This is the post I was thinking of writing last time, but I got distracted thinking about why people just don't read. The fact remains that most people read words on a page/screen, & then put them together in the way that they expect them to be arranged, rather than the way they are arranged in a particular context. Reading requires imagination.
People tend to read what they think is there. This is why, if yuo wreit in scuh a way taht the benginig & end are croerct, tehn msot popele wlil udnresatnd the wrod. However, the effort of doing so has diminished the meaning of the sentence, because it took so much effort to interpret the micro-level words that the macro-level sense & meaning would take another reading.
The same goes for poorly-constructed paragraphs where the sentences need grammatical manipulation to make sense, poorly-constructed articles where the paragraphs don't connect, etc. We spend so much time deciphering the small linguistic units that we fail to get the message of the writer. A good reader can understand a paragraph's intent immediately, without needing to read the words.
I do agree with you that that's mostly the writer's fault, but it's the fault of all of us for tolerating such writers - encouraging them by accepting their shoddy workmanship, their slap-dash approach to competitively producing quantity & relevance over quality & timelessness. What have always been described as "the classics", are those books written in such a way that they can be read many times, garnering new meaning with each reading - if you are discerning enough.
Meanwhile, the best-seller list consists of the latest tome from writers who pump out near-identical ideas multiple times a year, so as to survive in the cut-throat publishing business.
This is what people are reading - the words thrown together to be digested easily like the equivalent of fast food. You don't think about it, & chewing is even optional. Just swallow it & come back again when you're hungry. Good books should be like fine dining - it takes planning, time, expectation, delight, & satisfaction - to the point of wanting to share the experience with others.
Aside from most people missing the exposure to good books through their "education", a lot of people simply don't know what a good book is, so they start reading low quality pulp, get put off by the experience, & return to either not reading at all, or else limiting themselves to technical manuals & the like.
Encouraging people to read more means helping them to read the sort of books likely to make them want to keep reading. Even if they don't get the full depth of possibilities with their first forays into the world of books, they are far more likely to keep trying if they get something out of each book they read.
10 August 2014
03 August 2014
Three "Ah!"s
People are no longer being taught to read or write (or add).
The younger generation will be up in arms, tweeting their denials.
The older generation will nod their heads wisely & get back to their spy thriller.
Society is to blame.
I'm moving too fast, so I'll back up a bit ... a long way. Once upon a time, there was a big gap between the educated & the uneducated. Those who learned to read & write (& do maths) were the elite. They had time on their hands. They read the words of those held in honour by their teachers - people who were respected by all educated people. Although they could put quill to paper, they would rarely consider the possibility of writing for a wide audience themselves - that was a task for the few greats.
The spread of education over the years meant that, as people started filling in the gap between the educated & non-educated - the burgeoning middle class of education, if you will - & saw the advantages of being able to read & write, & how it held those with the skill so far above those who couldn't, they encouraged others to be brought up from the uneducated into the semi-educated class. They sometimes had the support & encouragement of the educated.
However, & this is the key - it was never (or very rarely) the educated who took the illiterate to a higher level, it was the semi-educated sharing their knowledge, which had been gleaned from the educated in a diminished (often begrudging) manner. It takes great dedication & perseverance to take an illiterate person to the level of being highly (tertiary) educated. It always has done. This is why the task of doing it was given to the semi-educated, who pushed themselves up the education scale at the same time (making a bigger range in the middle educated). This could never have made them members of the educated elite, of itself. It only made them the most educated of the semi-educated.
Now, Western society "expects" almost everyone to be literate - but only by the standard of the educators, who still belong to that middle band. Those being educated have little or no access to the truly educated elite. However, they are arrogant enough to believe that they can learn everything from the one source & have achieved greatness as the result of an ordinary education. The truth is, they are the new illiterate - the lowest educated in society.
People who are told that they can read & write will believe it. But if you ask them to do so, the result is not particularly enlightening. Someone who "can write" could well still have trouble writing in complete sentences or making a message clear. Similarly, someone who "can read" may not be able to decipher a simple paragraph of text giving instructions for how to operate their smart phone.
Some "educated" people - those whose university degrees border on the vocational - including teachers - don't read books. They read manuals or guides, full of jargon & pictures. They do not read books full of ideas.
Some "educated" people who write blogs (like this one) don't automatically have ideas worth sharing, even if they can indeed communicate in the first place, just because they have a blog.
