What i want from formal education

This is (with 2 mins thought) what I’d like my future kids to have a basic knowledge of by the age of 16.

• General Creativity & Discipline
• Reading, Writing & IT Literacy
• Language
• Basic Maths & Engineering
• World/Local History & Geography
• General Scientific theory & Practice
• Art/Music Theory & Practice
• Philosophical & Religious History
• Economic & Political Theory

From 16 – 20yrs, specialise in a particular area of interest

No vocational training at all, until they have left formal education and decided what they want their first job to be. Expecting to re-train and re-job once or twice a decade as economic circumstances dictate.

Thats quite a lot actually, not what i expected when i started the list!

Slightly intra topic, but Madeline Bunting mentioned in her Guardian column an interesting ethics book being used in schools

Faith without Reason, Reason without Faith

…

Reason without Faith is timid and impotent,

Faith without Reason is blind and reckless.

…

All Knowledge is an abstraction of deeper knowledge

We interact with our surroundings using layers of abstraction.

I don’t need to know how an infrared signal somehow comes out of my TV Remote, or how the TV interprets that you want to turn the volume up. That process is hidden from us using an abstraction layer, namely a square piece of plastic with a button. If someone tells us that it happens because magic fairies fly from the remote to the TV to inform it, we shrug and say ‘whatever’. Most of us don’t actually know how infra-red works, but we know that the ‘fairy’ view isn’t the consensus view, therefore mostly likely incorrect.

We don’t know any more about how it works than someone 100 years would have, we don’t need to know, someone else knows on our behalf. Similarly we drive a car using the abstract interface of pedals and wheels. We don’t need to know the science behind it, other people know that for us.

That’s the mechanics of knowledge. It’s impossible to know everything, even the guy who knows how the TV remote works probably doesn’t know how the car engine works. We put our trust in other people who know better than us, if we drive a car which crashes because of a design fault we blame the manufacturer, not the owner.

What’s the point? The point is that people shouldn’t argue over how old the Earth is, no mater how many impressive charts you have, that kind of knowledge is a number of abstraction layers below my level. There’s no point arguing that climate change isn’t man made or that this or that contentious historical event happened or didn’t or even that there are toxins in cheese that cause cancer. All I will do is shrug my shoulders and say ‘whatever’. We all have our high-priests to tell us what’s what, the only choice we make is which priest to trust, VHS or Betamax, Blu-ray or HD-DVD, Apple or MS.

Political parties are abstraction layers for social ideologies. We don’t need to have a specific view on economics or defence or welfare, we just need to decide in general terms who seems to know what they are talking about and broadly reflect my social values.

Someone once said, that we should strive to believe only that which is true, and disbelieve that which is not, but what’s the best way to strive for this? We’re all free to have personal and specific opinions on absolutely everything, but it’s not the best way of being correct! If my opinion of how a microchip works is different to the overwhelming consensus of the knowledgeable  then I’m probably wrong, if my view on the age of the universe is different to the overwhelming consensus of the knowledgeable then I’m probably wrong, similarly how a TV remote works, or Mohammad’s ability to teleport or that cheese causes cancer. We outsource our belief choices to those among us who have a proven record of being reliable. To assume that we have complete control or freedom over every belief we hold is deluded.

Safety valves to enable delusions

Is Zizek right? do we have a series safety valves which act as enablers to tyranny and wrong thinking? He’s nothing if not interesting, of the 50% of him that I think I understand I probably only agree with half of it! but he’s addictive to read and watch on t’internet/TV.

He was born and raised in Slovenia, Northern Yugoslavia where he claims the calls to throw off the communist yoke were less than in other eastern block areas because the commissars had cottoned on to the idea of let the people think they were able to have a large say in things through the illusion of a free-ish press and the allowance of some public criticism of the party. Nothing ever changed though, but people had the illusion that they were in control, so accepted the status quo.

Zizek extends this to western capitalist democracy. In mass demonstrations like the Iraq war protests the public were told by the ruling class, look isn’t marvellous you have the freedom to protest. The war happened anyway but people at least felt they had a say. The right to protest is a safety valve which ingrains the real power of the political classes. We might mischievously go further and say that even elections are part of the safety valve. We’re free to have a say as long as it’s with in the confines of the capitalist two party industrial complex.

It can also be said that with in religious belief systems such as Christianity, the members are encouraged to be questioning and not to fear doubt. But of course this is all with in a context of ultimate belief in the God/Jesus stories. The feeling that they are free to question and doubt is in a way I conceit which allows a heresy to prosper.

