New blog

Activity here has ceased. A new blog has arisen: nosedog.tumblr.com. Long may it reign!

Finally embraced online music...

...by which I mean building my music collection in MP3 format without accreting any corresponding CDs. It has been a long time since I've been a collector of music. After moving house nearly a year ago, I put all of my CDs (except box sets and other curios) into CD "wallets" (each one holding 120 discs and their covers) and dispensed with the jewel cases. It felt so much better for the several hundred CDs to fit neatly on one shelf, arranged neatly in genre and alphabetical order. The downside was that, having spent so much time perfecting this arrangement, I pretty much stopped buying CDs. What's more, I pretty much stopped listening to them.

I knew I needed to embrace the more convenient world of a computerised music library, but still felt an attachment to the cumbersome CDs. I liked poring over the album notes and looking at the photos. Data on a hard drive felt such a sterile alternative to a tangible collection.

I use the past tense above ("liked" and "felt") because such sentiments have very quickly been buried. Those CD wallets now look and act like photo albums; the focus of my music collection is on the computer; and I am (very) actively collecting again.

It started on my birthday a few months ago. My BH (better half) and I were in town, I wanted to buy a CD (Schubert Piano Trios, if you must know) and she was offering to pay. The store (Sydney's only dedicated classical music store that I'm aware of) didn't have the CD I was after, and have not received it in the intervening months despite putting in an order that day. My patience quickly gave way and my friend Harry offered to grab some of that music through his emusic account. I put two and two together and decided it was time I gave the world of online music a go. It's been great.

Two factors have made it great: emusic and MediaMonkey. The first is an online service for acquiring music; the second is software for playing it on your computer and managing your library. Both are alternatives to the irritating iTunes, which plays both roles. Emusic is a subscription service: I pay about A$15 a month for the right to download 50 tracks. It doesn't roll over; it's "use it or lose it". It has an enormous catalogue but it's exlusively smaller-label stuff. So there's no Britney Spears, but there's no Leonard Cohen or Bob Dylan either. There are already 29 albums on my "Saved for later" list, so the catalogue is not a problem. The tracks are DRM-free and are high-quality rips. At $4.00 for an album (of 10 songs), I have broken free of the sentimental attachment to physical goods, and I am willing to risk my 4 bucks on unfamiliar material. I've burned through my 50 tracks this month and have to wait a week for the quota to reset, but I've downloaded two great albums, by Gillian Welch (Time) and Ornette Coleman (Sound Grammar). Both were artists I'd been wanting to listen to for a while but never got around to buying on CD.

For comparison's sake, an album on iTunes costs upwards of $15.

MediaMonkey is the other key to the puzzle. I've never felt really comfortable with other music-playing-and-management software in the past. This one pushes all the right buttons. It's designed with large collections in mind, and facilitates navigation and segmentation (e.g. Classical, Jazz, Rock...) It provides a lot more convenience and control when it comes to ripping music than I've experienced before. And it is scriptable; many users have created excellent extensions to the software. Some of these provide features just as valuable as anything the software itself does (e.g. regular expression search and replace of track data). Altogether, this is software that makes me feel confident that I can manage my large and growing collection into the future.

It's been a quick turnaround. After dabbling years ago, and thinking about making the switch on and off ever since, I was hooked immediately. It's like my mother said when she finally got a digital camera after years of deliberation: "I wish I'd done this ages ago."

Kevin Rudd taking a beating, and rightly so

The last couple of weeks have taken some shine off Kevin Rudd. Labor hasn't been affected in the polls, but Kevin Rudd's approval rating dropped to 56% in Newspoll. (I think that's what happened anyway.) He's been battered and fried by Brendan Nelson's populist stunt to cut petrol excise by 5c a litre. Nelson never has to deliver on that, because the election is so far away and he has next to no chance of winning it, but it puts the spotlight on Big Kev, as if to say: I'm committed to actually doing something about petrol prices, while you're just going to form another committee. In fact he did use words to that very effect in Parliament.

And when he did, I smiled. Not because I have any love for Brendan Nelson; in fact, I have only sympathy. Not because I support his policy to cut the cost of petrol; it's ridiculous. No, because although I voted for Big Kev with all the optimism in the world, I can't stand his Government By Committee. It's Inquiry This, and Working Party That; Commission This and Study That. Ridiculous! The man has been setting the impression that he will endeavour to tackle every issue, and it's now time to pay up and all he can find is loose change.

The excruciating fact is that he's trying to sell the following line to the Australian people: my government will get involved in all aspects of your life, and Do Something. Now I'm no opponent of government action, but two things I can't stand are government action for the sake of it, and the misleading appearance of government action for the sake of it. To wit, we have an atrocious "FuelWatch" idea, whereby all petrol vendors must register their prices on a website, and maintain that price for the next 24 hours. If I were a petrol vendor, I would be telling Mr Rudd to mind his own Bucking Fusiness. Unless petrol stations are significantly subsidised by federal funds, which I doubt, what right does the government have to tell them when they can and can't adjust their prices? Inform the consumer what the price is, sure, but regulate price movements to that extent? No way.

Government action for the sake of it is bad because of two perfectly good cliches: the law of unintended consequences (e.g. stabilising the fuel price thereby robbing consumers of occasional savings caused by competition); and the road to hell being paved with good intentions (e.g. meddling in people's business for the supposed but illusory good of consumers).

Why should I get upset on behalf of petrol vendors? Firstly, I know that they exist on slim margins. There's not much retail profit in petrol; they basically rely on people buying chocolates etc. to stay afloat. So I support the little guy against the do-gooder but really do-nothing government. And secondly, if the government can get away with this today, then maybe tomorrow they'll be interfering in my job and eroding freedom from my life.

Krudd and co promised a government based on sound policy that looked beyond the short term. Getting locked into a demeaning battle on petrol prices is the antithesis of that. Krudd needs to take some advice from Mr. T: stop yo' jibber-jabber and get some nuts! Say to the Australian people:

I understand the pressure that rising fuel prices puts on your personal and family budgets. However, there is nothing I can do to bring petrol prices down. The international price of oil is rising and will probably continue to do so because of its scarcity. As individuals and as a society we are going to need to adjust to that, and I will not be drawn into petty arguments. The solutions I have offered are to monitor fuel prices so you can shop around more easily, and to cut taxes so you have more money in your pocket. Thank you and goodnight.

Apology to Stolen Generations an eminently sensible idea

I've always supported an apology to the Stolen Generations (the large number of aboriginal Australians who were removed from their families in the 20th century because of racist, not welfare, policies), although it was hard to get enthusiastic about it under Howard: even if he did apologise, it would seem insincere after all his small-minded rhetoric about "practical reconciliation" (as if you can't aim for practical and symbolic reconciliation). Howard seemed sincere in his desire to lift the lot of aboriginal people, but narrow-minded in what that meant and what it would involve.

Kevin Rudd promised an apology if he won the election, although he didn't campaign hard on this point, as it was not popular with everyone. Hearteningly, support for the apology grew (to about 70%) after the fact. Rudd's speech was great enough that it was almost impossible not to see the need for it. My own feelings about the issue were moulded as he spoke. My understanding of the issue grew as he detailed the wrongs that were committed. Like the general population, I felt more sure of the need for the apology after the fact than before it.

As "the day" approached, I was lukewarm. It had become a political issue as politicians and others argued over the wording. I thought: how can something so planned come across as sincere? Thankfully it did. As Australians, we have a lot to be ashamed about regarding the way our indigenous peoples have been treated. Some argue that we personally didn't do it; how can we apologise on behalf of governments that are long out of power. I subscribe to the logic that we can't be proud of past achievements if we're not willing to wear past failures. It's part of the complex reality of life in a colonised land.

Personally, I don't feel terribly guilty that Aborigines were displaced when white man settled (not "invaded", as some would have it) this land. That sort of thing has happened all over the world throughout time. That doesn't make it right, but it's not worth feeling guilty about something that's universal. Besides, and this is the clincher, "we" only displaced the people who were there right there and then. Those people almost certainly displaced others, who displaces others, and so on back for 40000 years. I confess ignorance of Aboriginal history, but you can't convince me that all the indigenous tribes lived in peace and harmony with each other. The white settlers tried to get on well with the Aborigines, and did so for a while, but clashes were inevitable and unfortunately things have only gotten worse over time.

So what do I feel guilty about? That successive Federal governments maintained the policy of forced removal of half-caste children in order to assimilate them into white society so that the Aboriginal race and culture would not expand; indeed (it was hoped and thought) would become extinct. I do not feel guilty about children of any race being removed from their families because they are in danger or malnourished or whatever. And there probably were, and are, many children who were justifiably removed for these reasons, blacks more so than whites. But it is unspeakably disgusting to effect such removals for the purpose of passive genocide. That wrong can never be righted, but so much stood to be gained from an apology in Parliament that it beggars belief that anyone could oppose it except through incredible ignorance or an utter lack of sympathy.

The apology took place a while ago, but I've not commented until now because I wanted to let life go on for a while and look back at it. The event itself was soured somewhat by the opposition leader's response. He supported the apology but wasn't convincing, and clouded it with reference to modern aboriginal problems. This was insensitive, irrelevant and inappropriate. Would he make a speech including references to Japanese war crimes (or even whaling) when welcoming a Japanese dignitary to Australia? Anyway, with the passage of time, that blight has faded, and I think the main thing is that the Prime Minister's apology was eloquent, sincere, unequivocal, and endorsed by nearly everyone in the house.

