PM Will be Swayed by Party on Gay Marriage

I've argued all along that Julia Gillard would back marriage equality in the end. By the looks of it, her party do already. This is a clear indication that it's only a matter of time. Resisting this kind of progress is futile and altogether silly. 

Note: Censorship has been added to protect the identities of the people posting.

Conscience Votes for Life and Death Issues

The Star Observer, an important community publication, today published predictions by an anonymous senior Labor MP that prime minister Gillard would call a conscience vote on the issue of marriage equality. It was suggested that this was a political move, designed to minimise any possible damage to her popularity that could be caused by ongoing public debate over the issue and that she would otherwise find her own position at odds with the majority of her party.

The source quoted was apparently concerned that a conscience vote could be used in this way, as normally they are used only for matters concerning 'life of death issues.' Making a distinction of that nature though, is not as straight forward as it may sound. Certainly the prevention of marriage isn't in itself going to kill anybody. However, what is at stake here is the issue of discrimination. Upholding the right to marriage equality will bring about profound cultural change by freeing us from a sticking point that contributes to the perpetuation of socially constructed difference. Discrimination without social structure becomes an obviously unacceptable act of individual aggression and will recede. Discrimination and social stigma are life and death matters, arguably far more significant than the examples the source used, such as abortion. They are, therefore, worthy of a conscience vote. 

The prime minister's motivations in this matter are certainly going to be subject to a great deal of speculation. Political convenience is certainly a possibly, but it would seem out of character. This is a prime minister who has got a huge amount of legislation and reform passed under difficult circumstances. It's worthwhile considering that she in fact hid her support for a price on carbon until it became politically achievable. It is therefore entirely possible that she has done the same in this instance and is playing her hand carefully with the intention of making marriage equality a reality. When the opportunity does arise, change will occur and no doubt the prime minister's actions will be instrumental. The prime minister is obviously no great social conservative and probably isn't all that reverential toward the institution of marriage, since she hasn't pursued it with her partner.

Marriage equality will certainly be brought about within the next couple of years. There is enough public support and there are plenty of MPs beginning to support it. We all have to keep pushing for it in public debate, but we are now at a stage when we can do so with a great deal of confidence. 

Community Detention; Finally.

In my previous post, 'Immigration Officials Getting it Wrong in Australia,' I pointed out that it would be far more humane, as well as more cost effective, if asylum seekers were to live in the community, rather than being detained, while their claims were processed. Today, finally, the government have announced that at least some of them will now be able to do so. An article in the Australian today read as follows: 


"Under a plan announced by the Prime Minister today, all asylum-seekers will be processed on Australian soil with community detention and bridging visas provided to those unable to be processed within the existing detention centre network." The Australian, 13/10/2011


This will not help the many asylum seekers who do fit in to the current detention facilities, which is a great shame and pity. However, it is certainly a huge step in the right direction and marks a divergence from the government and opposition's 'race to the bottom,' which has consisted to date of each party trying to outdo the other for sheer cruelty and abuse of human humanity's right to flee persecution. Let us hope it is the beginning of a broader rethinking of policy in this area. It is important that we all continue to pursue this issue in the spheres of public debate and to communicate some sense to the politicians. 

Multiple Intelligences and Fish

Today, I participated in a discussion at the university of Gardener's theory of multiple intelligences in relation to pedagogy. I was enjoying the discussion a lot, until one of the teachers put an end to it by prescribing the exact way in which they should be considered: first decide what your lesson goal is, then think of how to teach in a way that caters to multiple intelligence.

I put is to him that perhaps the learning goal may not be the same, once multiple intelligences had been given proper thought. His response was a flat 'no.' Not wanting to be rude, I didn't pursue the matter further at the time. However, needless to say, I was far from satisfied.

The scenario we had been considering was a school in Papua New Guinea, in a small wooden building on stilts over the sea. The building had no windows, but cracks between floor boards meant that the students could look down and see fish swimming below. Fish were the topic of the unit. One of our lecturers said he had watched the teacher's first class, in which the students had read in silence about fish from a textbook.

