Both of my parents come from relatively poor families and, as far as I am aware, were unionised for the main part of their working lives. Whilst not so leftist that they're playing in the leafy fringes with the Greens, they could, quite reliably, be described as Labor lefties, with that little bit of swing that Labor so often encourages with its own political ineptitude. It is no surprise then, that as a child, I was conditioned to hate John Howard.
During my high school years, when I started to form a more thoughtful political opinion and Howard's caterpillar eyebrows started to crawl their way out of my TV, my relationship with Howard underwent somewhat of a renaissance. This was no surprise; most high school students start to challenge the beliefs fed to them by their parents, and I was certainly one to do this. I started asking myself the logical question. If Howard were so bad, why is Australia doing all right? This dominated my thinking for a while and I started blurting out the Howard mantra: his government was a stable one, so he was a good PM.
This mantra is very largely true; at least the first part. His government was pretty stable and Howard was certainly very Prime Ministerial. The latter really isn't much of a surprise. After all, he for so long had front row seats observing Hawke and Keating doing it so well.
All in all, I remembered him then as someone who you wouldn't exactly be ashamed of sending overseas. I still maintain that he was one of the most skilled Prime Ministers at making himself look important beyond his station. He was always strong and decisive, and you could not deny the extent of his self-confidence. These made him a very attractive figure and encouraged people to feel safe with him. He also encouraged a more presidential view of the Prime Minister with these qualities. Good things, though these are, my view of Howard is no longer dominated by them as I have started to—well—think.
So after all of this banging on, how do I feel about Howard now?
John Howard is one of the few people whose name alone can make me angry and sick at the same time. And I really do mean that. It's a foreign experience for me, but it's one I've developed of late as I've started to read more broadly about Australian politics.
Howard's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are often the greatest source of criticism of his Prime Ministership. That is hardly surprising at all, as war tends to have a very polarising effect. It is a time in which our "sensible" and "smart" governments behave like children and sort their differences with violence; the result of which, unlike the children, is often death for many involved.
The truth of the matter is though, that these wars, and Howard's enthusiasm for them in particular, say a lot about John Howard as a man. He was nothing short of a war-mongering megalomaniac who wanted nothing more from life than to be seen as a war time leader. In fact, he very much would have liked the idea of being seen like Winston Churchill, who despite his equally despicable character flaws, is almost universally revered as a hero for his efforts in World War II.
Unlike Churchill, Howard struggled to find his Adolf, and thus had to be a bit more creative with his searching. Fortunately for him, George Bush was in power in the United States and liked nothing more than a bit of Arab bashing (with perhaps the exception of fishin'). And thus, hand in hand, two xenophobic, near-senile geriatrics led their countries into the Middle East for ten years of Where's Osama?
Whether or not these wars were worthwhile is the subject of fierce debate. I do not have anywhere near enough knowledge to even throw my opinion into the ring, other than to say that they were not conducted properly—blind Freddy could tell you that though! What they did show was Howard's propensity for war. He loved it; he revelled in it. At the same time, Australian's loved him for it. Despite their opposition to war, Howard was never more popular than when he was off around the world waging his war on terror. Perhaps Australians were reaching into their racist roots, perhaps they just liked Howard out of the country—either way, war time Howard was what Howard loved and was Australians seemed to love too.
War time Howard didn't stop with Afghanistan and Iraq. It is this fact about Howard that I think better illustrates my point: he was only happy at war. Howard's (and Bush's) self-serving war on terror didn't just involve overthrowing Saddam Hussein and their over-sized game of hide-and-seek with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (of course with the odd spot of target practice on the Taliban), he started to turn domestic issues into war. Most notable was Howard's war against asylum seeker, which remarkably did end up involving the armed forces.
Asylum seekers were never really a "thing" in Australia prior to Howard's time in power. They did however represent an enormous political opportunity for his government. With the Western World up in arms about terrorism, the public was starting to go selfish—every man (well at very least every country) for himself. Therefore, this was the perfect time to start instructing the public on the dangers of asylum seekers, people who were fleeing persecution, violence and the most squalid conditions in the world to take over the nation!!!!!!!!! (or so the dessicated coconut kept shouting). With the crisis created from thin air, and an "invasion" of asylum seekers on its way (ironically displaced by the Bush-Howard warring in the Middle East), it was time for Howard to tell the "boat people" to fuck off from our boundless plains to share and to go rejoin their Al-Qaeda buddies in "Terrorististan". And so the myth was created: anybody fleeing from peril by boat was actually a terrorist in disguise en route to exact revenge on the infidels of the West.
Ludicrous beyond belief, this myth was well and truly in Hanson territory. Sadly, despite the cries from everyone with a working brain, the Australian public lapped this up and lit the torches. We now had to stop these illegal aliens at all costs. And so was evoked this line: "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come". Howard's smuggery was so great that he managed to juxtapose Australia's "generosity and kindness" onto this section of his victory speech.
With these words died a compassionate nation. In the minds of Australians who still maintain their empathy, and probably a healthy dose of that rage and enthusiasm Gough spoke about, this was one of the most contemptible things Howard ever did in his tenure as PM. I agree. More importantly, so too does former Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser (in this video he speaks about the current Coalition government's plans to invoke Howard's plans, dismantled by former Labor PM, Kevin Rudd).
Also notable of Howard's era was his war against public schools. Apparently he had despised his time at public school so much, he made it his personal objective to keep swinging the cricket bat into them until they were well and truly ratfucked. Sadly for the public system, Howard played much better figurative cricket than real cricket and had indeed left it in ruins.
In order to cripple students who couldn't afford the "privilege" of education, Howard introduced the so-called SES funding system. Rather than bore you with the details, the SES funding system, in effect, increased the government funding for private schools to a point where non-government schools were in receipt of significantly more money (before student fees) than public schools. Furthermore, the SES system provided for loadings for students who were disadvantaged. Therefore, if a student were found to live in a disadvantaged suburb (rural, low socioeconomic blah blah), in spite of their personal circumstances, the school would receive extra funding for taking that student. Sounds great, right? The catch was that it only applied to private schools. Public schools got the base and beyond that, two fifths of fuck all.
The effect of this was to expand the already increasing gap in academic performance between private and public schools. Naturally, this effect rolls on and cements low socioeconomic status for those children unfortunate enough to find themselves in that exact position from birth. In a matter of weeks, Howard had written and passed the legislation to effectively end the era of the fair-go, ushering in the era of the "cheque please". Smug as ever, Howard donated to each school a free Australian flag—and legislation to make it illegal to not have it flying—because there was nothing quite like that raising the next generation of Arab-haters.
Sadly, Howard is often lauded as a creative and brilliant economic manager, who presided over one of the strongest periods in the Australian economy. There is no doubt that Howard presided over a strong period, the numbers certainly state that. There is also no doubt that, through his treasurer Peter Costello, Howard was able to ensure the market was free enough to get on with its business. The reality of the matter though was that this wasn't a lot of Howard's work, and casting a close eye over his economic management, it wasn't quite as good as suggested.
Mining was going gangbusters during Howard's years, bringing to Australia unforeseen amounts of cash, much of which was injected into government coffers. Peter Costello was pumping out surplus after surplus through a combo of the mining boom (obviously) and his propensity for fiscal management, which is undeniable.
How then, did Howard use his stacks of cash? Well first of all, he blew quite a bit of it on defence. Nothing says war time leader like going hunting through the Middle East with your mate, George, or buying some shiny new helicopters and tanks (an area of government that had its own minister, Bronwyn "La Bish" Bishop).
In the Liberal fashion, he blew most of the mining boom on tax cuts to the higher classes and to business. It could be argued that the former did go a way to help the mining boom along—in any case, I don't have the economic brains to counter argue it. The latter was just another part in Howard's crusade against the poor.
Lastly, Howard pumped the rest of the cash into middle-class welfare. After years of Labor government, the welfare system had been set up on the socialist model, or at least on the social democratic model (give to the poor so then they can invest in becoming rich like the rest). This didn't go down well with Howard, but he couldn't dispense with welfare for purely political reasons, so instead, decided to pump more into the hip pockets of people who really didn't need it: the middle class. What the point of that welfare was would always be difficult to describe in economic terms; politically, it was a mass bribe. On a small side note, it must be noted that neither Rudd nor Gillard had the ticker to take away the middle-class welfare because both were more interested in pursuing their lifestyles as demagogues, rather than pragmatists.
