Even the question wasn't right

On this blog, I rarely venture into the realm of politics, but these days the political charge being felt both in the UK and around the world is so much greater.  One point in particular that has been grinding my gears is the subject of 'Brexit'.

Now - cards on the table - I voted to stay in the EU, and I still believe that's the better place to be.  Yes, we get some stuffy rules to deal with and extra standards to work to, and - as any self respecting bigot will tell you - all those pesky foreigns coming over here and taking doing our jobs, but overall I think it's a good thing that the world was becoming more as one.  However, I saw the result and close call though it was, the country as a whole voted to get the hell out, so here we are.

So great news then: 'we' can 'take back control' and 'give the NHS lots more cash' and do all that crap we were sold and we heard parrotted up and down the country from idiots in vox pops.

But recent developments in the Brexit soap opera have caused me to realise something - of all the things we were mis-sold about the whole sorry thing, the actual question being asked at the ballot box was the most significant in it's wrongness.

What we were asked:
'Do you want the UK to exit from the European Union'?

But what we were effectively being asked was:
'Do you want the UK to get a full and accurate idea about what leaving the EU would mean'?

Because at the point the question was being asked, we didn't have a bloody clue - both the people entering the ballot box and those arguing for or against - and we aren't that much more informed today.  Different people interpreted the prospect of going our own way differently - that it would mean anything from returning to some imagined idyll from the 1950's to somehow ejecting all foreigners and stopping new ones coming in (despite there being an employment demand for them so basically nope), to surviving and prospering on our own because we did alright in 'the old days', to being sold on the idea that we could take some imagined lump of money - currently being sent to the EU with no return on investment - and somehow turn it into hospitals and nurses and schools and reopened libraries and shops and factories.  Yes, there will be some sound economic benefits to business, (assuming we can get a good enough deal) but if you asked the layman on the street what these benefits would be, you'd be hard-pressed to get more than a vague answer derived from the manifestation of these dreams.

So asking the leave/no leave question was the incorrect thing to do at that point.  Problem was, you need a simple, pointed question to get the voting juices flowing and the actual question that needed asking wasn't pointy enough, so the other one was put in front of the public instead.

Amidst the political chaos and the new schism that cuts across parties and communities giving us one more thing to fight over, we are slowly starting to get some ideas of what Brexit will actually mean.  Don't ask me as it's still not agreed upon and distilled down to the point where a political novice such as myself can understand it, but when it is - and the public at large can ingest it - that is when we need to be asked.  Because at that point - and ONLY at that point, can we make a decision based on the deal put in front of us rather than a load of dog-whistle lead stories.

Recently, Vince Cable ('me and my cable') has reiterated the Lib Dem's position that they will offer a second referendum at the point when the Brexit deal is agreed, linking nicely with the abort button offered by the EU commission right up until the end.  Although I don't think Vince's party is equipped for government, in principle I agree we should be given the choice at that point. 

But I think their PR people aren't communicating to the public the most compelling reason for it - that asking us if we want to leave won't actually be a second referendum - it'll be the first time we can give an answer based on reason and fact as much as - or if not more so than - emotion. 

Regardless of whether you share my position on leave/remain, we can surely all agree we should be asked a question with such far-reaching consequences after we have our hands on the full picture, not before.

New Target of the Religious Right: Thinking Too Much

File this under 'Reasons why unfounded belief can affect and harm others'.

America is slowly pushing itself towards a middle-eastern sense of theocracy-controlled government.

'Americaistan' is just around the corner, if things like this can pass.  It is the GOP Party manifesto for the year, and the latest thing in a series of plain disturbing events coming from the American right.  How is it that Americans are becoming so ill-trained in the skill of interpreting the world around them that they are scared of a paper cup on some string?

The republicans, realising that critical thinking and wanting evidence for stuff causes people to question the beliefs of their parents have done the most logical thing - oppose the teaching of critical thinking in schools.

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Right there on page 12 of the official GOP document, nestled amongst the other madness.  Really, it's a depressing read.

Yes, higher-order thinking is out for Texans if these people get in.  The bizarre irony of effectively trying to un-evolve a whole state's worth of people to an earlier form in a country decidedly unconvinced of our evolutionary ancestry would be funny if it were not actually happening.

