Bicameral Vision

We lose sight of the origins & intentions of our democratic system to the point where, not only do we forget its advantages, we get distracted by those who intentionally want to subvert good process.

The number of times I have heard whinging about how the upper house (state or federal) "gets in the way" of law-making has even brought me to a point of tuning out & not responding with my old tune of " ... but that's their job!" Indeed, the whole point of having two houses of parliament is for one to set the laws & the other - having no part in the setting - ensuring that those laws make sense within themselves & for the people - a house of review.

We have muddied this for so long, where the "power" in the lower house - those who can control enough votes to set whatever laws they want to the exclusion of any good ideas coming from the other side of the house - will complain bitterly if they don't have the power in the upper house to steamroll whatever they want. They will use words like "mandate" or "trigger for a double dissolution" to imply that they are hard done by because the people did not trust them enough to review their own decisions (strangely).

Admittedly, the parliamentary system is far from perfect - & how people are elected to the two houses is constantly a matter of abuse & review in itself (by another party entirely, made up of public servants) - but to understand how it works best, you need to understand how it was meant to work when it was developed, & the years of changes in the English system from which ours was born.

My inspiration for beginning this blog, however, was not parliamentary decision making, but decisions for all social things. We still have a monarchical view of our democracy - someone comes into power, & they should be allowed to do what they want. This is tyrannical at the least, & we should have come a long way beyond that. It happens in government, in enterprises (Board Chairpersons or CEOs), & the public service (government-backed flunkeys placed in high positions).

What if, however, laws, rules, procedures & practices were developed in a bicameral way - one group to debate & propose changes, & another group to review & approve them (with limited ability to make changes)?

In a previous blog, I mentioned that education is a problem that no government can 'fix' because they just don't have the background or the desire to do anything socially useful to 'fix' the way in which non-voters (primarily) are educated.
What if, instead, educators were elected to a committee to investigate & propose laws, & a group of other interested parties - community representatives, administrators, parents, etc - were empowered to review & accept recommendations?

I know that sounds radical. It would also solve another of education's little problems - how do you get more out of the teachers who are skilled & knowledgeable & want to put back into the system without being administrators? You put them on committees of change, or involve them in reviewing changes - as professional & current teachers.

That way, you don't lose their interest, you gain from their experience, you give them something to aim for (a prestigious position on a committee), & you keep them engaged in the challenges that they themselves face in their day-to-day workplace.

Education is one such example. I don't want to list others, because the reality is that a bicameral vision could be applied to anything from the running of a public company to a charity. Looking at things differently, to see that rule by committee is possible, is one thing. Realising that any activity could benefit from the social experience of the members of any community is the big leap forward that democracy needs.

We'll Never 'Fix' the Education System

We don't have the ability or will to 'fix' anything as complex as education.

A bold statement, but if anyone had said it twenty, or fifty years ago, people would have pooh-poohed them; & yet we've gotten nowhere over that time. I don't think I'm going out on a limb in saying what people have been thinking for a long time, & I won't have to wait twenty years to be "proven right".

The reason we won't fix the system is because those empowered to do so - those holding the purse strings - can't. They are the wrong people to see what the problems are, & they have the wrong reasons for applying fixes.
I am, of course, talking about politicians. They are not professional educators, they are not administrators of education systems, they have no skills in business transformation, they are not even employers of the newly educated. They have no vested interest in fixing education. They have no notion of the problems actually within the system. Their only goal is to appear to be doing something in the eyes of their electoral base.

Let's be cynical (of politicians - I'd like you to be quite open to my suggestions) for a moment. One side of politics claims that the best education is acquired in the private system, therefore the closer the public system can get to that, the more likely it will be 'fixed'. This is anathema to their opposition, who would take the first opportunity to reverse any policies put in place along those lines. That second unnamed political party would claim that encouraging the best teachers to stay in the public system (by offering better wages) would improve the general level of education. This, of course, smacks of unionism, which could not be supported by the first side.

