Does the school you went to

really say anything about you?

I have just been smiling over one of those "human interest" sort of articles in the local press. Are you asked what school you went to? This is (supposedly) a common enough question here. 

I think it was more common once than it is now. Yes, sometimes it did matter. There is still an "old boys network". There is even a bit of an "old girls network" I suppose but it is not as pronounced. 

The article allows for comments on the website and most people appear to be a little uncertain about how much it matters...if it matters at all. Feeling a little like stirring the pot I have left a comment saying I went to five different secondary schools. I also said I went to school with someone who became a world renowned neonatal heart surgeon, a judge and several politicians. I like the heart surgeon - no longer operating but still teaching and consulting I believe. The judge is one I respect. The politicians? No, not acquaintances I would wish to renew. Brother Cat actually went to school with someone who went on to be Prime Minister - and tells me that the PM's sister was a much nicer person.

Some years ago the Senior Cat answered the phone and someone asked to speak to me. I did not recognise his name but he apparently went to school with me. He must have been in my year group because he was trying to organise a reunion. I declined to go to the reunion. If I could not remember his name how could I even recognise everyone, let alone remember their names.

"But everyone knows you," he told me. Perhaps they do but I doubt it. 

I prefer to know people as people, not by some artificial standard. The school you went to does not need to define you. I always liked the answer the Whirlwind would give if asked where she went to school. "Just the local school," she would say. It was true. It was a local school even if it was fee paying.

A former Governor of this state, a man I do admire and respect, went to one of the old "technical high schools". They were considered to be the schools for the non-academically inclined but he did brilliantly. To my way of thinking it just goes to show there is more to this than "what school did you go to?"   

Is there any other country which allows

the "indigenous" population to "self-identify"?

The reality in this country is that I could call myself "aboriginal" and seek the financial and other benefits of being "aboriginal" and it would be difficult for anyone else to deny me those benefits or refuse to acknowledge my claim. Indeed I could go further and claim they were "racist" and seek damages.

The story of Bruce Pascoe is surely one of the ultimate reasons why "self-identification" is something that needs to be questioned. Here is someone who has made a career and a name for himself by claiming to be "aboriginal". His ancestry has been researched by others and no evidence for his claim can be found. Despite that he holds a "chair" at a leading university in something he claims is indigenous agriculture. The claims he makes about such agriculture have been shown to be false but he continues to hold the chair and teach his supposed findings. The university is aware of all this and has done nothing. All this makes a mockery of any claims about academic rigor.

For some reason the government has not stepped in either and said, "You are not aboriginal and what you are teaching is nonsense."  Pascoe actually has the support of the present Prime Minister. He has even labelled Pascoe's work "marvellous".  

I know of no academic, not even an indigenous academic, who agrees but perhaps they remain silent out of fear for their present and future research grants.

At least some of this could be avoided if some form of "proof" was asked for. In some instances there is a requirement for people calling themselves "aboriginal" to be accepted by groups also calling themselves aboriginal. Is that sufficient? Of course not. It needs much more than that.

"But", we are told, "It is too difficult to prove because of poor record keeping." Really? Yes, record keeping was often very poor but is it that poor? If all your ancestors can be shown to have been born in another country altogether how does that make you "aboriginal"? Why are you permitted to go on calling yourself that? 

My friend M... has never had a government hand out. He has never needed one or wanted one. Yes, I know he is an exception. His family were and are exceptional. All of the above however angers him because he knows there are aboriginal people who could really benefit from the programs and policies intended to benefit them. It often does not happen because others who are in no way genuinely disadvantaged take advantage of "self identification" and take what they can. 

Perhaps it is for this reason alone that there needs to something other than self-identification?  

More house hunting anyone?

Oh yes, I am trying. It is difficult, very difficult.

I really am trying not to be fussy but there are essentials. Is it really unreasonable to be looking for a place at ground level?

"Oh but they have lifts!" someone told me recently. They had seen what appeared to be a very affordable place in the CBD. Why didn't I grab that when I had the opportunity? 

Mmm...it was on the 6th floor. There are no windows in the bedroom and nowhere to safely park my trusty tricycle. Yes, it does have a "lap pool" and a "gym" and a communal laundry. The annual fees are enormous. I suppose I might manage without a window in the bedroom - but it will push up the cost of air conditioning because I need air in the bedroom!  I do need a safe park for the tricycle and I do not need a pool or a gym. 

