Abbott's clangers...

[Neferti]

Did someone steal his glasses at the pool?

Who knows. IF I was the PM and somebody handed me an unpeeled ONION and said "eat this" ... I would say Getenze fukenzee.

Tony is beginning to show that he is under pressure ........ he really isn't fit for the job, sadly.

[IQS.RLOW]

I think I'd rather eat an onion than do a Bill Shorten and go deep mining for magic nose goblins and chowing down on the extracted nuggets

[boxy]

C'arn IQ's. Surely you can have a laff too. It's not like it's going to harm him in the polls

[IQS.RLOW]

C'arn IQ's. Surely you can have a laff too. It's not like it's going to harm him in the polls

I did laugh but was also disgusted by ol Bill eating his snot. Then there was Kev eating his ear wax. What is it with Lefties and their obsession with recycling their bodily fluids?

I take it you are not a spitter then Boxy?

[Rorschach]

For Progs everything Abbott says is a clanger, just ask any of the haters here.

The latest "outrage" was his noting of "lifestyle" choice of people living in remote communities.

Nothing wrong with that IMO.

Abbott's choice of words is not the issue here
OPINION
By Anthony Dillon
Updated Fri at 2:02pm

Critics of the Prime Minister's choice of words are ignoring the bigger picture. If people are living in conditions that compromise health and well-being, and their communities cannot be made viable, then a sensible exit strategy is needed, writes Anthony Dillon.

There are many serious problems affecting some sectors of the Aboriginal population that have been responsibly reported on. We know about the substance abuse, foetal alcohol syndrome, child abuse and neglect, violence, unsafe living environments, and poor health.

But there is another serious problem which, though not new, is currently topical - how best to help those who live in communities that lack an economic base and in which the people are welfare dependent.

Such is the case in Western Australia. This is an important topic, but it would seem that it has been somewhat hijacked by people being offended over Abbott's words - "lifestyle choice".

While Abbott's words may have been blunt and miscalculated, I think the response from the critics has just been another opportunity for them to feel important by thinking that they are doing something worthwhile by criticising him.

Criticising is easy; fixing the aforementioned problems is far more difficult. Much like the person who yells "I oppose racism" because it is easy, those criticising think they are doing something helpful, but are not really doing anything. In fact, they do harm by deflecting attention from the serious problems to the trivial.

Let's not forget that in many of these communities in WA, and indeed around the country, there are handfuls of people who lack many essentials most of us take for granted.

Many of the critics have used the argument that the Aboriginal people in these communities are "on country" - a traditional concept that has deep and significant meaning for a small but important group of Aboriginal people today. If these people who embrace this traditional concept are leading a traditional or semi-traditional life, then fine, let's support them. However, if they are welfare dependent, then careful consideration needs to be given as to how best to help them.

I don't think that many of these people can readily make a choice of, "I'm going to pack up and move to the city". For many of the older generation, moving off the homelands is not likely, and is not in their best interests. For many, it would be difficult to just pack up and leave the only thing they have ever known.

But if the people are living in conditions that compromise health and well-being, then a sensible exit strategy is needed. Unless of course these communities can be made viable. Can they? If they cannot be made viable, then in the interests of the people, particularly the younger generation, many of whom either know what is available in the modern world or even experience it, we as a nation need to seriously ask, "What future do we want for them?"

The choices would seem to be between a traditional lifestyle, welfare, or employment. And for the latter, you need schooling.

We should not automatically conclude that all Aboriginal people "living on country" are incapable of moving off country. Though "on country" is a traditional concept and practice, so is moving around. Further, how many of those Aboriginal critics who attacked Abbott are themselves living "off country"?

My point is that for many Aboriginal people, they are able to, and actually do, live in places that are not "their country" if they need to or desire to. I am one of them. My body is in NSW but I maintain a spiritual connection (which can never be severed, something many of the protesters do not realise) with what I consider my homeland. I have seen members in my extended Aboriginal family move to where there were better opportunities for them and their families.

There is another important matter that I feel warrants mention regarding the criticism of Abbott's choice of words. That is the low expectations held by some with regard to members of the Aboriginal population. The people are seen as being as fragile as soap bubbles, where words like "lifestyle choice" or the arrival of the British being a "defining moment" can hurt them.

Many more politicians and commentators are going to say words that the people are not going to agree with. The recipients of these words can either toughen up, or take offence. But taking offence or claiming to be emotionally wounded by the words of another, though it feels good at the time, is extremely disempowering. And let's not forget who Australia's most disempowered group of people are.

The preoccupation with being offended is simply a distraction from the more serious issue - how best can we help those Aboriginal people, our fellow Australian citizens who live in impoverished communities, to have the same sorts of opportunities most of us take for granted?

Let's work together and never lose sight of what is most important.

[Rorschach]

So what bright spark edited my article... hmmm

For Progs everything Abbott says is a clanger, just ask any of the haters here.

The latest "outrage" was his noting of "lifestyle" choice of people living in remote communities.

Nothing wrong with that IMO.

Abbott's choice of words is not the issue here
OPINION
By Anthony Dillon
Updated Fri at 2:02pm

Critics of the Prime Minister's choice of words are ignoring the bigger picture. If people are living in conditions that compromise health and well-being, and their communities cannot be made viable, then a sensible exit strategy is needed, writes Anthony Dillon.

