Does our Treasurer know any economics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Should they be allowed to return?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The government has some difficult decisions ahead of it.  

"It's the ambulance"

was the response.

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

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

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

"You're not C....?" 

"No. She lives in that unit there."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being paid to "protest"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did anyone receive that $100? I doubt it. 

 

How (not) to write a cookbook

or "was this really a good idea?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

  

Males working in nursery schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is a university for?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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