In a related follow up to last nights post, comes this scientific study on how as people lose control over their lives, they start seeing patterns that dont exist, and developing paranoia about their circumstances.
This seems to me a central point that many on the right, especially of a libertarian bent miss. Unless people have a base of stability they will not see the world as it is and all its opportunities and possibilities (as this study shows). From there, people can actually engage the world and take risks towards improving their station in life. This is the spirit we wish to cultivate in these capitalistic times, yet so many libertarians want to engineer it by instead throwing people to the ravages of the system, and hoping the sheer panic of their circumstances will force them to act.
It is a mis-reading of human nature, and at best indifferent to human suffering if not inherently cruel. Give people a solid education, a social saftey net to keep them fed and able to put a roof over their head, and they can begin to step out and engage the world. It is the basis of confidence, the launch pad of individual freedom.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Private School Snobbery
I am long amazed by the lefts* ability to shoot itself in the foot when it comes to education. An area that rests at the base of our core values about how society should work to offer the greatest number of opportunities for individuals to control and enjoy their lives. From the great sectarian wars of the 1950's & 60's over school funding for catholic schools (which contributed to the DLP's debilitating split from Labor ensuring 23 years of conservative government), to the so called 'hit list' of Mark Lathams 2004 education policy.
Somehow in all our well meaning push of education for all, their developed a real snobbery towards private schools (interestingly TAFE systems suffer the same snobbery. Seems the only safe path is public education at secondary school and then into a public university. (That you went to childcare just indicates if your parents are "modern"). Take this article from the Sydney Morning Herald, playing to its base on that same mix of jealousy and mis-placed egalitarianism.
Braille ? They're fucking Blind! And yet still managing to sit the HSC. That's pretty god damn impressive. Even for the other very weak benefits,its often the case that parents of kids with problems will seek to send them to private schools which can offer better facilities to assist the child. If its the difference between getting through or dropping out for their child's future, most parents will, regardless of ideology or income attempt to make the cost. With stronger kids comes more assurance they can cope with the same process of the vast bulk of their peers in making it way through the trenches of High School in a government funded institution.
But what gets me here is not the lies, damn lies and statistics, its the inherent snobbery towards private schools that generates this list. Public schools are entirely ignored in the article, which distorts any sort of interesting story about if we are giving children too many medical exemptions from the usual challenges of growing up, and makes it one of elitist privilege, but without any foundation.
Yet this is a common attitude on the left. I recently was in a pub discussion on the subject of Rudd's new homelessness package, where my support and enthusiasm for it surprised one who wondered why 'someone who came from a private school' was concerned about it. Forget the non sequitur from housing to education, somehow a benefit earned in one area disqualified me from being concerned about a social ill. For me, a house, like a good education gives people a solid base from which they can begin to give order to their lives, giving them the freedom to live their lives as they see fit, and take responsibility for its outcomes. I'm sure many on the left see it likewise.
So why, when my parents sacrificed new houses or regular(any) trips overseas to pay for myself and my sisters private tuition, am I somehow regarded as having lost my connection to society. The newspapers take aim at private schools because few ever bother to defend them, likewise we graduates are supposed to almost apologies for our good fortune, when the experience for your hormonal, confused adolescent(ie every damn last one of us) was exactly the same to that of a private school. Adults confuse the rigors of school as being about the quality of the buildings and size of the school grounds. The real challenge is outside the classroom (or inside it behind the teachers back) as everyone seeks to find their place in the social system and begins to shape their own character. And when this anger slides from the newspages to the school bus's that share public and non-public students, or simply changes the people you end up hanging out with in your street, the already beleagured kids get hit too.
Sure, we can all imagine a taxi of Kings College 6th graders going past a public school and tauting on the poverty of the kids mothers, whilst holding their brand new laptops, but its occurrence is kids play compared to the adults encouraged snobbery by the public system towards the private.
John Howard defended these schools mainly because he thought it good politics, and liked putting a thumb in the eye of the left, knowing its capacity to over-reach. But at least he did it occasionally and forcefully. Australia has a fantastic mix of public and private schools, in one of the best education systems in the world. And it isn't even that dear. And part of that is our endorsement of a duel system. Whilst Howard got the balance wrong in favoring private schools too much (and i and many other private school graduates and parents strongly held a contrary view to the PM's) we should be encouraging all parents to try and send their children to private schools. If only because it means they are giving enough of a damn about their children's lives to guarantee that a good education is the main focus. Not all kids will get in, but I'd rather a family who never traveled so their kids could get the best start in life over one's who never even looked towards their children's homework because they valued other things. Public or private, its the parents investment in their children's education that counts. In terms of end product, it doesn't have anything to do with their income.
