Dumbing it down with Donnelly

Kevin Donnelly is the "go to" pundit for newspapers and television commentary about the supposed dumbed down and politically correct school curriculum in Australia (curricula really; doesn't matter which, it's all dumbed down and politically correct). He even wrote a book about it. But, in fact, it is Donnelly who deliberately dumbs things down with his straw man mischaracterisations.

Donnelly simply trots out the same few facile points over and over and seemingly has fooled the media, and now apparently the federal government, into thinking he is an expert in educational standards. (To be fair to the media, he is the "Director" of Education Standards Institute. On a completely unrelated note, I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am now the CEO and Lord Commander of the Institute of Standards for Sciolism. The standards are pretty high in News Corp publications...)

The latest example is his attack on the Australian Curriculum which, along with the journalist who wrote this article, either shows a complete lack of understanding or is a deliberate misrepresentation.

Donnelly, who typifies a LAME self promoter, was quoted as saying:

...the existing curriculum was "a mile wide and an inch deep" and demanded more "academic rigour".

I don't take issue with Donnelly stating that the curriculum should focus on rigour and depth. But this is a non-statement when it comes to education. Who doesn't say or believe this? Who doesn't want to "raise the standards", have "rigour" in maths and science, and have "high quality teachers", for example?

Where is the evidence for the lack of rigour? The article seems to go on to provide it:

In every subject - from science to physical education - children must study Aboriginal culture, environmental sustainability and Australia's engagement with Asia, under the national curriculum forged by the former Labor government.

Politically correct red alert! The article gives some examples from maths:

And Year 4 kids learning about fractions will "investigate the use of fractions and sharing as a way of managing Country: for example taking no more than half the eggs from a nest to protect future bird populations.'

Year 10 statistics involves "investigating biodiversity changes in Australia since European occupation."

Shock and horror. I can't believe the curriculum would force teachers to focus on such non-core mathematics!

But of course, the writer, News.com's "Social Editor"... has stacked the deck and cherry picked examples. She fails to disclose these statements are from the content elaborations, which are not mandatory. These are just some examples of how content descriptions, that are mandatory, could be taught.

Could... not must.

The actual content descriptions that are to be taught, related to these examples, are, in Year 4:

Count by quarters halves and thirds, including with mixed numerals. Locate and represent these fractions on a number line (ACMNA078)

And in Year 10:

Investigate and describe bivariate numerical data where the independent variable is time (ACMSP252)

This sounds like maths to me... The other non-mandatory elaborations associated with these, in respective order, are:

Year 4: converting mixed numbers to improper fractions and vice versa
Year 10: constructing and interpreting data displays representing bivariate data over time

Yet more maths.

As far as rigour goes, I'll give a couple more examples from the curriculum:

Foundation: Subitise small collections of objects (ACMNA003) 

Year 3: Recall multiplication facts of two, three, five and ten and related division facts (ACMNA056) 

Year 6: Multiply decimals by whole numbers and perform divisions by non-zero whole numbers where the results are terminating decimals, with and without digital technologies (ACMNA129) 

Year 8: Extend and apply the distributive law to the expansion of algebraic expressions (ACMNA190) 

Year 10: Expand binomial products and factorise monic quadratic expressions using a variety of strategies (ACMNA233)

The curriculum is published online here: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Mathematics/Curriculum/F-10. The curriculum includes achievement standards which have samples of student work associated with them. Judge the depth and rigour of mathematics for yourself.

There are about 280 content descriptions (i.e. must be taught) in the curriculum in total. The article does not cite a single one of these as an issue.

The article cites a total of five non-compulsory (that is, they can be completely ignored) elaborations as examples of what they see as politically correct or woolly statements. There are about 420 elaborations in total, which are just examples!

This in not to say the curriculum is perfect or that there aren't issues with education in Australia. There clearly are. The devil is in the detail and as per usual, Donnelly (and the journalist) are clearly short on such detail. Worse than that, either through intellectual ineptitude or bankruptcy they incompetently or deliberately paint a false picture; straight forward examples of a straw man and observational selection with some stacking the deck.

The article calls for more rigour and depth in the school curriculum... The irony. How about some more rigour and depth in discussions about education, instead of the usual superficial generalities and "go to" punditry? We won't make any progress in "raising educational standards" if the basis of our decision making is false and self-serving.
_____________________
Source: Education Minister Christopher Pyne questions teaching Aboriginal and Asian culture in maths classes - Herald Sun. 

Browbeating

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Overtalking; vituperation; bullying; polemics.

Description

This fallacy usually occurs in face-to-face discussion. A discussion in which this fallacy occurs is likely to be heated and aggressive in tone. The advocate is loud, threatening and voluble. He or she does not allow the opponent an opportunity to make his or her case. When the opponent seeks to make a point, he or she is cut off abruptly and not allowed to finish. The speech rate of the browbeating advocate is rapid with minimal pauses. The fallacy of browbeating can also occur in print, but the histrionics characteristic of browbeating are limited by the mode of communication. Browbeating expressed in print or writing is better described as polemics.

Example

Gertrude Grimace is an ageing cultural icon and professional expatriate. She is also a needy exhibitionist who seeks every opportunity to hold forth on any subject. A compliant and fawning media can always be relied upon to afford her plenty of opportunities to pontificate during any of her fleeting visits to the country of her birth.