The apology has long ceased to be a news item. In truth, it was only really the big deal that it was because it took so long. It was recommended in 1996 by the Bringing Them Home report, which detailed for the first time the reality of the Stolen Generations, but this was just a bit too late for Keating, who would have made an excellent speech. Howard had replaced him as PM, and the rest is history.

NSW public school principals to control teacher appointments at last

I thought it would never happen. Actually, I thought at some point it must, but you know what I mean...

The Herald today has the story that the NSW government has ended the bureaucracy's central role in allocating teachers to public schools, effecting mid-2010. Principals will be able to advertise jobs and interview teachers and choose the best one for the job. Given that the quality and commitment of staff must be the most significant factor in a school's success, it's about time.

Secondary Principals Council president, Jim McAlpine: "Principals for years have been saying they would like a greater say in the staffing of their schools."

Education minister John Della Bosca: "Modernising these arrangements will help us retain our best and brightest teachers."

But, of course, that's not the way the union (NSW Teachers Federation, or NTF) sees it. Senior vice-president Gary Zadkovich: "The best means by which we can attract and keep teachers in the harder-to-staff parts of the state is through a statewide transfer system." What he's referring to is that teachers who permit themselves to be allocated to remote or "difficult" schools can jump the queue for more desirable schools. That's right, folks, the union boss wants would-be professional teachers to be hampsters in a wheel. Should staff at hard-to-staff schools be there for the carrot that's dangled in front of them? Or should they be there because they're committed individuals with particular skills in dealing with difficult situations? Oops, I used the word "individual", which is something the NTF is not familiar with. Their support for centralised staffing arrangements and their dogged industrial support for capital-B bad teachers shows they consider all teachers to be interchangeable.

(By the way, I do believe staff in such schools should be paid more, and given more power and more assistance to sort out problems.)

Of course, the Herald simplifies its reporting to make it easier for readers to digest: "Principals have embraced the opportunity for greater freedom in hiring, but teachers will fight the move, ..." The union leaders fight the move, either because it threatens to erode their power, or because of their communist ideology (sorry, but I'm not exaggerating; central planning and viewing workers as interchangable are seriously communist ideas), or both. But what about actual teachers? The Herald could do us all a service by conducting a rigorous survey of teachers on this point. Personally, I've not met a single non-union-official teacher who supports the status quo, and have heard plenty of bile from teachers whose livelihoods have been affected by having to work with lazy or incompetent people, but I might be mixing in the wrong crowds.

As a private school teacher, I had to apply for my job and impress the head teacher and the principal. (I had an advantage as it was near year-end so they were in a hurry.) In doing so, I had a chance to suss out the school a bit. When I was offered the job, the school was making a professional commitment to me that they considered me suitable and would support me in my treacherous initial years of teaching. When I accepted the job, I made a professional commitment to the school that I would make every effort to advance the quality of education on offer there. Two years later, it's a commitment that guides me still. Such a basic and advantageous tenet of working life is bypassed when workers simply list the geographical areas in which they are willing to work and then wait to be called up.

Gary Zadkovich might like to know that I used to be dedicated to the idea of teaching in a public school. As I found out about the rotten recruitment procedure, though, my interest waned entirely. I applied for and got a job almost immediately upon finishing university, whereas friends of mine waited months to hear from the bureaucracy. Gary is defending an absolute lemon.

(By the way, I think public school teachers and private school teachers are probably, on average, equally good, discounting the extra time-serving lemons in public schools. But a school needs more than fundamentally good staff; it needs a workplace environment based on professionalism. That's the crux of this argument, not on teacher quality per se.)

New blog: Let it Bleed

I've started a new blog called Let it Bleed. Like the name of this blog, there's a Rolling Stones connection.

Despite the best of intentions, Midnight Rambler has been updated rather infrequently. I don't mind that, because most of the posts are long and focused, and I don't want to clutter it up. Let it Bleed is a place for clutter. Shorter pieces on whatever's of interest to me at the time.

Note the extra e in the new blog's URL; the good names were taken.

Google Reader informal review and tips

My mate Harry recently put me on to Google Reader. It's a feed reader, i.e. a piece of software that enables you to read the newest content of many websites without your having to visit them. For instance, I could get news from ABC and SMH, updates from friends' blogs, job offers, real estate search results, notifications of updates to Wikipedia, and more. In reality, I'm subscribed to a bunch of maths and programming blogs, but the potential is enormous :)

The technology is nothing new: feed readers have been around for ages. But even though I'm tech-savvy and willing to muck around, I've never enjoyed them, even though they could have made available to me heaps of information with little effort. I've always found their user interface clumsy and the general user experience irritating. But as they've done with GMail, Google have taken a "solved problem" and made a product better than I could ever have imagined.

It's all online, of course, so when I've set it up, I can browse my feeds on any computer. It's really fast and the interface is inspired. If you're interested, check the website or google around for screenshots. It has many similarities to GMail, such as excellent keyboard shortcuts and the use of labels instead of folders.

However, it's not perfect. I have the time and the enthusiasm at the moment to spend ages exploring it and setting it up how I want. The beautiful presentation of it means I'm not reluctant to do this, but I'm sure some inexperienced users may not be so persistent. And while configuring it, I've found a few bugs and shortcomings, especially in working with folders/labels. I have no doubt all this will improve within weeks.

I wouldn't be writing about it if it were perfect, though. I'm sharing some ideas in setting up folders in case it's useful to others. That would depend on their working style, but any novice user can learn something from this. There are other great websites that have Google Reader tips that cover much more than I intend to.

All I really want to say is that if you're going to subscribe to lots of feeds, you need to organise them into folders. And if you're going to do that, you need a sensible plan. I had a rough idea, but it's taken a lot of mucking around to settle on something I'm happy with. Since there's no simple way to rename a folder, it's good to get it right first time if you can. Here I quickly present what I've done, so it may give someone some ideas.

The numbers refer to the number of unread items, not the number of feeds contained in the folders.

Must read is for feeds I want to read as soon as they are updated.

Regular is for feeds I like to keep up with, but without needing to be up to date.

Irregular is for feeds I'll casually browse if I have time.

The four remaining folders, from Productivity to Misc, contain all my feeds classified by their subject matter. So if I have a bit of time but only really want to look at Ruby stuff (my favourite programming languge), I click on that and all Ruby items will appear.

Feeds can appear in more than one place. For instance, the Ruby Inside blog appears in both Ruby and Regular. The Good Math, Bad Math blog appears in both Mathematics and Irregular. In fact, all of my feeds appear in two places: they are classified by their subject matter and by how often I want to look at them. Couldn't ask for more, really.

What's put me off this technology in the past is that I go out and subscribe to heaps of blogs, only then to find the mass of information overwhelming. With this scheme, I can read through the "must reads" and the "regulars" and not worry about the rest. Google Reader allows you to zoom through the items: just keep hitting "n" and the next item will move to the top of the screen. As you go past each item, it gets marked as read, so you're not prompted to read it later. If you want to come back to an item later, you can star it, just like in GMail. I do this especially when an item has a number of interesting links I want to follow up.

Another cool thing is sharing. If I see an item that I think will be of interest to other people, I can share it. My friends will see it when they open Google Reader, and it might lead them to subscribe to the feed whence the item came. I haven't had much experience of sharing so far, but it's a neat idea and appears to be well implemented, although I understand there were some privacy concerns when it first appeared.

I've only scratched the surface in terms of features and the user experience, but it's not the point of this article to go into detail on that when so many others already have. The simplest way to sum up is this: it's as good as GMail, and a natural companion for it.

There may be other feed readers out there that are as good as Google Reader, but I've been turned off trying them in the past. As usual, Google have made a web application so good and so inviting that you can get a real kick out of using it. Now, of course, I have to be careful not to overuse it.

Change of government in Australia

OK, so this is the first entry for a long while, but I can't let this momentous event go...

After 11.5 years of Howard and Costello in charge, we have a new Rudd Labor government. This is a remarkable turnaround in Labor's fortunes, and a stellar achievement for Rudd, who is relatively new to Federal Parliament and was opposition leader for only 11 months. The landslide victory to Labor was entirely predictable based on the opinion polls all year, but I don't think anyone was brave enough to predict it. Howard was able to argue that there wasn't a case for change, because of the strong economy, but in the end he didn't make a strong case for re-election either. This is a landmark election, because it's the first time in modern Australian politics that a government has been thrown out in economic good times and without being actually detested by a significant proportion of the electorate. A new political rule will go into the textbooks: a fourth-term government can't rest on its laurels; it must renew itself, and its leader, if it is to win.

And fair enough. Howard has been remarkably successful, but like any long-time leader he has racked up a lot of scandals (children overboard, AWB, Hicks, Haneef and a few mistreated immigrants stand out in my mind). Many voters are not outraged by these, which explains his ability to keep winning elections despite many politically-aware people cursing him. But everyone has a limit. Even the most politically uninterested voter will eventually take a little notice as the scandals continue, especially when they're getting WorkChoices ads rammed down their throats, and they're not seeing any convincing action from the government on climate change. In this situation, many uncommitted voters will critically evaluate the alternative and end their habit of returning the current government. Kevin Rudd has played to this crowd very cleverly. He has avoided ideological fights; he has broadly supported government policies, because voters have supported them; he has bravely fought the government on economic credibility, which has long been perceived as a Liberal strength and a Labor weakness. In all, he has made a convincing case that it's safe to vote for Labor. In addition, he has outlined policies in a few areas that look to the future: climate change, education, and broadband infrastructure. The electorate was correct to reward him with victory in the election.

