The Magnificent Goldberg Posted January 27, 2008 Report Posted January 27, 2008 (and you could do worse than get a copy of the old 'Yes, Prime Minister' series to understand the British!). Indeed! I'm looking forward to the forthcoming election of President Bartlett. Such a nice man! MG Quote
Christiern Posted January 27, 2008 Report Posted January 27, 2008 Apropos things British, I have told my old friend, Val Wilmer about the big O and am trying to get her to drop in from time to time, when she gets her new computer. That will be soon. Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted January 27, 2008 Report Posted January 27, 2008 Apropos things British, I have told my old friend, Val Wilmer about the big O and am trying to get her to drop in from time to time, when she gets her new computer. That will be soon. I've always enjoyed her writing and photographs. Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted January 27, 2008 Report Posted January 27, 2008 (edited) Cheese Rolling! This what 'Being British' is all about! [notice - no pads, visors, body armour!] or Edited January 27, 2008 by Bev Stapleton Quote
seeline Posted January 27, 2008 Report Posted January 27, 2008 Yes, I know that, Paps. What I find incomprehensible is that, in closed primary states, a person is asked, when registering to vote, what side he/she is on, so it appears on the voting card. America is supposed to be, if not exactly the land of the free, then the land of "keep that effin' government nose out of my business". And yet... this. MG Ah ... my apologies. Never quite sure how closely anyone outside the U.S. pays attention to all this madness. I think they just ship that party affiliation information directly off to robo-call centers and direct mail marketers. All very annoying. Which really doesn't explain why I kept getting mailings from one party only while living in the Commonwealth of VA.... since all they ask there is that you register, without declaring a party affiliation. Canvassers are allowed to do things outside polling places there that make elections kind of amusing, though. Quote
The Magnificent Goldberg Posted January 27, 2008 Report Posted January 27, 2008 Cheese Rolling! This what 'Being British' is all about! [notice - no pads, visors, body armour!] or or MG Quote
blind-blake Posted January 27, 2008 Report Posted January 27, 2008 (edited) Anybody read Bill Bryson's "Notes from a Small Island"? Real funny book on the subject of being British (sort of). Edited January 27, 2008 by blind-blake Quote
sidewinder Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 Apropos things British, I have told my old friend, Val Wilmer about the big O and am trying to get her to drop in from time to time, when she gets her new computer. That will be soon. Splendid ! Quote
tonym Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 Apropos things British, I have told my old friend, Val Wilmer about the big O and am trying to get her to drop in from time to time, when she gets her new computer. That will be soon. Splendid ! Although, I've only read one of her books, As Serious As Your Life, i'm a big fan of her writing. Well done! Quote
Tom Storer Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 What's the point of having a vote if, in registering, you have to say which party you support? And what an intrusion into personal privacy!!!! [...] What I find incomprehensible is that, in closed primary states, a person is asked, when registering to vote, what side he/she is on, so it appears on the voting card. America is supposed to be, if not exactly the land of the free, then the land of "keep that effin' government nose out of my business". And yet... this. Note that you are not required to say which party you support--the only reason to do so is to be able to vote in a closed primary if your state has one. Or if you're a proud partisan and want to declare your affiliation as a matter of militancy. In any case, if you want to keep your politics to yourself you simply decline to give that information. And, of course, having registered as a supporter of one party doesn't mean you can't vote for another. Cf. the well-known phenomenon of the "Reagan Democrat" of the 80's and the "Clinton Republican" of the 90's. Quote
The Magnificent Goldberg Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 What's the point of having a vote if, in registering, you have to say which party you support? And what an intrusion into personal privacy!!!! [...] What I find incomprehensible is that, in closed primary states, a person is asked, when registering to vote, what side he/she is on, so it appears on the voting card. America is supposed to be, if not exactly the land of the free, then the land of "keep that effin' government nose out of my business". And yet... this. Note that you are not required to say which party you support--the only reason to do so is to be able to vote in a closed primary if your state has one. Or if you're a proud partisan and want to declare your affiliation as a matter of militancy. In any case, if you want to keep your politics to yourself you simply decline to give that information. And, of course, having registered as a supporter of one party doesn't mean you can't vote for another. Cf. the well-known phenomenon of the "Reagan Democrat" of the 80's and the "Clinton Republican" of the 90's. Oh, I do appreciate all that. It's more the principle of there being more information on file about individuals; information that can be manipulated and joined up with other stuff to produce results that many (perhaps most) people would regard as most objectionable. MG Quote
clifford_thornton Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 Apropos things British, I have told my old friend, Val Wilmer about the big O and am trying to get her to drop in from time to time, when she gets her new computer. That will be soon. Awesome! I tried emailing her a few times but never got very far. She's a true inspiration! Quote
