"Please make an URGENT appointment

to see Dr....." was the text message. Yes, alarm bells were ringing - for the wrong person.

I had a panicky call from a very elderly friend yesterday. She had just received the message asking her to make the appointment. She had no idea who the doctor was and she has not seen her own doctor since early January. 

"He didn't say anything was wrong. He isn't even there right now. He's taking leave."

I wondered if her GP had made an error of some sort and a locum had picked it up. "We'll get it sorted," I told her. I took a copy of the message and went off. Her doctor is a member of medical practice with multiple doctors. It is busy but they know me as I have occasionally been in when other elderly people have needed prescriptions picked up or there have been other issues which don't breach privacy concerns.  This time I was less certain but I told the nurse at reception what the concern was and then I asked, "Could you please just check it is the right person. There is someone else with the same name..."

It has happened before. It is a very common surname and they both go by the same given name. Yes, that is what had happened. The nurse at reception took a deep breath, thanked me and apologised. "If I get a chance I will call her later and reassure her."

I doubt she did it. There would be no time for that but the incident worried me and it worried the nurse. Someone had blundered somewhere. Possibly it was not catastrophic but it was still alarming.

I suspected because I have had something like that happen to me. My GP had started talking to me one day and I had to stop her and say, "Are you looking at my case notes or someone else's?" She stopped and swore and apologised and started again. No doubt the mistake would have been discovered when a prescription was printed out in someone else's name but it happened. Ever since then I have been acutely aware of the potential problem. 

The son of friends of ours was nearly given a second dose of warfarin when he was in hospital. He was just alert enough to realise what was going to happen and managed to stop them. In that case he had been transferred from a high dependency area to a lower one and the message had not gone with him. 

Mistakes do get made so when there is a story about overworked staff at one of the biggest hospitals I am concerned. My elderly friend was just sitting at the table waiting for me to come back. Yes, I could have tried to sort it out over the phone for her but the clinic is literally just around the corner and I could make the time.  I am thankful she was alert to a problem, that she could ask me to help. She gave me a rather shaky smile and I left her to her rather late breakfast and the paper she still has delivered.   

$180 an hour for a shower?

Oh yes the government "changed the way it works" recently, "it" being the assistance package some elderly people get to remain in their own homes. Prices were supposed to be "fairer" under this. They have gone through the roof to the stratosphere.

The late Senior Cat had a "package" which entitled him to three showers a week. It was all the assistance we were able to get. Yes, we paid for it... when we could get it. We accepted it because we were told it was "safer" for a "trained person" to do the job of assisting him and it was one less thing I needed to do.

The reality was very different. For a start we never knew who would be coming, if they came at all. They might be male or female, old or young, experienced or inexperienced, capable or incapable. They might, if we were fortunate, speak English. On one occasion I actually had to hastily print off a communication board I had written for another purpose so I could try and explain that something could not get wet (or we would need to change the bandage). The very young lad who came that day took the piece of paper away with him and told me "asante" (thank you) over and over again. We never saw him again. He had no idea what to do and his English really was minimal. I don't think his Swahili was that great either as he really spoke a related language. 

We had a Chinese woman come for several months. She was lovely, had some medical training and her English was good but she had to bring her young daughter with her during school holidays - and expected me to watch her. 

The Senior Cat was able to explain, to tell people how to help. He was however growing hard of hearing and, add in some heavy accents, he had problems understanding people. It worried him that he would upset them.

In the end we simply gave up. Middle Cat and I took it in turns. We also made sure he had a shower every day in very hot summer weather. It worried the Senior Cat that we were doing it but Middle Cat knew how to do things and taught me how to do it safely. 

Yes, I suppose it also saved some money but we were not being charged anything like the equivalent of $180 when other people came to do it. We could do a more thorough job in about half an hour - undress, shower, dress. (He could still shave himself with an electric razor.) People said we were "lucky" we could do it. No, we were not lucky at all. It was hard work but we felt infinitely happier about doing it ourselves because we knew it would be done in a way that made the man we adored feel safe and comfortable. 

This is the problem with the "in home care" system. There is no chance to build relationships, to understand how someone's needs can be best met. Despite claims to the contrary those doing the job are not well trained, if they are trained at all. They might get as little as fifteen percent of that $180 and are unlikely to get more than twenty percent even if they have a certificate. It is poorly paid work. 

There is someone I know working in the administration office of an organisation which provides some of this "care". She tells me the boss has just bought a new car and she will be in charge while he has an overseas holiday.        

Are "queers for Palestine"

really unaware that being gay or lesbian in Gaza is not acceptable? Are they aware that it could lead to their deaths if they openly acknowledged their sexuality in an Islamic country? Do they believe it does not somehow apply to them?

When I was very young homosexuality was still regarded as a criminal offence. My family actually lived next door to a male couple for a while. My memory of them is as perfectly ordinary, perfectly pleasant people who just happened to live together.  As an adult I wonder what sort of strain they were living under.  My mother certainly did not approve of them. We children were told not to talk to them. We did of course, children do. My very definitely heterosexual father was a great deal more tolerant and would often talk gardening issues with the older of the two men. 

Perhaps the interesting thing is that apparently nobody ever gave these men away. They were much more willing to accept what the older man gave away from the garden. I suppose he must have been retired. He seemed very old to me. He did not seem to go to work. The younger man did. He would ride off each day on his pushbike with his kitbag strapped to the back.

Although I cannot remember that much about them I do believe they would not have supported any political group like "queers for Palestine". None of the gay men I know, and I know quite a few, would support such a group. They come from across the political spectrum but none of them have time for this sort of "activism".  

It was only yesterday that one of them voiced his concern to me about the group as we waited in the queue at the Post Office. He spoke to me very quietly to say that a young lad we both know had been fortunate not to be badly injured in an attack on him by a group of youths. I had not heard about the incident. The boy in question is not gay. (He is, quite simply, just quiet. He has medical issues which in no way relate to his sexuality but do tend to keep him from the mainstream.) Apparently the mere thought this boy might be gay was enough for him to be the subject of an attack.

I have no doubt this boy's attackers believe they were justified and, given the opportunity, they would do it again. They have been taught to believe this. Are they likely to change? I doubt it. It will be deeply ingrained in their psyche by now.  

So why do groups like "queers for Palestine" exist? It seems to be such a contradiction. Do they also support wife beating?  

 

  

Mind your own children while

you are "having coffee" with your friends!

I am still feeling a little shaken and, perhaps, stunned by how fast I managed to move yesterday. Yes, I know it is a pedestrian crossing too but the small one on it was entirely alone.

We have a pedestrian crossing outside our shopping centre. It is one with constantly flashing lights which requires drivers to slow down and then stop and give way to pedestrians who are crossing. 

I was coming up to it yesterday when I saw a very small figure coming in the opposite direction. There were also cars coming on either side - and, for once, nobody else around. Fortunately the cars were moving slowly and about to stop. They had seen me. They had not seen the small figure already about a metre into the roadway. He was not exactly visible from their angle. He was from mine.

Instead of taking my usual cautious approach I put on speed and I grabbed. He wailed. He struggled. He screamed. He tried to bite. Someone else came to my rescue at that point. The drivers went on with long blasts on their horns. I am not sure if they thought I was somehow responsible. 

"Yours?" asked the other person furiously.  

"No. I saw him..."

"Look I have to go...that's my bus..."

"Put him in my basket...come on you can have a nice ride..."

One small screaming, wriggling child was put in the large basket on the back of my little vehicle. Yes, it is a large basket but it was still only just large enough to fit a nappy wearing toddler. I kept firm hold of him as he screamed at me and wheeled into the coffee area of the shopping centre. 

Yes, there was his mother. She was sitting at a table with another woman. It was not until I was all the way down the little ramp past the ice cream place and I was visible to her that this woman actually noticed her child had wandered off. 

Her reaction is something I still find unbelievable. "Oh, he was playing with the train thing there. I thought he was all right."

I did not say a word. I did not say anything at all. I was too shaken and too angry. It was the other woman who asked me, "Where did you find him?"