On this occasion she is taking part in a panel discussion on youth. She calls for the voting age to be lowered to twelve. Another member of the panel begins his response: "But don't you think voters need a certain level of maturity to exercise a responsible vote, after all..." This is as far as he gets. From this point on Gertrude overtalks him, all the other panellists and the moderator. She is loud, obnoxious, strident and rapid-fire in her delivery.

Comment

Most interactions would be improved if participants engaged in more attentive listening. After all, everyone is entitled to express his or her own point of view. But this minimal entitlement is not enough - when a point of view is expressed, the person expressing the idea is entitled to a genuine hearing. This is common courtesy. It is also an essential requirement for the amicable resolution of conflict.

When confronted with browbeating, the detached doubter will make a firm claim for the right to be heard. If this claim proves fruitless and the pontificating browbeater continues to be intransigent, the opponent should terminate the interaction and explain why this proved to be necessary. Attempting to match the browbeater is almost always the wrong approach, especially when a discussion or debate is happening in front of an audience. Even a hostile audience can be trusted to see what is going on.

In the example given, the moderator of the hijacked discussion could turn off Gertrude's microphone after a minute or two of her tirade and calmly point out that he will not accept such hostility in response to honest opinions freely expressed by other members of the panel. Gertrude's pattern of behaviour suggests that she is suffering from LAME disease (Look At Me Everybody). Like most browbeaters, she has an overwhelming need to "win" an argument through physical suppression of her opponents' arguments. To the superficial observer, she may come across as confident and self-assured, but her browbeating suggests that she has very little faith in the soundness of her position. The skeptical observer will draw the obvious conclusion - Gertrude is all hot air, and her browbeating is a substitute for intelligent analysis and truth seeking.

Browbeating is a common feature of political interviews on television news and current affairs programs, and talkback radio. Sometimes the interviewer is the aggressor, sometimes the politician is the aggressor, and sometimes both are aggressive.

Consider the more common case where the interviewer is aggressive. He or she will ask a loaded question and interrupt the answer with a supplementary question. The interruption will be cynical and aggressive in tone. More interruptions will follow and the interviewee will not be permitted to finish an answer. The interview will conclude without extracting substantive information. The interviewer will thank the interviewee for appearing. The thanks will be insincere.

Politicians are often characterized as evasive by the browbeating commentariat (political journalists and commentators). This is ironic. Politicians are circumspect and guarded in their speech because the commentariat is forever on the lookout for the unguarded moment. They seize upon and distort trivial lapses. They quote out of context, "beat up" and manufacture stories. The ego and career considerations of the commentariat often outweigh any commitment to conveying valid information to an informed electorate.

LAME (Look At Me Everybody)

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Self aggrandisement; Disingenuous posturing

Description

The advocate makes a disingenuous claim or statement that is clearly intended to focus attention on the advocate rather than the issue under discussion. LAMEness is a state of mind that can be identified by the pointlessness of an advocate's statements, and more often than not, the pointlessness of the advocate. A LAME claim is a suspect assertion which seems on closer examination to be made not to solve a problem, or to get closer to the truth, but as an exercise in self-promotion.

Example

david doyle is a well respected researcher in the Strategic Heuristics and Insight Technologies unit at large social media company. The lower case spelling of his name is not a typographical error. david had his name legally changed to remove the capitalisation. He also writes "i" (lower case) to refer to himself. In his own words:

i have always been annoyed that the english language insists we capitalise the first person singular pronoun. This is so egocentric. i thought the world wasn't meant to revolve around US! But written language puts me at the center??? And following in from this, why should we capitalise names? my name is simply one way of labelling me; i'm not it. Why does this label warrant more significance than all others? i say no, which is why i write 'i' in lower case and have legally changed my name to all lower case - david doyle.

Discussion

While doyle has made many excellent contributions to the world of social media with his research and thought provoking writing, this disingenuous attempt to justify his name change is LAME. doyle claims that capitalisation gives a name too much value given the world doesn’t revolve around "US". Yet, he goes out of his way to draw attention to himself by being the only person in the English speaking world to not capitalise his name or the first person pronoun “i”. That is, he is making “US” revolve around him by having to remember to write his name using different convention. Whenever we read his writing, we are forced to think about him and his "political stance". LAME...

The issue here is not the name change itself. By all means, have whatever name you want for yourself. Go crazy. Have your name changed to a symbol even. The issue is the supposed reason for the name change. david makes a LAME claim by constructing an artifice of an argument in order to rationalise his attention seeking act to himself and others. Without wishing to impugn his motives, his attempted ratiocination is contrived and hypocritical. It demonstrates his real motivation - deep down inside he wants to be special. David should be honest with us. He just wants everybody to look at him.

I am going to have my name legally changed to “THEO CLARK?”. Note that the all caps, question mark and quotations marks are also a part of my new name. Everyone will be required to shout my name (the all caps) and end it at a higher pitch than when they started saying it (the question mark). They will also be required to do the “air quote” gesture with their hands whenever they say my name.

False Dichotomy

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Excluded middle; black-and-white reasoning; false dilemma; polarization of debate; forced choice.

