Someone has stolen a teddy bear

from a child with Down Syndrome. It might not seem like much to most people. "Oh, just a retarded kid. She'll get over it" attitude is the one which seems to prevail amongst a certain class of people. Others have been much more concerned. They have offered to buy her a new bear, an identical bear. Thank you but no thank you.

The child's mother is absolutely correct here. She does not want her child to be given a new bear that looks like the old one. She wants the old bear to be returned. Why? Because Down Syndrome or not the child knows her own bear. 

I am with the mother on this. I am with the child on this. It has to be the original bear. This is not a "lost" bear. It is a bear which was stolen. Someone took it away from where it was looking out across the fence. It was tied to the fence. Someone had to come along and cut the ties and take it away. Why on earth would you do that?

Years ago now I found a soft toy rabbit in our local area. It was obviously much loved. I looked around for "lost" notices. I put up some "found" notices. I mentioned it in any number of places.

And then I got the phone call. Did it have.... Yes, it did. Can we come right now and get it? Yes, they could. It took about twenty minutes for them to get there. The small child who owned it looked as if he had not slept for a week. His parents looked much the same. I handed over the toy and the small boy began to cry. One hand held the toy by the leg and the other was clutching my trouser leg. We all three hugged. His parents wanted to reward me but there was no reward on earth better than seeing the joy on the child's face and hearing the sobs of equal joy.  

The Senior Cat showed the small boy how to do a very simple "magic trick". The small boy's father quickly learned it so they could teach the rabbit and they went off - a complete family again. 

I saw them several times over the next few years before they returned to their home country. The toy rabbit was the last thing the little boy's great-grandmother had made for him and she would not be there when they got back. The child would never know her but his parents did. Yes, that toy was part of the family. I suspect it still is. 

It is remembering that and the way my mother gave our toys away as we moved from one place to the next which makes me so aware of how important that bear is. Mum did not do it intending to be cruel. She simply had no reason to feel sentimental. That we might did not occur to her. I would still like to have my train set.

Anyone with any conscience at all would give that bear back.  

Hunting for a lost parcel

is something which irritates, annoys, infuriates me. 

A friend in the United States had sent me "something". She did not tell me what the "something" was or how large or small it was. No, it was to be a "surprise". It was a "thank you for the hours of work you put in". 

That was nice of her, indeed of the whole team behind her. I was more than happy to help. There was a small boy who was going to be a lot less frustrated as a result of a team effort. All I had to do was direct things from afar...and at odd hours. 

No, that was not the problem. I had ordered from the company in question (yes, yarn of course!) and they had my old address. The dear friend who ordered the yarn used my new address but the system somehow rejected it and went back to my old address.

How do I know all of this? Because my friend sent me an email yesterday saying it had been delivered. She had just checked the "tracking" and there it was saying "delivered and left in a safe place".  Oh. I thought about this.

I have never wanted to go back to where the Senior Cat and I were living. It brings back too many memories and reminds too strongly of how much I miss him. I know the people who live there now have changed things and that the street is changing too. The neighbours across the way have told me that. 

But...would they have the parcel? It was supposed to have arrived on Thursday. They might have returned it already if they had been out and about. If it was small it could go in a post box with "RTS" on it for "return to sender". 

I swallowed hard and put on my bike helmet. Armed with a note for the people now living there I pedalled off. 

They were home. They saw me through the window. They have no curtains. We were told to take the old curtains down and they have never replaced them. 

The mother came to the door with a smile on her face. Yes, she knew who I was. I explained about the parcel. Yes, they had the parcel. They had been away for two nights and it was there when they came home. 

The parcel was duly produced and passed over. Did I want to come in and see what they had done to the place?

I declined. It would have felt intrusive and I really did not want to see how different it is now. 

We were told that they were likely living there as a temporary measure. That they would move on and renovate yet another property. There have been changes to regulations since then and they will likely to stay a lot longer. 

As I was leaving the mother said quietly to me, "We like it here. We have heard a lot about you and your father. It has helped us get to know the neighbours. Thank you."

I was the one supposed to be thanking her but I pedalled off feeling a bit more comfortable. The new regulations may not be to everyone's advantage but I hope they might provide the new family with the same good neighbours we had.   

"Jason Arday is dead"

came the blunt statement from someone I know. I knew who he was and I knew some of the story. It is a very upsetting end to the story for him but it is by no means the end of the story. 

As someone else pointed out Arday was primarily responsible because he was not honest but the university was also responsible for not doing a thorough check of his credentials before employing him. The government there can be held responsible for the demands they are making about "diversity, equality and inclusion". The rest of us are also responsible for going along with all this and not speaking up. 

There are similar problems here but they have not, so far, resulted in suicide that I am aware of. We have a "professor" of "indigenous agriculture" who, despite his claims to the contrary, is not a member of any indigenous tribe. Research by more than one person outside academia has shown his ancestry is in no way related to any "aboriginal" tribe. He still holds the position of professor and still continues to make the same nonsensical claims about aboriginal "farming" and agriculture and ways of living. He is being permitted, indeed encouraged, to continue teaching this to students. They are being expected to regurgitate it - and they will if they want to pass. 

One university has introduced a compulsory subject for all students which touches on all these things. No, you do not dare to disagree. 

There are "subjects" being researched and taught here which do not have any basis in sound research. They are there to satisfy the demands of "diversity, equality and inclusion".  They are not there to satisfy any sort of academic rigour.

Yes, we are supposed to be a multi-cultural country. If we are to be one then "diversity" is a given.  For me "equality" and "inclusion" are a given. It is what any normal, ordinary and decent person does.  It means equal opportunities and inclusion based on those opportunities. It does not mean excluding others just to make way for those who are less able or less qualified. If an equally qualified and able person satisfies all the other requirements then it may well be a very good thing to appoint them if they meet the demand for "diversity" but they need to be at very least as able and as well qualified but ability and qualifications need to be the first consideration. Failing to do put those first is not doing anyone any favours.

Arday did no favours to his fellow "black" academics. He has actually done a great deal of harm. The university did no favours either. It is going to take those responsible some time to regain the trust of others - if they can at all. It has left many more people with a low opinion of what happens inside universities and yet more opposition to demands for diversity, for equality and for inclusion simply for the sake of those things. 

Something good may come out of this if we can start to think of people as individuals first and members of any group second.  

 

So you want to write a history

of the local area?

Our local council is looking ahead to the 175th Anniversary of the council area. It has therefore been announced they intend to spend $190,000 of rate payer funds on producing a history of the area. Sounds good?

There are local history groups and they are apparently expected to work together to make this happen. It all sounds rather lovely doesn't it?

There has been an immediate backlash suggesting it is a waste or ratepayer funds. My opinion has naturally been sought by a few locals who oppose the project, are bewildered by it, who support the project but not in the proposed form and so on. 

What has not been mentioned in the press is that there are already two books about the area which were written by a trained historian as well as some smaller works. I happen to know about them because my parents were involved in a small way in the research for the second. That book is a history of the church on the hill behind us but it covers much more than that. It covers more than that because the church was there first and it was effectively the place which governed the community before there were local councils. The history of the settlement of the area does not extend very far back when you compare it withe so much history in the United Kingdom.

The current proposal does not seem to involve a trained historian. It involves volunteers and a "coordinator". Will it work?  I know some of those who will likely be involved. They are intelligent people but they are not historians. Chemists and bankers do not necessarily know how history is researched and written,

It is also intended to fund a $10,000 grant to "indigenous" people to cover the history before white settlement. I do not understand the purpose of such a grant. Speaking to other people they do not understand it either. It would appear to be a political gesture designed to make us believe that there is a way of accessing some special knowledge not available to the rest of us. 

I suppose it is both these things which leave me wondering just what the project is intended to do. At very least the work which has already been well and carefully done should be used in any future endeavours. This is not just a suggestion aimed at saving time and money it is because, while the work needs to be updated, there is a great deal more material that did not go into the original book. There were some interviews conducted. Many of those people are no longer alive but some are. They are also elderly, very elderly. I doubt the groups have the skills to interview them quickly. Going through original materials also takes time and care. There is a need to be alert to clues as to where more material might be found. You also need to know when to stop gathering material. I could go on but most people will see genuine problems here.