This election is my first victory: it's the first time in my life that the team I voted for won. I'm unashamedly anti-Howard, although the passage of time has predictably softened my frevently pro-Labor, anti-Liberal tendencies. I now see as much potential for bad policy from either party. But I estimate that the daily actions and inactions of a political party in government are much more significant than the policies that are outlined in the bluster of an election campaign. The scandals I mentioned above are more or less the key reasons I'm glad to see the end of Howard. None of them can be traced to a policy statement on the Liberal Party website. I suspect many of the voters who decided this election can relate to this, even if they couldn't articulate it specifically. This was a government that mistreated individuals and groups of people for its political gain, which to me is inexcusable.

So I'm glad Howard lost. I was even going to be glad that Howard lost his seat. I was going to feel schadenfreude at his ultimate humiliation. But then I thought, while the count was in progress and it wasn't looking good for him: is it right to take pleasure in someone else's misfortunes? Then I thought of the suffering of others that Howard contributed to and thought yes, I will celebrate the loss of his seat, if it happens. This has been a drawn-out affair. It's now 24 hours after the election result was confirmed and we still don't know who won in Bennelong. If Maxine McKew wins and Howard loses, as seems likely, it will be by a tiny margin. My mind changed again when Howard conceded defeat with a most gracious and dignified speech. He clearly accepted the decision of the people and wished his successor well. He reflected on the achievements of his government and the privilege of serving his local area and the nation, and accepted his time was up. He didn't appear the least bit humiliated at the likely prospect of losing his seat; it would be convenient for him, in fact, to be able to retire quietly and not inflict a by-election on the locals. Given all that, it no longer felt appropriate for me to gloat. So I am now celebrating the prospect of Maxine McKew, a high-profile and seemingly very credible campaigner, winning the seat rather than Howard losing it.

Kevin Rudd's victory speech was mundane and unconvincing compared to Howard's concession speech. He repeated Howard's and Hawke's promises to govern for all Australians, as if that were possible. And on the news this morning he repeated one of the key lines in a different speech. Everyone knows the guy's a nerd, but I overlooked that while I was barracking for him. Now that there's no need to barrack, it seems clear we're left with a boring nerd. I'm sure he'll grow into the role, but I hope he switches out of campaign mode soon. Labor Senator Penny Wong's performance on Insiders this morning was also insipid in the extreme.

In other news, Peter Costello has decided not to become Opposition Leader. This is a surprise and probably a shame. He's a more decent person than Howard and a formidable parliamentary performer. It's understandable in hindsight, though. Whoever becomes opposition leader is unlikely to remain in the position long enough to become Prime Minister. Costello probably also understands that renewal is required, and although he's youngish, he's part of the "old" Liberal Party that needs to be laid to rest. Malcolm Turnbull has instantly thrown his hat in the ring, and I'd tip him to win it. He has a great drive and intellect, and I see no reason he wouldn't do a good job as Opposition Leader or Prime Minister.

Finally, my party of choice for the Senate, The Democrats, have been wiped out in this election. Not one Democrat will sit in the next Senate. I think that's a shame. They've been written off as irrelevant for quite a while now, on what I think is a very shallow analysis. They lost popular support when they allowed Howard's GST to pass, with amendments, through the Senate. But Howard won government after campaigning on a GST, and they didn't see it as their right to deny him that. Although I opposed the GST (but I support it now), I respected the Democrats for that. They didn't grandstand; they applied a principled approach to reviewing legislation. I'd much rather that than see the grandstanders extraordinaire, the Greens, gain balance of power in the Senate. I believe the Parliament will be poorer without them.

Dylan fires in Sydney, at last

On Wednesday night I saw Bob Dylan play at the Sydney Entertainment Centre, and it was easily the best concert of the three times I've seen him. The sound was great, the whole band was on song and Bob was spirited. It's about bloody time! The first time I saw him (around 2000), my seat was in a different postcode from the Centennial Park stage, but it seemed like a good gig. The second time the sound was muffled and the musicians lacked spark. For the greatest songwriter and one of the greatest performers of the 20th century, things seemed destined not to work out in Sydney. Finally, this week, it happened.

A refreshing change is that Dylan now fully embraces his recent material. I can't stand "greatest hits" sets where song after song is played far removed from its original context. Sure, he does a great job of reinterpreting his old songs - nothing's sacred - but he's released three excellent albums since 1997 and it's about time his concerts properly acknowledged this. His bravery is wonderful: apart from 4 or 5 songs that you can expect to hear at any show, and a few others in high rotation, the set list changes dramatically from night to night. On stage, each song begins with the stage lights off and the musos mucking around to find their groove. This is no choreographed performance like The Rolling Stones or what have you; as far as musicianship goes, it's the real deal. That's why his concerts can be hit and miss, but it's worth it.

My one complaint, and one which at times threatens to ruin the concert experience, is that he doesn't sing properly. To many, that would be an obvious complaint about Bob Dylan, but I'm not talking about his croaky voice, I'm talking about his phrasing. He deliberately rushes his vocal delivery as if he needs to get one line out of the way and take some deep breaths before starting the next one. (There may be some truth to that; he's too frail to play guitar now!) This is a fundamental flaw: the emotional impact of music is very much dependent on the proper timing of its delivery. I believe he does this because he's bored of playing some of the songs and has to do them "differently" to prevent himself from going insane. I don't blame him, but it's no excuse. His concerts would be far better if he played only the songs he wanted to play, and did them properly. The two best songs of the concert for me were Workingman's Blues and Nettie Moore. Both of these are very recent and neither are anything like my favourite Dylan songs, but their performances here were fantastic. They're quieter, slower songs, requiring delicacy from the musicians. Above all, Dylan sang them properly. A newspaper review said the older material outclassed the new material in concert; I couldn't relate to this sentiment at all.

I suspect this will be the last time I see Bob Dylan in concert. I'm glad my persistence paid off.

My favourite Dylan albums in chronological order:

• The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan (1962). His second album, but the first was mostly renditions of traditional songs. Freewheelin' is the Dylan's breakout album, and is a priceless masterpiece. Entirely acoustic and mostly unaccompanied, it has poignant songs and humourous ones in roughly equal balance.
  
• Bringing It All Back Home (1965). His first (partly) electric album after four acoustic ones. Incredibly mature songwriting, awesome musicianship with little rehearsal and enough killer songs to send his career into orbit.
  
• John Wesley Harding (1967). After three years of crazy stardom and constant touring, Dylan was burned out. A motorcycle crash put him out of action for a little while, but many suspect he milked this as an excuse to withdraw from the limelight. John Wesley Harding is unlike anything before or since, a laid-back collection of tales with cryptic morals not unlike biblical parables. Its apparent simplicity has caused it to be overlooked somewhat, but it simply cannot be beaten.
  
• Blood On The Tracks (1975). A messy divorce album to match his messy divorce. Whereas previously his songs were rather cryptic and seemed not to involve Dylan personally, there could be no doubt as to the autobiographical nature of this album. It can be a difficult listen because of this.
  
• Good As I Been To You (1992) and World Gone Wrong (1993). After releasing enough shit in the late 70s and 80s to block the largest toilet, Dylan finally realised he was out of ideas and turned to his folk roots. He didn't write a single song on these two albums, but his interpretation of these traditional folk and blues songs is simply fantastic, as is the guitar playing. Dylan's stunning creative revival of the last ten years is probably due to these albums.
  
• Love and Theft (2001). Wow. With its range of musical styles, this album feels like a history lesson in American music, and it's the most fun that Dylan has committed to record. You simply couldn't ask for a greater return to form than this.
  
• Modern Times (2006). Another excellent effort. Not quite as good as Love and Theft, but once again heaps of fun in some high-energy folk/blues romps. This album draws heavily on some traditional songs, but the performances are thrilling.
  

Notably missing are Highway 61 Revisited (1965) and Blonde On Blonde (1966). Although these represented the apex of Dylan's activity in the 1960s, and are frequently considered among his best by the media, I find them to be dated. Excellent, yes, but very much of their time, whereas the albums listed above have a timeless feel about them. Also Time Out Of Mind (1997), Dylan's "comeback" album, has some brilliant songs, some moderate ones and one stinker, but its overdone production makes it less enjoyable than the two albums that followed. Dylan agrees with this, saying that any "trilogy" of recent great albums would have to start with Love and Theft.

Related:

• A Sony Music Video site has a cool collection of Bob Dylan videos. Subterranean Homesick Blues (1965) was the first ever music video, as well as being Bob Dylan's first electric song and an absolute classic. Check out When The Deal Goes Down (2006) for 5 minutes of Scarlett Johansson goodness! Finally, Thunder On The Mountain (2006) is an absolute ball-tearer of a song and a very clever video using entirely archival footage.
• I read this week that there are 19,500 covers of Bob Dylan songs in existence. It blows one's mind. In the 1960s, on a number of occasions cover versions hit the shelves before Dylan's own version. Columbia Records began a slogan "No one sings Dylan like Dylan", which I agree with 1000%. (Yes, that's a thousand.) Sure, others may have technically (far) better voices, but his voice suits his songs perfectly, as do his spontaneous performances. His best recordings are barely rehearsed, which you can't say for a typical cover version!
• It's funny: every time Dylan tours, a flurry of articles about him appears in the press. Since he's always touring somewhere, I imagine that on any given day, somewhere in the world there's a flurry of articles about him. The Age has a good one here.
  

Federal and state public school funding

You can make statistics say anything. Public school advocates have been pretty noisy in the press lately about federal funding for public schools. It looks like the union hacks have decided what the message is going to be, and the pundits are singing along obediently. It's this: the federal government funds private schools more generously than public schools, and this is Disgusting. I've heard this song in newspaper opinion columns and most recently from the lips of a public school principal appearing on a television debate.

Somehow, they forget to mention that funding public schools is a State responsibility and any Federal funds are a bonus. The federal government could, and probably should, cancel all public school funding right now in an effort to remind people that it's a state responsibility and political pressure should therefore be directed at that level. (Federal funding also comes with a lot of conditions, which I find odious.)

So why do private schools get federal funding? Because the states have historically neglected to fund private schools. Fair enough, I suppose. But in the 1960s (I think) the Catholic education system got in such a financial "situation" that the feds decided to prop it up in the interests of both the kids being educated and the state systems that couldn't possibly cope with the surge if the Catholic schools collapsed.

So who gets what and why? Public schools are funded by State governments. Private schools get some federal money because private school parents are taxpayers who deserve to have some taxpayer money spent on their kids' education. Public schools also get some federal money because – as far as I can tell – the federal government wants to influence education in various ways (flying flagpoles, the teaching of history, displaying "values" posters, school reports) and can only achieve its objectives through bribery.

Now I'm short on the facts (at least I'm honest!) but however you dice it, I'm 99.5% sure that the most important thing remains true: public schools receive significantly more public money per student than private schools. That's as it should be. It doesn't matter whether that public money comes from Canberra or Sydney. I desperately wish that the federal government would take full responsibility for education and implement a transparent funding formula for all schools so that we could have a proper debate about the appropriate balance between public and private school funding. But wishing for a transparent debate sounds naïve given the anything-but-transparent tosh written and spoken by the pundits. As a teacher, I value clear and rational thinking; in this, they disappoint me.

Some related points worth making:

• The pundits are certainly aware of this and are playing a political game to try and extract more money from Canberra for their cause. That's fair enough, in a sense. But as I said, I expect better standards of advocacy from teachers and resent the fact that they play into the stereotypes of teachers being unprofessional third-rate hacks.
• Although I'd like to see government involvement in education simplified and rationalised, I have reservations about the proposed national curriculum. There are certainly positives and negatives there, which may be examined in a future article.
• Another line in The Song goes something like this: federal funding of private schools has declined, as a percentage of all federal education funding, in the 10 years John Howard has been in power. Well, that's because, in that 10 years, we've seen less people going to public schools and more people going to private schools. Simple, isn't it?

Update 19 March: The Sydney Morning Herald has this information in an article today:

Funding for primary and secondary schools for 2009-12 is already $42 billion. The bulk of public school funding comes from the states, with the Federal Government kicking in between 10 and 14 per cent on average.

But independent and private schools are assessed on a complicated mix of socio-economic data, which means some schools are receiving 70 per cent of their funding from the Federal Government.

Non-news items on the ABC

Normally, you can count on the ABC to present interesting and important stories in its radio current affairs programs AM and PM. In the last week, however, two things have taken up an unjustifiable amount of airtime. If it's a slow news day, I'd rather they just admit that and play some music.

First was that Indonesian air crash in which about five Australians died (and one escaped with a cut lip and flew again within hours). Don't get me wrong: it's an important and tragic story. But one or two days after the event it was still the headline article in PM, with at least 10 minutes devoted to it. What was "new" or "current" about the story (it being a news and current affairs program)? That Cynthia Bantham, who survived the crash but with serious injuries, had been transported to Perth hospital. In other words, nothing. The story was endless boring rehash. Again, don't get me wrong. The story made me feel (again) very sorry for all involved. But it went on for too long. It's easy to understand why: Cynthia Bantham is a respected journalist. Other casualties were journos and public servants. The media loves a story about its own and those they work with. The audience (me) feels used. A relevant current affairs story about the plane crash would look at the history of such disasters in Indonesia or something.

Strike two occurred yesterday on AM. Santo Santoro, a federal senator, was in technical breach of the government's long-discredited ministerial standards. As minister for Aged Care and Something Else, he should have registered or disposed of his shares in some biotech company (because it competes for government funds for research into miracle cures for old people) as soon as he became minister. But guess what? He didn't! At first I thought there was something to this story, but then came the boring facts. He wasn't caught: he discovered the holdings and disposed of them straight away; and donated the profits to charity. In other words, he did the honourable thing and no real possibility of improper conduct is apparent. Next story! But nooooo.... I have to sit in traffic and listen to what sounds like some juniour journo's first assignment, interviewing a Labor MP asking what he thinks should be Mr. Santoro's fate. Then asking the question again, slightly differently. Then replaying an interview with Santoro. OH. MY. GOD. HOW. BORING.

Luckily for them, by that afternoon a spark of genuine controversy had been found within this dead horse of a story. The charity he donated to was no real charity at all. It was a Queensland organisation called "Focus on the Family" or somesuch; a non-profit organisation that lobbies politicians to outlaw abortion, po'nography, etc. It claims, reasonably credibly, to be politically non-aligned, but it's hard to avoid the perception that Santoro's donation was politically tainted. He should have exercised better judgement, that's for sure, but no hanging offence was committed.

In summary, ABC, please keep your current affairs stories in proportion and perspective.

Update 19 March: Santo Santoro has since been sacked after several more dodgy share transactions were revealed. That doesn't change my opinion above. The media were right to investigate, but that doesn't excuse boring broadcasting.

Random sightings

A few things have caught my attention in the last few weeks. Individually, I only had a velleity to write about them, but collectively I should be able to manage a few words on each on the last day of my holidays.

One Apparently Terence Tao, a genius Aussie mathematician working in the US, was a finalist in the Australian of the Year awards. Apparently John Howard asked him in what part of the world he was born. This provoked the ire of two SMH letter writers for being ignorant of Mr. Tao. Scoffed Greg Bowyer: "In its breathtaking ignorance and monocultural myopia it was vintage Howard."

Methinks they complaineth too much. Mr. Tao occupies himself with mathematics so advanced that few other mathematicians in the world are likely to understand it. Most of his work, by my judgment, for what it's worth, will probably not see any practical use in his lifetime. These comments are not criticisms; they are sincere praise. However, even I (as one interested in mathematics) was unaware of Mr. Tao's existence until he won a Fields Medal last year. How then is John Howard supposed to be so clued in about this fellow?

As for "monocultural myopia", puhlease. If you can't politely ask a person of foreign appearance where they were born, then what's the world coming to?

Two The brown stuff hit the fan recently when a video entitled lebothugs appeared on YouTube containing just the kind of material its title suggests, including a homage to that gang rapist and devil spawn Bilal Skaf. Its main theme was that Australia is "under new management" by the high school gang that produced it. It is no doubt disgusting, and has thankfully been withdrawn.

John Howard immediately cited this as evidence that a small minority of Lebanese Muslims in Australia are wholly intent on refusing to properly integrate into Australia. While I can't fault his argument, or rather his statement of the bleeding obvious, for once I wish the Prime Minister of Australia could be a little more level-headed and say something like "Yes, I've been made aware of the video. I wish the police all the best with their investigation." His needless chest-thumping diminishes his credibility on these issues at a time when a lot of credibility is needed.

After all, isn't he aware that videos by white supremacists idolising the Cronulla riots are also out there on the Internet?

Three The brown stuff really hit the fan when Ken West, organiser of the Big Day Out, asked patrons not to bring flags to the event this year, because of a significant amount of anti-social behaviour involving the Australian flag at the festival last year, shortly after the Cronulla riots. The festival used to be held on Australia Day (in Sydney), but this year was moved forward one day to avoid any suggestion that a mere music festival was somehow a patriotic flag-waving event.

Anyway, West's misguided but well-intentioned and reasonable request turned into a media and political shitstorm with one wanker after another stepping up to condemn the "ban" (it was no such thing) and insult the organiser by twisting his words and mangling the issue. I was very disappointed at the quality of reportage and comment on the issue. It was tabloid hell, with few exceptions.

The predictable result was that flag usage rocketed. This is a good outcome, as the racist dickheads who caused trouble last year now didn't have a monopoly on the Australian flag. Ken West should have aimed for this outcome by encouraging flag use, rather than discouraging it.

As for me, I think flags should be left to flagpoles, Australia Day celebrations, and international sporting events.

Four A car-parts company, Tristar Steering and Suspension, copped a lot of the brown stuff this month. John Beaven, a sick and dying employee of 43 years, was refused a voluntary redundancy while 20 of his workmates got paid out. Basically, the company was waiting for him to croak, which he now has, so they wouldn't owe him anything. Perfectly understandable from a business point of view, but a bit slack, one would think.