The lecturer asked members of our class what advice they might give the teacher. Most of the responses were along the lines of introducing practical interaction with fish, visual representation, song and rhythm and interpersonal interaction through group work, each of which would suit students strong in a different one of Gardner's intelligences. Of course this made a lot of sense and would no doubt have helped the teacher a great deal.

Some students in our class also pointed out that the children being taught, being from a fishing community and having caught, cleaned and gutted fish since an early age, probably knew a great deal about them already. One of my friends suggested that the students should be taught as experts and their knowledge valued and respected by the teacher, he himself being a highlander with little experience of fishing. However, having studied biology, he possessed other kinds of fish related knowledge which he wanted to share with the students.

The point I really wanted to make though, and I don't think I did such a great job of communicating it, was that multiple intelligences have the potential to be used formatively. That is, rather than just asking 'how can students understand this set of facts through the forms of intelligence they posses?' we might also begin to ask 'which forms of intelligence are of the greatest potential value to them?' and 'how can students learn to think in new ways?'

Of course that last question goes a bit beyond gardener. We understand the brain as 'plastic' and able to be changed. We know that people can improve their score on IQ tests through training, for example. This of course brings the whole concept of intelligence as it has traditionally been understood into question. However, Gardener's multiple intelligences were never all that aligned with traditional conceptions of intelligence in the first place. Things like 'musical intelligence,' 'linguistic intelligence' etcetera are seen by many psy' discipline scholars as more like areas of talent than anything so fundamental as intelligence. In any case, it is clear that they can be learned.

What needs to be considered in the case of the class in PNG is whether the types of intelligence in which the students are strong are those which will help them in their future. Any particular culture assigns values to types of intelligence. In the west, linguistic and mathematical in ability are in broad demand because the nature of our economy and education system relies on them to a greater extent than others. There are of course niches for those who posses the other forms of intelligence, such as artists, athletes etcetera, but the relatively small numbers who succeed in these areas are determined by economic and social factors and it is generally only an exceptional few who are able to use these kinds of talents to make a living, either by becoming famous or by going into teaching.

In a fishing community in PNG, spacial intelligence and kinesthetic intelligence are likely to be of great importance for catching fish, while linguistic and mathematical intelligence may carry far less weight, though this is merely a speculation based on the nature of fishing as their primary occupation. Assuming this to be the case, the question any teacher in such a situation must ask is this: for what kind of future am I preparing my students? On the one hand, I can share with them the knowledge created by and for western post industrial society. This may change their lives and give them opportunities of which few fishing village denizens have dreamed. On the other, I can respect their culture and way of life, learn from them and seek to enhance the value of what they already own.

As educators, are we there to spread our culture, or to help students within their own, which is what we would be doing if we were educating at home. Note that the teacher in our example was not a westerner, but he was an outsider to the fishing community and possessed a western style education himself.

It's a difficult question. Perhaps it may be possible to offer both or to find some compromise, but that too would necessarily come with its fair share of drawbacks. A better answer may come in the form of a bilateral cultural exchange between teachers and students in such as context. This would require mutual respect, caution and humility. The greatest achievement of Gardener in terms of education  was, I would argue, his recognition of the value of forms of thought, activity and knowledge outside the traditional academic sphere. Calling them intelligences, controversial though it may be, has helped many to see their value and in some cases change the distribution of intellectual capital.

中华民国一百年 *English

Today, many Taiwanese and non Taiwanese and somewhere in between people around the world are celebrating the centenary of the founding of 中华民国 (the republic of China), which is now the official title of Taiwan. There are complexities about this which continue to be debated. Arguably Taiwan was separate from China since about 1680. However, what is clear is that the events of 100 years ago were highly significant in the forming of the amazing and unique country that we know as Taiwan today. 

Being from Australia, it's hard to see why there is so much controversy. Australia is just as new and few Australians look to their British ancestors (many of us don't even have British ancestors) in assessing our identity. We find it extremely hard to relate, I think, even to images and voices of the Australia of the 1950s. People change quickly. Language and culture change, perhaps even more quickly. Clinging to past associations, can bring only suffering.

