It is a convenience of conceit, that we ignore the lessons of our collective past. The stories of our past that become favoured repeats are what we call, "History." It is our conceit that we forget that every story has more than one side, more than one point of view. It is for this reason that many say that, "History is written by the victors"; that the victors, by right of victory, direct the focus, point of view, and the nature of the stories we remember and retell, post-victory.

It is said that to the victor goes the spoils; that tribute flows to the champion; and when the victory is achieved on one's own home ground, that reparations are also in order - via forced labour, wealth confiscation, reallocation of access to resources, and control of the flow of resource allocation. However, as history shows us, this does not always happen.

It is also true that in times of conflict that there are more than just two sides, there is a third side: that of collateral damage. Collateral damage causes chaos, fear, displacement of non combatants, anarchy, resentment and hostility. It is the effects of collateral damage that results in vast numbers of people fleeing their homes and lands. It is collateral damage that opens this flood of peoples, who have nothing but what they can carry, and their lives, to be put at risk of extortion, abuse, hate crimes, starvation, and early death.

These outcomes shape the narrative that becomes our history. When mass murder happens to us, but we win, then it is genocide and that narrative can never again be questions, or trumped. When it happens to the, "other side, the axis of evil" against which we triumphed, then it is nothing more than an unavoidable tragedy that is part of war.

History is not just written by the machinations of those in power seeking more power through conflict and the spilling of blood, it is also written by the dominant modes of thought that preoccupy, and inform the logic and discourse of a populous.

To this, the history of social mores and ethics has been re-written over and over with each new dominating, "World View" borrowing or misappropriating codes of behaviour from earlier thought systems giving them a new twist, spin or slightly changed point of view and then propagating that as a new story. The real story, the new, enlightened, and valid truth, path or way.

In recent times, the news of the world has been dominated by horrors in far off lands; conspiracy theories about a giant child pitting its own toys against each other in a global sandpit; the mass forced migration of victims to this giant's collateral damage; the media shaping public discourse with phantoms of a new axis of evil (those who reject this child's play because the selfish child refuses to play fair); and, misdirection through the grandstanding of selfish, bigoted and mean-minded individuals.

History is written by a small minority, before, during and after the fact and it is then sold as, "truth" to the masses. It is the manufactured consent of masses, their acceptance of this manufactured truth, that defines the new stories as,"History." It is unfortunate, that it is not until long after the fact, after the horse has bolted, the gate shut and many new suns arising, that the real truth sees the light of day; after which it is too late, too fanciful to believe, and sometimes took shocking to be even taken seriously.

History is the collection of stories we choose to tell ourselves, our children, and hope are passed onto their children. Each of us are writing that history right now. It is our choices, shaped but the dominating thoughts of the day that inform and influence our public discourse, our choices about what we choose to believe, that shape the narrative of those stories. But it is the dominating view of tomorrow that will shape the voice and point of view through which those stories will be expressed.

Look around you. What do you see? Why is it so? Do you know? Truly? This, what you see is the history that you, personally are writing. Are you writing it by choice. or are you one of the masses floating on the face of the wave of collateral damage that is sweeping towards each and every one of us? What is the history you are writing for YOUR children, and theirs?

Mood:  irritated

A recent article in the New York Times, "Restaurants Turn Camera Shy," highlighted a growing community concern and a number of actions being taken to address the issue of ostensibly, amateur food photography in restaurants. This was always going to happen, regardless of the desires of chefs, restaurant owners or the opinions of tutting patrons. Its a natural progression of the capabilities of mobile phones and the freedom of expression they allow through incorporated technologies.

In the 80's and through to the 90's there was great debate about mobile phone usage in restaurants. As phones got cheaper, smaller and more available, people started to protest the use of mobile phones in public spaces, like restaurants, cinemas, theaters, public transport, bars, etc. So much so that various etiquettes were proposed and promoted.�€ï¿½ï¿½€ï¿½

Today, the presence of a mobile phone on a table is no longer a public hanging offense, although people are expected to, in some degree, control the volume of their own voice when needing to use their phone, or entertain the concept of, '...can't you just, call them back.'

With the growing public interest in celebrity chefs, their food, food culture and a general growing public consciousness of gastronomy, AND high quality integrated camera systems built into internet enabled mobile phones, Food Photography, amateur or otherwise was destined to become a social bugbear. However, banning photos in the restaurant is akin to the ostrich burying its head in the sand when the tiger comes. It does not resolve the issue, or make or go away.

This is an issue of Social interaction. At one level is the desire to Share with friends what one is doing. On another level is the social impact of our actions on those in the immediate environs around us, and the degree to which we have a social responsibility to be mindful and respectful of such strangers. Its this issue of the impact of our actions on others that is the crux of the issue. Unfortunately, there are many in our society that would crush any public display of interest and enjoyment simply because they do not share that interest or joy for such expression of freedom. And a core issue at hand here IS one of freedom of expression.

When a food photo, as most would take them, is enacted it is a short period of time. However, loud noisy conversations go on, sometimes for what seems, ad nauseum. Many people have still not learned to speak quietly in a restaurant. We have lost our way when it comes to social ettiquette. In many asian countries, the idea of a quiet dim lit dinner is anathema to them, such ideas would be counter to their own forms of ettiquette. Even though etiquette is a long dead concept, we still struggle with the need for it.

As mobile technology increasingly enables us to interconnect with each other, through out much of our daily activities, the detractors will increasingly protest the loss of individualized isolation. Mark my words, it will not be too long before such isolationist people start taking videos of the rest of us making food photos, and post those videos to the web with an, "OMG! He's photographing his food, how gauche! Share This, if you think he shouldn't."

Mood:  down

So I'm asleep. Kinda. Tossing and turning. Its 3:30 in the morning and the second time I've stirred restlessly awake.

__________

Its a family situation: me, my son, my wife, in the same bed, some kind of cross over to my parents and their sleeping arrangement... and my grandmother.