The other grant with respect to indigenous people is a waste of money. There is no written history prior to white settlement but that is only part of the problem. There is nobody alive now who has such a strong genuine connection to the past that they can add to what little we have been told we know. Even that is doubtful. The grant is going to a plains group. As far as anyone can tell their history and culture is quite different from that of the people who lived in the hills. They did not mix much. They were not disposed to be friendly towards one another. There are no documents recording their history. We can say people lived in the area. There is a little that can be picked up or guessed at through a few artefacts but anyone who attempts to say "this is the language they spoke" or "this is what their stories were" is simply lying or being fooled. It is a problem faced by archaeologists and cannot be solved by giving grants to political groups who claim some indigenous heritage.

History is important. We can learn a great deal from it. The Gaelic proverb  "cuimhnich air na daoine bhon tàinig thu" or "remember the people where you come from" is one I found when helping my father's cousin with our clan history. It seems to me that we could all pay more attention to it - but it must be done with care and skill.  I am not sure it is going to happen here. 

The little darlings skipped school

yesterday. They went to "protest" on the steps of the state's Parliament House.

I was supposed to attend a meeting in the city. It was cancelled because of the "event". 

The person who cancelled informed me about the event later. He had to get into the adjacent building and was booed and heckled on the way in. That he had nothing to do with the protest was apparently the point rather than not the point. According to the protestors he should have been joining in their revolt. Anyone passing should have been joining in according to some of them. The people they were protesting about are, according to them, that dangerous.

These young people were using their "right" to "freedom of speech" to call for another group to be banished. I cannot say "banned" but many of those in the group may well have agreed with a ban if such a thing were possible. That group is political party. It is not a radical far right group attempting to bring in a different legal system or espousing anti-Semitic views. It has a homosexual person in a prominent position in the party. It is not, despite reports to the contrary, anti-immigration or opposed to all environmental measures. 

So, what was it they were protesting about? They do not like the "policies" of that particular group? That is up to them. I happen to think the so-called policies lack any detail and are likely unworkable. I would not vote for the party myself and I know surprisingly few people who will admit that they might. There are other ways of getting my own views across. They don't include attending expletive ridden rallies organised by a student who is a member of an extreme left group.

The person I was supposed to be meeting went into his office. He could hear what was being said. He is most definitely not a fan of the political party being protested about but he has seen many protests come and go. He accepts they are part of student life. 

This protest? "I would like to have taken some of them in, sat them down, chatted to them. I would like to know whether they really believe the drivel they were being fed. My guess is the majority of them were not thinking at all. They were caught up in the thrill of the protest, the time out of school." 

Yes, I suspect he is right. It is said most students were university students or from the two city high schools. There were about a thousand of them. That is all. They did not come in their thousands from all over the state. There were far more people who protested the Vietnam war when I was that age. I suspect we might, even without the benefits of easy social media communications, have known more about the issues we were concerned about. 

The "leader" of the protest is a young radical with ideas that often appeal to the young until they think about them. They appeal until how they might be implemented and what the consequences might be become apparent.

The little darlings will be back at school today. Some of them will be enthusiastically informing those who did not go how much they missed by not attending. I hope they discover they also missed an important lesson or two or three.  Late yesterday afternoon I also overheard one who apparently had attended saying it was "boring".  Hopefully more of the attendees will feel that way and work towards being able to actively and positively participate in the future of this country.   

Transgender athlets who compete

on women's teams are again in discussion. The football people have just cleared a transgender person to play on women's teams. There were, and still are, concerns because this person is considerably larger and stronger than others on the same team or the teams they play against.

Comments are now being made by well known figures and not just those who are required to play on the same or on opposing teams. I have also heard a good many other comments from local people. The general consensus is that this person should not be allowed to participate if others are at risk.

Some clubs are now saying they would prefer to forfeit rather than play on or with teams who include trans players. Those at the top are demanding they continue playing.

Somewhere along the line we seem to have lost something called "common" sense.  This is something which would say, "some people are different" and "it is not always possible to be inclusive". It would recognise potential harm to the majority. 

There are some things it is not possible to be inclusive about. Is the exclusion of this person really any different from excluding a blind person from driving a car on the roads? The blind person may want to drive but the safety of others demands they do not. 

I am a short and not very mobile person. I have a poor sense of balance. It would not take much to knock me over. If I had wanted to play basketball in my childhood I would have been told I could not. This would not simply have been because I was hopeless at such things but because it was considered "dangerous". I would have been knocked over. There were some rare occasions when the team did include me. I would be the person with the ball at the very start of the match. My instructions would be to "throw the ball to X... and then get off the court". Even so there would be an adult there ready to grab me and get me off safely. The opposing side was pretty good about it too. They knew the game was going on safely without me. It was the team and the game which mattered.

Now it seems that the individual matters more. In this case it is an individual who has all the characteristics of a sex with whom that individual does not "identify".  Teams are being asked to consider the individual before the group. That can be important but in this instance the individual does have alternatives. They are not barred from playing. It is just more appropriate and safer for everyone else if they do not play with that group. Is that exclusion or is it something else? 

    

Farming is not an occupation

for the faint hearted or the lazy. It is not "easy". You do not simply fling some seed into a machine and drive up and down a field or a paddock and hope the seed goes in to the right space at the right time. You cannot just leave it there to grow either. Cows do not milk themselves. Sheep do not shear themselves. Fruit does not pick itself.

I have never lived on a farm. I occasionally visited on one as a child. Whenever we did my brother and I were expected to help with the work in just the same way as the children who lived there. Brother Cat could drive a tractor at age eight because it was expected he would do just that when he spent a weekend with a friend. He had just one lesson and then he was, slowly but carefully, taking the tractor down the rough lane to where it was needed. There was no "mucking about". This was serious adult work done by children because there was nobody else to do it. I was left behind to feed calves and the family  hens, collect the eggs and help in the kitchen. Sexist? Perhaps it was but it was, and still is, essential. 

I could still feed a team of shearers. Their work may not be quite as onerous as it once was but it is still hard work and I was taught to appreciate that. They need to be well fed. My paternal grandmother taught me that.

My paternal grandmother came from a farm and she came into her marriage with a work ethic that never left her. She knew how to make the most of every cut of meat and just how far it would go. The fruit trees in the garden were there to feed the family all year round, not just when the fruit was in season. There would have been hundreds of women like her who could do just the same things. They had to do them or the family would not have had enough to eat. 

Yes, they may have been farmers but they were not "rich". The idea that farmers are "rich" is probably one of the greatest falsehoods ever perpetuated. The farm land may well be "worth" something but that something does not translate into actual wealth. 

It is these things that governments seem to willingly misunderstand. Governments want to dictate what can be planted, how it can be planted and when it can be planted. They want to charge for allowing it to be planted and they want to tax the fuel and the fertiliser being used. They will tax the money obtained for selling the crop while telling you how much it can be sold for and to whom you can sell it. 

All these things will supposedly come from a "department of agriculture" where the "experts" work. They are the same experts who told the farmers to plant the wrong sort of clover which caused the sheep eating it to drop the lambs too early. They advised one sort of wheat which brought in lower yields and was prone to a disease. There are gluts brought on by their advice and market demands.  Farming now requires computer programs - and not just to work out how much hay to give the cow in the milking shed. 

Perhaps it is good we have moved on from the "shoe box record keeping" of the farmers of my childhood but the idea farming is "easy" still exists. Farming is not easy. It has never been easy and the new tax regulations are just making it harder. If politicians thought about where the food for their "business" lunches came from would it make a difference?  

   

It is Census day

and we are all supposed to be counted. I have filled out the form on-line and most people probably will do it that way. It will make putting the results together and analysing them much faster...but will it really tell the government what it needs to know?