Yet we find teenagers who think that what they have to say is so amazing that they should receive praise for their ability to tap a few keys (like "photo" & "send"), & that being the first to know who of their circle has done likewise is a substitute for caring.
So, that's the problem - we (society) arrogantly assume that what we have been taught within & by our social system is all that there is to offer. Accepting this, we assume that we are at the pinnacle of the social tree because we can, indeed, read a newspaper headline & spell a hashtag.
I say that's just not good enough.
The younger generation will be up in arms, tweeting their denials.
The older generation will nod their heads wisely & get back to their spy thriller.
Society is to blame.
I'm moving too fast, so I'll back up a bit ... a long way. Once upon a time, there was a big gap between the educated & the uneducated. Those who learned to read & write (& do maths) were the elite. They had time on their hands. They read the words of those held in honour by their teachers - people who were respected by all educated people. Although they could put quill to paper, they would rarely consider the possibility of writing for a wide audience themselves - that was a task for the few greats.
The spread of education over the years meant that, as people started filling in the gap between the educated & non-educated - the burgeoning middle class of education, if you will - & saw the advantages of being able to read & write, & how it held those with the skill so far above those who couldn't, they encouraged others to be brought up from the uneducated into the semi-educated class. They sometimes had the support & encouragement of the educated.
However, & this is the key - it was never (or very rarely) the educated who took the illiterate to a higher level, it was the semi-educated sharing their knowledge, which had been gleaned from the educated in a diminished (often begrudging) manner. It takes great dedication & perseverance to take an illiterate person to the level of being highly (tertiary) educated. It always has done. This is why the task of doing it was given to the semi-educated, who pushed themselves up the education scale at the same time (making a bigger range in the middle educated). This could never have made them members of the educated elite, of itself. It only made them the most educated of the semi-educated.
Now, Western society "expects" almost everyone to be literate - but only by the standard of the educators, who still belong to that middle band. Those being educated have little or no access to the truly educated elite. However, they are arrogant enough to believe that they can learn everything from the one source & have achieved greatness as the result of an ordinary education. The truth is, they are the new illiterate - the lowest educated in society.
People who are told that they can read & write will believe it. But if you ask them to do so, the result is not particularly enlightening. Someone who "can write" could well still have trouble writing in complete sentences or making a message clear. Similarly, someone who "can read" may not be able to decipher a simple paragraph of text giving instructions for how to operate their smart phone.
Some "educated" people - those whose university degrees border on the vocational - including teachers - don't read books. They read manuals or guides, full of jargon & pictures. They do not read books full of ideas.
Some "educated" people who write blogs (like this one) don't automatically have ideas worth sharing, even if they can indeed communicate in the first place, just because they have a blog.
Yet we find teenagers who think that what they have to say is so amazing that they should receive praise for their ability to tap a few keys (like "photo" & "send"), & that being the first to know who of their circle has done likewise is a substitute for caring.
So, that's the problem - we (society) arrogantly assume that what we have been taught within & by our social system is all that there is to offer. Accepting this, we assume that we are at the pinnacle of the social tree because we can, indeed, read a newspaper headline & spell a hashtag.
I say that's just not good enough.
06 July 2014
Constituent Conservativism
I've already passed comment (after the last federal election) that Australians are naturally supporters of the Liberal Party, as they are fundamentally skeptical of ... well, anything. Most Australians think they know better, which makes them independent thinkers, self-reliant, etc, but also means that politicians using the media for voter manipulation is the equivalent of herding cats.
My next point is that the Australian population (or voters, at least) are essentially conservative. I don't mean politically right-wing, but that they prefer "more of the same" until they get fed up. Stability is one of the main-stays of politics in this country. Very few governments, at state or federal level, last only one term. It's not just "giving them a fair go", it's a partial fear of the unknown (what will those currently in opposition do? what will they change?) & a fear of change in general. Radicalism has no place in Australian politics.
Let's look at the campaigns of the major parties (Liberal v Labor) - & this is the primary battle-ground, as the second-tier parties (Nationals, Greens) have actual platforms & supporters, rather than dirtying themselves with the middle ground (leaving aside the Greens' appeal to middle-class guilt).
The Liberals, whose coalition gained power, repeatedly used conservative statements. One might say that makes sense, they are a conservative party, but the statements were carefully crafted to make radical changes to some policies to make them appear to be not changing anything. Occasionally, there was an outright lie (broken promise), but we'll put that aside as the over-exuberance of an opposition with nothing to lose but their self-respect.
