Those who know me, know that in my past life I well and truly drank the cool-aid. Any cool-aid, peddled by any snake-oil merchant. Yes, I was neck deep in the woo. And at the first signs of a head-cold I fell straight back into my old ways. I loaded on the garlic (meant to be an antibiotic), drunk my body weight in orange juice (for the vitamin c) and started my routine of lymphatic drainage massage.
There may (or may not) be some level of credibility in the garlic claim and at least the orange juice was keeping me hydrated, but lymphatic drainage? During a warm shower, which did wonders for my crashing headache, it occurred to me that I learned all about this Lymph-stuff while I was studying at the Australian College of Natural Medicine. Maybe that shower is responsible for finally clearing my mind, but the alarm bells started to ring.
I Googled it.
What I found was that Lymphatic Drainage was used to "detox" and "remove toxins". Oh no. Furthermore, the only clinics to offer a lymph massage service were, you guessed it, Natural therapies clinics. Even Wikipedia said:
" Scientific studies show mixed results regarding the efficacy of the method"
and
"studies on animals has MLDT (Manual lymphatic drainage treatment) been shown to increase lymph uptake and thoracic duct flow, but the same evidence has not yet been shown for human subjects"
My heart sank. The moment I felt sick, achy and sore I lost all ability to critically think. I reached straight my old pseudo-science, placebo at-best, treatments from my dark past. And just for the record- my debilitating headaches (I would go as far as to said they were migraines) knocked me out for 2 days, during which time it appears these remedies did very little. Anecdotal or not, the fact remains that, my cold still rages. If anything, it's worse. But I finally have a GP appointment at 3 pm this afternoon. Bring on the Science!
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Ethics legislation
Hello again everyone,
Through the magical world of twitter I have just been informed of "The right to teach Ethics in our public schools passes the lower house. Opposed by Libs & Nats." @KKeneally. This essentially means that no matter the election result, ethics classes are to go ahead.. at least for the immediate future.I have a feeling that the Liberals realised there was very little they could do to stop the legislation from passing, labour certainly has the numbers in the lower house.
I also mentioned that I would keep you all up-to-date with my correspondence with Andrew Constance and with the St James ethics centre. I realise that Andrew is the shadow minister for Ageing and Disability Service, however he is also the representative of my electorate, Bega. I find it most useful to contact my own members when curious about political issues, because they're the ones who take the time to get back to me. I've spoken to Andrew a couple of times in the last couple of days and here's what he has to say in a recent email:
There are mixed views on ethics across the community and there has been robust debate in Parliament on ethic classes.
It is disappointing that the government has seen fit to pit ethics courses against religion courses in an attempt to wedge the opposition. This is to the detriment of the education of the state's school children and politicises education unnecessarily. The Liberals & Nationals continue to support SRE in our schools.
At this time the Keneally Labor Government is refusing to confirm who will be conducting the ethics courses at Far South Coast schools, what funds will be made available to run the courses and whether the introduction of the ethics classes will actually address the issue of some kids with nothing to do. These are serious concerns.
The report on the trial that was conducted did raise a number of concerns regarding course content, including content involving designer babies and terrorism.
For these reasons we are opposing the legislation
It is disappointing that the government has seen fit to pit ethics courses against religion courses in an attempt to wedge the opposition. This is to the detriment of the education of the state's school children and politicises education unnecessarily. The Liberals & Nationals continue to support SRE in our schools.
At this time the Keneally Labor Government is refusing to confirm who will be conducting the ethics courses at Far South Coast schools, what funds will be made available to run the courses and whether the introduction of the ethics classes will actually address the issue of some kids with nothing to do. These are serious concerns.
The report on the trial that was conducted did raise a number of concerns regarding course content, including content involving designer babies and terrorism.
For these reasons we are opposing the legislation
On the other hand, the St James Ethics centre, has so far only sent me an automated style e-mail stating that they'd get back to me in more detail when they have the time. Obviously they are very busy. I can understand how one citizen journalist, with a blogging audience she can count on one hand, isn't their first priority.Despite this rather lame scope of influence, I will keep the up dates coming!
