Liar, liar, your pants are on fire

I’ve been viewing news stories with a critical eye this week, from both main stream media (MSM) and others, and I’m confused.

It would be naive of me (and you) to believe everything we hear or read, do you agree?

naive

adjective

1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.

2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:

She's so naive she believes everything she reads. He has a very naive attitude toward politics.

(www.dictionary.com)

By the same token, it would be foolish of me (and you) to think that everything we hear or read is propaganda, falsehood and intentionally misleading. But that’s what seems to happen when we become critical and judgemental. Perhaps believing everything and not believing anything are two sides of the same coin, so to speak.

It seems to me that we project our inner beliefs by the way we use labels, and nouns and adjectives. And watch out for the adjectives.

Synonyms for naive

adj childlike, trusting

ignorant

innocent

simple

sincere

unsophisticated

wide-eyed

credulous

gullible

sucker

unworldly

OR, the definition I sometimes use but a dictionary usually doesn’t offer as a synonym:

(Lacking) DISCERNMENT

1. The act or process of exhibiting keen insight and good judgment.

2. Keenness of insight and judgment.

The Antonyms (opposites) of Naive make an interesting list, too.

The point I’m trying to make? The way we use nouns and adjectives draws attention to our own attitudes as much as – or more than – drawing attention to the attitudes of others. It leaves us just a short step away from saying ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’. I believe that to be both arrogant and ignorant and, anyway, we’ve already used the word ‘ignorant’ as a synonym for ‘naive’. Do you see my confusion?

Change of direction now.

Ask yourself and anybody you know, do you consider yourself to be ‘a sovereign person’? That’s all. Listen to the answers.

Some will ask you what you mean. Some will think for a moment or two before saying ‘yes, of course’.  Not many or none, perhaps, will say ‘NO, I’m not a sovereign person.’  If anyone does say that ask them for an alternative description.

To help me to understand what the rest of the world might understand by the expression ‘a sovereign person’ I looked at

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sovereign -

and from there to A look at the "sovereign citizen" movement - CBS News.

I hope you will look, too. When you do, please bear in mind that CBS, (Columbia Broadcasting System), known now as Columbia Broadcasting System Corporation, is MSM, of course. It is one of the several MSM voyeur-vision corporations that recently refused to accept President Trump’s ‘what a great president he is’ advertising. (According to Fox News).

A look at the “sovereign citizen” movement in the CBS news show ’60 minutes’ will take you to the sub-heading ‘Byron Pitts reports on a movement the FBI now considers one of the nation's top domestic terror threats’. It continues with a four-page article that attempts to ridicule the sovereign citizen concept.

(Byron Pitts is a respected TV journalist. According to Wikipedia: Byron Pitts (born October 21, 1960) is an American journalist and author working for ABC News.^[1] Until 2013, he served as a chief national correspondent for The CBS Evening News and a contributor to the newsmagazine 60 Minutes. He has covered the September 11, 2001 attacks and Iraq.)

Now for another observation

Which leads me to my final question for this section. How would you prefer to live – in fear and under tyranny or with liberty?

Just asking.  It's a no-brainer.

Cause no harm

Be honest

Be peaceful

Another change of direction now. 

STOP! THINK!

Today, and for the next few weeks, we in UK have no Parliament because Parliament was dissolved (3^rd May 2017) prior to the General Election. In the interim we have an Executive – a Prime Minister, a Foreign Secretary, a Home Secretary, and all the other Secretaries of State; and we have an ever present Civil Service. These are not dissolved until after the election and a new administration is formed. The exception, of course, is the ever present Civil Service. That isn't dissolved.

QUESTION: If government (or governance) is able to continue without reference to Parliament what is the true value of Parliament?

(governance – noun - 1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) government, control, or authority

2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the action, manner, or system of governing.)

ANSWER: Parliament is able to apply checks and balances on the Executive through an elected and effective opposition. Therefore, an effective opposition is vital in limiting the powers of government.

QUESTION 2: What happens if, routinely, there is no opposition or no effective opposition?

ANSWER: We would call those in authority an ‘oligarchy’.

Oligarchy - noun, plural oligarchies.

1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few  persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

2. a state or organization so ruled.

3. the persons or class so ruling.

The Antonym (opposite) of Oligarchy is . . . . Democracy. (Dictionary.com)

QUESTION 3: Based on these definitions, is Britain a democracy?

As I’ve said before, democracy is not defined merely as ‘having the right to vote.’ Citizens get to vote in the Democratic Republic of North Korea!

Aristotle observed that “the basis of a democratic state is liberty,” and he proposed a connection between the ideas of democracy and liberty that would be strongly emphasized by all later advocates of democracy.

Further reading, see https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy

Later, much later, the English philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704) did his own thinking. He asserted his fundamental principle, that the only legitimate form of government is that based on the consent of the governed. Which means that without consent, the government is NOT legitimate, and consent can be withheld only by those who are not enslaved but enjoy liberty instead. I would describe that (the right and ability to withhold consent) as the definition of a sovereign being.

The FBI now considers (the concept to be) one of the nation's top domestic terror threats

 Do you suppose people in power think any differently here? 

* * * * *