Also there are three asian women present as well. Old friends, former girlfriends, they all carry an air of happy memories, memories that once dlighted.

In the dream I can't sleep. The my ife, son and I are in bed and one of the girls is in the room; the other girls are awake in another room. The girl in our room walks out and joins the other girls. Restless and unable to sleep, I follow. I walk through the house and try to sleep on the sofa.

I can't sleep so well as the girls are making happy noises. I get up to go and see what's going on. They are in various states of semi-undress. Some are playing in the bathroom/en-suite. The door closes: I'm not really supposed to see what's going on. Its a surprise.

I go back to the sofa. One of the girls is already under the blanket on the sofa, her nickers and mine tangled up underneath her. I reach for my underpants confused as to why I am naked. She moves a little and my pants are free I put them on and climb in under the balnket. Shortly after the others join us.

We are sitting, and chatting... all on the sofa, all in our underwear. My wife bursts through the door, livid, demanding to be told what is going on - there is an unspoken insinuation is that we're up to something, having some kind of, orgy. We're drinking chinese tea.

The girls go back to their room. Apparently, my grandmother was doing their hair, getting them dressed up for some kind of presentation. My wife also returns back to the bedroom where my son sleeps.

I am now in the backyard, amongst weeds, plastic rubbish, and broken toys... walking along the back fence line, kicking through these left overs.

My grandmother appears like a shadow and presents each girl to me; their hair fantastical and not at all in character with the person underneath.

My grandmother watches me like a hawk, the hint of a cruel smile, eyes blazing, looking for some telltale sign that might be showing how I feel about the girl presented. The girl bids farewell and we talk of keeping in contact via Facebook, then she goes. The situation repeats for the other two. 

Lastly, I am there alone, feeling like I've lost something, kicking through the garbage and broken toys and weeds, with nowhere left to go.

Mood:  irritated

I going to explore a troubling fault, as I see it, associated with discussing future plans. Troubling because it causes confusion and and continuous disagreement. Unbelievably it one of the unresolved debarkles of English Language Usage that has not been difinitively addressed. 

For the most part as we live from moment to moment, our experience of time is always the present moment. Experientially we are unable to move within time beyond the Present. Although we may be able to recall and 'relive' elements of the Past, it is not the same as the experiential moment, the recollection is not the 'now' in full, of that moment.

We are also able to project into the Future, and for some things make reasonably accurate predictions of what may come to pass, but again no matter how close those predictions may be they are not the same as the acutal future 'Now' that occurs. Be that as it may, this has not stopped us from developing a dialogue and mechanism for talking about the future or the past. However, our dialogue for discussing future plans is fundamentally flawed.

It is flawed because there is no direct agreement on what the terms, "This Wednesday" and "Next Wednesday" actually refers to. The flaw is essentially an issue of Reletivity - Einstein at work  

As outlined above we experience the present, (This) remember the past (Last) and predict the future (Next). In essence then time for us is linear. We track this linear nature of time with a Calendar. We divide time into seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, month, and years. So Time as we perceive it is like a queue and our experiential 'Now' is positioned somewhere in that queue.

The interesting part is that for everyone within our awareness of 'Now' is also in the Time queue at exactly the same time moment. It follows then that we all share the same agreement about Time, how it is measured, tracked, and how we express our concept of it. Otherwise we cannot have the same expeience or awareness of each other. We would simply not meaningfully exist to each other. (Yes, there is an entirely different discussion and argument around this conclusion, but lets just take it as given for the purose of the current discussion.)

So our Primary reference point for any discussion of future events is based on our expiriential now and where that is in the time queue.

In any queue, the "Next" item is the directly after the current item. e.g. I have a line of seven jelly babies: red, yellow, pink, green, orange, purple, and blue. I am 'Now' eating the red jelly baby; the 'Next Jellybaby' is the yellow one. I am eating 'this Jellybaby' (the red one) and I am going to eat 'this jellybaby' next (the purple one).

Here we introduce the concept of item classification and group names. This concept is important and integral to our problems relating to discussion regarding Next and This. We are also introducing the concept of a pointer to identify specific objects where the pointer can jump the queue. This is fine where we can randomly sampl physical object or even abstract concepts however, we experience time in a linear fashion asnd as such cannot randomly sample the time queue - we are not Galifreyan Timelords  

If I repeat the sequence of jellybabies then I have a new problem, how to refer to the same colour jelly baby in the second sequence? I have to name each repeat sequence, e.g. group 1, group 2, etc.

Timewise, for the point of this discussion, we have days, weeks, months, and years.

Today, Tomorrow,and Yesterday. There is no next Today, next tomorrow, or Next Yesterday. As funny as this sounds, there is also no this Today, this tomorrow, or this Yesterday, either; or, Last Today, Last Tomorrow, or last Yesterday. The reason for this is that Today, Tomorrow and Yesterday are shifting concepts rather than Proper names like the days of the week. (Hang on, I know, week is also one of these, we'll get to it.)

Days of the Week: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday. (We could also start on Monday too... its not important.) A Week refers to a group of seven days. Like the jellybabies above if we repeat the group sequentially after the first group (Week 1) we have another week (Week 2), if we do this again we have three weeks (Week 3).

Lets place our experiential 'Now' at the middle day of the middle week, from the list above, the middle day would be Wednesday.

So, Last, This, Next: What? Now we have to select a descriptor or group name. Let's take the group Name Week. We are experientially at the middle day of the middle week of our, short, three week, Time Queue as outlined above.

From this relative position, "Last Week" refers to Week 1, or the last 'group of 7 days' (week) in the queue, relative to our present position in the time queue.

Similarly, "Next Week" refers to Week 3 or the next 'group of 7 days' (week) in the queue, relative to our present position in the time queue. 

Finally, "This Week" refers to the current group for seven days (week) relative to our present position in the time queue. That is the three days preceeding our position, because our 'Now' has been placed at the middle day of the week for this discussion; and, the following three days which together complete this present group of seven days.

What's important to realise about this wek, is that it does not matter which day of the seven is our present (Today) day, because we are refering to the specific group of seven days that make up this current Week. 

This is all really unproblematic, but needs to be defined BECAUSE when we start talking about days in different weeks IS when we start having communicaitons issues and is the point over which many people don't agree and convention has not difinitively established. 

So, our present relative position in the time queue item, DAY - of which there are seven discrete and distinctly named days. Our present 'Now' (Today) is Wednesday. 

Thus, "Last Tuesday" the last occurence of a Tuesday in the time queue which was "Yesterday." Similarly, "Next Thursday" is the very next occurence of a thursday in the timequeue which is "Tomorrow." Finally, it follows then (pedantically? controvertially?) that "This Wednsday" (Today) refers to the current occurrence of a Wednesday in the time queue BUT by convention 'This' is relative only to the time queue item WEEK. i.e. This Wednesday is the very next (future) occurence of a Wednesday within the current, 'This' week. Thus 'This Wednesday' can refer to either a future or past Wednesday but only within the present week. Herein lies all the controversy over This and Next... (and Last)

The controversy exists because while Next, Last and This are similar terms they are not used in the same way. We can say, this second, this minute, this day, this week, this month, this year, but, this day has become archaic in use, i.e. it is redundant and has been replaced by Today. Next and Last are queue markersand specifically refer to the next or last occurence of a specific day, week, month, or year IN RELATION TO the CURRENT point of 'NOW' in the time queue.

So, now, today, is Wednesday. This Wednesday is meaningless as it is today. Next Wednesday, is the next occurrence of a Wednesday in the time queue, which is the Wednesday of Next Week.

It follows that Next Friday is the is the next occurrence of a Friday in the time queue, which is the Friday of This Week. Thus This Friday and Next Friday are the same day.

Now, Last Wednesday was the last, most recently passed, occurrence of a Wednesday in the time queue, which is the Wednesday of last week. It follows that Last Monday is the last occurrence of a Monday in the time queue which iwas the Monday of this week. Thus Last Monday and This Monday are also the same day. By convention though we tend to say, This Monday passed.

Where is the controversy in all of this? It occurs when we refer to a future day. Say it is Wednesday and you want to set up a meeting for Tuesday of next week. This Tuesday has already passed so we might say, "Lets meet next Tuesday."

Some people consider Next Tuesday to always be the Tuesday after This Tuesday, and define This Tuesday as refering (erroneously) to the next occurence of a Tuesday in the time queue, and Next Tuesday to be the one that follows that. The problem with this is that the Tuesday of this week needs to then be refered to as, "This week, Tuesday" or "This week, Tuesday passed" for clarrity, which 9 times out of 10 doesn't happen. Its cumbersom communication.

 Others consider Next Tuesday always to be the Tuesday of Next Week, and Last Tuesday as the Tuesday of Last Week. This creates similar problems with refering to the Tuesday of this current week.

Why is it so? Why is this unresolved? Why can we not agree on logical, pedantic, specific, or  clear rules for the usage of these terms in this context? I think it comes back to the redundancy issue. That of understanding and accepting that Today, Wednesday, is also This Wednesday, that last Tuesday was Yesterday and Tomorrow is Next Thursday. Accepting that days are sequential and cyclic and that our reference point shift dynamically relative to DAY or WEEK. Dynamic Systems are harder to understand and people, bless them can't be bothered to think that hard. 

JM2CW. 

This morning, I dreamed a dream, a very powerful dream, so much so that, a hour after waking I still remembered much of the core aspects of it.

One such aspect was a speech. 

I was standing in front of a vast assembly of people from all walks of life, experience, religion and culture. It was a gathering of representatives of tribes and nations. I was the first speaker. I was the one to set the tone and encourage all to listen to all who followed. 

This is the speech, as much as I can remember, that I gave to the broad assembly, in the dream. 

I wonder, what speech you would give, if you had the opportunity to deliver such a speech in front of a vast array of ordinary people representing, their friends, families and communities? 

What would you say?  

__________ Words of Change __________ 

There are two things on which all communities throughout the world are founded: agreement and cooperation.

Without Agreement, there can be no cooperation. Without Cooperation no agreement can be fulfilled. Everywhere we turn, nations are collapsing into civil unrest, uprising, discord and conflict, indeed the fabric of cicl society seems to be unravelling, threatening to destroy the very heart of it's foundation: the family unit. For you see, all society is based on an initial agreement. An agreement between a man and a woman. An agreement to stay together, be together, to work together for mutual support and survival. And from such an agreement, whether between man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man, communities can be formed which function and support themselves in a fashion, for a time, e.g. monasteries, nunneries, armies, single gender villages, history is rife with such agreements and communities built on them.

However, there is a second agreement that is made between a man and a woman that has set the fundamental unit on which all social growth, prosperity, customs and ancestral heritage is based and that is the agreement to have children together. Without a child in the mix there is no agreement for future growth. Thus, the core unit of all of today's major societies is the family unit consisting of, mother, father and child. The child is the spearhead of the future, the parents the foundation, the past, and together by agreement, and cooperation all three work in the present to bring about a future for the child and the family. The past, the future and the present, bound together by a group consensus to create a single strong unit, so strong that nations have been built upon it.

Today, we stand here, because discord and disharmony in the global community threaten to pull apart the very threads that tie our tribes, and villages and communities together, conflict that threatens the very fabric of society and the safety and prosperity of our families, threaten to destroy and tear asunder the very futures we have planned for and worked for, for our children. We are here today because the agreements have been broken. Our leaders are no longer in cooperation with us, they have become dictators and despots, demanding that we fulfill their desires and whims, whatever that may be, that we work and toil for their personal gain, without question, or rebuke. New rules, new cooperation, imposed, enforced, not negotiated or negotiable.

When such a breakdown occurs, we need to look deep within ourselves and into the structure, organization and agreements in place within our families. Have we become the very same despots and dictators within our own families? Are the agreements that brought about a cooperation between a man and a woman the same ones that still apply in our families or have these too changed? Have we lost sight of the picture of the future that brought us together in the first place? For it is from the family unit that all society is based and the rot at the top, can also rot the core.

If we are to change this community, this society, this nation, then we must first confirm the rules of agreement and cooperation in the family, from there stems all future change at all levels. Today, we are here because we agree that there is a need for change. We recognize the need for change, but as yet we have not yet determined the rules that define and constrain any cooperation between us necessary to bring about that change. So, first we must ask, what does that change look like? What will it mean for us and our children? What kind of future will it bring forth?

I don't know, and many won't. However, I can categorically say this, it will not look the same as what we can see today. What little we can see, into the future, that bleak and uncertain future predicated on the conflicts of today. It will not be the same! It mustn't. It is not a future I want for my child, nor would I wish it on your child, not on anyone's.

So, what to do? Where do we go from here? We agree that there is need for change,that there is need for a new cooperation between us, but what should be part of that cooperation? Part of the agreement? The new rules of engagement? And what should be the rules of engagement if we cannot agree to cooperate? Because, even disagreement and conflict are based on the agreement to disagree, and there are rules to how any conflict can, should or ought to be resolved, even such rules come as a result of an agreement.

But let us not talk of conflict and disagreement, let instead seek a way forward, a way to cooperate and bring about the change we agree needs to be implemented to secure a safe, secure, comfortable, empowering future for our children and this society in which we live. Let us begin now to build this future that we desire so much. Let us go forth in the spirit of cooperation and establish our own, new, future built on the strength of family, kinship, mateship, solidarity, tolerance and harmony.

It is up to you, to make this start, to begin in your home, and in your village and in your community, to bring all these small necessary and independent actions together to build a new society, a new nationhood and global community. Listen, listen well to the wisdom of our key speakers today, they have a vision they wish to share with you, and with your families. Please listen to them, consider, and respond, for without discussion, there can be no basis for agreement, no basis for cooperation and no way forward.

It is now up to each and every one of you, to look forward, with an eye on the past, to take up an idea, build strong a vision for your families and from that create a brand new future for us all.

Be Resolute & Be Brave.

All of you know me. Listen well, for I am "The Herald of Change."

_________

The other day I was enraged. It was a hellhole of a day where nothing I set out to do was done without problem, conflict, delay or momentary failure. It was so compelling that I almost felt like there was a god, and that god was, The God of Mischief, who it seemed to have taken a personal interest in toying with me!

I overslept by several hours; not a good thing on a "Brewday." I was hung over so my mood was surly and flashpoint was low; Tolerance is an aspiration that significantly suffers the morning after any heavy night before. The day before I'd taken possession of new brewhouse furniture and the old furniture was still stacked up in the middle of the room ready to be relocated down stairs.

Timewise, my wife was heading out to go to a Spring Fair with the boy and some friends. the Next day we needed to bring in some garden furniture and prepare the place for an afternoon bbq. I moved an old bamboo table down into the yard and shifted a box of empty bottles underneath it - my wife did not accept this solution and I'd yet had time to organize the pickup of the bottles from by the supplier.

This disagreement on the use of the outdoor space popped my cork, I went off; picked up the table and hauled it outside the gate to the refuse collection point. All the while my wife was saying no, not to throw it out. Our visitors had arrived just in time for the ugly scene, indeed I had to side step around them to reach the refuse collection point, AND my son started crying at the uproar.

Something inside me twinged as he began to cry but most of me was so wrapped up in the anger of the moment that I didn't give a flying fuck about anything or anyone.I stormed inside and proceeded to get the next batch of furniture from the brewery. I knew that my missus had brought the table in from outside the gate and left with my son and the visitors. I needed the time to cool off a little and the physical activity helped to diminish the angry twitching in my arms.

I stacked three bamboo stools on top of the table in the middle of the yard, picked up the bottles and moved them to a corner of the garden, near the gate, ready for pickup and called the shop to organize their pickup the next morning. I looked at the table and stools and thought long about burning the bastards on the spot.

Instead, I went back to the brewery, sat down for a moment and collected my thoughts. It was after 1:30 pm and I still didn't have grain in water. I needed to crush some grain. I ran the grain through the mill - nothing. Three times nothing and enraged again I proclaimed, "I don't want to brew today!" Almost believing it, I adjusted the grain mill, tried again only to jam it and flip the whole thing over. In abject despair and frustration I sunk my boot into the side of the grain bucket, kicking grain all over the brand new brewhouse and the room. Coat off, boots off and I stormed out of the brewery.

I needed to work, to get away, anything to take my mind of this tortured and tormenting day. I met some neighbors who asked about my day, that was when I declared the machinations of The God of Mischief. The phrase just seemed to work itself over and over like a broken record: here is the truth, here is the reason why, speak it again, and again, and it will be true.

As the clear air and distance from the moment took its effect I realized that was just having a bit of Floor Time; thrashing around and bellowing like some disgruntled kid that didn't get his/her way; having a temper tantrum; but not solving the problem. Soon realization came that the first thing I needed to do was to control my emotions when confronted with a challenge. I had fallen a long, long way. Is this what mid-life crisis is all about? Confronting the resurgence of one's inner child and making a choice?

With renewed calm I visited my friend and borrowed his mill. crushed the grain and got my brewday moving forward. Yet half an hour into the final boil, I ran out of gas. I walked around and around and around the brewroom, pacing, thinking, trying to remain calmer than was earlier in the day. I need gas, Where? Kitchen? BBQ? Order another now? It was 6pm and I was hungry. OK, get the bbq bottle, bring it up, got to my mates place for dinner, talk with the family, come back and continue - "Keep Moving Forward." Tomorrow I can order a new bottle for the bbq, there is enough time.

I head towards my mate's place and get within two hundred meters of his door; stop; turn around walk a few steps; turn around and repeat - I'd forgotten the mill, it there no end to this? my anger has long since left to be replaced with a desultory acceptance of what ever is, is. "What you haven't got in the head, you've got in the legs." I go back to get the mill.

Earlier in the day I'd also borrowed his daughter's stroller, at his prompting to bring the heavy mill back to my place. True to the day's form, the stroller was no longer there. Now what? Ok, use my son's stroller and then my son can use it to come back home later in the evening.

At dinner, I ruefully relate the days continuing events. Such a comedy of errors could not be written. After dinner, I come back with the wife and son, explain the bottle pickup, and had organized with my mate to collect the garden furniture the next morning.

Mood:  chatty

I don’t know how many Australian’s there are, here in a vibrant, ever changing city like Hanoi, nor do I know how pat & expat Australians might feel about Anzac Day, but for me it always reminds me about my family back home.

Now, Australian’s as far as I can tell, don’t have all that many rituals, and the few there are tend mostly to revolve around horses or sport. (Melbourne Cup, Grand Final Day, The Ashes, etc.) One of the few that’s just a little bit different is the Anzac Tradition.

Nowadays, there are no original ANZAC’s still alive, and most of the families that lost someone at the time, have moved two or more generations on. On top of this most Australian’s both at home and abroad have never served in the Armed Forces, so how does such a tradition remain relevant to us in this day and age.

For me, although I did some time with the Reserves, and even joined the RSL at one stage, Anzac Day is not a day for remembering the sacrifices of soldiers long past, but a day for considering the qualities and spirit they embodied and that we still value.

Also, we have all had someone close to us, or meaningful to us pass away. So Anzac Day, so it seems to me, is a good day to remember them.

One person for me is my grandfather. He was not born in Australia, but he made it his, his wife’s and daughters, and my home. His whole life was about personal, self-sacrifice in the name of freedom, so that his family and loved ones could live a better life. This is the embodiment of a key Anzac quality.

When we remember “those brave Anzac soldiers” it is often said that they gave their lives to preserve our way of life, so that we might live free.

Another person is my first step-father. He taught me that you don’t have to be great all the time, just steadfast at what you do. That, when something is truly important, then you have to make a choice rather than sit on the fence, stand up to be counted AND then hold steadfast to what you claim to believe, in-spite of the opposition.

Being steadfast to their duty and their sense of honor is at the very heart of what is often termed the “Anzac Legend”. It is a quality we still value, even today.

Each of us has some one who we can remember: a family member, a teacher, a colleague, a friend. Can I ask you to take a minute, in silence, next Anzac Day, to think of them?

Originally titled, "Discussion Paper - Expressing Opinions in Public (long post)"

Executive Summary

What are the rules for expressing public opinion? The following document establishes that public debate is the discussion of opinions as expressed by individuals in public forums. That these opinions are predominantly arguments designed to sway people to accept a certain statement and as such the rules governing the expression on opinions follows those of formulating an argument. It also establishes some guidelines for the writing of responses to expressed opinions when such responses involve the putting of an opposing or dissenting view.

Expressing Opinions in Public.

According to the Tetroidian World View, our identities as individuals are formed and shaped by interacting with other people. Through their eyes, facial and body gestures, towards and in response to us, we come to know ourselves.

It can be said that through our public interactions our personal reputations are formed and confirmed. There are many ways to interact with others socially and publicly. One primary way is via public discourse. Through this, our public or social identities are forged. The following document examines the rules of public discussion and puts forward some recommendations on how to provide criticism in a public forum.

In ‘The Virtual Republic’ 1997, Mackenzie Walk remarks that a republic is
created when people actively engage in public discussion. He further comments that unlike the republics of old, where the village square or city market place was the gathering place for all and sundry which allowed for public discourse to occur, in modern times public discourse takes place via the media and to some extent via the internet.

It is not surprising then that societies have sought to establish and develop
rules for public debate and discourse even as the nature of public debate has
become less embodied. These can be summarised broadly as follows:

A: oratory
B: forum
C: meetings procedure
D: debate
E: letter writing
F: bulletin boards
G: online discussion groups.

This list is neither meant to be descriptive nor complete. Rather, it is a
finger painted trail towards our current means of public discourse.

Each of the above forms of public debate has their rules and recent times many have come to say that the ‘Art of letter writing’ is being lost especially as we engage more and more in online discussion. To be more specific, the skill in writing a well informed argument and responding to it, in kind is being lost. A search of the World Wide Web generates many responses on this topic, but few online sources discuss or develop strategies for a response to this concern.

Looking deeper into the issue what appears to be the issue, is not so much the loss of letter writing itself, this has largely been supplanted by email and
electronic text exchanges, but the lack of skill in developing a well informed
argument i.e. thinking clearly, and presenting that in a public forum. That is,
the skills involved in debating and arguing are progressively being lost and it
is this that is the principle cause of concern to many.

These rules of public debate are an essential part of our social etiquette
insofar as they provide a framework for engaging in discussion. Both for the
presentation of a point of view, opinion or argument and for the presentation of counter opinions, arguments and rebuttal.

Galvin, Prescott and Huseman, in ‘Business Communication strategies and skills’ 1992, state that clear thinking is essential in the course of our daily lives and define it as the ability to see the difference between logical and illogical arguments.

They also give a useful working definition for an argument stating, ‘…it is a
piece of … writing which not only makes statements we are expected to believe but uses these statements as reasons for other statements (which we are also expected to believe).’

From this we can see that expressing an opinion in public via some means of
discourse transmission is in effect the presentation of an argument. As such
there are specific rules that allow us to best present that opinion.

With regard to public discourse and the expression of opinions there are two
principle types of argument that we come across that being Inductive and
Deductive argument.

Typical forms of Inductive argument, or reasoning, involve arguing from a
particular point to a more general conclusion. It is probably the most common for of Examples of this are:

generalisation, e.g. in my experience this happened… thus it’s the same
everywhere else;

cause and effect, e.g. (where the cause is known) I fell over and broke my leg therefore I need medical treatment and time off work; (where the effect is known) I felt vomitus and had a lot of pain in my stomach half an hour after eating at street cart therefore street cart food is not safe to eat;

analogy: e.g. (a personal experience statement) ‘When I was in Changsha we had a very successful English Salon which met regularly in a bar and conducted many outside activities. It had a Chinese organisational group and a foreign host.’  (a general situation perceived as a problem) ‘In looking at how English salons should be run so that they are successful this model should be followed.’

Deductive arguments, or reasoning, involve arguing from a general case to a
specific conclusion. It involves a three step process of classifying things into
groups.

For example,
(universal statement) Foreign teachers of English are native speakers
(individual case) Debbie is a foreigner and speaks English
(Conclusion) She must be an English Teacher

This kind of argument is very popular particularly when it comes to pigeonholing individuals or giving advice, e.g. ‘Every time I go to the market place the shop keepers try to rip me off, Why? Many foreigners have a lot of money. You are a foreigner; therefore you can afford to pay more than the local people.’

People love to classify others according some type or criteria. As a result this
type of reasoning is easily abused. Because of this a number of guidelines have developed over time to assist with the development of an argument. While there are no hard and fast rules, the following could be considered as the rules for public debate in a general sense.

1. When making a generalisation, don’t argue from a sample that is too small. This could result in stupid or dangerous statements, e.g. Chinese women are demure and respectful than their western counterparts therefore they make much better wives; An allergy to certain types of alcohol is no excuse to refuse to ganbei white spirits with the bride and groom at a wedding.
2. Make sure that the sample from which you draw your generalisation is
reasonably representative. Popular opinion might hold that good foreign
teachers of English have excellent oral fluency in their native tongue, but does it necessarily follow that all foreign speakers are good teachers?
3. Be careful about the use of words like, all, no, some, few, and most. It only takes one exception to pull apart arguments based on these.
4. When dealing with causal arguments three questions need to be addressed:
a. What is the possibility or probability that the cause was solely responsible
for the effect?
b. What is the likelihood of multiple causes operating at the same time in a
synergistic manner?
c. Is it possible, that a specific condition existed at the time, which may have
produced this effect where in its absence; a different outcome would normally result?
5. When looking at causal arguments we need to also consider whether the cause is ‘sufficient’ for bringing about an effect or ‘necessary’ in order to produce the effect.
6. When making an analogy ask if the two situations are sufficiently similar to draw an valid conclusion based on the analogy.
7. A deduction is only as good as the premise it is based on and the validity of
the link arguments.

There are many common problems with putting forward an opinion in a public forum. Most have their source in common fallacies that plague arguments. Some of these are:

Trying to discredit the person rather than the augment i.e. playing the man not the ball, to use a sporting analogy ;-)

Misusing or misrepresenting authority regarding the topic, i.e. ‘An elderly
minister I know has been living and working in China for 20 years. He told me how it really is here, so I know what I’m talking about.’

Appealing to commonsense i.e. the ‘everybody knows this’ argument.

A dishonest trick is to forestall criticism by words or phrases designed to make it difficult to offer fair criticism, e.g. ‘Foreign teachers apartments should be located on the ground floor and provided with western style toilets – Elderly white haired gent.’

Emotive language is one of the key triggers for explosive response to publicly
aired opinions. Everyone has their own inbuilt prejudices which can be easily
triggered by emotion laden words which are otherwise irrelevant to the argument, e.g. ‘It is our moral obligation to not only teach English but to raise local standards. We would be failing in our duty of care if we did not ensure our belief systems, values and ethics were fully appreciated by the people of this region.’

Absolute terms like, always, never, hopeless, countless, infinite, etc. are
often used to try and sway an argument in an illegitimate manner.

False classification results frequently in ‘black and white’ situations. This
creates problems by failing to allow for the full gamut of possibilities .e.g.
‘If you are not white and from Australia, New Zealand, America, Canada, or
Britain, you just can’t get work as a foreign teacher of English.’

Misuse of statistics, in the case of public opinion, involve the quoting of
statistics ‘off the top of one’s head’ in order to give greater credibility to
the opinion, e.g. ‘1 in 7 foreign teachers in this country date their students
or other persons of student age. 33% of these teachers are female.’

In this ESL community, the medium for the forums for public discussion, are the email lists to which we subscribe. This medium relies on the written word. Very few caveats on what can be opined exist which creates a relatively free discussion space. However, there are some accepted norms of behaviours that also shape how opinions may be presented.

First and foremost is the issue of friendliness. This is the underlying
principle and relate directly to the principle fallacy of presenting arguments,
that of attacking the person. The second is the restriction on directly
attacking the reputation of individuals and institutions by naming them and any associated complaints in public.

Of the accepted norms these can be summarized by the statement, ‘Be firm, friendly, fair and frank.’ This is where the art of letter writing is indeed an art. Email is electronic mail – that is, writing an email is in fact the writing of an electronic letter.

The trouble is that email communication is very ephemeral, and very fast. It is so easy to tap out a response and send it off that the usual process of
re-reading what was written before posting is often circumvented. This results in ill-conceived responses that may impinge on the accepted norms or the established rules for interacting in such a forum.

What follows are some guidelines for engaging in public debate and for writing letters of criticism.
1. After you’ve read an opinion, climb down off the soapbox, take a deep breath, grab a cup of your favourite beverage and examine exactly what is narking you off.
2. Ask the question, ‘Does the opinion presented contain particular fallacies in
order to support it?’ ‘How do those fallacies contribute to your current state?’
3. In writing your response, quote the offending material first – be specific,
then present your criticism, again be specific. If someone presents an argument peppered with fallacies it defeats the purpose to respond in kind.
4. Wit is always preferable to sarcasm. Sarcasm is in many ways is a mechanism to put down or attack an individual as such it may not be perceived by people of differing cultural backgrounds as being particularly friendly. Wit however, is the clever use of words often in a humorous manner and can often be found in the riposte or retort involved in verbal duelling.
5. Brevity and choice of words are hallmarks of Plain English and clear
thinking. Be direct (firm), be honest (friendly), be specific (fair), be brief
(frank).