Dear Bernie

Bernie Ecclestone’s bizarre revelation that Hitler had it partly right before he was talked into going to war and being overly aggressive to Jews, gays and gypsies got me thinking. Are there lots of public figures out there who secretly harbour pet right wing ideologies? Then it got me thinking if I have any secret right-wing views that dare not be revealed for fear of being called a Nazi?

Well, no I don’t think so, certainly not the ‘Hitler wasn’t all that bad’ sense. If push I’m probably a weeee bit to the right of the mainstream wish it comes to social welfare. Not the most exciting topic in the world but anyhoo.

(I’m aware that it depends on where you draw the line between right and left. If you’re tempted to vote Respect or Workers Party then I’m a raving right wing Nazi, if you’re tempted to vote UKIP or BNP then I’m a Trotskyite!)

Anyway, back to my welfare state views, it boils down to this. Unemployment benefits shouldn’t make the recipient more well off or comfortable than a worker in the worst paid and worst conditioned job in the country, otherwise there’s no incentive to return to work. People on low wages pay a lot of tax (collectively) and that money shouldn’t be used to pay for people not to work. First of all there should be an assessment of a persons potential worth before they are given benefits which would include the need for them to sell everything they own, including TVs, DVD player, cars (within reason) and they can have no subscriptions to HD satellite TV systems. If someone can work in any capacity like street cleaning, fruit picking/growing, hotel cleaning… any job, and if they refuse then its their right to do so, but government social care should stop and be redirected to people who genuinely don’t have the capacity to work. If someone refuses work then they should fall back on the kindness of their family or charity, if they want to eat they need to work. There should be no such thing as long term unemployed. They should be finding a plot of land in the hills, growing their own crops and herding sheep to survive.

That’s pretty extreme isn’t it?

Declaration of hypocrisy: I’ve availed myself of Jobseekers allowances two times in my life and it’s been a life saver.

Perpetual Safety Management

I imagine that this little bit of pontificating will be of little interest to most people, but its what I’ve got so here it is.

This morning on breakfast news (yes, again writing about something I saw on t’telly) they had a visitor on the sofa to explain that actually its now deemed unsafe not just for a child to ride In a car with out a car seat, not just for a child to be in a forward facing seat in the first nine months but actually they should stay in a rear facing seat until they are four!

I’ll fight the urge to start sentences with ‘in my day’ but when I were ‘lad we no such things as back seat belts never mind car seat, I used to make forts in the boot of dads car while hurtling down the M1! I’m not saying we should go back to those days just that we need to realise that there is no such thing as perfect safety and that risk is something to be assessed and managed rather than abolished. My wee boy would hate to still be in a back facing seat, we’d need a bigger car and it’s completely anti-social and not fun. There will always be stats to show ways of making things ever safer, I’m sure if every child under the age of four wore a helmet in the car or a padded suit then X% fewer children would be injured as a result of car crashes. The stats for car crash victims who stay at home and never get in a car are also quite low I would guess.

All this kind of TV interview does is to make people feel guilty for not doing enough to protect their children. Perspective and focus are golden.

Roaring 2010s, here we come

I’m almost always an optimist, perhaps as a mater of principle, It takes a lot for me to admit that ‘ok, it is that bad really’. I also have a tendency toward contraryism (and making up words), so when I say, contrary to the recent malaise and doom-saying regarding the political, social, economic state of affairs that I am very optimistic for the 2010s it should be taken in that light.

I have great faith in progress and a human ability to forge common alliance, to nurture relationships through empathy whether interpersonal or intercontinental. Speed of light communications blurs the distinction, it sounds a lot less geeky and sad these days to admit that I have friends that I see maybe three times a year that I feel I have a closer relationship with that ones I see once a month, simply because I have an almost daily online connection with them.

As The Beatles sang, it’s getting better all the time. The statistics are hard to argue with in terms of child mortality, availably of education, disease control, equality not dependant on gender/race/disability etc. Taking a century by century view all these indicators are ascendant. The thing is that I’m not sure we get exponentially happier.

My explanation is that it’s simply due to the continual and parallel heightening of expectations (I say ‘my’ explanation… of course I know that many great philosophers have mused thus, and I’m just riffing on their theme). I like to make a football analogy, this season Newcastle fans would have been dancing in the streets had they finished 4th bottom in the Premiership, and therefore survived, yet a few years ago they were despondent and calling for heads to roll because they finished 2nd. The reason of course is a very different set of expectations.

I have great regard for modern philosophers like Alain de Botton, he’s doing a great job of bringing ancient truths and ideas to the modern amphitheatre. De Botton often invokes Ludwig Wittgenstein’s quote that philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. I think that this battle is being won and that religious fundamentalism, right wing protectionism rather than being resurgent is really in its final death struggle with modernity.

