Fly there - if you can

because it is a long journey by road.

Those of you who live Elsewhere will be largely unaware of how big this country is. We take visitors into the "rural" areas close to the city and they think "aren't the farms a long way apart". We think "aren't they close together". For us "a long way apart" can mean hundreds of kilometres not five or six.

The looming fuel shortage is making people who live in those areas very conscious of their isolation. For them, and those of us who once lived there, it is seen as a very real problem. At the best of times you do not simply "hop in the car" to go shopping or get to the doctor or dentist or drop the kids at school. Going somewhere means using fuel and fuel is expensive. Working the farm which will give you the income to buy the fuel also means using the vehicles which use fuel. 

Yesterday morning I was waiting at the pedestrian lights near the library and I watched the cars going along the road which leads to the CBD.  Car after car after car had just one person in it. There they were cosily tucked into their transport. One person was drinking from a takeaway container - his breakfast perhaps? Another was - illegally - on his phone. They were ignoring the fact that at least four different bus routes use sections of that road. They were ignoring the fact there is a train line that, even stopping at five more stops after the local station, takes just thirteen minutes to get into the city.  No, they would be paying for fuel (and all the other expenses) and parking...and they would be using the fuel which we should be keeping for people in rural areas. 

It is unlikely those driving their cars would even think of this. They would be intent on getting home easily when work finished for the day or telling themselves that the walk at the other end was too much. They would be "picking up the kids" and "going to the gym" or any number of other things.

Out in the country all this gets infinitely more difficult and there are even more problems if you are ill. Rural areas do not have all the services the city has. People need to get to the city for consultations with specialists, for treatment. It is an expensive business and it is time consuming. The plane flights from the most distant points of the state are an essential part of the service. Cut the flights out and some people will have no access to essential health services. Cut the flights down and you might still be able to access the services but it will be even more inconvenient (and possibly more expensive) than before. The airlines do not want to provide the services because, even using small planes, they are running at a loss. Yes, you may be ill and feeling dreadful but it is not the role of the airline to see you get to your appointment.  

Food is more expensive out there. The variety in the (much smaller) supermarket is not as great. Quite likely there is nowhere to buy the shoes your child needs for school. That has to wait until you visit the nearest "big" town. When we lived in remote areas my mother would buy things in bulk and they had to last until the next trip back to the city.

The government is trying to tell us that our fuel supplies are adequate, that there is no need for rationing. As someone said to me yesterday, "That's enough for me to believe we are running short and the government should bring rationing in." I hope he is wrong.

I am thankful I can still use pedal power.  

  

There will be a bail hearing today

where an attempt to have this country's most decorated soldier released from custody. It should succeed but it may not. If it does not then we can be even more certain than before that this case is politically motivated.  

Yes, someone who is accused of murder must face court. It is the manner in which the case against that person is handled which is of concern here. Somewhere out there a journalist is probably congratulating themselves on what they have managed to achieve. They have brought down a hero. They have succeeded in having a defamation case thrown out. They have caused endless time and trouble to be devoted to the alleged actions of someone who has faced more life and death situations than the journalist can even dream about.  The journalist no doubt sees themselves as the "hero" now.

The media has gone headlong into reporting all this. There have been claims of "innocence" and "guilt" and all sorts of conspiracy theories flying through the ether and on the air.

There are some things which can be said. The first of these is that the bail hearing should bring about a release from custody. It may not but it should. It should because this person is not a flight risk. If bail is not granted then he could remain incarcerated for years before the matter comes before the court again. The prosecution may argue that the evidence against him is too strong for that. It will be interesting to see which way that goes.

The defence may also try and argue that, if he remains in custody, he needs to be transferred to his home state. That is where it could get very interesting. 

There are politics involved in this case. The manner of this man's arrest was highly political. The media was tipped off. He was arrested outside his home state even though multiple reports suggest he offered to attend a police station on more than one occasion. That the offer was not taken up by the prosecution and that he was not arrested in his home state strongly suggest there are other factors at play here.

When this matter goes to trial the charges do not allow him to elect to be tried by judge alone. It must be a jury trial. When the jury is being chosen only three potential jurors can be dismissed. The questions which can be asked of jurors are also limited. While the jury is supposed to be chosen randomly from the electoral roll there is, simply because of the population mix, a much higher chance of a jury who will not be sympathetic. Add that to the very high media coverage which has already occurred and finding a neutral jury is almost certainly impossible. Both prosecution and defence will be aware of this. 

People have asked why this has not been tried by "court martial". The answer to that is that a court martial does not try criminal cases and the charges are criminal charges. 

I am not a potential juror. I live in another state. I can and will say that a "fair" trial may not be possible here. It may not be possible for a number of reasons. The most important of these is that nobody can remember clearly anything which happened so far back. Unless there is physical evidence and witnesses to that evidence are available then a case can fail. The "but all the other men are saying..." argument fails here.  It fails because people do not remember. They make believe they do. They will not be "lying" as such. They simply will not be telling the truth because their memory is not reality.

Would I grant bail? Yes, I would.  

Learning English

is essential if you are to become part of the community in this country. Like it or not English is the official language. 

Yes, English is a difficult language to learn. If you come from another country and you have not had the opportunity to get much of an education it might be very difficult. It still needs to be done.

There was criticism in the media and elsewhere when the leader of the current Opposition said policy would be to require people to learn English if they wanted to become citizens of this country. They would need to do this along with accepting the "values" of this country and doing that by formally signing a document. 

Apparently this is not seen as acceptable. One of my neighbours actually considers it to be "racist" and "Islamophobic". When I tried to point out that learning English actually increases the safety and well being of individuals he responded with the well worn "this country is multicultural and people have the right to use their own language". 

No, they do not have that right. The first language of this country is English. It is the language which allows us to function as a society. Yes it is possible to do what my sister's late mother-in-law did. P...learned very little English. She relied on her husband and her children to deal with many things. She shopped in the supermarket where there were Greek speaking check out assistants. She was a dressmaker by profession - and a very, very good one - but it did not mean she needed to speak English. Most of her clients were Greek speakers. With Middle Cat she spoke a mixture of Greek and English. She did the same with me. Middle Cat went to Greek classes and understood far more than I did. I did not go to Greek classes and would guess what she was trying to tell me from the context. That is changing now. My nephews understand some Greek but last Christmas nobody was speaking Greek. The next generation will probably not understand any at all. 

I have a smattering of this language and that language and I understand more than I can say in more than one language but I do not speak a second language. Had I moved to a country where English was not the first language I would have made every effort to learn the other languages. It would have been something I saw (and still see) as essential. It is a safety issue. It is a mental health essential.  I consider myself very fortunate my own first language is one which is so widely spoken and understood. 

I am concerned, very concerned, when people come up with phrases like "diversity, equity and inclusion" and suggest people should not need to learn English when they come here. It is divisive. It is not equal. It excludes. 

"I'm frightened she's going to die!"

I was on the train yesterday and the child opposite me, a girl of about fourteen, was having a conversation with someone on the phone. It was impossible not to hear it. She knew I could hear it.

She was relating a story to someone of how she had come back from school one afternoon last week and found her mother collapsed on the floor, bleeding and only semi-conscious. It would be a terrifying situation for anyone to be in, let alone a girl of that age. She kept her head sufficiently well to call an ambulance and her mother is apparently currently in intensive care.

The police took over at that point and she is currently in the care of people she does not know. This is not working well. It rarely does. She was close to tears as she spoke.

When the conversation was finished she glared at me, obviously furious that I had been able to hear it. I was almost going to say nothing at all but then I decided to say something,

"If you want to swear at me go ahead."

She swore, fiercely and fluently but quietly. She told me what an awful person I was to listen in on a private conversation and how I could not possibly understand how she was feeling. 

Then, suddenly, she stopped.  

"It's my station," she told me and then, "Thank you so much for letting me do that. Thank you. Thank you."

She actually managed a lopsided attempt at a smile and rushed off the train.

All I can do now is hope that she will be able to cope with whatever comes next. 

I suppose someone will ask, "Why didn't you just ask, "Are you okay?" The answer to that is that it was perfectly obvious she was not okay. I didn't think that question would have been right at all. I didn't really think about what I told her but now I know I was giving her permission to be rude to a stranger who dared to think she was not okay. In a way I am glad her station came when it did because I have no idea what I would have said or done next.  

Did I do the right thing? Should I just have "shut up"? Phone calls used to be conducted in the privacy of our own homes. I was reminded of the old "party line" calls that were possible when we lived in remote areas. The Senior Cat had to "book a call" if he needed to talk to someone in the Education Department in the city. (This was so nobody else could listen in to the conversation.) It all seems so strange now when people conduct their business quite openly.

I just hope that young girl's mother recovers and they can be together again. 

Twenty million dollars being spent

on advertising the fuel issues facing this country is apparently seen as justified by the government. The fact they also managed to get a major advertising campaign underway so quickly is also a curiosity.

It will of course have nothing to do with the fact that the initial report on anti-Semitism is due out shortly and there is also a judgment being brought down on a gender issue. It will have nothing to do with the arrest of a person of interest.

Mmm... perhaps I should start again. The initial report on anti-Semitism will quite possibly not contain much at all. The terms were written in a way which is supposed to keep much of what perhaps should be discussed from being discussed at all. It would lead into some very dangerous territory for the government. I hold no great hopes for the final report either. There are areas where the government, any government, will not dare to go - and certainly not go if they do not want to lose votes.

Gender issues are also tricky. How do you keep those who are so good at getting media attention happy? Give them what they want even when it means denying others theirs? Do you follow science or belief? An advertising campaign relating to fuel just might help to deflect attention.

And the arrest of that person of interest? Make it as public as possible. Look at the wonderful job we are doing of bringing criminals to face court. 

My Jewish friends feel nothing will come of the report into anti-Semitism. I hope they are wrong but worry they are right. My gay and lesbian friends are concerned about the way gender is being treated. They would like to get on with their lives without having to worry about "gender transition" issues and being treated as if they are the ones at fault here.

And it would be good if all the "lawyers" out there would actually study the law. Yes, there are some very real concerns at the way the matter is being conducted. There should be a bail hearing on Friday and we may actually know more then. At some point I will also state some facts. 

As one of those men told me a couple of days ago we need "support, not suppression". The advertising campaign is being served to us as support when it is actually suppression.   

Joining the armed services

used to be a "thing" for some families. There was a "proud tradition". At one time wealthy families saw it as their "duty" to have at least one member of their family seen to do active service.

In my own extended family there is a history of naval service. The Senior Cat would have joined the navy if he had passed the medical. That they did not even want him during war time perhaps says something about his eyesight and his very flat feet. I am grateful he did not get accepted. My mother might not have had his love and support. My siblings and I might not be here. He would not have been the same person. 

No, we did not go the route of one in the services, one in the legal profession, one in the church. I do know families like that but they are less common now.

I had one of those casual conversations about it yesterday. I was on a train going into the city when the people opposite me had been discussing this. One of them turned to me and asked what I thought. I suppose it was perfectly obvious that I had been listening. It was the sort of conversation you cannot avoid hearing.

We talked for a bit. These two men were "returned" men. They had seen active service. Would they recommend it as a career path now? Their answer was "no". 

"Up until last week," one of them told me, "I might have suggested it, especially for some young one who was not sure what to do with their life. Now I would tell them to stay away. If the government can't support their military men then don't (...) near it."

The other man agreed.

They were of course referring to the arrest of our most decorated war hero. We discussed the psychology of the battle field and the way those on active duty react. We discussed the aftermath. I told them of my experiences living in a "soldier settler" area. (We discovered people we all knew.) 

One of them helped me get the trike off the train and we parted company but the other said, "Spread the word - support, not suppression." 

It's an interesting thought, one that is being discussed elsewhere. I know, from personal experience, if your employer does not support you or the people you work with, then loyalty and a willingness to stay goes out the door with you.   

The flu season is

upon us and I have just had my annual vaccination. 

This year I was finally at the age where I can have my shot at the local pharmacy.  I made an appointment, filled out the necessary documentation and, Medicare card in my paw, I went at the appointed time. I was jabbed - not quite painlessly - and told to sit and wait ten minutes before prowling off.

It was at that point I rebelled. I do not care to sit in the shop itself. This is where they would like me to sit, there or on the seats immediately outside.

I looked at the nurse who had given me the jab. The nurse looked at me. No, I was not going to be foolish enough to put my paws on the pedals and ride off into the start of the school hour traffic.  

"I will go and get myself a drink," I told her. I told her where I was going. She agreed.

I know the people who run the little "hole in the wall" cafe in the shopping centre. They know me by name. It is not because I spend much money there. I don't. They know I do not but we exchange other things. They are Syrian. I help with their English because they know they can always ask me for help with that. They will ask after Middle Cat if they have not seen her. She has treated both parents on occasion. 

So, I prowled the twenty or so metres to the cafe and, making sure I had the cash, I did the rare thing and bought hot chocolate. It was good hot chocolate because it was actually hot, not lukewarm. I made sure I paid cash because A... will try and "pay" me for the English lessons if I use my debit card. He brought it over with a little bow and then turned to someone else he knows by sight, "Cat is my friend. Do you know her?"  I felt like royalty.

I took my time over my hot chocolate. I watched them at work. By mid-afternoon things are quietening down for them. A... was clearing packing to the big recycle bin outside. P... was scrubbing the area she likes to keep so clean. Someone came up wanting coffee and something to eat. I know him. He is a doctor and he had been doing a clinic with some refugees. She shooed them into a nearby seat and, late though it was, she made him a proper cafe meal. "If I do not, you will not eat properly." She told him. 

I have no idea how these people make a living. It would be very little but they are refugees who recently became citizens themselves and they are intent on making the most of their new country. A... came back from the recycle bin and cleared the tables around me. I was talking to someone I know and making arrangements to do something. The doctor ate his meal, gave me a tired smile and asked if I would arrange for someone to get a library card. Then he was gone. I took my own mug back to P... because it had all gone quiet.

Yes, ten minutes had come and gone but it was a good time. A... and P... know their regular customers. They will go out of their way for them. It is a tiny place and people wonder how they manage to keep it going. I suspect I know. It is something we can all learn.