Barnett and Morell wrote in a section dealing with hints on composition,
‘English Grammar & Analysis with exercises’ 1893, ‘Words are materials: be
careful in the choice of them. A house, however well planned, cannot give
satisfaction if the bricks and mortar and timber are bad. The same remark
applies to composition.’

They go onto suggest never using a word unless you are sure of its usage and meaning; to use shorter words where possible; and if a word has more than one meaning make sure your usage leave no doubt as to the meaning you intend.

The same applies for statements, make sure the your intended meaning is clear, ambiguous statements can lead to misunderstanding or misconstrued criticism. This is probably the principle cause of flame wars and heated debate laden with personally directed invective.

6. If you are wrong, or have misunderstood the argument, apologize. There is no shame in admitting an error. Having said that, there is also no margin in making a pantomime of one’s humbled self.
7. Intellectual arrogance has no place in public debate, nor do strongly held
religious or philosophical beliefs. Most people are not party to all the information you may think you know.

Brandishing such knowledge like a truncheon serves no purpose but to stifle
debate and stimulate animosity. However, careful and judicious use of such to support and expand one’s argument is a legitimate use.

Opinions are like ear holes, most people have a couple. As such the presenting of opinions in public forums is a common practice in society. It is essential for any society or social group from time to time analyze and evaluate its modes and conventions particularly with respect to public debate.

In a culturally diverse group the means by which we formulate, present and
debate opinions will from time to time change. Thus, our reputation within a
particular social group is built around the opinions we hold and how well we
communicate them.


References:

Wark, McKenzie. ‘The Virtual Republic, Australia’s culture wars of the 1990’s.’
Allen and Unwin. 1997

Galvin, M. Prescott, D. Husemane, R. ‘Business Communications, strategies and
skills.’ 4th Ed. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.1992

Barnett, P.A. Morell, J.D. ‘The New Morell being a Grammar of the English
Language together with an exposition of The analysis of sentences.’ Aberdeen University Press. Allman & Son. 1893

__________________________

Tsc Tempest

__________________________
People's Republic of China
Hohhot, Inner Mongolia

First published Sun Mar 27, 2005 on TEFLChinaLife

I was with a colleague. We were inspecting some ruins. It was a large complex of stone buildings, Mayan in design and decoration. People had mapped out the extent of the complex and cleared away most of the vegetation, but the work was incomplete. The whole eastern seaboard side was missing, literally, all the way across to a sinuous and snaky, stone lined ridge.

Elements of the size of this city sized complex were hinted at in drawings and wall illustrations but essential details still needed to be sketched in. We were part of a multinational working group, invited to survey the remaining vacant areas and to document our findings.

We started at the north east entrance to the complex and walked towards the southernmost part of the ridge, which wound its way along the western shoreline and up towards a solitary peak in the north-eastern corner. It took us several hours of hard walking just to get to the start of the ridge.

Looking west from this place revealed nothing, just small Spartan expanses of darkly coloured sandy beach that hugged the ridge and an eroding cliff face. We began to trace the ridge and soon noticed that the path became more “Great Wall” like with each passing foot fall.

With the sun riding high we trudged onwards along this narrow stony path lined in places by steeply receding, constructed, stone walls as it ducked and weaved sharply around on itself. It was clear from the condition of the stone that wheels were not welcome here. Everything must have been carried in, for the pathway was so steep, in places, narrow and windy, that small foot-sized steps had been cut into the rock, accompanied by hand sized grip holes on either side. So we climbed, even as the sun had begun to sink into the west, and climbed until we reached the peak. What a sight to greet us!

Longitudinally oriented, a moderately decorated step pyramid stood prominent at the east end of a narrow, low building flanked court, facing a large north-south wall at the western end The wall covered in glyphs and carvings which hinted at music, dance and distant communications via magical messages passed through the air; for some reason we felt that there was something behind that wall, behind what seemed like a door, but would not yield to open.

We traced ourselves under and away from the wall, moving along and down the steep Cliffside until we found a smallish gap in the almost sheer wall. After much hacking, pulling and cursing at gashed knuckles we discovered in this creeper filled abyss some steep ladder-like steps which exited onto a jagged platform. A stone spit jutted out towards the sea from the centre of an incredibly smooth, carved stone wall, at the end of this spit a shallow, gently concaved basin of white rock, big enough to hold several people.

Sitting in the basin we marvelled at the wall, the sound of sea birds in the distance was pure and smooth, and we looked out to the sea. I spilt my water bottle, even as the sun began to pale into redder tones, and the sounds became even more distinct. Incredible! The basin was somehow focussing the sound, somehow able to fine tune it with the addition of water.

We walked back to the wall and on closer inspection discovered a small door, half broken, at its base. Peering through, we could see a low tunnel running back into the wall. We began to crawl through and soon found ourselves in a strangely shaped room. On the west side the backside of the curved wall that faced the sea, on the east separated by several meters ran the opposite wall, like some kind of  north-south tangent to a stone parabola, and covered in pictogram and carvings – great cities of the past? There were three of them, one at zero degrees, the other two, on either side at approximately thirty degrees. Lines traced a carved channel towards the curved wall, intersecting at a guess at the white stone basin, outside. Surrounding the cities, carvings hinted of people sitting at this focal point and singing. In my mind, I could hear the polyphonic, tonal song of healers chants.

Suddenly, tremors shook the wall, rocks began to fall, a great and terrible rending and screeching of stone on stone, tore through the air and the great curved wall peeled away from the side of the cliff. Stunned and with our backs to the eastern wall, we watched as this mighty dish tumbled and crashed into the rocks and sea below. Our position was precarious, and now with the rapidly fading, dusky light we needed to find a way off this retched spot. Soon we found a lever and the door that was noticed in the wall, earlier in the day swung open leading us back into the complex.

