PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

500N 13th Jan 2014 06:18

The Raaf could do it as could the navy.

dat581 13th Jan 2014 07:03

Despite what some people think the Collins class does actually work most of the time, at least well enough for one out of six boats to fire one or two Mk 48's at a refitted bulk carrier. Any use of the RAAF may be noticed by the huggy fluffs as not even the Orion carries the Harpoon ASM internally and all runways are visible to the public one way or another.

Andu 13th Jan 2014 08:14

The politician with the cojones to issue that order hasn't graced the Australian Parliament since Billy Hughes.

Part of me says 'thank God'.

But it would be an interesting standoff if something along those lines ever came to pass. About the strongest line an Australian government could take would be to refuse to allow the passengers of any such ship to disembark - but I very much doubt they wouldn't fold when a well-orchestrated media campaign* started releasing video of people desperate for water and food or of children 'dying' (as we surely be told was happening). *You could guarantee any such ships would surely have a PR system in place - and if they didn't, the ALPBC would willingly fill that void.

I'd also like to see how our authorities would handle 10,000 (or 50,000?) people jumping overboard en masse with the ship moored in Sydney Harbour.

bosnich71 13th Jan 2014 08:42

Andu ... the problem with you raising this hypothetical question is that there will now be people exploring the possibility of doing exactly what you've written about.
Sarah is probably having O*****s right now at the thought.

rh200 13th Jan 2014 08:54


I'd also like to see how our authorities would handle 10,000 (or 50,000?) people jumping overboard en masse with the ship moored in Sydney Harbour.
Just make sure you berly up the waters around it and a few sharks have decided to make the area home.

The whole refugee convention needs redoing, it doesn't take into account many things, including technology that now allows such a scenario to be easily carried out.

What also needs to be thought of, is the whole approach to the problem. As I have stated before, the people need to fix their problems themselves. That is there has to be a winner and a loser. What this means, if its to easy to leave, then we never get a solution. More importantly, if the people leaving are indeed the "good ones" then what hope is their for whats left.

At the end of the day, they have to fight and die for their country, just as its always been. At the moment in the Islamic world they are in a win win situation, breeding and exporting Islam.

For countrys like Pommystan its not hard to do the prognostic on the demographics. Likewise for us, and when it gets to a critical mass, your most likely stuffed.

Andu 13th Jan 2014 09:50

I suspect that ever a ship of ships ever did set out from the Middle East bound for Australia with large numbers of 'refugees' -and publicised the fact - we might see Australia rather quickly withdraw from the UN refugee convention so the government would have a more free hand to deal with the unwelcome arrivals.

Worrals in the wilds 13th Jan 2014 12:58

For sure, and that's without dealing with the pesky definition issue. ;) Again; are they refugees?

The whole refugee convention needs redoing, it doesn't take into account many things, including technology that now allows such a scenario to be easily carried out.
Agreed. The Convention was originally written with a specified timeframe to deal with people displaced by WW2. The 1967 Protocol removed the dates but not the intention, so we're still talking about an outdated document from yesteryear:zzz:.

This is a document written prior to the end of the Cold War; prior to the birth of even Arpanet, let alone the Internet. It's History :bored:.

CoodaShooda 13th Jan 2014 23:24

Nick Cater in The Australian raises some interesting points


"LANGUAGE," claim the authors of the Australian Curriculum, "enables people to interact effectively." They then proceed to demonstrate in 238,000 laboured words that this is not necessarily the case.

The curriculum is written in the private language of educationalism, which, like Latin in the hands of the medieval clergy, serves to keep the rest of us in our place. The implication is that parents, employers and general citizens don't know what they're talking about. Curriculum development is a job for the experts.

The first task of the government's curriculum review panel should be to translate this doorstop of a document into English, eliminate the verbiage and publish it for public discussion. Forget all the stuff about content descriptions, content elaborations and learning continua.