The left is just sidelining large sections of the middle and upper class, and for no god damn reason. It's not even Australian tall poppy syndrome at work, its just stupidity.
* I classify myself as liberal in outlook, which places me firmly on the left in Australia's political climate.
Somehow in all our well meaning push of education for all, their developed a real snobbery towards private schools (interestingly TAFE systems suffer the same snobbery. Seems the only safe path is public education at secondary school and then into a public university. (That you went to childcare just indicates if your parents are "modern"). Take this article from the Sydney Morning Herald, playing to its base on that same mix of jealousy and mis-placed egalitarianism.
UP TO 30 per cent of students at some elite private schools were given "special consideration" in this year's Higher School Certificate exams, raising questions about whether they gained an unfair advantage.
The NSW Board of Studies granted dispensations such as extra time to complete exams, coloured paper, large print and Braille or assistance with handwriting. The claims ranged from students with disabilities and illnesses such as diabetes, to those with unreadable handwriting and sweaty palms.
Braille ? They're fucking Blind! And yet still managing to sit the HSC. That's pretty god damn impressive. Even for the other very weak benefits,its often the case that parents of kids with problems will seek to send them to private schools which can offer better facilities to assist the child. If its the difference between getting through or dropping out for their child's future, most parents will, regardless of ideology or income attempt to make the cost. With stronger kids comes more assurance they can cope with the same process of the vast bulk of their peers in making it way through the trenches of High School in a government funded institution.
But what gets me here is not the lies, damn lies and statistics, its the inherent snobbery towards private schools that generates this list. Public schools are entirely ignored in the article, which distorts any sort of interesting story about if we are giving children too many medical exemptions from the usual challenges of growing up, and makes it one of elitist privilege, but without any foundation.
Yet this is a common attitude on the left. I recently was in a pub discussion on the subject of Rudd's new homelessness package, where my support and enthusiasm for it surprised one who wondered why 'someone who came from a private school' was concerned about it. Forget the non sequitur from housing to education, somehow a benefit earned in one area disqualified me from being concerned about a social ill. For me, a house, like a good education gives people a solid base from which they can begin to give order to their lives, giving them the freedom to live their lives as they see fit, and take responsibility for its outcomes. I'm sure many on the left see it likewise.
So why, when my parents sacrificed new houses or regular(any) trips overseas to pay for myself and my sisters private tuition, am I somehow regarded as having lost my connection to society. The newspapers take aim at private schools because few ever bother to defend them, likewise we graduates are supposed to almost apologies for our good fortune, when the experience for your hormonal, confused adolescent(ie every damn last one of us) was exactly the same to that of a private school. Adults confuse the rigors of school as being about the quality of the buildings and size of the school grounds. The real challenge is outside the classroom (or inside it behind the teachers back) as everyone seeks to find their place in the social system and begins to shape their own character. And when this anger slides from the newspages to the school bus's that share public and non-public students, or simply changes the people you end up hanging out with in your street, the already beleagured kids get hit too.
Sure, we can all imagine a taxi of Kings College 6th graders going past a public school and tauting on the poverty of the kids mothers, whilst holding their brand new laptops, but its occurrence is kids play compared to the adults encouraged snobbery by the public system towards the private.
John Howard defended these schools mainly because he thought it good politics, and liked putting a thumb in the eye of the left, knowing its capacity to over-reach. But at least he did it occasionally and forcefully. Australia has a fantastic mix of public and private schools, in one of the best education systems in the world. And it isn't even that dear. And part of that is our endorsement of a duel system. Whilst Howard got the balance wrong in favoring private schools too much (and i and many other private school graduates and parents strongly held a contrary view to the PM's) we should be encouraging all parents to try and send their children to private schools. If only because it means they are giving enough of a damn about their children's lives to guarantee that a good education is the main focus. Not all kids will get in, but I'd rather a family who never traveled so their kids could get the best start in life over one's who never even looked towards their children's homework because they valued other things. Public or private, its the parents investment in their children's education that counts. In terms of end product, it doesn't have anything to do with their income.
The left is just sidelining large sections of the middle and upper class, and for no god damn reason. It's not even Australian tall poppy syndrome at work, its just stupidity.
