The Trap - What Happened to Our Dreams of Freedom

GD · Post by GD » 12 Mar 2007, 23:51

MacG wrote:American football seems like such a feminine sport, when considering all the protection and helmets they wear.

But it's true!!! and being able to throw the ball forwards is plain cheating!

------

It does not surprise at all that they would not get such a statement.

GD · Post by GD » 12 Mar 2007, 23:55

Oh, and on topic: Another fine program by Curtis, but I have to wonder whether these ideas would have been taken up so readily by certain politicians if they weren't so damn convenient for perpetuating and even bolstering the neo-classical economic doctrine and the power of the elite the whole discipline was set up to protect.

GD · Post by GD » 19 Mar 2007, 09:53

Anyone catch part 2 last night? Any thoughts? I never, but will download and watch it later.

Post by **clv101** » 19 Mar 2007, 10:11

Again, very good. Some interesting facts about falling social mobility over the last decade under Labor, by some metrics it's now worse than at any time since WWII - so much for never having it so good!

Also some shocking examples of how bureaucrats played the "targets" game in the NHS and police.

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 19 Mar 2007, 13:29

clv101 wrote:Again, very good. Some interesting facts about falling social mobility over the last decade under Labour, by some metrics it's now worse than at any time since WWII - so much for never having it so good!

Also some shocking examples of how bearcats played the "targets" game in the NHS and police.

Ironic that the programme spent its time condemning the use of metrics to 'control' society by ... using the metric of social mobility to prove its point.

Post by **clv101** » 19 Mar 2007, 13:44

I guess the difference is that targets influence metrics, I'm reminded of quantum mechanics where observations perturb the system in contrast to the passive metric of social mobility. As there is no target for social mobility, can it be assumed "true" in contrast to the metrics with targets attached?

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 19 Mar 2007, 14:39

clv101 wrote:I guess the difference is that targets influence metrics, I'm reminded of quantum mechanics where observations perturb the system in contrast to the passive metric of social mobility. As there is no target for social mobility, can it be assumed "true" in contrast to the metrics with targets attached?

The implication of the programme being though that we *should* judge the govt on the metric of social mobility, whilst simultaneously condemning them for using metrics to measure (and thereby implicitly change) society.

It still seems inconsistent to me.

Post by **clv101** » 19 Mar 2007, 14:44

Tess wrote:
clv101 wrote:I guess the difference is that targets influence metrics, I'm reminded of quantum mechanics where observations perturb the system in contrast to the passive metric of social mobility. As there is no target for social mobility, can it be assumed "true" in contrast to the metrics with targets attached?
The implication of the programme being though that we *should* judge the govt on the metric of social mobility, whilst simultaneously condemning them for using metrics to measure (and thereby implicitly change) society.

It still seems inconsistent to me.

I saw it as being about targets rather that metrics.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 19 Mar 2007, 16:57

clv101 wrote: by some metrics it's now worse than at any time since WWII - so much for never having it so good!

Come off it. When I were a lad..... You youngsters have no idea....

We are are now so cosseted in stuff to make life comfortable, easy and entertaining there can be no dispute that we've never had it so good. I realize, from another thread, that not many folk here will rember being a kid in the '50s when even the middle classes probably didn't have a car, a telly, a fridge, or go on foreign holidays, never mind all the stuff that hadn't even been invented.

Post by **clv101** » 19 Mar 2007, 17:42

biffvernon wrote:...a car, a telly, a fridge, or go on foreign holidays...

Ah, so that's what makes it so good.

Adam Curtis wrote:Social mobility has now ground to a halt. The stark fact is, children of rich families today are much more likely to live and die rich than in the recent past. While children from poor families are more likely to live and die poor. The country has become more rigid and stratified than at any time since the 2nd world war.

Society is more rigid and inequalities more extreme.
Under new Labour the country is even more unequal than under Mrs Thatcher.
Differences in life expectancy have increased since 1997.
Differences in child mortality by class have also increased.
Baby bourn in Hackney is twice as likely to die in its first year than a baby born in Bexley.
Social classes in Britain are hardening and deepening

That doesn't sound so good... a worth while price to pay? How far do we have to increase social inequality before we're worse off - despite our big screen TVs that make life so much better today than it was?

Miss Madam · Post by **Miss Madam** » 19 Mar 2007, 17:59

Ingrate...

Surely an ipod nano would make up for a lack of inheritance, increased social stratification, rich/poor divide, inability to get on the housing ladder, lack of pension, job insecurity, ridiculous tax burden and expensive education...

They come in various different colours.....

Post by **clv101** » 19 Mar 2007, 18:03

Yeah - but there's more computing power in an pink iPod nano than it took to put a man on the moon - we're so lucky.

Miss Madam · Post by **Miss Madam** » 19 Mar 2007, 18:06

Snort... thanks Chris, my work laptop now has a film of snorted tea all over it.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 19 Mar 2007, 18:09

Social mobility has now ground to a halt. The stark fact is, children of rich families today are much more likely to live and die rich than in the recent past. While children from poor families are more likely to live and die poor. The country has become more rigid and stratified than at any time since the 2nd world war.

That's because the Grammar Schools were abolished. If you were clever enough to pass the 11+ or the 13+ or the 16+ you could get a good academic education and go to university no matter what your background. And grants helped if your parents couldn't afford it.

If you weren't academic you got a good technical education and then got a job or an apprenticeship. Now if you aren't academic, you get bored at school, play truant and as many do, turn to crime and/or drugs.

Our present wonderful socialist education system ensures everyone receives the same educational chance. To succeed in a dumbed down academic system that tries to ensure no failures or fail completely. The top 10% and the bottom 10%, in many cases, just get bored silly. What a waste!!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 19 Mar 2007, 18:33

kenneal wrote:That's because the Grammar Schools were abolished. If you were clever enough to pass the 11+ or the 13+ or the 16+ you could get a good academic education and go to university no matter what your background. And grants helped if your parents couldn't afford it.

Rubbish! When I went to uni only about 7% of the population got in, grammar schools or no. Now almost half the cohort can get in.

Yes, I got a grant. And my student days were poorer, materially, in a way that today's students just can't comprehend, despite being given extra money by my parents.

clv101 wrote:...a car, a telly, a fridge, or go on foreign holidays...
Ah, so that's what makes it so good.

Well you've bought all that lot plus a load of stuff only recently invented. Take those rosy coloured backward looking specs off.

Adam wrote:Under new Labour the country is even more unequal than under Mrs Thatcher.

The gap between the richest and the poorest may have extended but it is quite wrong to imply that this is anything to do with whether Labour or Conservative are in power. A temporal association is not the same as a causal relationship.