The result of all of Howard's ridiculous spending (which has since been described by leading economists as some of the most irresponsible spending by a government in the history of the OECD) was to throw away almost all of the mining boom and to reduce the country's capacity to collect any revenue from it anyway. Apparently it was lost on Howard that there isn't an infinite supply of minerals nor is the demand for them infinite, and thus, he kept on trying to increase an already finite volume of minerals to be mined through tax cuts. In fact, the only notable tax he introduced was the GST, which selectively taxes the people before business and is considered by most to avoid any sort of consideration about equity and fairness. No doubt it was a gutsy political decision, but somewhat paradoxically, he avoided the aforementioned issues of equity and fairness in an act of cowardice.
Cruelly, much of what Tony Abbott decries about Labor's economic management is far more applicable to the Howard years. Not to say that Labor was perfect—they weren't—but Howard was far more an irresponsible spender and was extremely foolish with his approach to taxation. Because of Howard and his government, Tony Abbott has inherited an economy with a tax base that is far too small and a polity that is far too obsessed with big spending on welfare and tax cuts. It will take an extraordinary amount of political leadership to address these problems, something that Abbott lacks.
So, where are we left on Howard?
He started the asylum seeker myth, creating a cruel and indefensible culture of xenophobia. He war mongered all across West Asia, contributing to a massive destablisation of the region. He launched a crusade against the poor, destroying their public schools and making it harder-than-ever to close the gap. He blew Australia's best chance of setting its economy up to bear future (now) challenges.
Even more terribly, there's much I've left out. He started the culture wars against everyone and everything. He demonised Islam. He was uniquely cruel to Indigenous Australians, refusing point blank to accept that his forebears committed unspeakable crimes (where's the "boat people" speech now, John?). He trashed the environment, and along with Nick Minchin, created a culture of pigheaded irreverence to the science of climate change.
This leaves me with the difficult task of characterising Howard. It is no easy feat.
John Howard is a callous, conniving megalomaniac. His political career was directed by his obsession with power, which was only outdone by his obsession with pursuing the image of a "war time leader". Nearly every move he made was a new war against another helpless target. The war against terror, the war against boat people, the war against public schools, the indigenous, the unemployed, the gay and anybody who so happened to be subject his erratic whims.
John Howard was so uncompromising in his opinions that he could nigh be accurately described as being completely delusional. His insatiable hunger for war was borderline psychopathic, and I say with some confidence that in any member of the general public, it would be diagnosed as such. He is a moral conservative, with not so much as an ounce of the moral and yet a tonne of the conservative.
John Howard's legacy will long remain one of xenophobia, economic impotence and a complete absence of humanity. He is rightly despised by members on both sides of politics, and he is rightly despised by me.
John Howard, this is your life.
Monday, 30 December 2013
Friday, 27 December 2013
Mungo
Yesterday I started reading Mungo MacCallum's latest book, The Mad Marathon. This was an impulse buy, probably because I was feeling a bit inadequate as I hadn't bought anything during the Boxing Day sales.
I quite like Mungo. I always make the effort to read anything he posts onto the ABC's online editorial section, The Drum (which is named after the show). He's a Labor boy through and through, so that certainly appeals. Most of all though, he's entertaining.
So far, all signs are good. I'll let you know once it's done!
I quite like Mungo. I always make the effort to read anything he posts onto the ABC's online editorial section, The Drum (which is named after the show). He's a Labor boy through and through, so that certainly appeals. Most of all though, he's entertaining.
So far, all signs are good. I'll let you know once it's done!
Sunday, 8 December 2013
Much Excitement
So in a few hours, my bestfriend will start her first match in the Handball World Championships!
Only very recently have I realised just how big the sport is in Europe and how amazing it is that she's made it there. There are serious crowds and serious money behind handball in Europe, with all games in the German league for example, selling out! This competition, in Serbia, has also managed to consistently sell out crowds of 15,000.
Needless to say, I'm very, very proud and all of you should throw your support behind Straya! You should also click the link above and check it out!
Only very recently have I realised just how big the sport is in Europe and how amazing it is that she's made it there. There are serious crowds and serious money behind handball in Europe, with all games in the German league for example, selling out! This competition, in Serbia, has also managed to consistently sell out crowds of 15,000.
Needless to say, I'm very, very proud and all of you should throw your support behind Straya! You should also click the link above and check it out!
Thursday, 5 December 2013
Big, Bad Breadth
For those of you who aren't familiar with the so-called Melbourne Model, the basic premise behind it is that one should leave their qualification-getting to post-graduate study and use their undergraduate years to receive a broad education. So for a student studying science, they would not be expected to engage merely in the one science, but to delve into other areas until eventually getting a bit more precise in first year (though still with the capacity, and indeed the necessity, to broaden their horizons).
Another requirement of the Melbourne Model is that students in all courses complete 50 points (4 subjects) minimum of something called breadth. Put simply, students must study 4 subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with their faculty. As a Biomedicine student, this gives me considerable scope. I can choose from History, Fine Arts, Writing, Music, Politics, Language, Linguistics and from a host of subjects known as Uni Breadth, which are designed to encompass aspects of science and arts. What I am not allowed to do for breadth, however, is anything sciencey.
Breadth has suited me well. I was able to, this year, continue my passion for languages by taking Spanish. This will also allow me to take two subjects over summer and considerably reduce my commitments at University during my third year, something that I am particularly happy about. All the while, I've really enjoyed the class and have each semester found Spanish to be my best subject—bonus!
Next year, however, I've decided that my passion for Spanish after the summer will have waned, as Antonio Banderas' voice becomes less and less impressive, and have thus taken the decision to "branch out" and actually dabble in breadth. (It's worthwhile noting that Spanish was a safe choice; language has always been my forté). The first semester I'll be taking a level one subject, Australian Politics. I'm happy about this. During the last year or so, I've become more engaged with the political process rather than just haplessly repeating what I've heard on the news and I feel as though taking this subject will help me to consolidate and indeed expand on my knowledge of the political process.
This decision was particularly reaffirmed when a local, off-the-record, offered to make a strong and almost irrefutable case for my endorsement by one of the big three political parties in the upcoming state election. I was particularly chuffed by this, but somewhat stupidly answered that offer with a rant about all the things that were wrong with that particular party.
Choosing my second semester subject is proving troublesome. I have a list of about 15 that I am interested in. My dilemma is that I want to find a subject that is likely to maintain my interest but that won't come at the detriment of my marks in itself or in other subjects (by virtue of its workload). It's becoming extremely frustrating, as I'm normally not an indecisive person.
Stay tuned!
Another requirement of the Melbourne Model is that students in all courses complete 50 points (4 subjects) minimum of something called breadth. Put simply, students must study 4 subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with their faculty. As a Biomedicine student, this gives me considerable scope. I can choose from History, Fine Arts, Writing, Music, Politics, Language, Linguistics and from a host of subjects known as Uni Breadth, which are designed to encompass aspects of science and arts. What I am not allowed to do for breadth, however, is anything sciencey.
Breadth has suited me well. I was able to, this year, continue my passion for languages by taking Spanish. This will also allow me to take two subjects over summer and considerably reduce my commitments at University during my third year, something that I am particularly happy about. All the while, I've really enjoyed the class and have each semester found Spanish to be my best subject—bonus!
Next year, however, I've decided that my passion for Spanish after the summer will have waned, as Antonio Banderas' voice becomes less and less impressive, and have thus taken the decision to "branch out" and actually dabble in breadth. (It's worthwhile noting that Spanish was a safe choice; language has always been my forté). The first semester I'll be taking a level one subject, Australian Politics. I'm happy about this. During the last year or so, I've become more engaged with the political process rather than just haplessly repeating what I've heard on the news and I feel as though taking this subject will help me to consolidate and indeed expand on my knowledge of the political process.
This decision was particularly reaffirmed when a local, off-the-record, offered to make a strong and almost irrefutable case for my endorsement by one of the big three political parties in the upcoming state election. I was particularly chuffed by this, but somewhat stupidly answered that offer with a rant about all the things that were wrong with that particular party.
Choosing my second semester subject is proving troublesome. I have a list of about 15 that I am interested in. My dilemma is that I want to find a subject that is likely to maintain my interest but that won't come at the detriment of my marks in itself or in other subjects (by virtue of its workload). It's becoming extremely frustrating, as I'm normally not an indecisive person.