"Stop the boats" was a pretty radical policy. In the eyes of some, this was tantamount to a declaration of war on our near neighbour, & the relationship with Indonesia has been decidedly frosty ever since. How extraordinary! But, with that policy was a conservative undercurrent of "your way of life will no longer be affected by the influx of asylum seekers". In itself, such a way of thinking is so full of holes that it would barely make it off an Indonesian beach, but it appeals to the shallow thinkers - "Oh no! My peaceful existence is being threatened by a bunch of frightened, starving political refugees arriving on a distant island! Please do something about it!" I've certainly put more panic into that train of thought than is warranted, but you get the idea.
"On education, a vote for the Liberals is the same as a vote for Labor" was probably a lie. Even in light of how the Liberals in opposition had done everything in their power to block the education reforms (note that radical word), there is a conservativism in how it's expressed. The changes are in, we don't want to rock the boat (we'd rather turn it back).
"Repeal the carbon tax" & "Climate isn't really changing" are both very conservative statements - don't worry, just be "alert, not alarmed" - oops, that's from the previous Liberal government. Australians bought it. There's nothing wrong. The rest of the world is going mad. Business as usual. We like that. No impact on my lifestyle.
There are so many other examples, where Liberal policy encompassed either "we'll do what they did, just better", or else "we don't like what they did, so we'll go back to a time when voters were happier".
At this point, gentle reader, I'm sure you'll point out again that the Liberals are meant to be conservative. That's their job. My response is two-fold - the Labor party is not exactly radical, they just weren't as good at expressing their policies conservatively; &, how are we ever going to get anywhere if we never, ever, want things to change?
If we want a better life for ourselves, for our children, for the planet, etc, then we have to want change, embrace it, encourage it, expect it. By all means, be critical of any attempt at change - & I don't mean skeptical, I mean think through the impact without letting the media do the thinking for you - but when change doesn't come, then you get entropy, a degradation. There is no such thing as keeping things the same, as that takes too much work.
Once you accept that outside forces affect circumstances (think GFC - even though the Liberals denied its existence), then you must also adapt to changes in the environment (rather than ignoring them) & change your approach. A sign of madness is when you keep doing the same thing expecting a different outcome.
On that note, I point out that we, the voting populace, must be insane, because we keep voting for the same people - the major parties - & expecting that things will somehow be different to what they have been throughout out experience. It's not going to happen.
To get change, do something different.
My next point is that the Australian population (or voters, at least) are essentially conservative. I don't mean politically right-wing, but that they prefer "more of the same" until they get fed up. Stability is one of the main-stays of politics in this country. Very few governments, at state or federal level, last only one term. It's not just "giving them a fair go", it's a partial fear of the unknown (what will those currently in opposition do? what will they change?) & a fear of change in general. Radicalism has no place in Australian politics.
Let's look at the campaigns of the major parties (Liberal v Labor) - & this is the primary battle-ground, as the second-tier parties (Nationals, Greens) have actual platforms & supporters, rather than dirtying themselves with the middle ground (leaving aside the Greens' appeal to middle-class guilt).
The Liberals, whose coalition gained power, repeatedly used conservative statements. One might say that makes sense, they are a conservative party, but the statements were carefully crafted to make radical changes to some policies to make them appear to be not changing anything. Occasionally, there was an outright lie (broken promise), but we'll put that aside as the over-exuberance of an opposition with nothing to lose but their self-respect.
"Stop the boats" was a pretty radical policy. In the eyes of some, this was tantamount to a declaration of war on our near neighbour, & the relationship with Indonesia has been decidedly frosty ever since. How extraordinary! But, with that policy was a conservative undercurrent of "your way of life will no longer be affected by the influx of asylum seekers". In itself, such a way of thinking is so full of holes that it would barely make it off an Indonesian beach, but it appeals to the shallow thinkers - "Oh no! My peaceful existence is being threatened by a bunch of frightened, starving political refugees arriving on a distant island! Please do something about it!" I've certainly put more panic into that train of thought than is warranted, but you get the idea.
"On education, a vote for the Liberals is the same as a vote for Labor" was probably a lie. Even in light of how the Liberals in opposition had done everything in their power to block the education reforms (note that radical word), there is a conservativism in how it's expressed. The changes are in, we don't want to rock the boat (we'd rather turn it back).
