Tampilkan postingan dengan label states. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label states. Tampilkan semua postingan

Senin, 29 November 2010

Ethics as a Subject in Schools

According to the NSW government, ethics is the nearest thing to religion. There is an admission here that religion somehow dictates the mode of behavior in adulthood. In centuries past this was most definitely true. You have only to read the accounts of people who were at deaths door, like being adrift at sea in a boat, to perceive that life after death was paramount in people's thinking. Not going to hell was also important.

Teaching ethics as an alternative to religious education in schools seems to be a logical option. Next year the NSW government will allow parents to choose secular ethics as a subject for their children instead of religion. Some would argue that religion does not really teach people how to behave in society. It is more important than that. Believing in God is paramount, not how one behaves toward his/her fellow Man. Behavior is secondary to being submissive to God.

The problem with ethics is the supposition that there is a correct way of social interaction. Stealing and lying, for example, are condemned. But business is part of our daily lives. Isn't the act of selling really stealing? There is something unethical about buying a tonne of apples on the cheap, then putting them is small bags and selling them at a high price. That is basically what all trade is - the act of buying in bulk and selling individually. To live in an ethical manner would involve the adoption of non-market principles of activity. Living in a commune where everything is bartered would be ideal.

The NSW Government has confused ethics with abiding by state laws and the rights of people as determined by the state. If ethics as a subject is to be a building block of education there will inevitably be calls for the "correct' curriculum. There will be difficulties because what is right for one person is wrong for another. Is it wrong to take a life for example? Most governments "dictate" that doctors shall not take a life under any circumstances. If you are a soldier though it is perfectly okay to kill someone.

Ethics then is similar to religion in that the most important facets of the "subject" are hard to pin down. And like religion, ethics is a battleground for differing views. Making ethics a school subject is not going to be a simplistic way of "settling" the issue of religion vis-a-vis society. Indeed, it may cause more problems.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selasa, 21 September 2010

Cane Toads Go Where They Want

The toads cannot be stopped - cane toads that is. Some do-gooders are pressing the United Nations to act to stop the vermin from moving in to the Northern Territory and Western Australia. This won't do any good, Territories, states and the Federal Government have given up already. Even annual kills have not reduced the population one iota.

Because the pests are moving into the Purnululu National Park, the Wilderness Society is pressing the World Heritage Centre in Paris to take action. The Australian Authorities would welcome any extra funding they can get, but it is common knowledge that nothing can be done. World Heritage rules hold states, territories and national governments responsible to control pests in protected parks. In this instance it would be foolish for legal action to ensue. Trapping and fencing will not work.

Australian laboratories are working on a biological control mechanism. Other countries with similar problems are working on such a solution. Until an answer is found the little varmints will just go where they please.

P.S. See this Article: Cane Toad New Weapon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Senin, 16 Agustus 2010

Australia's Voting System is Quite Straightforward

Voting informal just because you don't understand the Australian voting system is not a smart thing to do. Admittedly, the way Australians elect representatives is a bit odd, but other countries have idiosyncratic election methods as well. The US collegial way is considered far too complicated to explain to an outsider. Though quite simple, the British process of first past the post tends to favor a choice between two parties. It was unusual for the third party, the Liberal Democrats, to win so many seats as in the last election.

The Australian voting system is not that complicated. In Britain votes going to a third party are lost, totally. Just remember that in Australia a vote to a weaker party is counted as a full vote to the first or second party leading in the count. It doesn't matter where you put the major parties in your numbered list on the voting paper. What does count is which of these parties appears higher in your list. The party highest, i.e., closer to number "1", in your list is allocated your vote. That about sums it up.

Voting for the Senate is ordinary proportional voting with an Australian twist. The number of Senate seats is six for each state and two per territory. For a double dissolution 12 seats in each state are up for grabs plus two for each territory. If candidates were elected by voters selecting only one prospective Senator the result would be much the same as Australia's proportional system.

The voting paper has a horizontal line drawn across it. To vote below the line, number all of the squares next to candidates, "1", "2", "3"... and so on until you reach the total number of candidates - choosing the most favored candidate as "1" then allocating accordingly. Voting above the line is known as a "ticket vote". If you put number "1" in one of the squares in the top section your votes are "preallocated" by the party you chose as "1", as if you filled out all squares below the line.

All the number "1" votes are counted by party. In each state, if a party has 14.3% of number "1" votes (a quota) the party has a Senator elected. Two Senators get up when more than 28.6% "formal" votes are gained. A ridiculous complex mathematical formula is used to determine the remaining one or two of the six Senate seats not achieving a quota in each state. Basically, selection is worked out based on highest preference by the numbers on the ballot papers.

Considering ticket votes comprised nearly 95% of all Senate votes in the 2001 election it is time for a review of the system. As noted, the way selection is carried out is ridiculous.

As long as you remember the forgoing explanation voting is quite straightforward.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .