Unfriending the Indefensible

I "unfriended" someone on Facebook today. Yes, I know you don't care. What I want to talk about is why.
This particular person is an acquaintance who I met through a couple of different avenues that have on relevance. He is also enrolled in the Catholic Seminary, training to become a priest. And he has several unsavoury opinions about morals and politics.
He has said that Julia Gillard is unsuitable as Prime Minister because she helped to legalise abortion in Victoria. He doesn't have to support abortion but to question Gillard's credentials because he doesn't agree with her politics? And by the way, what right does he have, as a celibate priest in training, to an opinion on what a woman does with her body? What life experience qualifies him to make this judgement? Does he have children? Has he counseled a woman before, during or after an abortion? Has he ever had a relationship with a woman that enabled him to understand in any way the connection a woman has to her body, the medical indignities women are expected to undergo? I could go on, but I must move on.
He also said, and in some ways this is worse, that Gillard was unsuitable as Prime Minister because Plato stated that a nation should be led by a philosopher, and Gillard is an atheist. Forget, for the moment, the questionable wisdom of dogmatically following the wisdom of Plato in the governance of Australia, and ask the far more relevant question. Why the hell can an atheist not be a philosopher? I believe there are many atheist philosophers in the world. I know one in fact, I went to school with him and now he is a professor of philosophy an American University.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. 
What he means of course, is that Gillard is unsuitable because she doesn't ascribe to his philosophy.
The third comment was that Tony Abbot should "get rid of the gays". I can only hope that the neo-nazi overtones and images of the holocaust that sprang into my mind were totally unintended. So what is the solution? Criminalize homosexuality ( again)? That didn't work. Institutionalise gay people? Wait, no, we tried that too. They're still gay. What about don't ask don't tell? Hmm. It doesn't really solve the problem, does it? It just hides it and ignores it. Oh well, the gas chambers it is.
I know that this comes off as a rant against this young man. It's not really. What I am railing against is the ignorance, bigotry and intolerance that comes out of his mouth, in the sincere belief that he is doing good. It is God's work. And he's not the only one.
It is not even his religion that I have issues with, although the Catholic church has plenty to answer for. It is the concept of belief, of faith. To believe so strongly, to have such certainty in an idea that has no evidence to support it. To know, know that you are right, because you have this book to back you up, and this book is God's word. It must be, everyone says so. It even says it in the book.
What a wonderful thing this faith. We romanticize it in our literature and our art. It's heroic, to stand against the ignorant masses, to stand up for what we believe in, no matter the cost. Faith refuses to be beaten down, even in the face of such paltry things as facts.
The problem is that the masses aren't always ignorant, and costs are important. Some things just aren't worth the cost. To me, tolerance, acceptance, and reasoned thinking are far too high a price to pay for a false sense of moral superiority.

Happy Birthday to ... Me?

Today is my birthday. I am 36 years old - I am officially middle aged.
Every year I approach my birthday with a mixture of trepidation and anticipation. I look forward to the family meal of one of my favourite foods, the cake, the gifts. All of that is lovely.
And then there is the trepidation. It's not about getting old, because I don't particularly care. Not yet any way. It's about the excessive amount of attention. Everyone who knows feels obliged to send you good wishes, Facebook is inundated with happy birthdays, the phone runs hot all day. This tells me that a lot of people appreciate me, and wish to show it. Great! Thank you everyone! So why does the idea of all this leave me feeling embarrassed and awkward.
It occurred to me this morning that it might be because I don't deserve congratulations.
A birthday celebrates the day of your birth, but is that really an achievement? I had not part in my conception and very little say in the manner of my birth. I certainly don't remember it. I bet my mother does though.
Or does it celebrate your life? Well, let me work that out. I moved out when I was eighteen, and now I'm thirty-six. So Mum and Dad supported me and nurtured me and raised me for literally half my life. Then I had a brief period at University of self sufficiency, and I met my wife when I was twenty-four. We moved in together within 3 months of starting dating and all of a sudden I wasn't so self sufficient anymore. My wife supported me and nurtured me and fed me.
I'm not trying to negate responsibility for my life or actions, both good and bad. I am my own man, and get on as best I can. I think there's a country and western hit in there somewhere.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that birthdays, at least in part, should be celebrations of the mother who bore and birthed you, of the parents who raised you, and the partner who holds your hand as you walk through life.
So to my Mother, Father, Wife and everyone else who has contributed to this crazy ride - Thank you.