* I classify myself as liberal in outlook, which places me firmly on the left in Australia's political climate.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
The other Peter
Whilst I never quite bought the 'closet liberal' tag so often applied to Peter Costello, and increasingly came to doubt his political touch, there was always a genuine element to the man that Howard never had. Take this Christmas effort in todays Age:
Like most of Costello's efforts over the last decade there are several good single points but no clear thread to tie it into an image or icon. Costello never articulated a clear view of his Australia as opposed to the one Howard relentlessly pushed every single day. Costello promised several times to begin speaking outside his area and begin painting this picture for the voters, but he never came through with it. With pieces like this, despite the disjointed and aimless nature of its thought you have to wonder just what we missed out on by not having a PM Costello.
Most likely he will be gone by the next election, and promptly forgotten by history. He should have been PM, but never was willing to risk all to gain all. I hope thats consolation enough for him on the quiet late nights in his rented Canberra flat.
The Christmas story will remind us that Jesus was born in a stable because there was no room at the inn. But Jesus was not the victim of homelessness. He had a home in Nazareth. It was just that he was a long way from home because Caesar Augustus (the Roman ruler) decreed that "all the world should be taxed". In order to assess and collect this tax, people were ordered back to their ancestral villages to be counted in a census. So Joseph and Mary were required to travel to Bethlehem more than 150 kilometres away.
he past couple of census nights have found me in Canberra — on parliamentary business — where I rent a flat with two senators. The census requires the household to nominate the reference person (Person 1) for filling out the forms. It is a touchy subject — who should be the head of the house — in a household comprised of two senators and a member of the House of Representatives.
Worse still, the members of the household have to describe their relationship with each other. What precisely is the relationship of three (male) members of Parliament to each other?
Like most of Costello's efforts over the last decade there are several good single points but no clear thread to tie it into an image or icon. Costello never articulated a clear view of his Australia as opposed to the one Howard relentlessly pushed every single day. Costello promised several times to begin speaking outside his area and begin painting this picture for the voters, but he never came through with it. With pieces like this, despite the disjointed and aimless nature of its thought you have to wonder just what we missed out on by not having a PM Costello.
Most likely he will be gone by the next election, and promptly forgotten by history. He should have been PM, but never was willing to risk all to gain all. I hope thats consolation enough for him on the quiet late nights in his rented Canberra flat.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Hello World.
Why is it that so many who do law become politicians, yet lawyers as a profession have so little political nous. Take this effort from the NSW Solicitor General
The difference here is stark. Without a punishment beyond reprimand, few governments will ever pay attention to a Charter of Rights. There is a legislative version in the ACT which has been very quickly forgotten by the general public and what passes for commentators down here. No punishment, no risk, no attention. The courts regularly ruled on the conditions of refugees during the Howard years, but little policy ever changed because of it.
Personally I want to see a bill of rights focus primarily on protecting people from the government, rather than other people. Free speech, representation, privacy, public trials by peers. The American founders got it right in designing rights for a democratic society. (Though something about a right to be counted fairly might have been a wise move given 2000's events)
I strongly side with the importance of a legal order as the foundation for a fair society, and international peace. But as a profession Lawyers are awful advocates for their arguments. Even the eloquent, brilliant ones like Geoffry Robertson are often self-defeating in their overinflation of the ability of the law to reign in tyrants and the malicious. We need politicians to get back into the arena and argue for a bill of rights, otherwise the public will reject the idea out of hand. This is a political fight, needing political skills, even if they were once trained in law.
it should be noted that in the present discussion there seems to be some suggestion there is a big difference between a bill of rights, which would allow courts to declare invalid legislation that was found to contravene some aspect of the bill, and a so-called charter of rights, which would allow courts only to declare legislation inconsistent with the rights as set out in the charter.
One reason there would be little difference in practice between these two schemes is that no government is likely to leave untouched a law that has been held by a judge to be contrary to human rights.
The difference here is stark. Without a punishment beyond reprimand, few governments will ever pay attention to a Charter of Rights. There is a legislative version in the ACT which has been very quickly forgotten by the general public and what passes for commentators down here. No punishment, no risk, no attention. The courts regularly ruled on the conditions of refugees during the Howard years, but little policy ever changed because of it.
Personally I want to see a bill of rights focus primarily on protecting people from the government, rather than other people. Free speech, representation, privacy, public trials by peers. The American founders got it right in designing rights for a democratic society. (Though something about a right to be counted fairly might have been a wise move given 2000's events)
I strongly side with the importance of a legal order as the foundation for a fair society, and international peace. But as a profession Lawyers are awful advocates for their arguments. Even the eloquent, brilliant ones like Geoffry Robertson are often self-defeating in their overinflation of the ability of the law to reign in tyrants and the malicious. We need politicians to get back into the arena and argue for a bill of rights, otherwise the public will reject the idea out of hand. This is a political fight, needing political skills, even if they were once trained in law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