Don't bother telling us that the English language "provides rich and engaging contexts for developing students' abilities," or that "texts provide the means for communication".

In our own inexpert way, we had sort of gathered that.

Just tell us how you plan to teach literacy and numeracy, and what else you are planning to put into the kiddies' heads.

Then we can let the public decide whether "creating a more ecologically and socially just world through informed action" is a task for public schools.

Do we want educators or evangelists? Do we send children to school to "create texts that inform and persuade others to take action for sustainable futures"? Should a child under 10 be expected to produce "a persuasive audio-visual text to promote action on an environmental issue" or "promote awareness about how people can reduce their impact on the environment"?

By Year 9, they will be encouraged to ponder "Gaia - the interaction of Earth and its biosphere" and to think about the "limits of growth - that unlimited growth is unsustainable".

They will be asked to "interrogate" Rachel Carson's The Silent Spring and 1970 editions of Mother Earth News magazine, before considering the "rights of nature recognition - that humans and their natural environment are closely interrelated".

The words "sustainable" and "sustainability" appear 139 times in the Australian Curriculum; "business" crops up six times, "markets" twice and "free markets" not at all. "Prosperity" features three times and "economic growth" is mentioned just once (and not in a nice way), for history is not the tale of steady improvement but just one shameful act after another.

Year 3 students will be taught significant days and weeks in the Australian calendar: Australia Day, Anzac Day, Harmony Week, National Reconciliation Week, NAIDOC week and National Sorry Day and Mabo day.

Doubtless this is uncontroversial stuff in the sheltered common rooms of public schools, salaried and superannuated from the bottomless pockets of the state. To much of the rest of Australia, however, this romantic, closed-minded view of the world seems eccentric. Non-expert citizens - that is those without a PhD in critical pedagogy - might wonder how a child infused with such a narrow world view, who finishes Year 12 without any appreciation of wealth creation, could possibly emerge equipped for the challenges of the 21st century.

The history curriculum includes the Harvester Judgment, but says nothing about the Sunshine Harvester, Australia's most successful manufactured export, made in the factory where the work conditions test case was struck. In 699 pages, the curriculum mentions capitalism twice, but merely as one of the "competing ideologies" to communism.

At every turn, the curriculum appears intent on taking the most dismal brutal view of every episode in human history. The industrial revolution's contribution to the world is restricted to "the transatlantic slave trade and convict transportation". It led, we are told, to "longer working hours for low pay and the use of children as a cheap source of labour" and is best interpreted through reading the works of Charles Dickens.

The reforming instincts of 19th-century liberals that led to the end of transportation, slavery and child labour are whitewashed from history.

The measurable improvements to diet and health, made possible by agricultural innovation in sheep breeding, frozen meat transportation and broad-acre farming, form no part of the story.

They would have sounded a discordant note in the curriculum's miserablist narrative of Australian history.

Instead, Year 4 students will be taught "historical terms for example 'penal', 'transportation', 'navigation', 'frontier conflict', 'colonisation' ".

In Year 6 they will be introduced to "experiences of citizenship and democracy" with reference to "internment camps during World War II, assimilation policies, anti-discrimination legislation, mandatory detention, pay and working conditions" and "children who were placed in orphanages, homes and other institutions".

After all, the curriculum helpfully reminds us, democracy is an abstract noun expressing an intangible concept.

The leaden imposition of "cross-curriculum priorities" indigenous awareness, engagement with Asia and sustainability contaminate the curriculum writers' thinking.

In English, "the priority of sustainability provides rich and engaging contexts for developing students' abilities".

In geography, "the sustainability priority and concept afford rich and engaging learning opportunities and purposeful contexts".

In history, sustainability "provides content that supports the development of students' world views, particularly in relation to judgments about past social and economic systems, and access to and use of the Earth's resources".

In mathematics, "sustainability provides rich, engaging and authentic contexts for developing students' abilities in number and algebra, measurement and geometry, statistics and probability".

