Emptying the Haunted Air

An exemplar of Intelligent Design

One of the best things about coming to China is the extent to which I’ve been able to keep up with Australian politics, as well as the international issues that interest me. I was expecting it to be much more difficult – the firewall, my (mis)conceptions about the reliability of internet connections in Shanghai, as well as some vague idea that geographical separation would, somehow, disengage me from public debate in Australia.

In fact, it’s turned out quite the opposite. Being away from Australia has made me more determined to remain in touch which, in turn, has resulted in me spending more time on the internet. More time watching streaming video, reading articles, blogs and forums. (Of course, it helps that every media organisation in Australia is allowed through the firewall over here.) For some reason, the habit of tuning into politics via television made me complacent, for I always had the option of not watching my nightly dose of news and current affairs. If I missed Joe Hockey making a dick of himself on Lateline (now celebrating its 20th year with a series of fascinating archival videos on the website), it wouldn’t worry me. I’d be sure to see something equally interesting on tomorrow’s news.

Now, I’ve entered into an almost-unhealthy ritual of consuming each day’s current affairs in the early hours of the morning. And, because I am far less likely to watch news reports (preferring meatier analysis and commentary), I don’t get my little snacks from Australian Parliament. So, instead, I just go to its website and watch the whole gorram’ thing. Or, at the very least, much more than I used to watch. In Australia, I tended to miss the ABC’s Q&A, because the format is tiring a little and the panellists are frequently dull. Last Monday’s episode looked intriguing and, considering I was already on the internet watching old Lateline videos, I decided to watch it. So, when Steve Fielding made an absolute dick of himself, I was able to savour every moment.

I want to love you! But I just can't.

I guess I’m a little late with this one, but only because I still haven’t seen anything from the federal government that addresses the basic problems with the MySchool website. Tonight’s episode of Stateline NSW offered a fairly concise summary of some (but far from all) of the main arguments surrounding the issue, featuring generally nifty education-guy (but with no Wikipedia entry), Chris Bonner, and NSW Education Minister and Labor Party arse-hack, Verity Firth.

Here’s wot I think about MySchool:

1. It doesn’t assess schools based on predetermined benchmarks in the NAPLAN tests, but by comparing them firstly to ‘similar’ schools (see below), and then to every school in the country. Primary and high schools are separated, naturally. Because there is no benchmark there will always, due to the arcane workings of arithmetic, be schools that are significantly below average (‘red’ schools on MySchool: danger, Hellfire, stagnation, blood) and ones that are significantly above average (green: serene, leafy, radioactively-good, healthy, progress, civilisation, order). Unless every student in the country gets exactly the same result in every test. Therefore, the endeavour to pull Hell-schools out of the red will be an eternal pursuit, with Australian students eventually ascending to such levels of genius that they attain the status of higher beings, and are such intelligent, informed voters in the future that they won’t vote for governments with stupid, shallow ideas like MySchool. Which, actually, might be kind of a good thing.

2. Using a lottery machine to determine ‘similar’ schools is probably not very wise. At least, that’s how it seems the ICSEA (Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage) is calculated. I can’t work out how else ACARA (the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and… Ah, forget it) concluded that my school, Kirrawee High Public School, was statistically-similar to a bunch of private and selective schools. Maybe it would be a good idea to only compare selective schools to other selective schools, and elite private schools to other elite schools where parents pay tens-of-thousands of dollars for their kids to attend, with all the extra support that implies (iMac Pros, sports cars, poodles, caviar, etc.). Just a thought.

3. League tables. Good for selling newspapers and getting ratings for Today Tonight. Utterly pointless for anyone else. Except people who like saying ‘name and shame’ a lot. Also, they are technically illegal to publish in NSW, but Kristina Keneally’s (aka KKK) state Labor government are such berks that they won’t enforce it. (In fairness to the most recent regurgitation from the ‘Generate-a-NSW-Premier-a-tron’, her government opposed the bill and had nothing to do with its formulation. Also, I don’t really take the legislation seriously, but this is outweighed by my desire to insult KKK.)