Description

The advocate presents an issue as "black and white" when it is in reality "shades of grey". The reasoning put forward is unjustifiably "all or nothing" rather than subtle and measured. Debates about emotive issues such as euthanasia, GM foods, criminal justice, race relations etc., are often polarised in this way.

Example

During an election campaign, the incumbent Attorney-General, Frances Payne appears on television and makes his case for a review of current censorship laws affecting television broadcasting. She states that the review of the laws will be informed by broad community consultation. The interviewer (Barbra Twining) asks Mitchell Blarneypickle (President of the lobby group Smashing Hegemony In Television) to comment. He states: "There cannot be any censorship imposed by the State... anyone should be able to hear or see anything they like... any level of censorship is oppressive."

Comment

Mitchell is portraying the issue as censorship versus freedom of speech. He is attempting to put one issue up against the other and is hoping that his version of the issue prevails in the "contest". The flawed belief at the core of this strategy is that censorship is "all or nothing". In fact, the degree and nature of censorship which might be exercised in any society is subject to multiple variables. It is perfectly reasonable for example, for standards of what constitutes obscene or violent material to change over time along a continuum. The debate should be about how far along the continuum and in which direction the standards should shift - not on whether standards should be abandoned or raised to a level of complete repression.


In the present example, and if Barbra were an effective interviewer, she would challenge Mitchell on his "all-or-nothing" stance and either dismiss it as an unworthy contribution to the debate, or probe his position with examples which would be problematic. For example, she could ask her whether he would be in favour of live broadcasts of executions on free-to-air television, or the removal of doors and screens from public toilets. Such challenging examples would be an appropriate use of reductio ad absurdum by Barbra to point out that it would be ludicrous to apply Mitchell's views without qualification. Such a challenge might provoke Mitchell and lead to his indignant exit from the debate. But it's also possible that it would function as a reality check and cause him to modify his position and engage more effectively in the discussion. Either way, whether he leaves or moderates his position, the debate would be more fruitful.


Many LAME commentators (LAME - Look At Me Everybody are unhappy with ambiguity and complexity. Such individuals prefer to characterize an issue as "black or white", as they find dealing with nuanced shades of grey difficult and confusing, and more often than not, a threat to their position. The seeker after truth on the other hand, should not attempt to over-simplify any issue in order to bring it to a premature or unjustified resolution. It is much more acceptable in principle to decide that an issue has to remain unresolved, rather than oversimplifying and drawing the wrong conclusion.

Lady Gaga creates a false dichotomy

Most skeptics familiar with the Huffington Post would be well aware of its poor track record when it comes to logic and critical thinking. This is usually the case in any of the posts they write about science or health. But this time it has crept into something that is normally immune to sloppy thinking - pop culture! (It's immune because pop-culture is devoid of anything requiring critical thinking...)

They asked an important question regarding Lady Gaga's recent appearance at some award show, where she wore a dress made out of raw meat. "Lady Gaga's meat dress - offensive or awesome?" Ugh, what's offensive is the obvious False Dichotomy.

Lady Gaga's meat dress could be offensive but not awesome, awesome but not offensive, or both offensive and awesome (or neither). And this presumes, without any basis, these are the only two options. What about LAME?



I may have voted for awesome...

Self serving scientist

Baroness Greenfield should know better, which leads me to believe she has become a LAME commentator. Here is her public speculation, based on nothing but personal intuition, about the effects of the social networks of "teh interwebs" on the brains of children:

"I often wonder whether real conversation in real time may eventually give way to these sanitised and easier screen dialogues, in much the same way as killing, skinning and butchering an animal to eat has been replaced by the convenience of packages of meat on the supermarket shelf," she told the UK Parliament.

Zuh? What's the point of that False Analogy? To convince me social networking is good? Funnily enough, I prefer my meat pre-packaged...

A teacher of 30 years had already noticed a sharp decline in the ability of her pupils to understand others, Lady Greenfield told the House of Lords.

Given Greenfield's area of research is brain science, I find it hard to believe she isn't aware of how the brain reconstructs memories, and of course, Observational Selection. So how can she make such claims?

Questions for the Lady: Did you write any of this down at the time? You know, gather trustworthy data? Or is this just your own personal anecdote?

"It is hard to see how living this way on a daily basis will not result in brains, or rather minds, different from those of previous generations," she said.

Well, yeah. That's a reasonable hypothesis. But without actual research, that's all it is. Moreover, so what? Is "different" automatically "bad"?

Hmmm, one or two generations ago brains, or rather minds, tended to be xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, etc. I'm pretty glad they're different now...

Ben Goldacre sticking it to these self-serving LAME media slags.

Lameass of the Month - October

This guy, who created a "work":

…depicting Britain's Prince Harry, third in line to the throne, as having been killed in action in Iraq.

Wow.

Previous pieces have included a naked and crouching Britney Spears giving birth, Paris Hilton being autopsied and several severed heads

What amazing social commentary.

I know what he should do for the next one, Princess Diana lying dead in the backseat of a car. He can call it "Diana – Died in a nasty accident."

Or how about one of Michael Moore and his claytons documentary "Sicko", which (for those who don't know) is about the American health care system. He could have him inhaling a burger (or use this quote from the official website: "If you want to stay healthy in American, don't get sick"), and call the piece "Irony".