"Out on the road," I told her.

There was silence apart from the sound of small child screaming. Right around me people looked shocked...everyone, except the mother. She just put him down on a chair and distracted him with a piece of biscuit. 

No, I was not thanked. I am not sure I wanted to be thanked. I would just have liked her to show some concern for her child's safety.   

Guilty until proven innocent

seems to be the way we now approach things.

The criminal law in this country is based, among other things, on an assumption that you are innocent until proven guilty. It is an assumption which is supposed to protect innocent people from being wrongly convicted. 

Yes of course it is not perfect but, at least for most of the time, it works that way. Recently something seems to have turned this around in the media. We have more than one story suggesting that someone is guilty of an offence even before the matter goes before the courts. 

There is absolute glee in the media when a former prince of the realm is allegedly guilty of a range of offences. Oooh he has been "arrested" and then "oh, but he hasn't been charged yet - never mind it is only a matter of time". That's the "big" story I suppose. Another peer of the realm has been arrested? Oh, more "good" news - for the media, for us to gloat over. 

What about some of the other stories going around. Someone in the sporting field is accused of rape. He's a popular figure. It can't be true can it? Oh, wait a moment...look, he's "someone's" son.

Little has been said however about some other very public figures who might also have been "guilty by association".  Apparently they are not newsworthy or cannot possibly be conveniently guilty of anything. Well, that's nice I suppose.  

Then there is the public servant who did their very best to sort out another alleged rape issue. They gave the alleged victim every possible assistance and the assistance was even acknowledged only to have it later thrown back in their face for the benefit of an opposing party in an upcoming election. (Yes, some of you will know to whom I am referring to but let's leave it there.)

Many years ago I met a man who had spent time in prison. He was innocent, indeed had simply been a passer by, but innocent people do sometimes get incarcerated. He was only released when a police officer was dying and admitted that he had lied in court. He had lied to cover up the wrongdoing of his sergeant. The sergeant himself had not given evidence. He had gone on up the ranks. The innocent man was released but the sergeant avoided any consequences for technical legal reasons. It was a long time ago now but the innocent man, a mere unfortunate bystander who had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident, was stained for life. Many people believed, still believe, he "must have been guilty of something".  It would not matter how often they were told he was innocent they would want to believe he was guilty of something. Human nature has a tendency to believe the worst rather than the best.

The same might be said of the "ISIS brides". I was told the story yesterday of one of them who, according to her once-friend, "was just doing what she was told to do". The story has come to me third hand. It is undoubtedly embellished but, if true, then is the once girl, now woman, guilty or innocent of supporting a terrorist group? How can we know? 

We have an election coming up in this state. Although the incumbent government is expected to be re-elected "in a landslide" there are all sorts of "nasties" flying around in the media. Accusations are being made. We are being told they are accusations and that they may not be true or even that they actually not true. They are however enough to do the damage. They are deliberately designed to do the damage. 

Guilty until proven innocent is not how it is intended to be but how useful it is if you want to do someone harm. 

 

Whether the "ISIS brides" should be

permitted to return to this country or whether they should be barred from ever returning is being hotly debated in the media right now. Most people who are commenting on it almost certainly have no knowledge of the law surrounding their right, or lack of right, to return.

Add to that the undeniable fact that the government has been assisting them in their attempts to return and the issues get even more complex. 

The question of whether they have the right to return to this country is actually easily answered. Yes, if they have valid passports, they have the right to return. You cannot stop people with valid passports entering their own country unless you take extraordinary measures. The government has not taken those measures and it does not appear they intend to do so. 

How did the women get those passports? They must have obtained them with the help of the government. 

Recently I had to renew my passport. It still had a time to run but you need a minimum of six months from your proposed date of return to enter some countries. I was not taking any risks. The complications of not having the correct documentation can be huge and very costly -financially and otherwise.  

In order to renew my passport I had to supply some information. I had to supply a new photograph in multiple copies. I had to sign the form and so on. This was just to renew a passport. 

Obtaining a new passport is even more complex. It can be done of course and people do it all the time. Doing it from anywhere abroad is more complex, much more complex. You need to be able to access original documents. You need to have others on the electoral roll and who hold certain positions to certify the person who is applying is who they say they are. Documents need to be signed and witnessed.

Why am I saying all of this? I am saying it because it would have been impossible for the women seeking to return to have obtained passports without the assistance of the present government. That assistance must have been taking place over many months. The claim that they have been giving these women no assistance is wrong. 

If they are returned, and they almost certainly will be, then they will likely be closely monitored for the rest of their lives. Their children will be monitored too. There will be restrictions placed on them. It will come at immense cost to the taxpayer and it is not just because these women will never be employed.

 Should they have given them assistance? Do these women have the right to return? Should we be concerned about their return? These are completely different questions. 

In all this we also need to remember there are children. It can be argued their mothers had a choice but the children had no choice. How we treat them is going to be a test of how we stand as a nation.  

 

An election sweetener for housing?

 Oh yes there is an election coming up next month. It has barely made a ripple so far. We are being told that the present government will be returned "in a landslide". We can do nothing about this. It is what is going to happen.

Yes, it almost certainly will happen so why is the government also offering a one off concession to try and get older people to "downsize"Why do they want them to move out of their large homes into smaller homes and "free up" housing stock? Yes, there is a serious housing shortage but will this solve the problems?

It's unlikely. The offer sounds good, too good to be true. It is when you look at the detail you realise that, like many election promises, it is not nearly as good or as likely as it sounds. There are conditions and most of those conditions cannot be met very easily, if at all. 

You have to be 60 plus. Fair enough and easily verifiable. Does that apply to just one of you or more than one if you have a partner? No doubt we will find out.

You have to be buying a smaller property. Well, that's the whole point isn't it? It should be easily verifiable. Does it apply to just the structure or the entire block? I guess we will find out.

You need to be actually selling your existing home, not passing it on to the children. Fair enough. Must it be sold on the open market or can you sell it to your child(ren)? Mmm...tricky one that.

And then the other crunch item, the one which will probably prevent more than a very few actually taking the offer up. You need to be buying a "new or off the plan" build. That is supposedly designed to stimulate the building trade. It doesn't actually need stimulating. It is failing because of the lack of qualified tradespeople and supplies, including land supplies. No amount of downsizing sweeteners will solve that problem.

Another issue, one which has not been raised, is where is this new housing? Do older people actually want to move to these locations? I might be wrong but older people who have lived in one area for years, sometimes a lifetime, often have no desire to move away. It is not just the comfort of familiarity but the convenience of the other services they have set up and require. It is their friendships, even just the casual ones. They can be particularly important in a world where children have moved interstate or even overseas. Or it might be that their children have remained close to home and they now need to be babysitters for grandchildren. In an increasingly on-line world however it might be that the actual world has become increasingly important to them.

Do people want to lose all that? Would they do it for a supposed tax break which might cause their pensions to drop anyway? I doubt it.  It is one of those "sounds good until you think about the consequences" sorts of policy that only come up at election time.  

I am not my brother's keeper

or am I? It is an interesting question I suppose. The absolute glee with which the downfall of a very public figure has been met suggests that the responsibility for other people's behaviour only exists when it can be used against us. At that point mere association of any negative sort is sufficient. Let me explain.

I was at a meeting a couple of days back. Prior to the meeting people were standing around and talking about the alleged misconduct of a former prince. I use the word "alleged" with reason. No misconduct has yet been proven.  

Ah, but it doesn't really matter does it? Here is a public figure who has "probably" done something he should not have done. That's enough isn't it? He's a public figure, a lazy man who has never "worked" in all his life, who lives a life of luxury. He "isn't very nice" and never has been. He deserves everything which is coming to him and, here's the big one, so does the rest of his family.

Really? Is that enough? 

I do not for one moment think I would like the man if I met him but if we really believe that "everyone is equal under the law" then is this how we should be behaving? What happened to "due process" and "admissible evidence" and "the law"? Why is "hearsay" suddenly acceptable?

And why are his brother and other members of the family suddenly also responsible for all this? No, the media is not saying they are directly responsible but they are responsible by association, simply because a family relationship exists. There are people who want to bring down what has been a highly effective and stable system of government and this seems like an ideal time to do it. They wilfully misunderstand that the only power a monarch has is because the monarch has no power at all and democracy works because of it. Yes, that sounds ridiculous but that is the way it works.

On another forum someone pointed out that there are many other people named in the files surrounding a convicted sex trafficker. Many of them are people who held very high positions, who still hold very high positions. Their appearance in those files is not being given the same attention. Why? The simple answer is that it would be politically inconvenient to do so (and could also lead to litigation.)

Not so long ago the nephew-by-marriage of a politician in this country was charged with an offence. It had absolutely nothing to do with the politician in question but this is how the media reported it. Unless they did it that way the item was not likely to have been of any interest at all.  You need to be "someone's" associate for the alleged offence to matter. The idea that "I am not my brother's keeper" only applies to those with whom you have no relationship. When it becomes convenient then the relationship applies.

At the meeting I did not participate in the "discussion". It made me feel uncomfortable. One other very quiet person also clearly felt uncomfortable. She eventually asked, "And what about the parents of those underage girls? What were they doing?"  Then she walked out of the room and came back when the meeting started. Her question was a good one. I have often wondered the same thing. 

More often than not we are guilty of misquoting the Bible when we say "I am not my brother's keeper" because, from memory, Cain actually asks God, "Am I my brother's keeper?" That's a question, not a statement.  

 

 

Another sporting event is

about to hit the streets of the city in which I live. Conveniently it has also been announced just before our state election.

This time it is a "motorbike" race. It will not be held at a dedicated location south of here but around the streets of the centre of the city, the CBD. It is going to be held around the same route as a car race was once held, a "Formula One" race. 

Like many other people who are not interested in motor "sport" I was relieved when the F1 was taken away. It was disruptive of the city for weeks before and after. 

The arguments for bringing in the new race are the usual ones. It is claimed it will put the state, and the city in particular, "on the map" and that there will be "great financial benefits", that it is "exciting" and "what people want". 

I say there are very good reasons not to bring it here. The event will cost taxpayers something. There is no real financial benefit. The hospitality industry may benefit but the rest of the community will not. The businesses around the circuit will actually suffer financially. They did in the past and there is no reason to believe it will be any different now. People cannot get to them when streets are closed off and barriers are erected. Even if they can access them the noise and other disruptions tend to send people elsewhere. 

I am also, and I believe reliably, informed that street circuits are not suitable for such races. They are actually considered to be "dangerous" by experienced riders. Perhaps that adds to the "fun" of the event but it is also sending messages I do not think should be sent to people who are already foolish enough to think anyone can ride a  powerful motorbike. 

As this event is also a "spectator" sport it is not encouraging people to actually do anything active. It is not asking them to engage in any other way than simply watch - and quite possibly eat and drink while watching. This to me is not "sport" as it should be. 

What is more it is a short lived event. It does not last a lifetime. It is not a year or even a month. It is a few days of "entertainment". 

This is being offered to us as some sort of great coup at a time when has the highest electricity prices in the country and no answer to that except "we need more renewables". Manufacturing is almost gone but we are getting "the submarines" - also conveniently announced just before the election. There is also my personal concern, shared by many I have talked with recently, that the amount being spent on libraries is being cut back. It is being cut back at the very time more should be spent because of the social media ban for young people.

The only good thing right now is that the nurses managed to get a pay rise - but of course they did right before an election. 

We don't need any more "sport" but it is apparently seen as "cake". I would prefer bread.    

Does our Treasurer know any economics?

It might be a good question to ask. Our Treasurer has a doctorate and likes to be called "doctor" because of it. It makes him sound...well, "knowledgable" perhaps.

The problem is that his doctorate has nothing to do with economics. (It was to do with a political identity.) This shows when he is attempting to explain anything to the rest of us. 

I admit I do not know anything much about economics myself, not those sort of economics. For me economics has been the age old questions of "how much money do we have in the bank?", "how much money do we need to pay the bills?" and "can we afford it?".  They are the questions I have had to ask myself ever since I was sent off to boarding school. My entire working life has been one of "be careful and remember you are not getting as much as everyone else...you are getting less". No, I am not complaining. There is no point in complaining. I am simply stating a fact. I have actually managed to save some money over time. I intend to spend some too.

But the Treasurer's job is different. He is responsible for the nation's money. When a former governor of the Reserve Bank tells him he is spending too much money then he should be listening. That former governor is still intellectually sharp and he knows a great deal more about economics than the Treasurer. Just quietly let it be known that the present governor of the same bank agrees with the former one - not the Treasurer.

I went to law school with someone who was a senator in our federal parliament. She was retiring from the senate and we were both present at a lecture being given by a member of the university staff. He was attempting to explain a policy in social security and a decision which had been made while the senator had been the minister in question. He referred to the legislation, a number of cases and more. It all sounded good until he said, "The Minister made the decision on these..." 

I could feel the Senator, who was sitting next to me, getting restive and then she spoke up, "The Minister is present and the Minister made the decision not on those issues at all. She made the decision on the basis she is also a wife and a mother. She runs a household and it is the decision any responsible wife and mother would make. It is what the women of this country would have wanted. It is what they were telling me." (The issue, relating to child support, had cross party support.)

The references to women might not be quite as acceptable now but they were then. The Senator was, rightly, making the point that decisions were not based on legislation and policy alone but on reference to the families she was responsible for. 

It is how the Treasurer should be handling the economy. He isn't.

"Should they be allowed to return?"

was the question under discussion yesterday. One of my neighbours had just seen the footage of the ISIS brides and their children trying to return to this country. They apparently have valid passports but they were facing some sort of "documentation" difficulties.

The government does not want the women back. It seems most other people do not want them back either. They do not want the children either. There are claims the women are, or are likely to have been, "radicalised" and that the same applies to the children.

That may or may not be true. I have no idea. There are some things which I do wonder about however and they have not been mentioned. The first of these is whether these women were in "arranged" marriages. Does that matter? Have they been brought up to be submissive? 

It is quite likely they were brought up in households where men make decisions. Their fathers would have expected obedience. Their marriage partners would have been decided for them. 

That brings us to another thing. Once married they would have been expected to obey their husbands. If their husbands chose to go and fight for a caliphate they would have been told that this was the right thing to do. It would also mean that going to join him would have been considered the right thing to do even if they did not want to do it. For all the warnings they may have received they may not have had a choice. Yes, they could try not to go but, like leaving a cult your family still belongs to, it could mean leaving everything and everyone. Is that really a choice?

And what about the children in all this? Children are limited in the decisions they can make at any time. In the really important issues such as where you will live, with whom you will live and how you will live children have no choice. It is decided for them,

Do we need to consider those things before we say, "No, you cannot return"? Do we allow them to return but only under strict conditions? What do we require of them on their return? It might also be that what is right for one woman and her children is not right for another.  How do we determine that?

The government has some difficult decisions ahead of it.  

"It's the ambulance"

was the response.

It is perhaps a good thing I was actually awake and heading for the shower when there was an insistent banging on the door this morning. I had ignored the first knock. It was not quite six-thirty and I thought the noise must be something else. Then there was a second knock and I had to hastily make myself "decent" and, as they knocked a third time, I managed to get to the door and ask, "What is it?"

"It's the ambulance," a voice said. I opened the door (cautiously) and looked out. Yes, there was an ambulance officer. The other one, the male, was standing some distance back.

I could guess immediately who they were looking for and said, "You don't want me. It's the unit down there."

"You're not C....?" 

"No. She lives in that unit there."

"But this is the right number?" she asked and I explained about the numbering system. My unit is the same number within the units as the street number for everyone. It is confusing.

I know it is confusing because, more than once, there have been attempts to deliver alcohol to me...and that "breakfast" from the fast food place. The resident of that unit is an alcoholic. There is no kind way to describe it. This morning's episode should not have surprised me because someone attempted to deliver alcohol to my door last night. 

I said this to the ambulance officer. Perhaps I should not have said anything but I felt she had the right to know what they were going to. "I doubt it is an emergency," I told her, "I hope it isn't."

She gave me a resigned nod and a "Thanks for the info."

After they had gone I wondered what would have happened if I had not answered the door. Would they have tried to break in? Would they have called the police? I imagine the first thing they would have attempted to do is try to rouse me again. 

I can remember a similar incident years ago. One of the very elderly people I was keeping an eye on was not answering the door when the ambulance arrived. I was on my way to answer another "help" call early in the morning when I saw them. I stopped and opened the door for them with the key I had. I went on to the next house and dealt with the issue (flipping the mains switch so the power came back on) and then returned. 

"Taking her to hospital. Can you pack a bag for her?" I was told. 

It was an uncomfortably intrusive sort of thing to do but I found what she needed under her instructions. Later I wondered what would have happened if I had not stopped. 

There would have been nobody to do that for C... this morning. I suspect the bottle in the brown paper bag being delivered last night was "the hard stuff", spirits of some sort. I also suspect that the bottle would be close to empty this morning. 

If the emergency services had damaged my abode by breaking in I would feel angry, not with them but with her. As it is I just feel annoyed - and concerned.   

Being paid to "protest"

  This was apparently posted to the Airtasker site. I cannot verify it but someone else who had something on Airtasker assures me she saw it there. It has since been posted on "X" as well.

Whether it was a genuine posting - that is the person was intending to pay others to protest because of their own inability to attend - is something I very much doubt. I am told it would be easy to get  young people along and then claim they did not do what was asked of them. I am also told this could be done for multiple groups of young people looking for a few easy dollars to spend on a night out. It quite possibly did not cost the person who posted the "task" anything other than whatever it costs to post on the site. Did that person use their real name? It is also unlikely.

There is money somewhere behind these "protests".  Our "security and intelligence organisation" will know something about it. I have no doubt at all they are keeping a very close watch on the protests and who attends them.  (Yes, they keep an eye on me too. I am not being "paranoid". It is for my own safety.) 

I suspect one of the reasons the so-called pro-Palestinian protests  have been allowed to continue as long as they have is because it is easier to keep a watch on some of what is going on. The crowds will have been scrutinised each week - for agitators and trouble makers.

One person they will be monitoring closely is Josh Lees. He is the leader of these and many other protests. He is a professional agitator. He makes his living out of protesting. Where his money is coming from I do not know. It is unlikely to be Centrelink. He spends too much time organising protests and more to be spending the required number of hours searching for work. It seems he was once employed as a tutor at a university. He has a degree of some sort or other. Lees has a "man bun" and often wears a keffiyeh. It marks him out. Standing on a platform above a crowd rallying people to protest louder and harder is the way he "works". He does not give interviews.

Yes, that is the interesting thing. He does not give interviews. Other leaders of other protests seem more than happy to give interviews. They will actually seek them out. Interviews and the media coverage these give them, whether positive or negative are generally more than welcome. 

Lees avoids interviews. Why? It's an interesting question. I have my own theories about the reasons for this. Is he a dangerous man? Yes. I believe he is. I also believe the people behind him may be even more dangerous. For now he is being allowed to continue apparently unchecked because, on balance, those who know more than the rest of us have decided it is safer that way. 

Did anyone receive that $100? I doubt it. 

 

How (not) to write a cookbook

or "was this really a good idea?"

Like most other readers I know I keep a watch on the new books coming into the library system. I am also guilty of suggesting books I think others might enjoy or find useful. I suppose it is something we all do at times.

I have never recommended a cookery book and I am unlikely to do so. I do occasionally borrow one if I need to know something or W... is coming for lunch and has mentioned something I know nothing about but she (at 89) is feeling nostalgic about. I rarely use a recipe for anything. When I do it is quite likely to get changed or something will be substituted. Most of the time I am just cooking for myself and that is rather dull. I fling things into a saucepan or beat an egg or two and hope for the best. I even more rarely bake. I really don't care much for cake or biscuits.

But there was a book I was told, "You need to look at it Cat. It's full of biscuit recipes where you can buy the biscuits and then do things with them." 

I sighed and agreed because I know this person does not give up. They also have a "sweet tooth". They claim to love cooking. (It shows.) I know the brand of biscuits. They are probably the best known brand in Downunder - and beyond. They make sweet biscuits and savoury biscuits, big biscuits and small biscuits. They make plain biscuits and biscuits covered in chocolate or filled with "cream" and more. Most of them have a health rating of less than two stars. They are not meant to be eaten everyday but I suspect most people do. The Senior Cat and I would get through a packet of the "Scotch shortbread" or "Shredded Wheatmeal" about once every three weeks.

I put my name on the reserve list and borrowed the recipe book, a book which uses the biscuits to make other sweet things. There are "brownies" and tarts and a cake studded with biscuits. There are desserts and the inevitable "vanilla slice" recipe.  I flipped through the book. No! You do not put biscuits into pavlova! That "parfait" does not need another too sweet biscuit as decoration. I might use the idea of putting a tiny bear to bed or to ride in a raft but only if I was caring for children who like that sort of thing.

I went back to the beginning and looked at the first recipe. It was for "brownies" and uses a biscuit base and a topping. There is something wrong here. It tells you to beat the biscuit base for twenty minutes. Of course it is a mistake but I know how some people slavishly follow recipes. They will believe they really have to do this.

There is a two week loan on the book. I borrowed it yesterday. I can return it tomorrow and I will because two weeks means someone else is waiting to read it. I do not need to read more. It was an interesting idea but it doesn't quite get there.  Perhaps I could write a better recipe book but I won't.   

 

  

Males working in nursery schools

is apparently under discussion in England right now. There was an email to me this morning asking for my views on the topic. In it the writer asked me, "Isn't there someone in Victoria who has just been taken into custody for a similar offence?"

The answer to that unfortunately is "yes". I have not gone hunting for the story. The media made much of it at the time. The perpetrator is not likely to be out of prison any time soon - if ever. 

There are a lot of hard core criminals in prisons. That will not surprise anyone who has even given the idea a moment's thought. What might surprise some people however is that sex offenders generally need to be isolated from the general prison population for their own safety. I really do not know much about this. I once spent a few hours visiting our main correctional facility for male prisoners. It was part of my teacher training course and a long time ago now but I remember being told that, even among prisoners, sexual abusers (especially of the very young) are not liked or admired. Why should they be?

The question of whether men should be permitted to work in nursery schools however is quite a different one. My late mother was asked to take a male teacher into the pre-school (three to five years) in this state. He was one of the first very few to be employed in the area under the new "equal opportunity" legislation. My mother really had no choice because teachers were sent to schools by head office, not chosen by principals and parent bodies. And no, she was not happy about it. When she met him she was even less happy to have him there. All sorts of "safety" arrangements were put in place, some known to him and others not.

 He was there for about eighteen months and was then transferred to another school. The following year he was arrested for sexual offences. For some time after that no male teachers were appointed to pre-schools but the past thirty years have seen that change. I am aware however of a constant concern, a concern which is more than it is for women in the profession.

Yes, there probably are men who want to work in very early childhood care and education. Some of them will want to do it for the right reasons. They will do well and genuinely care for the welfare of the children in their care but there will always be questions. What is a man doing there? 

Would I employ a man in that role? I was asked that question and I have to say, "I am not sure. Given two equally qualified people I suspect I would choose a woman." Is that right or is it wrong? 

What is a university for?

 There is a "discussion" going on at present between the classicist and academic Mary Beard and a Charlotte Gill about the way universities function. 

Dame Mary held a professorship in her own right at Newnham (Cambridge University). She spent many years teaching there. She was teaching in London (King's?) when I was a student in another part of the university. I managed to get to a lecture by her, a friend took me. I remember it well enough to think I would very much like to have been taught by her. She welcomed discussion.

I am not sure what Charlotte Gill's qualifications are. She is not the Canadian writer but she does write about what she calls "woke waste" - funding for woke projects. 

The "discussion" or argument seems to revolve around whether universities are involved in teaching and questioning ideas or whether they are places where you regurgitate the "correct" ideas.  The "what is a university for" argument. Trying to debate this at all on "X" let alone properly is almost impossible.

It is a topic I have commented on before and will no doubt comment on again. I had a discussion about it with the mature age student who lives across the dividing footpath where I now live. He has strong opinions about the way he is expected to abide by the ideas being put in front of him. He has been marked down for arguing against them. This is not "my lecturer/tutor doesn't like me and I am only getting a pass grade" but something he has been told he cannot afford to do. He is passing but he is not getting the grade he should be getting. He is getting distinctions but not high distinctions.  He is studying "counselling".  He refuses to accept there is only one correct answer to the questions he is being required to answer in assignments. His hopes of doing a masters have been cut to zero. There is no room for someone who does not follow the correct ideology in counselling. 

The late Senior Cat used to tell the story of how one of his lecturers slashed a line through an entire page of a student's work saying, "X (a critic) will not do. I won't have him mentioned."  How do you write a reasoned argument if you are not free to refer to and use all the resources you have at your disposal?

I have seen this happen more than once. I was a victim of it when I was doing my teacher training. There were "guidelines" and we were expected to follow them. There was only one way to write a lesson plan and we had to stick to that lesson plan. As a teacher if a child asked a good thoughtful question the rest of us would be off that plan and I would be getting them to argue the point being made. It meant we sometimes had to make up work to cover all that needed to be covered but the only complaints came from one or two lazy ones.

At tertiary level there should be room for argument. If a student raises an issue in a way which suggests they do not understand then they need one sort of help. If they raise an issue because they have done their "homework" and they are questioning something then they need to be encouraged. They don't need to be told "this is what you have to say even if if it not what you think".

My doctoral thesis turned an idea in psychology around another way. It was not what I set out to do. It just happened as I was searching for answers to the problem I had set myself. It came as a surprise to me, to my supervisor and everyone else. Even now I realise I was incredibly fortunate that I did not fail because the external examiner, a big name in the field, found his own work being questioned. It was one of those times when things could have gone either way. At my viva he really pushed me hard. The other two examiners barely asked a question. I know they were worried and I was very, very frightened. At the end of it though he told me, "I don't like it but I have to accept we need to change our thinking here." The data was there.  

The result might have been very different if my thesis had been in the area of "gender studies" or "indigenous studies" or one of the other current woke ideas. It will also take a brave student to argue against the meaning given to a particular word when studying one of the indigenous languages of this country, or suggesting that nuclear power might still be something that needs consideration. Try saying indigenous children should be taught in English from the start and you would lose any chance of a job working with them, perhaps of working with children at all.  The list of topics that may not be argued is long.

I suspect both Dame Mary and M/s Gill still have much to say to one another. I also believe it is both the university you attend and the course(s) you do there which will inform you of whether you are permitted to argue other ideas. Here they are not always welcome, particularly in woke areas or if their purpose is to train you for employment or both. 

Myself? I think universities are there, or should be there, for the exchange of ideas and the development of them. It won't happen if you have to agree in order to pass.  

Could we have some honesty please!

The mass shooting in British Columbia is an appalling event. In a small town (2,500 pop.) it will hit even harder than the mass shootings which have occurred in other places. Any mass shooting is horrendous. It is to be condemned.  It is wrong.

It is also wrong to pretend it is something it is not. In this case I heard the news of "an active shooter" being reported as, "The police are saying it is a woman." 

I wondered about that at the time. There were a number of reasons for this. Women who murder rarely do so using a gun as a weapon of choice. Women who murder often do it to protect their young. Going into a school and randomly shooting seemed highly unlikely. This was coming from the police in the town and a usually reliable news source.

The international news service repeated the story. They used the word "woman".

This morning there was a picture of the person alleged to have done the shooting. That person is said to be eighteen years of age. That person had a very obvious need to shave - or grow a beard. Perhaps there is a legal requirement to say "female" but I suspect the vast majority of people will look at the photograph and say, "But that's a man." Would it be better to say, "A person who identified as female." Possibly. Would it be more accurate?

A neighbour, out washing his car, told me, "That's not a woman. It reminds me of all those ridiculous claims about being indigenous when you have blue eyes and fair hair like that so-called professor of indigenous agriculture." Would it be better to say, "A person who identifies as being indigenous"? Possibly. Would it be more accurate?

Would it help people understand the event? In the tiny town where it happened I am sure the reasons for the shootings are being discussed and discussed at length. There will be an investigation and many people will wonder why they or others "missed the signs" but trying to suggest that the answer is simply, "They were "transgender" or "that person was a woman" " is not the answer. It should not be reported in that way. 

Our media has been making much of the visit of the Israeli President. Those who did not want the visit to occur have had most of the coverage, of course they have. If however we rely entirely on what they have to say and what the media has said then we only have part of the story. As I pointed out yesterday these people often deliberately break the law. It makes good news footage. Police bashing can be talked about and that is always considered useful news. It has taken the columnists, not seen or heard by the majority, to point out that at least some of what is being said is completely incorrect.

On a number of occasions I have been interviewed and I have not enjoyed it. Why? Because so often what I have said has been twisted to suit the agenda of the interviewer. When it is further reduced to fit the time or space available the message can get completely lost.  Is this dangerous? It can be. Is it dishonest? Yes. 

Before we sympathise with the protestors

perhaps we should ask ourselves some questions. The first of these would have to be, "Were they breaking the law?"

The answer to that is yes. They had permission to be peaceful in one place and not cause a disruption - nothing more and nothing less.  They had tried to get that overturned and they failed. Instead of abiding by the decision they went ahead with their own plans. They chose to break the law.

We might not like that law. We may say it goes against the long held belief we have a "right" to "free speech". It makes no difference. A law has been passed in parliament and the protestors chose to challenge it. There were good reasons for putting the law there in the first place. We may not like that either but, like the laws about speeding or paying tax, it was put there for a reason.  If we want to change it then we do so by writing to our MPs and getting a change at the ballot box if necessary. Do we want to support those who choose to break the law and potentially harm others?

Then there is the question. Do we know what the protestors are protesting about? No, don't just tell me "they are protesting against the war in Gaza", Why are they protesting about that particular war? What makes it so special that they have been out there for twenty-seven months? Asked what they are protesting about and they will give you a simplistic answer. If a problem is solved to their liking then they simply find another way to state it or another problem, another grievance.

Have we asked, "Where is the money coming from?" It costs money to protest and keep on protesting, to keep on rallying supporters of the cause. There is money behind these protests. Who is providing it, why and what do they want in return? It also costs the taxpayer in the policing of protests, even the most peaceful of protests. It also costs the businesses around the areas where the protests take place. Are they open. Is their trade being diminished?  Do the protestors believe that the $27m or more (and I am told this is a conservative estimate) spent on policing the protests in just one city is justified? What about all the services it could provide or how it could be used to educate people about their grievances?

Do we know what it is the protestors hope to achieve by protesting? Do they want to influence government policy? Is it in keeping with the policies of the day or is it a view held by a minority? Is failing to implement their demands genuinely harming our national fabric or our international reputation?

If they are protesting against a war in Gaza then why are not also protesting against something like the war in Ukraine, the war in Sudan or the regime in Iran? How do those conflicts differ so much they are apparently not worthy of protest? What about the Uighur in China, the restrictions the Taliban are placing on women and girls in Afghanistan? Why are they not shouting about the kidnapping of students in Nigeria?   Do they want women, including those protesting, to live under Sharia law?

And if they are arrested for violence, for assault (of each other as well as the police) or for blocking a public road or footpath and hindering the passage of others then what do we believe should happen to them? Do we release them without charge when tempers have cooled? Do we require them to appear in court? If so do we scold them, fine them, record a conviction or fail to record one? Do we keep a record of who they are so that it can be used against them later if they breach the law again? Does the right of some of them to pray five times a day include hindering the passage of others even in contravention of their own religious guidelines?Are they hoping we will make martyrs of them so they can expand their grievances and perhaps take the matter even higher into the legal system? How will all this be paid for?