Here’s my theory as to why the 2010s will be a time of increased happiness, especially in the UK. Firstly, expectations have been severely lowered over the last year. What ever the idealoges and bandwagon jumpers may say the fundamentals of capitalism as a way of setting prices for goods and services is as sound as it ever has been, furthermore the Labour government of the last decade has solidified some very strong social policy to soften the blow of those who fail to prosper.

The shock to the political system of the Expenses Scandal will force a resetting of the political, parliamentary and democratic structures. In 2010 we’ll have a Tory government, as much as a may disagree with many of their policy positions a new fresh faced government in a new democratic atmosphere will make people feel more positive for the future. The recession isn’t as bad as people think it is, certainly in terms of their personal wealth and future prospects, when the economy starts to grow again and people realise the world hasn’t ended they will be happy (like Newcastle finishing 4th bottom) they may be a bit more careful about credit cards and property speculation, but that’s ok. Then we have the Olympics in 2012 the build up to that festival and celebration of the UK will be the catalyst for a golden decade. OK, once again I’m over optimistic.

Screw the Tube drivers, sack the lot of them

The RMT union are a bunch of greedy bastards. How dare they strike over pay and redundancies when they are paid a ridiculous salary of around £38k per year, much more than the average paramedic, nurse, teacher or even dentist!

Driving a tube train can’t be that hard, it’s simply NOT that hard. They get paid so much because they are in such a strong position of being able to grind London to a standstill by striking. Boris Johnson MUST stand firm, especially in the ‘current climate’ the bare assed cheek of the Tube Drivers to strike is a disgrace.

Tube Drivers already earn a basic wage of around 40k a year for a 35 HOUR WEEK with the opportunity for paid overtime pushing earnings up to a potential 50k+. They also get 8 weeks paid holiday a year and a final salary pension scheme.

£25k-30k is a fair wage for a train driver!! Maybe these people should realise how fortunate they already are instead of expecting ridiculous demands to be met.

I love the BNP

Not really… but i’m a hits junkie.

Newly elected MEP Nick Griffin tried to hold a news conference this morning but had to call it off as he was pelted with eggs by anti-BNP protesters.

Protest organiser Weyman Bennett, the national secretary of Unite Against Fascism, said he believed it was important to stand up to the BNP.

“The majority of people did not vote for the BNP. They did not vote at all,” he said. “The BNP was able to dupe them into saying that they had an answer to people’s problems. They presented themselves as a mainstream party. The reality was because the turnout was so low, they actually got elected.”

It doesn’t go without saying so I’ll say it, I despise the BNP and all that they stand for. Make way for the hefty ‘but…

The majority of people didn’t vote for them? well of course not its very rare that the majority of people vote for one party, in fact has the majority EVER voted for the winner in any UK election? (a question for the stats people). The BNP duped people into voting for them? Honestly, I don’t think so and I think to say that is dangerous wishful thinking. We must respect the electorate and do them the service of accepting and engaging with their freely elected representatives. The real danger is if these people feel they are being locked out of the political process and it just adds to the feeling of alienation and insecurity when Griffen tried to exercise his free speech and free assembly he gets physically assaulted before he’s said a word.

I honestly hope that anyone who throws eggs at him is arrested for assault, all they do is make Griffen look like a victim on TV and add to his vote tally. Debate and openness is the way to defeat fascist arguments.

Twitterverse here I come (maybe)

Everyone who uses twitter says the same, you’ve got to give it time, eventually you’ll ‘get it’. I certainly haven’t got it yet, I joined it about two months ago but after a week I stopped using it, as it just seemed pointless.

I might have to give it another shot though, it was the feature article in this weeks Time magazine, my loo read of choice. Time spoke of it as a revolution in how we relate to our friends, acquaintances and the outside world. As important a medium as email and text message. I’m eternally interested in the psychology behind the facebook ‘status update’ and twitter seems to be the epitome of that. I’ve recently had some really interesting (if slightly OTT grandiose) chats with my good mate Vox O’Malley about FB Status analysis of our want to subtly project a positive/funny/clever image subtly through our status

My feeling is that its worryingly reductionary to relate to real friends through one sentence soundbites concerning what we are doing at anyone time, but then again are we any more open and ‘real’ when we meet IRL?

Save Gordon Brown, Save Labour!