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
You're a good guy, but ethics classes could be a deal breaker....
Heidi (last name)
(my address and email)
24th November 2010
Andrew Constance
Member for Bega
bega@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Dear Mr Constance,
I am deeply concerned about your Party's recent decision to scrap ethics classes if you are voted in. I have spoken about this with you as a journalism student back in July. At that time your party’s stance was firmly that you did not oppose the trial ethics classes. In fact the Liberals thought they were such a good idea they should be available to all students, not just those who choose not to join in with SRE. Since then the independent analysis of the program has come back positive. It is my understanding that St James Ethics centre has taken on board a number of the recommendations in the report. The program is now ready to be rolled out to more schools, in the new year. What’s more, the program seems to have strong support from the public.
All of this seems positive to me, so, why the strong opposition to the classes now? I simply don’t understand the motives behind it. If the true issue was the, so called, competition for the time slot then why not simply move the classes when/if you get elected? Or make them a compulsory part of the primary curriculum? What is the reason for the turn around, and for treats of abandoning the classes?
Unfortunately, whether moving or ditching the classes, the Liberals have not presented any solution for the original issue. The problem of children sitting idle for ½ hour if parents opt them out of SRE. These children were not allowed to participate in any learning activities during the SRE time slot every week. The news papers were full of anecdotes about children being left alone on the school verandah, or being discriminated against for there different worldviews.
Please can you provide me with some answers, or at the very least some comforting words to ease my deep concern that your Party is disregarding the importance of choice for parents. I sincerely believe that you have nothing but your constituents’ best interests at heart. You are always out and about in the electorate and you have done a fine job representing us in state parliament. For me personally, you made time for a political news interview with a first year journalism student, which is far more than most other MPs committed to. Frankly, I think you are a ‘top bloke’. That being said, this anti-choice choice attitude of the Liberal Leader may be a deal-breaker for me. Be assured, I’ll be contacting every state liberal member with an e-mail address in my quest to understand.
Regards
Heidi
(my address and email)
24th November 2010
Andrew Constance
Member for Bega
bega@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Dear Mr Constance,
I am deeply concerned about your Party's recent decision to scrap ethics classes if you are voted in. I have spoken about this with you as a journalism student back in July. At that time your party’s stance was firmly that you did not oppose the trial ethics classes. In fact the Liberals thought they were such a good idea they should be available to all students, not just those who choose not to join in with SRE. Since then the independent analysis of the program has come back positive. It is my understanding that St James Ethics centre has taken on board a number of the recommendations in the report. The program is now ready to be rolled out to more schools, in the new year. What’s more, the program seems to have strong support from the public.
All of this seems positive to me, so, why the strong opposition to the classes now? I simply don’t understand the motives behind it. If the true issue was the, so called, competition for the time slot then why not simply move the classes when/if you get elected? Or make them a compulsory part of the primary curriculum? What is the reason for the turn around, and for treats of abandoning the classes?
Unfortunately, whether moving or ditching the classes, the Liberals have not presented any solution for the original issue. The problem of children sitting idle for ½ hour if parents opt them out of SRE. These children were not allowed to participate in any learning activities during the SRE time slot every week. The news papers were full of anecdotes about children being left alone on the school verandah, or being discriminated against for there different worldviews.
Please can you provide me with some answers, or at the very least some comforting words to ease my deep concern that your Party is disregarding the importance of choice for parents. I sincerely believe that you have nothing but your constituents’ best interests at heart. You are always out and about in the electorate and you have done a fine job representing us in state parliament. For me personally, you made time for a political news interview with a first year journalism student, which is far more than most other MPs committed to. Frankly, I think you are a ‘top bloke’. That being said, this anti-choice choice attitude of the Liberal Leader may be a deal-breaker for me. Be assured, I’ll be contacting every state liberal member with an e-mail address in my quest to understand.