It was a communications complex! A Mayan Radio shack; A place for meditation and healing with sound. Imagine! If you will, two parabolic dishes perfectly aligned to hear each other over a distance. Would they truly roach out, across the sea, or just to another place on the eastern edge? An edge swallowed by the sea. The answer to this we may never know. The sea in its ravenous hunger, had begun to devour the sun and the cold to rapidly rise. We pitched our tents and made a small fire against the night and watched the cold red glow die in the west.

To most people the Language Exchange is an implied activity that suggests swapping language practice in one language for language practice in another and on the surface that is what is implied and meant. It also suggests that there is an equal exchange of value.

However simple though this may seem, most ex-pats who have experienced such transactions can attest to the fact that such exchanges are mostly single language dominated and are of one-way benefit causing the ex-pat, usually, much disillusionment.

Why is it so?

Firstly, both parties entering into such an exchange rarely define the expectations of each party and the outcomes necessary to complete the exchange – call this a “needs analysis” or a ‘terms and conditions” statement.

Secondly, the value of the exchange is highly misunderstood and unequal right from the start. To explain this further, consider the following inequalities:

Inequality 1 - One person usually initiates a request for Language exchange. This person’s need for the exchange is usually higher and more personally driven and motivated than the person who finally agrees to the exchange.

Inequality 2 – The person who agrees to the exchange, in most cases is a native speaker AND (usually a qualified instructor or) teacher of their native language. The person making the request is usually a student of a second language and in most cases not a teacher of their own language or even teacher qualified.

Inequality 3 – Usually, both parties do not share the same level of language development in their chosen L2, thus the amount of time spent on the exchange is dominated mostly by the common language to both parties.

Inequality 4 – payment is usually negotiated as something  “in kind” whoever the value of such a payment, it is usually grossly undervalued when each party’s skills, knowledge, effort, time and input is taken into account. Any attempt at readjusting the imbalance usually results in the initiator moving on.

Thirdly, such language exchanges often take advantage of good will, connections, obligation, or implied (sometimes overt) offers of sexual favour. The taking of advantage is the issue here – utilising various ways and means for one party to greatly benefit at the other’s expense, be it time, energy, money, or desire.

In the face of such a situation then one could be quite justified in saying, “Hmmmm, you offer an interesting proposal…. Let me consider it and I’ll see what can be done…” as a way of saying, “no thanks I really like you but I’ve been taken for a ride too many times before, so I’m just not interested.” However, sometimes, be it politically, culturally, or socially incorrect, you have to bluntly state “The 3 P’s” right up front.

The 3 P’s, what on earth are those? Like any exchange, transaction, deal, agreement there are some fundamentally basic rules. These can be simplified to payment and exit options. In the case of Cross-cultural Language Exchange, the 3 P’s are:

Pay Up, Put Out, or Piss Off!

Now before you jump up and down, excited by your own sense of controversy, let me qualify these.

Firstly the order of the phrase is important. Change the first two parts and you completely change the exchange dynamic: some would argue that in “real life” such a change would reflect the reality of what actually goes on in language exchange – the contention here is Language Exchange involves both ex-pat women and men, with parties of the same and/or opposite sex, hence the order as stated above.

Secondly, Language Exchange IS a transaction. It is unequally balanced with the ex-pat party being the main provider of services within the exchange. Therefore payment of suitable and agreeably value is in order. This could involve cash, gifts, covering of expenses or some other payment of agreed value. To give examples of this, consider a professional mentor, discourse partner, corporate companion, or coach.

Thirdly, most persons seeking language exchange are either not in a position to pay, in a monetary sense for the exchange so they bring to the table their own skills, abilities and experiences. Sometimes, the person seeking the exchange has nothing else to offer beyond providing personal services which could range from translation duties, purchasing and house keeping, social escort, right through to intimate sexual liaison. To give examples of this, consider the “live in” (long-haired/bedroom) dictionary, the corporate consort, professional escort, the part time/casual girlfriend or boyfriend, or potential spouse.

Fourthly, one of the major conflicts that exist in Language Exchange is the unwillingness of the person seeking language exchange to complete the exchange. In other words once they get what they want they disappear, leaving the provider at a loose end either not having satisfactorily received anything in return, or receiving something not to their expectation or sense of equivalent value.

Language Exchange has existed in a variety of forms long before today’s problems and concerns. So too have strategies for managing such a transaction. The main one that concerns us, based on modern thinking, relates to obtaining fair and equitable value from the exchange.

Unfortunately, in most cases the person seeking a language exchange is a native of a country where an ex-pat is temporarily domiciled and the ex-pat is usually a teacher of their own native tongue as a second language. Thus the onus must fall on the ex-pat to manage the initial discussions that eventually allow for such an exchange to occur.

To this point the ex-pat needs to do the following:

1. They must clearly establish the needs of each party. These needs must be clearly understood by each party.
2. They must clearly establish the skill/expertise offered by each party. Where there is a clear imbalance in skills this must be considered in the discussions.
3. They must clearly establish the language levels of each party and identify the common language. Having done so, this needs to be factored into the discussion.
4. They must develop a clear and simple program that outlines specifically how much time will be devoted to each party’s language learning needs.
5. If an imbalance clearly exists additionally payment over and above the swap must be established and the form that payment may take.
6. They must be aware that some language exchange seekers are not willing to provide mutually agreeable exchange therefore they may need to say goodbye to the person, no matter how enthusiastic or attractive that person may appear to be.

Language Exchange can be a valuable way of improving cross-cultural relationships and interactions. It allows for experiencing and developing greater understanding of different cultures based on first hand experience. It has often been complicated by misunderstanding of the situation by both parties, as well as exploitation of one party by another. Keeping a careful eye on the 3 P’s: “Pay Up, Put Out or Piss Off!” can allow for persons to enter into a language exchange transaction in a more enlightened and informed manner. Thus, reducing the imbalances that are inherent in what is a seemingly simple exchange.

__________ 

Professional Development: Functioning in an Alien Society 101

*Originally posted on the TEFLChina Forum.