OK, I'll admit to being a little slack on posting lately. I'll also admit that Bob Dylan is a little prolific in terms of song writing. Odds are good it's Andy's fault (for the first one, that is).
Anyway, school has finally wrapped up. It was a torturous final month of lectures, tutorials, papers, exams, and all varieties of academic drudgery. I thought, however, that I'd share a few things I noticed about Australian uni through the course of the semester.
At the beginning of the semester, I was unsure of what to expect. Having been a prisoner of the American education system for years, I think it's fair to say that I expected my new confines to be similar to the old ones, but with a new accent.
Classes here meet less often than they do Stateside. I only had to find my way to campus six times during the course of any given week. That was cool, especially as it gave me time to explore the rest of Australia. My response of "that rules!" was tempered, however, by the realization that more is expected of students outside of class. My reading assignments were generally longer than I would see in the States, and I was expected to understand them more thoroughly than I would have to in most of the classes I took back home. Ultimately, I didn't mind this too much, as it was a particularly good way to insure that teachers were not simply presenting textbook chapters in lecture, as they all expected we had read them.
Though they were more spread out, lectures were pretty similar to lectures back home. The professor talks. The students pretend to listen. My teachers did have Australian accents, though.
One difference I did notice is that the small lecture classes don't have a special seat set aside for the teacher. All of the chairs in these rooms are the same. Being in a rather whimsical mood when I noticed this, I thought it could be attributable to the Australian sense of egalitarianism. I considered for a moment and decided that it was more likely a budget decision.
One part of Australian classrooms was exactly the same as home: the clocks. The same sorry S.O.B. who got the contract to make clocks for American classrooms must have gotten the contract for Australian classrooms, too. I wonder if he enjoys the fact that every student in both nations looks at his clocks every day. I hope he's bothered that we all doubt their veracity on a daily basis.
But now I'm done staring at clocks, either in Australia or in America. This was my last semester. I figure that's worthy of mention. It's certainly been worthy of celebration over here. Lest you fear I learned nothing in college, I decided that I would take a moment to compare something I wrote long ago to part of the paper I just turned in.
Years ago, I wrote a story called "Shiva the Wonderdog." In it, our dog did some amazing things, but the key line that left me laughing when I shared it with a group was, "We laughed so hard that milk came out of our noses."
That's pretty easy to understand, and it has a gross-out factor, so it's a pretty tough sentence to beat.
Just last week, I put the following footnote in my paper for philosophy: "Essentially, the argument here is that gold, being an element, is necessarily an element because of its composition. If gold’s composition meets the criteria to be an element, then necessarily, it is an element. Gold’s composition meets the criteria to be an element, so, by modus ponens ,it is necessarily an element. The truth of the claim that gold’s composition meets the criteria to be an element is only knowable through empirical examination, but this does not change the fact that gold is an element by necessity a priori."
No points for understandability and certainly the only gross-out factor here is that there is probably a point in the slew of italics and funny phrases. I did use some big words and some Latin, though, so clearly I learned something in college.
I hope the improvement was worth $40,000.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
On Politics
Here, the party in power gets to decide when to hold the election (within a certain range, I think). Howard has recently called the election, so all three rings of the circus have been let loose, and I have front row seats. Political blogging back home is turning into something of an industry, but I doubt I'll find many takers back home for this particular election. So instead of boring you with the pundits latest takes on federalism or feral management, I'd like to make a few comments on what I've seen about politics here.
The first thing to say is that the Australian system is different from the American system. (I'll bet you could've guessed that.) There are ministers and MPs instead of secretaries and senators. The Liberal Party is conservative. The Labor Party is liberal. A third party, The National Party, exists in more than a nominal sense. Overall, the system seems close to the English system.
Speaking of the English, the Queen of England is Australia's head of state. Apparently, it's mainly a ceremonial kind of position, but she still appears on all Australian coins and the five dollar note. This nation faces more trade barriers with England than Germany or France or any other EU nation does, but the Queen is still their head of state. I think that's screwed up.
Another quirk of the Australian system that others might consider screwed up is that the Australians do not have any formal protection for freedom of speech. There is no Bill of Rights or statute to defend it. Common law precedent is the only protection that free speech gets here.
This seems to have caused some confusion on the nature of free speech. One writer, reviewing a documentary on the Dixie Chicks, seemed particularly lacking in understanding. After chronicling the response the band received from the country music community after lead singer Natalie Maines said she was ashamed that George W. Bush was from her home state, this writer indignantly wrote, "What about that First Amendment right to freedom of speech, that revered bastion of the U.S. constitution? you might ask. Not in the Republican strongholds, apparently."