Stay tuned!
Friday, 29 November 2013
Phony Tony, Christopher Whine and the Gone-ski Reforms
Earlier this week, the newly elected Australian government announced that it would renege on its pre-election commitment to retain Labor's landmark Gonski reforms. Rejecting the Gonski reforms is the consequence of a policy deficient Liberal-National coalition that has found itself stranded in government with little more in its arsenal than to attack Labor, and our Asian neighbours as well it appears. Though not a surprise, this policy back-flip is one that should worry all Australians.
Talk of education in the media often evokes very general and sweeping statements about its importance. Indeed, it seems an informal responsibility of an education minister and the Prime Minister to constantly remind the public of the power of education. Internationally, education is viewed as the powerful combatant of inequality and as a fundamental human right.
Politicians in Australia have a long history of reflecting on the importance of education in front of television cameras. They talk of "doing things for the kids", "giving people a better future" and "building a smarter Australia". Sadly, all of this is just lazy rhetoric that operates to mask the unwillingness of governments to practise what they preach. This week's policy back flip is strong evidence of this.
The so-called Gonski reforms, whilst not perfect, represented a huge step towards a stronger and fairer education system in Australia. Christopher Pyne's announcement this week that he will be renegotiating the Gonski reforms with the states is little more than an acknowledgement that the Abbott government plans to retain the current funding arrangements and inject more money into education. Whilst the latter is good news for educators and students alike, the former is indeed very grave.
Retaining the status quo is the continue funding private and catholic school students above public school students. This method of funding education preferentially advantages students who are already the most advantaged. The effect of this is no surprise: it is to widen the gap between the socio-economic classes. Another issue with the status quo is that loadings for disadvantage, a key feature of the Gonski reforms, only apply to students attending schools in the private system and thus miss the very, very large majority of students who are genuinely disadvantaged. Jane Caro explains this quite nicely.
Howard's system of funding education is therefore discriminatory to certain sectors of education and does not achieve its aims. It is grossly unfair and Julia Gillard's government was both right and brave to change it. Furthermore, Howard's system misses the point of privatising government services. The cornerstone of privitisation is to make the government pay less, something that his funding system clearly fails to achieve.
Labor's Better Schools package, the one that Christopher Pyne is turfing, had two goals: to raise the quality of education for Australian students and to address the ballooning in equality in the school system. These are essential to Australia's future, and movements by Christopher Pyne to ignore them are concerning. No student should be inherently disadvantaged because of their school and sadly, this is something that Abbott government is supporting.
Australia should be embarrassed that it relies on a private system to deliver quality education, rather than ensuring that it is the only to do so. Labor made a bold step towards a fairer system with the Better Schools package. They also managed to do so in a politically viable manor, by ensuring, by and large, that extra support for disadvantaged students would not come out of private school's pockets.
Christopher Pyne's moves to dump the Better Schools package and to throw money at an old and broken system highlight his deficiencies as education minister. Pyne is so incapable as an education minister that he fails to separate education from business and directs his policy platform to reflect this. He also fails to appreciate the power of education in creating an equal society, wherein those with talent have the greatest advantage, not those with wealth.
Scrapping Better Schools was a shameful step backwards for Australia. It will ensure that a child's future is determined by their parents' wealth, rather than by their will, creativity and intellect. This is something for all to be sad about.
Talk of education in the media often evokes very general and sweeping statements about its importance. Indeed, it seems an informal responsibility of an education minister and the Prime Minister to constantly remind the public of the power of education. Internationally, education is viewed as the powerful combatant of inequality and as a fundamental human right.
Politicians in Australia have a long history of reflecting on the importance of education in front of television cameras. They talk of "doing things for the kids", "giving people a better future" and "building a smarter Australia". Sadly, all of this is just lazy rhetoric that operates to mask the unwillingness of governments to practise what they preach. This week's policy back flip is strong evidence of this.
The so-called Gonski reforms, whilst not perfect, represented a huge step towards a stronger and fairer education system in Australia. Christopher Pyne's announcement this week that he will be renegotiating the Gonski reforms with the states is little more than an acknowledgement that the Abbott government plans to retain the current funding arrangements and inject more money into education. Whilst the latter is good news for educators and students alike, the former is indeed very grave.
Retaining the status quo is the continue funding private and catholic school students above public school students. This method of funding education preferentially advantages students who are already the most advantaged. The effect of this is no surprise: it is to widen the gap between the socio-economic classes. Another issue with the status quo is that loadings for disadvantage, a key feature of the Gonski reforms, only apply to students attending schools in the private system and thus miss the very, very large majority of students who are genuinely disadvantaged. Jane Caro explains this quite nicely.
Howard's system of funding education is therefore discriminatory to certain sectors of education and does not achieve its aims. It is grossly unfair and Julia Gillard's government was both right and brave to change it. Furthermore, Howard's system misses the point of privatising government services. The cornerstone of privitisation is to make the government pay less, something that his funding system clearly fails to achieve.
Labor's Better Schools package, the one that Christopher Pyne is turfing, had two goals: to raise the quality of education for Australian students and to address the ballooning in equality in the school system. These are essential to Australia's future, and movements by Christopher Pyne to ignore them are concerning. No student should be inherently disadvantaged because of their school and sadly, this is something that Abbott government is supporting.
Australia should be embarrassed that it relies on a private system to deliver quality education, rather than ensuring that it is the only to do so. Labor made a bold step towards a fairer system with the Better Schools package. They also managed to do so in a politically viable manor, by ensuring, by and large, that extra support for disadvantaged students would not come out of private school's pockets.
Christopher Pyne's moves to dump the Better Schools package and to throw money at an old and broken system highlight his deficiencies as education minister. Pyne is so incapable as an education minister that he fails to separate education from business and directs his policy platform to reflect this. He also fails to appreciate the power of education in creating an equal society, wherein those with talent have the greatest advantage, not those with wealth.
Scrapping Better Schools was a shameful step backwards for Australia. It will ensure that a child's future is determined by their parents' wealth, rather than by their will, creativity and intellect. This is something for all to be sad about.
Thursday, 21 November 2013
I'm back!
It's been quite a while since visited my blog, let alone posted anything. Let me start by saying sorry that I've taken a leave of absence from my blog. As with most students, I underestimated the amount of time that I would need for study...and for pointless procrastination of course.
Over the summer though, I hope to be writing a lot more on this blog and properly getting things down pat, as it seems that people are actually reading this (yeah I have stats!). Maybe the first will come later tonight or tomorrow.
Until then.
Over the summer though, I hope to be writing a lot more on this blog and properly getting things down pat, as it seems that people are actually reading this (yeah I have stats!). Maybe the first will come later tonight or tomorrow.
Until then.
Friday, 30 August 2013
Wednesday, 7 August 2013
School Captain Election Speech 2011
The following is the text of the speech I gave at the election for school captain at my school. I was unsuccessful in obtaining the captaincy. That said, this was one of the best speeches I have delivered; in some ways, anyway. I'd like to think that it's been fairly well written and makes good use of rhetorical techniques to convey a very strong message. As far as the delivery went, it was spot on. I delivered the speech without notes and did not make the slightest of missteps (which is a unique event for me—possibly attributed to the short duration of the speech!). The speech, however, was at the same time a massive failure. Whilst it was technically very strong, it forgot the key element, and that was audience. This was an audience that saw me, correctly or not (I'd like to think not), as too much of a grand stander. They were sick of me being the guy up the front giving the speech, so something that emphasised some humility (not to call this speech in the slightest egotistical) would have gone a long way! Genuinely, by the time I had given this speech I had become far more humble and respectful of my class mates, something that I should have conveyed in the speech. Moral of the story, well-written, well-delivered...they both turn to shit when you've forgotten the key element: audience.
The speech:
Good morning year elevens and staff.
On Monday, we were all told that today is our opportunity to convince you why we should be your captains. However, I don’t really think that today is our opportunity. In fact, we’ve been convincing you since we started here at Western Heights.
A school captain must show initiative, that is, to actually get the job done. I have done this on numerous occasions. You wanted the voting system changed, so, a very small group of us got together and successfully petitioned to have the system changed for you.
A school captain must know their school. For years, I have helped you with your timetables, helped you with your subjects, told you who to speak to when something’s gone wrong and reminded you of when we have mufti days or days off.