So, higher-order thinking is now demonized because it challenges a students 'fixed beliefs'.  Challenging a belief is bad only when you have a belief that won't stand up to being challenged (and often that means such people complain about the erosion of 'religious freedom').  Instead of using the experience to refine a belief by casting aside the stuff that plain fails to maintain it's plausibility, the solution seems to be to brick up the windows to stop the light shining in.

Putting the GOP's concern-troll sentence into other, less obfuscated words reveals a long-term plan to increase their standings: the age-old process of parents - mindlessly parroting their beliefs onto their kids during the years where their minds are thirsty sponges, soaking up information from people they trust - is being rendered less effective by those kids being taught how to think too much.  The right has cottoned onto the fact that the more edumacated these kids get, the wider their eyes will open, and learn to question those things that don't stack up with what the world around is telling them.  Ergo they become more secular, more sceptical, and are less likely to vote for religious nutjobs and the GOP/Teaparty republicans don't get in.

It's in the best interests of these parties to ruin the education of millions of kids, so that they can win elections - standing on the backs of voters trained not to think, or to question.

If there is a thin silver lining to this, these idiots have not accounted for one thing: Kids aren't stupid.  The more they get told not to look at stuff and do stuff without being given a reason why, the more likely they are to take an interest.

I can only hope that this, and the education of present-day American public is enough to stop this self-serving lunacy in it's tracks.

Still A Bad Time To Be Black in America

My previous post on the American social and political state started out as a simple grumble about the starched suits on Fox in America and their ability to see bad in everything that isn't basically - well, them. It so quickly and easily turned into a review of why being in America at the moment is a really bad thing.

So when I received word of several racially-themed reasons to reinforce this conclusion, one after another, in my inbox, it felt wrong to ignore them.

The Trayvon Martin case was the then-latest incident to highlight some deep undercurrents that so easily rise to the surface in some districts. A teenager, wearing a hoodie on his way back from the shops to his house, carrying nothing more offensive than sweets and a drink, was apprehended by local neighbourhood self-styled superjusticedude George Zimmerman. He notified the police and - against their wishes - went after him, apprehended him and shot him dead as he screamed in terror.

The police refused to arrest him.

There's a possibility some deeply racist bastard might be thinking that good ol' patriotic Zimmerman, on seeing a young, hooded black kid, 'acting suspiciously', might be somewhat justified in some sort of preventative action. After all, this could have been a danger to the neighbourhood. He wasn't, but he could have been; and in Zimmermans' committed mental state by that point, he was going to be the hero of the community by getting to him before Trayvon got to his 'target'. He must have forgotten to do all the things that you would do before shooting him dead, is all.

So for those looking for justification in his actions, hoping that there is some sort of explanation that doesn't involve widespread racist hate in the force tasked with protecting people on the street: how about this situation, which came to light just a few days later: Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., an elderly and distinguished black man who fought for his country, is shot dead in his own house by police. What heinous crime did he do? He fell asleep at his home, and the medical alarm round his neck - there because he had a heart condition - was accidentally activated. The police came, and responded to the chain lock and his half-asleep assurance that it was a false alarm by tazering him, breaking the door down, shouting racist obscenities at him, apparently shooting him with a beanbag gun, and just for good measure to ensure justice was done, finally shot him dead in his own home with live ammo.

Punishment for the cop involved? Err, no. No punishment, no layoff, not even suspended or stuck on a desk job. His identity has not been released after six months, and he is apparently still at work in the same neighbourhood.

America, what the hell is going on with you? Has the last 50-plus years of civil rights advances gained such small ground that these things can happen now?

Of course, when your would-be president nearly uses the n-word to describe your current president (yes, I know there's a chance that's not the word he intended - but you give me a credible alternative after listening to it closely ten times), it's clear that for all the progress in equality and human rights America and the west in general has managed, we would be naive to think that we are a long way from where we need to be.

Edit: Extra bonus shooting of black people by cops: What do you expect from police in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans? Assistance, compassion? How about a group of them shooting people from a bridge and then trying to cover it up.