you.  It came from the following book:

“The Way Things Ought to Be”, by Rush Limbaugh, published 1992

I bet you didn’t see that coming, did you?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (40) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why I am a Conservative

Posted by Greg England on Saturday, September 08, 2007 7:17:22 PM
One of the more pejorative terms used by liberals to describe conservatives, is the term ‘reactionary’.  This term implies resistance against the agenda that is defined by liberal progressives.

This is how conservatives are regarded by liberals ... as reactionaries
We are reactionaries, the unenlightened ones ... stalwarts against progress.  We can attempt to hold back the tides of history for only so long, but like King Canute our resistance is futile.  We are looked on with amusement, pity and contempt by the more radical within the liberal movement.  Liberals define themselves by their tolerance, but strangely enough this tolerance does not extend to conservatives.

So where can we find conservative thought?
US conservatives may regard Tony Blair as one of their own, but back in 1999 he was making speeches to the party faithful in which he promised “A New Britain where the extraordinary talent of the British people is liberated from the forces of conservatism that so long have held them back.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/460009.stm

What about Friedrich Hayek?
Friedrich Hayek’s thesis “The Constitution of Liberty” is said to have played a major part in the transformation of the UK Conservative Party during the Thatcher years.  Given that the Iron Lady had so much regard for Hayek, surely this book should be an exposition of conservative thought and a bastion of conservative principles.

Yet as an addendum to the book, Hayek included an essay entitled ‘Why I am not a Conservative’
http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46
He described his objection to conservatism being that “by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving.”  Hayek feared that it was the “fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing”.  He also stated in his essay that “American radicals and socialists began calling themselves ‘liberals’“.  This essay was first published in 1960.  American ‘liberals’ have been left-wing for some time.

What about classic liberalism?
A classic liberal is someone who is tolerant in the model of John Stuart Mill.  In his essay, ‘On Liberty’ he stated that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html

Now I can sign up to this.  If you are a liberal, and this is what you believe in, then I salute you!  I have absolutely zero interest in telling someone else how to live their life; unless they are doing something that directly interferes with my happiness.  Putting a brick through the windscreen of my car would be a good example of something that interferes with my happiness.

So why do I call myself a Conservative?
What do you make of the following crazy notions:
·         Criminals deserve to be punished: “hugging a hoodie” is not the answer
·         Children should respect their elders.  No, really, they should
·         Education should focus on the three Rs
·         If you want to read, first learn the alphabet
·         When men and women get married this is good for society
·         Not everyone wears their heart on their sleeve
·         Human beings are more important than animals
·         The “experts” don’t know everything ... take it with a pinch of salt
·         People should take responsibility for their own actions
·         Character matters more than intelligence
·         People are often naive about other people’s intentions
·         Utopian political philosophy is a recipe for disaster
·         There is often more than one way to solve a problem
·         Life is messy and complex

I believe in the above and more ...
I told you I was a wingnut!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Crime and Punishment - Part 2

Posted by Greg England on Friday, September 07, 2007 2:01:24 AM
A co-worker has laid down an interesting challenge to my recent blog, and I feel that it's an important challenge that needs to be answered.

How I can claim that violent crime is rising, if official statistics say that it is falling?
(In other words is my blog just an exercise in demagogy?  These are my words, not his).

To answer this challenge:
For starters there is no hidden political agenda.  The Conservative Party does not currently appear to have any advantage over the Labour Party when it comes to law and order issues, because David Cameron does not campaign effectively on traditional issues.  At worst I can be accused of engaging in rhetoric.  But a charge of demagogy can be denied, because there is no partisan advantage to be gained.

Secondly, it is my personal belief that there has been a general coarsening of societal values within the UK:
The evidence for this is all around you, if you just trust your experiences.  The aggression of pre-pubescent youth; the increasing police presence in towns during the night; bouncers (i.e. security) on the doors of pubs; increasing coarsening of language in everyday parlance; increasing exposure to non-violent crime.  Everything is becoming more aggressive.  From my perspective these observations lend credibility to newspaper reports of rising levels of violent crime.

Thirdly, most people I know share my deep concerns:
Anecdotal evidence, whilst unscientific, can be validated as a method through reference to what is known as the "information market".  People are not just information repositories; we are highly sophisticated observers of the human condition ... in fact you could call us experts.  Information markets cannot be dismissed easily, because they are the essence of democracy.  History has validated the ability of democracies to make better decisions than those systems that are lead purely through scientific means (e.g. Communist socialism).

Information markets are able to process vast quantities of information, and draw on multiple human perspectives and experiences.  They are the most sophisticated genetic algorithms that we have.  If enough individuals are involved, I tend to trust them more than a government sponsored study.

But quite frankly, at a basic gut level I simply do not believe what I am being told.
There are other qualitative reasons why I am deeply concerned (e.g. due to the nature of some of the recent crimes being reported, such as the stoning to death of a man by a gang of children).

At a future date I may return to this subject and offer statistical evidence when I come across it.  I invite others to comment on this topic, and share their experiences and insights - remember to keep it anonymous as this is the WORLD WIDE WEB.

Post Blog Note – An apology
The more observant amongst you will have noticed that I have republished this blog.  The reason for this is that I included attack on a scientist who in my opinion was mocking those of us who still believe in the sanctity of human life.

