This quote is also distinguishing between 'public' and 'private' education systems which maintain the status quo in terms of power an privilege in the wealthiest societies. It's a shameful fact that the UK and USA have the worst literacy and numeracy rates among state school leavers in the developed world but at the same time have abundant wealth and elitist education establishments reserved for the wealthiest minority. Not sure if it's an 'evil plan' as much as an inevitable consequence of Regan, Thatcher, Mulroney economic policies and the starving of essential funding to public services which is a continuing trend.

Interesting how most posters see ruling and political class as the same thing. Also interesting that the wealthiest countries have some of the worst literacy and numeracy rates in the (so called) developed world with the UK and US vying for last place. Emotions of the masses are obviously not swayed by the value of education and the attainment of basic skills the lack of which are strongly associated with poverty and crime. Formal education as a mechanism of control seems to be failing at this very basic level.

An open but discerning mind with the resilience to face the vagaries of life. My hope is that my daughters will never stop reading and questioning.

Seems to be 2 points being debated here - national security which seemingly accepts no risk taking and individual security which embraces a degree of responsible risk taking. Risk assessment and management is becoming stifling as inevitably the rights for individuals to take acceptable risks bumps up against this growing industry.

Dear Mr Archer, I'm amused that you consider the UK to be a monarchy in all but name as even the most ardent royalist would admit that the Queen is no more than a token figurehead with no political power. She cannot dictate, create laws or unilaterally change them. The divine rule of Kings has been gradually eroded since the enactment of the Magna Carta in the C13, surely a document you are aware of as it forms the cornerstone of the American Constitution

The UK citizenry is subject to the rule of law and Parliament, the monarch gives royal ascent to laws but she has no choice in the matter. The last monarch to directly challenge the power of parliament ended up with is head on a spike - we had our revolution and civil war in the C17 which led to the English Commonwealth and the subversion of the monarchy to parliament.

I agree with your point about power to a certain extent and alluded to this in my initial post. I just think you are wrong if you associate real power with individual ownership of weapons. My central point is that associating gun ownership to a higher political purpose or point blinds you to the fact that gun ownership and the inevitable violence that it contributes to has been monetized by the manufacturers of guns and bullets and that's where the real power sits.

Death by gunshot has been monetized and Mr Smith and Mr Wesson are laughing all the way to the bank.

For your information as well, poodles are traditionally hunting dogs and a standard poodle - coiffured or not is a formidable animal. Ahimsa transcends politics. Keep your powder dry and your eyes peeled. Woof woof.

Is it really a belief that private gun ownership is a defence of individual sovereignty against state totalitarianism and an expression of freedom!? This may have arguably been true in the C17 but this assertion blinds you to the fact that the real winners here are the manufacturers of arms and bullets and not the upholders of constitutional beliefs. I can understand why someone may feel safer with a handgun in a purse capable of deterring or stopping a personal assailant in such a violent and crime ridden society - even though I may disagree with them. However, I fail to see the need to enable an individual to buy an arsenal of assault weapons capable of mass killings - in this respect I would be more wary of the mentally ill than those with criminal intent. The old 'guns are tools' argument is bankrupt. Guns are weapons and their political relevance is in the power they transfer to those who carry and use them - the power to kill - and thou shalt not kill. It is politically correct to suggest that guns and the phenomenal number of deaths caused by them are as much to do with capability and opportunity and their restriction and control is long overdue. To use an anti 'political correctness' argument in this respect is to do so in defence of the irrational - a bit like saying we do things because of tradition - another stock phrase to defend irrationality. Political correctness has its roots in respect for others, kindness, basic humanity and not harming others by deed or word. Ahimsa.

For the late Mr Heston to rant against 'political correctness' as some sort of tyranny is beyond a joke. That more Americans since the death of JFK have been killed by privately owned guns in America than the combined deaths of all Americans in all wars historical and current indicates that the discretionary ownership and use of guns should be maintained as a freedom in the USA defies any rational argument. How many 'cold dead hands' can you guys tolerate?

I think that liberals consider a fair opportunity to self determination is central to humanity and liberty. What about the boy who was born at the bottom of the well rather than fell down based on his own folly or irresponsibility. I don't think it's as simple as responsible vs irresponsible, feckless vs industrious, deserving vs undeserving. These are view points based on the belief that the world is a meritocracy and that privilege does not exist. Real help for the needy and promoting the opportunity to share the bounty of this world should not be left to the discretion of a few wealthy individuals - charity and philanthropy and the gratitude associated with it cannot be relied upon to address the abject poverty and unfairness in today's world or even in America. A shared responsibility and humanity leads to duties and obligations for the common good. The 'Oh poor me' victim mentality' argument in my experience does not reflect peoples' real circumstances.