Fortunately, though, one didn't need to waste time thinking about it. The media covered his story long and loud, with gutter reporters and a gutter radio personality invading the company's premises to demand a fair go for the sick man. Ultimately, after a visit by a government minister, the company relented and awarded the payout, which will be handy for his three kids who are now orphans.

Amazingly, though, amongst all the media I consumed on this issue, there was exactly one mention of this fact: the employees who got redundancies were all working in mechanical operations, whereas Mr. Beavan was in accounting. I'm not saying this undermines the case, but it's a shame to see salient points get lost in the froth.

Apple's iPhone looks just amazing

When I see shows like 24, where they have really cool (imaginary) technology that does just what the users want almost before they've asked for it, I think about the amazing technology of the future versus the largely mundane technology of the present. Clearly imagining the future and making it happen are skills that very few posess.

Apple has, ever since the first Macintosh, continually stretched my imagination of what can be done with technology, and how beautiful it can be. It's ironic that I'm not a paying customer. It's incredible that after all this time they still amaze me. Most innovators take the state of the art and advance it one step at a time. Apple ventures into the future and brings us back a souvenir we can use.

After much speculation, the iPhone was announced at MacWorld this morning. It won't be launched for several months, but videos of it in action can be viewed now.

Simply. Phenomenal.

In our lifetime, every four years is a leap year

I wonder how many people know what a leap year is, when they occur, and why. Everybody knows the poem "Thirty days hath September...", and from that poem, everybody "knows" that every fourth year is a leap year (1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, ...). That's what I "knew" too, until my first year of university.

As an aside, I didn't know how our state and federal elections worked (i.e. preferential and proportional voting) until my third year of university, studying Computer Science...

But it's not true, at least not anymore. From the first century to the 16th century every fourth year was a leap year, but that calendar – the Julian Calendar – was too fast: the calendar date gradually lost its synchronisation with the natural seasons (the equinoxes), the lunar cycles, and most importantly Easter. Now Easter may not be that important to you or me, but it was important to the Catholic church, and Pope Gregory XIII initiated calendar reform to solve this problem.

With a leap year every four years, there are 365.25 calendar days per year, on average. However, a solar year (the amount to time the Earth spends completing one revolution of the sun) is 365.24219 days, to five decimal places. The difference between 365.25 days and 365.24219 days is 0.00781 days. Thus the Julian calendar "gains" 0.00781 days per year, which means it gains one whole day every 128.0409 years.

Julius Caesar introduced the Julian Calendar in 46BC. Thus by 1500AD, approximately 12 days had been gained. What effect did this have? Well, as mentioned earlier, it meant that Easter (and solstices and equinoxes) were not being celebrated at the correct time according to the position of the sun and the stars in the sky. While it's impossible to create a human calendar that perfectly matches the Earth's movement around the Sun, when you're celebrating Easter 12 days early, it's probably time to review your calendar.

And that's why we don't have a leap year every four years anymore. Although he didn't design it, Pope Gregory XIII introduced the Gregorian Calendar in 1582, and various countries adopted it at different times, from Italy/France/Spain/others in 1582 through England in 1752 to Russia in 1918, making it difficult to compare dates between certain countries during that 336-year period.

The rule governing leap years in the Gregorian Calendar is this: every fourth year is a leap year, but every hundredth one is not, but every four-hundredth one is. Thus, 1900 wasn't a leap year; nor was 1800 or 1700. But 2000 was. And 2100, 2200 and 2300 won't be. But 2400 will be. And so on.

I think it's unfortunate that 2000 was a leap year, because it meant that we'll never experience an exception to the rule "every fourth year is a leap year" unless we live to 2100, which means that many people will remain ignorant of their own calendar.

See the Wikipedia page on the Gregorian Calendar for a lot more fascinating information.

So if a Julian year is on average 265.25 days, how long is a Gregorian year? Well, the Gregorian Calendar repeats every 400 years, so we'll need to average it out over that period of time. Instead of 100 leap years, there are only 97, so the number of days in 400 Gregorian years is 365 × 400 + 97 = 146097, making an average of 146097 ÷ 400 = 365.2425 days per year. And how long is a solar year? 365.24219 days. So it's close, but still one calendar day will be gained every 3225.8 years. Sir John Herschel proposed in the 18th century that one leap year in 4000 years should be cancelled so the calendar would be even more accurate, but this wasn't adopted.

What is Australian culture these days?

Here's a comment an American put on a blog about Australian culture. It's excellent.

As an American living in Sydney, I take offense to the comparison between Australia and the US. I had never been here before visiting here but it's surely made me appreciate my own country. We have our faults and they don't need reiterating, but at least we recognize them as such. I have never been to a place more obsessed than Australia about framing its culture and hanging it up on a wall.. America is a dynamic culture that is not afraid of change - it's what makes us who we are. America accepts its immigrants and we certainly don't call third generation Americans 'Greek' or 'Lebanese' or 'Indian'.. they're American - period. Individually we're free to hyphenate our own identities as we please. About 30% of us are non-caucasian and we don't dread losing our identity - I grew up in New York where caucasians are now a minority and it doesn't bother me.. I was lucky to have friends from several different backgrounds and it taught me to never presume anything about anyone. Pat Buchanan (a lunatic right wing idiot) once said that America was in danger of becoming a 'polyglot boarding house'. Sadly, when I look around Australia I see nothing more than that and its because Australians are afraid to embrace change and instead choose to hang on to a racially pure concept of nationhood that the rest of the world dropped about 40 years ago. People like John Howard don't see the difference between doing what it takes to win an election and building a nation and Australia as a relatively young nation needs a lot of that. I think Australians individually are the same as anywhere else, basically good and just trying to get by. By trying to label and brand yourselves you are crippling your own intellectual diversity and consequently your ability to adapt and innovate.

I've always been proud to identify with certain Australian values: self-deprecating humour, laid-back approach to most things, live-and-let-live attitude, etc. However, it's a useless exercise to try to "frame our culture and put it up on a wall", not to mention incredibly vain. There are plenty of Australians (i.e. those who've lived almost exclusively in Australia) who don't exhibit any of the aforementioned characteristics. Any analysis of the national character is fine so long as it's a discussion, not a conclusion.

Australia's history has never been stable for long. For the first century of white settlement Australia was a collection of British colonies, not a nation. As for nationhood: what timing! "Australia" was born in a drought. In its teenage years, it forged its identity in World War 1. This was followed by the Great Depression and World War 2. Relaxed and comfortable, anyone? Culturally, modern Australia (well, urban Australia, anyway) was born in the post-WW2 waves of migration, which have never stopped. In that sense, we're only 60 years old! That's very young for a culture.

It's a natural part of life to reflect on the ties that bind you to your compatriots. It's also natural and enjoyable to engage with the myths that evolve in any culture. There's a genuine identity crisis in Australia at the moment because two decades or more of aggressive multiculturalism have rendered those ties and myths extremely tenuous. The massive diversity of people means that if you pick two Sydneysiders at random, there's a good chance they will have a different first language, and very different knowledge of or perspectives on Australia's history and character. This is not a good basis on which to measure the national character.

People in general can cope with a national character - whatever they think it is - changing, but it's difficult to deal with it changing, or deteriorating, so fast. Because people like to engage with national myths, it can be disconcerting to be confronted with the young and fragile nature of Australian culture. To counter that instability, some people are obviously going to over-compensate by trying to frame the national culture and put it on a wall, as the anonymous American contributor wrote. Complicating matters is the fact that Australia is, objectively speaking, one of the best places in the world to live. It's not wrong to be proud of this, but it's wrong to credit Aussie values for this achivement, when the real drivers are stable government, natural resources and physical isolation (from wars, for example).

Thus the prevalence in the national debate these days about Australian values. We've suffered the embarassment of our dear leader John Howard trying to have "mateship" enshrined in the preamble to the constitution. Even though that referendum was soundly defeated, he continues to exhalt it as an Australian value/virtue. Owing to growing tension in multicultural Australia, there's now a proposal to institute a citizenship test (which I don't oppose). I see these things as inevitable growing pains of a nation. All the debate about values means people have too much time on their hands, which is a good thing: it's a sign of prosperity.

Viva la difference! And may people increasingly seek and find differences between people based on who they are, not where they were born.

Tea kick still going strong

Three posts ago, in July, I mentioned my love of good tea and the process of making it conveniently. Since then, the following aspects have changed:

• I use a better method for brewing tea at work;
• I much prefer plain tea over flavoured tea;
• I like to drink tea out of a nice cup.

At work I now use a Teeli infuser, which sits in a mug and gives the leaves plenty of room to expand, thus developing the flavour better than the spring-clip infuser I used to use. I heat the cup with hot water before using it, so the tea can brew in sufficient heat.

As regards tea varieties, my favourite ones at the moment are, in no particular order:

• Assam Joonktollee, a strong Indian black tea with slightly sweet aroma;
  
• Sen cha (fine Japanese green tea), a terrific mental recuperative;
• Darjeeling Goomtee, with an incredible grassy flavour, very relaxing;
  
• Sikkim Temi, similar to above but more subtle in flavour and effect;
• Pai Mu Tan, a Chinese white tea with very mild flavour;
• Keemun Mao Feng, a bold Chinese black tea with nutty overtones.

