For those of you who are frequent visitors, I'm sorry I haven't posted too much lately.
Over the summer, I opted to take a subject at Uni. This means that I will be able to study only three subjects each semester in my third year; something that sits very well with me. So it has been a very, very hectic three weeks (so far) of Spanish. I am happy to report that I have been learning a hell of a lot though!
Furthermore, I've managed to get some tutoring roles and have also applied to some schools to coach debating and public speaking. Hopefully they'll turn out well, as I really do think I could make a great contribution. Today I was also asked to speak at Deakin University to some year 12 students, so that should be interesting.
All very busy!
Tuesday, 4 February 2014
Thursday, 23 January 2014
Las Españolas los Prefieren Rubios
La profesora nos ha dado una actividad esta mañana. Necesitamos escribir un resumen de una película que hacemos (la verdad es que no hacemos una película—solo imaginamos). Eso es lo que escribimos. ¡Ojo! Es ridículo.
Juán, Julio y Jesús son amigos muy íntimos. Son morenos. Cada día van al bar para relacionarse con chicas. Una chica guapa tras otra, siempre regresan a casa solos. Las españolas sólo quieren acostarse con rubios.
Un día, Juán trate de relacionarse con una gordita, no tiene suerte. La gota que colmó el vaso. Ahora, necesitan hacer algo. Comienza la transformación en rubio.
Después de su transformación, aprenden que el cambiar pelo no puede ayudarlos, sólo un cambio de personalidad. Retadores al final, los tíos pasan toda la vida solteros.
I'm completely aware that it's not that good, and bordering on the inane, pués aprendo.
Juán, Julio y Jesús son amigos muy íntimos. Son morenos. Cada día van al bar para relacionarse con chicas. Una chica guapa tras otra, siempre regresan a casa solos. Las españolas sólo quieren acostarse con rubios.
Un día, Juán trate de relacionarse con una gordita, no tiene suerte. La gota que colmó el vaso. Ahora, necesitan hacer algo. Comienza la transformación en rubio.
Después de su transformación, aprenden que el cambiar pelo no puede ayudarlos, sólo un cambio de personalidad. Retadores al final, los tíos pasan toda la vida solteros.
I'm completely aware that it's not that good, and bordering on the inane, pués aprendo.
Saturday, 11 January 2014
Neknomination
It was with great shock that I woke up this morning and started looking through the daily news to find that so-called "neknominations" had not figured in it. Immediately my reaction was to think to myself "ah, but this is the ABC! It does not dare talk about the youth" and so off I trudged into the loungeroom, parking my bum on the chair, ready to digest the commercial nightmare that is National Nine News. Minutes apart, yet another shock. Nothing there.
Very rarely do Facebook fads pervade my newsfeed so badly that I begin writing the news stories in my head. Neknomination provided the year's first opportunity to do so, and so Tracey Grimshaw barged her way in between my ears and started prattling on "And now, the new and real danger on Facebook that could affect your children. Neknomination is the latest Facebook craze putting everyone at danger. Children as young as 12 are posting videos of themselves participating in binge drinking then encouraging their mates to do the same, some with nearly deadly consequences".
In true form, imaginary Tracey pumped her story with a big and 100% Australian dose of hyperbole and bullshit. This time, however, I couldn't help but agree with her a little bit; even if that did mean agreeing with myself, technically.
Neknominations aren't the stupid kind of ridiculous, like that handbag thing that was somehow supposed to promote breast cancer awareness by only letting women know what it meant (remember the one, with the "I like it on the ______"). Neknominations are dangerous and should provoke a legitimate response from Facebook.
Australia already struggles with its drinking culture, despite the fact that is quite broadly lauded by the populous. Neknominations provide a timely reminder that Australia's culture of binge drinking is endemic and will require a significant policy response to correct. More broadly, a cultural change must occur, one that sees alcohol grouped with illicit drugs. The damage is too great, it's time to act.
EDIT: I was a little bit apprehensive about being seen as a fun-killing prude when posting this. My views about alcohol are often at odds with most people—I don't like it and would happily see it go, but I do still believe in to each their own in this respect. With that said, only a few minutes after I posted this I was greeted with another Neknominate video. This time it was of someone downing a glass of goon, as is required of them, in front of their young brother and sister (only about 4-6) who were giggling all the way through. Feeling a lot less apprehensive about my opinions now.
