Open ended Questions

Was reading the Sunday Telegraph last night and there was an article on Howard's wants for the way Australian history is taught in schools.

Howard wants history to be taught sequentially , as a coherent narrative. It seems history is currently been taught as a series of analysis based approached to subjects such as Society and enviroment. The Howard government is now threatening to cut $33 billion, in funding and GST, over the next four years to states that do not comply to his vision.

Now I believe that history should be taught as both. You need a "narrative" structure to history (on this date this happened, then this happened, then this etc) but such a structure is useless unless you also focus on subjects such as society and enviroment etc (On this date this happen, then this and that's why the federal capital is in the middle of a sheep pasture etc)

Of course Howard and his federal education minister, Julie Bishop, aren't being completely draconian about it. They endorse a "open ended question" approach to history:

"I think open ended questions are a very good idea, such as: how did we become a liberal democracy?" - Julie Bishop

I'm sorry. I think the question should be "When did we BECOME a liberal democracy?"
Because I certainly haven't seen it yet.

The Oxford dictionary defines liberal as being : 1) given or giving freely, generous, not sparing of, abundant; open minded, unprejudiced; directed to general broadening of the mind, not professional or technical 2) holder of liberal views (holding humane views not confinded to a poliical party).

So we're not reliant on one source, dictionary.com defines liberal as :

1. 1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
   2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
   3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
   4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2. 1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
   2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5. 1. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
   2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

Do any of these definations of liberal fit the Australian political structure? A previous post on this blog concerned gay marriages and the governments refusal to give these people the same rights as hetrosexuals. Is this "unprejudiced"? Is the government "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry."? One of Howard's arguments aganist gay marriage is "Society isn't ready for it." Is that a "general broadening of the mind?"

The federal government is holding state governments to ransom on a daily basis. Not just education, they threaten to withhold funding if state government's didn't drop state taxes not that long ago. There was the thing over the flags at school, threaten to withhold funding if they didn't fly the Australian flag. Then there was the report cards (okay an education thing). The Howard government wanted reports cards to be in "plain" english (the A to F grading system rather then the "Achieved expected outcomes" to "excelled beyond expected outcomes" [or whatever they called it] that was in place). Again, threats to funding were made (ironically in the "plain" english system "C" means "Achieved expected outcomes" or "average" so what's the difference?). They threaten to withhold funds from South Australia over the Vietnamn vetrans grave if they flew the South Vietnamn flag - which those soldiers fought and died for (as well as the Australian flag), though SA funded the graves through public donations so the government was forced to back down. Is this "giving freely"?

"If the States want to recieve federal funding, as well as the GST for education, they have to take responability for the outcomes and contents
of their courses... ...It is wrong to say that State governments are the only ones who have a say about outcomes in schools. Federal tax payers have a say, as well" - Julie Bishop

Democracy:- Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. Federal tax payers = federal voters. Okay, so the federal government represents federal voters.

Federal:- Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government. Federal voters = state voters.

So if federal tax payers also vote for state governments then, they already have a say!

Unless of course Julie Bishop means that voters in, say NSW, have a right to say how the Queensland government spends it's money, or voters in Tasmania can dicate terms to the South Australian government.

So I'll end now with an open question, "When did we become a liberal democracy?"

Don't mind if I do!

All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.
All work and no play make Nat a dull boy.

Working in a cuckoo clock

I HATE MY JOB!

Okay no great and new revelation for most of you. I never made it a secret that my job, well, simply put, sucks! Occassionally there is the fulfilling sense of achievement, but that is few and far between as what achievement can there be if everyone I nurse dies? The most I can ever do is try to ensure my patients remain as comfortable as is humanly possiable, well trying to retain what level of sanity I have left.

No small order.

As a result my job is quite stressful at times. Due to this fact I have over the years developed a ulcer (not nice in any way), lowered my immue system so everytime gastro goes through the facility I get it (not nice at all) and I picked up the filthly (but strangely pleasurable) habit of smoking.

But work has never gotten to me like it did this week. It started Sunday morning. Prior to leaving one of my patients had small accident. The morning RN took control of the situation, stated that she would handle the paper work, asked me to carry out a set of observations before I left (which I did) and reported it to the Supervisor and took full responability for all the needed paper work (I know she did I was right next to her when she was on the phone) So I go home and think nothing of it.

Sunday night the Supervisor comes down to the ward and discovers some of the paper work was not filled in and as there was no injury to the patient the RN decided not to contiune with the observations, something this Supervisor loves and believes (mistakenly, I know I looked it up) should be done regardless. Suddenly this was entirely my fault. Of course I wasn't taken aside and spoken to quietly, but chewed out in front of my work colleagues. I explained that the morning RN was in charge but the response was "I don't want to hear your excuses" (BTW this was the same Supervisor who the morning RN had rung to inform of the situation in the first place). Then there was general ranting along the lines of "my incompetence would no longer be tolerated" and then "I had better left my game as she was going to make sure she was the one doing my performace evalution" Again in front of my colleagues.

This really pissed me off. It was not my responability and I have no control over the morning RN (who outranks me anyway) and to be made to look like a incompetent imbecile in front of my colleagues (who do know better, but still not the point) really irked me. As the night progressed I got more and more pissed off. To the point when I came home Monday morning I managed to polish off a bottle of wine in about 15-20 minutes.

Last night was a little better, but my patients decided to be off their tits, driving my colleague and I around the bend (you get nights like that)

As for the Sunday night incident, well.. the morning RN is still claiming full responability and admitted that she forgot to fill in some of the paper work and was quite disgusted that I had to bear the brunt of it, to which I thank her. I have written out a letter of formal complaint and plan to hand it in when I return to work.

So the purpose of this blog entry? To vent and bitch. That's what blogs are for right?