Maybe it's unfair to call such a comment painfully and obviously contradictory, seeing as this reviewer has never lived with a formal protection of the right to speech. Nonetheless, that particular view seems to afford freedom of speech to the Dixie Chicks, but not the people who disagree them. Call me crazy, but that's not freedom of speech at all.
Moreover, the point the writer obviously missed was this: Freedom of speech is the right to say something controversial, not the right to have everyone agree with it. Maybe this analysis is unfair because the Dixie Chicks received death threats and it's possible that this is what the writer was talking about. Even then, the question would be a non sequiter, as receiving death threats for saying something controversial is only related to the First Amendment insofar as the person making the threats might receive protection.
But I digress. The quirks of the Australian - not the American - system are my subject.
One practice that seems more common in Australia than in the States is government advertising. I'm not talking about political advertising that says "Vote for me" or "My opponent is quite possibly Satan," I'm talking about genuine, honest-to-God advertising by the Government. These ads can promote a national security tip hot line or the government's new environmental awareness program or any of a dozen other issues. Some of the ads seem to be quite clearly advocating government policy.
I have been assured that the volume of advertising is higher because of the impending election, but I still find it startling that the Aussies are so comfortable with the practice. Aside from Ad Council spots asking me not to become a drug addict, I can't think of any other government advertising stateside. I think the word "propaganda" would be unleashed within seconds of even the most (seemingly) innocuous spots here hitting the air in the States.
The ads do seem similar to political ads back home in one respect: They always end with the line "Authorized by the Australian Government, Canberra." Canberra, by the way, is not a place that one should visit if he is hooked on phonics. Aussies pronounce it Canbura or Canbra, not Can-bear-uh. One editorial writer ripped President Bush for pronouncing the city's name as it's spelled during his APEC visit. I take issue with this criticism on two counts:
1. It is no secret that George W. Bush's mastery of the English language is not comparable to that of Winston Churchill. I am bored with this criticism, just as I am bored with jokes about Paris Hilton's promiscuity.
2. Do not get upset at people for pronouncing a word the way it is spelled. I have the same qualm with women who spell their name Andrea but want me to call them On-dray-uh.
Of course, President Bush also managed to slip and say that he was attending an OPEC conference, so maybe he's just asking for it.
Much ado was made about the president's visit to Sydney. Depending upon who you asked, Sydney was either becoming a Brave New World in which the police have extraordinary new powers or was going to be turned into a playground for anarchists with Molotov cocktails. Certainly some of the anger was directed toward Bush. An editorial in the West Australian noted that many of the protesters expected to show up view him as a war criminal. (It also noted the irony that so many would show up to protest Bush without also protesting the Chinese president, whose human rights record is spotty, at best.)
Ultimately, the most interesting story to come out of the preparations and protests came from a prankster. After dressing like Osama bin Laden, he hopped into a convoy of black SUVs and promptly drove straight past all of the security preparations, including a 10 ft. fence around the area of the conference, without being stopped. I hope he didn't act surprised that the cops were upset with him.
That was a ridiculous moment. It was one of many I've seen here, and I wanted to share a few more of them with you. As in the States, these stories are ridiculous, silly, and totally unrepresentative of the system as a whole.
-One Australian state recently banned discriminating against women who breastfeed in public. I didn't realize they were a marginalized group.
-One man has actually seceded from Australia, creating his own kingdom. Apparently, this was a bid to get out of paying his local government fees.
-Someone in the Australian government is called the "shadow minister of sport." This is the greatest title a bureaucrat could ever hold.
-The opposition candidate for Prime Minister faced some serious questions about a trip to a New York strip club. This is so far from oval office antics that it almost seems quaint.
-Better yet, part of what he told reporters was that he was too drunk to remember his visit to the club in question. It's a sad statement that no American politician could pull off that excuse, but we will allow "that depends upon what the definition of the word 'is' is." (It's also a statement on how much of a role beer plays in Australian culture.)
The first thing to say is that the Australian system is different from the American system. (I'll bet you could've guessed that.) There are ministers and MPs instead of secretaries and senators. The Liberal Party is conservative. The Labor Party is liberal. A third party, The National Party, exists in more than a nominal sense. Overall, the system seems close to the English system.
Speaking of the English, the Queen of England is Australia's head of state. Apparently, it's mainly a ceremonial kind of position, but she still appears on all Australian coins and the five dollar note. This nation faces more trade barriers with England than Germany or France or any other EU nation does, but the Queen is still their head of state. I think that's screwed up.