What if they're both right? Neither side could possibly support or encourage the others' position. Worse - what if they're both wrong & we just don't have enough parties to offer policies that fly in the face of these dogmatic approaches & be aired & discussed before the general populace - not the voters, but the parents & teachers.

Education is big (number of people involved, number of stakeholders - kids, budget, time - thirteen-plus years of a person's life), & yet policies are squeezed into five-second sound-bites - preferably by a minister & two cronies with good haircuts & an ability to smile & nod without looking like axe murderers.

This is insane. This - & only this - is why the education system cannot be fixed. We - as a society - must treat education with respect & ask more of those placed (by us) in positions of power (government), so that they, in turn, are compelled to add a touch of professionalism to parliament & policy making that achieves real outcomes when the cameras & microphones are switched off.

It's Time

We often think of politics in Australia as rather slow moving. Our political parties have been quite stable for some time, with the slow rise of the Greens coinciding with the demise of the Democrats as the "third option" or protest alternative to the two major political forces that have battled it out for supremacy almost since Federation.
That's been the tussle, though - the Labor party, backed by a labour movement, & their opposition, often a coalition of conservative & centrist ideologies that find common ground more in what they are opposed to rather than what they believe in.

Every so often, the name changes, the make-up, the basic ideology, but that opposition to the labour movement keeps the electorate's interest enough to ensure that, no matter how dramatic the circumstances of the party's birth, supporters will be found within the span of a government's term.

The Liberal party has had the longest run of the right-wing parties.
The only ructions to touch it seriously have been the creation of the Democrats (now defunct) & the merging of Liberal & National party interests in two states (still members of the coalition).
You could say that this is indicative of the different states' political needs, or else that, at its core, the Liberal party is past ready for its next incarnation - whatever that may be.

Each of the historical changes has been under the guidance & leadership of someone who was or became a great political leader. They were people within the political system who thought that their party had lost its way & had the courage to do something about it - Hughes, Lyons, Menzies.
In two of those cases, the party had reacted to their opposition by forcing them out.

Perhaps it's time for another leader to take that definitive step & create something new, something relevant, from the ashes of the conservative movement & bring it back to the middle ground from which it can show itself to be a palatable alternative to the labour movement.
By all means, leave the Liberal Party as it is, but I think that Malcolm Turnbull should leave it & forge a new movement more in keeping both with his own very liberal (small 'l') beliefs, & as far away as possible from the arch-conservatives who have been molding Liberal Party thinking for quite some time now.
Regardless of party donations, I believe that the electorate would appreciate a more considered centrist approach than what we are seeing now from the party of such heritage.

I can fully envisage a situation where these new liberals would still be a part of the coalition - it makes perfect sense - but I can also see a situation where they would be considered the natural leaders of the party even if they were the minority partners.

I believe that Malcolm does represent a distinct shift in thinking for the Liberal Party, & it is obvious that he is not comfortable being in the same party as his conservative cohorts.
The question is whether he has the courage to do something about it.

Easter Stocking

My wife went shopping last night & bought the last loaf of bread in Christendom.

Yes, it was the night before Good Friday, & all through the shops, everyone was busy filling their trolleys like there was an oncoming apocalypse, rather than simply a day when the supermarkets wouldn't be open.
Why do we go through this farce every year?
I ask this of myself every year, & so it's time I asked anyone who happens to read this - which is like asking myself, but without the reflective bit.

Every year, at Easter, people run off to the shops on Thursday to stock up because they won't be able to shop again until Saturday. That's just a day.
I remember when I used to shop only once a week. It wasn't on Friday. I could cope.
Am I the only person who can either plan for shopping days in advance, or else not go shopping on one particular day?

What compounds the problem is that the supermarkets will specifically understock on everything but Easter eggs. They'll make a stupendous effort to get rid of their stock of Easter eggs, & will clear shelves of food so as to promote whatever they've had stored away in warehouses since last Easter.
You can possibly understand that the perishables - bread in particular - might not proliferate on the shelves, knowing that there'd be no-one to buy stale bread the day after.
This might contribute to the rush to get the last loaf of bread on a Thursday night, but to the point where there is no bread left?
It was Thursday - late night shopping - & there were several good hours of shopping remaining when the last loaf left.

