My goodness! What a very peculiar article.

Latest opinion poll, Gillard -
Voter satisfaction = 27%
Voter dissatisfaction = 61%

This is a victory for women?

The Gillard government, unpopular and rocketing towards defeat. I can't quite see how that's a victory for anybody except Tony Abbott.

Well, like I said before. A very peculiar article in my opinion.

What a very peculiar comment, VoxUnius. I can't begin to comprehend where you got that from, and if your voice is united with anything other than the rest of your body I'd be extremely surprised - but probably quite fascinated as well!

Jennifer you have depressingly well summed up the abject dysfunctionality of Australian politics at the moment, and the absoulte disappointment that a lot of people feel at the pointless squandering of opportunity that has characterised the Labor government since, well, since the end of Kevin Rudd's honeymoon period. Their failure has not been a result of effective opposition - it has been a result of the personal foibles of a small number of senior Labor Party members who have misread, mishandled, and insinuated their own personal agendas and ambitions upon a large groundswell of goodwill. People voted against the deception and meanness of the Howard government, and we imagined that Kevin Rudd, with his big ideas and his ostensible compassion for others, would steer the country back to a place where we could be proud to call ourselves Australian again.

However as the article points out, things have turned pretty dire. I must say though I'm less optimistic for Julia. I don't think it's possible to turn one's public image around. In some sense I feel sorry for her. I think the pressure to stand up to the negativity of Abbott has forced her into an "out-Herroding Herrod" situation. I'm sure when this is all over and she is breakfasting out on her front porch she will lean back on her calico outdoor chair with a cigarette and a sweet milky tea, and hate herself for what she has done. But at the same time it is her fault. She should have saw the signs. My theory is that, having been schooled in Howard-era gutter politics, she just couldn't drag herself back out.

Interesting to think that the kids who are now reaching uni-going age have never seen what it means to have a responsible, effective government. what does this mean for the future?

Yes, it is an odd article. I don't want to comment on the general argument, but ask about the term 'asylum seekers'. Doesn't that beg the question? What is the difference between those on the boats and those in the camps in Indonesia and Malaysia? Are 'boat people' more genuine in seeking asylum than those in the camps? How are they different from 'economic refugees'?

At the moment my feeling is that boat people should be dealt with in Australia. But since we already take in several thousand 'refugees' deemed to be so by the UN, isn't doing so giving priority to those who have the money to pay for the risky boat journey? And is that fair?

I don't have answers to these questions, and I think that the movement of people out of awful environments should be expected. Australia should do its bit.

But I do think that using the term 'asylum seekers' is a form of emotional coup d'etat, because we don't know that they are plainly refugees from political oppression of a severe kind. That is still to be determined.

If I'm wrong, perhaps the author could respond.

That's "seen the signs", Sam Jandwich!

On the one hand I fully endorse Jennifer Wilson's political satire here and long to see genuine leadership from either sex, but especially from a woman. On the other hand populist politics demand that all sides demean themselves over despicable policies such as "stopping the boats". Popular politics is the ultimate in non-representational democracy, whereby political/philosophical subtlety in every important issue is leached away until all that remains are slogans: stop the boats, tough on crime, no to big taxes, creating jobs--unquestioned verities! This kind of political gruel is served up to us en masse because each slogan is identified as broadly representative among a paranoid bogan centre that's never considered the arguments and only knows its petty nationalism and gut-insecurity. But these asinine policies are also broadly "influential", cultivating ignorance and sparing millions the bother of actually thinking about anything. Allowing them instead to be led by "popular wisdom"; fear and loathing whipped-up in self-fulfilling fashion by the media--vicious and hapless by turns. Popular opinion is reported, thus spuriously validated, inducing the uncertain to cave-in and join the ranks of the selfish and the weak-minded--memes in action!
This is what all politicians do in our populist age. Politics as the platform for the statesman/woman has devolved into puerile degeneracy, wherein the bogan is pricked and agitated in tender spots so that s/he reacts predictably and on-cue. We are absolved of thinking over the details of popular debates, indeed admonished for it, and complex ethical issues are reduced to fear-mongering. Gillard's position is despicable, but no more so than the rest. And, sad to say, the populist woman--politician or suburban bogan--is no better than her bigoted "darl".
What organ of the media is impartially expounding the real complexities of this debate, or any debate! Why the hell are "asylum seekers", "AGW", "carbon tax" and all the other big ticket issues emotive? Lets consider issues omnisciently. People are susceptible to having their fears and prejudices reinforced, but they can be educated to think and consider complexity.
Instead of importuning Gillard to "woman up" and "have mercy", have her canvas the problematics.

