Eating at the table

is apparently a thing from the past for some families. 

There is a very witty but also rather sad article about this by one of the regular columnists in today's paper. It is also something I was thinking about several days ago.

I was thinking about it because someone called in and remarked, "Oh, you kept the good table and chairs."

The "good" table and chairs happen to be those that we kept in what we called the dining room. This was the space immediately adjacent to the kitchen on one side and the "living area" on the other. We also had a kitchen table and chairs. Yes, we had the space and we used both. The kitchen table and chairs were for every day use. The dining table and chairs were for the times we had visitors or we needed to spread something out. The dining room table could be extended from seating for four to seating for six or even eight. I have not yet extended it here but I might because I also used it to set out other projects. Mum used it as a cutting table for her sewing and the Senior Cat would put her machine up there because the natural light was much better.

Now I eat at the "good" table. I do not eat watching television or a phone screen. I read books. It is something both the Senior Cat and I did at times. For years he read the paper as he ate his muesli and drank his instant coffee. He could read rapidly which was probably just as well because breakfast was always a rushed affair when he was still working and not much better when he "retired" to do other things. 

At the evening meal though we ate as a family. To do anything else would have seemed strange. If one of us was unavoidably absent Mum did not like it at all. A hot main course might be kept in the oven but that was the only thing she allowed. We were expected to be there and be on time. 

Our meals were not silent. Events of the day were discussed. We kittens knew that school matters were never ever discussed outside the house. Quite often there would be a young teacher at the table with us and we would remain silent as some teaching issue was discussed. There was never anything said about individual students but I could often guess there was much more to an issue. It was all good training for my later working life when I have signed more confidential documents than I care to think about.  

But eating together was more than that. Mum could watch over what we ate of course but lessons could be discussed and the homework we were required to do. Mum would test our spelling and our "times tables". If there was a school test coming up she would make sure we were prepared. The Senior Cat would help with a project but he would also try to steer the talk away into thinking about other things. 

I had no idea what other families talked about. I assumed every family was like ours and was amazed when I eventually found out their conversations were about sport (something never discussed in our house) and the latest popular songs (my parents would never have heard them) or some other local event. Local events were only discussed if we were involved in them.

When Mum died things did change. I kept meal times regular because of the Senior Cat's medical issues but we discussed books and politics, current affairs and philosophical questions, religion and more.  Mealtimes were something we enjoyed as a chance to talk to each other. 

I think it is one of the things I miss most. It might be why I read as I eat - and do both rather slowly. 

Losing your job

is devastating for anyone even if you have advance warning that it might happen. Even if you do not like the work you do to suddenly find yourself with no income at all is frightening.

It gets worse than that for some people. A much younger friend completed a university degree last year. It was in an area where there are employment opportunities and she was optimistic about her chances of finding work.

For the past seven months she has been "volunteering" in a work place. It has supposedly been to "get experience". She has worked as hard, if not harder, than the people actually employed there. For this she was being paid the equivalent of the unemployment benefit under a government training scheme. When I met one of her workmates, the person delegated to "train" her, she was enthusiastic about this girl's ability to do the work, fit in and take initiative when necessary. She would, I was told, "be a great addition and we'd like to have her". 

That was the feeling of everyone except the person in charge. As everyone else was leaving last week he called her into his office. He then told her she need not bother to come back on Monday. The job application she put in has not succeeded. She was to take her things with her immediately and was not to return. He did not thank her for the work she had done or for the extra hours she had put in. There is a major report coming out shortly, one which this girl has done most of the research for and much of the writing. She will not be there when it all comes out.

The person who had been responsible for her training was the one who told me what had happened. She wanted to know if there was any way to help her. "I have seen the draft report. Her name is not even acknowledged."

I wanted to know why the boss was behaving like this. She shrugged. "I don't know. He isn't interested in women so it isn't that. If I rock the boat then I don't know what he'll do next. Word has it that he has appointed the person I thought was the least suitable to the position. I'll be expected to train him up of course."

Yesterday I had another call, made outside the office on her personal phone.  The new appointee is somehow related to the boss. Yes, he has the paper qualifications for the role. He has no experience. He is apparently not even particularly enthusiastic about the work but "it's a job".  I wonder how well he will do. 

It is another example of "who you know" I suppose. I just hope someone I know will raise some questions about this.  

Banning beehives in

"residential areas" is the latest proposal from a council in the hills behind me. It has come about because some of the "city slicker" residents have complained about bees, roosters, pigeons and livestock kept by their neighbours.

Sorry, you have moved to "the country". It was your choice to move out of the urban areas into what you thought was the idyllic countryside. You expected it to be all clean and fresh and quiet. You expected it all to just be that way without any work on your part too. 

Many years ago a very close friend of the Senior Cat moved his family on to a twenty acre block in the hills. We thought it was a crazy idea at the time but they were English migrants who had fallen in love with the idea of living in a rural location. They had done their homework. They knew it was going to be very hard work. 

Even with the amount of research K... and his partner had done they still found it much harder than they had anticipated. They worked very hard at teaching full time during the day, preparing lessons at night and then spending snatched hours during the week and all of the weekend in developing the land. It was made possible only because they allowed someone else to keep bees at the far end of their property and they had no other livestock to care for.  The bee keeper was a professional apiarist. 

Their decision to move there was made at a time when they had no immediate neighbours. The services available were limited. They needed two cars to get to work and to get the children to school some distance away. 

There is still no public transport but the nearby "town" has grown to the point where there is now a medical centre, another school, a shopping precinct, a nursing home for the aged and more. It is becoming more like a suburb of the city in the plains below it. 

Therein lies the problem. People have romantic ideas about "living in the country" but they want all the amenities associated with living in the city. They really have no idea what actual country living is like. They do not have the skills they need to live there. They do not want to put the time in to caring for the property they have so gleefully bought. Many of them start with the best of intentions perhaps but they simply do not know.  

There is also a tendency to forget the lack of public transport and the time it takes to get to work if they still work in the city. Yes, there are now some buses although some of them are just express services from a larger area along the "freeway".  Many people do not want to use those. They are not as "convenient" so they use cars and complain about the traffic, the speed limits and more.

Once back at home they want to "relax". Someone else will come in and mow the lawn they have planted and prune the "natives" they have planted in their "easy care" garden.  They have no desire to care for a hive of bees - the very wonders who pollinate the plants which provide their food... and how dare a rooster crow in the morning!

I wonder if it would help if these "we want to live in the country" dwellers had to pass a stiff exam before they actually moved in. "Living in the country" is not romantic. It is smelly, dirty, noisy and very hard work.   

A "Minister for Loneliness"?

Apparently one in six of us feels "lonely" and, each year, around 900,000 people around the world die from loneliness. That is according to a WHO report. 

I suspect the figure is far higher than that. In a world which is "more connected" than ever before we actually interact less. There are people who "work from home" and live alone. They do their grocery shopping on line and pay for it on line. They pay their bills on line. If they do travel they go in a car alone or swipe a card on public transport. They may go to the gym but once there they exercise alone. If they go to the library on their way home they can use the self-serve check out and then, having forgotten to add milk to their home-delivery from the supermarket, they can pick up a carton and use the self-serve checkout without speaking to anyone.  Of course if the self-serve checkout is not available and they go through a staffed checkout they can keep watching the screen of their phone so there is no need to talk to anyone. 

Who wants to talk to people? Why on earth would we bother to talk to anyone we do not know? We all know the world is full of dangerous and evil people don't we? It isn't safe to talk to strangers is it?

We isolate ourselves by our own behaviour and then isolate everyone around us in the same way. If you talk to strangers, even just casual comments in passing, some people think you are "weird", "a bit odd", "bonkers" and more. No, you are not "crazy" but there is definitely something a little different about you. You are not supposed to behave this way. It makes other people feel uncomfortable. They are not sure how to respond. 

You're lonely? "Go and join a group," they tell you. Find a common interest group. Get involved. 

No, it is not as easy as that. The "time" issue is likely no more than an excuse because the real issues are having the courage to go along to a group. If you do get that far do other people make you welcome? Are you willing to participate, really participate? Do you actually know how to interact with other people any more? It is easier just to look at a screen isn't it?

One of my regrets is that I have no friendships outside family forged in childhood. We moved too many times for that to happen. My mother did not want other people's children in the house. She saw children all day in school.  There is nobody with whom I can share the memories of playing games of imagination outside. 

For some people that is different. I knew two women, both now deceased, who met on the first day of school and remained friends for the rest of their lives. They had over ninety years of shared memories. I wonder if that could happen now. 

It will take more than a Minister for Loneliness and some sort of government policy to combat loneliness. We need to change the way we live.   

Is it true or is it

a skewed view of the author or is it fiction made out to be true or is it something else?

I have just read an article about a book called "The Salt Path". It is one of those "true" stories which are about "overcoming a situation". The only problem is that the book is not true - and the author of the book knew it. Somehow she managed to get it past Penguin and they published it. 

It is not the first time this sort of thing has happened - and it will not be the last. In 1995 the Miles Franklin Award was won by someone who called herself Helen Demidenko for a book she called "The hand that signed the paper". It was supposed to be fact but it turned out to be fiction. 

I do not care how well either book was written I object, and I object strongly, to them being published as "true" accounts. They are not even skewed views of something which actually happened. They are fiction. Those of us who buy the book believing it to be, if not completely true, at least something which actually happened are being defrauded. 

Should the author be required to repay the money? Is the publisher in any way liable? In all likelihood the author has already spent any money they have received. Can a publisher really be held liable for the lies of the author? Does the issue of "due diligence" really apply? What about those who, simply because of their family, are the subject of some fascination? Should "Spare" have been written at all? I think it should not have been but others would strongly disagree. 

A journalist's unease is what eventually exposed the author of "The Salt Path" - but not before a film was made as well. Will Penguin need to bear the losses of recalling and pulping the books still available for sale? I would assume they will.  

There is a book I did enjoy which is probably not as accurate as the author would have us believe. It was written by a Winifred Stegar. The book, "Always Bells" or "Life with Ali" is about her life and her marriage to an Afghan cameleer in our "outback". She made a trip to Mecca with him in the early half of last century and that can be shown to be the case. The book is no literary masterpiece but it is interesting. Yes, there may be some "embellishments" along the way but she spent the latter part of her life in a small country town where the Senior Cat met her and talked to her about people they knew in common and stories about her that he had heard from them. Yes, the evidence for her story is there. In the hands of an expert story teller it probably would have had a much greater impact. Nobody pretends it is some sort of accurate history. 

There are any number of "life stories", biographies and autobiographies out there which may be rooted in fact but still almost fictionalised accounts of lives of the rich and famous. The market for such things exist because those people fascinate at least some of us. There are also many well known people about whom very little is known. When people wonder why "So and So" has not appeared on "Who do you think you are?" it might be because there is very little which is dramatic or interesting enough for a television program to be made about that person. Writing a book about them would be equally difficult.

This is an issue I have had to face. I could have kept all the correspondence I amassed over the years I spent working on what became International Literacy Year. It was tempting, very temping. There were thousands of letters, some of them from people who could only have been described as "very important". It would have been easy to use them and make a name for myself - perhaps. Would it have been the right thing to do though? In the end I had to be honest with myself and say "no".  Do I regret destroying them? Yes but it would have been selfish to do that. I really only had a very small part in the whole thing. It was not my story to tell.The real story came from the people who worked so hard on projects which made a difference. 

There are some stories we do not have the right to tell, 

   

I am wondering how a murderer

feels when a jury returns from deliberations and announces a guilty verdict. 

