I suppose?"
I had to buy a second packet of chocolate frogs. No, we didn't eat them.
Our Over-the-Street neighbours unexpectedly invited us in on Sunday for "birthday cake" for their elder granddaughter's birthday. Having nothing to give the 8yr old in the way of a present I took the first packet of chocolate frogs, the frogs intended for the activity and sugar-hit packs for the Senior Cat's great-grandchildren.
I know. They don't NEED chocolate but it is twelve months since they were last here and the middle of November is coming up fast - if they come.
Yes, it was all planned. We hope it might still happen. The Senior Cat will be very disappointed if it doesn't but he was the first to suggest that it might not happen.
My brother and sister-in-law are currently looking after two of the grandchildren - whose parents have gone on holiday for almost ten days. My sister-in-law also had to deal with a crisis concerning her mother - now in hospital for an extended period. When my brother phoned yesterday he sounded exhausted and said my sister-in-law was "ragged round the edges".
I can imagine. Those two are extremely demanding children, used to almost constant adult attention. My sister-in-law spends a lot of time caring for them before and after school. She also has an elderly and very frail mother.
When I was a kitten my parents once spent a weekend away. There was a good reason for it. It wasn't a holiday. A great-aunt and her family were living with us at the time and they looked after us with some help from my paternal grandmother. My parents left on the Saturday morning and came back on the Sunday evening.
On other occasions over the years one or the other of my parents would occasionally be away at an education conference but there was always one of them home. They didn't expect other people to look after their children.
But it seems things are different now. If you want to go on holiday you leave the care of your children to their grandparents.
The Senior Cat is not impressed. I know he is trying not to think that this extra load might be too much for my sister-in-law and that she might not be able to make it. He loves her dearly - and she is a very easy to love - but he knows that everyone has limits.
Will the rest of the family still come if she decides her mother - who will still be in hospital - can't be left? Either way it won't be a break for her. If she is here with the children there will be demands placed on her. It was one reason for organising the activity packs - so that they would have things to do with minimal supervision. I know one mother will help. She trained as a teacher and her three are much less demanding.
And I thought that the inclusion of small packs of dried fruit, teddy bear biscuits, and those chocolate frogs would help keep the demand for snacks down. Halloween had nothing to do with it. The only two neighbourhood children who might have done Halloween have grown out of it. The others are too young, would not be allowed, or won't be interested.
If someone does happen to turn up then I suppose they can have a chocolate frog.
But now I am wondering whether I should have bought my sister-in-law an entire packet of chocolate frogs.
On the other hand I might just buy her something small and scented and put it in a post bag and send it with a note saying, "You need pampering too."
Tuesday, 31 October 2017
Monday, 30 October 2017
Sir Ninian Stephen was
was the Governor-General when I was living in Downunder's national capital.
I never expected to meet him although he always took an interest in what was going on at the university and, in particular, what was going on a the Law School. He was away over there in Yarralumla and I was a mere "stewed ant" who also tutored students in order to eat and wrote communication boards for aid workers because people needed them. (Yes, I was busy. It is good for cats to be busy. We don't have time to be bored - ever.)
I didn't expect to have anything to do with the university's Vice-Chancellor either. He was one of those remote figures you occasionally saw rushing across the grounds to yet another meeting.We met because of a mutual acquaintance who was visiting from my previous university. Our mutual acquaintance had seen me and apparently said, "That's Cat. I must say hello to her."
I don't know what else he said but Professor Karmel must have remembered me because one morning there was a message to one of the secretarial staff, "If that Cat isn't in a lecture could she please come over to the V-C's office immediately."
Almost petrified with fear I prowled reluctantly over. What on earth had I done?
It turned out there was nothing wrong of course. I was formally introduced to Sir Ninian who was then the Governor-General of the day. He apparently wanted to meet me because he had been told, from more than one source, about my efforts to get International Literacy Year off the ground. We talked for about ten minutes and it was only when his aide told him he had another appointment and really must leave that he apologised and broke the conversation off. His questions had been searching, so much so it reminded me of my doctoral viva.
We met twice after that. It was the conversations I had with other people who told me things like, "I was at a meeting and the idea (of International Literacy Year) came up and...." that mattered most as the idea suddenly took off after all the years of letter writing.
On the second occasion I met him, just after the year had been officially announced by the United Nations, he just told me quietly, "Well done Cat."
That was enough. It allowed me to say, "Thank you for your support."
He was a gentleman.
The statement below is the official one from the office of the present Governor-General. Reading it I consider myself even more fortunate for the support he gave me.
I never expected to meet him although he always took an interest in what was going on at the university and, in particular, what was going on a the Law School. He was away over there in Yarralumla and I was a mere "stewed ant" who also tutored students in order to eat and wrote communication boards for aid workers because people needed them. (Yes, I was busy. It is good for cats to be busy. We don't have time to be bored - ever.)
I didn't expect to have anything to do with the university's Vice-Chancellor either. He was one of those remote figures you occasionally saw rushing across the grounds to yet another meeting.We met because of a mutual acquaintance who was visiting from my previous university. Our mutual acquaintance had seen me and apparently said, "That's Cat. I must say hello to her."
I don't know what else he said but Professor Karmel must have remembered me because one morning there was a message to one of the secretarial staff, "If that Cat isn't in a lecture could she please come over to the V-C's office immediately."
Almost petrified with fear I prowled reluctantly over. What on earth had I done?
It turned out there was nothing wrong of course. I was formally introduced to Sir Ninian who was then the Governor-General of the day. He apparently wanted to meet me because he had been told, from more than one source, about my efforts to get International Literacy Year off the ground. We talked for about ten minutes and it was only when his aide told him he had another appointment and really must leave that he apologised and broke the conversation off. His questions had been searching, so much so it reminded me of my doctoral viva.
We met twice after that. It was the conversations I had with other people who told me things like, "I was at a meeting and the idea (of International Literacy Year) came up and...." that mattered most as the idea suddenly took off after all the years of letter writing.
On the second occasion I met him, just after the year had been officially announced by the United Nations, he just told me quietly, "Well done Cat."
That was enough. It allowed me to say, "Thank you for your support."
He was a gentleman.
The statement below is the official one from the office of the present Governor-General. Reading it I consider myself even more fortunate for the support he gave me.
Sunday, 29 October 2017
Making a Christmas tree
is not something I expected to be involved in but one of the members of the knitting group obviously had a skilled and creative craftswoman for a mother. As a result she still has the tree her mother made for her - made her out of an umbrella.
Her mother removed the waterproof fabric and covered the spokes in greenery - and there is a tree. It is a simple but very effective idea.
Another member of the group took this idea up with an enthusiasm. We would, she declared, have an entry in the Christmas tree parade in the neighbouring suburb - still in the same council area but a little further up the hill.
Oh yes, we would have a tree. I thought hard about this. I wanted to contribute but I am not much into making "mini" size things. I don't mind the knitting but trying to put them together is another story altogether.
No to worry I was told. They would do the putting together if I did the knitting. So, I made a tiny jacket - and did manage to knit that together. Then I made two small "presents" - knitting shaped into boxes and tied with gold "ribbon" (a strand of gold yarn). Someone sent me a tiny pullover so I copied that idea.
And other people made other things. There is a tiny bag with knitting in it that I particularly like. It was one of the first things to appear.
Yesterday a friend came to lunch and contributed two sparkling pieces of crochet - something she is expert at doing.
And the tree came so it could be admired. It now has a "star" on top. It isn't any ordinary star either. It's a ball stuck through with knitting needles and crochet hooks and it fits perfectly into place on top of the tree.
One member of the group has offered to come and fetch the Senior Cat so that he can see all the Christmas trees - but ours in particular of course! I hope that Friday in December is not too hot because he purred briefly and said it would be interesting to see what groups of people had done.
And that of course is the important thing. These aren't individual efforts. They are group efforts. We got together. Others are getting together. It required cooperation and the willingness to each do a bit.
All the trees need labels so that people who go to see them will know which group contributed them and a statement about them.
On ours we are planning to put,
"This umbrella spoke to us and asked to become a tree."
Perhaps it is smiling at us too.
Her mother removed the waterproof fabric and covered the spokes in greenery - and there is a tree. It is a simple but very effective idea.
Another member of the group took this idea up with an enthusiasm. We would, she declared, have an entry in the Christmas tree parade in the neighbouring suburb - still in the same council area but a little further up the hill.
Oh yes, we would have a tree. I thought hard about this. I wanted to contribute but I am not much into making "mini" size things. I don't mind the knitting but trying to put them together is another story altogether.
No to worry I was told. They would do the putting together if I did the knitting. So, I made a tiny jacket - and did manage to knit that together. Then I made two small "presents" - knitting shaped into boxes and tied with gold "ribbon" (a strand of gold yarn). Someone sent me a tiny pullover so I copied that idea.
And other people made other things. There is a tiny bag with knitting in it that I particularly like. It was one of the first things to appear.
Yesterday a friend came to lunch and contributed two sparkling pieces of crochet - something she is expert at doing.
And the tree came so it could be admired. It now has a "star" on top. It isn't any ordinary star either. It's a ball stuck through with knitting needles and crochet hooks and it fits perfectly into place on top of the tree.
One member of the group has offered to come and fetch the Senior Cat so that he can see all the Christmas trees - but ours in particular of course! I hope that Friday in December is not too hot because he purred briefly and said it would be interesting to see what groups of people had done.
And that of course is the important thing. These aren't individual efforts. They are group efforts. We got together. Others are getting together. It required cooperation and the willingness to each do a bit.
All the trees need labels so that people who go to see them will know which group contributed them and a statement about them.
On ours we are planning to put,
"This umbrella spoke to us and asked to become a tree."
Perhaps it is smiling at us too.
Saturday, 28 October 2017
Rejoicing over someone else's misfortune
is something that puzzles me.
Yesterday my news feed was crowded with people saying how pleased they were that someone had lost his job - because he was unwittingly in breach of sec 44 of the Downunder Constitution which bars "dual citizens" from being members of the Federal Parliament.
He may well get his job back at the by-election. I hope he does. I don't know the man or have any particular feelings about him one way or another but knocking a man when he is down is one of those things you just don't do in my book.
Before the electoral boundaries changed my local MP was a man who betrayed the electorate. Many people are still very, very angry about that - and rightly so. I would certainly not have voted for him at the next election and, if he stands again, he is likely to be humiliated by the low number voting for him. However I might feel about that I won't go out into the streets crowing about his demise.
When I said this to someone recently they asked me, "Well, how would you feel if someone like Mugabe or Kim Jong Un was assassinated? Wouldn't they have it coming to them?"
My answer was, "I still won't go dancing in the streets."
When those two men die, and when others like them die, then I simply hope for a change for the better. I am also realistic enough to know that there might be a great deal of unrest that will endanger the lives of many people. The transfer of that sort of power rarely comes easily.
But it is still no excuse to rejoice in the misfortune of someone else. It is no excuse to rejoice because someone else's child has been caught up in the laws of, to them, a foreign country.
The gleeful response by so many, including some media commentators, suggests there is something very wrong with our society. Our ability to "post" something on social media has made it too easy to mock someone else.
I am fairly certain someone I know will read this and say "But you did that the other day."
No, I didn't. I was not rejoicing over anyone's demise. I was simply wondering at the demands and reaction of people who choose not to participate but still criticise. That is what is happening here.
To all those rejoicing in the fact that someone else has lost his job I ask, "How would you feel if this was you and people were saying such things?"
Isn't it time for a little empathy?
Yesterday my news feed was crowded with people saying how pleased they were that someone had lost his job - because he was unwittingly in breach of sec 44 of the Downunder Constitution which bars "dual citizens" from being members of the Federal Parliament.
He may well get his job back at the by-election. I hope he does. I don't know the man or have any particular feelings about him one way or another but knocking a man when he is down is one of those things you just don't do in my book.
Before the electoral boundaries changed my local MP was a man who betrayed the electorate. Many people are still very, very angry about that - and rightly so. I would certainly not have voted for him at the next election and, if he stands again, he is likely to be humiliated by the low number voting for him. However I might feel about that I won't go out into the streets crowing about his demise.
When I said this to someone recently they asked me, "Well, how would you feel if someone like Mugabe or Kim Jong Un was assassinated? Wouldn't they have it coming to them?"
My answer was, "I still won't go dancing in the streets."
When those two men die, and when others like them die, then I simply hope for a change for the better. I am also realistic enough to know that there might be a great deal of unrest that will endanger the lives of many people. The transfer of that sort of power rarely comes easily.
But it is still no excuse to rejoice in the misfortune of someone else. It is no excuse to rejoice because someone else's child has been caught up in the laws of, to them, a foreign country.
The gleeful response by so many, including some media commentators, suggests there is something very wrong with our society. Our ability to "post" something on social media has made it too easy to mock someone else.
I am fairly certain someone I know will read this and say "But you did that the other day."
No, I didn't. I was not rejoicing over anyone's demise. I was simply wondering at the demands and reaction of people who choose not to participate but still criticise. That is what is happening here.
To all those rejoicing in the fact that someone else has lost his job I ask, "How would you feel if this was you and people were saying such things?"
Isn't it time for a little empathy?
Friday, 27 October 2017
"I don't believe I misunderstood your intentions"
came the angry response.
I had answered an email from someone and, because I genuinely wanted more information, I wrote back and asked for it. I was stunned by the response. The writer was clearly furious with me and refuses to believe that a genuine request for information was just that.
"What you gave was a diatribe...
I have been puzzling and worrying about the response ever since. It was so far removed from my intentions that I went back into my files and found a copy of what I had actually said. On this occasion I had, for once, actually written something and read it out."
No, it wasn't a diatribe. What I said at the time was factual. It was as accurate a report as I could give followed by two statements and then a light hearted remark which, at the time, produced a laugh. Apparently it is now seen very differently.
All this and the reporting of another incident, that of the police raids on the AWU offices interstate, has once again left me believing that some people don't want to know the facts. The Leader of the Opposition claimed "at least 25" police were involved in the operation and one of his colleagues claimed "30". They also claimed the raid was carried out at the request of the government.
Now it has been reported that they have put a Freedom of Information request into a Minister's office.
The matter was so serious that the AFP - the federal police force - had to issue a statement saying that there were just 13 officers involved - eight in one state and five in another - which is a small number given the likely size of the operation. The AFP also had to state they were acting on a search warrant issued by a magistrate. The magistrate was acting on a request by an independent body the Opposition helped to set up. The AFP is independent of the government. It has to be.
As far as I know nobody has directly questioned the Leader of the Opposition about his claim of "at least 25" being involved. Being a politician he would probably wriggle around it as being what he had been told. This would of course be fine for him - but not for the Minister he is accusing of "lying" because she did not know one of her staff had acted. (The question as to whether you can lie if you don't actually know something is an interesting one.) And failing to report that the Leader of the Opposition was making a false claim is, at best, selective reporting. (I was told that it wasn't considered newsworthy.)
Politicians, especially politicians that senior, can handle themselves. They have media advisers and can issue press statements.
I don't have a media adviser and I cannot issue a press statement. I have little doubt that I will come in for yet more criticism. All I can say is this - and I have forgotten where it came from -
"I know you think you understood what I said but I am not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant."
I rest my case.
I had answered an email from someone and, because I genuinely wanted more information, I wrote back and asked for it. I was stunned by the response. The writer was clearly furious with me and refuses to believe that a genuine request for information was just that.
"What you gave was a diatribe...
I have been puzzling and worrying about the response ever since. It was so far removed from my intentions that I went back into my files and found a copy of what I had actually said. On this occasion I had, for once, actually written something and read it out."
No, it wasn't a diatribe. What I said at the time was factual. It was as accurate a report as I could give followed by two statements and then a light hearted remark which, at the time, produced a laugh. Apparently it is now seen very differently.
All this and the reporting of another incident, that of the police raids on the AWU offices interstate, has once again left me believing that some people don't want to know the facts. The Leader of the Opposition claimed "at least 25" police were involved in the operation and one of his colleagues claimed "30". They also claimed the raid was carried out at the request of the government.
Now it has been reported that they have put a Freedom of Information request into a Minister's office.
The matter was so serious that the AFP - the federal police force - had to issue a statement saying that there were just 13 officers involved - eight in one state and five in another - which is a small number given the likely size of the operation. The AFP also had to state they were acting on a search warrant issued by a magistrate. The magistrate was acting on a request by an independent body the Opposition helped to set up. The AFP is independent of the government. It has to be.
