Hamas will not disarm

in Gaza. They have no intention of doing so. Anyone who really believes this is a fool. 

Hamas is a military style terrorist group. Their stated purpose is the annihilation of the state of Israel. Nothing less will do. 

I have been listening to what is being said in the media. I have heard some of those involved in the "negotiations" talking about the "progress" being made. 

I am also reading the sub-text and it does not make happy reading. How many people read "Hamas" and "disarm" and went no further? 

This is of course exactly what some of those speaking about the issues and some of those reporting their words want people to do. Oh yes, there are "warnings" about the "complexity" and the "long road ahead" and "the other side agreeing" and much more.  

It is all a bit like fighting all the little spot fires around a major wild fire and not fighting the fire itself. To fight a major fire you need major resources, resources which are not forthcoming as yet, if ever.

The "pro-Palestinian" groups which like to claim how much death and destruction has been done by the opposing army are not being honest with themselves or with the rest of us. Let's be clear about something very rarely mentioned. Hamas has been siphoning off resources for many years. The Hamas leadership has been controlling not just the flow of aid into Gaza but the way in which it has been used. Food is a weapon used to control people. Access to education is a weapon used to indoctrinate the young. If you believe the stories in the media it is the opposing army which has destroyed the access to water, to medical services, to employment and just about everything else. Nothing is said about the way Hamas has ripped out the pipes to make weapons. Nothing is said about the way in which the consequent lack of clean water has caused so much illness. Nobody mentions how Hamas controls the markets that the lucky few buy their food from and, inside Gaza, you do not mention the way in which Hamas controls how external aid which enters is so rigidly controlled by them. There is nothing said about the "labour" used to dig the complex network of tunnels or what happens to the "labourers" when they cease to be useful.

I will not say anything else except this...do not believe what you are presently being told. There is no "agreement to disarm".  When this "agreement" fails who will be held responsible? 

Saying harmful things about

other people is as old as our ability to speak. Things said cannot be taken back. They can hurt and they can do harm. It is why we have laws about defamation. It is why truth is supposed to be a defence against defamation. It is also why there are standards imposed on all of us, particularly anyone making a public comment about anyone else.

The past few weeks have had me pondering this. Learning that one victim of a particularly vile but supposedly "comic" skit on television is now taking the perpetrators to court pleases me. Yes, this person can afford to do it. Taking perpetrators to court can be a very expensive business. 

I would be even more pleased if the entire issue is not settled by "mediation" but a court case and the perpetrators lose. The perpetrators in this instance are paid by the tax payer and there is increasing disquiet even among their supporters that, this time, they have gone too far. 

Those of you who live in Downunder will know what I am talking about but I am not going to repeat the vile remarks which were made about a very wealthy woman.  They were completely and totally inappropriate and the "apology" given was not an apology at all. As I write the material is still available on line. It was not funny. Contrary to the statements made I do not believe it was meant to be funny. 

This case is just as harmful in its own way as the three "discrimination" cases currently in the media. The first I knew about was the one which was brought after a person who "identifies as female" was denied entry to a "women only" space. The second is the one where another person who "identifies as female" was referred to by their biological sex and claimed damages for "hurt". The third case involves a person who "identifies as female" being denied access to a group which is only for female pole dancers. 

The first case is now the subject of "leave to appeal" to the High Court. The appeal in the second case failed and is being reviewed. The third is in the more early stages of what could be another protracted battle. 

Not one of these cases should ever have been brought before the courts. The legislation intended to protect women should have protected them. It does not. 

Let me be clear here. This is not about the rights or otherwise of  transgender people. It is about the right of the majority of those impacted to safe places. I have absolutely no problems with people who, as adults, choose to dress and act in ways which vary from the sex they were assigned to at birth. That is their choice. I do have a problem when they demand access to all spaces which vary from the sex they were assigned at birth. 