Sustainability in science develops "an appreciation for the interconnectedness of Earth's biosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere".

Christopher Pyne has been condemned as a culture warrior for having the audacity to question this tosh.

The opposition has accused him of attempting to politicise the curriculum, and has labelled his chosen reviewers, Kevin Donnelly and Ken Wiltshire, as ideologues.

If the Education Minister is to be criticised, it is for imagining this irredeemable document can be tidied up and put back on the shelf when the only realistic course of action is to tear the damn thing up.

Saltie 14th Jan 2014 00:14

After reading that, it's easy to see how a friend's seven year old was spouting GreenGreenGreen mantras with a self-assurance that only the young, who KNOW they're right, can offer.

One on her list of many things that MUST change - coal mining had to stop. When Grandma asked her what Daddy will do - (Daddy drives coal trains to put bread on the Committed One's plate) - Grandma was blithely told that Daddy would have to find another job.

Grandma, (a ex-teacher), thought the whole thing a huge hoot, and didn't seem to see that the child is being indoctrinated, not educated.

I really fear for the future of this county.


bosnich71, regarding your comment about someone taking up Andu's idea of shipping asylum seekers here by the tens of thousands in one ship: maybe it would be a good thing - in the long run - (although I'm sure the Australian government of the day wouldn't agree with me) - for it would bring to a head an impossible situation that every politician seems content to ignore while the Third World moves itself to the First World by only the hundreds per 'shipment'.

The "gum ball lecture" (linked earlier in this thread) shows clearly that the bleeding hearts like Sarah Hanson-Young who preach open borders are completely and utterly wrong with their feel good policies, (and it doesn't allow for the fact that most of those who get up and go from Third World countries are the very ones who should stay to use their education and expertise to better the conditions for the rest in those countries).

I can't help but feel that world wide, we're approaching some sort of social abyss, and that when we are forced to confront it, those who manage to survive will do so only by making some really unpalatable decisions. And those of us who do not will not survive - or will face a reduction in living standards that will be truly awful.

The ones most likely to survive any such quantum shift will most likely be the poor bastards who are already living on the very edge and just barely surviving.

dubbleyew eight 14th Jan 2014 00:24

my kids are now in their thirties and I think their attitudes to life are a little weird.
in discussions about their excessive estimations of risk and their fears of the future. their total refusal to smack a wayward kid on the bum to bring them into line.

they tell me "dad you think we are weird, we think the generation after us are really weird."

I never taught my kids any of the weirdness and I have wondered where it came from.
my recollections of education are obviously based on my own experiences.

fron coodashooda's post it is evident the kids are getting this stupidity from their schooling.
the aversion to any form of risk, the inability to actually master and drive a technology will consign them to a welfare existence if we dont get them past the education and into the real world.

the world isnt perfect but it is the only one we've got.

Worrals in the wilds 14th Jan 2014 00:41


Nick Cater in The Australian raises some interesting points
Jeez, it is lefty . Not having kiddies I don't get exposed to current school-teaching methods and I had no idea it was that biassed, though I suppose it depends on the individual school's interpretation of it. About half of that coupled with another half of economics and development focussed education would probably be a reasonable balance.

Interestingly enough it's far more lefty than current university subject matter. I've had exposure to both arts and science curricula at several universities and they're far more centralist. The stuff in this article reads like university humanities 101 from the late eighties to mid nineties, where most of the course content had a green and/or socialist tinge to it. I guess enough of those graduates are now running the various education departments that it's been carried on.