Engaging in Education

I'm back! Yes, I know it's been five years. What can I say, I've been doing a little soul searching lately and it has inspired me to write again. A lot has happened - I've moved, I got married, I'm now a father. It's insane.
It's also not what I want to talk about.
The national curriculum designed by ACARA starts being phased in next year. Of course this is a misnomer, as the syllabus we are actually following is written by the NSW Board of Studies and is substantially different to the other states and territories, but they all follow the guidelines set by ACARA. This is a big opportunity for teachers to look at the way they work with content, pedagogy and focus, and look towards improving it. Of course it's a shit load of work to rewrite programs. Of course teachers are underpaid and overworked. But it's the job, and we all knew that when we signed up.
Which is why I was so pissed off when there were teachers at the professional development day that completely disengaged from the process. Not in subtle, keep your mouth shut and pretend you're working ways but by clearly stating that you were not going to involve yourself. This means that firstly you are not interested in improving you teaching skills, which is part of the professional expectations, and secondly that you are basically going to leave all the work to other people.
I get this to a certain extent. I've been there. All teachers develop a certain level of cynicism. But to not even go through the motions. You're not standing for your principles. You're not upholding teachers rights. You're being a lazy shit.
I've been doing a great deal of thinking lately and I freely admit that I have been a lazy shit myself in the past. But life is passing by, grab the horns and go for the ride man. Especially when it's hard. Especially when you're drained and tired. Otherwise you're gonna fall off.
Teachers have a responsibility to their students and to society. That responsibility is often overplayed - it's not our job to be surrogate parents. It's not our job to see to the morals and upbringing of your children. The good teachers do it anyway, because we care.
I guess my point is be the best you can be. At everything. Don't do things half-assed, especially in your professional life. Otherwise you're not living, you're just being another bloody zombie in the apocalypse.
I don't want to be a zombie anymore.

AWA: A Wacky Arrangement

Although this is hardly a new issue, it is still relevant and important. The amazing Liberal brainwave, the AWA is set to increase once more the ever widening chasm between the disgustingly rich and the barely surviving. Let's look at the problem from a semantic point of view, which, politics aside, is my main issue. The Australian Workplace Agreement. The first two words are fine. It is Australia, and it applies to the workplace. The problem I have is that last little word, Agreement. With whom may I ask? Why with the employee of course (by the by, did you know that centrelink refers to it's applicants as clients and customers? The word employee, and unemployed, is virtually redundant. We are all consultants and contractors now). Here's the catch - the very word agreement implies that the employee has some choice, some power of negotiation. That's certainly the way that the Liberal government spins it in the million dollar ads. More money, more flexibility, more of what you, the worker, want. More Bullshit! The AWA's are drafted by the corporations for mass distribution to the workers with the terms that the company "offers". The employee has one choice, one area of negotiation, and only one. They choose whether or not to sign. If they don't? They have no job! Johnnie FuckYou Howard recently celebrated the success of the AWA with one million signatures. Like most people have a choice! Noone I know is able to reject paid work to take a political stand - we all have bills to pay. The anti-unionist Jihad of Johnnie "My eyebrows are bigger than my penis" Howard is an abomination to the very principles of democracy upon which Western Civilisation is based. As far as I am concerned, Economic Rationalism sacrifices the welfare of the people for a pretty National Economy Balance Sheet, and a country that places the corporation above the worker and the mighty dollar above the educational, health and cultural needs of the people is a country that has it's priorities seriously fucked up.

Speciesist or Specious?

I have just read an article by Joan Dunayer published in Vegan Voice #23 (Sep-Nov 2005) called "Reply to a Self-Proclaimed Speciesist" which was written in reply to an article written by Peter Milne called "Disagreeing with the Speciesism Theory" (2005), which was written in reply to an article called "Speciesism" (2004). I include this only so that you can look it all up if you want, and I freely admit I have not read the earlier to articles - this post is an opinion based solely on Dunayer's 2005 article.

Speciesism is, from what I understand, a political "ism" centred around the discrimination against lifeforms on the basis of species. In other words, a form of xenophobia. It has been likened in flavour to other "isms" such as racism and sexism. Specific definitions are still being formulated - it seems to be quite the flavour of the month with the animal liberation movement. Without making any judgements against Dunayer (whom I know nothing of) or Milne (who is an acquaintance) I thought I would add my two cents.

