Why was it so quiet

in the nursing home on a Saturday afternoon? You could have fired a cannon down the passage of the old house which forms the main part. I doubt anyone would have come.
It is a lovely old house, old for our part of the world that is. Australia doesn't have the really old houses of Europe. This one was probably built about a hundred years ago. It is the classic passage down the middle, rooms to either side and veranda around. The veranda has an intricate tiled pattern which reminds me of my paternal grandparents' home. Inside there are polished wooden floors in the passages and dining areas and carpets in the bedroom. It is all very clean - and very quiet.
I had tied the tricycle to an outside post and told it not to get in the way. Then I went to find the elderly friend I had come to visit.
She was in her room. The television set was on but the sound was off. She was dozing. Her younger cousin was there doing a crossword puzzle from the daily paper.
"Cat's here," she told her cousin. She switched the television set off. We sat and talked for a while. I gave them the news I had come to give them and greetings from a former neighbour I had seen that morning. The older cousin managed to say a few words but we both know it is an effort for her.
The woman with the afternoon tea trolley came and went with a minimum of fuss. I could hear her chatting softly to the woman in the room opposite. The other day I said hello to that resident as well. She is still able to knit and read and does both. Most of the residents do nothing at all apart from sit and, perhaps, watch a television screen.
Yes, it is not much more than a hospice for the elderly dying. Only a few will be there for any great length of time.
Is that why people don't bother to visit? There is a paucity of names in the book you sign as you enter and leave.
I left after half an hour or so. It's long enough, just enough to break up the day a bit and they know I'll be back when I can.
And, as I leave, I see someone has wheeled another man out onto the veranda. We saw one another the last time I was there. He saw the tricycle and gave me a "thumbs up" of approval. We smile at one another.
And then, there is a small sound. He looks up and smiles again. There is a wind-chime on the veranda post next to him. A slight breeze has caused it to make a light, almost laughing sound. It is company of a sort.

There is another "discussion" brewing

about the age at which alcohol should be (legally) available. I have done some quite deliberate stirring with a letter to the state newspaper after "Australian of the Year", Ita Buttrose, suggested the drinking age should once again be raised to twenty-one.
Naturally her suggestion has produced howls of rage from many. Two groups are particularly prominent. The first is the 18-21 year old group who believe they would be the most affected. The second is the hospitality industry with its dire warnings about unemployment, flow on effects, a downturn in tourism etc etc.
Right.
Now the 18-21 year old group claim that, if they have the right to vote they also have the right to buy alcohol. They say that if any government tries to bring in such a law they will simply vote them out of existence. The answer to that of course is for all parties to have the same policy. Probably no hope of that.
The "we are allowed to vote therefore we should be allowed to drink" argument is interesting. Recently there were quite serious suggestions that sixteen year olds should be given the vote. If they had the right to vote would they also have the right to drink? Where would you stop? Why sixteen? Why not fifteen or seventeen?
The reality is that those under eighteen already find ways to procure alcohol and drink it - often to excess.
We have an alcohol problem in this country, a big alcohol problem. It is very readily available at extraordinarily extended hours and our culture encourages the excess use of it. It is not, as it is in many countries, drunk with food. It is merely drunk. It is seen by many as an essential part of an evening out, so much so that some young people will consume a considerable quantity at home before heading out simply because they actually plan to drink to excess and "have a good time".  
I don't drink alcohol myself. I am actually allergic to alcohol. It causes me to feel itchy all over - and, believe me, it is a very unpleasant sensation.
That said I have absolutely no objections to other people enjoying alcohol - but I do mean enjoy it. I do not mean indulge in it or drink excessive amounts of it or use it as an excuse for violence or causing an accident or doing any other harm to themselves or to other people.
What puzzles me is that it is so often seen as an essential ingredient in the "have a good time" recipe. It seems to be part of the expectation that, rather than create our own entertainment, we will be entertained by others.
I am sure, if you can tolerate it, a little alcohol is nice now and then but is it also necessary or even essential? And, shouldn't it wait until the majority of brains have "grown up"?
We aren't going to stop under-age drinking but it should surely be possible to reduce access to alcohol. If it harms the "hospitality" industry too bad. Perhaps some of the money saved on alcohol related incidents could go on employing them in other ways to entertain us all?
 

