John Howard and the Washington Speakers Bureau:

John Roberts writes: Re. “Scoop! John Howard takes his ‘insight’ to the world” (Friday, item 3). Following his defeat, John Howard stated that he wouldn’t be one to offer political comment, like some previous PMs. Now he joins the Washington Speakers Bureau. True to form. Oh, was this a lie or one of his changes of mind? Or did, Janette change his mind? Will she be the one who writes his speeches? Will humour be included like, “I lost the Prime Ministership, I lost my Government the election and I lost my seat. I still don’t know why. I may have ‘miskewd’. Ha, ha, ha… In Australia we call that a joke.”

Noel McCarthy writes: It is a good idea that he will be away speaking in other countries. As evidenced by the recent election, most Australians are heartily sick of hearing him. Another topic that he could add to his list of subjects is “How to quadruple a country’s 90 years accumulated overseas debt in just ten years.” Another topic could be” how to repay the overseas debt without selling the population into slavery”. But I doubt that he has much to say in that regard.

Greenpeace and whaling:

Ben Pennings, former Greenpeace campaigner and fundraiser, writes: Re. “Sledging Greenpeace: It ain’t about the whales” (Friday, item 16). Greenpeace have always used their profile and financial sustainability from whaling and other “soft” environmental issues to educate about “hard” environmental issues such as global warming. I applaud Greenpeace for avoiding an easy “I told you so” rhetoric – if governments were listening to Greenpeace 15-20 years ago about Global Warming, we wouldn’t find ourselves patting each other on the back about non-binding targets, we’d be leading the world in clean technology.

Andrew Coleman writes: Regarding dugongs and indigenous take of said within Australian waters. While I would like to stick it into the IPA because they are a bunch of joyless nastypasties, their estimate of indigenous yearly take is about right. From the National Recreational Fishing Survey (2001), estimate (although contested) was 1,619 dugong taken between June 2000 and November 2001. Basically we allow this to happen to critically endangered species while bagging the Japanese for taking a few whales. Obviously you are OK if you take species in a manner that meets the “noble savage” tick of approval. What the Japanese need to do is go whaling in traditional dress and Greenpeace/Sea Shepherd would not say boo.

Anti-depressant drugs:

Neil Appleby writes: Re. “World misled about benefits of anti-depressant drugs” (Friday, item 7). The title of Ray Moynihan’s article got me interested. And then nothing. Ray quoted new research suggesting negative trials were never published. What was in these reports? Why should we be concerned Ray? I look forward to further medical revelations from Mr Moynihan.

Wikipedia:

Gabriel McGrath writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (Friday, item 9). Oh come on Crikey, Wikipedia’s been pretty famous for over a year now, so how can you possibly have said: “Someone has hacked Leila McKinnon’s Wikipedia profile – have a read of the first and last paragraphs!” Someone may have written some excellent insults there, but it’s not a “hack”. Wikipedia = Encyclopaedia that everyone is encouraged to edit. (Geez… it’s Wikipedia’s most famous attribute!) Hack = forcibly edit a website which you’re NOT supposed to.

Why I won’t become a teacher:

Paul Appleby writes: Re. “Why did I ever become a teacher? A view from the classroom” (Friday, item 5). I am a mathematician in the final throes of my PhD. I work as a maths and physics tutor in both the universities and privately, tutoring school students. I am very good at my job and enjoy teaching. It has been suggested to me that I should seek teaching out as a profession. I won’t, for the following reasons. The level of respect given to teachers by the general community is atrocious. Why would I work hard in an under paid job only to be looked down upon by the general community. I don’t know a single teacher, especially at high school level, who finishes at 3pm, and while it is true that teachers get long holidays, even pro rata the money is less than any similar professional work. Furthermore the money isn’t good enough. As a mathematician with a PhD, I could walk in to a job that was more interesting and challenging which pays a six figure salary, which would only rise over time. With a maximum earning potential, and only after a number of years in the job, of much less than this, the financial inducements are simply not there. But the real reason I would not become a teacher, much more significant that these other two issues, is that the syllabus is a disgrace. There is barely a trace of true mathematics in the courses that I would have to teach; instead, the influence of Texas Instruments in particular, has seen the course redirected towards “technology based learning” replacing the true teaching of the subject matter. Quite frankly the courses are boring, unhelpful, and make no sense whatsoever within a broader educational context. Instead of teaching problem solving skills, logical thinking and creative mathematics, the courses are purely methods based. The course consists of teaching kids how to only answer questions that they know will be on their exams. Too many times I have had to stop and ask myself “why would anyone need this information for life”, and the answer is, unless they are going on to study physics, maths or engineering, they won’t. Mathematics should be a subject where creative logical thinking and problem solving is taught, skills which are clearly helpful throughout one’s life. Instead it is taught as a bunch of rules, divorced from any broader context than the final years exam.

The Australian Open:

Venise Alstergren writes: Please could someone explain the following conundrum. Every year approximately half a million people go to the Australian Open. Millions more watch the Australian, French, US Opens and Wimbledon. None of these people seem to have a problem understanding the game. How then does Channel 7 imagine that by hiring a team of superannuated tennis jocks to pitch their comments to an audience of ten year olds is such a smart idea? Do we need to know that Roger Federer’s cat is looked after by his parents or that David Nalbandian was born to be a great player because his father was a whiz at Boules and his mother supported Real Madrid? Least of all do we need to listen to them massacring the English language. “Oh, he/she played that shot good” being a common example. Is this trivia confined to Australia? If so, it gives me yet another reason to cringe at Australia’s ethos of “Give the public tripe. That’s all they’re good for.”

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name – we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.