A school captain must be able to speak in front of a crowd. Just last week, I was asked to speak in front of the whole school. Furthermore, of the 200 students in year eleven, only two people put their hands up to deliver the welcoming address at the formal, one of whom was me.
A school captain must be connected. That is, they must know the students and they must know the staff. Through activities such as LOTE day, Plain English Speaking and other fundraisers, I have kept in contact with all year levels at this school. They know me, I know them. They can put a name to my face.
I am very proud to say that next year, I will be working with one of the best leadership teams Western Heights has ever produced. But, if you want a captain who has worked tirelessly with you to get the most out of our school, and a captain who will continue to work with you to make 2012 the best year we’ve ever had...then “a school captain” must be me. Thank you
The analysis:
Now let's have a look at where it went wrong! Whilst the essence was realistically the major problem (I should have rewritten the speech) there were still a few "point errors" that could have made the difference—especially considering that I lost that election by one person's vote.
Stylistically, the opening sentence is a bit hard to follow: "we were all told that today is our opportunity to convince you why we should be your captains". I've made a simple but sloppy error here. At the start of the sentence, I've used 'we' to mean the students of the year level, but by the end of the sentence 'we' has thinned out to the candidates. Not a particularly big issue, but it kills the flow a little bit—you want people thinking about your ideas, not your words!
The second paragraph is much better, and along the right track, assuming that this construct could work. The audience is made participants in the speech, a useful technique. It promotes a connection between the speaker and the audience. Something I should have done more of as I said in the introduction!
Third paragraph is a little clunky. I've listed four items, when I should have gone for a tricolon (three clearly defined parts). In this case, it's a tetracolon, which is a little more clunky. There's a notion in rhetoric that things are best presented in threes. This is summed up in what is called "the rule of three". It's summed up in Latin by "omne trium perfectum", which essentially says that if it comes in three, it's probably going to be pretty bloody good. Normally I adhere to this instinctively, I haven't in this case. My best guess is that I went with the tetracolon precisely because it breaks that rule. In doing so, the style is a little clunkier but it conveys the idea that I've gone "above and beyond" in my efforts for the year level. Something I don't think my classmates wanted to hear, so I should have stuck with my rule of three!
In the fourth I should have kept up with the theme of doing it "all for you guys". I should have spoken for my classmates, for the school; not just been the twit who put his hand up to take the limelight. This was a major error that I made. I broke away from a key theme and exposed exactly what my classmates didn't like: grandstanding.
In the fifth, I've done it again. The speech took a shift after the fourth, something that held on. Why would I refer to my classmates, even in references to other year levels and stuff, as they? Why not go with you or even "we know each other"? It was a missed opportunity to connect with the audience, and more importantly, show an inherent connection with the school. Both paragraphs represented missed opportunities to transition from being a student who merely occupied to the school, to a member of the school community. There was a great divide between the top students at my school (something that became clear with our top three marks: 99.35, 98.10, 79.something), and this was an issue that I faced. Despite being warned by one of my teachers, I ignored that advice and missed those two key opportunities to pretend that the divide was merely one of scores and not a more intrinsic divide.
I was fairly happy with the last paragraph. If I had rewritten the speech to suit the occasion, most of this paragraph could have stayed. Apart from the parallel structure perhaps "a school captain is". Even though it was a very good rhetorical technique, it was perhaps a little too pretentious; delivering a crappier speech would have worked in my favour! It went back to the theme that I didn't deal with well: the connection. It was peppered with heaps of reference to 'you', 'our', 'we', creating the notion of a team, people in it together. As it happens, despite the conclusion, it was much too late.
This is a fairly good example, of the speeches I've given and still have in any case, of the importance of understanding your audience. I had been so ignorant in this case that I even refused to listen to the advice of a teacher who had told me exactly what I have told you in this: that I needed to tone it down. She told me not to write the speech for me, but to write it for them. She couldn't have been more right. Other than to my close circle of friends, and perhaps the staff (one of whom shook my hand and said it was the "best bloody speech he'd heard"), this speech was an inherent failure. Literature, by design, is all about context. Would we have been able to dream with Martin Luther-King without the dramatic backdrop the Lincoln memorial provided? Would Hitler been able to rouse a nation to war in a room devoid of his devoted nationalist allies? Would Ciccero's words atop the rostrum been as stirring if delivered on flat ground?
The answers to these questions is most likely no. Each of these speakers knew the importance of context, and audience. So much so that in Hitler's case, he very carefully chose his audiences.
That was an important lesson I learned at that election, something I much the wiser for. I had the logos (logical ideas of the speech), I had the pathos (emotion) but I lacked the ethos (connection with the audience). On that day, I found ethos and I have been fascinated by it ever since!
The speech:
Good morning year elevens and staff.
On Monday, we were all told that today is our opportunity to convince you why we should be your captains. However, I don’t really think that today is our opportunity. In fact, we’ve been convincing you since we started here at Western Heights.
A school captain must show initiative, that is, to actually get the job done. I have done this on numerous occasions. You wanted the voting system changed, so, a very small group of us got together and successfully petitioned to have the system changed for you.
A school captain must know their school. For years, I have helped you with your timetables, helped you with your subjects, told you who to speak to when something’s gone wrong and reminded you of when we have mufti days or days off.
A school captain must be able to speak in front of a crowd. Just last week, I was asked to speak in front of the whole school. Furthermore, of the 200 students in year eleven, only two people put their hands up to deliver the welcoming address at the formal, one of whom was me.
A school captain must be connected. That is, they must know the students and they must know the staff. Through activities such as LOTE day, Plain English Speaking and other fundraisers, I have kept in contact with all year levels at this school. They know me, I know them. They can put a name to my face.
I am very proud to say that next year, I will be working with one of the best leadership teams Western Heights has ever produced. But, if you want a captain who has worked tirelessly with you to get the most out of our school, and a captain who will continue to work with you to make 2012 the best year we’ve ever had...then “a school captain” must be me. Thank you
The analysis:
Now let's have a look at where it went wrong! Whilst the essence was realistically the major problem (I should have rewritten the speech) there were still a few "point errors" that could have made the difference—especially considering that I lost that election by one person's vote.
Stylistically, the opening sentence is a bit hard to follow: "we were all told that today is our opportunity to convince you why we should be your captains". I've made a simple but sloppy error here. At the start of the sentence, I've used 'we' to mean the students of the year level, but by the end of the sentence 'we' has thinned out to the candidates. Not a particularly big issue, but it kills the flow a little bit—you want people thinking about your ideas, not your words!
The second paragraph is much better, and along the right track, assuming that this construct could work. The audience is made participants in the speech, a useful technique. It promotes a connection between the speaker and the audience. Something I should have done more of as I said in the introduction!
Third paragraph is a little clunky. I've listed four items, when I should have gone for a tricolon (three clearly defined parts). In this case, it's a tetracolon, which is a little more clunky. There's a notion in rhetoric that things are best presented in threes. This is summed up in what is called "the rule of three". It's summed up in Latin by "omne trium perfectum", which essentially says that if it comes in three, it's probably going to be pretty bloody good. Normally I adhere to this instinctively, I haven't in this case. My best guess is that I went with the tetracolon precisely because it breaks that rule. In doing so, the style is a little clunkier but it conveys the idea that I've gone "above and beyond" in my efforts for the year level. Something I don't think my classmates wanted to hear, so I should have stuck with my rule of three!
In the fourth I should have kept up with the theme of doing it "all for you guys". I should have spoken for my classmates, for the school; not just been the twit who put his hand up to take the limelight. This was a major error that I made. I broke away from a key theme and exposed exactly what my classmates didn't like: grandstanding.
In the fifth, I've done it again. The speech took a shift after the fourth, something that held on. Why would I refer to my classmates, even in references to other year levels and stuff, as they? Why not go with you or even "we know each other"? It was a missed opportunity to connect with the audience, and more importantly, show an inherent connection with the school. Both paragraphs represented missed opportunities to transition from being a student who merely occupied to the school, to a member of the school community. There was a great divide between the top students at my school (something that became clear with our top three marks: 99.35, 98.10, 79.something), and this was an issue that I faced. Despite being warned by one of my teachers, I ignored that advice and missed those two key opportunities to pretend that the divide was merely one of scores and not a more intrinsic divide.