There is no greater truth that given any set of circumstances and sufficient pressure, women and men make the same decisions, gender has nothing to do with it. The myth of female softness was debunked long ago when Thatcher took the reigns in England. There is no reason either sex can't be tough (read unconciousnable behaviour and attitudes).

More concerning is the continuing government (and opposition) relying heavily on small sample focus groups to "read" the electorate and make legislation based on its values.

Lie down with dogs and you get fleas. Its about time Australia has some genuine leadership. The current leaders look like participants in a Jerry Springer audience slanging match...neither is a leader, neither capable of heading up a government.

As far as Asylum seeker policy goes, (and this has been debated in our media since the early 1990's) your either in or your not. For political reasons, as the article states, Australia clings to the convention. Some countries arent so caught up in ego and readily make themselves unavailable from receiving refugees full stop. Australia under Rudd commenced the era of the policy tweak. So instead of a firm stance one way of the other they fiddle with the edges and arrive at a half baked policy which is neither effective or particularly useful to anyone involved (politicians, refugees, the Australian people). It seems the emotional reaction is dictating action rather than a calm conclusion about what we want to achieve.

One poster on another forum pointed out we have a ready input from potential asylum seekers to train people and begin to address our skills shortage for instance. That suggestion, although a stretch, at least has as its goal a productive outcome.

"Tough" doesn't impress me at all. It's the language I most commonly associate with prisoners. (And we know why they got there dont we?)

'Julia is a role model for our female young'
How deceived can a person be?

I find it interesting that you can tell to about 95% accuracy, the income source of the writers or posters on this subject.

Those sucking on the public teat, commonwealth, state or local government always seem to assume that there is plenty more public teat to go round for their chosen depressed/oppressed/disadvantaged or what ever they are.

They never appear to notice that many of the tax payers supplying the nourishment at that teat, are at about the end of their capacity to do so.

It is time to call stop to all new welfare loads, & allow the battered tax payer to get their head above water, if only for a couple of years.

The assumption is that for Juliar to be tough, she has to cave in to the greens?

I am woman hear me lie.

I am academic female hear me not think.

Oh dear, I see from some comments that I should have put up a "Warning, Satire" as well as a "warning gender bias."

I was being sarcastic, Runner. I don't really think Julia is a role model for our girls. My tongue was in my cheek.

SM and individual,

Have either of you any more deep and meaningful reflections to impart?

I know you've both plumbed the depths of your intellects and political expediency to give us your valuable commentary thus far. I'm sure, however, there's more where that came from.

Squeers has summed up the contemporary political landscape in Australia beautifully. Both sides are behaving in exactly the same manner. Jennifer, it seems, is merely highlighting Julia's lack of feminine empathy as an attempt to "out-tough" the blokes....and in the process she is undermining the bedrock upon which our humanitarian values rest.

@Don Aitkin, when the boats arrive, the people on board request asylum in Australia from the circumstances they allege they are fleeing.

They have a legal right to do that under our law. They then go through a process to determine whether or not they are eligible for refugee status and if their claims are genuine.

