No, it was not a "landslide"

even though the result was largely as expected. 

As I am writing this the results of the state election are being analysed and discussed and argued...and more. There is a claim that the winning party won "by a landslide". 

That is wrong. They managed to get 39.1% of the first preference vote at the last count. It means that almost four in ten people wanted them before any other party. After that they had to rely on the second or third preferences or more. In other words people were put in a position where, like it or not, they had to choose another candidate or candidates apart from their first choice. 

Yes, some of you will be tired to death of me saying that yet again. You may even stop reading the blog. Some of you will tell me "it's fairer than first past the post" or "it is fairer than any other system". No, it isn't. It is no more or less fair. It is simply the electoral system we are stuck with. 

What I want to say here however is that the way the media is portraying all of this is a problem. It is not educating people about the way the system works. Is it their role to do this? That is another question.

Given that most adults in this country know almost nothing about actual politics and do not educate the young then it likely is the role of the media. They will not do it but perhaps they should. Of course the problem is that, in order to do it in a fair way, the media would need to be (and remain) apolitical at least while dealing with the topic of voting. It is not something they would find easy to do. Our ABC (the approximate equivalent of the BBC) is unashamedly left wing. If a more "conservative" government came in they may find there are demands to at least "be more inclusive" or "broaden their perspective". It is unlikely to happen. They have an agenda and intend to stick to it.

But they have at least raised the issue of the far right party abusing the preferential voting system in a way of which few people are aware. They were almost encouraging an "informal" vote which then, under arcane rules, requires the electoral commission to make decisions that may not be in accordance with a voter's intentions. If ever there was a reason for a review of our electoral system then this must be it.  

 

Church bells may not be

rung on Sundays.  The "adhan" is allowed five times a day.

Some years ago one of our local churches was ordered by a court to cease ringing the church bell on Sunday mornings. It had been rung ever since the church had been built. It had been rung for three minutes before the mid-morning Sunday service and for funerals. 

The reason it was ordered to cease ringing the bell was because a young couple had bought a house in the square in which the church stands. They found the bell annoying. It interfered with their ability to sleep in on a Sunday morning. Their right to peace and quiet on a Sunday morning was seen to be greater than the right to remind people it was time for the Sunday morning service. 

The young couple had bought the house knowing that the bell would be rung on Sunday mornings but they proceeded anyway. The court ruled in their favour.

It was a decision which still causes concern today. I believe it was the wrong decision. The bell may well have been an irritant but it was doing no harm. Even more than that the young couple knew and could have avoided the problem by buying a house elsewhere. (At the time this would have been very possible.) 

The polling booth at which I voted is opposite that church and someone I know reminded me of the story as I was leaving. They went on to say, "I wonder what would have happened if it had been a mosque and they had that prayer thing." It was an interesting idea. What would have happened if it had been a mosque and the adhan had been called five times a day?

My guess, and I am certain I would be right, is that the mosque goers would have won. They would certainly win now. There would be absolutely no question about that. No court in this country would rule against such a practice. 

The adhan does not bother me. I would probably cease to notice it if I lived near a mosque. I am far more bothered by the recent public gatherings and displays of "prayer" by Muslims. Christians have been prevented from praying in public spaces - and not just outside abortion clinics. I am certain if a large group of Christians descended on one of the squares in the CBD and started to disrupt traffic, even just pedestrian traffic, with prayer they would be held to be a "public nuisance" and moved on. When Muslims do it we are asked to move around them. There is no reason for either group to do such a thing but it seems we must view such acts differently according to the beliefs of those committing them.

I am aware of what recently happened in another state. I am aware that our Prime Minister and one of his Ministers were "invited" to Eid prayers at a mosque. I am aware they went although I believe they should have found excuses not to go. I am aware that a British MP is in hot water for expressing concern about a public display of "faith" for Eid. I also believe it is likely that any attempt by Christians to do the same sort of thing on Good Friday would be blocked.

There are double standards here. Muslim extremists are demanding and getting the "right" to make public displays of their faith. Christians are being told that any sort of public display of their faith at Christmas or Easter is not acceptable. Schools provide "prayer rooms" for Muslims but not chapels for Christians or temples for Buddhists. 

I remember going  to the loo on the plane to England last year. I had to step around a man kneeling on a prayer mat. He still had to shift. He glared at me. He was blocking access to the facilities and obviously believed his right to pray was greater than my access to bathroom facilities. I find it hard to believe that any higher being actually requires me to avoid going to the loo just so someone else can perform a ritual five times a day. 

Perhaps we need to start asking, "Who is being controlled here, who is doing the controlling, why and what do they hope to get from it?" 

  

No, they are not "autistic"

and it is time to stop saying they are.

I refer you to those people who would once have been labelled "a bit eccentric". They functionally perfectly well in society. They may have traits which irritate or annoy you but they are not "autistic". 

I know I have said similar things elsewhere but I will say them again. It is important people know the difference. 

There is a vast difference between someone who does not relate to other people, is not toilet trained, cannot feed themselves, is frequently destructive, cannot entertain themselves at all and has no means of any form of communication and a person who has the ability to hold down any sort of job in open employment. The latter person may not be able to read or write or they may have a doctorate in organic chemistry or physics. They may appear to be "a bit odd", "strange", "not exactly shy but not very sociable", "obsessive" or a range of other things others (who do not share those traits) find uncomfortable. It does not make them "autistic". 

Once upon a long time ago these people would almost certainly have been considered "normal". Now apparently they need to be labelled. They need to be given a "condition".  

It is rather like "high blood pressure" and "cholesterol". The "acceptable" readings for those things have been lowered over time. I did a little research about that. In the 1940's an "acceptable" reading for a fifty year old was apparently 190/50. In the 1950s it had gone down to 180/100. By the 1960's it had gone down to 160/95. In 1970 it had gone down still further to 140/90. I will stop the history there and say that an "acceptable" level now, according to my doctor, is "no more than 120/80".  Cholesterol readings show a similar sort of pattern. If we do not reach these levels then we apparently need to be medicated.  

What you believe about these things and how you handle them is entirely your affair. Is it however a similar story with human behaviour? Have our ideas about what is acceptable, what we can tolerate in the behaviour of others changed? 

I think it might have. The "fidgety" child in the classroom has now been diagnosed with "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" or ADHD.  Does that child really have a disorder or do they need a different level of before school activity and a breakfast consisting of good quality fuel and not sugar laden cereal? Do they need to have walked or run to school and then spent time running around the playground? Is their friend who appears to be failing to pay attention and constantly wandering around doing so for some external reason? Might it possibly be one related to modern technology or a means of gaining attention in a world where  parents are too busy to care? Is something wrong at home? 

Is there a possibility, as I have said elsewhere, that the classroom is the problem? The child really is "normal" (whatever that is) but the way the classroom is set up and run is not one which provides the best learning outcomes? Is it actually providing the best learning outcomes for any child? Might there be reasons for the "drop in standards" which actually have nothing to do with the child(ren) and everything to do with the way we expect them to learn?  

I might be wrong but I am not sure medication is the answer to everything.  I would like to see some changes in the education policies of the party which will get re-elected today. Unfortunately it is likely to be more of the same policies which I suspect are not working.  

I voted yesterday

and it is something I am told I am required to do. What the law really says is that I must "attend" and "mark" the papers. In other words I must turn up, take the papers handed to me and make some sort of mark on them before folding them up and putting them in the relevant boxes.

Actually mine when into an envelope because I made a "declaration" vote outside my electorate. This was because the electoral boundaries were changed after the last election and I am now in a new electorate.  Getting to the next available early polling station would have meant a long pedal there and back.  Going on polling day would have meant standing in a queue. I am not good at standing in queues. 

This actually annoys me a little because questions do need to be asked how the electoral boundaries get changed. The Electoral Commission is supposed to oversee this being done in a "fair" manner. The reality is that it sometimes leads to changes that are not sensible.  My old electorate and my new one were once divided by a major road. People knew that one side was X electorate and the other side was Y electorate. That has changed. There is a wiggly line that ends at the end of the street I now live in.  I heard one of the candidates trying to patiently explain to someone that no that person could not vote for him. He does not live in the electorate the candidate is standing for even though he has previously "lived in that electorate all his life". Quite possibly he has too. It is a long time since it would have affected that particular person. I know where he lives.

I know enough about early polling stations to know timing is important if you want to avoid a queue and I did avoid any sort of queue. I was in and out very quickly...and I voted. I voted properly. I did not just fill out the ballot papers according to what any party told me to do. I had thought about my choices. I know my first choice of candidate is almost certainly going to lose but in reality she is the better choice. Her only serious rival, another female, will simply do as she is told.  Yes, I know them both by reputation.

I left wondering how many people will actually vote at this election. They will go along and fill out their ballot papers and believe they have voted. The majority of them will "vote" according to the way they have voted all their lives. They will have no idea what the party policies are. "Why bother?" and "Nothing will change" are the way many of them will approach the problem.  It is not voting. It is simply marking boxes and doing it in a "what's in it for me" way. 

Am I feeling concerned about the almost certain result? Yes. This is not how democracy is supposed to work.  

So what language are you learning at school?

It should be a serious question. 

My attention was drawn to an article in the Spectator. Punjabi parents are apparently asking their children be taught Punjabi at school. 

My nephews went to "Greek school" on Saturday mornings - and hated it. I taught a child who was profoundly physically disabled and unable to speak. He wanted to go to Greek school like his brother and his brother admitted it was the only reason he liked going as well. (The child I taught can read both Greek and English now.) 

My goddaughter objected so strongly to learning Chinese that her mother eventually ceased trying.  She has had to try and learn Chinese as an adult pursuing a profession because it is essential in Singapore.

Children who go to school in an English speaking country are probably fortunate they are learning in one of the most difficult of all languages. Their linguistic achievements however will almost certainly be lower than a child who learns English as a second language or a foreign language. 

But which other language should you learn apart from English? It is an easy question and a difficult one. It is often easy for a child whose family speaks another language at home. They may already have some of the basics. There will often be good family, social and cultural reasons to learn such a language, even a "minority" language. 

We "teach a language" in junior primary and primary years here. The most common ones in this state are languages like Chinese or  Japanese, Italian,  Greek or perhaps French. It depends on who is available to teach and how fluent they are. The classes are concerned as much about "culture" as they are about the actual language. The result is that children really learn very little.  In high school they are faced with the same issue. They may not even be able to continue with the language they were supposedly taught in primary school.  More likely than not their teacher will not be a native speaker of the language.  They might get five forty-five minute lessons a week if they are lucky. You will learn very little Chinese or Japanese in that time and not much more Italian or French or Vietnamese.  We are told that Asian languages are important (and they are) but the reality is they are often badly taught in school. The head of an Asian studies department told me he would prefer to have students who had never studied the language they were there to study. They could start from scratch and not have to "unlearn" so much.

Part of the problem here is the insistence on being "multi-cultural". That sounds fine until you get a very small minority group demanding "their" language be taught so they do not "lose their culture". It cannot be done. There are more than eighty languages spoken at home in this country.  The SBS caters for all of them to some extent. It is an incredibly expensive exercise. 

There are about 240,000 speakers of Punjabi here. It is the fifth most spoken language in the country. That said there are only 20,000 in this state. How do you cater for their children? Is it the most important second language for them to learn? 

There are around 2,200 speakers of Pitjatjantjara in this state. A great deal of money is spent teaching the even smaller number of children who speak it. We are told this is essential so as to retain their culture and keep the language alive. It brings with it as many problems as it does benefits. Punjabi has a stronger case in terms of numbers but trying to suggest one language should be retained and another be given resources to expand is much more complex. 

It might help if we first really taught English in school - just so we can actually speak to each other.  

 

 

  

There was another suicide

over the weekend. This was before the Reserve Bank raised the interest rate yet again. 

I wonder how many more there will be in the coming weeks because people can see no way out of a financial mess created by weather, by rising production prices and falling market prices. How many will be caused by problems over which people had no control but feel they can no longer handle? 

Suicide is more common in rural areas than city dwellers are usually aware of. If it happens in a sparsely populated area it is much more likely that it will be someone known to you, perhaps very well known indeed. 

It sounds so obvious writing that but it is also true.  When it is someone you know it is frightening. It stays with you for weeks, for months...perhaps for the rest of your life. If you are very close to it the incident remains etched in your mind. You do not forget the details.

I tried to explain this to someone recently. They could not see why the problem of rural suicides was any greater than a suicide in the city. Cities can be lonely places too, very lonely. 

In a small rural community however it is likely that "everyone" will know you. There is no hiding many things city dwellers can keep quiet. Your marital relations, you financial circumstances, the state of your health, whether you have been caught wrongdoing, who you argued with and much more are all there being scrutinised. People generally just shrug and accept these things. It is part of living in a rural area. 

Life in rural areas is hard. Farming is not easy. It is a lonely occupation. Much of your day will be spent alone. Increased mechanisation and the gradual amalgamation of farms into one large unit may seem more efficient but it has increased the sense of isolation. The distances which need to be travelled have increased. You don't simply "hop in the car and go into town". You plan to go at certain times. You need more anti-depressants. Is the medical clinic open then? Will the seed you ordered be available? How are you going to pay for it?  Is the only JP available so you can get your signature witnessed on the papers which will extend the loan repayments yet again? Will there be enough money available to buy the fuel essential to keep the machinery running? You look at the sky and wonder when you will next see a rain cloud.

When we lived in one of the smallest such places there was the "footy" or cricket on Saturdays. People would travel many miles to get to a match. It was a social event. It would be followed by the "footy tea" and the "dance" accompanied by someone playing on an out of tune piano in the community hall. The men would drink beer and the women would do most of the work. Children would run around outside late into the night until they were called for the long drive home. Sundays were much more serious. People came to church. It was the time of the week when you stood around afterwards and talked about problems, issues and who was doing what and how well. You arranged the harvesting with your neighbours and worked out in which order the farms would get the shearers in. If someone needed extra help then it would often be organised then. It didn't stop all suicides but it must have prevented some.

I wonder what happens now. Is there still some of that sense of community? I wonder if it has gone along with the smaller farms and the advent of the internet (accessed by satellite) and the ever increasing costs of power and fuel.

The suicide over the last weekend will go down as an "accident" but the person who spoke to me told me, "We all know what it really was...and it was just too much for him."   

School "refusal" or refusing

to go to school is apparently a big issue now.

Our state newspaper has been running a series on "neuro-divergent" children. There have been stories about children with "autism" and "ADHD". There have been stories about "anxiety" and "school refusal" and more.

I have read all these with a growing sense of bewilderment. Are there really so many children out there with these problems? At very least, are there so many children out there with these problems that they all need specialist attention at great expense?

I tried to find some information about a school I visited during my teacher training. It was a state run primary school. It was an experiment in "progressive" education. I am not sure how long it lasted. It is unlikely it lasted very long at all. 

The idea was that all the students would "progress at their own pace". They were given work sheets to complete. Some teaching was done of course but it was done in small groups. Teachers were "monitoring" the progress of each child and giving them "extra help" where needed.

The Senior Cat knew the headmaster of that school of course. It was not too far away from the school he was responsible for. The two schools were almost exactly the same size and social mix. I know the Senior Cat had his own concerns at the time - more of that in a moment - but they were nothing compared with his concerns about what was happening in the other school.

It was chaos. It was not the sort of "organised chaos" which can occur in some settings where people know what the outcomes should be and have the experience to work towards them. What was happening in this school was just chaos.

There were children constantly moving all over the place. Some of them were working but others were not. Of those who were working there were children who appeared to know what to do and others who looked anxious. I remember one child sitting in a far corner, hands over ears and a frown on her face as she tried to read an assignment sheet.  There was a teacher who told a child, "You need to do a maths sheet. You haven't done any today and I don't think you did any yesterday." 

Above all else it was noisy, far too noisy. Some people can work against noise and others cannot but there are certain types of noise and this was not the sort which is conducive to learning at all. 

I have no idea how long the experiment lasted. The school has an entirely different focus now but I cannot believe many of those who attended it at the time look back on it with delight and I wonder what their parents felt then and now. 

The Senior Cat had been transferred to his own school the year before this. It had one of the new "open space" units. This meant having three or four teachers and classes in one open space. The students in these were supposed to benefit from being able to move from one year level to another as their ability demanded. They were supposed to be able to be taught as one big group or in smaller groups. There were supposed social benefits and more. 

I recently met the man who was the Senior Cat's deputy at the time and he reminded me of how concerned they both were by this unit. It simply did not work the way the theory said it should work. They were told it was the "policy" and it had to continue to function but both of them knew that it was not working. It was too big. There were too many distractions. Children got "lost" there as other children demanded more attention. 

In other parts of the school, not run on the "open plan" unit teachers had done what they believed to be "right". The children were sitting in groups. They did not always face the front of the room. Some had to twist around to see and hear their teacher. 

It still happens in some places but the teachers under the Senior Cat 

voiced their concerns. As far as possible they went back to the old style "in rows facing the blackboard" - or a horseshoe shape. They did it because that is what, for most of the time, actually worked well.

The open plan unit soon had divisions up so that the classes were separate. The divisions, built by several parents, could come down occasionally for group activities but teaching and learning took place in old style class groups.  The low reading standards rose to acceptable levels. There were still issues with "new maths" but every other area was improving. Behaviour was improving too.

I have no idea what sort or report the school inspectors gave the other school but I had a "proud daughter" moment when the Senior Cat was highly praised at a conference of teachers of those with special educational needs. Everything being said and done for children with special needs had been turned on its head - and it worked. 

 

---

Three more "asylum" seekers have now

"decided to return home".

No, they have not. They are going because they must. Their families are already in custody and they have been told those same families will not be released until they do return. Even then there is no guarantee their families will not be "punished" for the actions of the Iranian women's football team. 

Just imagine yourself for a moment. You are a member of sporting team. That is one thing. You are good enough for it to be the "national" team. That is another thing. You are sent abroad to represent your country. That is yet another thing.

Someone made the decision that you should not sing your national anthem at an event. It was not you who made that decision but you are told you must abide by it. You really do not have a choice. You do what you are told to do. You do it because you have been told over and over again what a huge privilege it is to represent your country abroad. You do it because you have been told how much money has been spent on getting you there. 

In a country where many women would not even be permitted to play a sport all that would matter. It would matter more than the rest of us can hope to understand. 

When you have done as you were told to do then you are told there is a problem. You should not have done that and the people who really have control over you are angry. You really should not be going home at all. Your hosts offer you a safe place to stay. It sounds good. You accept the offer only to be told by your home country that you had better get home quick smart or your family will be punished for your outrageous behaviour.

Five of those seeking asylum have now "changed their minds". The others may now do the same. They will have been told their families will not be punished, that they will get no more than a dressing down, that "everything will end up being all right". 

So far there have been no happy pictures of the players being reunited with their families. Need I say more? 

So how do you meet your soulmate

these days?

I was thinking about this yesterday because of an unexpected visitor. This morning there is a "policy" being put forward by the present state government (which will be returned at the election next weekend) saying they will "ban" anyone convicted of domestic violence from "dating apps" for at least ten years. Apparently that will help to prevent at least some domestic violence because a third of victims meet their aggressors via a dating app.

Will it actually prevent anything like that? I rather doubt it. 

But my unexpected visitor was one of my nephews. He has just moved back to this state after a many years long stint in another state. His work is now based here and in yet another state. He will travel between the two on a regular basis. He is leaving behind his "girlfriend". I have not inquired about any of this. It is not my business. The "girlfriend" has just acquired a tiny kitten though and that has made me wonder.