On the other side of the problem, why do we continue to close the shops on Good Friday & Sunday at all?

It's all well & good to say it's a religious celebration, but the fact remains that we don't have a state religion & there is an increasing number of people in this country who are either atheistic or practicing non-Christians.
There is no excuse for laws that impose a religious observance on the populace.
I honestly don't care who eats meat on Good Friday - that's not my problem.

There have been many arguments in the past - often from unions - that having shops open at Easter & Christmas means that staff will be expected to work & not be with their families.
I put it to you that it's time for every Muslim part-time shop assistant to put their hand up & say "I'm free!" I'll guarantee Coles & Woolies would have more than a skeleton staff on hand to cope with those who would rather shop than spend time with their family.

Obviously, this argument equally applies to penalty rates in general.
If you want people to spend time with their families, then don't encourage them to work by paying them more on weekends.

Anyway, it's Good Friday. I've had my toast for breakfast.
The shops are closed. I'm bored.
I'll go read a book until I get around to some religious observance.

Life with Blow-Hards

I play bagpipes. Please don't hold that against me.

I've been playing with bands for nearly twenty years, it occurred to me, but bands are a social group of slow change - which is probably no different to political parties, Lions clubs, Freemasons, Toastmasters, or the Budgie Fanciers Association. Due to slow change, nothing "happens".
Everyone comes up with great ideas at committee meetings, or things that "need to be done"; we discuss (argue), vote (compromise) & do nothing until the next year comes around when you discover that the person delegated to look into the topic got so fed-up with not getting support that they left the group.

Over time, you get the same unshiftable bodies doing the same whinging & achieving SFA. Sound familiar? If not, join a group, because you obviously haven't been a member of one!

The thing about bands (pipe or otherwise) is that not just any fool can join - there is also a threshold of entry: you need to be able to prove that you can play an instrument or contribute in some way to the musical output of the group. Sure, it's not an entry exam equivalent to Mensa (which you can only sit for twice), because bands will always need drummers (which is how I started).

However, some proficiency is required before you get to perform in public, in general. This is where it gets interesting. Once upon a time, when television was a wonder you watched through a shop window & pubs closed at 6pm, bands were the only kind of thing you could do to entertain yourself (with your mother watching). It was rather impressive to say that you could play an instrument & that you performed for an audience - it implied talent. Now, people who can take photos of themselves are considered talented, so pipe bands just can't compete.

In those glory days, bands required a high level of skill & mastery of a repertoire before a player would be considered for a uniform. Once they were in the band, players had to hold their position jealously from the up-&-coming youths, hungry for their chance at local fame. There were rules & regulations to conform to, so that you were always on your toes, doing your best, keeping an eye on everyone else in case they slipped up & you could claw your way to the front rank.

But times have changed. I'd be happy to find someone with the smallest glimmer of interest in learning pipes & the tiniest potential for learning a tune. Players can be rushed into a band to make up the numbers, then abandoned to their own devices thereafter to keep up with everyone else (sometimes literally, in the case of marching up the street, as it takes practice to walk in step & play a tune).

The old guard - those who fought for the right to play in the front rank - shake their heads & scowl & talk of "the youth of today" (those under fifty) not being as spirited as "in their day". They point at the rules written thirty year ago as the standards to live by, & how it's so hard to find talented youngsters interested in carrying on the traditions of bands. They complain as they struggle to play one more tune or walk up one more hill. They will continue to do so until the day their pipes are ripped from hands stiffened with rigor mortis.

The real question is whether I'll be the one lovingly resting the pipes in their coffin as it glides into the furnace (crematorium, not necessarily hell), or whether I'll have joined the Budgie Fanciers by then.
I wonder if you need to have your own budgie ...

Robot Moves

When you say that someone is moving like a robot, you are trying to insult them - but you're also insulting robots. If you've never had the chance to build & program a robot (& I'll assume that's most people), you probably think of a robot as a "simple" thing - a machine that you just switch on so that it will perform its task.