Learning to say "thankyou"

is difficult.
By this I do not mean the sort of everyday "thankyou" we say for all sorts of things.  What I mean is the sort of "thankyou" for a bigger gesture that someone else has made an extra effort over.
I hope I am very conscious of the need to thank people, of the need to say "I appreciate what you did".
I, unusually for me, asked someone to do something for me the other day. I think she was pleased to be asked. It will indirectly benefit both of us and quite a number of other people. It was a small thing, a very slight detour on her way home to drop some things off at our place so that I can pass them on to someone else. That person has now paid for them and the money will go into the funds for our knitting guild.
I made a point of thanking the deliverer at the time and next time I see her I have a spare ball of yarn I know she can use for the hats she knits for charity. I won't tell her "that's for delivering". I'll just tell her "I thought you might be able to use this for the hats".  I know I don't have to do this but I will feel more comfortable about it because it was an extra effort on her part.  She didn't volunteer. I asked. It's a gesture, nothing more.
The Senior Cat needed some help in his shed recently. Someone he knows put him in touch with someone else. The man turned up and spent a little time there and refused payment for his services. "Pass it on" he told the startled Senior Cat. Yes he will. Since then we have seen the man who put him in touch and he said, "X said he was so impressed that someone your father's age is still doing things for other people that he wanted to do something for him - so he can go on doing things for others."
As a result of the help he got the Senior Cat has managed to help someone else - and told them to "pass it on" too.
I have been going backwards and forwards to see a friend in a nursing home. It's a fair distance to pedal and the journey there is up the hill. It takes time I do not have but will make because I know that the friend does not have a lot of time and her younger cousin needs the support of my visits. I don't expect or want to be paid to do it. The smile I get is more than enough thanks.
And sometimes that is all you need. Trying to pay someone for what they have done can turn out to be the wrong thing.
Now please don't misunderstand me here. If you ask people to do something then proper payment is to be expected - and I believe you should pay them promptly as well. Don't ask someone to do something they should be paid to do unless you are prepared to pay them? Well no, I won't.
But there are also times when I may volunteer to do something. If I do then I don't expect to be paid for it. The question "How much do I owe you?" or the statement "I have to give you something for that" is an embarrassment then. It is also a rebuff. It suggests that the other person is rejecting a friendly gesture - or perhaps even friendship itself. It can make you wonder whether the gesture was really appreciated or merely tolerated. 
I recently offered to do something for someone else. The offer was accepted and I did the job. The recipient then tried to pay me for it. She was quite insistent. I refused. She then tried to give the Whirlwind something instead. I know the Whirlwind would have been thrilled with what might have eventuated but she showed a great deal of maturity and refused.  She refused because even at her age could see it was not right to accept any form of payment. "She should just have said 'thankyou'. It's like she doesn't want to be friends."
The Whirlwind is not yet old enough to fully understand the difference between "friends" and "friendly" but yes, it was as if she didn't want to be friendly.
Learning to really thank people is hard. I suspect it sometimes involves giving them less but meaning it more - and passing the gesture on to someone else instead. Perhaps the recent experience has been a good thing for me. It's a reminder to thank people properly and appropriately.

