Elites

Farage, Le Pen, Trump and May
o how they hate elites
no elites for them
They are the new revolutionaries
They are the new egalitarians
In no-elites Britain
there'll be no super-rich elites
no banking elites
no Oxbridge elites
no elites of experts
no old boy network elites
no inherited wealth elites
no old school tie elites
no private education elites
it's going to be an elite free zone







Not many people know that Trump Tower is a kind of people's palace
free for everyone, where no elites go, where people can just walk in and get their country back.
Elites aren't allowed in, because everyone in Trump Tower is kind of equal, it's a we're all in this together kind of place
where at long last we're being heard
and we don't have to bow down and say nice stuff
about immigrants, blacks, women, or the disabled,
so we're free of all that stuff in Trump Tower
in fact, it's a kind of free place, a free for all,
and Mexicans can't get into it either
and finally all those elites who didn't take notice of us
have had to take it that we're in charge now
and
Mr Trump
we've put him there
he's one of the people
one of the ordinary guys
not one of the elites
and he's in charge of the people's palace
which is why we're free.

Illiteracy 'eradicated'. ("Would be" (Nick Gibb 2011) Has it?)

Are all 7 year olds in England literate?
Presumably this would have shown up in the KS1 SATs?

So I'll rephrase the question:

Did the KS1 SATs of 2016 show that all children are now literate?

(All 7 year olds in the state system in England will have done at least two years Systematic synthetic phonics and the claim was made in 2011 by Nick Gibb that this would 'eradicate illiteracy'.

I was there at the time.

The occasion was the launch of the Summer Reading Challenge which Nick Gibb was asked to launch. In fact he didn't launch the Challenge. He launched his phonics initiative.


I noted down his use of the word 'eradicate'.

Well, all 7 year olds will have had their 2 years of SSP now, so there shouldn't be any reason why illiteracy hasn't been eradicated.

Was there an announcement? Did I miss that? Has anyone done the number-crunching on the KS1 SATs? )

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/577806/SFR42_Phonics_KS1_2016.pdf

Immigrants

When the government made people have self-employed contracts (thereby taking them off benefits but they were still on low income), immigrants issued that government command.

When New Labour and the Tories let zero hour working expand, that was because a flood of immigrants created zero hour contracts.

When Alan Johnson said containerisation in the docks made thousands unemployed, he meant to say that thousands of immigrants closed the docks.

When Nick Clegg said in 2015 that the Coalition had frozen public sector wages, he meant to say floods of migrants froze them.

The reason why unemployment shot up in Dagenham a few years ago was because thousands of immigrants surrounded Fords and closed it.

And it was immigrants who crashed the banks in 2008 and forced the government to bail them out...and then made us pay for the bail out 

That's immigrants for you. 

Reviewing 'Passengers': how reviewers get lost in 'genre-crap'

This is a lesson in how to be over-educated! 

We went to see 'Passengers'. I quite liked it. Some parts I liked a lot. I like the idea that today's movies can appear to be 'real' and modern whilst doing stuff that the oldest of stories have done, which is raise in your mind ideas to do with life and purpose of life an' all that stuff.

Anyway, I came home and read some reviews. I couldn't believe it: the two I read were jammed pack full of what I would call 'genre-crap'. This is where you, the reviewer, decide (or you've been told) what 'genre' the movie is supposed to be. Then, on that basis you tell your readers whether it succeeds or fails. So, 'Passengers' was apparently a 'rom-com' and, according to these reviewers, it was a bad rom-com or an unconvincing rom-com.

O please! 

It didn't occur to me for one moment whether it was a rom-com or not. And if it had, why would I or should I use this critic-made criterion a stick to beat the film with?! The film is a fantasy set in the future. Yes, there is a man and a woman involved. To my mind, this raised questions much more to do with survival in the life-cycle sense of the word (theirs) and also the survival of their relationship (and any of ours) in the face of a kind of hidden secret ('original sin'?) that dates from before the relationship, and again in the face of an external threat...will that bring them closer together or push them further apart? Not your classic rom-com questions at all!
So, this is neither a recommendation to rush off and see it, nor a recommendation to avoid it. I enjoyed it very much and it set me thinking about all sorts of things. Reading the reviews made me sad to think that people who write film criticisms have a very similar educational background to mine, but if all that does is dump you into a morass of genre-crap, then I fear it's wasted effort. 

Never mind the genre, feel the film!

How 'comprehension' excludes good interpretations

Why 'retrieval' and 'inference' are unsatisfactory means of determining how children interpret texts:

"Billy has a blue hat - what colour was his hat?"
"Blue."
"Correct. One mark."


"It was raining - why was he wearing a hat? "
"'Cos he supports Chelsea."
"Wrong - no mark."

Michael's Marxist Horoscope Christmas Card

I know at this time of year people sometimes succumb to the superstition of looking at horoscopes so I thought I'd offer you some alternative ones.

Or, think of it as a Marxist Christmas Card.

Marxist Horoscope 1: Today you realise you are born into a world not of your own choosing

Marxist Horoscope 2: Later you observe that social being determines consciousness and not the other way round

Marxist Horoscope 3: At work you discover that the sum total of what people are paid is less than the value of what's produced

Marxist Horoscope 4: Glancing at your bills you realise a large proportion of your income is spent on paying interest on what you have borrowed

Marxist Horoscope 5: Watching TV it occurs to you that a tiny minority own and control most of the worlds resources, and means of producing.

Marxist Horoscope 6: As you think about the world you see that most people can only earn a living by selling their ability to work

Marxist Horoscope 7: In a bus passing a bank you see that a tiny minority make money through rent, profit and interest

Marxist Horoscope 8: A newspaper reminds you that the dominant ideas are ideas that suit those who own and control nearly everything

Marxist Horoscope 9: Everyone tells you you are alone but in order for things to be made and sold, you are brought together with others

Marxist Horoscope 10: Thinking of your school days you remember that your teachers were once themselves taught.

The Civilian is Sacred

The civilian is sacred
not because they are right
not because they are good.
They may be neither.
The civilian is sacred
because they are alive.


In every war
leaders will explain
why the civilian must die.
They will explain why they are sorry.
They will explain
why the civilian must die.
The civilian must die,
they say,
because there must be a war.
There must be a war, they say,
so that the civilian can be saved
The civilian must die
so that they can be saved.

But:
if the civilian is sacred
there can be no war.