There is a house being built

on land behind the group of units in which I now live. I was aware of it mostly because there were "fence" problems and the owner of the land in question was not being cooperative. 

It now turns out there may have been very good reasons for him not to be cooperative. He has been actively avoiding anything happening on "his" land until the footings were dug out and the foundations laid. That has now occurred and he, smilingly, came up with an offer to pay his half of the fencing costs. 

What he had not done was deal with the issue of a drainage pipe which flows from the units and the surrounding properties on to his land. Apparently it is "not his problem" because "it isn't there". It is apparently not on the paperwork at the local council and they are responsible for allowing building works to go ahead. 

The neighbour who came in to see me about all this told me the council has informed him the council says their records only go back to 1970. That seems very unlikely but this is what they are claiming. The units were built in 1966. As far as they are concerned the pipe does not exist. Really?

The water supply company also says "not our problem" because "our responsibility stops at the street". This is despite the fact that the pipe would have been put in by them when water was connected to all the surrounding properties.

It is a drainage pipe and the building works are lower than this unit so I am assuming water flows in that direction. Yes, it will flow on to the property. The pipe must direct the flow of the water from the neighbouring rooftops? I am no physicist and I am no engineer but it just seems to me you would want to avoid this sort of situation. It would be wise to get some advice? It would be wise to cooperate with your neighbours to be on this matter?

No, the owner has had the builder block the pipe with concrete. It was filled in when they laid the foundations. It was filled in against advice from a much more knowledgeable plumber.  Where will the water flow now? According to the owner of the land it is not his problem. The manager of the units is trying to do something about the situation. We have had no rain for weeks now but I suspect we might have a problem when it does and the water has nowhere to go. It might also mean the land beneath the new building dries out and damages the foundations. 

It is a potential muddy mess.  

  

If we want children to read

then they must be taught to read. I would have thought this was obvious but apparently it is not. It seems some parents believe the process can now be left entirely up to "day care" and "kindy" (kindergarten) and "pre-school" or wherever else they put their precious little ones to be "educated". Parents no longer have "time" to do anything like this.

I know I was lucky. My parents were teachers. I might have driven my mother to distraction but she did put the words for everyday items on them, on the 'fridge and elsewhere. If I wanted a word I could ask for it. It would be written on a piece of paper in her excellent "infant school" printing and it was there. All I had to do was learn it. 

I knew my letters early because the Senior Cat read me my bedtime stories as soon as I started to take an interest in the pictures in books. I cannot remember that but one of my earliest memories is sitting on his lap in front of the wood burning stove. He has his left arm around me. His left hand is holding the book and his right hand is pointing to each word as he reads it to me. I cannot have been more than eighteen months old. And yes, I do actually remember that. I can feel and smell the memory of it as well. They say you need words to remember and I must have had those words. It isn't the clearer, sharper memories of later but it is there. I have similar memories of other happenings. 

I didn't "just pick it (reading) up" of course. My parents contributed to the process. When my brother came along I was there to help. He was another early reader. My sisters were not as fast. My parents had more to do and the Senior Cat was doing a university degree part time. That alone tells me that parents need to be involved. 

Most parents would not be able to do what my parents did. They are not trained teachers. Quite possibly their children would not be as interested in learning to read but it does not mean that nothing should be done. Every so often there will be another news item about the importance of reading to children when they are young. It is one of those things that "everybody knows" is important but is still largely taken for granted. It does not always get done.

It does not always get done because parents are now "time poor". If both parents are working full time then there is very little time left for parenting. Your child(ren) will be brought up by the staff at day care in whatever form it takes. The lucky children will be those who are left with caring and able grandparents who take them off to "story-telling" at the library and have the time to satisfy the curiosity of the child who wants to know what something "says".  It is not just that of course. It is the individual interactions which matter, the playing with words. I heard a child saying "beat" the other day. Her grandparent responded, "heat" and the child said "cheat". It was a game between two. It was fun. 

All forms of day care have a place but none of them are quite the same as individual adult time devoted to words when it comes to learning to read. That is only a start of course. There is much more to it than that but it still matters and there are too many children missing out on it. 

 

 

 

The "Thriving Kids" program

outlined by the government is supposed to reduce the cost of the NDIS scheme. Whether it will or not is yet to be seen.

I was talking to a young mother yesterday who was worried her three year old son "might be autistic". He was running around and around the park adjacent to the library pretending to be a pilot. 

"He just keeps going like that all day. At kindy (kindergarten) they keep telling me he has to learn to settle down and listen to instructions and do what he is told. They are worried because he can't count properly past ten and he doesn't know how to read anything. He can read his name but he can't write it and they say..." 

"Does he sleep at night?" I asked. It felt exhausting just watching him.

"Oh yes, that's not a problem."

"Do you read to him?"

"Yes, it's why we come here on Wednesdays. It isn't a kindy day so we come to the toy library and I always get some books for him. He will listen to a story...I mean he will wriggle around but if you ask him then he has been listening. He can tell it back to you."

I listened to all of this as he turned a perfect somersault in the grass to "land". He was talking away using words like "landing gear" and "flaps" and "throttle". It all sounded perfectly normal to me. He seemed to me to be a healthy and active little boy with imagination and the apparently excess energy of childhood. 

But apparently there are "problems" at kindergarten level. He does not fit into the required groove or hole. He is a round peg that can turn around and around and the hole is square. It does not want him to roll around. Someone has suggested he "might be autistic" because he does not fit neatly into the expectations and requirements of the kindergarten. He is not learning the way they require children to learn. 

Of course I do not know the child at all. There may be other problems, problems the mother did not want to mention. Still it seems to me that having a very active and healthy child with an active and healthy imagination should not be seen as a "might be autistic" problem. The idea of putting him on some sort of medication "to calm him down a bit" was worrying the mother. It would worry me too. 

Is this how we treat three year old children who do not fit into the requirements being laid down?  

  

 

  

So interest rates are up again?

And the government is blaming everyone but themselves? Why am I not surprised?

I spent most of my time yesterday morning going to and from the bank. To get there requires pedalling to the station, catching a train changing to another train and then pedalling again at the other end. (Yes of course you do the same in reverse to go home again.) I arrived at the bank during the shopping centre's "quiet hour" - the one which is supposed to cater for people with "sensory needs".  It was not particularly quiet.

I had to actually go to the bank because all attempts to do what needed to be done could not be done on line. Please allow me to explain how much of this is a government induced problem which causes a rise or two in the cost of living.

First, it should not have been necessary to go that far in order to actually go to a bank. There should be a bank nearby. There were once four banks in the immediate vicinity. Now there are none. There were four ATM's outside the shopping centre. Now there is one. There is another inside run by a private company that charges people each time they use it.  All this has been done in the name of things like "electronic banking", "efficiency", "time saving", "reduced costs"... I could go on. Has any of this actually made life easier? No, it has reduced human interaction.

It has also increased the possibilities for fraud, greatly increased those possibilities. Oh and don't think about using the ATM unless there are plenty of people around or you might find yourself being held up by a teenage gangster looking for a bit extra to spend at the fast food places across the main road.

So, "reverification" of my bank details are necessary because now I could be anyone at all. After the failed attempts to do it in other ways and a now angry email from the bank I gave in and decided to go. The one thing I was refusing to do was "make an appointment".  Thus I made the trip by trike and train. Two trains? Yes, our public transport system tends to go in and out of the city, not across the suburbs. There is one "connector" bus service which does a loop but I cannot take the trike on the buses and it would involve even more time and buses. The entire system is designed to encourage the use of cars.

Oh yes, cars? Most people have access to one. They can drive. They have a licence to drive. It has "photo ID". You can use it to prove your identity. I do not have a licence to drive of course. I have a "proof of age" card. It also has photo ID. It is issued by the same people who issue the driver's licence cards. To get a proof of age card you have to provide a hundred points of ID which means at least two things like your passport, your birth certificate, your Medicare card and (wait for it) your licence to drive.  It is supposed to be an alternative to the licence to drive when you need to provide ID...except sometimes. The bank will not take that form of ID on line. 