Lameass of the Month – September

I started Lameass of the Month in July, and then did nothing about it. Well, here's the 2^nd Lameass of the month. German "artist" Gregor Schneider, the master of the "Psychology of Space", tells us about the "Race Riots" on the Beach. He's done his installation at Bondi beach (even though the "riot" was actually in Cronulla):

"I read an article about race riots on a beach in Sydney," Schneider has said.

"It made me think about Australian national identity, of which the beach is a part. If you do something in Australia, it should be about the beach. The cells give the beach order.

"Germans are accustomed to race riots, but they were amazed at the fact all this would happen on the beach."

Thanks for that. We were amazed also. What's his thought provoking work? A "…construction of a grid of 21 cells, or wire cages, on a southern section of the beach." Brilliant!

Schneider shows an acute sensitivity to the tenor of the times. Clearly, fear, loathing and the drastic new emphasis on security issues around the world - from APEC and Woomera to Guantanamo Bay - all play a part in his thinking.

For sure:

Beachgoers are free to enter and occupy the 4m square cells, which are open to the sky and connected by doors. Each is supplied with an umbrella, an inflatable mattress, and a plastic bag filled with other beach items.

Pearson, Greer, Bryson and the Burden of Solution

Given my last few posts have discussed the Burden of Solution, especially with reference to the PM's plan for indigenous communities and LAME Germaine, I thought I'd post extract from an article Jef and I wrote for the skeptic. It extended our entries on The Burden of Proof and the Burden of Solution in Humbug! From The Skeptic. Volume 24, No. 3. Spring, pp, 30-35.

Here's a section of the article on the Burden of Solution written by Jef:

Three Disparate Responses to a Recognised Social Problem:

Alcohol and Violence in Indigenous Communities

a. Noel Pearson

The following extract is from the web-based ATSIC NEWS, Summer 2002. The article comments on a report by Tony Fitzgerald, on “the causes, nature and extent both of breaches of the law and of alcohol and substance abuse… in Cape York Indigenous Communities”. Fitzgerald’s brief was also to suggest approaches and to recommend strategies to address the problem:

In March, Noel Pearson, whose advocacy can be said to have initiated the current focus on the Cape, was named Social Entrepreneur of the Year by the Australia/New Zealand Social Entrepreneurs Network for his work on Cape York Partnerships. Pearson’s speech on that occasion welcomed the Fitzgerald report for focusing attention on the ‘grog problem’, but criticised its author for reflecting ‘traditional thinking about substance abuse strategies’. Fitzgerald emphasises four action areas: controlling supply; prevention; harm reduction; and treatment and rehabilitation.

Pearson said his own analysis of substance abuse as a self-sustaining epidemic, suggests six areas of action, based on building an active intolerance of abuse, and including assistance to communities in managing time and money. In many other areas, however, Fitzgerald’s thinking overlaps with Pearson’s — or perhaps reflects the influence of people like Pearson. Pearson also underlined the need for social entrepreneurs, not welfare bureaucrats; was dismissive of what was implied in the government language of ‘consultation’, and criticised the approach of State Government agencies to Cape York Partnerships.

According to Pearson, they interpret partnerships as ‘a continuation of existing government programs and service delivery with an emphasis on ‘whole of government’ ‘coordination’’. Social entrepreneurship meant seizing opportunities, energising individuals, not providing welfare. Prevailing Indigenous policies are, Pearson said, based on needs and deficiencies, not assets and opportunities. Policies catering to material needs have crushed Indigenous social strengths and are premised ‘upon a conscious or unconscious lack of belief in our capacity as a people’.

It is our view that Noel Pearson is an impressive and positive contributor to public debate on this issue, and has made significant contributions to the development of social policy and programs. He has had a long-standing commitment to addressing the problem of alcohol-related violence in indigenous communities. He analyses the problem, embraces reality, and while at times he may be very critical of others, he suggests possible solutions. His suggestions are ambitious, but they are concrete and reasonable. They could be implemented and trialled, and subjected to evaluation and refinement. He is active, involved and engages in extensive consultation. He is focused on the problem, and he has taken upon himself the burden of solution. So his public statements are credible, and he is worth listening to.

b. Germaine Greer

Germaine Greer is also a contributor to public life in Australia. She also comments on the issue of alcohol abuse in indigenous communities. She is also critical of others, and proposes her own solutions. However her commentaries on the issue of alcohol and violence in indigenous communities are LAME. LAME is an acronym coined by Jef to characterise the variant of the burden of solution fallacy exhibited by needy exhibitionists like Greer. The letters in the acronym correspond to the phrase Look At Me Everybody — a phrase which seems to capture her primary motive for writing about and speaking on contentious social issues in her declining years. Here is an extract from the transcript of an interview of Greer by way of illustration:

Voice over: Australia’s most famous feminist and activist for a myriad of causes, Germaine Greer has taken up the cudgels for Aboriginal Australians in an essay to be published tomorrow. It’s called Whitefella Jump Up: the Shortest Way to Nationhood, and makes the controversial suggestion that we become an Aboriginal republic, perhaps known as the Aboriginal Republic of Australia, so that we will all become Aborigines. And living up to her outrageous reputation in this exclusive interview, Germaine Greer also talks to Jana Wendt about her love of good-looking young boys.