Asylum seeker isn't in itself an emotive term, though it has become that, loaded with baggage. It's just a way of describing the status of people who ask for sanctuary here and for Australia to assess their claims to determine if they are refugees according to the UN Convention. People who arrive by plane are also called asylum seekers until assessed.
People in camps are also asylum seekers until assessed as refugees or not.
Cheers, Jennifer.

Poirot,

Are you being sexist and suggesting that women are soft and should be guided by their gender. Is Gillard not a woman for admitting that onshore processing has failed spectacularly and another solution is needed?

SM,

"Are you being sexist and suggesting woman are soft and should be guided by their gender...."

Yes!..... ( of course, your word is "soft" - my word is "ethical")

Ironically, Julia's stance on this issue is set to be continually "refouled" - she always ends up back where she started.

Have either of you any more deep and meaningful reflections to impart?
Poirot,
And here I was thinking the comments to be most apt. Ah well.

Poirot,

Are you being sexist and suggesting that men are less ethical than women?

my apologies Briar. I should have read more closely

SM,

I'm suggesting that some men and women put political expediency before ethical considerations - and at present in Australia both major parties are vying for popularity and applying unethical strategies to achieve that end.

"Jennifer, it seems, is merely highlighting Julia's lack of feminine empathy"

Is a far cry from:

"I'm suggesting that some men and women put political expediency before ethical considerations"

The whole pretext of the article is sexist, the reason behind it is just an excuse.

The article totally misses the real Julia's issues.

They are nothing to do with toughness or gender.

The real Julia's real issues are pigheadness, authoritarianism, and an inability to accept being in error.

Oh and of course that the fault is always with someone else, usually Tony.

The author may be exibititing, in this article, similar personality traits ... Which leads me to ask: Are they exclusively female traits?

Poirot:
<some men and women put political expediency before ethical considerations>
In fact, many talk and act as if they had no ethical/political obligations/responsibility to consider. This is how far intellectual standards have degenerated; popular “debate” is often not merely parochial, but aggressively narcissistic and ignorant of real issues. A few of the complexities populists seem oblivious to:

Australia's complicity in the colonial/postcolonial world that is still playing out.

Australia's support for US-led unilateral interference and manipulation, as well as eager participation in military actions on foreign shores, all productive of refugees.

Inequality/upward mobility; Australia’s prodigious comparative wealth, ethically indefensible in the global context, is bound to be a mecca to refugees. If we’re not prepared to live more modestly and reduce inequality, we should accept that we're going to attract mendicants.

Ideological imperialism--the West imposes its "values" and culture as if nothing else could possibly be legitimate. By the same token, its values are not scrutinised and immune to criticism. This phenomenon breeds indignation, resentment, jealousy and envy.

Australia is a big player in global economics, which helps to generate over-population and unsustainability=refugees.

Australia is not isolationist; it fully participates in the world it helps to create and must partake of all that that entails.

As a rich Western nation, Australia shares responsibility for today’s economic, environmental and political refugees. It therefore has moral and practical obligations.

Geographical good-fortune; Australians are “lucky” to have a giant landmass to exploit; they do no “deserve” it and their propriety is ideological and tenuous.

Australia is signature to and purports to support human rights--“all” humanity.

Australia supports other conventions too, whose reciprocal protection it enjoys, and must be seen not merely to honour them in the breach.

Empathy, Compassion, generosity—traditionally the feminine milk and honey of human kindness
Indifference; in being indifferent to the global effects of its ethical/environmental footprint, Australia is party to many of the world’s ills and must take its share of the consequences, including refugees.

The hearts and minds of decent men and women are suffocated by populist politics. There's more to it than stop the boats!

@ Briar Rose & Co.

The term "asylum seekers" is a nonsense.

If it was all about seeking asylum.Then temporary protection visas--which are perfectly permissible under the convention-- would be a favoured option.And if it was all about offering temporary protection then we could accommodate a lot more.

But both the "asylum seekers" and their unwitting accomplishes want nothing of TPVs.