All of these have in common the property of being pure tea. They are single-source, meaning that all the leaves in my cup were grown in the same region, even the same estate (e.g. the Joonktollee, Goomtee and Temi estates, in the Assam, Darjeeling and Sikkim regions, respectively). The flavours of tea represent the soil and climate in which it's grown, just like wine. And just as a wine lover outgrows cheaper bottles that have been blended from several regions (thus sacrificing the distinctive flavour of one region for a predictable and mass-producable product), so does a tea lover outgrow blended teas, and this includes flavoured teas. Without intending to, I've outgrown flavoured teas, and rarely drink Earl Grey, Stockholm Blend, etc. It's not that I object to the flavour that is used; it's agreeable and of high quality. It's just that the tea used in Earl Grey tea (for instance) is indistinct. It's not sensible to use good quality single-source tea when the subtle flavours of that tea will be overpowered by, and may even clash with, the flavourings that are applied.

As an aside: four of the six teas mentioned above should be brewed with less-than-boiling water. It makes a huge difference. You have to be careful not to let them brew too long, too. A little knowledge (and a $7 thermometer) goes a long way.

Finally, tea cups. Not a big deal, but I've always believed that a list of bullet points should have at least three items in it. Until recently, the cup that delivered my tea to my mouth was given little consideration. A month ago, however, my better half purchased us a pair of Spode blue and white painted teacups (here's hers). At home at least, it's become a nice part of the overall experience.

At a recent "bring a plate" lunch I attended, my contribution was to make tea for everybody. I made Pai Mu Tan in a huge pot, its light flavour and healthy qualities being a good match for the rich food we were eating. Not only was it much appreciated, there was a sense of disbelief among some people that tea could be so nice. It's nice to be reminded that it's worth putting some effort into that daily cuppa.

The upper-middle class dichotomy: culturalist or materialist (WTF?)

A great quote from David Burchell's review of Andrew West's new book Inside the Lifestyles of the Rich and Tasteful:

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the culture wars has been the extent to which they have turned upon tendentious readings of the character of the Australian people. Australia’s radical intellectuals have always displayed a special penchant for imagining their countryfolk after the manner of their own dreams and nightmares, either as noble harbingers of social transformation or as dark repositories of prejudice and reaction, according to preference and circumstance.

I would really love to read a good book on the upper-middle class in Australia, in terms of economy, society, family, and lifestyle. However, it only took a few seconds of hearing Andrew West on the radio to know that this wasn't going to be that book. He presents a dichotomy of people in the upper-middle class: "culturalists" and "materialists". It doesn't even matter what those terms mean, because there's only one thing you really need to know in this world: as far as human beings, human societies and human issues are concerned, (nearly) all dichotomies are bullshit.

It's unfortunate but not surprising that West is, as usual, presenting an over-simplified point of view. When he ran a blog on The Sydney Morning Herald website, most of his articles put everything into ideologically neat boxes, with more "left-wing" and "right-wing" descriptors than I can stomach before noon. It's funny, though; when I read (ages ago) that he was doing research for this book, research involving interviewing actual families, I figured that this would force some reality into the end result.

Incredibly, having framed the book around his "culturalists" and "materialists" dichotomy, West consciously ignores the latter category. From Burchell's review: "In fact, West’s materialists aren’t real people so much as stage props. They’re standing in for real people ...". This, he says in the introduction, is because they do not make interesting objects of study. What the...?! There is absolutely no point advancing a theory if you aren't going to expend some effort justifying it with evidence and demonstrating that the theory is useful.

West isn't one of those "radical intellectuals" from the Burchell quote above. His imaginings don't proceed from dreams and nightmares; he's just over-zealous in categorisation where it's unnecessary. Anyway, I don't want to be a nark and whinge about one person's writing. After all, he writes a lot of good stuff and gets published widely. I'll still read the book, because reviews have said that it's amusing and interesting. It's just a shame I can't expect it to be too enlightening.

FIFA World Cup 2006 is over

What an exciting month it has been, and with school holidays coinciding with the knockout stages I've been able to take in this World Cup like none other. The final was worthy of the occasion, with France and Italy both clearly deserving to be there and playing attacking football for nearly all of their 120 minutes. Sadly, it was decided by a shootout, and even then there was a bee's dick between the teams. Neither team clearly outplayed the other, though both had their moments. There can be no complaint with Italy's victory. I was supporting France, but Zidane ruined that by headbutting Materazzi and consequently being sent off. No doubt Materazzi deserved it: look into his past and he appears to be a prick of the highest order, right up there with Christiano Ronaldo. But Zidane clearly couldn't go unpunished for his assault. A tragic way to end a wonderful career, but I don't think it will overpower it.

The Socceroos, Australia's team, impressed the world with their skill, teamwork, and brave spirit that saw them gain two crucial results from behind (3-1 over Japan and a 2-2 with Croatia to progress to the round of 16). The matches they played provided incredible excitement for us fans and inspired genuine pride. Harry Kewell should have been punished for his verbal abuse of the referee after the Brazil game, and Brett Emerton let himself and his team down by collecting three yellow cards, but both of those players made great contributions. I hope that next time Australia makes the finals there are no such bad news stories.

Our game against Italy in the round of 16 will always be considered controversial because Italy won it in the dying seconds with a slightly dodgy penalty. However, the Socceroos never showed during the game that they were the better team, whereas Italy did. An Italian was incorrectly sent off which gave us 40 minutes with a one man advantage. It was only then that we dominated play, but we didn't get a goal, which is, more or less, all that counts. Italy didn't score a goal in general play either, but created several chances in the first half, and often looked very dangerous. I can't imagine the score would remain 0-0 after 90 minutes if Materazzi hadn't been sent off.

And the penalty? If a defender goes to ground, he'd better make sure he gets the ball. Neill went to ground, not for a tackle but to block a potential shot or cross. The problem is that he was never in the hunt for the ball, but he ended up too close to the player. Grosso was playing for the penalty, no doubt, but I don't consider that he dived. His path towards the goal was illigitemately obstructed by this defender laying on the ground. Neill didn't trip Grosso, but he got in the way and didn't leave enough room for Grosso to continue his play. Fall, foul, penalty, goal, game over. It was a cruel way to end the game when extra time was seconds away, but Italy's attack in the dying seconds did leave the Australian defence desparate, which is why Neill – one of the best defenders of any team in the tournament, except for that moment – did what he did.

There were plenty of positives in that game for Australia, starting with the very fact of competing against a world class team (the eventual champions, no less) in a knockout game. That in itself ensures Australian football will be taken seriously from now on. The way the players stamped their style on the game instead of playing reactive football was also very impressive. But with Kewell out injured, we didn't have a playmaker capable of penetrating the penalty area. And the few opportunities we had needed a better striker to make them count. Australia were very well coached, very fit, and very committed. None of these can be taken for granted in the next World Cup. If we are fortunate enough to obtain a suitable replacement for Hiddink, there are obvious areas that need to be improved. South Korea crashed out in this World Cup after a spectacular run last time. We'd better not do the same!

The future of Australian football is bright: we're now in the Asian confederation instead of Oceania. This means better competition, regularly. Playing against Japan and Korea, and other good teams, to contest the Asian Cup will stimulate the Socceroos much more than playing against Fiji and their ilk. This will also make it easier to get into the World Cup finals in future. It's a shame that several Socceroos are tipped to retire now that they've shown us how well they can play, but with more meaningful opportunity to wear the green and gold, I'm sure that good quality players will be coming through to take us forward.

The refereeing generated more headlines than the real action at times, but this was only sometimes deserved. Referees are supposed to enforce the rules, but players have a responsibility to play by the rules as well. In most games during the tournament, I think the refs did the best they could be expected to do, and I think that the spotlight should be put on players who don't hold up their end of the bargain. The amount of cheating in this tournament has been dispiriting, and the onus is on FIFA to do something about it next time. It's entrenched in high-stakes European and South American domestic leagues and even, sadly, cultures, but that doesn't mean it should be tolerated in international play. Video review by the fourth official during the game (with information being fed to the referee and without pausing the game) would help, or post-match video review by a panel. Blatant diving should be a red card, but the on-field referee simply cannot make such a bold call. With definite evidence and consequences, the players will pull their heads in.

There's some relief that the World Cup is over now: the kick-off times have been punishing on the body clock, and I can't afford all of my holidays to be consumed by sport. But it's been a great spectacle with many tense games, and the achievements of the Australian team are fantastic.

Tomorrow I can finally go to the dentist to replace the filling that came out about four weeks ago...

How to enjoy a decent cup of tea

I've been on a tea kick for a couple of months, and my ritual at work is a curiosity among colleagues. The spring-clip infuser is an invention on par with the mousetrap. Because of it, I can drink leaf tea brewed in a cup, and clean up easily afterwards. Here's the routine:

1. Place napkin on small tray, and two cups (large and small) on napkin.
2. Locate teaspoon in desk drawer.
3. Select desired tea(s) from among five small tins – yes, I blend them occasionally.
4. Transfer a teaspoon of leaves to the infuser.
5. Take the lot to the kitchen.
6. Warm the large cup with hot water from the urn. Remove water.
7. Place infuser in cup and fill with hot water.
8. Take the lot to whereever the tea is to be consumed.
9. Wait five minutes.
10. Transfer infuser to small (empty) cup so tea is no longer brewing.
11. Imbibe!
12. Empty leaves from infuser into bin.
13. Remove stubborn leaves from infuser by running under tap.
14. Rinse both cups.
15. Take the lot back to my desk, ready for next time.
    