Very rarely do Facebook fads pervade my newsfeed so badly that I begin writing the news stories in my head. Neknomination provided the year's first opportunity to do so, and so Tracey Grimshaw barged her way in between my ears and started prattling on "And now, the new and real danger on Facebook that could affect your children. Neknomination is the latest Facebook craze putting everyone at danger. Children as young as 12 are posting videos of themselves participating in binge drinking then encouraging their mates to do the same, some with nearly deadly consequences".
In true form, imaginary Tracey pumped her story with a big and 100% Australian dose of hyperbole and bullshit. This time, however, I couldn't help but agree with her a little bit; even if that did mean agreeing with myself, technically.
Neknominations aren't the stupid kind of ridiculous, like that handbag thing that was somehow supposed to promote breast cancer awareness by only letting women know what it meant (remember the one, with the "I like it on the ______"). Neknominations are dangerous and should provoke a legitimate response from Facebook.
Australia already struggles with its drinking culture, despite the fact that is quite broadly lauded by the populous. Neknominations provide a timely reminder that Australia's culture of binge drinking is endemic and will require a significant policy response to correct. More broadly, a cultural change must occur, one that sees alcohol grouped with illicit drugs. The damage is too great, it's time to act.
EDIT: I was a little bit apprehensive about being seen as a fun-killing prude when posting this. My views about alcohol are often at odds with most people—I don't like it and would happily see it go, but I do still believe in to each their own in this respect. With that said, only a few minutes after I posted this I was greeted with another Neknominate video. This time it was of someone downing a glass of goon, as is required of them, in front of their young brother and sister (only about 4-6) who were giggling all the way through. Feeling a lot less apprehensive about my opinions now.
La Rentrée
So, I'm back at Uni on Monday. The forecast tells me it's going to be hot (and not just a tiny bit hot, but the dayummmm hot kind) and a friend has told me that the subject I'm doing is ridiculously intense.
It looks like it will be a fun five weeks ahead!
For those interested, I'll be taking Spanish by the way. It's an intensive version of second year Spanish offered during the summer! This suits me a lot better because it means I'll be able to underload in third year. The idea of less work to do sounds great to me!
It looks like it will be a fun five weeks ahead!
For those interested, I'll be taking Spanish by the way. It's an intensive version of second year Spanish offered during the summer! This suits me a lot better because it means I'll be able to underload in third year. The idea of less work to do sounds great to me!
Friday, 3 January 2014
How to: Public Speaking (Quick Tips)
Below I have listed some fairly basic tips for Public Speaking. Some may seem a little unconventional, though it has been by sticking to these principles that I have enjoyed success in this area.
These tips are intended mainly for students undertaking VCE English, however it is my belief that they will be more broadly relevant. After all, I have not studied VCE English. I have, however, always had a keen interest in public speaking, culminating in victory at the Victorian finals (2012) of the Plain English Speaking Award.
I am very frequently asked to give my advice on Public Speaking and hopefully you will believe that I am in such a position to do so. These are not exact instructions of how to speak. More than anything, you need to develop and pursue your own style of speaking and find what works for you; however, if you do follow these tips, I am hopeful that you will be able to deliver a great speech!
The Basics
These tips address the very basic principles of Public Speaking. They include broad and general advice that every speaker should bare in mind when preparing and delivering a speech.
A speech without good structure is like a house...without good structure. It's just shit. The structure of a speech should be as follows:
Choosing Your Topic
Choosing a topic is one of the most frustrating aspects of delivering a speech. It's also something that people very often get wrong. Using a few tests and following a simple process can help you choose the right topic.
The introduction is the most important part of your speech. They say first impressions matter, and in the case of Public Speaking, this is very true.
The middle is the chunky bit in the middle of your speech. It's the boring part to write and the boring part to listen to. It is your proving ground and allows you to flesh out your ideas and then prove them.
Conclusions and introductions are very similar. In fact, they are almost identical. The conclusion is the second most important part of your speech.
Now that we've looked at the speech, we need to look at how to review it! To me, this is one of the most important skills and can make the difference between a good and bad speech.
Here I'll list a few of the things I like to do in my speeches, some of the techniques that work pretty well. This list is not exhaustive by any stretch. The internet and your English classes will provide plenty themselves. Just remember one thing: rhetorical techniques normally come naturally, you don't need to know the name of everyone you use!