I was fairly happy with the last paragraph. If I had rewritten the speech to suit the occasion, most of this paragraph could have stayed. Apart from the parallel structure perhaps "a school captain is". Even though it was a very good rhetorical technique, it was perhaps a little too pretentious; delivering a crappier speech would have worked in my favour! It went back to the theme that I didn't deal with well: the connection. It was peppered with heaps of reference to 'you', 'our', 'we', creating the notion of a team, people in it together. As it happens, despite the conclusion, it was much too late.
This is a fairly good example, of the speeches I've given and still have in any case, of the importance of understanding your audience. I had been so ignorant in this case that I even refused to listen to the advice of a teacher who had told me exactly what I have told you in this: that I needed to tone it down. She told me not to write the speech for me, but to write it for them. She couldn't have been more right. Other than to my close circle of friends, and perhaps the staff (one of whom shook my hand and said it was the "best bloody speech he'd heard"), this speech was an inherent failure. Literature, by design, is all about context. Would we have been able to dream with Martin Luther-King without the dramatic backdrop the Lincoln memorial provided? Would Hitler been able to rouse a nation to war in a room devoid of his devoted nationalist allies? Would Ciccero's words atop the rostrum been as stirring if delivered on flat ground?
The answers to these questions is most likely no. Each of these speakers knew the importance of context, and audience. So much so that in Hitler's case, he very carefully chose his audiences.
That was an important lesson I learned at that election, something I much the wiser for. I had the logos (logical ideas of the speech), I had the pathos (emotion) but I lacked the ethos (connection with the audience). On that day, I found ethos and I have been fascinated by it ever since!
Monday, 15 July 2013
Tony Abbott's Climate Change Policy is Bullshit
An article written by Malcolm Turnbull entitled Tony Abbott's Climate Change Policy is Bullshit has been a recent rediscovery of mine.
I don't want to go into a long analysis on this or speak too much about my views, as I think you, the reader, will have much more fun forming your own. It's just incredibly ironic that the Liberal Party has spoken about disunity as though it's ruining the government, when they have been just as susceptible to it as Labor. Need I remind everyone that a key theme of the 2007 election was who would lead the Liberal Party after the election was over. Howard or Costello? Rudd or Gillard? Abbott or Malcolm?
Two things are clear from this article: disunity is a part of politics and Tony Abbott's Climate Change Policy is Bullshit.
I don't want to go into a long analysis on this or speak too much about my views, as I think you, the reader, will have much more fun forming your own. It's just incredibly ironic that the Liberal Party has spoken about disunity as though it's ruining the government, when they have been just as susceptible to it as Labor. Need I remind everyone that a key theme of the 2007 election was who would lead the Liberal Party after the election was over. Howard or Costello? Rudd or Gillard? Abbott or Malcolm?
Two things are clear from this article: disunity is a part of politics and Tony Abbott's Climate Change Policy is Bullshit.
Primary School Report
The other day I was searching for a photo and happened upon some of my old reports from primary school. This was a fantastic trip down memory lane and gave me a bit of an insight into what I was like back then. I had almost forgotten, and was amazed to find that I was actually fairly similar to how I am now. The basic elements of my personality then, seem to have remained. The extra detail here, perhaps, pays homage to my last post which references an abundance of science that stipulates that "who we are" is determined in our first few years of life, and does not coincide with our cognitive development, so to speak.
There was one particular report that I found, however, that really interested me, and surprised me a little. It was a my SOSE report from 2001, back when SOSE was a thing we had to do various projects on different areas of science and society. The idea of SOSE was to integrate knowledge, essentially. To mash together science and history, with the added element of appreciating them in context today. In theory, it seemed a good idea, but in practice it was pretty rubbish—though I won't go there at the moment. One line from this report read:
This particular line of my report was interesting. I once said in an interview that my love affair with public speaking started in year seven, when a class that wasn't particularly fond of me, shall we say, sat there, and clung onto every word. At the end, they all applauded—and not a polite, thank-god-that's-over applause. A truly supportive accepting applause. As it happens though, this may not have been the beginning.
Reading this report reminded me of some of the public speaking I'd done in primary school. It reminded me of the Tournament of Minds, where I was in charge of presenting our project. In the face of total disaster (our project had failed), I cracked a joke that went a way to show the judges that the error was in a shakey hand, and not in our bridge (we had to run a golf ball along a bridge we constructed out of a strict list of materials). That was a hugely liberating moment. That one little line had averted disaster and had earned me the affection of my team mates. A budding engineer, certainly not; this was my mark on the project and where my strengths were best placed. Our success in reaching the state finals can largely be attributed to the way we delegated the right jobs to the right people, this was the first time I felt speaking was my job to own.
My love of public speaking was not only fuelled by success. In 2005, the year before the tournament of minds, we had the opportunity to stand for School Captain. Most of the boys in my year level gave the speeches, and there were some fairly good ones there. In fact, for a group of grade fives, the ability of them to speak well in front of an audience was incredible. However, what was evident, and what they didn't shy away from, was that they had the significant input of their parents inked into their speeches. I on the other hand, flatly refused to allow mum or dad to help me at all. Undoubtedly, it cost me the election, so it was certainly not a smart decision to refuse my parents' help; however, it gave public speaking the first opportunity to help me cope with something. It was the knowledge that my speech, one that I truly owned, had been a good speech, and had been delivered well and with integrity, allowed me to reconcile my defeat.
One last story, and I'll end my reminiscing. Another particularly fond memory I have of public speaking in primary school, that I was also reminded of by the report, was back in what was probably 2004. My grandfather was a World War II veteran, so I always took a great deal of pride in being someone who understood and appreciated the sacrifice of my grandfather and his peers in the armed forces. So when we had someone from the armed forces, a local named Greg Leader, I was naturally very excited about the occasion. He delivered his speech, and at the conclusion, I was asked by my classroom teacher to convey the class' thanks for taking his time to address us. I did so with a huge amount of pride, and after, was given the responsibility of escorting him to his next class. This was an momentous occasion for me at the time. It was only a short speech, and one that was unbelievably difficult to stuff up, but to me, the responsibility was enormous.
So, apparently I lied to Danny Lannen when I told him that my love affair had started with a humble speech to the rowdy boys of 7B. As a short trip to the past has reminded me, speaking has long been a part of my life, and provided there are still people to listen, will continue to be.
There was one particular report that I found, however, that really interested me, and surprised me a little. It was a my SOSE report from 2001, back when SOSE was a thing we had to do various projects on different areas of science and society. The idea of SOSE was to integrate knowledge, essentially. To mash together science and history, with the added element of appreciating them in context today. In theory, it seemed a good idea, but in practice it was pretty rubbish—though I won't go there at the moment. One line from this report read:
As anybody who has taken the time to read this blog will note, I like my public speaking and I'd also like to think that I'm not too bad at it (I haven't yet put someone to sleep). It's also something I get quite sentimental about. I do really enjoy it. Not the act of public speaking itself. It's actually awful if I tell you the truth. But the work, the ideas that you go through and most importantly, the wonderful discussions you have with people about the upcoming the speech, and indeed their support.I congratulate Travis on his excellent speech on his windsock project.
This particular line of my report was interesting. I once said in an interview that my love affair with public speaking started in year seven, when a class that wasn't particularly fond of me, shall we say, sat there, and clung onto every word. At the end, they all applauded—and not a polite, thank-god-that's-over applause. A truly supportive accepting applause. As it happens though, this may not have been the beginning.
Reading this report reminded me of some of the public speaking I'd done in primary school. It reminded me of the Tournament of Minds, where I was in charge of presenting our project. In the face of total disaster (our project had failed), I cracked a joke that went a way to show the judges that the error was in a shakey hand, and not in our bridge (we had to run a golf ball along a bridge we constructed out of a strict list of materials). That was a hugely liberating moment. That one little line had averted disaster and had earned me the affection of my team mates. A budding engineer, certainly not; this was my mark on the project and where my strengths were best placed. Our success in reaching the state finals can largely be attributed to the way we delegated the right jobs to the right people, this was the first time I felt speaking was my job to own.