4. The website doesn’t actually gauge improvements in a cohort of students from one round of testing to the next. It simply assesses a school’s performance in NAPLAN against a shifting average. You could work out how much students are improving in comparison to their previous results, but that would require some mathematical skill and a calculator. Most parents lack the former, and only use the latter to work out which of the celebrity diets on the teevee is the cheapest. The federal government has stated, and Verity Firth repeated it this evening, that one of the main purposes of MySchool is to let governments know which schools are in need of more funding, more resources. However, it is perfectly conceivable (and highly likely) that students at a red school can make substantial improvements upon their previous NAPLAN results, and still be significantly below the national and ‘similar schools’ average. The school doesn’t necessarily need more money, isn’t necessarily broken, and nothing short of far-reaching socio-economic reform will improve the school’s result. Again, it ties in with the problem of there being no benchmarks.

5. It will result, to one degree or another, in schools teaching the NAPLAN test, rather than just… Well, teaching. Haven’t you seen series 4 of The Wire? Is that not the simplest and cheapest way of improving a school’s ranking with the least possible effort?

6. Any school whose population is below the reporting threshold does not have their NAPLAN results reported on the website. Which is a shame, because ‘naming and shaming’ (I’ll never use that phrase again) the weirdos and recluses who home-school their children (who don’t live a thousand kilometers from civilisation) would be a good thing.

7. If MySchool is the first step in a broader political narrative on education reform (‘computers for schools’ was more of a 2007 campaign highlight for Labor, and its fruits shall not be borne in the short term), then Julia Gillard mucked up the sequence a little. Chris Bonner was right in the Stateline interview – MySchool shouldn’t have come first, not in it’s current form, anyway. It is a tool with enormous potential for misuse and misunderstanding, not a genuine reform. It gives the impression that Labor’s ‘Education Revolution’ will involve little more than deflecting responsibility to principals, teachers and schools. Performance pay would have been a much more substantial beginning to Gillard’s narrative, even if it would have taken longer to devise than cobbling together a website.

That’s just what I think. Unfortunately, as long as the teacher’s union at large is adamantly against any change in education, the federal government will be free to dictate the terms of reform – a little like the the 1998 Australian waterfront dispute… Maybe Julia Gillard will get ex-SAS blokes to train scab NAPLAN examiners in Dubai!

Tony Abbott - Leader of the Coalition

I call the process Moncktification, and it can be applied to any picture that is wanting of eye-googliness.

So, Lord Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is visiting Australia to give talks on climate change, and also presumably to have his desiccated penis massaged by his staunchest allies in Australia. Alan Jones – who, in spite of multiple breaches of the broadcasting code of conduct, has managed to keep his particular brand of bullshit on the air – was among them. The footage that was shown in the otherwise uninformative 7.30 Report, uh… report gave me a good idea of what this presentation was all about: basically a couple of hours of Lord Banana of Brenchley preaching to the converted, replete with PowerPoint slides and jokes.

From transcript:

(to audience) As you can see the houses of Parliament would disappear, to which my saying is, and your problem is?
(audience laughs)

And I along with them!

Of course, the silliest thing about Monckton is still his charge that the global warming lobby is actually contriving to bring the world under a single government – Illuminati style. Unelected sponge that Monckton is, he even had the stones to emphasise the point that these shadowy rulers would be vilely unelected. All the drama around this – Monckton’s visit, Tony Abbott’s questionably-funded green policy, the stirrings of a Sceptic Revolution, of an empire on the brink of collapse – masks a fairly mundane political truth.

I don’t spend a lot of time going around talking to ‘the people’. Recently, in fact, I’ve spent most of my time talking to deliciously-animated space vixens. However, if gauging the public mood through politics is an endeavour that has any validity, it seems that things have changed a bit since before the Coalition leadership spill of late 2009. As a political issue, climate change is losing momentum. Here, Andrew Bolt might claim some sort of personal victory, attributing the stagnation to the daily truths that he ejaculates onto the face of Australian politics via his blog. He wouldn’t be entirely wrong, and an ALP federal election campaign that dodges the issue would be a major victory for sceptics.