There is no legislated right to protest in this country but we do enjoy the freedom to do it. I enjoy that freedom when I write this. It does not give me the right to harm others or restrict their freedoms and indeed rights. There is more than one way to protest. I still believe the most effective is to write an actual letter to someone who is able to make a difference because they have the authority to do that or belong to an elected group which has the authority. That will often mean a member of parliament. There are ways to write such letters - if you want them to be read and acted on.

Yes, I know I have not given you the answers. There are legal and moral questions here. We need to ask questions.  

 

  

 

  

We do not have a STEM problem

in this country. We have a language problem, an arts problem, a creativity problem.

The "person of the year" is an astronaut and, dare I even say this, a female astronaut at that. She is the first person to be an astronaut under the flag of this country. (Yes, you can forget Andy Thomas apparently - he trained with the Americans.) 

Now this "person of the year" is speaking up about the need for people to do STEM - science, technology, engineering and mathematics.  This is what is expected of her, no it is doubt one of the reasons she was chosen for the role.  I have no arguments with that. We need scientists and mathematicians and the technicians and engineers and other professionals which go with all the employment in those areas.

The problem is that none of this can happen without language and nothing will develop without creativity. The would be scientist, mathematician, engineer or technician needs to be able to read and read well. It is not sufficient to be able to read the instructions on the box and put the widget together. The widget has to be put together and used. If we want that person to build a better widget then they need to know how the widget works and why it was made that way. They need to know this before they can use processes like logic and creativity to improve the performance of the widget. It might appear to be as if it is all grounded in science and maths and engineering but in reality it is not. That comes next. It begins because someone has the language and the capability to apply language to the problem.

I said this recently on a mathematical project page set up by an Oxford mathematician. I was howled down by people who tried to tell me that mathematics was more important than language. They appeared to completely ignore the fact they were using language to argue their case. They ignored the fact that unless they understood words like "one" and "two", "multiply", "integer", "division" and more they could not even begin to find a square root or calculate a Chi square. The Oxford mathematician agreed with me but it left me feeling alarmed by how little importance some people place on the ability to use language or how essential it is in order to participate in the world. 

A speech pathologist once said to me she was always amazed by how hard some people with severe communication disabilities will try to communicate. I do not find it amazing at all. I expect nothing less. It is why I will go out of my way to overcome communication barriers and help others to do the same. It is our ability to communicate in multiple ways which marks us out from so much of the animal kingdom. 

We need people who can read, who read with understanding and who read for enjoyment as well as information. People need to be able to read critically, to think about what they have read and assess it. They need to create their own ideas from what they read, hear and see. This cannot be done without language. This is what we need to base the education of the young on. 

We are being warned the government plans to spend less on libraries this year. That is wrong. We should be spending more, much more.  

Don't blame the majority for

the decisions of a minority.

The Israeli President is coming to visit and the pro-Palestinian "action group"(s) are making it clear that they are not happy with the invitation. They want him "disinvited". If he does come they want the government to arrest him and send him of to the International Court of Justice at the Hague. 

The pro-Palestinian groups have been active for many months now. They have been disrupting traffic, transport, businesses and other people's lives with the support of the law. They have claimed a "right to protest". They do not like what is going on in Gaza. 

The vast majority of people do not like what is going on in Gaza. How could they? It is the most appalling and distressing mess. But who is really responsible for this? Is it every person in Israel? Is it every Jew around the world? Is the President to blame?

I don't know as much as I perhaps should about the powers of the President of Israel but how is he supposed to halt government decisions? I doubt he can. As I understand it his role is largely ceremonial. Is he then to take the blame for all the decisions of the Netanyahu government? What about the Israelis themselves. By no means all of them voted for the same government but are they all responsible? Some of them at least have been protesting about what is going on. If there was an election held tomorrow would the government change? It well might. Who becomes responsible then?

And on the other side who is responsible? There was an election you say. The people of Gaza voted Hamas in. They are responsible. Really? What sort of election was it? Free and fair or manipulated? Is the destruction of Gaza what they voted for? How many of them would have settled for returning the hostages immediately in return for peace but have never had the opportunity to say that?

We have an election coming up in this state. I will vote. I am required to vote. The law says I must vote. My vote is just one vote. It is quite likely the candidate I vote for will not succeed and that the government will not be of my choosing. Do I have to take responsibility for all decisions made in the future? Do I accept a democratic result or must I go on protesting? 

Where does my responsibility end? If I want to blame someone else do I object in a civilised, quiet manner or do I need to protest loudly, perhaps violently? 

 

  

"Little girls wear pink"

my maternal grandmother informed me as I told her I did not want to wear pink, that I did not like pink, that I wanted a blue dress. 

"Blue is for boys," she told me.

"It's for girls too!" 

I can remember being smacked hard for saying that. Nana was determined that I would be a "little girl" and that I would wear something pink and frilly. 

I still "hate" pink and frills. 

Nana made the dress of course. That is how things were done then. Your mother or your grandmother or your aunt or someone you knew made your clothes. There were no chains of Target or KMart or BigW back then.

I can remember that dress. It was made from a cotton fabric I think was called "haircord" and it was printed with tiny pink roses all over it. Yes, it was "pretty" I suppose. I remember the same fabric and same design also came in other colours, blue, yellow and possibly green. I would have been happy enough with blue or yellow. I did not like pink. Add in a frill of broderie anglaise "lace" that Nana thought looked "very nice" and I loathed it. The frill tickled.

It was my "other" dress. It was not my Sunday dress. That was green robia spot voile and smocked across the yoke. The smocking was not there just for decoration. It was there to make the garment last from one summer to the next. I wore it when I was two and then when I was three. The hem must have been lowered but I remember nothing of that. 

Yes, I was arguing about not wearing pink at age two. We were in the drapers which was just down the road from where my paternal grandparents lived. Nana must have come down on the train from the other side of the city. My mother was there. My paternal grandmother was there and Nana was there. Nana would get her way of course. If she did not then she would sulk and not do a good job of the dress. (She  was a good dressmaker.) 

I was reminded of this yesterday when a three year old I know appeared in front of me. She was wearing a pair of overalls that were a miniature version of an adult workman's work overalls. There was a spanner in one of the pockets and a small hammer in another. Her mother smiled and shrugged and said, "Her choice. I thought she might want to wear the pink ballet skirt."

"No, today is work. I am going to work," we were told.

As a garment the overalls were very practical apart from the difficulty of getting them on again if she "needed to go". She can pull them off her shoulders but not get them on again. Fair enough. They get flung in the washing machine. There is no need to worry about "spoiling" them. Oh, I would have loved to wear those.

Nana went on insisting I wear pink and that meant Middle Cat wore pink because clothes were passed down.  We had other clothes of course. Clothes were often passed around until they were no longer fit to be worn. Other pink things must have appeared but I do not remember them in the way I remember having to wear a pink frilly dress because it was what Nana wanted. 

Much later I remember my mother buying two dresses for my sisters. They must have been "on special", perhaps shop samples, from a drapery that was regarded as rather "exclusive". I do remember the sale sign across the window because of a black mark on it. It was still rare to buy clothing that way but those dresses were good. One was the colour of milk coffee. The other was a very pale teal. Both were embroidered around the borders but must have had deep hems as well. They lasted my sisters a long time, the way clothes were meant to last.  Me? Nana had made me yet another pink dress. It was made from pink nylon and "it doesn't need ironing". I loathed it but had to wear it. 

Grandma had brought up two boys and knew about practical clothing. She made shorts and overalls and knitted us traditional ganseys in the pattern her mother in law taught her. We girls had smocked dresses for "best" but there was never anything pink apart from the pink in the grub roses embroidered into the smocking.

Years later Grandma and I talked about this and she told me, "Your grandmother was dressing herself, not you." 

She was right. I still don't wear pink.  

  

There is a house being built

on land behind the group of units in which I now live. I was aware of it mostly because there were "fence" problems and the owner of the land in question was not being cooperative. 

It now turns out there may have been very good reasons for him not to be cooperative. He has been actively avoiding anything happening on "his" land until the footings were dug out and the foundations laid. That has now occurred and he, smilingly, came up with an offer to pay his half of the fencing costs. 

What he had not done was deal with the issue of a drainage pipe which flows from the units and the surrounding properties on to his land. Apparently it is "not his problem" because "it isn't there". It is apparently not on the paperwork at the local council and they are responsible for allowing building works to go ahead. 

The neighbour who came in to see me about all this told me the council has informed him the council says their records only go back to 1970. That seems very unlikely but this is what they are claiming. The units were built in 1966. As far as they are concerned the pipe does not exist. Really?

The water supply company also says "not our problem" because "our responsibility stops at the street". This is despite the fact that the pipe would have been put in by them when water was connected to all the surrounding properties.

It is a drainage pipe and the building works are lower than this unit so I am assuming water flows in that direction. Yes, it will flow on to the property. The pipe must direct the flow of the water from the neighbouring rooftops? I am no physicist and I am no engineer but it just seems to me you would want to avoid this sort of situation. It would be wise to get some advice? It would be wise to cooperate with your neighbours to be on this matter?

No, the owner has had the builder block the pipe with concrete. It was filled in when they laid the foundations. It was filled in against advice from a much more knowledgeable plumber.  Where will the water flow now? According to the owner of the land it is not his problem. The manager of the units is trying to do something about the situation. We have had no rain for weeks now but I suspect we might have a problem when it does and the water has nowhere to go. It might also mean the land beneath the new building dries out and damages the foundations. 

It is a potential muddy mess.  

  

If we want children to read

then they must be taught to read. I would have thought this was obvious but apparently it is not. It seems some parents believe the process can now be left entirely up to "day care" and "kindy" (kindergarten) and "pre-school" or wherever else they put their precious little ones to be "educated". Parents no longer have "time" to do anything like this.

I know I was lucky. My parents were teachers. I might have driven my mother to distraction but she did put the words for everyday items on them, on the 'fridge and elsewhere. If I wanted a word I could ask for it. It would be written on a piece of paper in her excellent "infant school" printing and it was there. All I had to do was learn it. 

I knew my letters early because the Senior Cat read me my bedtime stories as soon as I started to take an interest in the pictures in books. I cannot remember that but one of my earliest memories is sitting on his lap in front of the wood burning stove. He has his left arm around me. His left hand is holding the book and his right hand is pointing to each word as he reads it to me. I cannot have been more than eighteen months old. And yes, I do actually remember that. I can feel and smell the memory of it as well. They say you need words to remember and I must have had those words. It isn't the clearer, sharper memories of later but it is there. I have similar memories of other happenings. 

I didn't "just pick it (reading) up" of course. My parents contributed to the process. When my brother came along I was there to help. He was another early reader. My sisters were not as fast. My parents had more to do and the Senior Cat was doing a university degree part time. That alone tells me that parents need to be involved. 

Most parents would not be able to do what my parents did. They are not trained teachers. Quite possibly their children would not be as interested in learning to read but it does not mean that nothing should be done. Every so often there will be another news item about the importance of reading to children when they are young. It is one of those things that "everybody knows" is important but is still largely taken for granted. It does not always get done.

It does not always get done because parents are now "time poor". If both parents are working full time then there is very little time left for parenting. Your child(ren) will be brought up by the staff at day care in whatever form it takes. The lucky children will be those who are left with caring and able grandparents who take them off to "story-telling" at the library and have the time to satisfy the curiosity of the child who wants to know what something "says".  It is not just that of course. It is the individual interactions which matter, the playing with words. I heard a child saying "beat" the other day. Her grandparent responded, "heat" and the child said "cheat". It was a game between two. It was fun. 

All forms of day care have a place but none of them are quite the same as individual adult time devoted to words when it comes to learning to read. That is only a start of course. There is much more to it than that but it still matters and there are too many children missing out on it. 

 

 

 

The "Thriving Kids" program

outlined by the government is supposed to reduce the cost of the NDIS scheme. Whether it will or not is yet to be seen.

I was talking to a young mother yesterday who was worried her three year old son "might be autistic". He was running around and around the park adjacent to the library pretending to be a pilot. 

"He just keeps going like that all day. At kindy (kindergarten) they keep telling me he has to learn to settle down and listen to instructions and do what he is told. They are worried because he can't count properly past ten and he doesn't know how to read anything. He can read his name but he can't write it and they say..." 

"Does he sleep at night?" I asked. It felt exhausting just watching him.

"Oh yes, that's not a problem."

"Do you read to him?"

"Yes, it's why we come here on Wednesdays. It isn't a kindy day so we come to the toy library and I always get some books for him. He will listen to a story...I mean he will wriggle around but if you ask him then he has been listening. He can tell it back to you."

I listened to all of this as he turned a perfect somersault in the grass to "land". He was talking away using words like "landing gear" and "flaps" and "throttle". It all sounded perfectly normal to me. He seemed to me to be a healthy and active little boy with imagination and the apparently excess energy of childhood. 

But apparently there are "problems" at kindergarten level. He does not fit into the required groove or hole. He is a round peg that can turn around and around and the hole is square. It does not want him to roll around. Someone has suggested he "might be autistic" because he does not fit neatly into the expectations and requirements of the kindergarten. He is not learning the way they require children to learn. 

Of course I do not know the child at all. There may be other problems, problems the mother did not want to mention. Still it seems to me that having a very active and healthy child with an active and healthy imagination should not be seen as a "might be autistic" problem. The idea of putting him on some sort of medication "to calm him down a bit" was worrying the mother. It would worry me too. 

Is this how we treat three year old children who do not fit into the requirements being laid down?  

  

 

  

So interest rates are up again?

And the government is blaming everyone but themselves? Why am I not surprised?

I spent most of my time yesterday morning going to and from the bank. To get there requires pedalling to the station, catching a train changing to another train and then pedalling again at the other end. (Yes of course you do the same in reverse to go home again.) I arrived at the bank during the shopping centre's "quiet hour" - the one which is supposed to cater for people with "sensory needs".  It was not particularly quiet.

I had to actually go to the bank because all attempts to do what needed to be done could not be done on line. Please allow me to explain how much of this is a government induced problem which causes a rise or two in the cost of living.

First, it should not have been necessary to go that far in order to actually go to a bank. There should be a bank nearby. There were once four banks in the immediate vicinity. Now there are none. There were four ATM's outside the shopping centre. Now there is one. There is another inside run by a private company that charges people each time they use it.  All this has been done in the name of things like "electronic banking", "efficiency", "time saving", "reduced costs"... I could go on. Has any of this actually made life easier? No, it has reduced human interaction.

It has also increased the possibilities for fraud, greatly increased those possibilities. Oh and don't think about using the ATM unless there are plenty of people around or you might find yourself being held up by a teenage gangster looking for a bit extra to spend at the fast food places across the main road.

So, "reverification" of my bank details are necessary because now I could be anyone at all. After the failed attempts to do it in other ways and a now angry email from the bank I gave in and decided to go. The one thing I was refusing to do was "make an appointment".  Thus I made the trip by trike and train. Two trains? Yes, our public transport system tends to go in and out of the city, not across the suburbs. There is one "connector" bus service which does a loop but I cannot take the trike on the buses and it would involve even more time and buses. The entire system is designed to encourage the use of cars.

Oh yes, cars? Most people have access to one. They can drive. They have a licence to drive. It has "photo ID". You can use it to prove your identity. I do not have a licence to drive of course. I have a "proof of age" card. It also has photo ID. It is issued by the same people who issue the driver's licence cards. To get a proof of age card you have to provide a hundred points of ID which means at least two things like your passport, your birth certificate, your Medicare card and (wait for it) your licence to drive.  It is supposed to be an alternative to the licence to drive when you need to provide ID...except sometimes. The bank will not take that form of ID on line. 