My love of public speaking was not only fuelled by success. In 2005, the year before the tournament of minds, we had the opportunity to stand for School Captain. Most of the boys in my year level gave the speeches, and there were some fairly good ones there. In fact, for a group of grade fives, the ability of them to speak well in front of an audience was incredible. However, what was evident, and what they didn't shy away from, was that they had the significant input of their parents inked into their speeches. I on the other hand, flatly refused to allow mum or dad to help me at all. Undoubtedly, it cost me the election, so it was certainly not a smart decision to refuse my parents' help; however, it gave public speaking the first opportunity to help me cope with something. It was the knowledge that my speech, one that I truly owned, had been a good speech, and had been delivered well and with integrity, allowed me to reconcile my defeat.
One last story, and I'll end my reminiscing. Another particularly fond memory I have of public speaking in primary school, that I was also reminded of by the report, was back in what was probably 2004. My grandfather was a World War II veteran, so I always took a great deal of pride in being someone who understood and appreciated the sacrifice of my grandfather and his peers in the armed forces. So when we had someone from the armed forces, a local named Greg Leader, I was naturally very excited about the occasion. He delivered his speech, and at the conclusion, I was asked by my classroom teacher to convey the class' thanks for taking his time to address us. I did so with a huge amount of pride, and after, was given the responsibility of escorting him to his next class. This was an momentous occasion for me at the time. It was only a short speech, and one that was unbelievably difficult to stuff up, but to me, the responsibility was enormous.
So, apparently I lied to Danny Lannen when I told him that my love affair had started with a humble speech to the rowdy boys of 7B. As a short trip to the past has reminded me, speaking has long been a part of my life, and provided there are still people to listen, will continue to be.
Beginnings
Science has taught us some truly incredible things. Even more excitingly, it will continue to do so. The benefits of science are numerous. It can be used to treat diseases, put food in more and more people's mouths and allow us to live increasingly comfortable and happy lives.
With each step we take forward in science, we also advance the burden of knowledge. There's one particular example that pops to mind. Each discovery made in nuclear physics, in the early 20th century, presented both an opportunity for incredible good and incredible evil. The burden of knowledge in this case was responsibly discussing, planning and implementing the technology. Nuclear technology still ignites hotly contested debates today, thus, we are still carrying that burden.
It is not, however, nuclear technology that I wish to focus on. In fact, my introduction may have betrayed the true topic of this post. I actually wish to focus, fairly generally, on some of the work done in psychology and medicine, and more precisely, the implications of that work.
On the back of an overwhelming amount of good research (and the 'good' is an important distinction to make), it is now held that the formative years of child's life, determines a great deal about their life. This has huge implications for parents, new and old alike. Let's first look at some of the positive aspects.
Armed with this knowledge, we now know just how important it is that a child be cared for extremely well. We know that every little thing a parent does can have profound effects on the child when they grow up. It is believed, and the research tends to support this, that in the first few years of life, an individual's personality, their moral outlook and the basis of their social skills will be developed. All of this occurs before the all important education of the child starts.
The extent of these formative influences on the "adult product" is subject to much debate, though I think we could conservatively assume that these influences are quite a lot larger than we would expect on intuition alone. As a result, parents in general have started to lift the standards of care for their children. They have headed these warnings, that have come from psychologists and doctors alike, and have made a concerted effort to give their children the best possible future. So effective has this knowledge been, that mothers have started taking supplements even before conception to ensure that their bodies are ready for the huge responisbility that is bearing a child.
It is undeniable that these new found standards in child care have really lifted the bar. Naturally, it will remain to be seen, but it is fair to suggest that 21st century parents have, by applying the knowledge that science has given us, started to raise a smarter, a healthier and a happier next generation.
There is, however, a significant burden that comes with this knowledge. Today, we live a cursed life of what ifs. We not only pay particular attention to what actions we take in the future, but we also reflect on those actions we've taken in the past—in fact, it could be said that we do the latter more so than the former.
In this context, we can quite understandably succumb to an incredible amount of apprehension and self doubt about our decisions. Moreover, if unhappy about how we've turned out, we are now more capable of confidently blaming our parents and subjecting them to our bitterness. Because of this knowledge, because of its implications, we are subjected to a torturous amount of what ifs. Our personality, our social skills (or lack thereof) and our moral outlook are no longer predicated on our decisions, or on our experiences as students. According to the science, they were all decided long before we had a say in them, let alone anything really.
As with much of what science has taught us, when we appreciate the facts, we are often left with a stupid look on our face and the word wow etched on our lips. Our knowledge of the important balance of rearing, with the right amount of play, the right amount of nutrients and the right amount and type of social interaction, has no doubt helped 21st century parents be much better parents, but we must ask ourselves, what has been the burden on them?
With each step we take forward in science, we also advance the burden of knowledge. There's one particular example that pops to mind. Each discovery made in nuclear physics, in the early 20th century, presented both an opportunity for incredible good and incredible evil. The burden of knowledge in this case was responsibly discussing, planning and implementing the technology. Nuclear technology still ignites hotly contested debates today, thus, we are still carrying that burden.
It is not, however, nuclear technology that I wish to focus on. In fact, my introduction may have betrayed the true topic of this post. I actually wish to focus, fairly generally, on some of the work done in psychology and medicine, and more precisely, the implications of that work.
On the back of an overwhelming amount of good research (and the 'good' is an important distinction to make), it is now held that the formative years of child's life, determines a great deal about their life. This has huge implications for parents, new and old alike. Let's first look at some of the positive aspects.
Armed with this knowledge, we now know just how important it is that a child be cared for extremely well. We know that every little thing a parent does can have profound effects on the child when they grow up. It is believed, and the research tends to support this, that in the first few years of life, an individual's personality, their moral outlook and the basis of their social skills will be developed. All of this occurs before the all important education of the child starts.
The extent of these formative influences on the "adult product" is subject to much debate, though I think we could conservatively assume that these influences are quite a lot larger than we would expect on intuition alone. As a result, parents in general have started to lift the standards of care for their children. They have headed these warnings, that have come from psychologists and doctors alike, and have made a concerted effort to give their children the best possible future. So effective has this knowledge been, that mothers have started taking supplements even before conception to ensure that their bodies are ready for the huge responisbility that is bearing a child.
It is undeniable that these new found standards in child care have really lifted the bar. Naturally, it will remain to be seen, but it is fair to suggest that 21st century parents have, by applying the knowledge that science has given us, started to raise a smarter, a healthier and a happier next generation.
There is, however, a significant burden that comes with this knowledge. Today, we live a cursed life of what ifs. We not only pay particular attention to what actions we take in the future, but we also reflect on those actions we've taken in the past—in fact, it could be said that we do the latter more so than the former.
In this context, we can quite understandably succumb to an incredible amount of apprehension and self doubt about our decisions. Moreover, if unhappy about how we've turned out, we are now more capable of confidently blaming our parents and subjecting them to our bitterness. Because of this knowledge, because of its implications, we are subjected to a torturous amount of what ifs. Our personality, our social skills (or lack thereof) and our moral outlook are no longer predicated on our decisions, or on our experiences as students. According to the science, they were all decided long before we had a say in them, let alone anything really.
As with much of what science has taught us, when we appreciate the facts, we are often left with a stupid look on our face and the word wow etched on our lips. Our knowledge of the important balance of rearing, with the right amount of play, the right amount of nutrients and the right amount and type of social interaction, has no doubt helped 21st century parents be much better parents, but we must ask ourselves, what has been the burden on them?
Saturday, 13 July 2013
Geelong Young Leaders Award Ceremony
This is the speech that I gave to accept the 2012 Richard Marles Geelong Young Leaders Award. The video quality is poor, though the audio is fine. It was a huge privilege to have been nominated and subsequently win this award. The funds that accompanied the title were used to purchase a laptop for University, which has been extremely useful to me and to my studies! (though perhaps not in Chemistry!)
Sunday, 7 July 2013
Ungrateful Australia
The following is text to the speech, Ungrateful Australia, which I gave at the 2012 Western Heights College awards night. Note that this speech was given in the week that the world was "going to end".
May I first congratulate all of the award winners tonight on their fantastic achievements, with particular mention to our incoming school captains and our dux on his phenomenal ATAR score.
Ladies and gentleman. As I’m sure you know, the world will come to an abrupt and devastating end this Friday. But who is responsible for the demise of our planet?!
The Liberals would tell you that the end of the world is the result of a failing government, another Labor mishap caused by years of infighting in the party! But don’t worry if you’re a Labor voter, they will be quick on the reply, assuring Australians that this is just the remnants of the previous Liberal government!