Regards
Heidi
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
#NSWethics
As you may or may not know, today Verity Firth confirmed that the State of New South Wales has approved the introduction ethics classes into primary schools. Verity Firth is the NSW minister for education and training and this is a link to her blog: http://verityfirth.com/2010/11/ethics-classes-approved
(those of you who already know all about it, jump to "complete findings here", I've added stars to help you find it. You're welcome)
Earlier this year a trial was run in a number of schools across the state. As you can imagine, there was plenty on controversy surrounding the trials. The churches and religious lobby groups didn't like the idea of secular ethics very much, and kicked up a bit of a stink.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/godless-ethics-classes-are-pointless/story-fn562txd-1225860481656
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2871823.htm
The St. James Ethics centre formulated the curriculum. After the trial there was a complete analysis of the classes by the University of South Australia. The investigation was far more invasive than anything the SRE(special religious education) classes have ever had to face. And, credit to St James ethics centre, the findings were very positive.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/nsw-gives-high-marks-to-ethics-classes-20101020-16sp3.html
******************************
The complete findings are here:
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/detresources/NSW_Ethics_course_trial_BYucPDfMew.pdf
What I really wanted to point out was recommendation number 6 on page 83:
"Recommendation 6:
That information about SRE curricula and other such courses at individual schools be made available to parents / carers in the form of fact sheets to mirror that DET fact sheets for parents on Gender or Drug education. The fact sheets should provide no more than a summary of the aims and processes of the different SRE offerings, and each summary should be no more than two paragraphs in length. It might be useful for the DET to design a template for this purpose"
I just thought it was interesting that non-Christians have to jump through hoops and undergo intense scrutiny to teach about ethics. When, on the other hand, parents are not privy to the goings on in SRE. @NathanLee on twitter thinks that it might pay NOT to know what SRE is teaching (twitter hashtag is #NSWethics check it out for more info over the next little while).
What could possibly be so bad that SRE has to hide its curriculum?
P.S. I neglected to mention Penny Sharpe MLC, and her hard work pushing the ethics classes. Penny gave this little blogger her first polictical interview for her journalism subjects and she's a dragonboater.
(those of you who already know all about it, jump to "complete findings here", I've added stars to help you find it. You're welcome)
Earlier this year a trial was run in a number of schools across the state. As you can imagine, there was plenty on controversy surrounding the trials. The churches and religious lobby groups didn't like the idea of secular ethics very much, and kicked up a bit of a stink.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/godless-ethics-classes-are-pointless/story-fn562txd-1225860481656
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2871823.htm
The St. James Ethics centre formulated the curriculum. After the trial there was a complete analysis of the classes by the University of South Australia. The investigation was far more invasive than anything the SRE(special religious education) classes have ever had to face. And, credit to St James ethics centre, the findings were very positive.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/nsw-gives-high-marks-to-ethics-classes-20101020-16sp3.html
******************************
The complete findings are here:
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/detresources/NSW_Ethics_course_trial_BYucPDfMew.pdf
What I really wanted to point out was recommendation number 6 on page 83:
"Recommendation 6:
That information about SRE curricula and other such courses at individual schools be made available to parents / carers in the form of fact sheets to mirror that DET fact sheets for parents on Gender or Drug education. The fact sheets should provide no more than a summary of the aims and processes of the different SRE offerings, and each summary should be no more than two paragraphs in length. It might be useful for the DET to design a template for this purpose"
I just thought it was interesting that non-Christians have to jump through hoops and undergo intense scrutiny to teach about ethics. When, on the other hand, parents are not privy to the goings on in SRE. @NathanLee on twitter thinks that it might pay NOT to know what SRE is teaching (twitter hashtag is #NSWethics check it out for more info over the next little while).
What could possibly be so bad that SRE has to hide its curriculum?
P.S. I neglected to mention Penny Sharpe MLC, and her hard work pushing the ethics classes. Penny gave this little blogger her first polictical interview for her journalism subjects and she's a dragonboater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)