They would have sounded a discordant note in the curriculum's miserablist narrative of Australian history.
This is an interesting point. When I went to school (not all that long ago) I studied history throughout high school and it was simply one war after another . I don't remember us studying anything except wars and certainly nothing about industry or development. The english curriculum wasn't quite as grim, but they still loved their dystopias.

my kids are now in their thirties and I think their attitudes to life are a little weird. in discussions about their excessive estimations of risk and their fears of the future.
As you say, the schooling we received may have quite a bit to do with it. However, plenty of us still managed to get out there and earn, breed and run up debt :}. Likewise both my grandfathers (among others) ended up chronic lefties despite receiving a very traditional education. I don't know that a biassed education has as much of an effect as people fear, particularly now the tertiary institutions are so middle of the road.

dubbleyew eight 14th Jan 2014 01:05

in my high school days we had a subject called industrial arts.
about a third of the subject was industrial history. wonderful stuff.

(a third industrial history, a third metalwork, a third drafting and a third the calculation of loads and stresses in trusses using slide rules.)





( a "third" is an approximation, approximations are something you learnt in stressing :E)

Airey Belvoir 14th Jan 2014 01:19

When I took my Ground Instructors course in the RAF the opening remarks were: "We've taken the four year teacher training course and expanded it to two weeks".

Fubaar 14th Jan 2014 02:44

Even back in the 1970s, the RAAF was seriously discussing the need for a bridging course for pilot trainees to get them all to a known, common standard in physics and maths before their course proper started. Some of the so-called HSC/VCE certificate holders had a very sketchy knowledge base. (There were a few, even that long ago, who couldn't function without a calculator.) As I recall, Victoria was the State with the worst reputation. I wonder what it's like today?

I can't remember too many studs coming in suffering from Greens-style indoctrination, but I do remember one.

Ken Borough 14th Jan 2014 03:21

I wonder how TA will handle this potential side-track, albeit quite significant? No doubt, he just wishes it will be swallowed up in cyberspace!

Allegations MP's wife drew taxpayer-funded salary despite doing no work

dat581 14th Jan 2014 04:24

Don't you ever learn Ken? Just like the expenses scandal this story will most likely end up backfiring on the Labour Party when the same light is shined on them.

rh200 14th Jan 2014 04:40


Some of the so-called HSC/VCE certificate holders had a very sketchy knowledge base. (There were a few, even that long ago, who couldn't function without a calculator.)
The Unis are having the same problem with their first years that require Calculus, the students coming out of the system are nowhere near the standard.

bosnich71 14th Jan 2014 04:49

Fubaar ...... "some of the so-called HSC/VCE certificate holders had a very sketchy knowledge base".
I like watching Eddy McGuire's show, 'Hot Seat' especially when the contestant is someone in their 20's/30's. The level of knowledge about anything other than current T.V. shows, pop songs, celebrities etc. is mind bogglingly poor. One of my favourites was a young lady in her 20's,studying at university, who having not only not had a clue about the answer to the question but opted for the most ridiculous of the four answers provided.When told the correct answer she replied, "Oh,but that was before I was born" !
F.F.S.

CoodaShooda 14th Jan 2014 04:51

It's now reported that Somlyay is considering taking action for defamation over the article.

If his wife was, indeed, doing electorate work from home, the outcome will be interesting. Raises the question of whether politicians wives should be expected to support their husbands only on a voluntary basis; ie, not be paid for their efforts. An interesting IR conundrum for labor to consider.

But why target a retired politician? It can only be to throw muck at politicians in general. A possible attempt to inoculate labor against any upcoming charges that might be laid against one of their former politicians, perhaps?

Ken Borough 14th Jan 2014 04:59


Don't you ever learn Ken? Just like the expenses scandal this story will most likely end up backfiring on the Labour Party when the same light is shined on them.
Yes! My capacity to learn is just as undiminished as yours or that of anyone else frequenting these parts.

My view on this story would be the same as if it were about any politician, political party notwithstanding. If any MP is alleged to have done wrong, his or her alleged misdemeanour must not only be fully investigated but also be seen to be fully investigated. I don't think this view could be any more even-handed. Who cares if the story back-fires? That would be a good thing in that it would draw out another possible crook or two in our midst.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:12.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.