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!

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!

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!

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.

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.

USA Facebook Post

Unsurprisingly, the United States has announced that they will intervene in Syria regardless of whether the UNSC gives the go-ahead to military intervention. They believe that they have incontrovertible evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people (just like they had undeniable evidence that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction).
How can a nation espouse democracy when they consistently ignore the democracy of the world, when they refuse to enter any organisation without veto power?
How can a nation criticise other nations of Human Rights abuses, when it fails to ratify the large majority of international treaties on human rights, most of which have been ratified by nearly every sovereign nation on earth?

The United States is the most unbelievably hypocritical nation in the world. It plays to the notion that it is the defender of the world's peace and is the common voice of democracy. It is not. The United States has had one of the most suffocating influences on democracy and has consistently put its own objectives before international peace. It demands, as it will in this case, to hold other nations to account for their abuses of human rights and international law, but refuses any other nation or organisation the ability to hold it to account by crying foul about sovereignty.

The United States disregards the organs of international law and maintains a law unto itself. Its view of the world is that it should follow one set of rules and the rest of the rule should follow another. Internally, it focuses nearly all of its legislative power onto the one person. Internationally, it acts in the same manner as the dictates from whom it seeks to "liberate" the people.

If we follow the US into Syria, this is what we support. We support a disregard for international law, a disregard for the UNSC and a disregard for peace. Harden up, KRudd.

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!