So there I am, sans "appointment". I tell the service officer at the "welcome" desk why I am there. He starts to say I should have an appointment and I tell him, politely, that I am not going to make one because I happen to know that they have appointments available right then. (I looked that up before I left.) His shoulders sag. Is this going to be a difficult customer? He looks my details up. There is a flag on them saying I have already put in a complaint. The complaint was polite. It was reasonable. If they accept my suggestion it will, I hope, make a change to bank policy and life a little easier for all of us without a licence to drive. 

"Plenty of time," the nice female officer tells me. She groans when I tell her what the problem is...and agrees with me that reverification of details is largely due to fraud caused by the lack of face to face transactions. The idea that my proof of age card is not adequate for reverification purposes on line is something which causes her to sigh in frustration and mutter imprecations about inefficiency and more. I was on my way home when she actually phoned me to say that the bank has now accepted my proof of age card as ID...but it still cannot be done online. 

I hope my new passport turns up soon. I might need it as ID.  

I am reeling at the stupidity of

some people. I have just lost my temper. Anyone who knows me will also know it takes a lot for me to actually lose my temper. I can get angry but this is something different.

There is a fire in a conservation park south of here. I know the area. It is very difficult terrain. There are a lot of eucalypts there and a lot of other growth. It is pretty dry right now. There has not been a lot of rain recently.  The wind is changeable. There is no rain in sight. The roads in and out are narrow and winding. It is the very worst sort of fire to have to fight. 

The police are asking people to "stay away". The last thing the fire fighters need are thrill seekers - sight seers - people "going to have a look" or "to see if they can help".  No you can't help. Stay the hell out of there. Stay away. Let the people who are risking their lives to put the fire out get on with the job without hindrance. 

If you were told to get out then I hope you got out. Don't rely on those firefighters to come and rescue you.

I know something about bushfires (wildfires). I have been too close to one for comfort. Let me explain.

There was a fire when the Senior Cat had a school in a rural area. The school, like most area schools, had an agricultural stream. There were sheep and some small areas of crop and the like. The Senior Cat and the teacher in charge of the agricultural stream were responsible for the safety of that as well as the safety of the school. It was a weekend. The children were not at school which was a good thing because the school was needed for other purposes. It was the command centre. 

I do not know too much about the details of the fire. What I do know are some things which will stick in my mind forever. We herded the sheep into the back garden of the school house. They were bleating fear. My brother was set the task of hand pumping the water into the overhead tank (which is how we had any water pressure at all) and he also had to control the hose which was there to make sure that any sparks which landed did not start a major fire. 

I was sent over to the school's domestic science kitchen where food was prepared for the men fighting the fire. The town's only shop had sent up all the available bread along with other supplies. I spent the night and most of the following day making sandwiches as the men came in to the kitchen in relays.  They would lie on the floor in the room next day and "get some kip" before going back out on to the front lines having had an hour or so's break. They were filthy dirty and red eyed. Some of them had minor burns and blisters. They were exhausted but they had to go back. There were simply not enough men to do the job which needed to be done without them. The school's generator had to be kept running so there was power at the school. 

Eventually everything was under control. The area around the school was a mess but it was not as bad as it might have been. Everyone was exhausted and I mean exhausted. They were not just "very tired". There was still a lot of cleaning up to do, spots to be watched and roads to be cleared. 

Compared with what they are now fighting I suppose it was a "small" fire but it did not feel small. The terrain was not as difficult but other issues made it awkward. The cause of the fire was thought to be a dry lightning strike. Nobody lost their home but some people lost sheds and many of them lost sheep or had to go out and shoot the injured sheep. Contrary to the belief of many farmers do not like doing that.  

It was talked of quietly for weeks. I remember the vague feeling of trying to be as grown up as the women working in the kitchen but it was hard. I knew where my parents were but they did not know where their fathers, husbands and sons were or if they were safe. I was the only teenager in the room and it was one of those times when I definitely kept my head down and my mouth shut. I suppose it was a "growing up" moment but it is a memory which still disturbs me. 

So, when some fool thinks it would be "interesting" to go and look I let him know how selfish he would be. The last thing they need is someone getting in the way and putting their lives further at risk. Please just let the men out there get on with the job and let the back up women get on with theirs too.  

  

The political devotee who knocked

on my door yesterday was a nice young girl but very immature and very misguided.

I will assume she was eighteen but she looked younger than that. She stood there and told me that she was campaigning for the candidate of her choice and wanted to talk to me about it. 

I do not normally engage in conversation with any political candidates or their representatives but I had already heard her talking to one of my neighbours. What she was telling them was complete nonsense. The party in question was going to do this, do that, do something else. It sounded wonderful but it was completely impossible. I am sure the candidate does not believe it. It would not be in their party's political manifesto.

We talked about the "free" solar panels. No, I was not to worry about that. Everyone was going to get those. I first pointed to the roof and said, "We cannot put them up here." (There are good safety reasons for this. The place would need a new roof.) I explained why. 

Her response was, "But we could help you do that." Really? I very much doubt it.

I asked her where the money was coming from. "The government of course." And where does government money come from? That caused a slight hesitation and then, "Well some of it is our taxes but most of it comes from business."  Really?

Climate change? Her views on that were, as I expected, in keeping with the worst case scenario. No, greening the planet was not the answer. Trees are nice but you don't need them in the way you need housing.

And why do we need so much housing? Because everyone has the right to their own free standing home. Really? I tried to tell her that this is not how most people live but she still felt it was the right thing to try and achieve. After all, or so she informed me, we need to bring in at least another hundred thousand people a year over and above the (increased) numbers we are already bringing in.  Those people also have a "right" to live as they choose. They do not need to integrate because we are "multicultural". She genuinely could not see that as likely to cause any problems.

We stopped about there. We did not cover the "stolen" land issue or the other issues of concern regarding "indigenous culture" and "first nations" people. I could be almost certain of her thinking on those issues.

Or is she thinking at all? I am sure she regards herself as politically well informed. In reality she has very little idea of how complex many of these issues are. I doubt she would believe anyone if they tried to tell her. I suppose it makes her the perfect political devotee of her chosen party.  

 

"Is it all right not to like someone?"

a strange child asked me yesterday. He was standing there glaring at someone who had just walked off quickly.

"You don't have to like everyone," I responded. We were outside the shopping centre. The place where I park my trike is also used by people to tie up their dogs. The child, a boy of about nine, was standing there next to a dog of indeterminate breed but determinedly friendly nature.

Dog and I said hello to one another and the child said, "I like you because you talk to my dog."

"I like talking to dogs. They talk back to you."

"Yes they do but that man doesn't like dogs. He was rude about Ben and rude to me. He said dogs like Ben should be put down and put down means killed. He said they were no use for anything but Ben is useful"

I was soon told about the way Ben kept this child's grandfather company after the death of the child's grandmother. Apparently, "They go everywhere together except inside places like this where you aren't allowed."

This child was, rightly, upset. The dog was securely tied to the railing and doing no harm to anyone. He was not barking or making a nuisance of himself. The child claimed he had not said anything to the man who made the comments and I believe him. He was one of those "nice" children you instantly feel warm towards. His relationship with the dog was excellent.

I like dogs I suppose. I tend to talk to them when I see them. If they are tied up where my trike is tied up then we might have a conversation of sorts. There are dogs I know quite well. I know some better than I know their owners. I am sure there are people who think I am odd because I talk to dogs. I talk to cats too. It just seems to be the right thing to do. We have no idea how much they understand but I suspect it is more than we recognise. 

So is it all right not to like some people? I considered this as the milk I had just bought was in danger of curdling before I managed to get it into the fridge. The child wanted an answer to this question.

"Yes," I told him, "It is perfectly all right not to like someone. You don't have to like everyone. It needn't stop you being polite and I am sure you were. There are people I don't like either but I know the people I like usually like animals."

The child nodded and then said, "I won't tell Grandpa what happened then."

A tail thumped in agreement.