These tips are intended mainly for students undertaking VCE English, however it is my belief that they will be more broadly relevant. After all, I have not studied VCE English. I have, however, always had a keen interest in public speaking, culminating in victory at the Victorian finals (2012) of the Plain English Speaking Award.
I am very frequently asked to give my advice on Public Speaking and hopefully you will believe that I am in such a position to do so. These are not exact instructions of how to speak. More than anything, you need to develop and pursue your own style of speaking and find what works for you; however, if you do follow these tips, I am hopeful that you will be able to deliver a great speech!
The Basics
These tips address the very basic principles of Public Speaking. They include broad and general advice that every speaker should bare in mind when preparing and delivering a speech.
- The most offensive thing a speaker can do is be boring (a favourite of a teacher from my school)
- You must engage with your audience. Eye contact, stance, gestures and humour allow you to do so
- Spend the most time on your introduction, spend the second most on your conclusion
- Never use more than three statistics unless you absolutely have to
- Facts are great, but we like your analysis better
- Things come best in threes
- Write a speech, not an essay
- Remember that speaking is flexible and you have a lot more tools available to you than writing. Modulating your voice, pauses, gestures are all brilliant tools
- Talk your speech when you're writing it, whether in your head or out loud. This helps a lot!
A speech without good structure is like a house...without good structure. It's just shit. The structure of a speech should be as follows:
- Introduction: introduce your topic and, more importantly, how you will approach the topic
- The Middle: flesh out your speech, provide arguments and examples for your topic
- Conclusion: recap your topic and how you approached it
Choosing Your Topic
Choosing a topic is one of the most frustrating aspects of delivering a speech. It's also something that people very often get wrong. Using a few tests and following a simple process can help you choose the right topic.
- When reading the paper or watching the news, look for what interests you and what you actually want to watch (for VCE English)
- If you find yourself arguing with someone about something, this could be a very good topic for you!
- Once you have a solid option, road-test your topic. This means to have discussions with people about it. Don't keep it secret, talk to family, friends and teachers about it. Argue about it!
- If you feel comfortable and enjoy road-testing your topic, that's it. If not, roadtest another until you're "feeling it"
- Your topic shall not be asylum seekers or gay marriage
The introduction is the most important part of your speech. They say first impressions matter, and in the case of Public Speaking, this is very true.
- Don't directly refer to your topic (eg. today I am speaking about ____) just start talking about it
- Starting off with a joke, an anecdote, a bit of drama, a rhetorical question is a good way to start an introduction though are not vital
- Try to keep your sentences short, definitely keep your clauses short
- Speak to the layperson, not morons (don't state the obvious unless there's reasonable doubt about whether most will know it)
- Speak to the layperson, not experts (remember that whilst you may be expert on your topic, your audience probably isn't)
- Try to avoid stats in your introduction, unless they're really, really, really good and your audience is likely to be surprised to hear them
- Take your time, speak slowly, build drama and suspense. This is the key part of your speech, draw your audience in, encourage them to take the ride!
- Don't say "ladies and gentleman", "good morning/afternoon" or introduce yourself, unless you're speaking in a very formal environment
- If your speech relies on very clearly defined key points, you can refer to them directly (and briefly) in the introduction. Eg: It appears that the asylum seeker tragedy is clear to everyone in the world, save for Australians. There's a UN report, significant statistics and mounting international pressure to change our approach, yet we just won't listen!
The middle is the chunky bit in the middle of your speech. It's the boring part to write and the boring part to listen to. It is your proving ground and allows you to flesh out your ideas and then prove them.