Has the Labour party lost its sense of reality? Tonight James Purnell a widely liked cabinet minister resigns and tells Gordon Brown to do the same. Madness! Labour are going to lose the next election and they must secretly know there is no one else in the party who can lead the party to victory. Brown has done a bad job, he’s not a great leader but I suspect if he had been leader in 1997 he would have lasted ten years like Blair, he’s just been unfortunate to lead the rump end of a tired New Labout project. Add to that the financial melt down and expenses scandal, surely there is no PM who could have done much better.

There’s no point calling an election now because the expenses scandal needs to be sorted out with the dodgy MPs flushed out and the boil lanced so we can have an election and be (more) confident we’re not voting for fraudsters. So Brown and Labour have a year to do great things and the party should get behind him, try their best to avoid a complete meltdown at the polls in 2010, then elect Johnston or Milliband as leader and build to the 2015 elections.

The media will continue to fan the flames of a leadership race, because it makes a good story and that’s the media agenda but the Labour party should be begging Brown to stay and take the bullet from the electorate in 2010 so they can start afresh after that with an untainted leader.

Charlie Brooker on BNP

Charlie at his best in the guardian

In defense of MP’s

I notice that I haven’t added many entries to the ‘my tuppence worth’ category. This just won’t do, so to that end I’ll tackle the issue du jour. MPs outlandish expenses claims.

I guess my tuppence worth is as follows. Expenses have to be genuine everyday expenditure incurred whilst carrying out the job. Its reasonable and desirable that every MP should be able to claim rent or hotel costs for the time they are in London, along with all travel and subsistence. Not for mortgage interest on houses that can act as an investment, and on the purchase of washing machines, patio furniture, iPods, clothes and other things that the rest of us use our salary to pay for.

It does though seem harsh on the MPs to haul them over the coals for this, unless they operated outside the rules. It’s completely fair to claim for everything that one is allowed to claim, I do it, as do you Mr newspaper man I would guess. If it’s a sin, then let him with out it cast the first tut tut and head shake.

The elephant in the room is that the rules have been created like this because the salaries are too low. £65,000 is low in comparison to other similar European countries, and in the USA they get over £110,000 with £500,000 worth of expenses! MPs fear that if they vote themselves a big pay rise the public won’t accept it, so instead they use expenses to top it up. I think this is unacceptable and it is rightly under review. We can’t have a situation were people don’t come into politics because they can’t afford it, we need smart, successful people who can command high six figures in the real economy to want to become MPs and for the salary drop not to be prohibitive, and more importantly we can’t let being an MP being the hobby of the landed gentry who don’t need the money.

The public are going to complain to moan that you are paid too much no mater what you are paid, £20k, £100k or £200k, they’ll still say that you are overpaid. It’s the way of the world, so vote your self a decent salary, maybe linked to 5 times average salary and get on with it.

Depth and scope of our empathy

Empathy is about nurturing relationships. But has the scope of those we consider ourselves to be in relationship with grown as our planet metaphorically shrinks?

I’m not sure I’m a very empathetic person. I find myself caring deeply about only those things which affect me, my family, my community and the country in which I have a democratically vested interest. I care more if my son bumps his head than if 100 people die in a random earthquake somewhere. Goodness that’s a terrible thing to say, I’ve typed it for effect but thus far i haven’t deleted it because it might just be true. Obviously if you tell me that if my son bumps his head then 100 people won’t die then i’ll take the bump but in terms of emotional reaction to the two events i quite obviously care more about the former. Any therapists out there!!?

Maybe is just that I’m unempathetic in comparative terms. Her ‘indoors has a debilitating amount of empathy, she can barely watch the news because the empathy is overwhelming, her bank account is littered with direct debits to charities who have made emotional pitches. Whereas QMonkey will flick over during the adverts of Channel 4 news to laugh at Family Guy or Curb Your Enthusiasm, then flick back to a story of starving children or killer diseases. I’m ‘interested’, even to the point if supporting efforts to help, but I wouldn’t say I was empathetic, and I don’t feel any sense of responsibility.

I prioritize having a Yo Sushi! for lunch rather than giving the money to the proverbial starving African. I’m not proud of this. I’m not saying it’s a good thing, just being honest. You’ve prioritized reading this rather than doing something more charitable instead, i guess.

Empathy is about nurturing relationships, and maybe our natural instincts are to nurture relationships with those that we sense can benefit us in return. None of us can help eleviate the suffering of every single person we hear about who is in need. Mass media and 24hr news/internet makes it impossible not to be selective. Maybe all we can do is follow our instincts and do onto others what we’d have them to do us. For Mrs Monkey that means direct debits to every cause under the sun, and to me its helping pretty young blonds hill-start their car ☺. Feel free to recommend me for a MBE !!