"Repeal the carbon tax" & "Climate isn't really changing" are both very conservative statements - don't worry, just be "alert, not alarmed" - oops, that's from the previous Liberal government. Australians bought it. There's nothing wrong. The rest of the world is going mad. Business as usual. We like that. No impact on my lifestyle.
There are so many other examples, where Liberal policy encompassed either "we'll do what they did, just better", or else "we don't like what they did, so we'll go back to a time when voters were happier".
At this point, gentle reader, I'm sure you'll point out again that the Liberals are meant to be conservative. That's their job. My response is two-fold - the Labor party is not exactly radical, they just weren't as good at expressing their policies conservatively; &, how are we ever going to get anywhere if we never, ever, want things to change?
If we want a better life for ourselves, for our children, for the planet, etc, then we have to want change, embrace it, encourage it, expect it. By all means, be critical of any attempt at change - & I don't mean skeptical, I mean think through the impact without letting the media do the thinking for you - but when change doesn't come, then you get entropy, a degradation. There is no such thing as keeping things the same, as that takes too much work.
Once you accept that outside forces affect circumstances (think GFC - even though the Liberals denied its existence), then you must also adapt to changes in the environment (rather than ignoring them) & change your approach. A sign of madness is when you keep doing the same thing expecting a different outcome.
On that note, I point out that we, the voting populace, must be insane, because we keep voting for the same people - the major parties - & expecting that things will somehow be different to what they have been throughout out experience. It's not going to happen.
To get change, do something different.
29 March 2014
Driving with Nuts
I'm still in that guilty post-Christmas mode where I feel that I need to walk more & minimise short trips in the car. I love walking, but walking leads to thinking, & walking along footpaths leads to thinking about driving (strangely) - other people's.
Being someone who can sufficiently balance to hold a two-wheel (bike) licence as well, it never ceases to amaze me just how insane those who obviously only hold a four-wheel (car) licence are. When you're on a bike, you know that there are only two things that can kill you - your own stupidity, & any car driver's. When you're riding & someone does something immensely stupid in your vicinity - whether it threatens your life or not - you've got enough time to mutter an expletive before your concentration is back on the job at hand: riding.
However, if you take this rider's awareness with you when you're walking, you've got all the time in the world to contemplate the stupidity of a driver. For that matter, you can just stop & stare at them for five minutes determining whether whatever is controlling the vehicle is human or else some phone-holding, chain-smoking, arm-waving, make-up-applying, kid-threatening, dial-twirling robot. You've got that contemplation time because, if you're a walker, you've always got plenty of time on your hands. Obviously, those in cars have somewhere very important to get to, & they're always running late. They've barely got time to update their facebook status before the lights change.
In a way, I'm glad that I have that time to walk. I think it's sometimes too stressful to be in a hurry because you're in a car & you need to launch your four-wheel-drive over car-park speed-humps like a speed-boat. Speed-humps are just one of those minor nuisances of the "outside" world - slightly firmer than pedestrians.
Maybe you just have to get to that parking spot thirty metres away, but the car in front insists on blocking your way because they stupidly want a spot right there in front of you!
This is another moment the walker can savour by just stopping to wonder what is going through the head of the obviously frustrated 4WD owner hooting at the P-plater to reverse faster than they feel comfortable doing. All the while, 4WD is swearing at the inconsiderateness of others. "Look kids!" you can imagine him saying "That <expletive> teenager just doesn't know how to drive! They need my <expletive> encouragement to get better at <expletive> parking!" You can hear the response from the child-restraint, too - "Daddy, will you teach me to be a good <expletive> driver?" "'kin oath!"
Being someone who can sufficiently balance to hold a two-wheel (bike) licence as well, it never ceases to amaze me just how insane those who obviously only hold a four-wheel (car) licence are. When you're on a bike, you know that there are only two things that can kill you - your own stupidity, & any car driver's. When you're riding & someone does something immensely stupid in your vicinity - whether it threatens your life or not - you've got enough time to mutter an expletive before your concentration is back on the job at hand: riding.