It's sooooooo much nicer than a teabag. Open a teabag sometime – even a good one – and empty out the tea. It's like powder or dust. It's what they sweep off the floor when all the tea leaves have been packaged!

The infuser doesn't match a teapot for flavour: a pot allows the leaves more room to unfold and more contact with the water; it also traps the aroma. But teapots are a nuisance to clean. So I thank goodness for my infuser during the week and use a single-cup teapot on the weekend.

My selection of teas includes: Assam for straight-up tea taste; Russian Caravan with a smoky flavour; Prince of Wales for a fuller body that's good for blending and great with a snack; Earl Gray for that classic citrus aroma; and Stockholm Blend containing Assam tea, vanilla pieces, dried fruit peel, and probably other such stuff. I'm hoping to acquire some green teas with various accompaniments soon.

Halfway through the busiest year of my life

It's unbelievable. There's one week to go before I enjoy a well-earned three week holiday, and even that will be punctuated by work. The life of a first-year teacher is not enviable, unless you happen to be that first-year teacher and love your job. That said, I enjoy my job more in theory than in practice at the moment. This eight-week term is well known as the busiest time of the year, with exams, marking, parent-teacher nights, and reporting putting a lot of pressure on everybody. Those things create nearly a full-time job in their own right; never mind the actual teaching of children. When one is inexperienced, the consequence of a heavy extra workload is that one cannot properly prepare for the 4.5 (on average) lessons per day. Teaching suffers, the students suffer, and I suffer. The ultimate consequence is exhaustion.

Am I complaining? No. It's a learning experience, and I know that this time next year will run more smoothly. Writing reports, for instance, is much more time consuming when you haven't done it before. Writing a decent exam takes more time than anyone outside the profession could imagine, but that also surely gets easier with practice. Marking is time-consuming, but at least it's not stressful. And parent-teacher nights are usually a positive experience that help you understand more about the students.

The first term was really busy because everything is a new experience, and working in a deservedly elite school, there's plenty of pressure from parents not to be a bad teacher. In the second term, I was forced to fly on instinct. I have planned exactly three lessons in seven weeks. The rest I more or less worked out as I went along. That's sometimes a good thing, but often the result is tetchy students, opportunities for misbehaviour, and me falling behind the curriculum. It's going to take a lot of planning next week and during the holidays to get things back on an even keel.

Nonetheless, there have been heaps of positive experiences, many learning experiences, and a general sense of doing the right thing with my life. The professionalism of the maths department at my school is superlative. It adds to my workload, because expectations are high, but it makes the job more satisfying as well.

Book: Agatha Christie novels

I read non-fiction books and other material almost exclusively. Regrettably, my imagination or attention span doesn't seem suited to complex stories. Things are OK when they get going, but the mountain of words spent setting the scene leave me wondering what on Earth is going on.

So I dips me lid to Agatha Christie, who wrote about 60 detective/mystery novels in the years 1920–1970 (roughly). They're written in a straightforward manner with antique English which I find absolutely delightful. The plots and mysteries are terrific; how she concocted them is beyond me. And when I finish one book I look forward to picking up the next. The local library has a good collection, but they're obviously popular.

Right now I'm reading the classic Murder on the Orient Express. It's such a famous title, and I retain my childhood fantasy of reading this book while travelling on the Orient Express! Since last December, I've chewed through:

• And Then There Were None (oh what a great book!)
  
• Hickory Dickory Dock
• Cards on the Table
• Death on the Nile
  

Last year I saw a couple of stories on television, and as enjoyable as they were, I have so much more fun reading the books. With more than 3 billion copies sold around the world in 104 languages, methinks I'm not the only one.

Related Books The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency, by Alexander McCall Smith, is a really charming modern book (fiction) about a proudly fat lady in Botswana, of all places, who becomes the country's first female detective. Its portrait of life in Botswana – the good and the bad – is heart-warming and frequently brings a big smile to the face. The follow-up books in the series seem a bit hit and miss, though.

The Murders in the Rue Morgue, by Edgar Allan Poe, is the world's first detective story (1841). It was a few years ago that I read it, and remember nothing of its story, but I do remember enjoying it. Poe's short stories of horror (The Pit and the Pendulum, The Masque of Red Death, The Purloined Letter, The Tell-Tale Heart) and his poem The Raven are awesome. The guy was an alcoholic nutjob who married his 13-year-old cousin, and the nightmares he commits to print are surely his own. A giant of American literature.

The Hound of the Baskervilles, by Arthur Conan Doyle: the only (I think) novel-length Sherlock Holmes story. Enjoyable, but there's a warmth in Christie's books that I enjoy and which Sherlock Holmes seems to lack.

Teacher turnover spin

It has become common knowledge that in a large number of NSW public schools, there's a high rate of teacher turnover and many teachers burn out within five years and leave the profession. This has been reported in the media so many times I wonder when they're going to say something fresh. Well, when The Sydney Morning Herald rehashed it a few weeks ago, on the front page no less, my jaw nearly dropped when I read the following sentence (paraphrased from memory):

The average length of time a teacher stays at these schools is just over a year, causing massive educational disruptions for the students.

Wow, the poor students! Did the writer never pause to consider the bleeding obvious? That it's the students who are causing the massive educational disruptions for themselves? That the teachers eventually give in to the fact that the students won't learn and try to find some other students who will?

High staff turnover in a school is a symptom of a deeper problem: that noone really "owns" the school and takes responsibility for the problems that occur within it. The problem spirals: a high turnover means the school is not gaining teachers with experience in dealing with its problems, which makes it even harder for the new lot of staff to cope. When the people who have been there longest are the senior students, they'll act like they own the school and nobody can really do anything about it.

Sure, some teachers have successes with some of the students, but that's generally using a standard of success that would be laughed out of town in any good school. A friend of mine teaches at a crappy school where a science teacher was reduced to giving the whole class a merit award simply because they were quiet for five minutes.

Students that are so opposed to being in the classroom should be made to do supervised labour in the school grounds or the local community. That way, they'll either learn some relevant skills or they'll come to realise that being in the classroom isn't so bad.

Flogging the idelogy that all kids are basically good and receptive to learning, only to be disrupted by these selfish teachers who won't stick around, won't solve any problems.

Cricket (Finally) the Winner at the SCG

The annual January 2 Test match at the Sydney Cricket Ground finished recently, leaving me with nothing to do except borrow a cricket video from the library. It was the final match of a 3-game series against South Africa, and Australia won it to take the series 2-0 (the first game was a draw). Why was cricket (finally) the winner?

After four days of dismal sport marred by boring South African batting, poor weather, and rotten umpiring, the fifth day produced great excitement as Graeme Smith, the South African captain, declared his innings with a slender lead of 286 in the hope of bowling Australia out. History was against Australia making the runs, but they broke a 107-year-old ground record to do just that. Smith took a big risk to try and win the game, and it didn't pay off. He was desparate to level the series 1-1, but ended up losing it 2-0. His bravery and commitment to provide an entertaining day's play, whatever the result, has probably won him many fans from a previously lukewarm Australian public. South Africa certainly emerged as a brave and worthy cricket opponent. The return series – three Tests in South Africa commencing in March – promises excitement.

Despite Australia winning the match on paper, they can't be said to have truly won it. South Africa had a commanding lead at all stages until Smith forced the issue. Australia took advantage of the opportunity Smith provided; they did not create their own opportunity. South Africa could easily have engineered a draw and kept the series at 1-0, but chose the more sporting option of chasing a win and entertaining the crowds. Therefore, I declare cricket the winner.

And an unlikely winner it was, after poor weather stealing some of the time available, and poor umpiring having far too much impact on the game. More incorrect decisions went against South Africa than against Australia; this really risked undermining the game and its result. Fortunately, South Africa retained the dominant position they deserved until they declared their hand.

Most fortunately of all, Australia has somebody worth competing against in Test cricket again. England aside, the other handful of Test-playing nations have proven inadequate in recent years. There's nothing worse than the seeing beautiful five-day game be regularly reduced to a three-day demolition (the occasional smashing of the Poms is OK). The world needs a sport where two teams are tested, individually and collectively, over an extended period. I can't see any other sports fitting that description.

Private School Fees and Inflation

Another year, another hearty rise in private school fees (to a maximum of $22,000 p.a.) and a chorus of complaint as it is observed that the price hikes exceed inflation. Ditto health funds. A classic example of economic ignorance.

Inflation is the measure of average price increases, not a driver of price increases. Do you expect to pay 2% more now for the same computer you bought last year? No. All sorts of things drive prices up and down. In the case of school fees, it's almost certainly a matter of supply and demand. Increasing teachers' salaries (thank goodness) come into it, as do expanding executive staff, and of course new facilities, but basically, it's a matter of "we can get away with it".

Inflation is measured by tracking the price of "basket of goods" including basic foods and other necessities, but not health funds or school fees. Like many other things in economics, it sounds like a really crappy measure – more a thumb-suck – but it gets burrowed into people's heads as some kind of powerful force. I'm not saying it's not important; your savings will certainly be eaten up by the rising cost of living if you're not careful. But it's good to know what it actually is.