As far as I know nobody has directly questioned the Leader of the Opposition about his claim of "at least 25" being involved. Being a politician he would probably wriggle around it as being what he had been told. This would of course be fine for him - but not for the Minister he is accusing of "lying" because she did not know one of her staff had acted. (The question as to whether you can lie if you don't actually know something is an interesting one.) And failing to report that the Leader of the Opposition was making a false claim is, at best, selective reporting. (I was told that it wasn't considered newsworthy.)
Politicians, especially politicians that senior, can handle themselves. They have media advisers and can issue press statements.
I don't have a media adviser and I cannot issue a press statement. I have little doubt that I will come in for yet more criticism. All I can say is this - and I have forgotten where it came from -
"I know you think you understood what I said but I am not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant."
I rest my case.
Thursday, 26 October 2017
So 40% of aged care residents don't
don't get any visitors for 365 days of the year - don't get any visitors.
I don't suppose I should be surprised. Aged care complexes are depressing places to visit. I have spent a good deal of my time going in and out of them.
I know a lot of elderly people. Some of them are friends of the Senior Cat. Some of them are my friends. Some of them are people I have come to know as I have pedalled to and from the shopping centre or the library. I have met some of them at the library when they were younger - often because they were looking for something and I was asked to help or they asked me.
I have helped them clear their houses and move into nursing homes when they could no longer cope.
And I have damn well gone to see them once they are there. It doesn't take much. I might only be able to stay a few minutes but it makes all the difference. It makes all difference for no more reason than that if the staff know someone, anyone at all, is coming to visit then they are going to take more care.
When I do go to visit I make a point of talking to other residents on the way. It is usually nothing more than "hello" and perhaps a comment about the weather or something they are doing but it has never been rebuffed. Occasionally it will be a few minutes chat and they will show me pictures of children or grandchildren or the dog they once had or they will tell me something about their past life.
I go away feeling both happy they had someone to talk to for a few minutes - even me - and depressed at how narrow and dull their lives have become.
It is why one elderly woman I know refused to move into a nursing home unless she could take her computer with her - complete with the capacity to Skype her family around the world...and she did. I visited her on a regular basis simply because she was still very good company. She didn't let her new home get her down but she also knew she was one of the lucky ones, still intellectually very alert and able to entertain herself.
One afternoon I went to another facility and found the woman I had gone to visit had been taken to "community singing". I followed the noise and found a dozen or so residents sitting staring at words on a screen and listening to rather than singing with an ancient cassette tape recorder. They looked bored, so did the member of staff watching them.
"Ah, turn that thing off," one of the old men said. "It's Cat. We'd rather talk to her."
Not very polite of him perhaps but, if my company was preferable, they were fed up with such "entertainment".
But even that sort of "entertainment" is apparently preferable to just sitting staring at the wall when your eyesight and concentration are no longer sufficient to read a book, when your hearing does not allow you to listen as well as watch television (and the programmes bore you anyway).
But it also makes me wonder what happens to those older people who do remain in their own homes without family or friends. It makes me wonder what will happen to my generation when the children have scattered interstate and overseas and the next generation when family ties have, for all too many, weakened.
It is why we want, if at all possible, to help the Senior Cat stay in his own home with family coming in an out.
I don't suppose I should be surprised. Aged care complexes are depressing places to visit. I have spent a good deal of my time going in and out of them.
I know a lot of elderly people. Some of them are friends of the Senior Cat. Some of them are my friends. Some of them are people I have come to know as I have pedalled to and from the shopping centre or the library. I have met some of them at the library when they were younger - often because they were looking for something and I was asked to help or they asked me.
I have helped them clear their houses and move into nursing homes when they could no longer cope.
And I have damn well gone to see them once they are there. It doesn't take much. I might only be able to stay a few minutes but it makes all the difference. It makes all difference for no more reason than that if the staff know someone, anyone at all, is coming to visit then they are going to take more care.
When I do go to visit I make a point of talking to other residents on the way. It is usually nothing more than "hello" and perhaps a comment about the weather or something they are doing but it has never been rebuffed. Occasionally it will be a few minutes chat and they will show me pictures of children or grandchildren or the dog they once had or they will tell me something about their past life.