A census is supposed to assist in planning for the future. The most famous census in history was supposed to do that...and tell the Romans how much they could expect in the way of taxes.

Yes, it is important to know how many people were in the country on the night...and whether they are residents or visitors. The form does not ask you about residents who are out of the country on the night.

The form asks you which languages you speak at home. It does not ask if you speak another language elsewhere or if you can use another language. 

The form asks you for "sex assigned at birth". That's a fair question. It goes on to ask how you "identify" with respect to "gender". Was that really necessary? Are we suddenly going to have ten or twenty percent of people deciding to identify as something other than their assigned sex and is that so important that it has to be part of the census? 

There are other questions that could be simplified. There was no category for "Christian" in the question asking about religion. There was one for "no religion" and there are some very public figures who are currently trying to encourage people to use that if they no longer go to church, chapel, mosque, temple or synagogue. That people might believe something and not attend a place of worship is apparently not something of importance to them. It might also be said nothing was asked about "Sunni" or "Shia" in relation to Islam, 

I went on through the form and finished feeling as if the really important things had been left out. There was no question about undertaking any sort of physical activity. In this sports mad country that might be very useful to know.  Did you play sport in the past week or go for a walk or ride a bike or swim? Do these things matter? We are told they do.

And there was the other question they did not ask....have you used you local library. There are figures from elsewhere that the use of libraries is far higher than the government wishes to acknowledge. They are the most used resource in the community, far above even the beloved ovals and courts of sport. We should have been investigating that.

Instead of these things the "gender diversity" crew had their questions included. They will now use the results to demand more specialist places and services while telling us how we need to be inclusive. 

I just wish the census had been a bit longer and a bit more inclusive.  

Unschooling?

There are apparently around three thousand children in this state who do not attend school. Some of them are being "home-schooled" but others, according to something I have just read, are being "un-schooled". 

I had not heard this term before but apparently around seven hundred or so children in this state are not on any sort of regular time table. They are apparently deciding what they will do and when they will do it almost all the time. There is supposed to be some sort of "learning plan" but they are exempt from the other requirements.

I wonder how that works. Are they actually learning? I suppose they must be but what are they learning? 

According to the article the unschooling approach accommodates children with autism and ADHD.  Perhaps it does.

I have a friend who, due to a disability, did not attend school until she was thirteen. She had a range of people who helped her learn but she largely taught herself. I say that advisedly. A... was a self-starter. She wanted to know things. From a very early age she was curious about everything. She was reading at two and has never stopped. I know people think it has all been easy for her but in reality she has worked extremely hard. There was a timetable of sorts. It was flexible. It had to be because her teachers were not always available.  A...found school frustrating. I remember her complaining about the amount of time that was wasted there changing lessons, waiting for a teacher and for the rest of the class to catch up. She ended up at a very well known university. There she has written books and her lectures are popular. The latter surprises many people. It does not surprise me. She understands "learning". I often wonder what would have happened if she had gone to school from the usual age of five. "Unschooling" suited her.

I wonder how many children "unschooling" really suits though. The problem is that the rest of the world does not work that way. Most people's work involves routines. There are regular tasks that need to be done and done at certain times.  If you have gone through your school age years not needing to do that then how do you cope? 

 

Old family photographs can be

interesting, frustrating, infuriating, dull and matters for debate. Who is the person third from the left in the front row? Is that Uncle S.... in the back row? Which one is Aunt J... and which one is Aunty R....?

Brother Cat came across a photograph last week and sent it on to me and Middle Cat to see how many people we could identify. He could remember the occasion but could only name a few in the extended family photograph. 

I have not heard from Middle Cat. She has probably only glanced at the photo as she is in the middle of helping the sister of the man who died last week.  I only found time to look at the photograph last night. Brother Cat had named the few people he knew correctly but, quite rightly, assumed I would know more.

The event was the family gathering we had to celebrate the Golden Wedding Anniversary of my paternal grandparents. Both of them came from large families. There were eleven in Grandpa's family and nine in Grandma's. Not all of them were there of course as some were no longer alive and others had moved a considerable distance away. Those that were there must all have been living in the city by then.  

I found the photo disturbing. Yes of course many people in the photo were elderly even then (my grandparents married rather late) and I did not expect them to still be with us. It is what you expect with a very old photograph and this one was taken half a century ago.

It was not that which disturbed me as much but two other ideas. The first was that so many marriages do not last a great many years now. I was talking to a teacher recently and she mentioned that just over half the children in her class are from "single parent or blended families".  Her school is in a "good" area. I could not help wondering what other schools might be like.

The second thought I had was that the photo was of a family occasion - the sort which does not happen as often now. Of course that relates to the breakdown in so many marriages. It also relates to the smaller family sizes. I am one of four. Both my parents were one of only two but that was exceptional at the time. My paternal grandparents wanted more children but my grandmother was unable to carry them to full time. My maternal grandparents would have stopped at one if the first had been a boy. They did not really want children at all. It was all so unlike the eleven in my paternal grandfather's family and the nine in my grandmother's. And Grandpa's family was particularly close and supportive. Even my generation maintains contacts within it.

I wonder what will happen if people come across photos fifty years from now? Will they know any of those people? Will they recognise others? Will any contacts have been maintained? What sort of society will they be living in? 

Does anyone else find it disturbing? 

Speech and sign language or....

just speech? The perennial issue came up in a discussion on a website yesterday. There are strong views on either side when discussing the education of the profoundly deaf.

I am in the "speech and sign language" camp. I have been right from the first time I met a profoundly deaf person. She was a girl about my own age. We managed to maintain a sort of friendship for as long as the long bus journeys back to our homes in the country took. 

It was very clear to me even then that lip reading cannot do all the work for the vast majority of people born with a profound hearing loss. Lip reading requires intense concentration. No two people speak in quite the same way. It is impossible to lip read some people. To ask a person with a profound hearing loss to rely on nothing but speech is unreasonable. It adds immensely to the stress of their lives - and often the lives of those around them.

Of course the argument is made that allowing the deaf to sign from a young age means they will not make the effort to lip read or communicate with speech. It is an argument I have heard many times. I disagree. Other people feel differently.

I was not really involved in the discussion yesterday. I was much more concerned with trying to sort out something else. Despite that I was trying to keep an eye on what was being said and eventually found a moment to add something that is not being addressed in most discussions. 

It is this. Deafness is a very, very isolating thing. It is even more isolating if you do not have spoken language learned naturally as a child. The acquisition of sign language can be just as important here. Older people need stimulation just as much as younger people. A profoundly deaf person who cannot sign also has to make a far greater effort to communicate. If they do not have the capacity to use a sign language they are at even greater risk of developing dementia because they are not getting the same level of stimulation.

Age related deafness is of course common. Many people mask it well. They unconsciously learn some lip reading skills among people they know. They rely on other cues as well. The problems associated with all this should concern all of us but they are not the same as the problems are for a person who has always been profoundly deaf. We need to be aware of that. Wanting a child to be "only aural-oral" may seem right to parents and others but it may not be the best thing for the child, especially later in life. If both speech and sign can be achieved might that not be a better option?  

There was a violent altercation

in the street yesterday. Two boys from the local high school were pounding each other and another, much smaller boy, was sitting on the footpath with blood streaming from his head.

I was about to stop (very cautiously) when someone else came running up. One of those fighting ran off and the two who were left were being questioned by someone who obviously knew them. I left them all to it.

What was going on I do not know. I suppose I do not want to know but I am aware that there has been more of this sort of behaviour since the Covid lock downs. There is less tolerance. 

The one sitting on the pavement obviously has Chinese parents. That might have been enough. There was an article about the origins of Covid in the paper and it might, if a parent had said something, caused a teenager to say something to a younger and more vulnerable child.

It could have been anything else at all. The young one sitting on the pavement may not have been blameless. That two more were fighting in a serious, hard way was what I found so disturbing. There were the occasional physical altercations at schools I went to but I was never aware of anything quite as serious as yesterday's violence,

Yes, it was violent. I found it quite frightening. I have been left wondering whether the amount of violence seen on screens has left us somehow believing that this is how we now settle arguments. Is there any room left for discussion and negotiation in our lives?