Another quirk of the Australian system that others might consider screwed up is that the Australians do not have any formal protection for freedom of speech. There is no Bill of Rights or statute to defend it. Common law precedent is the only protection that free speech gets here.
This seems to have caused some confusion on the nature of free speech. One writer, reviewing a documentary on the Dixie Chicks, seemed particularly lacking in understanding. After chronicling the response the band received from the country music community after lead singer Natalie Maines said she was ashamed that George W. Bush was from her home state, this writer indignantly wrote, "What about that First Amendment right to freedom of speech, that revered bastion of the U.S. constitution? you might ask. Not in the Republican strongholds, apparently."
Maybe it's unfair to call such a comment painfully and obviously contradictory, seeing as this reviewer has never lived with a formal protection of the right to speech. Nonetheless, that particular view seems to afford freedom of speech to the Dixie Chicks, but not the people who disagree them. Call me crazy, but that's not freedom of speech at all.
Moreover, the point the writer obviously missed was this: Freedom of speech is the right to say something controversial, not the right to have everyone agree with it. Maybe this analysis is unfair because the Dixie Chicks received death threats and it's possible that this is what the writer was talking about. Even then, the question would be a non sequiter, as receiving death threats for saying something controversial is only related to the First Amendment insofar as the person making the threats might receive protection.
But I digress. The quirks of the Australian - not the American - system are my subject.
One practice that seems more common in Australia than in the States is government advertising. I'm not talking about political advertising that says "Vote for me" or "My opponent is quite possibly Satan," I'm talking about genuine, honest-to-God advertising by the Government. These ads can promote a national security tip hot line or the government's new environmental awareness program or any of a dozen other issues. Some of the ads seem to be quite clearly advocating government policy.
I have been assured that the volume of advertising is higher because of the impending election, but I still find it startling that the Aussies are so comfortable with the practice. Aside from Ad Council spots asking me not to become a drug addict, I can't think of any other government advertising stateside. I think the word "propaganda" would be unleashed within seconds of even the most (seemingly) innocuous spots here hitting the air in the States.
The ads do seem similar to political ads back home in one respect: They always end with the line "Authorized by the Australian Government, Canberra." Canberra, by the way, is not a place that one should visit if he is hooked on phonics. Aussies pronounce it Canbura or Canbra, not Can-bear-uh. One editorial writer ripped President Bush for pronouncing the city's name as it's spelled during his APEC visit. I take issue with this criticism on two counts:
1. It is no secret that George W. Bush's mastery of the English language is not comparable to that of Winston Churchill. I am bored with this criticism, just as I am bored with jokes about Paris Hilton's promiscuity.
2. Do not get upset at people for pronouncing a word the way it is spelled. I have the same qualm with women who spell their name Andrea but want me to call them On-dray-uh.
Of course, President Bush also managed to slip and say that he was attending an OPEC conference, so maybe he's just asking for it.
Much ado was made about the president's visit to Sydney. Depending upon who you asked, Sydney was either becoming a Brave New World in which the police have extraordinary new powers or was going to be turned into a playground for anarchists with Molotov cocktails. Certainly some of the anger was directed toward Bush. An editorial in the West Australian noted that many of the protesters expected to show up view him as a war criminal. (It also noted the irony that so many would show up to protest Bush without also protesting the Chinese president, whose human rights record is spotty, at best.)
Ultimately, the most interesting story to come out of the preparations and protests came from a prankster. After dressing like Osama bin Laden, he hopped into a convoy of black SUVs and promptly drove straight past all of the security preparations, including a 10 ft. fence around the area of the conference, without being stopped. I hope he didn't act surprised that the cops were upset with him.
That was a ridiculous moment. It was one of many I've seen here, and I wanted to share a few more of them with you. As in the States, these stories are ridiculous, silly, and totally unrepresentative of the system as a whole.
-One Australian state recently banned discriminating against women who breastfeed in public. I didn't realize they were a marginalized group.
-One man has actually seceded from Australia, creating his own kingdom. Apparently, this was a bid to get out of paying his local government fees.
-Someone in the Australian government is called the "shadow minister of sport." This is the greatest title a bureaucrat could ever hold.
-The opposition candidate for Prime Minister faced some serious questions about a trip to a New York strip club. This is so far from oval office antics that it almost seems quaint.
-Better yet, part of what he told reporters was that he was too drunk to remember his visit to the club in question. It's a sad statement that no American politician could pull off that excuse, but we will allow "that depends upon what the definition of the word 'is' is." (It's also a statement on how much of a role beer plays in Australian culture.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