There is growing evidence that not everyone who is identifying as the opposite sex is doing so with good intentions. That the cases above lead naturally to men being able to access shelters intended for women and into prisons intended for women is alarming. That it means that people with a distinct physical advantage can cause not just physical but psychological harm on the sports field is genuine cause for concern. When it means that women who have been abused and are seeking help have no safe place to turn to then all the work done to provide those places has gone for nothing. 

There is a "men's coffee and chat" group run by one of the local churches. Not all the men who attend are church goers. I am told it is a place where the sort of discussion rarely available to men is available. It is a "safe" place for them.  It is somewhere they feel supported.  I do not know any woman who would believe it was appropriate to attend it. I would not even consider trying to push my way in. Why should it be any different for a women's group?

Restricting access does not always mean that discrimination is occurring.  There are places all of us cannot enter at times. This can be on safety grounds, religious grounds, security grounds or other grounds. There are other things we do not allow on age and safety grounds. Is there any reason to suppose that, despite these things, all spaces must be open to someone who chooses to identify in a manner at variance with some physical reality? So far the law is saying there is reason to grant someone the right to enter these spaces but it might be that this is the detriment of us all.  It may end up doing even more harm to those who identify "differently" as well. Do we really want that? 

 

   

Health insurance is something

"not negotiable" in this family. I struggle to pay mine but know it is essential to have it. The Senior Cat certainly used it. Middle Cat would not be alive without it. Brother Cat would likely have had a below knee amputation this year if private health insurance had not paid for him to be in hospital and the infection dealt with in a timely manner. 

I am told it is "queue jumping because you can pay for it" and that I should "just save the money and wait (my) turn" if I ever need something done. But is it really that simple?

The Senior Cat used his to his advantage several times during his later years. On at least one of those occasions it saved the taxpayer over a hundred thousand dollars. His health fund paid the bill for the surgery and the subsequent short stay at a rehabilitation facility. The latter was only necessary because we had to make sure the bathroom was fully accessible when he came  home.  Without health insurance he would have been waiting in agony and possibly never have come home but gone into care.

Middle Cat had major back surgery. This was necessary so that her spine did not impact her lungs and her ability to breathe. There were complications. She spent months in hospital. Health insurance paid for all of it. Without it she would not even have been able to have the initial surgery. 

I have had knee surgery. It was not major but it needed to be done. I am also well aware that if I need any extra help or assistance that it will not be something which can wait. I am not being impatient or selfish when I say this. It will be because doing what needs to be done will be designed to keep me as independent as possible for as long as possible. Being independent and living in my own place will actually save the government the expense of having me miserably located in a sub-standard nursing home in some far distant corner of the state. 

The same sort of incidents must be able to be told thousands upon thousands of times over. Anyone who has worked has also paid the "Medicare levy" into the public system. Private health is the extra on top of that. Previous governments have been returning a little of that to people over sixty-five. The present government, looking for any means of "saving" money has decided this is no longer to happen. The result? There are sufficient numbers of older people dropping their health insurance at the age when they will most likely need it. It will not really be saving the government any money of course. In reality it is likely to increase the demand for many services. These are services which might otherwise be avoided by people whose issues had been dealt with in a more timely fashion. 

 I know this has been explained to those responsible for making the decision. I know because I know one of the people who did the explaining. The government is not listening of course. The plan sounds like a good one. It is the "we are making it more equitable" argument being used again.  It is not more equitable. Life does not work like that. 

Buying a new microwave

should be a relatively simple task should it not? 

I need a new one. The fan has failed on the old one. It is not worth getting it repaired. It is likely the part would not be available. The cost would be more than a new microwave. 

I do not like this. I do not like the "throwaway" attitude of it all. I remember the toaster my paternal grandparents had. The spring had gone in the door and my grandfather "repaired" it by propping it shut with a block of wood. It worked. Eventually the Senior Cat found a new spring for it and fitted it on and the toaster went on toasting and burning the toast because it was not "automatic" the way it is now. Grandpa would forget to watch.