My nephew already has two cats, both of them rescued from other people not caring for them. He is very much a "cat person" but I doubt he would be ready for a third cat and girlfriend to move in when he is settling in to a new and very demanding work role. The rest of us will just have to wait and see. 

But as I thought about this I also wondered at how my nephew had met this girl. He was in a role which meant he was working far more than a forty hour week. He was in a city where he had not grown up. He knew nobody apart from the mate he first stayed with on his arrival. So, how do you meet the girls? 

It seems you do meet them on a dating app these days. My generation met them at school and then at further education locations or out in the workforce or at sport. There were still youth clubs at church (and some of us still went to church.) We had often known one another for years before the first "date" as a couple rather than as a group. It was much the same for our parents' generation. The Senior Cat's Presbyterian Fellowship group was known as "the marriage bureau"! 

I met my late fiancé through a friend at university. It was the same for many of my friends at the time. We usually knew people at least a little before we agreed to go out together as just a couple. Now it seems people are warned to meet someone new in a public place "just in case". How much can you really know about someone when you meet them like that?

I wonder how well that proposed "ban" will work if this is really how people meet each other now. It says a great deal about the way in which how people entertain themselves has changed too. I suppose, apart from sport, my generation went to "the pictures" and the occasional concert on a Friday or Saturday night. They "hung out" in groups, perhaps with a record player and some "45s". Some of them indulged in a beer or two. Too many of them smoked and a very few tried "weed" or "acid" but it was not the problem it is now. There was still a bit of "let's do a theatre production" but it was growing less even while we were still largely entertaining ourselves. It was not as common as it was in the Senior Cat's generation but it was still there.

I know there must still be some of that around but it is not as common. Even if you do go out as a group on a Saturday night it is not the same sort of experience. It seems you head off to a venue which serves up alcohol, drugs and "live music". Someone else "entertains" you. It's different but is it better?

I wonder what will happen between my nephew and his girlfriend. Will the relationship survive physical separation - and yet another cat? 

Three of our Senators are claiming

racism is rife in our federal parliament. They are apparently so concerned about this they have come together to pen a letter of complaint.

One of the three is an immigrant from Afghanistan. Another is an immigrant from Pakistan. The third identifies as Aboriginal.

In Afghanistan the first would not even be able to leave the house unescorted by a male. Here she is free to wear a hijab in the chamber and does so. There are also some doubts about her eligibility to be a Senator here as she may not have fully renounced her citizenship of Afghanistan. No, it may not be entirely her own fault given the situation there but the matter has not been resolved in the manner it should have been resolved. It has certainly not been given the same attention others with problems relating to dual nationality have found it to be given.

The second would also find her life in Pakistan very different from her life here. She would certainly not be as free there as she is here. In the chamber she has been permitted to make a highly political statement in her manner of dress by wearing a keffiyeh.  

The third appears to be the only Aboriginal person in her family. Her parents do not claim to be Aboriginal. They merely think a distant ancestor "might have been"from the tribes from which the Senator claims to be descended. It has not prevented her from claiming a very full indigenous heritage and being bullied at school because she was "blak".

These three women are apparently under constant racial attack, so much so they feel the need to make a public issue of it. I, and no doubt many others, had no idea that "racism" was so widespread or so bad in this country. 

Yes, of course racism exists here. It exists in all groups where people have varied heritage. There will always be people who think less of someone because of who their parents or their grandparents or someone in their direct line of ancestry was or is now. The idea that it exists in our national parliament to the degree described by these three women surprises me and I doubt it. If it does then I suspect much of it is of their own making.   

The departure of the national security

expert Dennis Richardson from the Royal Commission into anti-semitism is a matter for alarm. It should not have happened.

He was originally appointed to run a different inquiry within the government. When the Royal Commission was set up he was moved to that instead. That is where the problems really began. 

He could have been and should have been as one of the Commissioners.  Instead we have just one Commissioner, the former High Court judge Virginia Bell.  

Yes, she is considered to be an experienced and highly respected judge. Yes, she knows far more law than I and most people will ever know. The problem is that she does not know, cannot know, about  national security and intelligence gathering in the way that Dennis Richardson knows. Quite possibly he knows more than anyone else in the country but he has resigned. He says he felt as if he was a "researcher, leading a team of researchers" and a "fifth wheel".

The problem with all this is not simply that the Royal Commission is losing his knowledge but that it will hamper the entire functioning of the Royal Commission. There are questions which need to be asked of those responsible for security issues and for intelligence gathering if the Royal Commission is to uncover the failures, the weaknesses and the influences on it. 

There will also be people appearing in front of it who will not be sure of what they are actually permitted to answer on national security grounds. Richardson's presence there would have been reassuring. They and Justice Bell could have referred to him, indeed would have needed to refer to him. There is information which will not go to the Royal Commission because of the terms of reference but it is possible that Dennis Richardson's presence there might still have helped. 

This is of course what the government was hoping for. Their apparent reluctance to hold a Royal Commission in the first place was carefully managed politics. The terms of reference are intended to prevent an investigation of the real issues of concern, particularly those in seats the government now holds. These are the things which do need to be investigated. It will be interesting to see how much pressure is now exerted on Richardson to return. I suspect the government is happy to see him gone. 

Cultural literacy or There are limits to my tolerance

for "multiculturalism". That has quite possibly been very evident of late but the idea that a young child can be accused of some sort of cultural insensitivity because they draw a picture of their mother or their father is absurd.

As I said here some little while ago I was "asked" not to drink water in front of a young Muslim boy recently. I was at the railway station. It was a hot day. Children are not expected to "fast" for Ramadan but he apparently was.  I didn't actually need to make a decision about whether to "offend" or not because the train came in.

But this is not a Muslim country. I do not have to cover my head at all times. I could eat pork if I wanted to eat pork. I don't eat pork but I could if I wanted to do so. I could own a dog. I am friends with Jews and Sikhs and Hindus and Buddhists. I have a friend who plays cello in a symphony orchestra and have been to the concerts of that orchestra. I can write a letter to the editor and nine times out of ten it will be published. I recognise "free speech" has limits but it is there and will remain there if it is not abused. In the next two weeks I will vote in our state election because I have passed the age of twenty-one (now eighteen). 

There is a vast difference between my life and the life of women in not just Iran but other majority Muslim countries. At the same time I am being told I need to "accept", "be tolerant", "understand" and more when they wish to bring in restrictions on those things into this country. It may be that I do not need to abide by those things, although they would prefer me to do just that, but I do need to accept those things.

And now it seems that here, just as they trying elsewhere, I need to accept that children need to be "taught" that they cannot do what is deemed to be "offensive" to a belief system they have no part in. It seems we need to restrict their learning of our cultural literacy. Our cultural literacy is extraordinarily rich and diverse. It has taken in so much from everywhere and given back as well. All this apparently no longer matters. It matters more that others are not "offended".

Well, be offended. Be offended because failure to learn our cultural literacy and, with it, the capacity to understand the cultural literacies of others will lead to stagnation.  

No, it is not "safe"

and you will spend the rest of your lives looking over your shoulders. You will always be waiting for the tap on the shoulder and the "we know what you did" and "traitor" and more.

My days at teacher training college were mostly quiet. We did not go out and protest. We did not have much opportunity to do that. It is not that we were particularly hard working or that the course required long hours of us. (Looking back it was appallingly low level.) We were surrounded by people much the same as ourselves. Most of us had English, Scots, Irish, Greek, Italian, German, Dutch surnames (you get the picture I am sure). There were no hijabs or turbans in sight. 

University was different. I was in another country on the other side of the world. I mixed with students from Africa, from Asia, from the Middle East and the West Indies. It was suddenly and shockingly much more interesting.  It was still not that diverse in the sense we were all there studying aspects of education and psychology. There was still no "protesting" of any serious sort. I was the elected "student representative" who went to the staff meetings (and still wonder how I have not died of lung cancer from all the secondhand cigarette smoke). I went on to be more than that but was still largely unaware of something that was starting to come in.

It was at Law School where I lived in a hall of residence and tutored at the same time that I became aware of "issues" with the Asian and Middle Eastern students. At first I was naive enough to believe I was mistaken but it soon became obvious. Those students were being watched. They were being watched all the time. 

Yes, it was subtle I suppose. It was the apparently "casual" greetings and the apparently "casual" questions about results. Sometimes it would be outright questions about where someone had been or where they were going. Who had they been with? Why? What were they saying? What did you say?

I was confronted once by a male student demanding to know if a friend of mine removed her hijab inside the group house she lived in. There had been a male visitor, an elderly relative of another girl.  He would apparently have been "very distressed" to have this happen. Was I also supposed to cover my head? Yes apparently...and "dress modestly" in the presence of such elderly men. 

No, it is not a myth. There are students who are "spying" on other students. They are ensuring the "rules" are kept, that Ramadan is observed and students go to the prayer rooms. It does not happen to all of them but it happens to enough of them to add another layer of stress. Break the rules and, at best, you will find your career opportunities are limited on your return home. Your family, if they are not already the perpetrators, will suffer too.

So please do not think it will be easy for the Iranian girls who have decided to stay. They will know their families will suffer. They will be told they are "traitors" and that they are "selfish" and that they are disobeying what their religion demands of them. It is not going to be easy for them. They will be waiting for the rest of their lives.  

  

The Iranian women's football team

is currently stuck in a hotel in another state. They cannot go anywhere right now. 

If they could fly home then they would likely already be gone. They would be home but without any great fanfare. I do not know if they won any matches because I have no interest in such things but I do know they must have lost somewhere along the line as they are now out of whatever competition is taking place.

The reason I am taking an interest in them is something quite different. They made headlines because they refused to sing their national anthem at the first match. Their country was being bombed. 

Why weren't they singing? We don't actually know. There might be more than one reason for that. I do know I would not feel much like singing anything if I was abroad and my country (or one of them) was being attacked.

People who know me will also know that I have no time at all for the "national anthem" of this country. Of course it is no longer "God Save the Queen (now King)  It is instead perhaps the least musical anthem I know. It sounds like a dirge. I do not know anyone who knows all the words. The words were changed a while back so that they were "less offensive" and "more inclusive" but it makes no difference. Many people simply have no idea what the words are and some cannot even recognise it. Is it a source of "pride"? I wonder. 

I would not recognise the national anthem of Iran. It is not mine. There is no reason I should but I wonder how the team feels about it? How do they feel about what is happening to their country? They are more fortunate perhaps than the women of Afghanistan in that they are playing sport. Their faces can be seen but they still have to cover their heads and women from there have said they feel the restrictions on them would be even greater if their "Supreme Leader" had his way. They still feel pride in their country, or at least what their country has been and may yet be. It is a country with an extraordinary cultural history and to lose more of it would be a catastrophe for them and for the world.

So, do we give the team asylum if they ask for it? Do we offer them temporary protection? Certainly they can go nowhere at present and they cannot be left in a hotel forever. What other skills would they have to offer if given protection here or would they be a "drain" on the economy? 

Compare them with the "ISIS brides" seeking to return here? That is another question.

I am glad I am not working for the Department of Foreign Affairs right now. There are some serious issues to be sorted out.  

"It's illegal"

and "he shouldn't be doing it" and "they were already going to give him what he wanted..."

Yes, I suspect everyone reading this will have heard those sort of comments about the actions of the "leader of the free world". How dare he go ahead and bomb another country when they were surrendering????

Well, first of all it is probably not illegal. That does not make it right but it does not necessarily make it wrong in law either. It may not be morally right but is it illegal under "international law".

There is actually no such thing as "international law" in the sense that there is a group of principles everyone respects. It does not work that way. There are recognised international codes for things like shipping and aircraft. They are there for the protection not of the other party but for ourselves. We obey them because nobody wants a very expensive aircraft or shipping vessel to be harmed. It would cost us something. Doing harm to someone else's ships or planes is just something to be shrugged at. Too bad. They got in the way. 

So, no the President is not acting illegally but he still should not be doing it. Whether the other side was going to give him what he wanted is another story altogether. We simply do not know that. There is another major party involved and they would have wanted a lot. Who can blame them? They have been under attack for years - and under attack in more ways than most of us care to recognise. Whether you agree with it being there or not Israel exists. The vast majority of people who live there are willing to live in harmony with their surrounding neighbours. Lebanon exists in much the same way. They have no desire to be at war with Israel. 

It's the gangs in between. The small groups of bullies in the school yard, Hamas and Hezbollah. They want the playground to themselves - and then they will probably end up fighting one another. 

I suppose that is one way of looking at it. Right now I look at Iran and think that this is not the right way to go about it. There is no effective opposition in Iran. If you start bombing people then you might find that the people who were afraid of  and even loathed their headmaster or their Supreme Leader might just start to seek his support. They will not choose a new leader. They are in no position to do that. It is just possible they may end up being even worse off... and no, the bully who is happily throwing stones in the school yard right now has no right at all to dictate who the next headmaster of the school or the leader of the country will be. 