There are many serious problems affecting some sectors of the Aboriginal population that have been responsibly reported on. We know about the substance abuse, foetal alcohol syndrome, child abuse and neglect, violence, unsafe living environments, and poor health.

But there is another serious problem which, though not new, is currently topical - how best to help those who live in communities that lack an economic base and in which the people are welfare dependent.

Such is the case in Western Australia. This is an important topic, but it would seem that it has been somewhat hijacked by people being offended over Abbott's words - "lifestyle choice".

While Abbott's words may have been blunt and miscalculated, I think the response from the critics has just been another opportunity for them to feel important by thinking that they are doing something worthwhile by criticising him.

Criticising is easy; fixing the aforementioned problems is far more difficult. Much like the person who yells "I oppose racism" because it is easy, those criticising think they are doing something helpful, but are not really doing anything. In fact, they do harm by deflecting attention from the serious problems to the trivial.

Let's not forget that in many of these communities in WA, and indeed around the country, there are handfuls of people who lack many essentials most of us take for granted.

Many of the critics have used the argument that the Aboriginal people in these communities are "on country" - a traditional concept that has deep and significant meaning for a small but important group of Aboriginal people today. If these people who embrace this traditional concept are leading a traditional or semi-traditional life, then fine, let's support them. However, if they are welfare dependent, then careful consideration needs to be given as to how best to help them.

I don't think that many of these people can readily make a choice of, "I'm going to pack up and move to the city". For many of the older generation, moving off the homelands is not likely, and is not in their best interests. For many, it would be difficult to just pack up and leave the only thing they have ever known.

But if the people are living in conditions that compromise health and well-being, then a sensible exit strategy is needed. Unless of course these communities can be made viable. Can they? If they cannot be made viable, then in the interests of the people, particularly the younger generation, many of whom either know what is available in the modern world or even experience it, we as a nation need to seriously ask, "What future do we want for them?"

The choices would seem to be between a traditional lifestyle, welfare, or employment. And for the latter, you need schooling.

We should not automatically conclude that all Aboriginal people "living on country" are incapable of moving off country. Though "on country" is a traditional concept and practice, so is moving around. Further, how many of those Aboriginal critics who attacked Abbott are themselves living "off country"?

My point is that for many Aboriginal people, they are able to, and actually do, live in places that are not "their country" if they need to or desire to. I am one of them. My body is in NSW but I maintain a spiritual connection (which can never be severed, something many of the protesters do not realise) with what I consider my homeland. I have seen members in my extended Aboriginal family move to where there were better opportunities for them and their families.

There is another important matter that I feel warrants mention regarding the criticism of Abbott's choice of words. That is the low expectations held by some with regard to members of the Aboriginal population. The people are seen as being as fragile as soap bubbles, where words like "lifestyle choice" or the arrival of the British being a "defining moment" can hurt them.

Many more politicians and commentators are going to say words that the people are not going to agree with. The recipients of these words can either toughen up, or take offence. But taking offence or claiming to be emotionally wounded by the words of another, though it feels good at the time, is extremely disempowering. And let's not forget who Australia's most disempowered group of people are.

The preoccupation with being offended is simply a distraction from the more serious issue - how best can we help those Aboriginal people, our fellow Australian citizens who live in impoverished communities, to have the same sorts of opportunities most of us take for granted?

Let's work together and never lose sight of what is most important.

[mantra]

If welfare stops in remote communities - then what happens to the residents? Many of them are heavily dependent on the government - so they would have to either go "native" to survive or get transported to our cities and regional areas where they would have serious difficulties assimilating. How many complaints have we heard over the years about aboriginal communities in country towns or cities? Too many. Unfortunately many of them are disenfranchised and would be unable to live anywhere except in remote areas.

There is no lifestyle choice, but saying it is, is a good excuse to get them off their land and open it up to more foreign mining corporations.

[Rorschach]

Yes mantra has a bad memory and a tendency to make things up... caused by her personal hatreds and political bias. it seems.

Where did I show hatred and political bias? I offered an explanation as to why Abbott was eating an unpeeled onion. That was a very strange thing to do, but then perhaps he has a perception problem too and thought he was eating an apple. I feel some sympathy for him.

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder

HPPD) is a disorder characterized by a continual presence of sensory disturbances, most commonly visual, that are reminiscent of those generated by the use of hallucinogenic substances. Previous use of hallucinogens by the person is necessary, but not sufficient, for diagnosis of HPPD. For an individual to be diagnosed with HPPD, the symptoms cannot be due to another medical condition.

No unbiased person would even consider that let alone type it up mantra.

[Rorschach]

If welfare stops in remote communities - then what happens to the residents? Many of them are heavily dependent on the government - so they would have to either go "native" to survive or get transported to our cities and regional areas where they would have serious difficulties assimilating. How many complaints have we heard over the years about aboriginal communities in country towns or cities? Too many. Unfortunately many of them are disenfranchised and would be unable to live anywhere except in remote areas.

There is no lifestyle choice, but saying it is, is a good excuse to get them off their land and open it up to more foreign mining corporations.

Honestly sometime you post utter crap.
Did you read the article I posted?
Did you hear Mundine recant and say Tony was mostly correct?

[mantra]

Did you hear Mundine recant and say Tony was mostly correct?

So is Mundine representative of the aboriginal people living in remote areas? I don't think so.