papsrus Posted January 28, 2008 Author Report Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) Oh, I do appreciate all that. It's more the principle of there being more information on file about individuals; information that can be manipulated and joined up with other stuff to produce results that many (perhaps most) people would regard as most objectionable. MG Beyond voter registration, which I'd always viewed as benign, the general concern about the government's endless appetite for personal information is a concern I share. The current regime is obsessed with knowing everything they can about everyone, all in the name of security. They say London is the most heavily "watched" city in the world, with security cameras everywhere. This is a little different than a paper trail, but not much different, with the advent of face recognition software. They have started putting these cameras up here in the U.S. as well. In Tampa they are stationed around Ybor City, a Cuban area of town known for its nightlife, and elsewhere. These sorts of things always end up being challenged in court by individuals who claim their right to privacy is being violated, and it seems like the argument usually fails, for one reason or another. (No standing to sue, no right to privacy in a public place, you're free to chose not to go to Ybor City, etc.) Meanwhile, government creeps further and further into our lives, monitoring us on the streets, listening to our phone calls, calling for national ID cards. ... ! Of course, the inevitable counterargument is, if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear. But that's sort of beside the point, IMO. It is government imposing itself on individuals in order to "force" certain behaviors. Don't get intoxicated and wander the streets of Ybor City, you'll be noticed. Don't hang around with the wrong crowd in Ybor City, it's being recorded. It strikes me as odd that the same people who jump up and down for less government are often the same ones who apparently have no problem with this ever-growing security blanket (here in the U.S., anyways). (I guess the London security cameras are the hook here, as far as remaining tethered to the initial post .... ) /rant Edited January 28, 2008 by papsrus Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 Anybody read Bill Bryson's "Notes from a Small Island"? Real funny book on the subject of being British (sort of). Great book - he really gets Britain! He even visited Worksop!!!! Worksop is the English equivalent of Nowheresville, New Mexico. Quote
sidewinder Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 Anybody read Bill Bryson's "Notes from a Small Island"? Real funny book on the subject of being British (sort of). Great book - he really gets Britain! He even visited Worksop!!!! Worksop is the English equivalent of Nowheresville, New Mexico. I got a personalised signed copy when it first came out and he toured Western Canada (I'd put in an advance request for a copy at my local bookstore as I was away from the country during his visit - they forgot but somehow contacted him and got him to mail an inscription page sticker from the UK ! ). He wasn't that well known at the time. Quote
The Magnificent Goldberg Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 Oh, I do appreciate all that. It's more the principle of there being more information on file about individuals; information that can be manipulated and joined up with other stuff to produce results that many (perhaps most) people would regard as most objectionable. MG Beyond voter registration, which I'd always viewed as benign, the general concern about the government's endless appetite for personal information is a concern I share. The current regime is obsessed with knowing everything they can about everyone, all in the name of security. They say London is the most heavily "watched" city in the world, with security cameras everywhere. This is a little different than a paper trail, but not much different, with the advent of face recognition software. They have started putting these cameras up here in the U.S. as well. In Tampa they are stationed around Ybor City, a Cuban area of town known for its nightlife, and elsewhere. These sorts of things always end up being challenged in court by individuals who claim their right to privacy is being violated, and it seems like the argument usually fails, for one reason or another. (No standing to sue, no right to privacy in a public place, you're free to chose not to go to Ybor City, etc.) Meanwhile, government creeps further and further into our lives, monitoring us on the streets, listening to our phone calls, calling for national ID cards. ... ! Of course, the inevitable counterargument is, if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear. But that's sort of beside the point, IMO. It is government imposing itself on individuals in order to "force" certain behaviors. Don't get intoxicated and wander the streets of Ybor City, you'll be noticed. Don't hang around with the wrong crowd in Ybor City, it's being recorded. It strikes me as odd that the same people who jump up and down for less government are often the same ones who apparently have no problem with this ever-growing security blanket (here in the U.S., anyways). (I guess the London security cameras are the hook here, as far as remaining tethered to the initial post .... ) /rant Well, in the past couple of months, we have had a series of scandals over here in which it's been discovered that different government agencies have simply LOST data discs with hundreds of thousands, or even millions in the case of the Revenue, of people's personal data on them. And they've not been found. Well, some have - two huge bunches of data relating to driving and vehicle licenses were found, at separate times, on the same roundabout in Wales. (I think it's these scandals, more than dodgy election contributions, that are responsible for the Government's present poor showing in opinion polls.) The obvious point is, just because the government has data for (really) benevolent reasons, there's no guarantee that it will stay there and not find its way into other hands. MG Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 (I think it's these scandals, more than dodgy election contributions, that are responsible for the Government's present poor showing in opinion polls.) I put it down to playing games with us around the time of the party conferences about a possible election. Has a government ever gone from smug invincibility to total headless-chickendom so swiftly! Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 The latest wheeze: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7287984.stm Can't imagine where they got that idea from. I look forward to preparing students for the great day!!!!! Quote
papsrus Posted March 16, 2008 Author Report Posted March 16, 2008 The latest wheeze: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7287984.stm Can't imagine where they got that idea from. I look forward to preparing students for the great day!!!!! Curious .... ... He also stressed that he could not see why Republicans would not want to swear an oath, even though they may not believe in the present system of government. ... Quote
seeline Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 (edited) I wish we would do away with things like the Pledge of Allegiance, which has always seemed like a lot of unnecessary jingoism to me (and why on earth make a pledge to a *flag*?), but I doubt that'll happen anytime soon... As for swearing an oath to a monarch - ???? Edited March 16, 2008 by seeline Quote
BruceH Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 Uummm....having been born and raised in England? (Just guessing here.) Quote
kinuta Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 Carry On 50 Years Later. Play the video- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7289741.stm Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.