- Do your research (facts and stats are good, opinion pieces will be a big help)
- Treat this as your proving ground, where you get to expand on your contention and demonstrate your knowledge
- Have three major "things". This really depends on your speech. If you're broad enough to have points, or different angles, only make broad points pertaining to your speech. For example, if you were talking about asylum seekers, you may address the legal aspect, the human aspect and the international relations aspect of the argument. If your topic isn't that broad and you want to focus more on individual pieces of evidence (perfectly ok), then only focus on three difference major points of evidence. So if your speech were about the legal ramifications of Australia's asylum seeker laws, you may like to focus on three different legal documents, three different legal system, three cases or, of course, a combination of these things. This law is not absolute, but things are better in threes. In particular, don't go beyond three big points. If you only have two, that's fine. Going to four makes things a bit ugly
- Examples, anecdotes, facts, documents are all on the table and are all good
- Introduce a key point and then provide evidence for it
- Don't be too mechanical about the structure, you can't write a speech like an essay. There are no linking sentences, you want nice segues into things (not news-type segues though)
- Pauses are the equivalent of topic sentences and are a brilliant way to change between points. For example: these statistics are unavoidable and show that the government's approach to asylum seekers is one that kicks the vulnerable whilst they are down. [long pause]. The recently commissioned Brock Report confirms this. To paraphrase, Australia's leadership is described as "cruel". The report... This doesn't show a particularly large shift in points, but without the pause, the structure would fall apart
- Always link back to the contention of your speech. Essentially, you want to present your evidence and then subtly explain to the audience what they should think about that point
Conclusions and introductions are very similar. In fact, they are almost identical. The conclusion is the second most important part of your speech.
- See: introduction
- Your conclusion should basically skim over what you've said and restate your topic and contention
- The conclusion is an opportunity to briefly detail what your speech is about
- Hopefully you can see by my rambling now that there's little difference between an introduction and a conclusion
- A good conclusion, with slight changes, should be able to serve as a good introduction. If it doesn't, back to the drawing board!
- The conclusion is slightly shorter than the introduction
Now that we've looked at the speech, we need to look at how to review it! To me, this is one of the most important skills and can make the difference between a good and bad speech.
- Once you have a first draft, read your speech aloud!
- If you stumble on a word or a sentence a few times, change it. This is the best indication that you are being too complex. If you can't follow it easily, neither will your audience
- Make sure the ideas are flowing properly, do you feel like you're jumping about when you're talking?
- Replace grammar and sentence structure with speaking techniques where you can. For example, using the pause construction mentioned above instead of obvious topic sentences
- Move around, change your voice, see how things flow. Are you feeling happy and confident? Are you excited by your speech? If not, make it more exciting
- Look for anything that sounds clunky or rolls of the tongue clunkily and change it
- Omit any repetitions, unless they are for rhetorical effect
- After you're getting near your final draft, if you're really struggling to remember what comes next in certain parts, look at them carefully. This is a signal that you may have something a little cumbersome or boring
- Convert your speech into a flow chart, making sure that the argument is well structured and that you aren't contradicting yourself—good speakers very often do the latter
- And lastly, don't be afraid to change lots! If your final speech looks anything like your first draft, it's probably rubbish
Here I'll list a few of the things I like to do in my speeches, some of the techniques that work pretty well. This list is not exhaustive by any stretch. The internet and your English classes will provide plenty themselves. Just remember one thing: rhetorical techniques normally come naturally, you don't need to know the name of everyone you use!
- Plain English: this is a great one to start with. It's great to show off some of your literary prowess at times, but better speeches are ones that the audience can understand and feel they connect with. Speaking to them on their terms makes this a lot better. Remember, Plain English doesn't dumb your speech either, it just means avoiding overly long sentences, verbosity and complex language.
- Tricolon: speaking in threes. There are some very famous examples: Veni, Vidi, Vici; Location, Location, Location; blood, sweat and tears. The pedants among you will point out that Winston Churchill actually said blood, toil, tears and sweat. The fact that we better remember the line as blood, sweat and tears is most likely because of our natural tendency to tend towards the tricolon. This is known as the rule of three and is prolific in literature and oratory (Google it!)
- Bookending: this involves starting and ending your speech very similarly. There are a few ways that you can do this. One such way is to start and end with the same line. Another is to tell an anecdote in your introduction, then return to this anecdote in your conclusion. An example can be seen in my speech, Who Am I?. This is a neat way of packaging your speech and forces people to remember the start as well.
- Humour: some people are natural joke tellers and some aren't; some are very good at nerdy speech jokes. If you can find a place to make an appropriate joke, this is by far the most effective technique. A joke invites the audience to experience an amazing emotion: laughter. This is the perfect way to connect with the audience and is something for everyone to give a shot!