Is this where Australia’s going? Are we at a point where we’ve become so pessimistic, that we would blame our government for the end of the world? When did we stop being optimistic?
Now, clearly, the world isn’t ending on Friday. What is coming to an end, however, is the grateful Australia.
Each day, Australians are bombarded with negative media. We read and watch reports of a “dying economy that can no longer support its people”, “a cabinet of ministers who should all leave their positions”, “healthcare reform that will endanger the lives of every Australian”. You could be forgiven for thinking that our country is on the brink of disaster.
But despite the media and government’s image of an Australia where people are dying on the streets, nobody has money to feed their families and where watching Big Brother is actually a highly stimulating activity...we actually have it pretty good.
We have one of the most stable economies and banking systems in the world, with low unemployment and sustainable inflation.
We have one of the best health care systems in the world. Unlike in most Western nations, the biggest concern upon entering a doctor’s surgery is the illness that led them there, rather than the bill they’re going to receive on the way out. The majority of us live happy and healthy lives thanks to extensive funding from the government and the freedom to belong to either the public or private system.
We have one of the best education systems in the world! We live in a country where each and every child has the right to learn and to do so without cost. The catholic, private and government sectors all deliver unparalleled curricula...though public is the best of course.
I’m not saying that we live in a perfect country, nor am I saying that we should turn a blind eye to those imperfections.
We’ve got it great here, and we should be thankful for that. All this rubbish in the media about the destruction of our nation, is just that, rubbish.
Don’t start the day with death and despair in the newspaper or with Gillard’s beautiful voice on the radio, as she tears through Abbott for the 400th time that morning… start the day with some gratitude. Gratitude for waking up in the morning, free of war and poverty, with the right to say or feel what you like...gratitude for waking up in Australia.
May I first congratulate all of the award winners tonight on their fantastic achievements, with particular mention to our incoming school captains and our dux on his phenomenal ATAR score.
Ladies and gentleman. As I’m sure you know, the world will come to an abrupt and devastating end this Friday. But who is responsible for the demise of our planet?!
The Liberals would tell you that the end of the world is the result of a failing government, another Labor mishap caused by years of infighting in the party! But don’t worry if you’re a Labor voter, they will be quick on the reply, assuring Australians that this is just the remnants of the previous Liberal government!
Is this where Australia’s going? Are we at a point where we’ve become so pessimistic, that we would blame our government for the end of the world? When did we stop being optimistic?
Now, clearly, the world isn’t ending on Friday. What is coming to an end, however, is the grateful Australia.
Each day, Australians are bombarded with negative media. We read and watch reports of a “dying economy that can no longer support its people”, “a cabinet of ministers who should all leave their positions”, “healthcare reform that will endanger the lives of every Australian”. You could be forgiven for thinking that our country is on the brink of disaster.
But despite the media and government’s image of an Australia where people are dying on the streets, nobody has money to feed their families and where watching Big Brother is actually a highly stimulating activity...we actually have it pretty good.
We have one of the most stable economies and banking systems in the world, with low unemployment and sustainable inflation.
We have one of the best health care systems in the world. Unlike in most Western nations, the biggest concern upon entering a doctor’s surgery is the illness that led them there, rather than the bill they’re going to receive on the way out. The majority of us live happy and healthy lives thanks to extensive funding from the government and the freedom to belong to either the public or private system.
We have one of the best education systems in the world! We live in a country where each and every child has the right to learn and to do so without cost. The catholic, private and government sectors all deliver unparalleled curricula...though public is the best of course.
I’m not saying that we live in a perfect country, nor am I saying that we should turn a blind eye to those imperfections.
We’ve got it great here, and we should be thankful for that. All this rubbish in the media about the destruction of our nation, is just that, rubbish.
Don’t start the day with death and despair in the newspaper or with Gillard’s beautiful voice on the radio, as she tears through Abbott for the 400th time that morning… start the day with some gratitude. Gratitude for waking up in the morning, free of war and poverty, with the right to say or feel what you like...gratitude for waking up in Australia.
Who Am I? (2011)
The following is text to the speech, Who Am I?, which I gave at the 2011 State Semi Finals of the Plain English Speaking Award (Victoria).
Who am I?
Well I know who I am, and I am not just talking about my address nor my age. I'm talking about my culture, the languages I speak and how they combine to make me. But do you know who you are, and why is language such an important part of this?
Take the indigenous people of Australia for example. They arrived here over 40,000 years ago. Since then, they have spoken more than 750 distinct languages and have created a rich cultural heritage. Today, however, this culture is slipping away. Their celebrations, their religions, their cuisine, their art…these are all disappearing. But how and why is this happening?
As I just said, there were once 750 indigenous languages in Australia; now there are a mere 18. It is no surprise then, that we are seeing a loss of indigenous culture. Without language, there are no means to communicate concepts and ideas, there are no means to teach and learn about culture. The indigenous people could, in theory, use English to replace their own languages, however, English lacks the vocabulary needed to communicate indigenous beliefs, such as those regarding the dreamtime.
Unfortunately, language death, leading to the loss of culture, is not confined to the indigenous languages. Broad Australian English, or “ocker English” has also started to decline in use, which is leading to the loss of some more key aspects of Australian culture.
According to the website www.aussieexperts.com (which is an Australian internet based travel office) the top reason to come to Australia is that Australia has “a people of legendary friendliness”. Furthermore, tourism Australia’s most successful advertisement, which starred comedian and actor Paul Hogan, was not based on our vast and beautiful landscapes, but rather our easy going attitude and our rich vernacular. Viewers are told that the only thing they need to know before coming to Australia is how to say “g’day”.
This simple, and chiefly Australian word is being used less and less in today’s society. We’re replacing “g’day” with British and American equivalents such as “hey” and “sup”. Our slang is what allows us to identify ourselves as Australian and to celebrate this. G’day, among other pearlers such as: well, pearler, no worries, cobba, bugger, sheila, aussie, mozzie, cossie, frothin’ and troppo, is the key to expressing our national identity.
Australian English isn't just for the "working class Aussie". As we know, "we are one, but we are many, and from all the lands on Earth we come". This lyric sums up our nation perfectly. No matter our heritage, no matter our race, no matter the colour of our skin, no matter how much money we earn, we are all Australian. With our slang, we show this. Take the film "Wog Boy" for example. The main characters, who are portrayed by Vince Collosimo and Nick Giannopoulos, both call themselves wogs. They took a term, usually reserved for insults, and turned it into a word to positively express their identity. Whilst the film is full of references to the differences between their childhood and the childhood of a typical anglo-saxon Australian, the film is also chock-a-block with Aussie slang.
"Wog Boy", and the whole concept of wog, is about celebrating both one's European heritage and celebrating being an Australian. It's about celebrating the multiculturalism of this nation. We can enjoy this celebration of identity and the music, festivals, stories and food that comes with it, because of language.
Language is to culture as air is to humans. Without air, we cannot last, without language, culture cannot last. Thus, the preservation of our language, is essential to preserve our culture and to continue to celebrate the rich and diverse identity of Australia.
So the question is, what can we do?
By chucking the odd Australianism into a sentence, by being that friend who speaks to mum on the phone in that "foreign language which nobody understands" and by hearing all of the stories from nan and pop, nonna è nonno, baba i deda or oma und opa, we start to learn about and develop our language and our cultural identity.
It may seem a small and silly idea, but we're a sharing and caring bunch. Our language is made up of some words from mum and dad, some words from our teachers or colleagues and some words from our mates. It’s always changing and is always open to influence.
We need to go back to the basics and bring back Aussie slang and then watch as everyone else follows.
Every culture is worth preserving, so let’s stop beating around the bush, and do something about preserving ours.
So, it’s time we all start asking ourselves, who am I?
Who am I?
Well I know who I am, and I am not just talking about my address nor my age. I'm talking about my culture, the languages I speak and how they combine to make me. But do you know who you are, and why is language such an important part of this?
Take the indigenous people of Australia for example. They arrived here over 40,000 years ago. Since then, they have spoken more than 750 distinct languages and have created a rich cultural heritage. Today, however, this culture is slipping away. Their celebrations, their religions, their cuisine, their art…these are all disappearing. But how and why is this happening?