I called him a ‘jerk’.  On reflection, whilst I still strongly disagree with his opinions, I realize that this lowered the level of debate, and so I have republished this blog to remove any review comments.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Crime and Punishment

Posted by Greg England on Saturday, September 01, 2007 1:44:14 PM
The UK Tory Leader, David Cameron, has at last done something right by blowing the whistle on the rise of violent crime in the UK.  Now, I’m not a great fan of David Cameron, in fact I am looking forward to the day when the Tories ditch him and choose a conservative instead of a liberal as their leader.  I don’t even trust his motives; I believe that he is talking about law and order to try to reconnect with disaffected traditional Conservatives.

But whatever his motives, at the moment he has a real battle on his hands.  You see, there is a concerted campaign within some sectors of the UK media to state that violent crime is not on the increase.  And the harvest was a success again this year!

Now I don’t care if you are left-wing, right-wing, centrist or libertarian.  Your first duty must be to the truth, and after that you can offer your opinion.  If you believe that the rise in violent crime is caused by inner-city poverty then fine, I might not share your thesis, but at least you are being honest about the rise in violent crime.

But right now, I’m in a quandary.  How do I obtain statistics to back up my thesis?

You see, according to the British Crime Survey, things are getting better:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0607.html

And according to senior police officers, things are not as bad as they are being reported:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/01/nacpo101.xml

Those of us who dare to question the statistics and received wisdom via UK newspaper comments pages have been accused of being fascists.   Our desire for punishment for the perpetrators has been shouted down.  We have been told that we cannot possibly understand what the poor little darlings are going through, with their deprived childhoods and all.  When this tactic has not worked, then we have even been threatened with being judged by God, under the remit of "judge not lest ye be judged"

I leave you with this story, which has caused much controversy:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/26/nrcrime126.xml

Something is rotten in the state of England.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (20) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Flashcards, look and say, and other liberal schemes ...

Posted by Greg England on Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:52:36 PM
My little brother has achieved some high results in his GCSEs.  These are exams taken in the UK when you are 16 years old.  Hip, hip hooray!  However, things could so easily have turned out differently.  Why?  Well, he was first taught to read using “Look and Say”.  It’s a miracle that he has overcome his initial reading difficulties.  Or maybe it’s down to sheer guts and determination.

Here’s how “Look and Say” is supposed to work.
PARENT:          (shows their child the word “AND”)
CHILD:              “Apple”
PARENT:          No, try again.
CHILD:              “Car”
PARENT:          No, try again.
CHILD:              “And”
PARENT:          Well done!

Now I don’t know about you, but this is how I learned to read:
Ah ... Nuh ... Duh!      A. N. D.     AND !!!

Yeah, I know that not all words sound like they spell.  But that’s not the point.  Just because the English language is complex, (or should that be complicated) it doesn’t mean that you should write lots of words on flashcards and get your poor kids to memorise the shapes. 

What kind of idiots would propose such a technique?

In 2006, Sir Jim Rose finally completed a literacy report in which he concluded ... well, I’ll be honest with you.  I haven’t read the report.  It’s over 100 pages long, I’ve got better things to do with my time, like write this blog for starters.  All I know is that it proposed the reintroduction of synthetic phonics. 

Read it yourself if you want:  http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/phonics/report.pdf

Here is what the UK’s Guardian had to say at the time:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/primaryeducation/story/0..1655027.00.html

I quote:
“Phonics was the dominant teaching system until the 1960s when more fashionable methods were developed, like teaching children to learn whole words "by rote" without mastering the alphabet.”

Dennis Prager was right, the 1960s really were the age of stupidity!

I leave you with three perspectives on the findings of this report, as detailed in the Guardian article. 
I have given each finding a mark out of 10.

The first comes from New Labour:
Ms Kelly has wholeheartedly backed the recommendations, saying the Rose report showed phonics would boost literacy levels. "This is a clear roadmap for reading, which draws on the experience of teachers and experts to show what works best for children in the classroom," she said.
8/10,  V.Good

The second comes from the Conservative Party:
The Conservatives are in favour. In last year's general election, they promised to scrap the national literacy strategy and return to the traditional method of phonics teaching. The party enthusiastically welcomed the interim Rose review report last year, and have voiced its support for the government's plans.
9/10,  V.Good 

The third comes from the Liberal Democrats:
The Liberal Democrats aren't so convinced, describing the government's announcement as "overly prescriptive". Siding with teachers, the party believes phonics should be just one of the methods used.
2/10,  See me
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (26) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Robot - or the campaign for the restoration of common sense

Posted by Greg England on Sunday, August 19, 2007 1:14:05 PM

In life, we appeal to a number of sources to support our decisions:

·         Instinct
·         Tradition
·         Values
·         Emotions
·         Prejudice
·         Personal experience
·         Collective experience

I believe that rationality doesn’t belong on this list.  I believe that rationality is a TOOL not an information source.  To take a coding analogy, rationality is a METHOD not an ATTRIBUTE.

I believe that the hyper-rational movement is making a metaphysical mistake.

I have heard highly intelligent, rational people come out with utterly absurd comments ... but they have lacked the wisdom to understand just how absurd their pronouncements are.  Ironically, I believe that it is very difficult to explain this to someone who doesn’t want to understand. 

I have tied myself in knots trying to reason about this, because the very thing I am trying to reason about is reason itself.  I have ended up contradicting myself, and possibly confusing more than I have wished.

I am calling for a return to common sense.  I don’t necessarily mean that we all share the same values or opinions – that would mean that we were clones of each other.

I am just asking for a little sober reflection, and humility, in the face of an increasingly complex world.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »