784*

Pic courtesy BBC & Getty Images

Once again, we hear of cold-blooded slaughter across the Pacific.

To Australians, the almost routine nature of incidents like these is baffling.

How can a country, which claims leadership of the free world, continue to tolerate a firearm fatality rate which kills 30 of its citizens daily?

How can the same country abide a situation where there is so much broadcast hate (much of it on extremist websites) that it culminates, amongst other things, in a young man, taking his birthday gift into a place of worship, and killing nine of his fellow citizens?

Why don't these incidents happen with such sickening regularity in other developed western nations?

I don't pretend to know much about American culture. Most of my understandings about Americans were developed when I encountered them during my service in Vietnam many decades ago. Later, as a teacher, I was working in Queensland, when Education Queensland recruited many American teachers to fill an unprecedented shortage.

Those two very different experiences drive the following generalizations.

Most Yanks are pretty similar to us in terms of attitudes and values, but there are significant differences. I'll try to specify these differences.

As a group, they take patriotism very seriously. I remember being threatened with physical violence by a GI when in conversation on a bus during R & R in Bangkok, I called American cars "Yank tanks".

They also have deeply ingrained views about race. Again on R & R, there were a group of black GIs (Southerners) staying at my hotel (which rejoiced in the name "Florida"). The white Yanks had nothing to do with them. We (the diggers in the same hotel) found them to be good value, and their sense of humour not unlike ours. We spent a lot of time with them, and by the end of the week. had been invited into a number of soul bars, and found ourselves the only white faces present. We had a great time. The music (Motown) was great, and there were lots of pretty African-American nurses.

This experience showed me that our Australian values (pretty laid-back, generally not taking ourselves too seriously), resembled more those of black Americans than their white compatriots.

The general consensus amongst us was that many Yanks were "up themselves" to use the crudity in use at the time. 

Encounters with American teachers in the late 70s and early 80s have reinforced this impression, together with the observation that as a group their knowledge and appreciation of cultures outside their own is abysmal. They weren't prepared to take advice from us; Australians who were well experienced in our system, and attempted to use strategies which simply didn't work here.

I recall two of these teachers in particular who came to the conclusion that the problem was our system, not their methods, and swiftly returned to the states at the end of their contracts. It reminded me eerily of the US military who believed that they had all the answers to insurgent warfare and wouldn't be told anything by Australians. We know how that worked out.

As one of my digger mates was heard to say - "You couldn't tell them anything, but you could sell them anything". The unique combination of naivety and arrogance was baffling.

The other element of US culture that baffles Australians is their attitude towards firearms. To me,  carrying an SLR in Vietnam was a necessary evil. There were, after all, people trying to kill us. I left the thing behind on return to Australia without regret, and haven't touched a gun since.

This is because (with the exception of some people I encounter when driving) I don't believe anyone is out there trying to kill me.

This, apparently, is not the belief of Americans, if you pay attention to the NRA, and other firearm lobbyists. They obviously believe that there are sufficient homicidal maniacs in their country to warrant every citizen "carrying" as they so elegantly put it. According to this dogma, everyone, including teachers, should be armed. This is despite the fact that there are already 88 guns for every hundred American citizens, that is every man, woman and child in the country.

In Australia, the figure is 15.

It's conceivable, that in my lifetime, we will see a situation where there are actually more guns in the USA than people to shoot them. Somehow, nobody across the Pacific has yet twigged to the fact there is a correlation between firearm prevalence and firearm deaths.

The standard counter-argument to this starkly obvious fact is "because constitution".

I kid you not.

When it comes to hate speech (or more accurately hate posting), there are differences between Australia and the USA.

In this country we have laws against racial vilification. In the USA they don't. One of the results of this is the cancer of hate websites in the USA, most recently, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, numbering 784.

They operate with impunity, and generate fear and loathing. Unfortunately, because the internet knows no boundaries, this cancer has metastasized to the point where it has become a feature of many Australian blog sites.

So what has happened in Charleston is entirely predictable and a product of a combination of race hatred and bizarre gun culture.

Australians as a rule, have more common sense than to stand for this lunacy. Unfortunately, I can see it spreading across the Pacific. Most stateside trends do.

I hope I don't get to see it in my lifetime.

*FBI estimate of active hate groups in mainland USA.

Some Mothers Do Have Em (2)*

You catch some weird and wonderful stuff on dash cam.

Here's an example. Explanations are necessary.

I was scooting along in the bride's Focus, minding my own business, when I observed the following.

Elderly gent in front of me driving a Suzuki 4WD runs into the back of a hatchback at an intersection. That's not captured in the video, as it happens a few frames earlier.

Driver of the hatchback pootles around the corner and parks by the side of the road, no doubt with the intent of indulging in some deep and meaningful discourse with the driver of the Suzi, probably beginning with "Why did you drive into the back of my car?"

The answer may have had something to do with the fact that he was watching traffic approaching from his right, so he could pick a gap and drive into it. The gap emerged, but the driver of the hatchback was in it. Basically, he wasn't watching where he was going, never a good idea when driving in traffic.

He hits the hatchback from behind; the bullbar on the Suzi is dislodged by the collision and falls on to the road in front of it.

Elderly gentleman seems completely oblivious to this fact, and makes several unsuccessful attempts to drive over the bullbar (5 - 25 seconds in).

I watch this for a short time, and eventually conclude that someone should tell him that he isn't going anywhere. I put the hazard flashers on, get out of the car, tell him what's going down (the bullbar) and eventually remove it from the road (40 seconds in). He finally gets out of the Suzi and nearly clouts me with the remaining debris as he throws it on the footpath (42 seconds in).

You can see the driver of the hatchback (parked on the left) surveying the damage to the back of her car.

I finally decide that anywhere with a metre or two of this bloke and his Suzi is dangerous, and depart.

My bride, viewing the video later, chides me that I probably took a risk by physically placing myself in front of his car to pick up the bullbar, given what had just happened.

In hindsight, she's right.

*There is another Some Mothers Do Have Em on this blog,

No Excuse

I have no excuse for posting this.

Except that it's worth sharing..........

It sits on the office wall at my base.

Tilting at Windmills*

Wind generators at Windy Hill, near Ravenshoe, FNQ.

Our esteemed PM made a few interesting observations about wind farms when talking to Alan Jones (AKA The Parrot) yesterday.

To quote him - "Up close, they're ugly, they're noisy and they may have all sorts of other impacts."

This was despite the fact that he admitted in the same interview that the closest he had actually come to a turbine was to cycle past one on Rottnest Island.

Given that he wasn't all that "up close", the reference to "ugly" may not necessarily be based on a considered aesthetic understanding. Whizzing along on a bike with your bum in the air and your head down is not the best viewing situation.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all.

But "noisy", and "other sorts of impacts"....hmm.....

I spent a fair bit of time a few years ago at Windy Hill Wind Farm near Ravenshoe, and I don't remember any noise at all. There are twenty towers in that farm, and the wind was blowing on the day, and the turbines were turning. 

We had driven out from Herberton (where we were staying at the time) specifically to have a gander at the towers, something that lots of tourists do. You know how it is, you always go looking for ugliness when you're touring.......... 

Maybe I'm deaf, or my memory is playing tricks. Far be it from me to suggest that our PM is making stuff up. But then we come to the bit about "may have all sorts of other impacts". 

Let's look at the facts from the National Health and Medical Research Council -

(2015 ISBN - online - 978-0-9923968-0-0 Internet site: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ 
 The National Health and Medical Research Council - p169)

The evidence considered does not support the conclusion that wind turbines have direct adverse effects on human health, as the criteria for causation have not been fulfilled. Indirect effects of wind farms on human health through sleep disturbance, reduced sleep quality, quality of life and perhaps annoyance are possible. Bias and confounding could, however, be possible explanations for the reported associations upon which this conclusion is based.

Now this is just one of scores of studies that have come to the same conclusion.

But windmill-tilting Tony uses the word "may" to great effect. 

I mean, pigs may fly, but there is no evidence to believe that they have that capacity. 

It's long time since I've read Cervantes, but from memory the windmill-tilting Don Quixote was more than a little bonkers. And with him was Sancho Panza, his dense but trusty squire. Reminds me a bit of five-house Joe. He doesn't like windmills either. They make a lovely pair.

And this person is our PM? 

Now that's a worry................ 


*H/T Claire 

Some Thoughts on IT

Sony Xperia

Samsung Galaxy Tab S

I'm not an IT nerd, but do appreciate the usefulness of the emerging technologies when it comes to doing my job.

I can go into a school, do a day's work, and have reports and recommendations written up and available in one day, largely because of mobile technology.

Using a tablet, I can record text and images on the go (and if necessary videos) and email them from my tablet to my laptop on the job. In the evening (or early the next morning - depending on stamina levels) my reports can be cleaned up on the laptop ready to be emailed to the school in question.

When I get back to base, hard copy can be printed out, and posted to the school if necessary. This hard copy can also be filed, as we still use paper files - something that strikes me as absurd. It's a bit like wearing braces when you have a belt, but there you go.

It all works very well when the network is operating as per specifications, but that's not always the case. When it goes down, things get very difficult, especially as I rely on email as my main means of communication.

It works well for me (with 45 schools on my caseload) until it doesn't - and then life becomes difficult.

The hardware I use to make this happen is an Apple iPad which works on the agency network, and my trusty Dell Latitude E5440.

I also travel with a smartphone. Until recently it was an Apple iPhone 4S which has very strong performance on the Telstra network in the more remote locations in which I work. It's an old phone, and its battery life began to degrade, so I replaced it with a Sony Xperia on the basis of reputed performance in the bush.

The Xperia does indeed perform well on the edges of coverage, and it has great battery life and a good camera. It is, however, nowhere near as user-friendly as the iPhone.

The Android logic isn't, and there's far too many unnecessary Apps installed, many of which can't be uninstalled. The new phone came free with a Samsung Galaxy Tab S, which, although a bit cheap and nasty has great screen resolution and a good camera. I actually prefer it to the iPad.

The only downside to the Tab S is that the Apps migrate to different positions every time you boot it up. Maybe this feature can be over ridden in the settings, but as yet I haven't figured out how.

I went out and bought a new battery for the iPhone 4 and it works a treat. Which was handy, as I dropped the Xperia one week after acquiring it, shattering the case. I've owned four smartphones, and this is the first one I've broken, so maybe the Sony's a bit delicate. It fell only 40cms on to cork tiles, but that was enough.

Getting it fixed was no drama, and I used the iPhone whilst the repair was done - almost convincing me to go back to Mr Gates' system, but in the end I stayed on the dark side. Android will do everything Apple will, but not with the same style and panache.

Same Same but Different

I had the interesting experience this week of working as a visiting consultant at the same school where I began my teaching career in 1968.

I didn't last very long in that posting - being shanghaied into the army in 1969 and eventually Vietnam in 1970 - courtesy of the National Service Act.

Back then I had a class of 45 Year Fives (called Grade Five in those days) and despite the large class, I remember it fondly.

If I asked those kids to "Jump", they'd respond with "How high?" and "When will I come, down, sir?". I kid you not. And they did call me "Sir".

Last week I sat in on a school assembly at that same school. Some things were the same, compared to my recollections of the same activity in 1968, and some were different.

The Anthem was sung. In 1968 it was God Save the Queen. Now it's Advance Australia Fair. The Lord's Prayer was said. That was also part of the deal in 1968.

I found myself, as a Catholic, leaving out the last bit - "For Thine is the kingdom...." etc. I didn't say that bit in 1968, and I don't say it now.

There were birthdays. A cohort of kids and one teacher who went up on stage and had their birthdays acknowledged. The teacher replied, when asked her age by the MC (the Deputy Principal) "Twenty-One". That hasn't changed - women lying about their age, I mean. We had similar birthday calls in 1968.