Further on the matter of private school fees, I read this week that teachers' salaries typically account for around 60% of such schools' expenditure, though the figure varies widely. This was a pleasant surprise. To the best of my knowledge, private school teachers are typically paid only slightly better than public school teachers. This means that the cash flowing into private schools is mostly going to a good cause, from a parent's point of view. The fine facilities on display at many private schools give the false impression of easy money. In my limited experience, such expenditure is enabled only by long-term money management and energetic fundraising.

How to Combat Beach Crime

In The Australian, 13 Dec 2005, Paul Comrie-Thomson writes:

As The Daily Telegraph in Sydney reported on the day before the Cronulla riots, for years Bondi beach had experienced bashings of lifesavers and locals and intimidation of beachgoers, particularly of young women. The perpetrators were gangs of Middle Eastern background.

In January 1999, undercover policemen placed a gang of about 40 youths under surveillance. Troublemakers were identified. Uniformed police officers arrived in police trucks and ordered the troublemakers to move on because of their offensive behaviour. The youths refused and they were arrested. To the amazement of the police, beachgoers who had witnessed the arrests gave the officers a standing ovation. But that was not the end of the matter. As the Telegraph notes: "It took a concerted, sustained effort by eastern suburbs police, but by 2003 the gangs were gone."

It took four years to bring the rule of law to Bondi beach. Four years of persistent police work, at just one beach.

So that's what's required at Cronulla.

Race Riot in Cronulla

These are the headlines of the most-viewed articles in today's SMH.

1. Race riots spread to suburbs
2. Thugs ruled the streets, and the mob sang Waltzing Matilda
3. United in condemnation, divided over the causes
4. Worst possible outcome - vigilantes rip unity to shreds
5. 'What is Australian anyway?'
6. Strike force probes new hate alert
7. Locals talk of fear and disgust after violence of bloody Sunday
8. Ethnic tensions troubling the whole neighbourhood
9. Nasty reality surfs in as ugly tribes collide
10. PM refuses to use racist tag

"What happened?"

For years, groups of Lebanese youths have been causing trouble on Cronulla beach (a suburb in the south of Sydney): verbally harassing women, kicking sand at people; that sort of thing. It's the kind of trouble that maladjusted youths like to cause: not bold enough to get the police involved, but enough persistent niggle to get noticed, feel a sense of power, and make a firm statement that you have no intention to blend in. That doesn't need to be a racial blend, just some kind of cultural or social difference that can easily exist among people of the same race, like youths making a nuisance of themselves at a shopping centre, for instance. But it's easy (too easy) to pick on race as the key issue here. Cronulla and its surrounding suburbs are one of the last white enclaves in Sydney. The few youth of Lebanese or similar origin that live in the area cause no trouble and receive no trouble, anecdotal evidence suggests. But that's common sense anyway. If you live in an area and have your head screwed on right, you adopt the civil code of that area, which on the beach generally means enjoy yourself and be considerate of others. The troublemakers live outside the area but are connected by the train line or, of course, by car.

"OK, but what happened?"

Last weekend, a lifeguard was physically assaulted by – you guessed it – a gang of Lebanese youth. That's when the proverbial hit the fan, as it should. Lifeguards are an Australian icon: they volunteer to sit watchfully over the beach and rush out to assist those who encounter trouble in the water. An attack on a lifeguard is a symbolic attack felt by anyone who has enjoyed a day at the beach; that is, millions of people. It seems this fellow had asked this group to stop playing soccer so close to other people as the flying sand was a nuisance. For his trouble, he got bashed. Later on, of course, and by a group of about four men. The cowardly way that Lebanese misfits always behave. (Notice I said Lebanese misfits; it's only the misfits I'm talking about, not other Lebanese people.) Drive by shootings, gang rapes, and generally antisocial group behaviour are the first thing that comes to most Sydney people's mind when you mention the words "young male Lebanese". It is not racist of me to point that out; it is based on a long list of abhorrent crimes committed in Sydney in very recent years, and on first and second hand experience of these people. Anyone who loves multiculturalism, as I do, must be on guard against people who will seek to destroy it and give a whole community a bad name through their vile actions.

"For heaven's sake! Will somebody just tell me what happened!? This man is a raving lunatic!"

Sorry... OK, so that lifeguard copped a cowardly beating last weekend, which was the last straw. For the first time, the tensions on Cronulla beach reached the media. (I certainly knew nothing of them previously, and haven't been anywhere near Cronulla for at least ten years.) People were obviously fuming in Cronulla, and some text messages got out, and were reported in the media, suggesting that a demonstration be held in Cronulla "on Sunday" (i.e. yesterday) in defiance of these unwanted elements on the beach. The message was couched in racist rhetoric, and every night of the week the TV news had a story about or related to "that message".

Well, come Sunday, come trouble. Thousands of local men (teens to thirtysomethings), and some supporters from near and far, congregated in a grassy area early in the day and settled in for a festive, boozy day. I don't know what the mood was like or what people's intentions might have been, but you can't have a fight without an opponent. They were probably expecting that a large group of Lebanese men might turn up en masse, but that didn't happen. Exactly what did happen, I've no idea, despite reading all the reports I could. But for whatever reason, a handful of Lebanese people, or people of similar appearance, did come within reach of the mob, and were set upon. These people didn't come as a group and I don't think they incited anything. They may even have been locals. The mob's behaviour was disgraceful: they bashed whoever they could get their hands on before police could rescue the victim(s) and shepherd them to safety. Ironically, "safety" was a hotel, probably the same hotel that had sold a whole palette of beer that morning.

Other harassment included chasing two women wearing headscarves. There was no physical harm, but how low can you get? It demonstrates loud and clear that no matter how righteous the anger felt over ethnic pests on the beach, this over-reaction was misguided and set a real low for behaviour in Australia. The mob's hunger was not sate, and they invaded the train station in the belief that further enemy combatants would be arriving. They found two men inside a train (i.e., not disembarking) and beat them up. All the while they were flying Australian flags, singing Waltzing Matilda, chanting racist slogans and displaying racist messages on clothing.

A demonstration against pests (whatever their race) became a race riot, and Australia hung its head in shame.

The violence was caused by a lot of factors: resentment, the lifeguard incident, alcohol, sun, more alchol, large numbers of people, and more alcohol. These factors will make for a nasty mob, but I believe it took one more thing to ignite the violence: neo-nazis. Some people made a long journey to be in Cronulla yesterday, and some of those journeymen were neo-nazis, as confirmed by the police today. I believe that they were the trigger that caused a mob to set upon innocent bystanders. The mob themselves would have gladly started violence if a large menacing Lebanese gang had turned up, but it's a bit beyond me to believe they would bash people who were not looking for trouble. Maybe I'm wrong; either way, I hope the police can identify people from the copious news footage and make some more arrests quick smart.

To finish the factual part of this story, Lebanese gangs retaliated later, and in different suburbs. They roamed other beachside suburbs nowhere near Cronulla with baseball bats, smashing the windows on at least 100 cars. Arrests were made. These actions were repeated tonight, and more arrests were made. There was no further violence or significant mob gatherings at Cronulla today, but police maintained a presence and will probably be preparing for another round somewhere, sometime.

I'll quickly address two reactions in the press. The SMH editorial was extremely well written. Here's an excerpt:

There is no excuse for such violence and such hatred. The failure they represent is profound. No side emerges with credit - not the crowds of braying Anglo-Celtic Australians, waving the national flag as they beat up bystanders because of the colour of their skin, not the Lebanese community, whose young men have such difficulty in understanding Australian social norms and finding a place in Australian society, not the State Government, which has routinely dismissed calls in the area for a better police effort to combat the casual depredations, boorishness and criminality of ethnic gangs.

... Australia has changed suddenly and inexplicably into a darker, nastier place, and the whole population is struggling to understand why.

The one thing I disagree with there is the suddenness of the change. The "casual depredations, boorishness and criminality of ethnic gangs" has been going on for at least five years, and are a failure of an otherwise successful Australian multiculturalism, a failure which came to a head yesterday. The change isn't sudden.

Failures in multiculturalism slip between the cracks of people's understanding of civil society. Society doesn't work if people aren't nice, or at least civil, to each other. When many cultural groups mingle, there's more opportunity for incivilities to occur, because society as a whole no longer has the same broad set of expectations of civil behaviour. Moreover, it's not logistically feasible for police to settle every minor dispute and, as I wrote earlier, some misfits will target these unpolicable gaps to create trouble for their own amusement.

One example of this trouble was reported in The Daily Telegraph:

A YOUNG woman this week told a TV camera crew of the intimidation she has experienced on Cronulla beach.

"They'll stand over you while you're sunbaking, block your sun so they get your attention, then say, 'She's not worth doing 55 years for'," she told them.

For those unsure of what these lowlifes are referring to, it's the length of the prison sentence which was given to Sydney's infamous gang rapist, Bilal Skaf.

Sickening. This behaviour is as bad as, or worse than, the non-physical harassment meted out to the two innocent women during Cronulla's day of infamy. Yet we hang our heads in shame over that one day, while this other behaviour goes on every weekend undeterred by police and barely reported even now.

Only when the everyday actions of antisocial Lebanese and white supremicists meet the full force of the law will Australian society be free to celebrate its multicultural success unreservedly.

Update. Tuesday's news has more detail about what happened when and where on the day. I won't bother going into it any further. One thing is clear, though: the retaliation by the Lebanese that night and last night is just as despicable as the riot itself. (It's not being reported that way, though; surprise, surprise...)