Is society getting worse?

[watt price tully]

Skids context was based on many visits to such communities. That is valuable and real context.

If the federal govt numbers replace state expenditure, then unless the states are spending twice as much on non-aboriginal communities, his point remains that overall spending per year on aboriginal is around twice as high.

It was, I repeat, a quality post based on real experience plus hard numbers, whether you like the implications or not.

If you have better numbers, by all means post them.

You're a smart guy but do not accept the numbers as they are. Question the numbers.

If you choose to blindly accept whole numbers, not address the fact that state governments historically took monies away from they were meant to be spent, ignore cultural factors like kinship networks then you would find the numbers meaningful.

It was a less than informed post without context. But go ahead accept what you like sans explanation. Just because Skids may have worked there does not make him an expert on where & how money is spent. Good on him for being a plumber & if we need plumbing issues he should be number 1 but I would not expect a plumber to have detailed knowledge on federal & state expenditure.

No claim to being an expert on anything WPT, ....

..........

Nowhere did I say you were a moron, that's your claim & I meant no disrespect here.

However what I did say clearly was that:

1. State governments &
2. Cultural factors such as Kinship networks

affects how monies allocated was spent that is, they are mediating factors from allocation to expenditure. In other words, lots of money is allocated, some of it his syphoned off by the state governments or not spent at all

In fact in NT especially they simply didn't spend the all of the money the feds allocated to them for specific things (over the years). I believe this holds true for some of the monies for the NT intervention.

It is where policy and implementation part.

As a plumber your skills would be most invaluable in remote communities.

Having said that the amount of money needed in remote communities is always going to be expensive due to simply things like distance and access. So if a plumber costs a lot here (which they effen do) it would also cost a lot more over there.

For the record, when my oldest didn't know what she really wanted to do at school I suggested she go to the careers advisor & think about a trade - I suggested being a sparky & she talked to the unions etc, did active research about how to get an apprenticeship etc before she decided on a career in fashion

I still don't expect all people to have detailed info on commonwealth / state funding & expenditure in Aboriginal affairs. That doesn't make people morons. I'm sorry if that you thought that was an inference.

Memo to self: don't post when rushing off to work - got back a little time ago.


Voting for Trump however invites another conversation ......(especially now that more than 20 odd million people will have no access to health cover) but that's another story.

[pietillidie]

[stui magpie]

Not to mention, even the most careless loud mouths in our midst still have to fall back to a minimalist scenario of human rights, which is not concerned with "ROI". Many rights and dignity-based expenditures represent "losses" from the trite POV of "ROI", such as health spending on the very old, sick and disabled. So there are limits even to the most callous, macho, simpleton pub talk on this matter.

Depends on your definition of ROI.

I was using it, in the context of my post, in the broadest sense in that any measurable, tangible benefit to the community from spending the money would be ROI, even rights and dignity based expenditure.

[pietillidie]

^Unfortunately, many people think that term means "some payback for them", even if via some social outcome. But, as with those groups I mentioned, amelioration often pays nothing back beyond the enhanced subjective experience of the individual recipient.

Of course, in the case of work done with Aboriginal peoples, outcomes are likely very positive much of the time, despite familiar intractable problems. Data can be very deceptive this way, because a "terrible" outcome can still mean 68.2% people did okay. (Then off we run with this word "terrible", as if no other good exists at all, and everyone might as well be dead).

Talk about the predicament of Aboriginal peoples is often so extreme it refuses to acknowledge even the most minimal rights we routinely grant others.

[Skids]

[stui magpie]

^

What a crock. The shit they support in that article is rubbish. If your religious beliefs are incompatible with the law of the land, your religious beliefs should lose. Period.

[Jezza]

What bullshit!

[pietillidie]

^Can someone help me establish the precise claim being made here?

Is Sydney University "pushing"/"wanting"/"supporting"/"adopting" something (verbiage taken from related newspaper headlines), or is there a book containing controversial content on a course list in a course in a degree at Sydney University?

[Skids]

[Pies4shaw]

^^^I've never seen an article making such wild claims in my life! I couldn't get past the first 7 words - if they could make such an absurd statement, they must be taking the pi$$.

[think positive]

I read the second one, what's the big deal? It's for law students who may for some ungodly reason want to work in an area that might have to deal with countries where these barbaric laws still exist! 23 kids enrolled. Maybe ask them if it's a training ground for trying to bring the laws here! No different from any of the other weird and wonderful courses offered - take a look at any uni course book, some of the none core units are pretty odd! Out of the 23 how many came away thinking 'what a bunch of <snip>heads still allowing these laws to exist!'. Non story.

How many of you actively use calculus!

[HAL]

I do not speak Latin

[David]

I read the second one, what's the big deal? It's for law students who may for some ungodly reason want to work in an area that might have to deal with countries where these barbaric laws still exist! 23 kids enrolled. Maybe ask them if it's a training ground for trying to bring the laws here! No different from any of the other weird and wonderful courses offered - take a look at any uni course book, some of the none core units are pretty odd! Out of the 23 how many came away thinking 'what a bunch of <snip>heads still allowing these laws to exist!'. Non story.

How many of you actively use calculus!

Well said. Even if these professors are full-on Sharia advocates, their course will still be required to provide a level of critical engagement with the text. It also appears to be a postgrad course, for what it's worth.

[Pies4shaw]

I think the essay questions used for assessment might be informative. I expect the topics will be of the kind "To what extent do you consider that customary Islamic law is compatible with the common law of Australia - discuss with reference to at least two of the following: succession, family law, criminal law, banking and finance law", rather than "To what extent should the infidels be boiled in oil in order to ensure the replacement of the common law of Australia with customary Islamic law - discuss with reference to the accomplishment of jihad".

When I used to teach public international law, it was common for us to discuss and analyse, amongst many other things, resolutions of the UN Security Council. Just because we might have spent time analysing particular ones that authorised the use of force in certain circumstances didn't mean that anyone in the room was endorsing war.

[watt price tully]

I think the essay questions used for assessment might be informative. I expect the topics will be of the kind "To what extent do you consider that customary Islamic law is compatible with the common law of Australia - discuss with reference to at least two of the following: succession, family law, criminal law, banking and finance law", rather than "To what extent should the infidels be boiled in oil in order to ensure the replacement of the common law of Australia with customary Islamic law - discuss with reference to the accomplishment of jihad".

When I used to teach public international law, it was common for us to discuss and analyse, amongst many other things, resolutions of the UN Security Council. Just because we might have spent time analysing particular ones that authorised the use of force in certain circumstances didn't mean that anyone in the room was endorsing war.

So how long should infidels be boiled in oil then?