It should not be acceptable

to charge taxpayers to attend a wedding or a sports event - or is it?
The media is presently spending a great deal of time investigating old "expenses rorts" by our politicians. They love doing that and so do certain sections of the population.
The reason it is so much fun is that the reporting has, to date, been a little - shall we say one-sided? They are making a great fuss about expenses claimed and then repaid by our newish Prime Minister. Some of these date back years. The information was available long ago. It is old news but it has been made into new news because, without it, there would be no opportunity to continue criticising him and glossing over anything he might achieve. After all, this is the man the media loves to hate.
I am not suggesting he did the right thing. Was he attending those weddings as a friend, a colleague or because he thought he should or for some other reason? He was competing in the sports event. Was he doing it for personal satisfaction, to set a good example or because it gave him the chance to network in a marginal seat? I suspect it would have been wiser to pay for these things straight out.
At the same time however there is no mention of the fact that some of those now in Opposition have had some interesting trips of their own. Two of them claimed taxpayer funds to attend the 80th birthday bash of a previous Prime Minister. The Prime Ministerial jet was used to fly from Canberra to Melbourne to attend a football match as a spectator.  And of course there have been weddings and funerals of an equally party-political nature which have been claimed on taxpayer expenses.  Oh and someone attended the last royal wedding...but that counts as a duty.
Mmm... I do wonder what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.
What really gets me are those "study trips". You know the sort of thing I mean. Our politicians take a little trip abroad, first class fares and hotels and meetings with a few people one of whom will show the politician around a power plant or printing press or something equally unlikely.
Of course our new Foreign Minister said "business class" and a single room was quite adequate thankyou. She did not need first class travel or a suite of rooms. Not much has been said about that. The media probably thinks it is not befitting her position to slum it like that.
And there is something that really puzzles me. It seems that the taxpayers are now expected to foot the bill for something that is definitely a party-political issue. The opposition members are heading back to Canberra to vote for a new leader. It is all part of the "rules" that the previous Prime Minister managed to put in place believing that he was going to be there for the long haul. The process is supposed to be more "democratic". It is supposed to give the party members a say in who leads the party. There appears to be dissension in the ranks - or at least between the plebs and the pollies. I suspect the pollies will win - after all, they have to work with the leader.
But why should taxpayers have to pay for this? It should be a simple matter of a vote. It could even be done by post. Taxpayers should not be forking out $200,000 or more for them to sort out their leadership squabbles. No doubt someone will tell me it is vital they have a leader. Well yes, but they have to sort it out for themselves and at their own expense.
I believe there is one politician who has been in parliament for years. Much has been said about Bill Heffernan and it has rarely been complimentary but the man has apparently never been guilty of rorting travel expenses or taking a study trip. Perhaps all other politicians could learn something from that.

There was a "rear ender"

on the busy main road yesterday. This road leads up into the hills behind us. It carries a lot of traffic and it is not, contrary to the belief of some, a race track as well.
There are three sets of traffic lights and a further set of pedestrian lights all in close proximity to one another along this stretch. The pedestrian lights are there for a very good reason. They lead to the library on one side and an aged care complex on the other. The side street leads to two primary schools and a secondary school. The pedestrian lights are used a lot. Oh yes there are always idiots who do not use the lights but the majority of people getting on and off the buses and visiting the library, aged care complex and schools do use them.
Perhaps one hundred and fifty metres away there is the first set of lights. It is a T-junction and the lights lead to the shopping centre, the big gym and places like a branch of the Motor Vehicles Department. You can turn here and continue on past these things to the "old" part of the "village" (now mere suburbia),  another school, day care places etc.
Go straight ahead and there are two more sets of lights - or perhaps just one rather complex set of lights. Their phase is inconsistent and relates to whether pedestrians are using the push button facilities.
It is altogether a short but difficult stretch of road that requires both alertness and patience to negotiate.
And yes, the problem is that people are often not alert or patient enough. Minor "dings" are common. Pedestrians add to the problem by not using the designated crossing points - after all, why walk a few extra metres if you think you can get away with it?
I hate crossing roads. I don't cross roads unless I absolutely have to. I always use the lights and I always pedal. I will not cross a road on foot. I know I can't make it to the other side in time. People who know me will do a trip around the block and dump me at the destination before parking the car we are travelling in. I appreciate that more than most of them will ever realise.
I simply fail to understand people who do not use pedestrian lights.
Yesterday's rear-ender occurred because a pedestrian did not use the lights. Swerving to avoid the pedestrian the driver went into the rear of the other car.
The driver was a young "P" plater. The car was an "old bomb" but probably the pride of its owner.  The driver was not travelling at an excessive speed. The lights were in the driver's favour. The pedestrian had no business to be on the road at all. Had he been hit he would, at very least, have been badly injured.
The young driver's car was beyond repair. The other car, much newer and sturdier, was badly damaged. Both drivers were badly shaken but, fortunately, suffered only minor injuries.
. It has no doubt shaken the confidence of the probationer who will face all sorts of questions simply because he is a probationer. There was the mess and the inconvenience and the disruption to the traffic flow. There will be insurance claims, court time, police reports and legal and financial consequences for the drivers of the cars. 
The pedestrian must have been aware of what had happened. He must have been aware that he was the chief cause of the incident. He simply finished crossing the road and walked on.
I wonder how well he slept last night?