It is not helped by those in authority who appear to condone violence even when they appear to be condemning it.   

"No you may not go and protest"!

Apparently school students are "going out on strike" to "protest" next week. They are "protesting" against "racism".

Now I will protest against "racism" too. Nobody should ever be treated as any less or more worthy on the basis of their identity. I could not care in the least what colour your skin is or where you come from. My only concern is the colour of your thinking and how you care for other people.

Does it mean I would go out and "protest" like the students are being urged to do? Absolutely not. 

The protest is supposedly about a far right political group, one currently (and alarmingly) popular in the pseudo-polling done by the so-called "polling" companies.  The protest is being organised by the leader of the national student union. That person is a member of a group called "Socialist Alliance". It is about as far left as it is possible to get without actually saying "old style Communist". It is inevitable the two will clash. 

Students, many of them secondary school students, are being "encouraged" to walk out of classrooms and attend the "rallies" being organised. All this can now be organised via social media.

We could not have done anything like this as teenagers. There was no social media. We would not even have considered doing it. The closest anyone came to anything like it were the few brave souls who skipped school for an afternoon.  The reason they did it was to see the plane carrying the Beatles land at the airport. There were not many of them who did it. I did not know anyone who did it,

We were kept firmly in school. Our Latin teacher had an alarm clock with her. It rang at the moment the plane was supposed to be landing.

I was asked last night what I would do now if students left to attend a protest. My answer was, "Nothing."  I would say nothing. I would instead have set a series of short tests which counted towards final marks in the subjects they missed. I would inform them of my intention. I would tell them the tests would not be repeated. They would tell me it was "not fair" and I would agree that life is "not fair".  I might suggest they write me a piece about the issues they were protesting about, why they felt so strongly about it and how protesting had helped. When they had done that then we could discuss it...actually discuss it.

Of course I would almost certainly be overruled in all of this by a school principal worried about the potential publicity, one who might even believe they should be protesting. My fellow teachers would be equally and possibly vehemently opposed to my proposed actions. I would perhaps even be accused of supporting the far right. After all if you do not support the far left you must surely support the far right? That there might be a much more reasonable and balanced position somewhere between them is not to be contemplated.

I am grateful I am not the school principal who will have to handle this. I also wonder how the student organising all this is doing in their studies. 

  

"When did you retire?"

is a question which may not be asked quite so often in the future.  The idea of continuing to work beyond the "usual" retirement age - now sixty-seven - was apparently being explored on a television program last night. 

I did not watch the program. I was working. I have not "retired". 

That said, I do not do the excessively long hours I once did. I am more willing than I once was to hand on work to younger people. 

"But you have time to do it!" I am told. Perhaps I do, although I have less time than many people realise. Time is not the issue. The issue is making sure that people younger than I am are ready and able to take over. 

I worked hard all through the Covid pandemic. There were not nearly so many people going out into the crisis and disaster zones for the sort of purpose which might need a communication device. There was an opportunity to train up other people, encourage them to take over where I was leaving off. In a way Covid did me a service.

But I saw the advertisements for the program aired last night. There was someone in their nineties "still working". Someone else said they could not afford to retire or they would be homeless. Someone else said liked working so much he saw no need to retire. 

I was taught Leaving (approximately old style "O" level) mathematics by a man who was seventy-seven at the time. This was in a church boarding school. He was not the only older member of staff and, like at least one other, he should not have been there. He was not a good teacher. If it had not been for a mathematically brilliant student the rest of us would have been lost. I am forever grateful to that boy. He was aware of how poor the teaching was and he would give anyone who wanted it another quick but much better explanation in five or ten minutes at lunch time.  I knitted him a football beanie in return because he gave the rest of us so much help.

The Senior Cat "retired" in name only. He went on teaching until two days before his death. He did it differently though. Instead of restoring order to problem schools he taught individual pupils. One of them stopped me only yesterday and said, "I wish your father was still around. I'd so like to him I've been promoted." It would have delighted the Senior Cat. His idea of retirement was to take it a little more slowly and enjoy the challenge of helping someone who found learning difficult.

I wonder about other people though. A real estate agent Middle Cat and I both know has just retired at eighty. Her house selling record was extraordinary but the firm she worked for was taken over by another company. They do things differently and she was not comfortable with the idea of a "hot desk". When we met in the supermarket she told me, "I suppose I am old fashioned but I liked the idea of knowing I had my own space organised the way I like it." 

Perhaps then this is one of those things which will cause people to retire. The nature of work will change. It will change to a degree where older people no longer feel comfortable with the way things are done. I have long since adapted to computer based work - but can I adapt to AI?

Like the Senior Cat though I have other things I want to do. I want to write other things. I want to make things. I want to go on helping some of the much younger students with their essays - and give the occasional able but unmotivated student some encouragement. There is a huge gap in my life left by the Whirlwind but there is another young one who needs support...and the Senior Cat would encourage it. 

I hear people say they will do "this" or "that" in retirement. Sometimes I wonder whether they will do anything at all. Is it why they sit for hours over a "coffee" in the local shopping centre? Is it why they "go for a walk" but it is really just a bored stroll around the block? Do they have hobbies or are they really spending hours watching sport and scrolling on their screens?

Today I have a friend coming. She will turn ninety at the end of the month - and looks ten years younger. She takes a lively interest in the world. If I suggested she was "retired" she would smile and say something like, "Not really. I just don't get paid the way I once did." 

  

Identifying a body is not

a pleasant thing to do. It was something Middle Cat had to do yesterday. As a retired physiotherapist and because it was someone we both knew rather than a family member it was less disturbing than it might have been. Still, despite all the problems he represented, we both felt saddened by the death of this person. 

S...was morbidly obese. His death at the age of sixty-four will not surprise anyone. Middle Cat and I are actually surprised he did not go at least ten years ago.

My association with his family stretches back to my time in teacher training college. I knew his sister there. She was one of those students "everyone" knows. Her lovely Greek name would have been enough but she also had (and still has) a lively personality to go with it.

I met her father later, one of the many "old" Greek men in the district. He was the sort of man I greeted in Greek, not English. He spoke English but a sort of politeness dictated I use the Greek "kalimera" in the mornings. 

And then, still later, I met S...  Middle Cat sent him over one day because I was having computer problems. 

"S... should be able to fix it. He's very, very good at fixing that sort of thing. I will just one warn you though, he's very overweight." That was an understatement. How Middle Cat managed to get him to visit us is something of a mystery. He avoided strangers. He shopped at the very beginning or the very end of the day. There had to be as few people around as possible. The rest of the time, apart from visits to the doctor or his "computer mate", he hibernated at home. He did on line courses to keep up his Centrelink payments but the reality was that nobody would consider employing him. He was on and off "sickness" benefits and alternated them with "unemployment" and occasional "disability" benefits.  He would do a bit of remote work from time to time...and he would come to visit me and the Senior Cat. 

We all tried to get him to diet but nothing worked. He had no will power at all. His eating habits were wild and unpredictable. His sleeping patterns were equally unpredictable. Knowing I would be up (and almost certainly working) he would phone me at six in the morning. He would eat breakfast with us. I would restrict him to just two slices of homemade bread.  He would accept this, do whatever he had come to do or wait for me to read the seemingly endless forms he had to fill in.  Those things done he would hoist himself in to his beat up old car and go again until the next time. In between he would phone me with questions about things which were worrying him.  Yes, he was distinctly odd. 

Last year and the year before he spent time in hospital but it did nothing for his weight. He phoned me from there one day as the afternoon tea trolley was going around and complained there were no biscuits and no bananas. Once home again he was back to old eating habits.

His clothing had to be made for him. His sister, who lives in another country, would order it for him. 

The house was, and still is, full of things he would order on line. I am not tidy but Middle Cat says are homes look sterile compared with his. You had to negotiate your way through. 

Yesterday my BIL was on his way out when he saw the police cars there and an ambulance just arriving. Knowing the other neighbour who has done so much to help was not home Middle Cat went over to say she was one of the people S... used. She was asked to identify the body lying on the floor. Hopefully it was a quick death but there has to be an autopsy. At least his sister did not see him like that. 

I thought back to the last time we talked. He had, as always, phoned me at a very early hour. I had told him what he needed to do and left it at that. Now of course I wish I had spent a little longer listening to him. He was a lonely man, a very lonely man.  

There was another death on the party strip

on Saturday night. It was not the first and it will not be the last.

The "party strip" I am referring to is a street in the CBD which is famous - or infamous - for the "night clubs" along it. It also has the alcohol, drugs, sexual abuse and violence which go along with those things. 

It is all magnified by the fact there is not just one of these night clubs - there are at least least six - but there are also other "late night cocktail bars" and "live music" venues there and just off the same street. A policeman of my acquaintance tells me that policing it all is a nightmare. It is not a popular shift.

Several years ago we were out for some family occasion on a Saturday night. Brother Cat was driving through the city to get us home. It was after eleven in the evening, probably closer to midnight. My brother has had years of experience driving in one of the biggest cities in the world. He has dealt with all sorts of traffic conditions. There was no choice but to pass the end of the party strip. He was waiting at the red lights and we were watching many of the young people, most of them in their teens and some in their early twenties. They were "all over the place". There is no other way to describe it. They had apparently left the strip. More than one of them was severely intoxicated. At least one of them was on a drug induced high. 

Some of them had waited for the light to change in their favour. Others were simply weaving in and out of the traffic. The traffic had slowed dramatically - to accommodate these pedestrians. The light changed in our favour. Brother Cat moved forward cautiously and then braked sharply. He came within perhaps twenty centimetres of hitting someone who ran out without looking left or right. There was a mouthful of abuse from the person my brother almost hit. My brother swore but swore quietly. We moved on and several blocks away when it was safe to pull over for a moment my brother stopped and said, "That was too close. Haven't they got anything better to do on a Saturday night?"

I thought back to Saturday nights when we were that age. I was mostly trying to catch up on study because the day would have been spent at a residential school for the deaf.  What did my brother do?  He spent more time out but it was almost always spent with a small group of friends. They would gather at someone's home with their guitars and, occasionally, a set of drums. If they had the money they would go to see the latest film. To drink alcohol you were supposed to be twenty-one and, for most, it was too expensive to even consider getting it illegally. A few of them smoked but most of them could not afford it. There was the occasional "dance" or "disco" but most of the people we knew did not attend them. No, they were not "wowsers"  as the non-goers were sometimes called. They simply had other things to do.

I know nothing about the incident on Saturday night. The lad who was hit may have been sober and doing nothing wrong. Was his attention simply distracted? Was the driver of the car sober? Was he distracted? What about the driver of the second car? 

We have to leave all that to the police and the statements given to them by those unfortunate to witness the incident. It would have been the sort of thing police going on duty would dread happening. 

I just wish the lad in question was getting out his guitar and playing with a group of mates next Saturday night.   

Hamas will not disarm

in Gaza. They have no intention of doing so. Anyone who really believes this is a fool. 

Hamas is a military style terrorist group. Their stated purpose is the annihilation of the state of Israel. Nothing less will do. 

I have been listening to what is being said in the media. I have heard some of those involved in the "negotiations" talking about the "progress" being made. 

I am also reading the sub-text and it does not make happy reading. How many people read "Hamas" and "disarm" and went no further? 

This is of course exactly what some of those speaking about the issues and some of those reporting their words want people to do. Oh yes, there are "warnings" about the "complexity" and the "long road ahead" and "the other side agreeing" and much more.  

It is all a bit like fighting all the little spot fires around a major wild fire and not fighting the fire itself. To fight a major fire you need major resources, resources which are not forthcoming as yet, if ever.

The "pro-Palestinian" groups which like to claim how much death and destruction has been done by the opposing army are not being honest with themselves or with the rest of us. Let's be clear about something very rarely mentioned. Hamas has been siphoning off resources for many years. The Hamas leadership has been controlling not just the flow of aid into Gaza but the way in which it has been used. Food is a weapon used to control people. Access to education is a weapon used to indoctrinate the young. If you believe the stories in the media it is the opposing army which has destroyed the access to water, to medical services, to employment and just about everything else. Nothing is said about the way Hamas has ripped out the pipes to make weapons. Nothing is said about the way in which the consequent lack of clean water has caused so much illness. Nobody mentions how Hamas controls the markets that the lucky few buy their food from and, inside Gaza, you do not mention the way in which Hamas controls how external aid which enters is so rigidly controlled by them. There is nothing said about the "labour" used to dig the complex network of tunnels or what happens to the "labourers" when they cease to be useful.

I will not say anything else except this...do not believe what you are presently being told. There is no "agreement to disarm".  When this "agreement" fails who will be held responsible? 

Saying harmful things about

other people is as old as our ability to speak. Things said cannot be taken back. They can hurt and they can do harm. It is why we have laws about defamation. It is why truth is supposed to be a defence against defamation. It is also why there are standards imposed on all of us, particularly anyone making a public comment about anyone else.

The past few weeks have had me pondering this. Learning that one victim of a particularly vile but supposedly "comic" skit on television is now taking the perpetrators to court pleases me. Yes, this person can afford to do it. Taking perpetrators to court can be a very expensive business. 

I would be even more pleased if the entire issue is not settled by "mediation" but a court case and the perpetrators lose. The perpetrators in this instance are paid by the tax payer and there is increasing disquiet even among their supporters that, this time, they have gone too far. 

Those of you who live in Downunder will know what I am talking about but I am not going to repeat the vile remarks which were made about a very wealthy woman.  They were completely and totally inappropriate and the "apology" given was not an apology at all. As I write the material is still available on line. It was not funny. Contrary to the statements made I do not believe it was meant to be funny. 

This case is just as harmful in its own way as the three "discrimination" cases currently in the media. The first I knew about was the one which was brought after a person who "identifies as female" was denied entry to a "women only" space. The second is the one where another person who "identifies as female" was referred to by their biological sex and claimed damages for "hurt". The third case involves a person who "identifies as female" being denied access to a group which is only for female pole dancers. 

The first case is now the subject of "leave to appeal" to the High Court. The appeal in the second case failed and is being reviewed. The third is in the more early stages of what could be another protracted battle. 

Not one of these cases should ever have been brought before the courts. The legislation intended to protect women should have protected them. It does not. 

Let me be clear here. This is not about the rights or otherwise of  transgender people. It is about the right of the majority of those impacted to safe places. I have absolutely no problems with people who, as adults, choose to dress and act in ways which vary from the sex they were assigned to at birth. That is their choice. I do have a problem when they demand access to all spaces which vary from the sex they were assigned at birth. 

There is growing evidence that not everyone who is identifying as the opposite sex is doing so with good intentions. That the cases above lead naturally to men being able to access shelters intended for women and into prisons intended for women is alarming. That it means that people with a distinct physical advantage can cause not just physical but psychological harm on the sports field is genuine cause for concern. When it means that women who have been abused and are seeking help have no safe place to turn to then all the work done to provide those places has gone for nothing. 

There is a "men's coffee and chat" group run by one of the local churches. Not all the men who attend are church goers. I am told it is a place where the sort of discussion rarely available to men is available. It is a "safe" place for them.  It is somewhere they feel supported.  I do not know any woman who would believe it was appropriate to attend it. I would not even consider trying to push my way in. Why should it be any different for a women's group?

Restricting access does not always mean that discrimination is occurring.  There are places all of us cannot enter at times. This can be on safety grounds, religious grounds, security grounds or other grounds. There are other things we do not allow on age and safety grounds. Is there any reason to suppose that, despite these things, all spaces must be open to someone who chooses to identify in a manner at variance with some physical reality? So far the law is saying there is reason to grant someone the right to enter these spaces but it might be that this is the detriment of us all.  It may end up doing even more harm to those who identify "differently" as well. Do we really want that? 

 

   

Health insurance is something

"not negotiable" in this family. I struggle to pay mine but know it is essential to have it. The Senior Cat certainly used it. Middle Cat would not be alive without it. Brother Cat would likely have had a below knee amputation this year if private health insurance had not paid for him to be in hospital and the infection dealt with in a timely manner. 

I am told it is "queue jumping because you can pay for it" and that I should "just save the money and wait (my) turn" if I ever need something done. But is it really that simple?

The Senior Cat used his to his advantage several times during his later years. On at least one of those occasions it saved the taxpayer over a hundred thousand dollars. His health fund paid the bill for the surgery and the subsequent short stay at a rehabilitation facility. The latter was only necessary because we had to make sure the bathroom was fully accessible when he came  home.  Without health insurance he would have been waiting in agony and possibly never have come home but gone into care.

Middle Cat had major back surgery. This was necessary so that her spine did not impact her lungs and her ability to breathe. There were complications. She spent months in hospital. Health insurance paid for all of it. Without it she would not even have been able to have the initial surgery. 

I have had knee surgery. It was not major but it needed to be done. I am also well aware that if I need any extra help or assistance that it will not be something which can wait. I am not being impatient or selfish when I say this. It will be because doing what needs to be done will be designed to keep me as independent as possible for as long as possible. Being independent and living in my own place will actually save the government the expense of having me miserably located in a sub-standard nursing home in some far distant corner of the state. 

The same sort of incidents must be able to be told thousands upon thousands of times over. Anyone who has worked has also paid the "Medicare levy" into the public system. Private health is the extra on top of that. Previous governments have been returning a little of that to people over sixty-five. The present government, looking for any means of "saving" money has decided this is no longer to happen. The result? There are sufficient numbers of older people dropping their health insurance at the age when they will most likely need it. It will not really be saving the government any money of course. In reality it is likely to increase the demand for many services. These are services which might otherwise be avoided by people whose issues had been dealt with in a more timely fashion. 

 I know this has been explained to those responsible for making the decision. I know because I know one of the people who did the explaining. The government is not listening of course. The plan sounds like a good one. It is the "we are making it more equitable" argument being used again.  It is not more equitable. Life does not work like that. 

Buying a new microwave

should be a relatively simple task should it not? 

I need a new one. The fan has failed on the old one. It is not worth getting it repaired. It is likely the part would not be available. The cost would be more than a new microwave. 

I do not like this. I do not like the "throwaway" attitude of it all. I remember the toaster my paternal grandparents had. The spring had gone in the door and my grandfather "repaired" it by propping it shut with a block of wood. It worked. Eventually the Senior Cat found a new spring for it and fitted it on and the toaster went on toasting and burning the toast because it was not "automatic" the way it is now. Grandpa would forget to watch.

But, the microwave? My grandparents never had one but Middle Cat was given one by her parents in-law when she married. That was over forty years ago. The magnetron in it failed within a couple of weeks but it was replaced. The microwave still works. It is not quite as efficient as it once was but it does work. So, why does mine not work after less than two years?

We investigated. Replacing the fan was not an option. I spent a lot of time on-line investigating. Middle Cat investigated. My BIL investigated. Middle Cat and I went shopping yesterday.

We went shopping...and came up with another problem. Nobody had mentioned this. It would not matter for most people but I could not open the door of most of them without far too much effort for it to be safe. The "push button" sort of panel appears to be a thing of the past. The idea of having to "pull" the door open is simply not safe where I need to put the unit. 

Middle Cat and I looked at one another. We looked at other brands we did not like. They were too big or had a very poor reputation. I stood there in the middle of the huge shop and wanted to let out a yowl of frustration. 

I must have looked upset because a passing employee finally stopped and asked if they could help. We explained the problem. She smiled knowingly and told us very nicely that it was not just me. She showed us one that was hidden away. It was the brand I wanted. It was a size bigger but I can accommodate that. It had the right sort of door. "They still have a few in stock. It is an older model. They make the doors differently now but they might need to rethink."

Yes, they will need to rethink. For me the issue is basic disability induced clumsiness but there are a great many much older people who would have difficulty with new doors. I am wondering how it managed to get past those designing doors. 

Middle Cat will get a text message when my new microwave comes in. In the meantime... it's a good excuse to go and see my refugee friend who runs the tiny coffee shop in the shopping centre. She knows exactly how I like my hot chocolate.   

Does it matter where you went to school?

The state newspaper is running a series of articles by staffers who do not normally write any sort of "column". This is happening only because one of the regular columnists is on extended leave - and no doubt wondering why he chose to move to Spain for the duration of that leave. (I would quite like to move to Spain for a few months but not right now when they have so many fires.) The on-leave columnist is usually political. The other columnists are writing about things which irritate them.

Today's column is about a question the writer seems to think is peculiar to this state. "Where did you go to school?"

Yes, it is a question I have been asked. Yes, I have been asked it more than once. Does it matter? Actually yes, perhaps it does.

My answer to the question is usually, "Where would you like me to start?"  This is because my "school history" is much more complex than that of many people. My parents were teachers. They were moved about the state at the whim of the Education Department. (If you were employed by the Education Department they had the right to send you anywhere in the state at any time. The Senior Cat was given the short straw more than once because he was considered to be a "trouble shooter". He was sent to sort problems out before moving on to the next trouble spot.)

But with other children the answer was often much simpler. They went to one "infants", one "primary" (junior) and one "secondary" or high school.  These would be the geographically closest. If you were Catholic then you went to the local parish school until the end of primary and then, if your parents could afford it, on to the nearest single sex school for the rest.  A much smaller cohort went to fee paying schools run by other churches. 

Some country children came to board in the city for their post primary schooling. Some of these went to schools their parents had attended. They often came because this was how they managed to get any secondary schooling at all.

There is still some of that going on I suppose but there is an even greater variety of choice for some. If you happen to be Muslim you can send your child to an "Islamic college". If you have indigenous heritage and you want your child to be immersed in indigenous culture and language you can ask for them to be accepted at one of the schools which only accept indigenous students. There is a state primary school which runs a "French language" stream. There are schools which cater for other minority religious groupings or specialist sporting, agricultural or music interests.

A neighbour called in yesterday. He will be away for a week and left a set of keys with me. We chatted for a bit and he mentioned how his youngest child was taken to a pre-school centre recently. Her mother has been checking some out and seeing where their child might best fit in. This particular pre-school begins each day with a "welcome to country" and refuses to fly the national flag or celebrate Christmas. Apparently it is what some parents want for their children. 

So, has the question of where did you go to school ever mattered? Does it matter at all now? Should it even be asked? Is it just a casual means of opening up a conversation with a stranger? 

I suspect the answer is more complex than any of us would really like. Does it matter? Yes, it might...and then it might not.  

The new "alarm" system was tested

yesterday. We had been told about it in advance and people should have been prepared for it.

It did not "fail" if getting those three short and rather quiet beeps was all that was intended. The question of whether it was a success is yet to be answered.

I had explained what would happen to a number of very elderly people I try to keep an eye on. They have phones. They have mobile phones. I have insisted. They can use them to make and receive calls and that is about it. This is the group who are not as active or out and about. They are largely confined to their homes. They do not wish to leave them. The phone is a security measure.

I checked after the test had been made. Seven of the eleven did not hear it. Yes, hearing is failing in the group but it was more than that. The other four heard it with excuses like "but only because I was waiting like you said to". 

The test was, I believe, considered to be "mostly successful" but I believe it needs to be improved, adjusted, reconsidered...something. Human beings do not react to three short, relatively quiet "beeps". Someone I know went to see if the fridge door had been left open. She is an intelligent, able person who is younger than I am. She had forgotten about the test. Would she react in an emergency?

People are not always aware of impending danger even when they are aware of a wildfire in the distance or it has been pouring with rain and the water is rising. They may be distracted by other things even when they are aware of a potentially dangerous situation.  

The alarm needs to be longer and louder. The very least it needs to be is three short beeps repeated three times. That is technically possible and very easy to do. Making it louder may be much more difficult but it needs to be done. Yes, it does go out as a vibration too but it needs more than that. 

We also need more alerts in public areas. Once this would not have been considered important but we no longer live in a relatively "safe" world. There are "incidents" even in this country, even in spaces that were once considered absolutely "safe". I am more likely to look for exits to buildings than I once did.

So yes, test the alarm. Good, it seems to work. That is not the end of the matter though. We need to be alert for each other, not just ourselves.  

Going out to dinner

may well be a regular occurrence for someone like a Prime Minister. It is possibly all too regular. It would certainly happen often. There would be those lunches and breakfasts and "coffee" as well. (Why is it never "tea"?)

It is not the fact that they go to these things. It is where they go and with whom they associate. Those things do matter.

My parents had to face this problem many times. They were part of "the floating population".  It was a term used to describe the people who were there for just a year or two by right of their occupation. They included occupations like teaching, banking, law enforcement and pastoral care. They were people who, by virtue of their occupations, were privy to confidences and a great deal of confidential information. 

In a small country community who you associated with mattered. Of course you talked with everyone but to whose homes did you go? It must often have been very difficult for my parents. It was sometimes difficult for us as children too. We were expected to be "friends" with everyone but not too friendly with anyone.  I am also aware I knew from a very early age about the need to keep quiet about all sorts of things. It was inevitable I would hear concerned parents talking to Mum or the Senior Cat. I was "not to say anything". Since then I have been privy to many more matters of concern than I care to think about. I have signed more than one document requiring me to remain quiet.

I have been thinking about all this as the media has been discussing a dinner attended last week by our Prime Minister. Questions have, rightly, been raised about it. Why did he accept an invitation to a meal at the home of a Chinese businessman whose father has been under review for tax fraud? Where was that very large donation actually coming from? What does the host want in return? 

Yes, there will be something they want in return. People do not donate large sums of money to anything without expecting something in return. It is particularly true of people in that position.

The Prime Minister is using an "I am/was not aware" sort of defence in relation to his attendance. That is nonsense. Prime Ministers have "minders". They are the staff employed to ensure that Prime Ministers and others like them do not accidentally or, worse, deliberately associate with someone who will embarrass the government. Past associations can be dealt with up to a point but the present ones matter. 

I would go so far as to suggest the present one does matter more than people realise. A million dollars for an evening's "work"? It will buy a lot of advertising come election time. It might not even appear like that in the donations list because it will have been divided among the other attendees. 

It is what they will want in return that we need to be concerned about. Yes, they will want something. Nothing is "free" in politics.  

  

Why do they make jam jars

long and skinny now? 

I bought some raspberry jam this week. I do not buy jam very often but a friend wanted "raspberry jam tarts". These were my contribution to the afternoon tea she was having as a fund raiser. 

I am sure my friend thought she was doing me a favour. "All you need to do is buy the jam. S... is buying the pastry cases and she can put them together."

I actually bought both the jam and the pastry cases. The pastry cases are very good being made from real butter. There is no point in trying to make them. S... is "not really a pastry cook" and I am absolutely hopeless at that sort of thing.

The jam? I stood there in front of the jams on the supermarket shelves. There was the cheap jam I remembered from my childhood. It comes in a much smaller jar now. Mum used to tell us that the pips in it were wood chips and we were never allowed to have it at home. I cannot remember eating it anywhere else either but I suppose we must have. Mum made jam but she never made a lot of it. Time and money would have prevented too much jam making.

I ignored the cheap jam from childhood. It would not have been right for the occasion. There was still a choice. I looked. The woman standing next to me looked as well. We looked at each other and she asked me the question I was thinking.

"Why do they make such long, skinny jars these days? Those little round pots looked so much more comfortable."

She was right. The little round pots did look more "comfortable". It is the way jam should look.

"I have to dig it out with a knife," the woman told me, "You end up with it all over your hands. It's a messy business."

It is. It might be another reason I do not often buy jam.  

 I worked out the unit price and the likely quality of the other three brands. One brand is made in the hills behind us. It was "on special". That does not mean much at all of course, or not in the usual way. Right then it meant it was only slightly more expensive than the other brands. I know it is highly regarded and I thought "buy local" and put a jar in the trolley along with the milk and the broccoli and the environmentally friendly bags I put my household rubbish in. 

In the "fast" checkout queue the man behind me, someone I know slightly, said, "I saw that jam is down in price this week but why do they have to package it like that. It's so hard to get at by the time you get near the bottom."

That was two people saying what I was thinking. There must be more people who think the same way. What are the jam makers thinking? 

Happy endings are not always

the best ending to have.

Brother Cat called me last night. We speak to each other on an irregular but reasonably frequent basis, usually around once every two weeks. The other week he will speak to Middle Cat. 

This is not the way it was when the Senior Cat was alive. There were very regular weekly calls on Sundays and, thankfully often, there would be a call sometime during the week as there was something they wanted to share. They did not write letters to each other the way Mum wrote letters. Neither of them felt the need for that.

Now we "keep in touch". Sometimes it is a quick email but we also talk. It is Brother Cat's preferred means of communication. 

He has not been well lately. Part of it is a litany of ageing but some of it has been the side effects of a severe infection he picked up following ankle surgery.  It was more serious than either he or his partner realised and Middle Cat was of the opinion he was lucky not to lose part of a lower limb. Yes, that serious. He has ongoing medical issues. It is a happy but not perfect ending. We may not like it (I certainly do not) but it is life. 

So, we talk...I mostly listen but that is the "big sister" role. When I can get a word in I will ask about his two children (doing well) and his five grandchildren (also doing well even if three of them are sports mad). It is two of the grandchildren who have just been in a youth theatre production of Hans Christian Anderson's "Little Mermaid".

"You know the story?" Brother Cat asked me, "They changed it of course."

Yes, of course they did. You cannot have unhappy endings in a Disney based production. Really you cannot have unhappy endings in anything. It is "just not done". It is "wrong". 

I suppose, for the most part, I agree. We go to the theatre, to see a film or read a book to be entertained...and to be given some hope. The ending does not need to be perfect but if something has been dark then we need some light. 

It is when we do that and change the message of the story that I start to be concerned. In our library I look at the books for children on a regular basis. "Happy endings" are all over the place there but they are often unrealistic endings. It is no exaggeration to say most of the fiction I see will have a "happy" ending. I looked at eleven new books recently, all fiction. All of them dealt with "social issues" and all of them had the obligatory happy ending. They were also designed to make the person with the "issue" the winner and the rest of us feel "guilty".  

Are such books really about "happy endings" or are there for another purpose? Perhaps we need to start thinking that happy endings are not always the answer to everything.     

The Labor party is having their

"gabfest" here this time. The place is being over run with their supporters. I saw a few passing by yesterday. 

These things happen on a regular basis. The "good" and the "great" of the party get together to decide on changes to their "platform". Speeches are made. Decisions are made. Arguments okay, tempers rise and fall. It is all, supposedly, "democratic".

Being "Labor" the union movement is there. The union movement is there in a very big way. It might even be said that "Labor" is still the union movement itself.

Union membership is down dramatically in this country. The old days of compulsory union membership have gone. People are no longer required to be members of any union. There are some areas where not being a member of a union means you might not get employed or you will be under constant pressure to join but this is no longer legal. There are other ways and other means of ensuring your employment is fair and legal now.

The union movement, particularly the more militant sections of it. seem not to have recognised that. Their demands are still strident. The leaders seem to believe they have the right not to simply ask but to demand or even dictate policies across many areas. 

The "Manufacturing Workers Union" is making many such demands. They want a "republic" of course.  The referendum failed "back then" but apparently it would pass now and that is reason enough to do it again. They want the "Union Jack" removed from the flag. It is apparently a "symbol of oppression". They want all the "colonial statues" removed from public places. These are a reminder of our shocking past apparently.