Somehow I have to reconcile two contradictory urges. On the one hand, I hate nationalism and all it stands for. There is no satisfactory distinction between racism and nationalism, because no universally applicable definition of race exists that can stand independently of either culture or nationality and the phrases 'we are better' and 'they are inferior' ultimately convey exactly the same meaning. 

  On the other hand, I do love Taiwan. When I'm there I feel nothing by joy most of the time and when I meet Taiwanese people, wherever I am in the world, I feel drawn to them as if to my own family. 

  I wish nations didn't exist, I really do. They can't last forever and of course there will be a new world order in the future and probably sooner than we think. Will it be any better? It would be hard to do much worse and the programs of regional cooperation such as the EU are a good start, despite the complexities they involve. However, right now, in the context of how the world is, Taiwan is a bastion of inspiration, creativity, culture, friendship and education in a world where all these things are lacking. 

If new nations like Australia and East Timor can be internationally recognized, then surely Taiwan must also. Most nations are cowardly and two faced, treating Taiwan as a nation state, placing embassies and recognizing its passports while calling it part of China whenever the all powerful PRC happen to be watching. Citizens of the world need to make it clear to their governments that this kind of dishonesty and cowardice is unacceptable. Therefore, I hope that people will make a point by displaying Taiwan's national flag (you can copy and paste the one below) and making this an issue for public debate. 

Why Guns are Cool

In Australia, funnily enough, we don't seem to have guns.

That's not to say they don't exist at all. Some farmers and people who live out in the country have them. So do the police and the army. Perhaps the security people who protect politicians have them but they must keep them hidden. Also, very occasionally, you do hear of gun crimes. There are underworld gangsters and some motorcycle gang members who somehow come up with an illegal, unregistered firearm. You usually hear about them when they've just been arrested for shooting each other.

Still though, guns in Australia are somewhat of a rarity. If you have them, your not exactly considered normal. If you have one for private use then it's almost certainly of a variety designed for shooting at things that aren't likely to retaliate.

Things weren't always like this here in Australia, of course. I do have dim memories of a time when gun ownership was, though not an everyday pastime, common enough that it probably wouldn't have raised an eyebrow if you heard that someone had a semi automatic or a self loading shotgun. That was before the new gun laws that were introduced after the Port Arthur massacre. You can watch some rather unclear footage of parts of it here, but I must warn you, it's shocking. After that happened, the federal government, with the support of about 85% of the public, bought back guns considered particularly dangerous, such as self loading, semi automatic and pump action weapons, and toughened licensing for all other types of guns. There was an amnesty period during which the guns were to be turned in by their owners to police stations and I remember the newspapers showing photos of the guns laid out on sheets like museum exhibits. Of course some unregistered guns must have escaped the buyback scheme and are still out there somewhere, which is why they sill turn up from time to time.

That was back in 1996/7. It all seems a long time ago now. As I said, guns really are a rarity here. There existence usually seems like a distant phenomenon, like something you see in news stories about other countries but can't imagine ever facing yourself.

I understand that gun ownership is still a very significant and controversial issue in the USA. There seems to be a huge amount of rhetoric on the internet from people, particularly in the southern states, about their 'right to bear arms.' Of course this is hard for me or anyone here in Australia to understand, since I don't think we've ever had such a right and if we did, it was taken away a long time ago. In the cities, we don't even have the right to carry a pocket knife if the blade is more than a few centimeters (I think it's about 3 inches, but don't quote me on that) or if it's the kind of blade that you can flick out quickly.

I do, however, have a Nerf gun. Actually, I have to admit, I have several. Nerf guns are a kind of children's toy that shoots foam darts. They usually don't hurt very much, even when they inevitably get you in the eye. One of mine has laser sight too. I have no idea why, but even as an adult I find these toys absolutely thrilling to play with. When I'm at home alone, I practice sneaking about and surprising imaginary enemies with them or practicing my aim by shooting my reflection in the mirror (the suction cap darts are the best for this).