Is "bathing the bitter facts of life in bandages of self-illusion" a nice way of presenting and justifying "alternative facts"?

I thought that a central conservative belief is that people should help themselves? Or mixed with a healthy dose of religious virtue - God helps those that helps themselves. I think that the sweeping generalised liberal assumptions are based on the view that conservatives only help conditionally when it turns a profit of some sort, or is tax deductible.

Fortunately you don't have to invent a 'belief' in God Mr Allyn remembering that belief and faith do not equate to truth - when truth enters the room, belief and faith leave by the back door. But in an increasingly secular world the challenge for the religiously minded is to make God believable and relevant. My 'belief' is that one day that challenge will eventually fail. Aquinas distinguished between man made secular law, natural law and God's law. As the pendulum swings towards a secular world, the salvation of man by believing, desiring and doing is related to doing the right thing for mankind and this planet as an expression of man's purpose and not (as EGL elegantly points out above) individual salvation and angelhood.

Must be the guilt caused by all that exploitation

or he/she becomes a crook?

Interesting viewpoint from the front line of American Imperialism from one it's self confessed enforcers is, I suppose, the alternative view.

Ah the creative muse! Art for Art's sake, money for God's sake. The true value of art is intrinsic and its monetary worth contextual and accidental unless manufactured by middlemen. Many artists make very little from what they create; that's left to the dealers, manager's and promoters. Imagine the artistic poverty of world where those who produce art of all kinds are motivated by its mere financial worth. This guy sounds like a real prick.

Sound bite divisive politics at its very best.

And at the same time as cutting back public services, destroying 'real' jobs and privatising utilities she was creating economic circumstances through progressive deregulation that encouraged massive individual household debt and the creation of the 'smoke and mirrors' monetarist economy. The hypocricy in this quote is staggering.

How do you define 'family' and how do you teach homosexuality ( J Carlton, Calgary)? I know many 'traditional' (God Ordained!) dysfunctional families and many singletons who are wonderful parents.

Does human nature mean humanity or Darwin's survival of the fittest? A socialist perspective fully understands human nature in that it accepts inequality and its maintenance thorough privilege and seeks to address human greed, exploitation and unfairness through implementing humane and progressive policies of redistribution to lift people out of poverty and misery. Dominant political ideologies have supported capitalism and have now resulted in the richest 8 individuals in the world possessing as much wealth at half of the rest of us. Society is rife with division, hatred and fear. I feel that people generally are not envious as long as they have enough to live - freely and independently in safety and security, which is the purpose of socialism.

Churchill's Conservatives were heavily defeated in first post war election which voted in the Labour Socialist government of Atlee with a massive majority and mandate to implement sweeping social change to create a 'land fit for hero's and put into place Nationalised redistributive mechanisms of wealth that successive Conservative governments have undermined ever since. The only real remnant of this is the National Health service and welfare state which in England and Wales is under constant ideological and budgetary attack. Churchill's legacy is as war time leader of a coalition govt. His rant against socialism is based on his political losses and inadequacies.

Beautiful imagery from an amazing mind. How complete is 'the circle' and how complete is your circle?

The cleverness of this quote is in linking certain knowledge with action. It both negates the 'if I had known then what I know now" caveat and acknowledges that the distinction between what is right and wrong is knowledge based and may at crucial times fly in the face of emotions and convictions.

WMD!!!

It will be interesting to see what happens in Cuba now Fidel Castro is dead. His brother Raul does not have the revolutionary 'father of a nation' status and now that the paternalistic figurehead has gone Cuba's leaders will have to rely even more on a force of arms rather than force of argument politics to maintain the status quo and yes - free education, health care and gun laws. Lets not forget also the assistance of Catro's Cuba in Angola's war against the South African invasion which is credited with contributing towards the downfall of apartheid. Compare this legacy to someone like General Augusto Pinochet's. However, I foresee the progressive lifting of sanctions, the speeding up of free market practices and loosening of travel restrictions for Cubans. I would bet that even now Trump is considering ways to increase the shark population in the seas off Florida to deter the 1st wave while simultaneously seeking to increase the import of cigars at more favourable rates for his fat cat business pals.

Amen to that Mr E Archer.