If it was all about asylum seeking then one would expect that the southern Sudanese "asylum seekers", who sought protection in OZ before they gained independence, would be leaving our shores to resettle in their new homeland--but it isn't happening.

If it was about all asylum seeking one would expect the thousands of Tamils who sought asylum on our shores would be returning home.

AND BEFORE ONE OF THE ADVOCATES JUMPS IN WITH THE USUAL SPIEL ABOUT DOOM AND GLOOM IN SRI LANKA!

Many Tamils are returning --according to no lesser source than the UNHCR:

"In 2010, the improving situation in northern Sri Lanka has prompted an increase in facilitated repatriation and spontaneous returns of refugees from India and elsewhere. This trend is expected to accelerate in 2011, when it is estimated that up to 15,000 UNHCR-facilitated and 6,000 spontaneous individual returns will take place
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e4878e6.html

But none of those returnees are from five star sites like OZ.

And this is because it is NOT about seeking asylum ---it' about seeking affluence ---they are affluence seekers--not asylum seekers.

At least Squeers, for all his ideological mumbo-jumbo is insightful enough to see there are "economic" refugees in the mix --though he doesn't know how many. And he cares even less. For him the West is one giant soup kitchen whose duty it is to feed the rest of the world.

the West is one giant soup kitchen whose duty it is to feed the rest of the world.
SPQR,
and to top it all off it has to be muslimised. Unfortunately, you can show this scenario to the academic educated but you can't make them understand.

Individual You seem to be saying that an education prevents people from understanding things. Do you really believe that or are you trolling?

If you do believe it, can you explain why? Like, do you think that it is because stupid people go into academia or is it that the education makes them stupid?

I don't agree with you, because I am quite sure I got smarter during the years I spent getting a university degree, but I would like to understand why you think this was not only a waste of my time, but apparently turned me into an idiot who can't see things properly?

Have you been to uni? If not then perhaps you could give it a go and then you would have some real life experience on which to base your beliefs about education.

"the West is one giant soup kitchen whose duty it is to feed the rest of the world.
SPQR,
and to top it all off it has to be muslimised. Unfortunately, you can show this scenario to the academic educated but you can't make them understand."

The academic educated says:

"And what could possibly be wrong with either of those scenarios, Individual?"

"We're all animals. If we can feed and protect ourselves from the elements, and the elephants, or even befriend the elephants, then that's all you need. Anything else is a bonus. Think about it: does your life really consist of only your economic activities? Would life not still be worth living, even if you were forced at gunpoint to pray to Allah the merciful four times a day?".

"If there was a tree in the middle of the forest that you could never access, would it still be more beautiful than an Ikea bookshelf? If some bastard was tailgating you, and a wallaby jumped out onto the road, would you brake for it and have said bastard run up the back of you, causing you damage and hassle? What if it were a possum, or a rat? What if the rat was cute?"

"If the Liberal Party supports free trade, then surely that entails supporting unhindered labour mobility? Isn't that intrinsic to free trade? Will the efficiencies garnered through free trade not be nullified by conditions of restricted labour mobility?"

"Put yourself in their shoes and see how you like it. What would you do in their situation?"

"What are you afraid of? Fundamentally we're all the same. If you don't believe me, ask an alien - though come to think of it, didn't star wars teach us that aliens can get along quite well?"

Oh man, I got up this morning feeling like I needed a good dose of ECT, but but blaming the ills of the world on others' thoughtlessness is much more fun!

Oh do come on Molly!

University, & real life mutually exclusive, & should never be included in the same paragraph.

& yes I was there during the Vietnam marches, & have seen it near its most ridiculous.

Hasbeen I am sure I am showing my ignorance of real life people now - if you are a real life person that is - but I don't understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that you met academics back in the '70's during the anti-Vietnam marches and they were stupids who didn't understand anything and that is the basis of your judgment about university learning being a bad thing?