So there I am, sans "appointment". I tell the service officer at the "welcome" desk why I am there. He starts to say I should have an appointment and I tell him, politely, that I am not going to make one because I happen to know that they have appointments available right then. (I looked that up before I left.) His shoulders sag. Is this going to be a difficult customer? He looks my details up. There is a flag on them saying I have already put in a complaint. The complaint was polite. It was reasonable. If they accept my suggestion it will, I hope, make a change to bank policy and life a little easier for all of us without a licence to drive. 

"Plenty of time," the nice female officer tells me. She groans when I tell her what the problem is...and agrees with me that reverification of details is largely due to fraud caused by the lack of face to face transactions. The idea that my proof of age card is not adequate for reverification purposes on line is something which causes her to sigh in frustration and mutter imprecations about inefficiency and more. I was on my way home when she actually phoned me to say that the bank has now accepted my proof of age card as ID...but it still cannot be done online. 

I hope my new passport turns up soon. I might need it as ID.  

I am reeling at the stupidity of

some people. I have just lost my temper. Anyone who knows me will also know it takes a lot for me to actually lose my temper. I can get angry but this is something different.

There is a fire in a conservation park south of here. I know the area. It is very difficult terrain. There are a lot of eucalypts there and a lot of other growth. It is pretty dry right now. There has not been a lot of rain recently.  The wind is changeable. There is no rain in sight. The roads in and out are narrow and winding. It is the very worst sort of fire to have to fight. 

The police are asking people to "stay away". The last thing the fire fighters need are thrill seekers - sight seers - people "going to have a look" or "to see if they can help".  No you can't help. Stay the hell out of there. Stay away. Let the people who are risking their lives to put the fire out get on with the job without hindrance. 

If you were told to get out then I hope you got out. Don't rely on those firefighters to come and rescue you.

I know something about bushfires (wildfires). I have been too close to one for comfort. Let me explain.

There was a fire when the Senior Cat had a school in a rural area. The school, like most area schools, had an agricultural stream. There were sheep and some small areas of crop and the like. The Senior Cat and the teacher in charge of the agricultural stream were responsible for the safety of that as well as the safety of the school. It was a weekend. The children were not at school which was a good thing because the school was needed for other purposes. It was the command centre. 

I do not know too much about the details of the fire. What I do know are some things which will stick in my mind forever. We herded the sheep into the back garden of the school house. They were bleating fear. My brother was set the task of hand pumping the water into the overhead tank (which is how we had any water pressure at all) and he also had to control the hose which was there to make sure that any sparks which landed did not start a major fire. 

I was sent over to the school's domestic science kitchen where food was prepared for the men fighting the fire. The town's only shop had sent up all the available bread along with other supplies. I spent the night and most of the following day making sandwiches as the men came in to the kitchen in relays.  They would lie on the floor in the room next day and "get some kip" before going back out on to the front lines having had an hour or so's break. They were filthy dirty and red eyed. Some of them had minor burns and blisters. They were exhausted but they had to go back. There were simply not enough men to do the job which needed to be done without them. The school's generator had to be kept running so there was power at the school. 

Eventually everything was under control. The area around the school was a mess but it was not as bad as it might have been. Everyone was exhausted and I mean exhausted. They were not just "very tired". There was still a lot of cleaning up to do, spots to be watched and roads to be cleared. 

Compared with what they are now fighting I suppose it was a "small" fire but it did not feel small. The terrain was not as difficult but other issues made it awkward. The cause of the fire was thought to be a dry lightning strike. Nobody lost their home but some people lost sheds and many of them lost sheep or had to go out and shoot the injured sheep. Contrary to the belief of many farmers do not like doing that.  

It was talked of quietly for weeks. I remember the vague feeling of trying to be as grown up as the women working in the kitchen but it was hard. I knew where my parents were but they did not know where their fathers, husbands and sons were or if they were safe. I was the only teenager in the room and it was one of those times when I definitely kept my head down and my mouth shut. I suppose it was a "growing up" moment but it is a memory which still disturbs me. 

