Thanks Graham. I guess I'm concerned at the posssibility that this 'journal', having begun so promisingly, is declining into a thinly disguised organ for the promotion of the Coalition's various agendas. I think we're being softened up for a raft of outrageous legislation once the government has full control of the Senate.

And thanks also to Ozaware for his/her advice, the quality of which maintains the standards of his/her deranged website.

Morgan :)

Morganzola - since the posts are not editted or moderated, your claim merely indicates that, if what you say is true -

Those able to write, understand and use English effectively are more likely to be supporters of the coalilition.

Think on it - "intellectual socialism" is a spent and wasted force, discreditted by its own incompetence and inability to develop or deliver effective social policy.

MORGAN
if u perceive the forum as being biased in a particular way, simplest solution is to contribute (contstructively) from your own perspective.

I think the biggest danger is when people contribute from blinkered naivity or rabid one sidedness which cannot see any possibility however remote of the other side having any redeeming value.
When it comes to politics, and people start playing 'the man' (howard is a lying scheming this that this that" etc.. as though people on the labor or other side of politics don't indulge in their share of 'stuff'.
We all know that both sides use their power to 'breastfeed' their own consultants and put their own people in the public service. Its not like "suddenly" one side started to do that and are thus the biggest mongrels on the face of the planet.
Personlly, I try to show that there is another alternative, the Christian one. Or..'politics by biblical principle'. I get my share of 'you rabid right wing blah blah" :) but.. its all good. There are a lot of accumulated myths in most peoples heads about both Christianity and Christians. "There is much work to be done" :)

Enjoying the comments, but as my old English teacher use to say, can we keep it relevant. My original article in the OZ criticisng Sawyer was because I felt he was wrong in what he said and he allowed his political opinions to interfere with his better judgement. As an English teacher for 12 years, one time member of the Year 12 panel of examiners and somebody whose PhD thesis examined English teaching over the last 30 years, I accept that the subject has a strong political edge.

Orwell, Huxley, Dickens and Blake, to name a few I studied at uni, deal with power, authority and control. The old clear thinking part of Matric was based on the assumption that students had to be taught how to be good 'crap' detectors.

What I dislke is when teacher academics and professional associations blame classroom teachers for, apparently, not teaching students the correct way to vote. Indoctrination is not education.

Morgonzola,

The thing that offends me most deeply about Sawyer's editorial is the assumption that there is only one correct way of seeing an issue. I set up the journal originally because I see one of my "duties" as an intelligent person, to seek out information that not only confirms my beliefs, but that challenges them, and to treat both types with respect. As a humane person I also see my "duty" to be to try to understand why people hold the views they do, and not to devalue them as people because they hold different views from me. That is the antithesis of what appears to be Sawyer's position. It also means that if there is an agenda running from any reasonable quarter, I'll be giving a platform to it in OLO. This site is about critical thinking.

Graham Y - I Agree with your view - the "real" role of teachers is to develop in their students the ability to interpret and reason.

The conclusion to interpretation and reasoning are multiple outcomes - not one.

Sawyer wants to indocrinate his pupils with an image of his own making and deny them the capacity to interpret or reason for themselves -
Thus as a "teacher" he is both a failure and a fraud.