Why is shooting a Nerf gun so much fun? It doesn't even do anything to whatever it hits. It certainly isn't useful for anything. Somehow though, it get's the heart racing and ignites some sort of warrior instinct in me. It's the same feeling I get when I drive dangerously fast around corners in a car or when I'm sailing a boat on a windy day. It's exhilarating!

There's more, too. I was reading about the traditions of pheasant shooting the other day. An old man who was interviewed proudly showed off his ancient fowling piece. It had shiny polished bits and beautiful timber and looked like something that was made to be held. It had a history. It had been with him all his life since he inherited it from his father. That reminded me of sailing too. The wooden bits were like the tiller of a lovingly crafted timber boat. I love boats. Boats have a tradition and a beautiful, thrilling feeling that goes with them. Boats are part of my 'culture.'

So I get it, I really do. When all those people in America are having their outcries against the lefties (hay, I'm a lefty!) taking their guns away and interfering with their rights, I get it. I have sympathy. I can see how they (or you, if your a gun owner) could love their guns.

I can imagine myself, if i were born in and lived in a culture like that, lovingly cleaning and maintaining my gun, taking it apart and reassembling it with pride, indulging in the satisfying metallic click as each component moved into place. Not many things we come across are well built and strong and mechanical like that. I can see myself going to a range and shooting it and feeling the power and the glory of holding the key to sudden death in my hands. Blasting things to smithereens must be an amazing feeling, too. All very harmless, I'm sure, since I would be a responsible gun owner and never point my weapon at anybody and never leave it loaded or in reach of children. Yes, I could be a gun owner and a very happy one at that. Guns are cool.

I'm not there though. I'm here in Australia. I've never lived with guns or experienced any of those amazing feelings, though once, as a small child, I did hold a rifle that belonged to a friend's father. The point is though, here in Australia, all the guns I see are on TV. Generally they are in the hands of soldiers and are being used to kill people. Then, if I change the channel, there may be a movie of the guns in America. They're usually being used to play cops and robbers: yes, more killing. Of course I know the phrase that's appropriate here: "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well that may well be true. Yes, people are the ones doing the killing. The thing is though, here in Australia, in my own country that I see every day, is people not killing each other. Just to make sure I'm not living with a false sense of security, I did check: the USA has a murder rate of 5, compared to Australia's 1.3. How do we keep it so low? Well we don't have the death penalty and innocent people don't have any weapon with which to defend ourselves. Perhaps we're good at communicating with each other. Based on this observation, I humbly suggest you modify your saying: guns don't kill people: people with guns kill people. I get where the Americans are coming from, but I'd still much rather live here than there.

Another Climate Change 'Debate'

"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Author Unknown.

 Some farmers newspaper is having a go at a university for not wanting to host a debate between the two 'sides' of the climate change issue. So what? Probably nobody would notice. However, Andrew Bolt has added it to his blog, which is connected to a mass tabloid. Unfortunately, there are a larger number of Herald Sun readers in Australia than there are kangaroos. 

These people's main argument seems to be that the two scientists they invited to represent them should be considered credible on the basis of their previous work experience and qualifications. Actually having something intelligent to say or having published credible evidence that has been examined by peers and found to conform with the scientific method doesn't seem to rate very highly among their criteria. 

Of course, debating a climate change denier would be something like trying to have a reasoned discussion with a concrete wall: no matter what you say, the rude symbols someone painted there aren't going to change their message. It would be insulting to the academic community to ask them to participate in that kind of freak show. Universities are places of learning, not puppets in these people's sick political games. 

Debate is pointless when one side doesn't have a point other than it's own short term interests and refuses to listen to the other. Proper scientific debate, anyway, needs to be done on paper, not on a stage. In trying to reduce carefully recorded data, calculations and mapping to the form of 'facts n' figures' that can be slung across a room in the form of rhetoric, the vast majority of their meaning and value is inevitably lost.