So, when some fool thinks it would be "interesting" to go and look I let him know how selfish he would be. The last thing they need is someone getting in the way and putting their lives further at risk. Please just let the men out there get on with the job and let the back up women get on with theirs too.  

  

The political devotee who knocked

on my door yesterday was a nice young girl but very immature and very misguided.

I will assume she was eighteen but she looked younger than that. She stood there and told me that she was campaigning for the candidate of her choice and wanted to talk to me about it. 

I do not normally engage in conversation with any political candidates or their representatives but I had already heard her talking to one of my neighbours. What she was telling them was complete nonsense. The party in question was going to do this, do that, do something else. It sounded wonderful but it was completely impossible. I am sure the candidate does not believe it. It would not be in their party's political manifesto.

We talked about the "free" solar panels. No, I was not to worry about that. Everyone was going to get those. I first pointed to the roof and said, "We cannot put them up here." (There are good safety reasons for this. The place would need a new roof.) I explained why. 

Her response was, "But we could help you do that." Really? I very much doubt it.

I asked her where the money was coming from. "The government of course." And where does government money come from? That caused a slight hesitation and then, "Well some of it is our taxes but most of it comes from business."  Really?

Climate change? Her views on that were, as I expected, in keeping with the worst case scenario. No, greening the planet was not the answer. Trees are nice but you don't need them in the way you need housing.

And why do we need so much housing? Because everyone has the right to their own free standing home. Really? I tried to tell her that this is not how most people live but she still felt it was the right thing to try and achieve. After all, or so she informed me, we need to bring in at least another hundred thousand people a year over and above the (increased) numbers we are already bringing in.  Those people also have a "right" to live as they choose. They do not need to integrate because we are "multicultural". She genuinely could not see that as likely to cause any problems.

We stopped about there. We did not cover the "stolen" land issue or the other issues of concern regarding "indigenous culture" and "first nations" people. I could be almost certain of her thinking on those issues.

Or is she thinking at all? I am sure she regards herself as politically well informed. In reality she has very little idea of how complex many of these issues are. I doubt she would believe anyone if they tried to tell her. I suppose it makes her the perfect political devotee of her chosen party.  

 

"Is it all right not to like someone?"

a strange child asked me yesterday. He was standing there glaring at someone who had just walked off quickly.

"You don't have to like everyone," I responded. We were outside the shopping centre. The place where I park my trike is also used by people to tie up their dogs. The child, a boy of about nine, was standing there next to a dog of indeterminate breed but determinedly friendly nature.

Dog and I said hello to one another and the child said, "I like you because you talk to my dog."

"I like talking to dogs. They talk back to you."

"Yes they do but that man doesn't like dogs. He was rude about Ben and rude to me. He said dogs like Ben should be put down and put down means killed. He said they were no use for anything but Ben is useful"

I was soon told about the way Ben kept this child's grandfather company after the death of the child's grandmother. Apparently, "They go everywhere together except inside places like this where you aren't allowed."

This child was, rightly, upset. The dog was securely tied to the railing and doing no harm to anyone. He was not barking or making a nuisance of himself. The child claimed he had not said anything to the man who made the comments and I believe him. He was one of those "nice" children you instantly feel warm towards. His relationship with the dog was excellent.

I like dogs I suppose. I tend to talk to them when I see them. If they are tied up where my trike is tied up then we might have a conversation of sorts. There are dogs I know quite well. I know some better than I know their owners. I am sure there are people who think I am odd because I talk to dogs. I talk to cats too. It just seems to be the right thing to do. We have no idea how much they understand but I suspect it is more than we recognise. 

So is it all right not to like some people? I considered this as the milk I had just bought was in danger of curdling before I managed to get it into the fridge. The child wanted an answer to this question.

"Yes," I told him, "It is perfectly all right not to like someone. You don't have to like everyone. It needn't stop you being polite and I am sure you were. There are people I don't like either but I know the people I like usually like animals."

The child nodded and then said, "I won't tell Grandpa what happened then."

A tail thumped in agreement.