Yesterday I put in a query for a place not too far from here. It looked as if it might be something I could actually afford. The agent called me an hour or so later. Would I like to have a look - a look today perhaps? He really sounded very keen. He could be there in ten minutes. I told him it would take me longer than that to pedal over there. We arranged a slightly later time. 

I called Middle Cat. She was not answering the phone. I pedalled off. Halfway there she returned my call. "I'll meet you there," she told me. We met and prowled through the place. It is a boxed in sort of place. There is a supposedly "private" front "garden" - in reality a tiny gravel covered area - surrounded by a high fence. Add that to tiny, dark rooms and I had the sense I had been imprisoned. Of course I would take it if I could get it but I have just been speaking to someone who tells me there is a strong possibility there are major plumbing issues which have been papered over. My BIL will need to investigate.

I put in a query for another place yesterday. It is opposite one of the local high schools - but far enough for the potential noise not to be an issue. The agent has emailed to tell me there is a tenant in it until March. I could find a way around that - short term house sit perhaps? I am now waiting for her to call me but I will not hold my breath. At least from the photographs (always treated with caution) the place looks more open. There is a window in the bedroom! 

I will no doubt continue to prowl, to hunt, to hope. If you hear a miaou of desperation in all this you are correct.  

There is money in this

so why would you not get involved? 

There is a certain controversial columnist in this country, one Andrew Bolt, who must actually thrive on being hated so much by some of his readers.  For all the controversy he stirs up he also appears to be very popular.

Yesterday he was having a shot at the latest obsession of some councils - that of changing names of places to "aboriginal" or "indigenous" names and paying to do so. If you are wondering what the problem is please let me explain.

In the example he gave a shire council in a neighbouring state has changed the name of a local park. It has been given an indigenous name. The name now being used allegedly comes from an extinct language and the council has apparently paid the local "Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation" for "permission" to use it. The council had to pay for the "translation" as well. All this was done to satisfy the demands of a very small group, many of whom never spoke the language at all. 

I do know something about extinct languages and endangered languages. It is something which has concerned me for many years. Recently my local council paid someone to try and teach what was said to be the local indigenous language at white settlement. It was nothing of the sort of course. That language is extinct. Claims to speak it are ridiculous. It cannot be "revived". The meanings given to words are, despite claims to the contrary, not certain. There was no written language to preserve it. Information given to those who did try to find out something about it was inaccurate for many reasons. In spite of all this someone was paid to teach it. 

If any members of the group associated with this language at white settlement were brought here today I wonder what their reaction would be? I am quite certain they would not recognise it as the language they spoke. 

That is in no way intended to denigrate their language. It served them and their needs at the time. Like many other indigenous languages in this country it is not suited to the needs of today. Paying to "translate" and use words from it is not going to change that.  

Lowering the age of criminal responsibility

is not wrong in itself. It is what you do with those who commit the crimes which should be under discussions.

The Northern Territory has just voted in a new government. The new government is planning on reducing the age of criminal responsibility to ten years of age. Naturally there are people opposed to this. They claim that it will do nothing to help. They say it is "racist" (because most of those caught under the law will be "aboriginal"). There are all sorts of arguments brought out claiming that this is not a good thing.

There are some things rarely mentioned. The first is that even very young children know the difference between what is right and what is wrong. It is something they can be taught. It is something they can also observe from the behaviour of those around them. Even given all the social problems in the Northern Territory I would take an educated guess that the vast majority of young trouble makers know they are doing the wrong thing...and that they can get away with it. 

The second thing worth mentioning is that juvenile records are closed.  They cannot be accessed once you are an adult. (There are some very rare exceptions to this and the alleged crime as an adult has to be very, very serious.) This surely means that children who have criminal records still have a chance to start adult life with a clean slate. They can be taught. They can learn.

And of course we give children a second chance. Children do get carried away by their companions. They do things adults would not do because they are bullied or their companions "dare" them to do something. 

In giving them that second chance we may not lock them up but we do supervise them. I see no value in locking young children away. It simply teaches them to be better criminals. 

We should expect them to apologise to any victims and make reparations. Taking some of their free time and giving them an unpleasant or boring task can be very effective. My brother and I were far from perfect. Our mother had a range of very effective punishments which involved these things - as well as some serious corporal punishment.  I am strongly opposed to the latter but the former certainly worked. (There are still occasions I remember and resent because I was not guilty of the supposed deed.) 

There is not much that can be done however if the "age of criminal responsibility" is set too high. A "telling off" will have no effect if there are no other consequences involved.  Even taking away the much loved "right" to use the swimming pool (common in some aboriginal communities) is not sufficient. A child needs to be doing something under supervision while their friends are having fun... and that "something" needs to be something they will not enjoy. I will say here however that, unless truanting is the issue, this should not involve school work. It just teaches a child to hate going to school.