- Suspense: rather than diving straight into your speech, it is sometimes worthwhile embarking on an anecdote or a bit of drama (my speech Media Gone Nuts illustrates the latter well). This creates a bit of intrigue about what the topic could be about and provides a good opportunity to show off your speaking skills. The anecdote or flight of fancy must be relevant, however, to the topic. This is probably more of an advanced technique, if I may say so.
- Voice: the thing that all good speakers have in common is that they use their voice as their most important tool. After all, this is speaking. Your voice should be going up and down. It should be loud and soft. It should go fast and slow. Your voice is the easiest and most direct way to convey emotion. It can separate between a joke or a truth, it can be cheeky or serious, it is the most effective way to sell a point. Most of all, modulating your voice will ensure that you remain interesting.
- Excited Energy: everyone gets nervous when they speak in public. If you don't, please share your secrets below, you superhuman you! What separates the good from the bad is the way people approach nervousness. Before you get up and speak, you want to be energetic and happy. So make sure you have some friends around, don't wallow on the speech, tell some jokes and have a laugh. Turn that nervous energy, into excited energy! This is also a good tip for exams (though it won't win you any friends if, like me, you bounce around before them like a rabbit on LSD)
- Have fun: most of all, Public Speaking is fun. So try to have some whilst you're up there! :)
Wednesday, 1 January 2014
Happy New Calendar!
You'd be hard pressed to find a period in the year (years?) that is more chock-a-block with clichés than New Years eve and New Years Day. No matter how your daily info comes, it'll be sure to include the latest weight loss tip for the new year, investment secrets that are completely exclusive and, for the only mildly unintelligent, the next cure for cancer.
New Years brings with it some more benign clichés as well. Being grateful (or completely ungrateful) for your year on Facebook is certainly one that's popped up recently. It's a convenient one too, as it often leads to yet another failed resolution, another favourite on New Years. There are, of course, fireworks too. They're nice, as long as you're watching them on TV or the banks of the Yarra, not in your neighbour's back yard.
A cliché that I've especially noticed lately is complaining about all the clichés. ABC's The Drum (my personal favourite) was exclusively devoted to this purpose today. One of the articles bemoaned the pointless reason to motivate oneself whilst the other just poked fun at it—both suitably cynical.
World leaders love a bit of the New Years spirit. The pope's address is one of the more popular, giving him an opportunity to spruik the hoax that just keeps on giving. Dashed with some lines about hope and love for one another, it almost sounds slightly good. Predictably, Tony Abbott stacked his with the usual bullshit, taking yet another opportunity to bash the carbon tax. He was even so bold as to evoke Donald Horne's The Lucky Country, talking about how great we all are and what a great position we're in...thanks Labor!
No matter how your New Years comes, whether you make a resolution or two, or just don't bother, it is always a fantastic opportunity to spend time with loved ones. Some call it just another over commercialised event (see Christmas, Easter), but if the worst business can do is force you to spend time with your family and friends, then let them do their worst.
Happy New Years everyone :)
New Years brings with it some more benign clichés as well. Being grateful (or completely ungrateful) for your year on Facebook is certainly one that's popped up recently. It's a convenient one too, as it often leads to yet another failed resolution, another favourite on New Years. There are, of course, fireworks too. They're nice, as long as you're watching them on TV or the banks of the Yarra, not in your neighbour's back yard.
A cliché that I've especially noticed lately is complaining about all the clichés. ABC's The Drum (my personal favourite) was exclusively devoted to this purpose today. One of the articles bemoaned the pointless reason to motivate oneself whilst the other just poked fun at it—both suitably cynical.
World leaders love a bit of the New Years spirit. The pope's address is one of the more popular, giving him an opportunity to spruik the hoax that just keeps on giving. Dashed with some lines about hope and love for one another, it almost sounds slightly good. Predictably, Tony Abbott stacked his with the usual bullshit, taking yet another opportunity to bash the carbon tax. He was even so bold as to evoke Donald Horne's The Lucky Country, talking about how great we all are and what a great position we're in...thanks Labor!
No matter how your New Years comes, whether you make a resolution or two, or just don't bother, it is always a fantastic opportunity to spend time with loved ones. Some call it just another over commercialised event (see Christmas, Easter), but if the worst business can do is force you to spend time with your family and friends, then let them do their worst.
Happy New Years everyone :)
Monday, 30 December 2013
John Winston Howard
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)