Could I suggest that things have changed at Universities an awful lot since the '70's and when I was at my University during the '90's the Arts faculty and their antics were regarded as a source of some amusement by the psychologists, biologists and engineers. But, we figured they were here first and deserved some tolerance because they have always been an integral part of western civilization and they deserve some leeway because of that.

I am assuming from some of the posts I've read that it is the Arts that is the 'big satan' for 'culture warriors'. And I'm assuming that you are a culture warrior? One needs to make a lot of unsupported assumptions to participate in forums like this and that is a problem for me. I like evidence to support my assumptions.

But surely the culture war is over and despite the heroic effort by John Howard, the left has won a lot of ground that needed to be won. But really now the artie lefties are a bit old-fashioned and irrelevant, and should be ignored rather than encouraged by any more attention or alternatively we could just enjoy the way out stuff they like to talk about. It's a bit like poetry, my professor used to say.

So did you march in the Vietman demos yourself?

I threw the eggs, with the rest of the people doing some real study, rather than hocus pocus

As someone who wasn't able to acquire much education until adulthood, then slogged my way through two degrees and a PhD while being a wife and mother and working, I treasure every bit of my hard won education.

I educated myself because I always felt I was capable of a lot more than my early family circumstances had permitted me. For me, it was a way of rising above horrific childhood experiences, and not letting them destroy me.

I guess I could have turned to drugs , and copped exactly the same kind of abuse, just from a different perspective.

I don't ask for credit for any of it, but it would be nice once in a while if people in forums such as this one didn't slag off at people who educate themselves. We have our reasons. Sometimes we do it to save our lives.
Jennifer.

Me too Jennifer. I actually had turned to drugs before being lucky enough after my marriage break-up, to come across a social worker who was able to break through the anger and resentment etc that I felt toward a society that had excluded me and regarded me as a waste of space.

The 'abuse' that was hurled at people who couldn't find jobs back in the 80's when there was a large unemployment problem was really cruel and counter-productive as it created many of the long term unemployed we have now. For some of us who are less resilient and find that names do 'hurt' us, developed disabling psychological problems from that abuse.

I know my ex was probably a 'weak' man but it was the constant message that he was a 'dole bludger' and it was his fault that we were failing so badly to live up to societies expectations, that was critical in him developing a 'paranoid personality disorder' and now he really is 'useless'.

My university education, I believe, was critical in providing me with the skills that meant that my kids have all turned out great and are all working and paying tax - and lots of it in one case.

I think that the high level of university education we have in Australia is one reason we are doing better than a lot of other countries and I think that some of these people who denigrate a university education and think their real life experiences are all they need to see 'reality' should try it for themselves and then they would have some real life basis for their opinion.

Jennifer,

I admire your efforts at self-improvement. However I am reminded of a speech given by the Rector of my college in my final year.

His words have resounded throughout my life.

It went soimething like this.

Everybody has a cup of learning, some have very large cups, some have very small cups. The efforts of those who fill their cups to the brim is worth more than the efforts of those who only half fill their cups.

Unfortunately quite often it is evidenced today the effort of those who fill their tiny cups is often seen as inferior to those who only half-fill their very large cups.

I do not want to disparrage your efforts. I can see you've done your utmost. The point I'm making is the effort of street cleaner who is the very best street cleaner is equal to the effort you've shown.

It's my experience today many supposed well educated and knowledgeable will pour scorn on this view and many more will only see the results of the un-equal efforts as where the value accures. Often it is in subtle wauys with simple questions like: what degree do you hold? or statements like: I'm a graduate of economics and an expert in the field of climate science.

I've no degrees and have often, over many yeaers, been looked down upon by and been condescended towards in such fashion by my 'educated' betters.

Often my comprehension and intellect is far superior to many because I have educated myself by reading and by learning through practical application. I tend to command respect through competent communication.