Their demands have gone on from there to changing the date of our national holiday. That is an issue which has been made contentious by activists. We are told it should be a "day of shame". 

The same people want the failed "voice to parliament" revisited. That it failed to get up at a referendum too but apparently we should do it again. It apparently should have got a "majority of people in a majority of the states".  It is a pretty high bar to pass but they think they can do it. All this is couched in high sounding language about indigenous recognition and rights and how the rest of us are "racist".

There are also calls for the "recognition of Palestine" and those who control it. This may actually be impossible under international law but why let that get in the way? 

There is "climate change" of course. Apparently we should be spending a great deal more on that than we are.  It should not be difficult to do.

They want a four day week for the same pay as they are now getting for a five day week. At the same time they want "better working conditions and increased wages". They want "the rich" taxed even more than they are now. 

These things will apparently come up for discussion at their meeting today. They may well get adopted.

Membership of unions in this country has risen slightly since I last looked. It is now around 13.1% of the workforce. It is around 14.0% for women and 12.0% for men. Among the younger generation, those in the  20-24yr group the figure is 7.3% and about 3.7% below that. The AMWU numbers are even smaller of course.

Yet it is these people who will dictate the direction in which the country goes. It seems they are not concerned with the dire state of manufacturing in this country. They apparently believe in some sort of utopia which would be possible if everyone else did as they demand. 

Even in my idealistic teens I did not believe in "communism". Socialism still does not appear to work but they believe it will. I wonder where that leaves the rest of us...and whether they would like it if what they demanded actually happened.  

Yes domestic violence is a "two" issue

but perhaps not quite in the way some people think.

The red headed politician some of us love to loathe said something about this yesterday and was immediately castigated for it. She was saying DV is a "two way street" - that women are also able to commit domestic violence.  

Yes, that is true. It is something which is often overlooked. It may not even be recognised. Women are generally smaller and not as strong as men. The form the violence takes can be different too.

But is throwing a pan of hot chip fat or hurling the iron at someone really any different? There are women who have done that. There are women who have assaulted their parters, who have murdered them or their children.  It may not, thankfully, be nearly as common but it does happen.

I thought about this after hearing the complaints about what was said. I thought back to a family I knew in my childhood. He was the only policeman in a small country town. She was his shrewish partner. As an adult I can recognise that the marriage was not in good shape. The children were not well cared for and frequently had bruises from the beatings given them - given them by their mother, not their father. Divorce was much more difficult then and the children would have been put in the care of their mother, not their father. The couple stayed together and the children suffered the consequences. I met one of them years later and none of them had made a success of their lives.

I wonder how different it is now when it is the woman rather than the man - or even perhaps both of them - who are the perpetrators of the violence? What about the children? It is surely a "two way street" then...so called adults and the children. 

Not all women are natural mothers, nor do they want to be. They do not "love" their children. The children happened. They wish they had never had them. They do not want the responsibility for them. 

As a teacher I actually had mothers who told me that. "I'll be glad when they are off my hands" was said with the sort of vehemence that tells you it is actually true. Their children are fed and clothed but they are regarded as a nuisance, something that gets in the way of what the adult wants to do.  They can cope with the financial "burden" but giving up time as well is too much. In the worst cases it leads to physical violence and even death but, for many, it is the emotional violence which does so much harm. Yes, it is violence if you are constantly being told you are not wanted, a burden, or someone cannot wait to be rid of you. 

Adults saying that sort of thing to one another as well is another form of abuse. It is very harmful both to the person it is directed at and to those around them. It is a type of violence but because nobody shows any physical signs it is too often ignored.

Relationships are of course incredibly complex things but castigating someone for saying domestic violence is a "two way street" is to ignore the harm done - and how it can be done. I remember the policeman's children and how the harm done followed them into adulthood. Was it then directed on to the next generation? Quite probably it was.   

There are more complaints about the "night life"

strip in this city. Apparently it is "run down" and the "lock out" laws are harming business. There seem to be a plethora of "massage parlours" and "illicit tobacco shops", to say nothing of the "convenience" stores.

I have not been "down the strip" for a long time. I have had no need to go. There is a very nice bookshop at the far end but I can deal with them on line. The woman working there actually advised me not to come in. "It's a bit rough around here."

Yes, it is. I used to go backwards and forwards along it for one year of secondary school and then in my three years at teacher training college. Once in a while, when I was feeling rich, I would stop at the only place in the city which sold some very nice lemon gelati. That place has long since gone of course. 

There are some odd little eating spots. I would not consider eating at most of them. There is often the distinct smell of "pot" about them or on the street. You need to be aware of where you are walking because there are syringes lying around.

The owners of the "places of the night" want the area "cleaned up". They want the "lock out" laws done away with altogether. They would like a greater police presence - but just to be there as "visible", not to ruin business. They want to be rid of the "trouble makers", those who have had too much alcohol or are in the grips of a violent drug episode.

Reading all this I am reminded of the story the Senior Cat used to tell about his only run in with the police as a teenager. As he told it he and a group of mates, including my godfather, were carrying a heavy double bed across the old swing bridge over the river near the docks. It was dark and they, as teenagers will, were making a bit of noise. A police car stopped them and wanted to know what they were doing. Why were they carrying a bed?

It was of course one of the props for a play the PFA (Presbyterian Fellowship Association) was going to put on. They had borrowed it from somewhere. They were making their own entertainment - and entertainment for other people. It cost them very little. It taught them a lot about each other, about working together, about all the things involved in putting on any sort of entertainment. The vast majority of the marriages in that group lasted too.

I wonder what would happen if we did away with all the "night life" of this strip now? It would of course have a very big negative economic impact on the "entertainment" industry. We would also have a generation of "bored" youth who would need to be taught to entertain themselves. The generation which came after that might be a little more able to look after their own interests but I suspect it would take more than that. 

We might be trying to deny under 16s access to social media but that is not going to teach them to entertain themselves. The bright lights of night life on the strip beckon as soon as they are old enough to be out without parental supervision.  We need to teach children to entertain themselves so that teenagers and young adults can do it too. I doubt we are doing that. 

Changing the name of an electorate

may or may not seem important to most people. It might come down to whether you live in the electorate or know how to spell the new or old name for it. Ask some people and, even in a country with compulsory attendance at the ballot box, they will not be able to tell you the name of the electorate they live in. Yes, this is true. I have heard people telling electoral officials they do not know. These people have simply arrived at the closest polling station. 

Then there is the other cause of confusion, a name change. Why change something which people know? 

This has just happened in this state. The geographically biggest electorate has had a name change. It was done without any consultation or discussion. It has simply happened. It will no longer go by the name of a former governor of the state. It will now go by the name of an indigenous activist.

There are many people who will see this as right and proper and a good thing. Certainly the person it will now be named after did a great deal of good in her lifetime. It is no bad thing to see her honoured in some way but was this appropriate? There is a suburb in the nation's capital named after a late indigenous person. Was that appropriate?

Our national multicultural and indigenous news service give a warning at the beginning of a news story that might contain the image or name of someone who has died - that is, the name or image of an indigenous person. If that is so important then why is the electoral commission changing a name to that of someone of such importance to the indigenous community if that person is no longer alive? 

The suburb in the nation's capital was named for a man who was also a Senator. There are other suburbs named for similar reasons. Some might want to say it was named for someone who was indigenous but it was his service as a Senator which was honoured. That is not the case with the other name change. It is being done to recognise her service to indigenous issues. Whether that is right or wrong is a separate issue but the proposal should, at very least, have been put to the indigenous people who live in the electorate. 

Our local council has gone ahead with name changes which supposedly reflect the indigenous history of the area. Local history is being lost to names many people no longer recognise, do not know and cannot spell. They do not know how to say them. We are told that these names are the original, indigenous names for places and that changing them is being done out of "respect".  The reality is that nobody really knows what the original names were. Is that respect or is it something else?

Name changes may sometimes need to occur. In this instance it might have been better to wait until an entirely new electorate was formed and then used that name.