There was a "Thought for today" - an acknowledgement of the work done by the school cleaners and grounds people. In 1968 there was only one Groundsman. Now there are two, and the title is Janitor/Groundsperson.

Some things were different. There is now a school motto. There wasn't in 1968. It was recited with fervour - so much fervour in fact that I didn't understand the actual words. Maybe my lack of comprehension has more to do with encroaching deafness caused by the passage of time. It has been, after all, forty-seven years.

Another difference was the venue. Back in 1968, during assembly we stood out in the open, in summer in the blazing western sun; in winter, in the westerlies.

These days there is a beautifully built, completely accessible assembly hall and rows of comfy chairs. It was built with Labor's BER money, and will remain as a tribute to that much maligned policy, the political furore conveniently forgotten as generations of kids and communities benefit from the initiative.

Another glaring difference is the marked change in the gender balance of the staff. These days the principal is female, as are almost all the rest of the staff. The deputy is male, as is the PE teacher and one other class teacher, in a staff of about forty.

In 1968, half the staff was male, including the principal, who smoked a pipe at school. As a beginning teacher in 1968 I was on probation, and the principal would come into my classroom to observe my lessons, puffing on his pipe.

Eventually the pipe would go out and he'd put it on the window ledge, and forget it when he returned to his office. I would then have to designate one student to return the pipe. The kids hated its smell, and I quickly learnt to use the returning of the pipe as what can euphemistically be called a behaviour management strategy. It worked....

These days, nobody smokes.

The classes were about three times the size they are now, and there weren't any Teacher Aides. As a consequence, the slower kids fell behind, but it mattered little, as back then, there were plenty of jobs for kids who left school at fifteen.

The Curriculum content was much more limited, and we used work books which were absolutely explicit in what was taught and when. There was a major disconnect between teaching and learning. The first activity went on somewhat detached from the second - a little weird, looking back on it.

The kids are younger in this primary school with the absence of years seven and eight who are now in secondary.

And best of all, as a teacher of kids with disabilities, almost all of the school is wheelchair accessible.

There is even a ramp to the stage in the assembly hall!

Everything built with BER money had to comply with ABCB accessibility standards.

What hasn't changed is the wonderful atmosphere of the place - the "tone" - that illusive quality that marks a great school and is immediately obvious to a visitor.

There is no way this quality can be measured of course, so it escapes the ravages of NAPLAN.

NAPLAN or Napalm?

I've been out and about in schools during what teachers call "NAPLAN" week.

The first thing you notice when visiting a school at this time is that everything (and I mean absolutely everything) gives way to the testing regime. Normal operation (teaching and learning) quite simply is suspended for all those involved - students, teachers and administrators.

Because I work mostly in small schools lacking in additional infrastructure to support the process, they pretty much shut up shop to administer and supervise the tests.

 Something is badly haywire.

When working in schools, I ensure that if I'm in a classroom, I contribute to whatever is going on, and avoid, like the plague, distracting the teacher from his/her work, which is, as far as I'm concerned, almost sacred.

The testing regime completely abandons this principle.

 I guess you could compare Literacy and Numeracy testing to system maintenance. To extend the metaphor, it could be seen to resemble maintenance checks carried out by airlines on their aircraft.

What airline would ground all its aircraft for about three days once a year to carry out these checks and audits? Not one that wants to stay in business, I hear you say.

Why then, cannot the various education bureaucracies in this country institute a testing regime which doesn't completely shut down the core business of schools? And whilst they're at it, why can't they include other important aspects of the curriculum (say Music and Art) in the same testing regime?

Perhaps, if they did, these life-enhancing aspects of scholarship would be restored to their rightful place in the curriculum. They're not tested, so they're relegated - ask any music or arts teacher.

As *Albert Einstein is reputed to have said - Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. 

 No wonder many practicing teachers refer to the programme as "Napalm". It burns everything and everyone it touches, and leaves only ashes in its wake.

* It was actually William Bruce Cameron