Dunayer's article is somewhat academically vituperative but intelligently written and makes sequential sense - except that it is based on a fallacy. She seems to have science confused with ethics, and while science should be governed by ethics, they are not the same thing.

She speaks often of the "right to life" of sentient creatures, in which she includes all of animalia, and excludes all flora, as being the basic principle upon which speciesism can be based, but what is the right to life? Who grants such a life? I would argue that no lifeform has any scientific inalienable rights - the concept is frankly ridiculous. "Rights" are an ethical and moral construct created by Homo Sapiens to justify their behaviour in the world - to themselves. There is no such thing as a scientific "right". According to Dunayer, it is speciesist to kill insects, with certain exceptions such as self defence, where one "right" to life is in conflict to another. This is on the basis that insects are sentient, and sentient beings have the "right" not to suffer unnecessarily. Since when? How does that stop it happening? What consequences are there to the individual who violates these "rights"?

I am a vegetarian and loathe cruelty to animals, but this is an emotional, ethical and moral standpoint. It is not scientific. Dunayer accuses Milne of a religious stance toward animals based on belief which violates the principles of non-speciesist behaviour, but in fact she is guilty of the same charge - there is nothing scientific in her argument. I also question her understanding of "Sentience" - realistically, we haven't gone beyond "I think therefore I am" and probably never will, because the subject is charged more with philosophy than fact. Has she ever talked with an insect? Communed with it's mind? Behaviour cannot be used as reliable evidence for sentience - modern scientists have observed self-organising "behaviour" on a molecular level, on a protein level - and on an insect level. Behaviour is functional - we understand only it's motivations and consequences, we do not understand its causes.

There is scientific basis for veganism, but it relates to land use and the economic (in terms of natural resources, not commercial) survival of our planet, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the "rights" of animals.

The ethical arguments are substantive, useful and compelling, because we are capable of ethical and moral viewpoints, they help define who we are. I simply object to an ethical argument being posited as scientific when it is clearly not. In short, the argument of what is speciesism seems to me to be a huge waste of time - It will not convince anyone to become vegan, and merely increases infighting amongst those who would like to see us take more moral responsibility toward the animals which are within our power.

Curiosity and the Etiquette of Death

In my other life apart from teaching, I work the graveyard shift in a service station. This is the part of my life that sucks, but I'm stuck with it for the moment. Yesterday, shortly after Midnight which is when I started my shift, some poor girl, probably drunk, tried to cross the highway and didn't make it. Because she crossed at a blind spot, and judging by the aftermath, she probably got hit by at least three vehicles. Firstly this pisses me off because any loss of young life is a huge fucking waste of potential, and although it probably wasn't the best place to cross, knowing this area as I do, and it being pub night, I sincerely doubt that the traffic was driving sensibly or within the speed limit. But I'm not in the mood to rage against the stupid morons who plague our roads. I spent the next few hours at work considering the nature of mortality and the faceless grief of the parents for whom tomorrow was not just another day, and whether or not she was aware of the pain that faced her in the moments before she was hit, whether she survived the first hit, the terror that must have overcome her, and was somewhat overwhelmed by the tragedy of the situation.
Obviously the road was closed for many hours following. Every single customer who had driven past had something to say or wanted to know what had happened. What is the etiquette in such a situation? I was getting pissed off, I didn't want to comment on the tragedy to every faceless customer, I didn't want to have to dwell on it every couple of minutes. I was the focal point for their morbid curiosity, their source of everyone's gory satisfaction. I wondered how many people who asked what had happened thought of how many times I had been asked that question, how many had thought beyond the satisfaction of their own curiosity to consider the human element. I understand that as a protective measure the human mind allows us to avoid thinking about certain things, or to think about things in an abstract way, but I wonder whether this ability is sometimes taken too far. Sometimes, we should reach beyond the curiosity and consider the tragedy. It's a good opportunity to see beyond our own squalid little lives.

Stupid Shit Students Say

As a teacher of English and Drama I feel it necessary to pass on to the general public the amusing utterances of our ill informed youth. This will probably be a periodical post, and may one day evolve into a book.

1. Why does everyone have to study English when we already talk it?
Year 9 Student

2. I have a bigness inside me.
Year 11 Student

3. I think he has a 5th sense.
Year 9 Student

You have to laugh or you will cry.