But, the microwave? My grandparents never had one but Middle Cat was given one by her parents in-law when she married. That was over forty years ago. The magnetron in it failed within a couple of weeks but it was replaced. The microwave still works. It is not quite as efficient as it once was but it does work. So, why does mine not work after less than two years?

We investigated. Replacing the fan was not an option. I spent a lot of time on-line investigating. Middle Cat investigated. My BIL investigated. Middle Cat and I went shopping yesterday.

We went shopping...and came up with another problem. Nobody had mentioned this. It would not matter for most people but I could not open the door of most of them without far too much effort for it to be safe. The "push button" sort of panel appears to be a thing of the past. The idea of having to "pull" the door open is simply not safe where I need to put the unit. 

Middle Cat and I looked at one another. We looked at other brands we did not like. They were too big or had a very poor reputation. I stood there in the middle of the huge shop and wanted to let out a yowl of frustration. 

I must have looked upset because a passing employee finally stopped and asked if they could help. We explained the problem. She smiled knowingly and told us very nicely that it was not just me. She showed us one that was hidden away. It was the brand I wanted. It was a size bigger but I can accommodate that. It had the right sort of door. "They still have a few in stock. It is an older model. They make the doors differently now but they might need to rethink."

Yes, they will need to rethink. For me the issue is basic disability induced clumsiness but there are a great many much older people who would have difficulty with new doors. I am wondering how it managed to get past those designing doors. 

Middle Cat will get a text message when my new microwave comes in. In the meantime... it's a good excuse to go and see my refugee friend who runs the tiny coffee shop in the shopping centre. She knows exactly how I like my hot chocolate.   

Does it matter where you went to school?

The state newspaper is running a series of articles by staffers who do not normally write any sort of "column". This is happening only because one of the regular columnists is on extended leave - and no doubt wondering why he chose to move to Spain for the duration of that leave. (I would quite like to move to Spain for a few months but not right now when they have so many fires.) The on-leave columnist is usually political. The other columnists are writing about things which irritate them.

Today's column is about a question the writer seems to think is peculiar to this state. "Where did you go to school?"

Yes, it is a question I have been asked. Yes, I have been asked it more than once. Does it matter? Actually yes, perhaps it does.

My answer to the question is usually, "Where would you like me to start?"  This is because my "school history" is much more complex than that of many people. My parents were teachers. They were moved about the state at the whim of the Education Department. (If you were employed by the Education Department they had the right to send you anywhere in the state at any time. The Senior Cat was given the short straw more than once because he was considered to be a "trouble shooter". He was sent to sort problems out before moving on to the next trouble spot.)

But with other children the answer was often much simpler. They went to one "infants", one "primary" (junior) and one "secondary" or high school.  These would be the geographically closest. If you were Catholic then you went to the local parish school until the end of primary and then, if your parents could afford it, on to the nearest single sex school for the rest.  A much smaller cohort went to fee paying schools run by other churches. 

Some country children came to board in the city for their post primary schooling. Some of these went to schools their parents had attended. They often came because this was how they managed to get any secondary schooling at all.

There is still some of that going on I suppose but there is an even greater variety of choice for some. If you happen to be Muslim you can send your child to an "Islamic college". If you have indigenous heritage and you want your child to be immersed in indigenous culture and language you can ask for them to be accepted at one of the schools which only accept indigenous students. There is a state primary school which runs a "French language" stream. There are schools which cater for other minority religious groupings or specialist sporting, agricultural or music interests.

A neighbour called in yesterday. He will be away for a week and left a set of keys with me. We chatted for a bit and he mentioned how his youngest child was taken to a pre-school centre recently. Her mother has been checking some out and seeing where their child might best fit in. This particular pre-school begins each day with a "welcome to country" and refuses to fly the national flag or celebrate Christmas. Apparently it is what some parents want for their children. 

So, has the question of where did you go to school ever mattered? Does it matter at all now? Should it even be asked? Is it just a casual means of opening up a conversation with a stranger? 