However, if you take this rider's awareness with you when you're walking, you've got all the time in the world to contemplate the stupidity of a driver. For that matter, you can just stop & stare at them for five minutes determining whether whatever is controlling the vehicle is human or else some phone-holding, chain-smoking, arm-waving, make-up-applying, kid-threatening, dial-twirling robot. You've got that contemplation time because, if you're a walker, you've always got plenty of time on your hands. Obviously, those in cars have somewhere very important to get to, & they're always running late. They've barely got time to update their facebook status before the lights change.
In a way, I'm glad that I have that time to walk. I think it's sometimes too stressful to be in a hurry because you're in a car & you need to launch your four-wheel-drive over car-park speed-humps like a speed-boat. Speed-humps are just one of those minor nuisances of the "outside" world - slightly firmer than pedestrians.
Maybe you just have to get to that parking spot thirty metres away, but the car in front insists on blocking your way because they stupidly want a spot right there in front of you!
This is another moment the walker can savour by just stopping to wonder what is going through the head of the obviously frustrated 4WD owner hooting at the P-plater to reverse faster than they feel comfortable doing. All the while, 4WD is swearing at the inconsiderateness of others. "Look kids!" you can imagine him saying "That <expletive> teenager just doesn't know how to drive! They need my <expletive> encouragement to get better at <expletive> parking!" You can hear the response from the child-restraint, too - "Daddy, will you teach me to be a good <expletive> driver?" "'kin oath!"
01 March 2014
Sydney, Where Art Thou?
A while back, I read an article ...
http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/one-in-five-sydney-suburbs-now-has-a-sevenfigure-median-house-price-20131019-2vtlt.html
For those living outside of Sydney, this seems sensationalist, but it is probably "true" in some sense, until you start to think deeply about how the one-in-five number came up. It quotes that 123 suburbs now have that median price, meaning that it is no longer an indicator of prestige.
There are a few questions that come out of this - does Sydney have around 600 suburbs? Who defines Sydney? Are other cities measured in the same way when they say that Melbourne has 26 such premium suburbs? Actually, what defines a suburb?
The City of Sydney is a tiny thing where business people by day rub shoulders with trendy inner-city dwellers by nigh. It contains a handful of suburbs. It has a Lord Mayor(ess). It has no actual control over anything outside of that area - so where is Sydney?
I remember when I was growing up that Brisbane was considered bigger in area than Sydney because it was defined as reaching out to Ipswich. Most people wouldn't have known that. But then, most people, if asked, couldn't name ten percent of Sydney's suburbs, let alone indicate how big it is. If you'd asked me before I started this journey, I would have waved my hands about & said that it's more or less encompassed by the George's River & the Hawkesbury-Nepean River. Simple. Wrong. Google gets close with its dotted outline when you ask for a map of Sydney - but they're missing two (large) areas.
Another nice definition would be Cumberland County. Strangely, this is too big (much bigger than I expected) - it encompasses bits of Wollongong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumberland_County,_New_South_Wales
It would appear that, since 2012, at least, the Sydney Metropolitan area is defined as a collection of LGAs (Local Government Area = Council = Shire/Municipality) - 40 of them. Most of these are cities in themselves (population over 100000).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rdr2012305/s4.html
This is one of very few places where you will see an outright definition, as "everyone knows" what is meant by Sydney.
But I now had a task - to find & count the suburbs of Sydney - the Sydney Metropolitan Area.
I've seen people try to define Sydney as a series of postcodes. I'm not sure how you can do that nicely, but it probably made sense once (postcodes were introduced in 1967). AusPost is a very good place to start for a list of "places" which are suburbs, or else suburb-like places. When I used to work in data quality, these latter were known as "vanity addresses" - quite a valid way to indicate where you live, but essentially hiding the fact that your neighbours have a bad reputation. Try working out where Round Corner's boundaries are, for example, because it doesn't exist.
Before they changed the telephone numbers, Telstra had a definition of Sydney for the purposes of charging people for non-local phone calls. Unfortunately, since telephone numbers were first issued, there have been some changes to the definition of Sydney & its LGAs, & changes to the numbering scheme since 1994. Thus, Campbelltown City (once outside Telstra's Sydney) now includes areas that used to be in Ingleburn Council, which was inside Sydney (after a council merger in 1948).
So, to find Sydney, it should be just a matter of looking over the 40 LGAs & listing out their suburbs ... not that easy. Each LGA will make proposals to the Geographical Names Board (GNB), which go through an approval process with requirements like having a distinct sense of community in that proposed area & independent facilities (post office, community hall, ...). This process takes time, but the council's proposal is quite public, so people can make assumptions about suburbs "about to happen". You only expect a suburb a year to pop out of this process. The state government can create whole communities with housing developments (out of nothing) every so often.