Greer: I live in an Aboriginal country, I was born in an Aboriginal country, I’m third generation born in an Aboriginal country. If I was saying that about France, it would be understood that I was French. If I say it about Australia, could it be understood that I’m Aboriginal? That Australian means something like Aboriginal. It doesn’t mean European, certainly doesn’t mean white Anglo-Saxon Protestant anymore. Perhaps it means that and if it meant that, what would that mean? What can I do with that idea?

Wendt: OK, but in clear terms, to get a grip on what you’re proposing, you are proposing that we consider ourselves to be part of an Aboriginal country, declare ourselves an Aboriginal Republic?

Greer: It would be ridiculous in one sense because Aboriginal is a funny word. It means “there from the beginning”. And so it’s not like saying you’re French or Indian or something. But it seems to me the best word. I mean, there is no reason why you shouldn’t reinvent a word. We could see ourselves as identifying with hunter-gatherer peoples. It would be an amazing thing to do.

Wendt: It’s an amazing proposition, and you know as well as I do, that people listening to you now saying that will say ‘she’s bonkers’.

Perhaps not bonkers, but certainly risible. Some might argue that the articulation of such a bizarre stance is a calculated strategy to garner publicity — the long-standing modus operandi of a LAME commentator seeking to boost sales of her latest book. Whether Greer is bonkers or not, or self-serving or not; she is certainly indulging in a particular variant of the burden of solution fallacy. While she might appear to be “offering a solution” of her own to alcohol and violence, her suggestion is self-evidently irrational and impractical. In our view she is burdening others with the genuine solution — those people who are actually prepared to get involved and to expend real time and energy in taking productive action.

c. Bill Bryson

Many people of compassion and goodwill are deeply concerned about alcohol and violence in indigenous communities, but the vast majority of concerned people do not have the time, ability or opportunity to take concrete steps to address the problem. It is not unreasonable when such people express the view that more needs to be done to address the problem. Nor is it unreasonable when such people admit that they do not themselves have a solution for the problem. Consider the following comment on the issue of alcohol and violence in indigenous communities offered by Bill Bryson, in his book Down Under:

As I sat now on the Todd Street Mall with my coffee and watched the mixed crowds — happy white shoppers with Saturday smiles and a spring in their step, shadowy aborigines with their curious bandages and slow, swaying, knocked-about gait — I realized that I didn’t have the faintest idea what the solution to all this was, what was required to spread the fruits of general Australian prosperity to those who seemed so signally unable to find their way to it. If I were contracted to the Commonwealth of Australia to advise on Aboriginal issues all I could write would be: ‘Do more. Try harder. Start Now.’

So without an original or helpful thought in my head, I just sat for some minutes and watched these poor disconnected people shuffle past. Then I did what most white Australians do. I read my newspaper and drank my coffee and didn’t see them any more. Pp 283,284.

Bryson’s frank bewilderment and mea culpa is a refreshing contrast with the shallow posturing of Greer. His statement is sincere and it represents a respectable position to take on such matters. While he is ‘technically’ burdening Australia and Australians as a whole with the solution to this problem, he is not sanctimonious. He does not engage in pretense or make light of the complexity of the issue. On the evidence of this statement, and the weight of such statements in the rest of his book, we would claim that he is not employing the burden of solution fallacy.

The burden of solution fallacy requires the sanctimonious criticism of the actions of others, along with an express statement (or an implication) that the critic knows what the solution is. In the face of any complex social issue, few of us can aspire to the level of contribution made by a Pearson. But at least we can all strive to be a Bryson. At all costs, we should avoid descent into the deluded fantasy-world of a LAME Greer.

Germaine Greer - early running for LAMEASS-OTM

I only just started LAMEASS-OTM and already the ever attention seeking Germaine Greer (prior to this the inspiration for LAME and a suppository ) is a real contender. Regarding the plan to deal with abuse in indigenous communities, she had this to say:

"The real importance of Howard's bizarre interpretation of the urgings to immediate action contained in the Little Children Are Sacred report is that it provides knee-jerk justification for massive erosion of Aboriginal title," she said.

And this:

Writing exclusively for The Bulletin, Greer, a UK-based feminist author and activist, accuses the Prime Minister of declaring war on Aboriginal communities and argues that he has interpreted the Little Children Are Sacred Report as justification for a "massive erosion of Aboriginal title''.

Howard has learned nothing from the Iraq experience, writes Greer, who argues that abuse of Aboriginal women and children has been known about for three decades.

"He is off on another crusade, this time to rescue Aboriginal children in distress,'' she says.

"When you're on a crusade, you ride roughshod over anything that lies in your path. A crusade can be guaranteed to turn a crisis into proliferating catastrophe.''

Typical Greer - Offering no solution, Impugning Motives, Poisoning the Well and of course, making LAME claims.

John Howard had the perfect reply:

Mr Howard says if Dr Greer is against it, it must be right.

"I always thought I was right but I'm even more convinced now," Mr Howard told reporters.