I suspect the answer is more complex than any of us would really like. Does it matter? Yes, it might...and then it might not.  

The new "alarm" system was tested

yesterday. We had been told about it in advance and people should have been prepared for it.

It did not "fail" if getting those three short and rather quiet beeps was all that was intended. The question of whether it was a success is yet to be answered.

I had explained what would happen to a number of very elderly people I try to keep an eye on. They have phones. They have mobile phones. I have insisted. They can use them to make and receive calls and that is about it. This is the group who are not as active or out and about. They are largely confined to their homes. They do not wish to leave them. The phone is a security measure.

I checked after the test had been made. Seven of the eleven did not hear it. Yes, hearing is failing in the group but it was more than that. The other four heard it with excuses like "but only because I was waiting like you said to". 

The test was, I believe, considered to be "mostly successful" but I believe it needs to be improved, adjusted, reconsidered...something. Human beings do not react to three short, relatively quiet "beeps". Someone I know went to see if the fridge door had been left open. She is an intelligent, able person who is younger than I am. She had forgotten about the test. Would she react in an emergency?

People are not always aware of impending danger even when they are aware of a wildfire in the distance or it has been pouring with rain and the water is rising. They may be distracted by other things even when they are aware of a potentially dangerous situation.  

The alarm needs to be longer and louder. The very least it needs to be is three short beeps repeated three times. That is technically possible and very easy to do. Making it louder may be much more difficult but it needs to be done. Yes, it does go out as a vibration too but it needs more than that. 

We also need more alerts in public areas. Once this would not have been considered important but we no longer live in a relatively "safe" world. There are "incidents" even in this country, even in spaces that were once considered absolutely "safe". I am more likely to look for exits to buildings than I once did.

So yes, test the alarm. Good, it seems to work. That is not the end of the matter though. We need to be alert for each other, not just ourselves.  

Going out to dinner

may well be a regular occurrence for someone like a Prime Minister. It is possibly all too regular. It would certainly happen often. There would be those lunches and breakfasts and "coffee" as well. (Why is it never "tea"?)

It is not the fact that they go to these things. It is where they go and with whom they associate. Those things do matter.

My parents had to face this problem many times. They were part of "the floating population".  It was a term used to describe the people who were there for just a year or two by right of their occupation. They included occupations like teaching, banking, law enforcement and pastoral care. They were people who, by virtue of their occupations, were privy to confidences and a great deal of confidential information. 

In a small country community who you associated with mattered. Of course you talked with everyone but to whose homes did you go? It must often have been very difficult for my parents. It was sometimes difficult for us as children too. We were expected to be "friends" with everyone but not too friendly with anyone.  I am also aware I knew from a very early age about the need to keep quiet about all sorts of things. It was inevitable I would hear concerned parents talking to Mum or the Senior Cat. I was "not to say anything". Since then I have been privy to many more matters of concern than I care to think about. I have signed more than one document requiring me to remain quiet.

I have been thinking about all this as the media has been discussing a dinner attended last week by our Prime Minister. Questions have, rightly, been raised about it. Why did he accept an invitation to a meal at the home of a Chinese businessman whose father has been under review for tax fraud? Where was that very large donation actually coming from? What does the host want in return? 

Yes, there will be something they want in return. People do not donate large sums of money to anything without expecting something in return. It is particularly true of people in that position.

The Prime Minister is using an "I am/was not aware" sort of defence in relation to his attendance. That is nonsense. Prime Ministers have "minders". They are the staff employed to ensure that Prime Ministers and others like them do not accidentally or, worse, deliberately associate with someone who will embarrass the government. Past associations can be dealt with up to a point but the present ones matter. 

I would go so far as to suggest the present one does matter more than people realise. A million dollars for an evening's "work"? It will buy a lot of advertising come election time. It might not even appear like that in the donations list because it will have been divided among the other attendees. 

It is what they will want in return that we need to be concerned about. Yes, they will want something. Nothing is "free" in politics.