It is not, as some seem to think, a simple matter of "this is illegal so make them stop". The idea that "they" might have been willing to give up their weapons and never have them again is unlikely but were they prepared to give in for now? If they were then it might have been possible to start some negotiations which would have led to peace in the playground for some time to come. We have lost that opportunity.  

My mother relied on her elbow for weather

forecasts. A later farmer friend B... relied on licking his thumb and holding it up to the west of where he was standing. Yesterday a friend who worked in agricultural research looked up at the sky and said, "Cloudy tomorrow." (It was clear blue at the time.)

My mother claimed her elbow would ache when the weather changed. She had broken it many years before and "just knew". In reality she was one of those people who was aware of the environment around her. The farmer was of course doing more than licking his thumb. He had been observing the weather since early childhood. He was, perhaps unconsciously, aware of many things that told him what was likely to happen. The researcher was the same. He had spent thousands of hours out among the fields, the paddocks, the gardens and more. Experience told all of them more than a range of machines in a weather forecasting bureau can do. 

I write this because our Bureau of Meteorology is failing farmers. The old farmers still know but their sons and grandsons no longer know. They have been relying on the BOM to tell them...and the BOM is failing. The BOM is struggling to get even the forecast for the next week correct.

I remember the empty desks at school at harvest time. The boys were at home helping to bring in the wheat harvest. There would be a forecast change in the weather which made it urgent to get the wheat in. The farmers would work through the night helping one another where they could. Now it is apparently all mechanised and it is a lonely business sitting in an air conditioned cabin bringing in a crop which has been grown to standards demanded by an organisation somewhere in the far distant city. Is the crop "organic", is it "genetically modified" and "does it conform to all the regulations"? 

As a very young kitten I ate bread made from flour grown in the fields of wheat and barley and oats around me. I knew how it grew. I saw it harvested and I went more than once to the mill where it was processed. I knew the miller and the baker and where my porridge oats came from. 

I didn't know about the weather but I spent most of my waking hours out of doors. Every other small child did the same. It was where it was expected we would spend our time unless it was very wet or very cold. Did we learn from this? Perhaps we did. If I had remained in that part of the world and gone on through childhood like I might also have managed to learn something about forecasting the weather to the level of the farmer or the researcher. 

Does it matter? I think it does. It is an old skill but it is one which needs to be revived. We need people with that curious "instinct" for the weather, the people who have learned to observe and read the world around them. They can do it without the expensive equipment which keeps failing farmers. You cannot build crop yields on the science which worships the gods of climate change. The weather and the climate are much more complex than that.   

So the "ban" is not working?

Did anyone seriously believe that all that had to happen was for the government to say, "We are banning under 16s from social media" and it would actually happen.

Did the government seriously believe that the companies owning social media would suddenly be "responsible" and put in place to make sure measures would be taken to implement the ban?

Did anyone seriously believe that those same under 16s would willingly give up social media and suddenly become good, law abiding little citizens?

Hmm,...then why is it that it is thought that only about thirty percent of those who were on social media platforms are now no longer on them? I would be surprised if even thirty percent of them were no longer on social media. They are simply those who are reporting they no longer spend much time there. For some of them it was probably a relief to get away from the time spent scrolling away but they are not in the majority.

The only real difference I have noticed is that the teens I know no longer do it so openly. They are not gathering around in their usual "hang outs" and laughing over video clips. They are doing it more cautiously.

"Big tech" as many people call it will not take responsibility for implementing the ban. They can put measures in place but this not alcohol or tobacco or other illegal substances which have an actual tangible presence. Yes, you can make people responsible for supplying those. Trying to make social media platforms responsible for a ban on something which is much less tangible is unrealistic. 

I recently went through the process of getting a new passport. In order to do this I had to provide a certain amount of information. I had to appear at a post office and get my photograph taken. My identity was checked against my old passport records and verified by the staff member at the post office. If I had done it all on line my identity would still have been verified by someone else who had physically seen me and could verify they knew me. This is the government at work making sure I am the person I say I am. It is not someone who prints the passports or a travel company providing me with a ticket to travel.

We have set about this the wrong way if we want to stop teens using social media. It is not the role of the companies to do this. It is the role of those who are responsible for the under 16s, parents and teachers for the most part. 

Parents allowing a child access to social media have to be held responsible for harm done, so do teachers while a child is at school.  Yes, difficult but it does not make it the problem  or the responsibility of the social media giants.  

Apparently all the following are responsible

 for the economic woes, particularly inflation, we are experiencing in this country.

The first one is those "talking the economy down". Apparently mere mention of anything negative will do it. 

Then there is Vladimir Putin. Well yes, the war in Ukraine and his territorial ambitions there and elsewhere do have to be paid for by someone and apparently that is us. 

And his mate Donald Trump is apparently adding to our economic woes. There might be something in those tariffs I suppose but they are probably doing more harm elsewhere than here.

Follow that with a list of past Prime Ministers like Scott Morrison (who had Covid to deal with but let's not be too concerned about that) and Tony Abbott and John Howard and...now wait a moment Paul Keating? Yes, he is on the list. Was that for the "recession we had to have" and those double digit inflation rates? Of course the Coalition is to blame and let's throw the former RBA Governor into the mix. What did Philip Lowe do for the economy through the Covid crisis and more?

Then there is that nasty duopoly of supermarkets Coles and Woolworths and the corporations around them. Those four big banks are so naughty and the smaller ones are daring to go the same way... even when you said you wanted them to make some of those changes which disadvantage the rest of us but bring the money in. 

Oh now we get to the really big ones "climate change" is costing us so we have to go to the expense of "net zero" and that will cost us before the cost comes down - if it comes down at all. We do need to be prepared for the continued expenses there. Perhaps those greedy pensioners could help. They have worked all their lives but they should not be putting their hands out now. Like everyone else they spend too much, especially around Christmas time.

Let's not forget the cost of the nuclear power we do not have and the fossil fuels we get paid to send abroad. Perhaps we can make that red headed politician in the Senate responsible for those? The defence of the country is responsible for inflation too and private business is responsible for that along with what Treasury is doing and of course high speed rail and the "intergenerational inequity" which means the "next generation" does not own their own homes but perhaps you can blame the war veterans for insisting they need somewhere to live.

If  all that sounds absolutely ridiculous it is of course but it is a list of the reasons the present Federal Treasurer has given for the state of the economy in the past twelve months. Apparently the present government has absolutely nothing to do with the economic woes of the country. They have behaved in "fiscally responsible" manner at all times. 

If their behaviour is fiscally responsible then fiscally irresponsible behaviour is a never ending nightmare. I suggest they stop spending so much and bring in some measures that will allow us to bring in some much needed money. 

 

 

There is an election coming up!