But how do you find the definitive lists of councils & suburbs? It is within the purview of the Division of Local Government (DLG) to co-ordinate LGAs. They divide councils across the state into regional groups - inner Sydney, outer Sydney, & Sydney surrounds, for example - but these are outdated groups, as half of the last group are in the metro area. The DLG get their council/suburb breakdown from the Division of Land & Property Information (DLPI), but that info is out of date. Some older suburbs stretch over two or more councils thanks to various redistributions (under the control of the state government), so there's no direct correlation to LGAs. Fortunately, within Sydney, there have been no doughnut councils created or re-amalgamated.
After working through an exhaustive process, I found 746 suburbs in Metropolitan Sydney. So, unfortunately, the original article was wrong - it's more like one in six. Does that make me feel better? Superior to the journalist? Happy that I don't live in one of those suburbs? Happy that I live in Sydney regardless?
No. It just gives me a warm feeling that I think I know where Sydney is. It also makes me a little sad that I may be the only one.
Postscript - I'm updating my estimate to 854!
http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/one-in-five-sydney-suburbs-now-has-a-sevenfigure-median-house-price-20131019-2vtlt.html
For those living outside of Sydney, this seems sensationalist, but it is probably "true" in some sense, until you start to think deeply about how the one-in-five number came up. It quotes that 123 suburbs now have that median price, meaning that it is no longer an indicator of prestige.
There are a few questions that come out of this - does Sydney have around 600 suburbs? Who defines Sydney? Are other cities measured in the same way when they say that Melbourne has 26 such premium suburbs? Actually, what defines a suburb?
The City of Sydney is a tiny thing where business people by day rub shoulders with trendy inner-city dwellers by nigh. It contains a handful of suburbs. It has a Lord Mayor(ess). It has no actual control over anything outside of that area - so where is Sydney?
I remember when I was growing up that Brisbane was considered bigger in area than Sydney because it was defined as reaching out to Ipswich. Most people wouldn't have known that. But then, most people, if asked, couldn't name ten percent of Sydney's suburbs, let alone indicate how big it is. If you'd asked me before I started this journey, I would have waved my hands about & said that it's more or less encompassed by the George's River & the Hawkesbury-Nepean River. Simple. Wrong. Google gets close with its dotted outline when you ask for a map of Sydney - but they're missing two (large) areas.
Another nice definition would be Cumberland County. Strangely, this is too big (much bigger than I expected) - it encompasses bits of Wollongong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumberland_County,_New_South_Wales
It would appear that, since 2012, at least, the Sydney Metropolitan area is defined as a collection of LGAs (Local Government Area = Council = Shire/Municipality) - 40 of them. Most of these are cities in themselves (population over 100000).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rdr2012305/s4.html
This is one of very few places where you will see an outright definition, as "everyone knows" what is meant by Sydney.
But I now had a task - to find & count the suburbs of Sydney - the Sydney Metropolitan Area.
I've seen people try to define Sydney as a series of postcodes. I'm not sure how you can do that nicely, but it probably made sense once (postcodes were introduced in 1967). AusPost is a very good place to start for a list of "places" which are suburbs, or else suburb-like places. When I used to work in data quality, these latter were known as "vanity addresses" - quite a valid way to indicate where you live, but essentially hiding the fact that your neighbours have a bad reputation. Try working out where Round Corner's boundaries are, for example, because it doesn't exist.
Before they changed the telephone numbers, Telstra had a definition of Sydney for the purposes of charging people for non-local phone calls. Unfortunately, since telephone numbers were first issued, there have been some changes to the definition of Sydney & its LGAs, & changes to the numbering scheme since 1994. Thus, Campbelltown City (once outside Telstra's Sydney) now includes areas that used to be in Ingleburn Council, which was inside Sydney (after a council merger in 1948).
So, to find Sydney, it should be just a matter of looking over the 40 LGAs & listing out their suburbs ... not that easy. Each LGA will make proposals to the Geographical Names Board (GNB), which go through an approval process with requirements like having a distinct sense of community in that proposed area & independent facilities (post office, community hall, ...). This process takes time, but the council's proposal is quite public, so people can make assumptions about suburbs "about to happen". You only expect a suburb a year to pop out of this process. The state government can create whole communities with housing developments (out of nothing) every so often.