 I would say here however if truanting is an issue then the child is simply told. "You didn't come to school this morning so tonight you need to do the work you did not do then." (I once kept a consistently late child in after school each afternoon for a week. I had his father's permission - indeed it was his suggestion - and that of the head to do it. He came to school on time after that.)  

There are effective ways of handling young offenders but they require time and effort and may be inconvenient for the adults around them. I had to remain in the classroom with that child, and see he did the same work as his classmates had done in the hour or so before he arrived.  It was highly inconvenient. 

Perhaps that is part of the problem. We do not want to inconvenience ourselves. It is much easier to "give them a good telling off" than actually teach them that actions have consequences they may not like.

The power bill has doubled

and the cost of milk and orange juice as gone up with it even though both the dairy and the juicer are using less power than they were using. My power bills have gone up too even though I am using far less power than I did when the Senior Cat needed the house to be warm or cool. (That was not just comfort it was a safety issue.)

This morning's rant by those trying to run their business with dramatically increasing power prices is justified.  We have a government dependent on the support of "the Greens" in order to stay in power. We have the United Nations complaining we are not doing enough to prevent "climate change" and pressure from all the Pacific island nations claiming that they are going to drown because of "global warming".

In reality this country is probably punching well above its weight if we consider it has a tiny population for the size of the land mass - and that most of the land mass is uninhabitable. What is the real danger for us is that the economy will fold under the weight of trying to turn "green" in an unrealistic fashion. The "renewable" demands are simply not taking into consideration the way the population is situated and the difficulty of getting power, especially enough power, to everyone who needs it in a reliable and environmentally responsible fashion. Of course this does not consider that the government is still apparently happy to obtain the money brought in by coal and gas sold and used overseas.

I was asked recently whether I supported the idea of nuclear power. I do. It is the only realistic option. Yes, it is expensive - but expensive in the short term. Over the long term it is almost certainly going to be much cheaper. Yes, it will take time to build - but almost certainly not as long as those opposed to it will have us believe. Yes, there are some associated risks and problems with storage issues but they are no greater than the risks and problems associated with the supposedly friendly and "green" solar panels and wind turbines. 

Returning small amounts of money to us in an effort to hide the increase in power bills and the uncertainty of the electricity supply under renewables is dangerous and irresponsible. It is not going to cover the increase in my power bills although I now use far less than we once did. It most certainly is not going to cover the increase in the cost of milk or juice or anything else. 

Is the price too high? I think it is because there are alternatives. 

I have just lost my temper

and that is such a rare thing for me that I am feeling shaken by it.

I am normally a very even tempered sort of cat. I can and do feel strongly about things but I will discuss issues calmly enough not to provoke an argument. I really do try to listen to other people and I will even allow them to believe they have won an argument if the situation gets too heated. 

Middle Cat says I am not nearly "assertive" enough. Yes, I will avoid confrontation. It frightens me. Admitting that here with the computer screen between me and the world is easy enough. In real life it is much more difficult. I have always assumed that it is the "arm's length" which makes it so easy for some people to behave in such appalling ways to other people.

This morning however was too much. There was an email to Brother Cat from the executor company. In it they once again did not provide the information he was, very reasonably, requesting. In it there was a claim something had been done. It has not been done. (My own financial adviser was able to access the necessary information and it showed that the necessary action had not been taken.) We are still not being given the information we need to pay out the Black Cat and thus remove her from any further financial activities in relation to the estate. 

The problems we have had can be shown to be directly related to a lack of due diligence on the part of the executors but they are denying any liability for the problems caused by their former employee. Had they sacked her rather than "suggested she resign" we might have been able to do more but of course this has not happened. 

I am here trying to not just pack my own belongings with nowhere to go but trying to sort out many things which belonged to my parents. Middle Cat is "helping" and sometimes unintentionally interfering. I keep getting "advice" from all and sundry.  Brother Cat and his partner want to come over and "help" but last time they did this was no help at all - to the contrary. This morning it was all just a bit too much. When the executor company tried to tell us they had done  what they had not done and I am at an even further financial disadvantage because of it I lost my temper. 

I am now waiting for an answer to an email which very firmly pointed out my housing situation and the financial disadvantage they have caused. Middle Cat will say I have not been "assertive" enough of course but I rather suspect that they will be scrambling to try and respond to actual facts. Facts can be useful when you lose your temper.