Oh yes, we should be excited about this...or should we?

I was actually asked by a young neighbour about the state election which is due to take place on 21st March. She was holding a piece of election material in her hand and asked me,

"What is all this stuff we keep getting? Is it important?"

She looked genuinely confused so I told her and then said, "Go and look on line." More confusion appeared so I explained how to look for the policies of each party on line. 

Her response to that was, "But that's an awful lot of work."

Yes, it is. Democracy, even the most flimsy sort, requires work and most of us are too lazy to do anything about it. We just expect to be governed in a way we would like without working for it. This has been all too obvious lately. It appears there are a slew of young people who do not even recognise the current Premier, a man who is very capable at getting himself in front of a camera. I cannot help wondering what these young people, many about to vote for the first time in their lives, are interested in. It does not appear they have any interest in their futures.

One of the political diehards in the district is "very happy" with the current war in the Middle East. According to him it is diverting the bad news here away from the front pages. Yes, it probably is. The incumbents are predicted to be returned in a landslide, in a result that will not lead to the strong opposition they need.  It is no use pointing out to such diehards that it is the lack of an opposition in Iran that has permitted the "elders" to do so much harm. 

I probably have too much to say about politics in my witterings here but I often do it in an attempt to sort my own thoughts out. I try to be an "informed" voter but it can be difficult. Stated "policies" very often differ greatly from what is "possible" and putting "practice" into place can be even more difficult.

Perhaps I should just have told my young neighbour,"Just read those bits of paper. Which ideas do you like the most? Vote for that person." Is that enough?  

"Please don't drink in front of my child."

There are apparently a couple of short clips showing on line where Muslims who are fasting for Ramadan are asking other non-Muslims not to eat in front of them. There was apparently also a "tweet" asking what you would do if you were eating lunch on your lunch break and a Muslim asked you not to eat because they were fasting.

The answers were fairly predictable - and not always polite. 

I might have ignored it. I am well aware that "fasting" takes place between sunrise and sunset. After that Ramadan meals can be, and often are, quite elaborate. Very devout Muslims will not even take a sip of water before sunset but I know some who will drink water. I believe the idea is to focus your thoughts on others who are poor or simply less well off than yourself.

As an idea I really do not see much in it, not when elaborate meals can be had at other times of the day. I once lived in a university hall of residence where we self-catered. There were several Muslim students there and they observed the restrictions placed on them. Not to do so would have led to reports being made to others who could influence their eventual careers. When we had a group meal together we waited until sunset. I checked to see what I was providing was acceptable and asked one of the boys to get the required meat from the halal butcher they used. 

Yes, I will go that far. I do not want to deliberately make people feel uncomfortable in that sort of setting. I believe it is right to do that. It was a group event. If I wanted to participate then I abided by what was best for group cohesion. I did not have to believe, indeed informed them politely I did not.

It was, I believe, an entirely different set of circumstances from the incident at the railway station. It was a very hot day and I try to carry water with me when it is hot, particularly if I will be out for any length of time.  I was asked, quite politely I suppose, to move to the other end of the platform if I wanted to drink. I was asked this of a Muslim man who was there with his son, a boy of about ten or eleven. 

Children are not expected to fast but some boys do from about the age of that child. I don't know if he was fasting or whether his father simply did not want him to see someone who was not fasting. 

I suppose I was fortunate in that the boom gates started to lower as the request was made and the bells started to ring. I did not need to make a decision. It was a simple matter of put the water bottle in my bag and get ready to board the train.

What would I have done? I hope I would have said politely, "I am sorry if you find it offensive but I am not Muslim and I do not observe Ramadan. Most people in this country don't, nor are we required to do so. What is more I feel you should be those who move. I am a woman. I am older than you. I am also much less mobile. Women and those older are generally acknowledged and often still respected."

Right or wrong? I admit I wanted to lash out. I wanted to tell this man that he had absolutely no right to demand that of me. It is not like someone not to smoke a cigarette or drink alcohol in front of a child. 

I thought about "Lent" as the train moved off. There were a number of people in the carriage and I wondered if any of them were observing Lent. Were they "giving up chocolate" (it seems to be a favourite or "not eating meat" (as a friend who is a nun always does) or not having their usual glass of wine with an evening meal? Were they doing something else or nothing at all? Did they even go to church?  

We used to know nuns by their habit and priests by their "dog collars". Now most nuns I know (and I know a few) wear jeans and t-shirts. Unless officiating the priests I know (and again I know a few) wear untidier jeans and t-shirts. I can sometimes pick out a member of a particular religious sect here by the way they dress and I can guess at the Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists. None of them however demand that I behave as they behave.

You can't demand respect. 

Our Senate is supposed to act

as the "states' house" and as the safety valve on the pressure cooker which is parliament.

Its role as the states' house has long since given away to one divided by party politics. It seems now it is no longer acting as the safety valve either. Yesterday one fiery Senator walked out when censured for remarks about Muslims, another called the same Senator and those who support her party "the filth of this country" and a third gave what can only be described as a sermon about Ramadan.

These things should not be happening in the Senate, or indeed in the House of Representatives.  The fiery Senator is known for those sort of remarks. She has been making them since she entered politics. The fact she keeps being re-elected suggests that many of those in her home state agree with her views. Her party appears to be making inroads in other states as well. The upcoming election in this state will be a test of whether it can succeed in becoming a viable opposition rather than simply the holder of a handful of seats. If they do win more than one or two seats then the other major parties need to look at what it is people are saying they want and modifying those views so they become reasoned and workable policies. 

I am less concerned by that than the Senator who quit the party which helped elect her and has turned on it and everyone else. She is also being deliberately provocative and is much harder to touch, let alone censure. To do so would lead others open to accusations of "racism" because she makes much of her 3x great-grandmother being an indigenous person. Her family apparently feel differently but it is ground on which others tread very cautiously and, likely, with good cause. As an "independent" she may not get re-elected but 2028 is a long way off.

The other Senator is very conscious of being Muslim and makes sure others know it. She does not however wear the hijab in the chamber. Her views are also provocative in their own way. At every opportunity she will bring up issues relating to Muslims and the Islamic faith and the problems associated with, as she sees it, being Muslim in a country which does not follow Sharia law. Her speech in the Senate related to Ramadan and what it is claimed to mean and how it is observed. It was delivered as a sermon might be delivered in a church or a synagogue. Her intention was clear. She was intent on educating the Senate. That may be no bad thing in itself but if a Christian attempted to educate Senators about Lent or a Jew attempted to educate Senators about Pesach I am certain they would be censured. 

All this suggests the way our Senate is intended to function is being undermined. It is interesting that all three Senators participating in that yesterday are women...or should that be, identify as women? 