But how do you find the definitive lists of councils & suburbs? It is within the purview of the Division of Local Government (DLG) to co-ordinate LGAs. They divide councils across the state into regional groups - inner Sydney, outer Sydney, & Sydney surrounds, for example - but these are outdated groups, as half of the last group are in the metro area. The DLG get their council/suburb breakdown from the Division of Land & Property Information (DLPI), but that info is out of date. Some older suburbs stretch over two or more councils thanks to various redistributions (under the control of the state government), so there's no direct correlation to LGAs. Fortunately, within Sydney, there have been no doughnut councils created or re-amalgamated.
After working through an exhaustive process, I found 746 suburbs in Metropolitan Sydney. So, unfortunately, the original article was wrong - it's more like one in six. Does that make me feel better? Superior to the journalist? Happy that I don't live in one of those suburbs? Happy that I live in Sydney regardless?
No. It just gives me a warm feeling that I think I know where Sydney is. It also makes me a little sad that I may be the only one.
Postscript - I'm updating my estimate to 854!
11 January 2014
Democracy & Responsibility
Many people don't "get" democracy. They think that it means that they personally get to decide how the country is run. These are the most disappointed & bitter people you will meet. Others think that democracy is where public opinion sets government policy. If that were the case, you could replace the parliament with a survey company, & it would still be cheaper. I think I've seen frightening Sci-Fi stories like that.
Democracy means that everyone has an equal say in which of several candidates represents them in the parliament - at the time of elections. Nothing more. Parliaments are not there to follow the will of the people. In fact, we have parliaments to make the decisions that the average person could not make & would not make if given the chance - the hard decisions. We often forget this when a new law is unpopular. The media might label a government as courageous if they make that hard choice & implement a policy that makes them unpopular, but that they believe is right in the long run. It takes courage, sometimes, to do what's right. That's why we should elect a particular government in the first place.
We should support governments that can & do make those hard decisions, rather than the weak ones who constantly bow to public opinion over matters that aren't "courageous". Public opinion itself is too often whipped up by a media frenzy when complex issues are over-simplified, or when the uneducated & loud (not mentioning any shock jock in particular) demand that people listen to his (never her) opinion. The alternative way to spur the slow-moving populace into action is by rallying the troops - whether that means unions, students, interest groups or communities. Painting a picture over an issue in a particular manner is a great way to garner support for your opinion. That doesn't make it worthy of the support of everyone else. It doesn't make it right.
It is the role of the government to take advice from experts - usually the public service, but often committees of specialists - & act accordingly for the good of the nation. By all means, they should keep an eye on the polls to see just how far from public sentiment the hard decisions are - & act accordingly by leading the public & educating them as to why the decision was right. For a government to simply turn turtle as soon as their popularity slides is worse than cowardice - it's turning their back on the responsibility given to them when they were elected by the democracy.
Democracy means that everyone has an equal say in which of several candidates represents them in the parliament - at the time of elections. Nothing more. Parliaments are not there to follow the will of the people. In fact, we have parliaments to make the decisions that the average person could not make & would not make if given the chance - the hard decisions. We often forget this when a new law is unpopular. The media might label a government as courageous if they make that hard choice & implement a policy that makes them unpopular, but that they believe is right in the long run. It takes courage, sometimes, to do what's right. That's why we should elect a particular government in the first place.
We should support governments that can & do make those hard decisions, rather than the weak ones who constantly bow to public opinion over matters that aren't "courageous". Public opinion itself is too often whipped up by a media frenzy when complex issues are over-simplified, or when the uneducated & loud (not mentioning any shock jock in particular) demand that people listen to his (never her) opinion. The alternative way to spur the slow-moving populace into action is by rallying the troops - whether that means unions, students, interest groups or communities. Painting a picture over an issue in a particular manner is a great way to garner support for your opinion. That doesn't make it worthy of the support of everyone else. It doesn't make it right.
It is the role of the government to take advice from experts - usually the public service, but often committees of specialists - & act accordingly for the good of the nation. By all means, they should keep an eye on the polls to see just how far from public sentiment the hard decisions are - & act accordingly by leading the public & educating them as to why the decision was right. For a government to simply turn turtle as soon as their popularity slides is worse than cowardice - it's turning their back on the responsibility given to them when they were elected by the democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)