ASS of the Month*

I've decided to start another semi-regular post along the lines of Words worth espousing and Faculty Follies. LAMEASS of the Month. Remember that LAME was is an acronym coined by Jef - Look At Me Everybody. A LAME claim is a suspect assertion which seems on closer examination to be made not to solve a problem, or to get closer to the truth, but as an exercise in self-promotion.

LAMEASS goes with and extends the original - LAME Attention Seeking Schmuck. LAMEASSes do not necessarily have to make a claim - by their very nature, or the way they conduct themselves they are attention seeking schmucks.

So, without further ado, I bring to you, LAMEASS of the Month - danah boyd.

"Whoa!" I hear you say. "You forgot the capital letters on her name."

Nope, that's not it. She had her name legally changed to remove the capitalisation:

No, i did not forget to capitalize that, but i've quickly learned that most people don't appreciate my decision to leave the capitalization out of my name. There are a lot of reasons that i got rid of the capital letters in the final name change, some personal and some political.

danah balances; Danah does not. In fact, my entire name balances quite conveniently, in all of its forms: danah michele mattas beard boyd. There's something elegant about that.

There's also the political. I was always bothered by the fact that the first person singular pronoun is capitalized in english - i always thought it was quite self-righteous.

Yes, it's quite the bother... and self-righteous. One wouldn't want to be self-righteous. (Deliberately going out of your way to defy a convention of written English isn't self-righteous, is it?)

...Ever since i was a kid, i was told that the world does not revolve around me, yet our written culture is telling me something entirely different.

Hmmm. The world doesn't revolve around you, but you are so special that not only do you not capitalise your name, you don't capitalise "I" either. Hang on a second, won't this actually draw attention to yourself? You know, make the world revolve around you. Next we have a great example of an Argument by Artifice:

...i started researching where the capitalization of said pronoun came from and was quite stunned to find that it was always capitalized because it always appeared as the first word in a sentence, never stuck in the middle. And then, when it started appearing in the middle, it started getting capitalized out of convention and because people worried that it would get lost in script. Of course, "It's odd, and a little unsettling, to reflect upon the fact that English is the only major language in which "I" is capitalized; in many other languages "You" is capitalized and the "i" is lower case" (journalist Sydney J. Harris).

Question: why don't you capitalise "You" instead then? Or make sure you only use "I" at the beginning of sentences?

...But, this led me on a mental tangent - What's in a name? What's its worth? Why is it so valuable that it is to be capitalized? Down this path, i started thinking about names as descriptors versus separate entities. Isn't a name simply another unique adjective for me? A label? I am not my name; my name is simply another descriptor of me. Should i weight that descriptor as anything more valuable than the other adjectives used to describe me? Obviously, i care about my name - i've gone out of my way to change it too many times to suggest otherwise. But do i believe that capitalization shows the appropriate value?

Capitalisation is giving a name too much value, but going out of your way to get it changed to lower case isn't...? Nice artifice, but I doubt that's your real motivation - deep down inside you just want to be special.

Danah Boyd Sorry, danah boyd - you are a worthy inaugural LAMEASS-OTM.

---

*I titled the post "ASS of the Month" rather than "LAMEASS of the Month" in the hope of getting more hits from google. I figured it would be a more popular search.

Image: danah starts getting defensive when a questioner points out that Prince turned himself into a symbol waaaaayyyy before she screwed with her name.

FYI: I've created a retrospective post of other LAMEASSes.

Ps: I'm going to go with my wife's suggestion and have my name legally changed to "THEO! CLARK!". NOTE THAT BESIDES IT BEING ALL CAPS, THE EXCLAMATION POINTS ARE THERE AS ARE THE QUOTATION MARKS - TO MAKE CERTAIN I AM THE CENTER OF ATTENTION AND TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT I AM "SERIOUS".

OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE WILL BE REQUIRED TO SHOUT MY NAME AND DO THE "QUOTATION MARK" GESTURE IF THEY MENTION ME IN A CONVERSATION, OR INTRODUCE ME TO PEOPLE. (AS YOU WILL HAVE NO DOUBT NOTICED, FROM NOW ON I'M ONLY GOING TO WRITE IN CAPITALS, TO MAKE SURE WHATEVER I SAY IS EMPHASISED THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT.)

Okay, that's just pointless and annoying... Imagine having to explain that to people every time I met them. It'd be as if I'd guaranteed the conversation would always revolve around me and my "specialness".

LAMEASS retrospective

All will make sense with my next post – the Inaugural LAMEASS of the Month. Meanwhile, here are others who would have been shoe-ins for LAMEASS-OTM if I’d thought of it earlier:

• Germaine the stain
• Pig becomes even more "wonderful, magical animal"
• Germaine Greer, Original Inspiration for the LAME Claim Fallacy
• Goofy altruist
• LAME and insipid person of no consequence has modest success
• Man on 3km walk to pressure newsagent to fight harder against lotto litter
• Bonohead still LAME
• LAME flag burners
• Michael Moore Finally Reveals the Awful Truth

Pathetic and predictable

I’ve noticed that politicians and commentators on politics stick to particular fallacies. Personal Abuse is a favourite, but I also overwhelmingly detect Impugning Motives, Weasel Words, Poisoning the Well and the Burden of Solution. The Prime Minister’s solution to the crisis in Aboriginal communities drew the following responses and examples of the above. First we have the Queensland Premier Peter Beattie:

Mr Beattie said he disagreed with an alcohol ban…. He said the Government was willing to look at long-term sustainable solutions.