I speak three languages. Employ myself and three others gainfully. Am sort of retired. I have raised two children ... solo. One is a competent and able electrical engineer and the other is to become a mum. She'll be a very competent and able mum. All our life choices are respected equally by each of us.

Life generally is not as such today.

Jennifer,

I admire your efforts at self-improvement. However I am reminded of a speech given by the Rector of my college in my final year.

His words have resounded throughout my life.

It went something like this.

Everybody has a cup of learning, some have very large cups, some have very small cups. The efforts of those who fill their cups to the brim is worth more than the efforts of those who only half fill their cups.

Unfortunately quite often it is evidenced today the effort of those who fill their tiny cups is often seen as inferior to those who only half-fill their very large cups.

I do not want to disparrage your efforts. I can see you've done your utmost. The point I'm making is the effort of street cleaner who is the very best street cleaner is equal to the effort you've shown.

It's my experience today many supposed well educated and knowledgeable will pour scorn on this view and many more will only see the results of the un-equal efforts as where the value accures. Often it is in subtle wauys with simple questions like: what degree do you hold? or statements like: I'm a graduate of economics and an expert in the field of climate science and I know the facts of etc etc

I've no degrees and have often, over many years, been looked down upon by and been condescended towards in such fashion by my 'educated' betters.

Often my comprehension and intellect is far superior to many because I have educated myself by reading and by learning through practical application. I tend to command respect through competent communication.

I speak three languages. Employ myself and three others gainfully. Am sort of retired. I have raised two children ... solo. One is a competent and able electrical engineer and the other is to become a mum. She'll be a very competent and able mum. All our life choices are respected equally by each of us.

Life generally is not as such today.

imajulianutter,

If you've educated yourself through reading and practical application - which might be termed "informal" education - you "have" indulged in gaining an education.

If your street sweeper lives a fulfilling life and follows his passions and interests, then he will have fulfilled his potential as well.

Learning in all societies is lifelong and can be formal or informal. Making the most of one's propensities and talents and the fulfillment gained from doing so bestows a sense of purpose to each individual.

imajulianutter

If people are condescending because you don't have a degree, they are not your betters and it is not right to assume that everyone who has a degree is similarly condescending.

Self education is wonderful for one's own satisfaction and growth, but the 'scientific method' is the basis on which science rests and this isn't easily followed though self education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Mollydukes
"during the '90's the Arts faculty and their antics were regarded as a source of some amusement by the psychologists, biologists and engineers."

Not much has changed. Arts students and grads are still the butt of many jokes. I used to sympathise with the Arts grads, being one myself, but I've become quite veraciously anti-Arts. Why you ask? Because of articles like this one supporting asylum seekers/refugees/illegal immigrants. The Arts care more for people on the other side of the planet than they do their own people. Where are the Arts grad helping the Aussie homeless, where are they helping to decrease the male suicide rate, where are they trying to help male victims of violence, where are they trying to help men who are struggling financially? The trend in the Arts is to oppose anything Western/white/male and support everything not Western/white/male.
The Arts should have the majority of its funding withdrawn until it creates something of use to Australians, instead of producing grads who have nothing but hate for Australians.

Aristocrat

The question is, should we care more for 'our' people than for other people? Why?

I just don't see why you white western men think you are having it so tough. Where's your evidence for that?

The idea these days, is that no group, like you white males, should get special treatment. So violence toward anyone, male or female is supposed to be treated equally. Why should there be special programs for male victims of female violence.

I'm not sure that I'd want Arts graduates helping in any areas where someone with psych degree is needed. Like in the areas of homelessness, suicide and other mental disorders. Why should Arts graduates do that sort of work when they are qualified for something else?

Mollydukes, the general trend in the Arts at the moment is to support women, ethnic minorities, and anything perceived as non-Western. Often this goes under the latest trendy buzzword of "equality." But by your thinking no group should be privileged. This doesn't fit with the current trend in Academia.
The Arts are mostly funded by white, male tax-payers. They then should expect something in return rather than being the butt of polemics.