Let's get realistic here - a robot is not a simple thing. It's a complex machine. For that matter, when we think of "simple" machines, how much do you know about how they work, or how to work them? Let's look at a few old classics - a spinning wheel & a steam engine.
These are both "simple" in their concept. I could get you to draw them, but not to draw one well enough for a Martian to build one.
For a spinning wheel, you pump your foot up & down & hold some wool while the wheel pulls it out into yarn ... simple! Have you tried to do it? Could you build one yourself?
What about a steam engine - it's just a matter of heating up water to create steam to make a piston rise & fall, right? How hard is that? Really?

It's usually not even the design of the machine that makes for efficient outcomes - a good yarn spinner is like an artist, creating perfectly usable balls of wool at break-neck speed. A good engine driver knows exactly what pressures are needed to run their engine smoothly - what temperatures, type of fuel, etc.

Yet we take such simple machines for granted & say that we, sophisticated humans that we are. can do amazing things with machine. No, WE don't - we know people who can do such things.

Robots are the same - just with more complexity. They have more moving parts, more capability, possibly a wider range of application. If I give you a robot, it's an oversized paperweight, because you don't have a clue how to even get it switched on. Forget SciFi movies, because the people who write scripts know as much as you do.

So, if a robot actually takes a lot of effort to get to do something useful - & can only do something if you put in a lot of effort, then calling someone a robot means that they must be putting in a lot of effort to achieve a task. It must mean that they are doing things very precisely - following a plan that has been critically designed to achieve a very specific goal (which is measurable), most likely with feedback to ensure that environmanetal impacts on the plan are dealt with in real time, or at least recognised.

Anything less than this is not a robot - it's nothing more than letting a child loose with a spinning wheel & expecting that they won't simply put their kingdom to sleep for a hundred years.

I think that if people really moved like robots - thoughtfully following a plan, with feedback loops to cope with micro-variations on their projected path to a desired & measurable outcome - then the world would probably be a better place.

It may take all of the random fun out of life, but at least you wouldn't have to keep dodging people who are staring at their mobile phones apparently with no idea of where they are or where they're going.

Locate & Annoy

I was about to google something this morning when I noticed at the bottom of the page "<Nearby suburb> NSW - From your phone (Location History)" & it made me angry. Forget about the fact that I was using my desktop computer at home, but my phone history was being used to locate me. What really annoyed me was that <Nearby suburb> is not where I live - in fact, it's over the ridge in a much less salubrious part of town.

I have been demographically downgraded by google.

They're not the only ones - the weather app on my phone thinks I'm in <Other nearby suburb> & keeps giving me their weather.

For years, I have laughed at people in certain inner-city suburbs where boundaries divide streets & people "lie" about which side they're on. The post office has been dealing with these problems for years. Then there's the vanity suburbs, the ones that only exist in the minds of residents, that councils & governments just think of as pseudonyms for the "real" suburb.

But here I am, living in a real suburb with quite distinct boundaries - sure, we don't have a post office or church or school, but we're definitely not a part of <Nearby suburb>. In fact, it's an entirely different scenario - <My suburb> is obviously a better suburb if you look around the area. Everyone I know (not just the neighbours) agree that <My suburb> stands out as a distinctly better place. People pay good money to move to <My suburb>.

It's not just that they don't build houses like this in other suburbs in the area, & it's not that the block sizes are generous compared to the new estates. There is a distinct feel of better-ness throughout, with people putting in a genuine effort to differentiate themselves from those in <Nearby suburb>.

Don't get me wrong, we don't look down on them ... well, from the top of the ridge, we do. What I mean is, we accept that there is a place for people like us in <My suburb> & a place where people like them can live their lives in <Nearby suburb> & we get along peacefully. We mind our own business. We see each other at the shopping centre - admittedly from the distance of different shops. We watch the same New Year's Eve fireworks - although I can see them from upstairs. We all have barbecues, just with a different cut of meat.

We are a community across the area.

So, why can't Google understand this simple distinction? How can I be branded as living in <Nearby suburb> from the comfort of my own home? This is not an issue of privacy, it's an issue of publicity.