My reasons for wondering of course are to do with the guilty verdicts handed down in the "Mushroom" case. This is the case where a woman named Erin Patterson cooked a meal of "beef Wellingtons" and three of her four guests died after eating death cap mushrooms in the meal put before them. She claimed it was a "terrible accident" but the jury decided otherwise.

It took a week for the jury to come to their conclusion on all four counts - three of murder and one of attempted murder. I am trying to imagine what it would be like to be waiting...and waiting for the verdict. 

"They can't have been too certain," someone said in a line in the supermarket.

"It has to be a unanimous decision," someone else said, "There might have been someone trying to hold out against that."

We will never know because jury members are not allowed to talk to the media and share their views. I said nothing but I suspect that the jury was being careful. A good jury will go through the "evidence" put before them very carefully. Their decision will have a very big impact on everyone involved. It does not matter which was they go in deciding guilt or innocence there are going to be losers. In a murder trial everyone loses. There are no winners.

I think we forget that. I wonder how her family was feeling, particularly her two children. Unless she wins an appeal she will spend at least the next twenty years of her life in prison, quite possibly longer than that. She will get very little sympathy or support there. She is not like a woman who has killed to protect her young. She did not lash out in anger and then admit and regret it. The jury has concluded she planned to kill people who had done her no harm and carried out that plan.

I wonder what she thought as she waited for the verdict. Does she still know or believe she has not deliberately harmed anyone?  Does she wish she had done things differently? If she had been found "not guilty" would she have been thankful or would she be gloating? It is impossible to know.

The view in the line in the supermarket seemed to be that Erin Patterson is guilty and that she deserves to be locked away for life. Nobody seemed to be wondering how she might feel. Although one person expressed sympathy for her children the general view was "they are better off without her".  

I said nothing at all and prowled off as quickly as I could. There are no winners when murder is committed.  

"Multi-culturalism" does not work

as some sort of panacea for all our prejudices and ignorance.  I am more than ever convinced of that.

Another synagogue was damaged over the weekend. This time there were people in it who should have been enjoying a Shabbat meal. Instead of that they had to leave hastily out of a rear entrance. There were children present.

They have caught someone they believe to be the perpetrator but what sort of punishment will he get? An acquaintance here suggested, "A slap on the wrist. He will come up with some sort of story about a relative in Gaza."  It is likely both the perpetrator and the acquaintance share some prejudices even if they do not appear to do so.

In another instance a business owned by a Jewish family was damaged in the belief they are somehow involved in providing weapons to the Israeli Defence Force. Apparently the perpetrators believe they have some sort of right to harm a business here because of a war on the other side of the world. They believe they have some sort of right to do that even though they had no actual proof for their claims. Even if they had proof this was no way to go about it. There are other (much more effective) ways to protest.

For months there have been "protests" here about the war in Gaza. They have had a great deal of media attention. Yes, there have been protests against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, about the attempt to obliterate the nuclear facilities in Iran and more. We do not however hear too much about those or the much smaller protests and concerns about human rights abuses in China. We get told about the appalling conditions in Sudan and Somalia and Yemen and there are references to "rebels" when the media mentions these conditions. Protests about these things may not even reach the news or, at best, they are a thirty second clip of a small number waving placards outside an embassy.

But the other protests are apparently part of our "multi-cultural right to protest". Really? Is there such a right? Are such "protests" really a right conferred by our "multi-cultural" society.  Many, I suspect most, of those who attend such protests do so out of a desire to protest. It is "exciting". It gives them an adrenalin hit. If they were actually offered a free trip to Gaza to fight they would not want to go. It is easy to protest from a distance, especially when full possession of knowledge of the actual situation would harm their firm belief in what is "right".  We believe there is some sort of democratic right to voice our opinion in this way. Perhaps there is but it should be informed by facts. It is not a "multi-cultural" right to divide and harm.