"We'll work on this but we're going to be sensible," Mr Beattie said.

"We're not going to do silly gimmicks because there's a federal election, like a total ban."

By claiming banning alcohol (one of the acknowledged drivers of abuse) is merely a “silly election gimmick” Beattie Impugns Howard’s Motives. He claims that Howard actually has a devious motive; he only cares about wining the next election. The unstated implication is that to Howard, the sexual assault of small, defenceless and innocent children is a secondary motivation or even no motivation at all.

Then there are these responses:

… ACT chief minister Jon Stanhope was the lone Labor leader describing the push as “racist”. “I think on any definition of racism, this is racist,” he told ABC Radio today. “Give me an example of any racist action anywhere in the world that has ever successfully led to change.”

Ensuring adequate law enforcement is racist? Stanhope was hoping that by throwing in a Weasel Word, a deliberate use of a dysphemism in this case, he could misrepresent the actual situation.

Not to be outdone, in less than a sentence Bob Brown Impugns Motives with these Weasel Words, describing …the plan as “selective, cynical and racist”.

Indigenous activist Michael Mansell said the same thing, but was far more prolix:

“This is a racist attack on the weak and an immoral abuse of power, amounting to nothing more than political vote scoring,” he said.

If anything, this plan is finally ending racism. If the same problems (students not attending school, extreme domestic violence and sexual abuse) were occurring in urban Sydney, for example, would it have gone on for so long?

In the age of the sound bite, we can almost forgive all these pathetic LAME comments… almost. Alan Carpenter, the Premier of Western Australia makes sure he gets a look in with more Motive Impugning, combined with Poisoning the Well:

Does anybody in Australia honestly believe that what John Howard's doing is not related to the forthcoming federal election? Does anybody honestly believe that? Come on. We've seen it before. I've seen it, we've seen it with the 'Tampa', we've seen it with other pre election periods.

Rann has attempted to undermine the plan by linking it to the Tampa, an event which has been denigrated as nothing more than a pre-election stunt by many commentators.

Not to be outdone, the Premier of South Australia Mike Rann referred to the plan as being based on ‘shock and awe’:

What I'm saying is that it's all very well to have the sort of the shock and awe approach, send in the troops, declare mission accomplished and then pull out, and see the whole thing fall apart. We've seen that before.

As with Carpenter’s humbug, Rann has Poisoned the Well. Arguably Rann has been even more impressive. He has linked Howard's plan to the Iraq war with the Weasel Words "Shock and Awe".

Note that with the exception of Beattie, none of the above explained how they think we should deal with this horrific and shameful problem. They are all guilty of the Burden of Solution. And with all these “criticisms”, the obvious rebuttal is best expressed with the following statement (which I am happy for anyone to use without crediting me): “So what?” Even if Howard was purely motivated by the thought of an election victory, does it matter? Surely all that matters is “will the plan work?”

This is a good piece on the Madness of the Critics by Miranda Devine. In particular, this from Noel Pearson:

Pearson, as always, had the most potent response: "There is within every community good people and it is an absolutely shameful thing that those good people are misled by people whose children sleep safely at night," he told Lateline on Tuesday.

"That's the horrendous thing here, that the people who are nay-saying any kind of intervention are people whose children, like my own, sleep safely at night. And I think that's a terrible indulgence. When our children sleep safely we seek to put roadblocks in the way and we wish failure upon any decisive action that's going to relieve the suffering of vulnerable children."

There's nothing wrong with arguing about how to best address this problem within our indigenous communities, but merely writing off the government's plan as self serving and opportunistic is not only fallacious, it is disgusting. FYI, here’s a link to a report on welfare reform by the Cape York Institute, launched by Pearson on June 19 – From Hand Out to Hand Up.pdf.

Update - 29th June - I can't believe I missed this from leader of the Australian Democrats, Lyn Allison:

Indigenous people have the answers and we need collaborating, not using a jackboot to seize powers.

This outdoes Rann's link to the Iraq war. The Weasel Word "jackboot" is a Well Poisoning association with fascism, in particular, the Nazis and SS. Delightful. (I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. She is probably ignorant of the connection and knows not what she says.) She needs to get some new material however. She has already used the "jackboot". (Ps Lyn - hire someone who understands possessive apostrophes to write your press releases.)

...at the Prime Ministers intemperate comments on Senator Obamas pronouncement...

Mr Howard's [got it right!] jackboot diplomacy puts at risk our relationship with the United States and a possible future president.

Mr Howards interference...

How the rich and green live on credit

This pic from a photo essay here.

This is how the Gorester is able to run three giant personal computer monitors with a clear carbon-conscience.

Carbon credits.

Monitor 1: He has paid $50 to a homeless person who was intending to buy a personal computer next year. The $50 is compensation paid in recognition of the homeless person's solemn undertaking to promise "not to buy a personal computer for at least the next ten years". The absence of the homeless person's potential computer from the planet will offset the power usage of Al Gore's actual monitor.