Aristocrat, I agree it's a strange situation in the Arts and I think I understand why it upsets you. I found the level of scholarship in the Visual Arts faculty where I did part of a degree, to be laughable.

But again I suggest that you put too much emphasis on what those in the Arts do and say. They are entitled to advocate for what they believe is important in society.

I just think that it doesn't matter much what they say or do, it's interesting if you are interested in those sort of ideas but there are a lot more useful, relevant and reliable sources of information and ideas about the world coming from other faculties.

Blistering barnacles! I have often thought that it should be compulsory for every university student to do one or two basic Arts units, precisely so that they don't labour under misconceptions resulting from discursive errors such as for example "The Arts care more for people on the other side of the planet than they do their own people".

Fundamentally, Arts is concerned with analysing the ways that culture, language, society, the physical environment etc shape people's thinking - and with ensuring the people who study it develop the capacity to think critically about the information they come across through their everyday lives, and to recognise the effect of socio-cultural phenomena on their attitides, beliefs, and approaches to work, discovering the meaning of life etc - and ultimately to find more efficient ways of engaging with these effects in everything we do. You'd be surprised for example at how much influence cultural normatives have over the ways that science and maths are conducted, if you looked into it.

[cont]

Just because Arts graduates talk about asylum seekers more than they do "their own people" (a concept which I would argue is another discursive error - people are people no matter where they come from, and I have just as much connection with the person who lives across the street from me whom I've never met, as I do with a South Sudanese person in a refugee camp. And what's more so do you. Further, a street sweeper and a highly educated person indisputably have a wholly equivalent value, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just prejudiced. Hmmm, and why does the word "Rector" always make me think of bottoms??) doesn't mean they (or, "we") are less concerned with local problems. It's just that we see the way the Australian government is treating asylum seekers to be a particularly unnecessary, misguided, deleterious approach that could quite easily be rectified by having a small number of powerful people change their minds about what to do. Our relative silence on homelessness is not a result of lassitude, but because we know through our significant interest in the issue that there is quite a lot of good being done in this area already, but that homelessness doesn't lend itself to improvement just through a few policy tweeks - it's a relatively intractable, multidisciplinary problem - an so agitating about it is not going to make much difference. But if they start locking homeless people in asylums and pauper's workhouses again, then watch out!

There are over 3 billion worthy souls who want to come here. Why do lazy so and so bleeding hearts fall in love with helping the few who pay SMUGGLERS to get on rickety media attracting trojan hrose boats to come here.

If ASIO had any intel at all they would know these boat people are either human rights violaters who have gotten their fare by stepping on others or are in fact covertly sponsored by the very terrorist Governments they are supposed to be fleeing.

The Trojans had the same bleeding hearts within their city walls when the Greeks gifted them with that bloody big horse and their subsequent ANNIHILATION.

I have nothing but CONTEMPT for such lazy & stupid bleeding heart minds who WOULD instantly change camps if said asylum seekers were to live NEXT DOOR to THEM.

First and foremost, Australia has a long history of LOW populations because it is a DESERT. Sustainability and Environmental STEWARDSHIP MUST trump all other considerations.

Proponent of asylum seekers are like the kind man who let the woman ride his back across the deep river. Half way across she began choking and drowning him. When he asked WHY she answered:

"Because I can!"

Sam Jandwich
"Fundamentally, Arts is concerned with analysing the ways that culture, language, society, the physical environment etc shape people's thinking"

That is true, but this analysing is only used as a vehicle to push through an already held moral prejudice. Most doctors and professors already have a moral position even before utilizing an Arts methodology. They already despise capitalism, Western culture in general, the powerful, men (mostly white men), and by default support anything that supposedly suffers, or has no power. Critical thinking (if you could call it that) is only applied after a moral position has been taken; this includes sifting through information to try and support one's already held point of view. The general orthodoxy in the Arts at the moment is to analyse society through race, gender, and class to try and find signs of oppression wherever possible along these lines. This methodology commits them to a hypocrisy of making massive stereotypes while telling others that they shouldn't stereotype.