As I just said, there were once 750 indigenous languages in Australia; now there are a mere 18. It is no surprise then, that we are seeing a loss of indigenous culture. Without language, there are no means to communicate concepts and ideas, there are no means to teach and learn about culture. The indigenous people could, in theory, use English to replace their own languages, however, English lacks the vocabulary needed to communicate indigenous beliefs, such as those regarding the dreamtime.
Unfortunately, language death, leading to the loss of culture, is not confined to the indigenous languages. Broad Australian English, or “ocker English” has also started to decline in use, which is leading to the loss of some more key aspects of Australian culture.
According to the website www.aussieexperts.com (which is an Australian internet based travel office) the top reason to come to Australia is that Australia has “a people of legendary friendliness”. Furthermore, tourism Australia’s most successful advertisement, which starred comedian and actor Paul Hogan, was not based on our vast and beautiful landscapes, but rather our easy going attitude and our rich vernacular. Viewers are told that the only thing they need to know before coming to Australia is how to say “g’day”.
This simple, and chiefly Australian word is being used less and less in today’s society. We’re replacing “g’day” with British and American equivalents such as “hey” and “sup”. Our slang is what allows us to identify ourselves as Australian and to celebrate this. G’day, among other pearlers such as: well, pearler, no worries, cobba, bugger, sheila, aussie, mozzie, cossie, frothin’ and troppo, is the key to expressing our national identity.
Australian English isn't just for the "working class Aussie". As we know, "we are one, but we are many, and from all the lands on Earth we come". This lyric sums up our nation perfectly. No matter our heritage, no matter our race, no matter the colour of our skin, no matter how much money we earn, we are all Australian. With our slang, we show this. Take the film "Wog Boy" for example. The main characters, who are portrayed by Vince Collosimo and Nick Giannopoulos, both call themselves wogs. They took a term, usually reserved for insults, and turned it into a word to positively express their identity. Whilst the film is full of references to the differences between their childhood and the childhood of a typical anglo-saxon Australian, the film is also chock-a-block with Aussie slang.
"Wog Boy", and the whole concept of wog, is about celebrating both one's European heritage and celebrating being an Australian. It's about celebrating the multiculturalism of this nation. We can enjoy this celebration of identity and the music, festivals, stories and food that comes with it, because of language.
Language is to culture as air is to humans. Without air, we cannot last, without language, culture cannot last. Thus, the preservation of our language, is essential to preserve our culture and to continue to celebrate the rich and diverse identity of Australia.
So the question is, what can we do?
By chucking the odd Australianism into a sentence, by being that friend who speaks to mum on the phone in that "foreign language which nobody understands" and by hearing all of the stories from nan and pop, nonna è nonno, baba i deda or oma und opa, we start to learn about and develop our language and our cultural identity.
It may seem a small and silly idea, but we're a sharing and caring bunch. Our language is made up of some words from mum and dad, some words from our teachers or colleagues and some words from our mates. It’s always changing and is always open to influence.
We need to go back to the basics and bring back Aussie slang and then watch as everyone else follows.
Every culture is worth preserving, so let’s stop beating around the bush, and do something about preserving ours.
So, it’s time we all start asking ourselves, who am I?
Media Gone Nuts (National)
-->
There is not a hole in the ozone layer. Despite
years of having this idea shoved at us by our media, there is not a hole in the
ozone layer.
In reality, what we are experiencing is
something called Ozone depletion. We are not as well protected from solar
radiation and therefore, the temperature rises. If there were really a hole in
the ozone layer, as we have been lead to believe, we would be exposed to the
full wrath of the sun. Now, I can only speak for myself, but I’m not on
fire—are you?
How has an entire nation been lead to
believe something so outrageous? Is it only sensationalised rubbish that we are
being fed, or is it worse? When did journalism lose its moral core in the
pursuit of money?
This is a somewhat light-hearted example of
media gone nuts. The modern media has ditched its moral responsibilities for
nothing more than financial gain.
Now, don’t get me wrong. We should expect the
media to try to make money. But it is the methods they are using to do so that are
worthy of our attention.
Long gone are the days of sensationalism.
Back then, it was simple. A bit of dramatization, misinformation and fear
mongering lead to a healthy serving of public anxiety, and that public anxiety converted
itself into a nice wad of cash in the media moguls’ pockets. Kaching, kaching
for the media!
Unfortunately, one day a particular media
mogul decided that sensationalism wasn’t quite enough. He decided that to sell
his newspaper, he must rely on the truly immoral. His name is Rupert Murdoch
and he is the man at the centre of the news of the world scandal.
In most of our pockets is a mobile phone.
It’s a fairly simple device. It makes calls, sends texts and may do any number
of things for you.
And sometimes, it seems, a phone is the
only way to reach the outside world—the only way to let our friends know that,
well, we are still breathing. At least, this is what Milly Dowler’s parents
thought.
Milly
Dowler is dead.
In 2002, Milly Dowler was abducted on her
way home from school. Soon after she was murdered in cold blood. Before Milly’s
parents learned of their daughter’s death, they submitted a missing person’s
report and quickly set out to find her.
For seven
months, police, family and friends searched far and wide for Milly, but no luck.
The only shred of hope for Milly’s family came from her phone company—somehow,
she was deleting her voice mail messages! Milly must be alive.
She wasn’t.
News of the world journalists were hacking
Milly’s phone. They listened to her voice mail messages, and then deleted them.
They heard her family’s desperate pleas. They stripped Milly’s family of their
privacy and gave them false hope.
Milly’s family isn’t the only one left devastated
by News of the World Journalists. At a recent parliamentary investigation into media
ethics, countless witnesses came out of the woodwork to stand up against the
unethical, immoral and inhuman standards of the media in Britain.
Surely, this isn’t happening in Australia
though? Our media has always acted ethically, right?
“A dingo’s got my baby”.
Thirty years after the death of Azaria
Chamberlain, the words her mother cried out at journalists still manage to
strike a chord. In fact, her story was made so huge by the media, that jokes
about the death of Lindy Chamberlain’s daughter even made it onto TV shows like
Two and a Half Men.
But who was Lindy?
Lindy Chamberlain was born in New Zealand,
but soon moved to Australia. She grew up here and had a family. After some time
in Tasmania, Lindy and her family moved to Queensland. There’s nothing
particularly interesting to say about Lindy. She was just an ordinary person
with an ordinary life, like you and I.
It was only after, well, a dingo got her
baby, that her world changed. Soon she became a household name in Australia. And
after that, the story became a media hit around the world, selling newspapers
left right and centre.
But what about Lindy? What about her family?
What about thirty years of trial by media? Eh, who cares, she’s only one
person.
One person’s life completely ruined by the
greed of the media.
It is this attitude that leaves families in
ruins.
Nobody can escape. The sports stars, the
writers, the humanitarians, the academics, the musicians, the artists, actors,
actresses, chefs… ordinary people…Lindy and Milly….you and I.
Regardless of who you are or what your
circumstances may be, if you’re going to sell papers, then the media will stop
at nothing to tell your story.
But, who’s to blame for this?
Perhaps the easiest way to go would be to
stick it on the government? They are responsible for protecting our interests,
so why have they failed us here? They must be responsible for fixing the media!
But what if, we just said that the media were
to blame? That makes sense. They are the ones who are robbing people of their
privacy and acting immorally. Surely they should be held responsible!
The media and the government do have a roll
to play in this, but what about us?
We are, after all, the reason the media
exists. If we didn’t buy their product, why would they go to the effort to
distribute it?
In fact, today we are actually a part of the
media. We call it social media and the only difference between it and the rest
of the media is that we manage it.
On websites like Facebook and Twitter, we
can read and discuss everything from the political situation in Mozambique, to
declining breakfast cereal to box ratios—whatever we choose really.
Social media does not stop at that,
however. Much like our own “every day” media, it is driven by immoral and
unfair invasions of privacy. Social media is full of gossip. Whether it be
about people in the public eye or Jimmy
Stevens from Bacchus Marsh, there is a constant stream of images and snippets
of information being uploaded each day.
Despite this, despite the cyber bullying of
celebrities and ordinary people alike, we still choose to indulge. Each day, more and more people connect to these websites.
Social media is defined by our choices.
Content won’t spread unless we choose to share it. In fact, content won’t even
be there in the first place unless we choose to publish it.
So it raises the question, is it the
media’s standards that are declining, or ours? Are they really just immoral, unethical and unfair, or are they just giving
us what we want?
And if we
are the media; what can we do to stop media gone nuts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)