I go away feeling both happy they had someone to talk to for a few minutes - even me - and depressed at how narrow and dull their lives have become.
It is why one elderly woman I know refused to move into a nursing home unless she could take her computer with her - complete with the capacity to Skype her family around the world...and she did. I visited her on a regular basis simply because she was still very good company. She didn't let her new home get her down but she also knew she was one of the lucky ones, still intellectually very alert and able to entertain herself.
One afternoon I went to another facility and found the woman I had gone to visit had been taken to "community singing". I followed the noise and found a dozen or so residents sitting staring at words on a screen and listening to rather than singing with an ancient cassette tape recorder. They looked bored, so did the member of staff watching them.
"Ah, turn that thing off," one of the old men said. "It's Cat. We'd rather talk to her."
Not very polite of him perhaps but, if my company was preferable, they were fed up with such "entertainment".
But even that sort of "entertainment" is apparently preferable to just sitting staring at the wall when your eyesight and concentration are no longer sufficient to read a book, when your hearing does not allow you to listen as well as watch television (and the programmes bore you anyway).
But it also makes me wonder what happens to those older people who do remain in their own homes without family or friends. It makes me wonder what will happen to my generation when the children have scattered interstate and overseas and the next generation when family ties have, for all too many, weakened.
It is why we want, if at all possible, to help the Senior Cat stay in his own home with family coming in an out.
Wednesday, 25 October 2017
"Get Up" is
a Downunder activist organisation which claims to be "driven by values, not politics".
Yesterday one of Downunder's main union offices were raided by the police who were searching for, among other things, evidence that "Get Up" is actually a political organisation.
To suggest that "Get Up" is not political is nonsense of course. All activism is political in nature. We may not recognise it as such. When we protest that we want to "save the whales" or against a library closure or anything else we are being political. There are other completing interests there. (Might it be said here that I am all for saving the whales and utterly opposed to libraries being closed.) If we save the whales then the Japanese whaling industry goes under and jobs with it. If we save the library the money spent on it won't go on another service others see as just as essential.
During International Literacy Year I was involved with many projects designed to do two things. One was teach people to read and the other was to provide material for them to read.
You would think that such projects would be popular and welcomed.
Not so. They often faced great opposition. They faced opposition not just from repressive governments but from groups similar to "Get Up". These groups saw education and the ability to find information for yourself as a threat to their power. It was a similar reaction to the historical reaction to universal education in Europe. It wasn't seen as necessary - until the Protestant/Calvinist movement decided people needed to be able to read the Bible.
The internet and access (or lack of access) to it has changed the way we think about many things, including the need to read. Organisations like "Get Up" are very adept at using it to their own advantage. (Mis)information is out there in ever increasing volume.
To suggest that "Get Up" or any other activist group is not driven by politics is ridiculous - and should be acknowledged as such.
Yesterday one of Downunder's main union offices were raided by the police who were searching for, among other things, evidence that "Get Up" is actually a political organisation.
To suggest that "Get Up" is not political is nonsense of course. All activism is political in nature. We may not recognise it as such. When we protest that we want to "save the whales" or against a library closure or anything else we are being political. There are other completing interests there. (Might it be said here that I am all for saving the whales and utterly opposed to libraries being closed.) If we save the whales then the Japanese whaling industry goes under and jobs with it. If we save the library the money spent on it won't go on another service others see as just as essential.
During International Literacy Year I was involved with many projects designed to do two things. One was teach people to read and the other was to provide material for them to read.
You would think that such projects would be popular and welcomed.
Not so. They often faced great opposition. They faced opposition not just from repressive governments but from groups similar to "Get Up". These groups saw education and the ability to find information for yourself as a threat to their power. It was a similar reaction to the historical reaction to universal education in Europe. It wasn't seen as necessary - until the Protestant/Calvinist movement decided people needed to be able to read the Bible.
The internet and access (or lack of access) to it has changed the way we think about many things, including the need to read. Organisations like "Get Up" are very adept at using it to their own advantage. (Mis)information is out there in ever increasing volume.
To suggest that "Get Up" or any other activist group is not driven by politics is ridiculous - and should be acknowledged as such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