While I don't dislike the Arts, I actually believe they are necessary in the sense of needing to understand history and the history of ideas, but they need to clean up their act of automatically making out people to be oppressed or victims of some kind of system.

Actually, Aristocrat, one of my degrees is in Social Science.

As the granddaughter of a Yorkshire coal miner and his wife who was "in service" before her marriage, and who brought me up until I was seven in a council house on a council estate, I have no difficulty with "street sweepers" and knowing the contribution everybody can make no matter what their field and social status. Gaining a PhD did not take this appreciation away from me.
Jennifer.

Yes, Aristocrat I do agree that there are unfortunately a lot of professional academics who abuse systems and intellectual techniques to push their own agendas - and this seems to happen more in the more applied "humanities" disciplines rather than the core Arts disciplines like philosophy or political science. Part of being a responsible intellectual is to challenge the people who engage in these sorts of antics, both by countering their arguments, and by putting accountability mechanisms in place.

But then, a good stoush is all part of the fun! So I hope it never disappears completely.

Sandwich,

You make sneering suggestions about people with the title Rector yet you unabashedly use the word rectifed.

What does that say about you?

Could it be you may have just exposed your values as dwelling in nether regions.

Hi Mollydukes,

Yes you are right, I shouldn't have lumped all graduates in the same class. I should have said it is my experience with most graduates.

My son who has engineering and science degrees would disagree with you about the importance of the scientific method when it comes to navigating a way in this world. He has an appreciation of alternative ways of constructing reality.

We have many robust discussions our latest was on the relevance of the Peloponnesian War. We both enjoy Herodotus. I'm proud he's following my trail through the reading of the development of the Liberal Democratic West and Western thought.

Aristocrat you say that in the Arts the "analysing is only used as a vehicle to push through an already held moral prejudice". Perhaps you reveal your prejudices when you accuse others? We all come to a decision about what is moral and you haven't really explained why you think it is wrong for people have a moral view that differs from yours.

Imajulianutter,As you say, the scientific method is no way to get on in this world! I think it is a very 'unnatural' way for humans to think. To do well in the world, depending on how one defines success, it seems to me, requires the ability to get along with people or understand them. But of course I am biased toward seeing my own problems as universally applicable, and they are not.

Well done, it is a wonderful thing to have grown children and be able to have deep and meaningful discussions with them; and also some really silly ones. I have my youngest son at home. He's a youth worker and with my backgroud in psychology, we so often solve all the problems of society in a single night!

Wow, and my son and I cannot even decide if the world has a sensible future. I think anarchy, he thinks totalitarianism. But I'm the only one preparing for any senario... financially. He gets quite upset when I taunt him with Diogenes or quote the ABC at him.

Yes having funny times is special. We have ours too.

Ha like mother like son? My two outright reject my chosen paths. I can't quite decide whether that's healthy for them ... and/or for me.

"Sandwich,

You make sneering suggestions about people with the title Rector yet you unabashedly use the word rectifed.

What does that say about you?

Could it be you may have just exposed your values as dwelling in nether regions."

Hehe! Imajulianutter, I don't sneer, ever - I just explode into mirth at things that are completely incongruous, or inappropriately serendipitous! But then you better watch out: as someone who uses the words "Julia", and "nut" in the same sentence you could quite easily be interpreted to be making a very dodgy inference, and especially in the context of the original article.

Hi Sandwich,

could it have been possible I used the words julian and utter instead of your intrepretation of julia and nutter.

Now then if so, wouldn't your intrepretation say much much more about you than you'd realised.

hehehe thanks.

I had so manny little laughs in mind when I came up with that nick. You've provided an unintended one.

Hades is a nether region.