But it’s not because the science is, somehow, ‘falling apart’. The relationship between man-made carbon emissions and the global climate remains well-founded, and scientists and researchers will continue their work in this regard for a long time. All we are seeing is an Australian public with a relatively short attention span getting bored of the politics, in a mediascape teeming with distractions.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Forget Andrew Bolt – graphs on climate change are so 2009. Tony Abbott’s recent attempt to soften his public image with lewd and nigh-incestuous photographs has triggered a flurry of research into the alarming trend of skyrocketing silliness on the conservative side of politics. The findings of this research have been assembled into a handy graph:

Click Here: Silliness is on the rise in conservative politics!

"But wait, there's... Oh, no. There isn't really."

Naturally, I watched tonight’s Lateline interview with Ian Plimer and George Monbiot. It was, if nothing else, entertaining, and revealed nothing of the two men (or the issue of climate change) that we do not already know. The thing that stuck with me was the peculiar contrast of Plimer’s ‘I’m just a scientist’ argument, and the image of him holding up (on at least three occasions) a copy of his book, Heaven and Earth, in the manner of Tim Shaw with a set of Demtel steak knives.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Ian Plimer stopped being a scientist the moment he set foot on the climate sceptic warpath. Which isn’t to say that he lost any of his credibility, or any right to speak his mind. But he is now effectively a politician and lobbyist, and his performance on Lateline (as well as one earlier in the year when he released his book) made this starkly apparent. A genuine scientist is a thrall to empirical evidence, and will change their findings to suit it, but Plimer’s reluctant to answer questions because, as a politician, he cannot concede any such territory – in the same way that Paul Keating could not admit to his broken promise with the LAW tax cuts, or Howard with the ‘children overboard’ deception. In politics, a concession to one’s opponents is a tangible step towards death. Whether he has put himself in this position, or because he has been hauled atop the shoulders of the climate sceptics, Ian Plimer is no longer a scientist, in spite of his regular assertions to the contrary.

What’s particularly strange – and my brother, who is far less inclined to take these debates in earnest, pointed this out to me – is that Plimer, aside from his corpulant appearance and slightly weak voice, resembles a classic pro-wrestling heel. From his ever-smug countenance, to the part of the interview in which he told Monbiot to mind his manners, “young man”, I can imagine him marching to the ring, in full suit-and-tie, holding high a copy of his book – all to the glorious boos of the audience.

L-R: Ludvig Borga, Jerry 'the King' Lawler, Ian Plimer, The Repo Man, I.R.S, Yokozuna, Ted 'the Million Dollar Man' DiBiase

Sexy-smoldering Barnaby

The title is a reference to a Kurosawa Akira film, and the post isn’t about Barnaby Joyce – it’s just such a wonderful picture. I was just reading Andrew Bolt’s blog (which I do fairly regularly, in spite of myself) and wondering, for the hundredth time in my life, how a person can become such a wretched, conservative ideologue – or any ideologue at all, for that matter. The right wing/left wing spectrum is so ludicrously artificial, yet it remains a compelling way to pigeonhole those whose views about the world are passionate. Someone like Bolt selects his political causes as though completing a checklist in a Political Spectrum for Dummies book – he is a climate sceptic, an apologist for Israel’s foreign policy (and for the Howard government, as for Keith Windschuttle), and seems to have an unhealthy infatuation with Sarah Palin (I can’t quite work that one out). He posits himself diametrically opposed to ‘the left’, and presumably ‘the lefties’ as well.

I’ve often wondered whether the whole thing is self-perpetuating; that a person, through parental influence or a prejudicial stance on a particular issue, comes to adopt indiscriminately the values imposed by history and society. Or, perhaps the whole edifice is maintained by self-perpetuating mutual dislike. Bolt’s writing style is embattled and self-righteous; he’s no journalist, and doesn’t pretend to be, as he wages his daily assaults on a real-or-imagined enemy.

It’s either one of those two, or else there is some essential, biochemical characteristic that motivates an ideologue. An irrepressible awareness of, and sympathy with, all worldly things (that’d be the ‘bleeding heart lefties’, I suppose), or a complete lack of it in the case of Bolt. That is, an obsessive love for one’s own immediate locality – the foregone memories that create geography and culture. A fear to step away from it. There’s nothing wrong with that sort of fear, which I suppose is wholly natural and sensible, but it is a little pitiable. I can’t even imagine what it would be like to live without an expansive mind.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.