Monitor 2: He has paid a logging company $100 to plant ten plantation trees on his behalf after they have clear-felled their next 10,000 hectares of old-growth forest (a win-win situation, as they would have planted the trees anyway). In 200 years the trees will have fixed the CO2 produced by monitor 2 in the course of a year or two of use by Gore. The logging company is allowed to log the new plantation when it matures, but they have to promise faithfully to leave Al's trees alone so that the carbon they have fixed will remain sequestered from the atmosphere.

Monitor 3: Well... every computer must have one monitor, and a giant monitor is not such an indulgence when one is FILTHY RICH.

Seriously... that is one impressive set-up. I would have three giant computer monitors myself if I could afford it... and had the space... and had tickets on myself... and no self-restraint.

Pinhead Educationista moonlights as clueless LAME commentator

According to Judith Wheeldon, a former Principal of two private schools (not both at once, one presumes - although two at once could be inferred from her biographical note at the end of this article).

The minister's report cites research showing that "quality teachers make a significant difference to improved student outcomes". We knew that. What we still do not know is how the minister plans to ensure every Australian child has a quality teacher. Paying some teachers more will not give every child a better teacher. Higher salaries for all teachers would.

Hmmm... take your pick - there are so many fallacies in the passage above that it is difficult to separate one from the other. I will take the coward's way out, and designate this passage an exemplar of the WTF? fallacy. That is, an utterance so rich with multifaceted and self-evident stupidities that it takes the breath away.

(Note that the Humbloggers have coined the term "educationistas" for self-important educators who wish to bend education systems, teachers and schools to their will.)

Bonohead still LAME

Bono is still talking about wanting to meet the PM (on his terms of course):

Earlier, Bono said he would only be interested in meeting Mr Howard to discuss the Make Poverty History campaign if the Prime Minister was serious about the problems underdeveloped countries face.

In hindsight, this was a tad arrogant, Bono concedes:

Bono now says he is sorry for appearing arrogant and would love to meet Mr Howard.

"I think it was fairer to say I was just a little miffed that he didn't seem that interested in the meeting or indeed the issues," he said.

Wasn't interested in meeting? Actually, he is probably still waiting for formal request. You don't get invites through LAME media grandstanding. Maybe one of Bono's underlings could make direct contact with the PM's office if his lordship would like a meeting? Just an idea.
_______________
Source: ABC.net.au - Bono urges Howard to increase aid.

Tags: Appeal to celebrity, LAME, Bono, U2.

Michael Moore Finally Reveals the Awful Truth

The awful truth is that Michael Moore is a LAME documentary maker. LAME is an acronym for Look At Me Everybody. His documentaries tell us an awful lot about Michael Moore, but very little about the alleged subject of the documentary.

However I don't wish to diminish his level of contribution to insights into contemporary geopolitical problems.

In fact, it would be impossible to understate his contributions.

Michael Moore is also a LAME author, a LAME celebrity, and a LAME pundit. By all means people, give him the attention he craves, but don't let him follow you home, or you may never be rid of him.


More Moore:
...pseudologia fantastica
...Handsome-ature
...observational selection

Germaine Greer, Original Inspiration for the LAME Claim Fallacy

In an article Theo and I published in the Skeptic (Spring 2004 - The Burden of Proof and the Burden of Solution), I coined a term for needy exhibitionists like Greer (LAME commentator - LAME is an acronym for "Look at Me Everybody").

The egregious Greer was, and is an inspiration (see cartoon, further developed from my original in the Skeptic). She has inspired us to officially coin a new fallacy in her honour - the LAME claim.

"Ashamed to be Australian" - Deconstructed

I have been intrigued recently by the use of the phrase “ashamed to be Australian”. It seems to be popping up in newspaper columns, newspaper articles and letters to the editor with increasing frequency. I just googled the phrase and achieved 827 hits. Scanning through the texts in which the phrase occurs indicates that there is no political or social issue, and no cultural feature of Australian life which does not make some Australians ashamed to be Australian. For every Australian ashamed to be Australian on one side of an issue, there seems to be another Australian who is ashamed to be Australian on the opposite side of the issue. I think this over-used and essentially meaningless phrase is ripe for deconstruction.

The first point to make is that it is a lame statement. It is a lame statement because it is “unconvincingly feeble”, and “uninspiring and dull” (OED). The advocate who makes such claim is usually referring to a single act of some Australians at some time which he or she finds unpalatable. His or her response to this single reprehensible act is to condemn all Australians for all time – to the point where he or she repudiates his or her nationality. Yeah right!

The second point to make is that it is a LAME statement. LAME is my acronym for “Look At Me Everybody”. I believe that this is the real intent behind an “ashamed to be Australian” claim. The advocate is not ashamed at all. Far from it. The statement is disingenuous. It is a calculated attempt to position the advocate on the moral high ground. The relevant emotion is not shame, but sanctimonious pride.

Goofy the Altruist

Egotistical (oops, I'm mean altruistic) Brazilian footballer (and some might say Goofy doppelganger) Ronaldo wants to win the Nobel Peace Prize and will use all his skills to score that goal (hey, I made a pun):

I am going to work all of my life in this area and work to win the prize... It would give me a lot of satisfaction. It's a sacrifice worth making.

What a 'sacrifice', winning over a million dollars (to go with all his other millions). What a guy - Saint Ronaldo?

You are, indeed, quite LAME.