 

  

A bag of "smiles" can have

a remarkably calming effect on small children...and even bigger children.

Middle Cat and I spent yesterday helping a friend at a "fibre feast". It is an annual day run by our friend. It brings together people who make yarn, sell yarn, use yarn, play with yarn and need yarn related items. Local guilds and clubs can come along and advertise their groups and more. For the last few years it has been run in association with a "street fair" and there have been plenty of people going through.

This year we were worried because the street fair, held out of doors, was cancelled because of the weather. The fibre event was not so easily cancelled because some vendors come very long distances and had arranged their small businesses around the event. It went ahead and we think most people were very pleased by their sales.

Middle Cat and I were caring for the "information" stall. People can try out various sorts of knitting needles. Middle Cat talks to them about issues they might be having with their hands and shoulders and backs as crafters. I talk to them about other yarn related issues and problems and encourage them to try different needles and "ergonomic" hooks.  

As most people want to be there it is usually a very good day. There are children of course and I took along the remaining "smiley faces" we had made for the Christmas tree last year to hand out. They were a hit. 

The first one I gave away would have made the entire day worth the effort. The recipient was a tiny three year old who was more the size of a two year old. I had observed the hearing aids and the fact that her mother had signed something to her. She was very shy so I asked her mother if she thought her daughter might like to choose one.  Oh yes. she would undoubtedly like one. She was about to explain when I thought I could do it myself so I looked directly at the child and asked her, "Would you like one?" I signed "you" and "like" and "one" and her expression changed to one of disbelief. She looked at her mother for permission and then chose one and gave me a smile and the sign for "thank you" without being prompted. Her mother told me, "She has never done that with a stranger before." I was simply relieved to have been understood without intervention from her mother. 

After they had gone on a woman trying out a tiny circular needle looked at me and said,"That was huge for her wasn't it?"  Yes, perhaps it was but it should not be. More people need to know more signs. I really know very little, far too little. 

I also gave another smile face to a very obviously intellectually disabled adult. He was being coaxed around by his father as his mother chose some birthday gifts. "Knitting keeps my wife from going mad caring for him while I'm at work" I was told. His son could not choose one from the bag so we put out two, one in orange (his favourite colour) and another in purple. Told he could choose one produced a huge grin and when he indicated he wanted to wear it like a badge we found a safety pin and his father pinned it on. He went off with the same huge grin. 

Yes, the rest of the day was busy and we were very tired at the end of it but those two incidents made all the effort we put in worth it for me.    

Small schools are something

I do know something about. I started my schooling at one which had just four teachers. It was actually considered to be quite a large school in a rural area. 

I should not have been there at all really but Mum was anxious to have me out of the house. She had my two year old brother and my four month old sister at home. I was four and a quirk of the system which said you could begin school the year you turned five meant I was eligible to go. It did not matter in the least that I would not be five years of age for another eleven months. I could read. It was time to start school. 

I did not particularly like school. For the most part I was bored by it. My "daily diary sentence" would be written down for me but the teacher would get impatient when I wanted "big words" even if I could spell them. Words like "extendable" (in relation to a ladder) and "thermometer" were not supposed to be in a five year old child's school reading vocabulary.  I was allowed to use them only because I could spell them. Yes, I must have been a very "difficult" child.

I only had a year at that school before the Senior Cat was transferred back to the city. I was sent to a big city school and in the infants you went from "reception" to "lower one" to "upper one" and "lower two to upper two". I was put in "upper one" because of my age. I lasted the first of the three terms and was put into upper two where I probably continued to be a nuisance. 

It was not until I reached what was then known as "grade six" that the Senior Cat was "promoted" to be the teacher in charge of a two teacher school. Mum went back to work then and she taught the first three years of school in one room. My father had everyone else in the other room. It meant the older children had to work alone sometimes. He had four "grades" he was supposed to teach and then the supervision of the correspondence school lessons for the "year eight" students. It says a great deal for the strength and stability of their marriage and their ability to teach that this arrangement actually worked. All the same it was not an ideal situation. The Senior Cat was aware of that but knew we were better off than the school with just eight children in it about an hour a way. There was another one in yet another direction with eleven children. Ours was a "big" school with the forty-four or five enrolled in it. 

At the primary school level these small schools were managed. Get a good teacher or teachers and they could even be good schools. Get a bad teacher or a lazy one and children did not learn a great deal. It was often seen as not being of any particular concern. The boys would go back on to the farm as soon as they reached an age where they could legally leave school. Some of them did not even do correspondence work and our Correspondence School, along with the School of the Air, was very good indeed. The boys though would sometimes repeat year seven twice or three times. Each year, before school had ended, they would be at home helping with the harvest. It was expected that the girls would, with rare exceptions, get married. It was only the children of the "floating population", those who were there for only a couple of years before being moved on, who were thought to be interested in doing more. 

The Senior Cat tried to change that and did succeed in seeing a couple of more able children sent off to board with families in a more distant town. Boarding school was not an option, people could not afford it in the most remote areas. 

I look back on it now, after reading a description by someone of their school days, and realise it was not a good education. Even the best teachers could not give a bright child a good education. You could get "doubly promoted" or "skip a year" and that was about it. My brother and I were fortunate in that the Senior Cat organised our membership of the Country Children's Lending Service and the librarians there sent out the six books we were permitted to borrow (they came as parcel post on the twice weekly train service) more often than was really allowed. He also encouraged us to listen to "the Argonauts", a children's radio program. We were always thrilled when our letters to Mac were read on air. 

We missed out on a lot of the resources available to city schools, or even larger rural schools. At secondary level I was never able to study a modern language. The Senior Cat gave me Latin lessons when he had the time. I had the textbook and was really expected to teach myself.

But there were two things which did happen. The first was that I had to find out how to learn alone. I had to learn without adult supervision. I am not sure it taught "self-discipline" but I had plenty of curiosity about the things which interested me. Did that help? Yes and the Senior Cat encouraged me and my brother. We had books and we were encouraged to do things, make things, find out about things. 

The other thing that happened was that, like all other children in the school, we knew that older children were expected to watch out for younger children. It was not just that you might have a younger sibling in the same classroom (and certainly in the same school) but out in the playground there was always someone watching. We might not even have been conscious of watching but we did, especially the girls. Disagreements were broken up quickly. If a small child fell then an older child would deal with it unless they thought an injury deserved adult attention.

I don't think that happens now. In big city schools the adults dealt with things we thought of as our responsibility. In rural schools I am told teachers are too worried about liability issues to let it happen the way it once did. It was part of growing up back then and we might just have been better off because of it.