There was another packet

of patterns to go through yesterday. These were mostly crochet patterns. Quite a few of them dated from the 1950's. They are mostly made up of "motifs", small squares or rounds which have then been joined together to made table "runners", tablecloths, doyleys and the like. The instructions state they should be made in various weights of cotton, all of them fine.
It is not the sort of thing I could make. My paws are not that able but, even if I could, I would not bother. I do not know anyone, including myself, who would use such things. There must be people who do I suppose but the thought of laundering such things fills me with alarm. My late uncle objected to the "oil-cloth" on our kitchen table but it serves us well when the Senior Cat comes in covered in sawdust and other shed or garden detritus.
There were also patterns for other crochet items though. Some were for babies. No mother would use them now. They were made from wool of course. Imagine how uncomfortable they were if they were if not properly washed! Even well washed I wonder how comfortable they were against a baby's delicate skin. Perhaps babies were tougher when those garments were in use?
And there were other items too. There were the inevitable tea pot cosies and antimacassars, some snoods, men's ties, blouses for women and more. There was another book devoted to "prize winning yokes" intended for nightgowns and, perhaps, blouses.
They were, on the whole, fine and beautiful. I suppose they were also reasonably practical as they were mostly made from cotton. I have found other such books in the collection as well.
Last night I was talking to an elderly member of the Guild and I mentioned these things.
"Yes, people made time to make those things. I made all my own clothes back then. Now I just go and buy something. It isn't as satisfying even though it gives me more time to read."
At 86 perhaps she can be forgiven for buying ready-made but I wonder how many younger women have never experienced the satisfaction of making something. Many people say they don't have time but I note that Margaret said "make" time.
Perhaps we all need to make more time.

Yesterday I went on prowling through

the old knitting books and pamphlets I brought home to sort. I have put the duplicates to one side and, as far as possible, put the others into some sort of order. In doing so I came across some more interesting things, interesting even if you have no interest in knitting.
There are several copies of small booklets with the title "What to make for baby - Designs and Instructions in Knitting or Crochet by E.G.J.A.". The price is 1/6. The E.G.J.A turns out to be a "Mrs Ella Allan" who lived in Southey Street, Elwood, Victoria. 
The "Mrs" is interesting in itself. So is the "Ella". Was she a widow - or a feminist? There is a list of "Mrs Ella Allan's Publications" too - among them "Dainty Adornment for Tiny Tots", "Desirable Designs" and "Her clothes as she grows". I can't help wondering what they looked like, especially the "Dainty Adornments".
There are a number of copies of something called "The Lady's World Fancy Work Book, Containing Knitting, Crochet and Embroidery". No 24 carries an advertisement for "Robinson's Groats" on the back. The wording reads,
"Babyhood at its best is seen in the thousands of healthy, vigorous, bright and merry children brought up on Robinson's "Patent" Groats. The nurseries ring with their happy laughter, and it is a pleasure to see their smiling, gleeful, chubby faces. Robinson's "Patent" Groats is rich in body-building elements and is most easily digested."
Hmm....with all of that they will never have needed "Dr J Collis Browne's Chlorodyne the best remedy for Coughs, Colds, Asthma, Bronchitis (which apparently) cuts short attacks of Spasms, Hysteria and Palpitations (and which was) the Only Palliative to Neuralgia, Gout, Rheumatism..." I wonder why they stopped making a remedy which did so much good?
I showed these to the Senior Cat. He laughed. He can remember being made to take cod liver oil and milk of magnesia but his breakfast porridge oats was made the old-fashioned Scots way. He was "spoilt" with milk - but no sugar.
I suspect it was just as good as the "groats".