Graham, your point about Sawyer's assumption that there is only one correct way of seeing an issue exposes the core reality in these matters: dictatorship.

When educators unilaterally and arbitrarily decide to inculcate kids with propogandea, then all we are seeing is dictatorship in action.

The problem is that our educators, in the face of strong opposition from most parents and concerned citizens, are doing exactly that.

Because there is apparently little to nothing a great majority of dissenters can do about it points to the reality of exactly such a dictatorship.

We are not nearly as 'free' a society as we would like to believe--and the fact that anybody who rationally differs with their (leftist) views will be abused with ad hominems and epithets (eh,Morgan?), indicates how rigidly dogmatic and bigoted their ideology actually is.
That they so frequently and quickly resort to ad hominems is merely an indicator of their lack of rational fact with which to support their views. Morgan, for example, has offered not a single fact of any rational merit in support of his (leftist) ideology.

Here's the scary thing that is going on at the deeper levels of their psyche: the act of 'naming' or 'labeling' with epithets is an intent to demonise. Once anyone or any group has been thoroughly demonised, why then actual assault, arrest, imprisonment or some form of crucifiction, etc. becomes 'warranted' and 'justified'.

After all, they will then reason, it's only 'right' to get rid of 'devils', right? If Morgan could get enough people to believe that I am 'deranged', why then he would be 'doing the right thing' to have me institutionalised.

History has long shown that leftists are dangerous when allowed unfetterd power. A vast future power, voted to them by a mob of young people inculcated from childhood, is the ultimate, unstated intent of Sawyer's propositions. It's the Hitler Youth thing all over again.

Ozaware,

I think you completely overstate your case. Your comments about Morgan aren't helpful either, nor his about you.

I shall slink away with my tail 'twixt my legs....

Interesting post from the OLO editor Graham Young, who says: "This site is about critical thinking."

From my reading, it is the apparent absence of critical thinking in electoral politics that both Wayne Sawyer, and Professor Raimond Gaita (in my posting above) are concerned about. That is, given the lies and distortions that are our daily fare from the Bush and Howard administrations with respect to the war in Iraq, not to mention "children overboard" etc, how is that such lies are not recognised and rewarded at the ballot box with the boot.

If students are not going to learn critical thinking in their studies, so that they can recognise such lies for what they are, then how will they learn to discern the truth from falsehoods when they discharge one of their most important civic responsibilities in voting for the leadership of our country.

(There is of course an argument, which perhaps the editor would maintain, that students have learnt critical thinking in our education system (from Wayne Sawyer?), have no trouble in discerning such lies, and have freely voted to return the liars notwithstanding. So there is no problem.)

The fact that Howard is derisively referred to as the "lying rodent" on many forums, including this one on occasion, not to mention within his own political party, suggests that there is a definitely a problem with the truth in politics these days, worthy of critical attention.

Grace....
the 'children overboard' had zero to do with my vote, (which was for conservatives) I saw that as a blip, not having much more than the typical pre-election rubbish trotted out by any party.
It was not a reflection on John Howard's overall character, perhaps more of Peter Wreith, and not being privy to all the facts, I prefer not to judge him too harshly.
I also understand that for strategic reasons, (possibly) the WMD 'portrayal' to persuade a generally skeptical public,may be forgivable due to other aspects of intelligence that we are not and could not be given knowledge about.
It seems the choices are Liberal "Kick the enemy in the butt before they ever get near us" (which might be a bit too early) and Labor "kick them with a rapidly scrounged together military rabble when they are sailing thru the heads of Port philip bay" (by which time it would be too late)
Not much of a choice at all. But my advice is go read the history of the Hittite Empire :) might help you come to grips with 'today'.

Nearly all political parties lie, but there would be three main forms of lying.

- Saying that something is true when it isn’t
- Stretching the truth so that it becomes a distortion of the truth, or a gross generalisation
- Making known some truth, while hiding or suppressing other relevant truths.

Nearly all political parties indulge in all three types of lying (sometimes carrying out all three at the same time), and indeed most government organisations indulge in all three also. There are also many organisations who are government funded that consistently carry out lying.

As well, nearly every philosophy, political creed, set of ethics, religion etc contains some type of lie. For a person to actually live, it becomes necessary to find a balance between simple acceptance of what is being said, and what lies or fibs are being told. When the lies become too much, they have to be exposed.

The indoctrination that is occurring witin the education systems, now appears to be more of a “cultural” indoctrination rather than a “political” indoctrination. However the lies in this cultural indoctrination are becoming too great.

There is also great danger that Australia becomes too politically entwined with the current US administration. For a “possible” preview of the future see “The Next Four Years: A Political Forecast”

at.. http://www.irc-online.org/content/commentary/2004/0411next.php