Do Michelin stars really mean

anything? Yes, I know that getting one or, preferably, more than one is what some chefs aim for but is the food really any better?

There has been some discussion about Michelin stars in our state media. Apparently the "guide" now includes some places in this state.  There has been outrage and amusement at the list.

I looked at the list. I am never likely to eat at any of these places. Even if I had the financial resources to go to one of them I do not believe I would want to do it. 

I am not interested in a "gastronomic experience" or the "creativity" of a chef with pretensions. At the same time I hope I can appreciate good food which has been well cooked. I do not want to "experience" an unusual combination of flavours simply because a chef has decided to put them together. I do not want a plate decorated with a swirl of something I cannot recognise and garnished with a single leaf of a rare variety of lettuce.  

I happen to like things like lettuce and cucumber. Tomatoes, celery and capsicum are welcome too. I do not want them smothered in some sort of "dressing". They can arrive "naked" and it is not simply because of my allergic reaction to vinegar. I am more interested in whether the "salad" is actually made from fresh ingredients. 

I had a potato yesterday. I had it with a dab of butter and some parmesan cheese and a vegetable salad. It was what happened to be in the fridge and it was quick to prepare when I was sorting out a work problem. It also so happens it tasted good, very good.  

Would a Michelin star chef approve of what I made or the way I put it on the plate? I doubt it. Does it matter? Of course not. I had still made it look attractive to me.

The Senior Cat was fond of saying "We also eat with our eyes." He was right in that what he meant was our food should appear attractive to eat. He did not mean it had to look "fancy". The swirl of something did not interest him as much as, "How did you get it....?" 

There is a tiny cafe in our local shopping centre. It sits between the supermarket I normally shop in and the newsagent. There are people who go there on a regular basis. The food is not fancy. It is not presented with any sort of "style". They take a genuine interest in people. Their food is fresh, well cooked, plain with just a bare hint of their own Middle Eastern origins.  You do get the marshmallow with hot chocolate or the little chocolate with your coffee but there is no fancy pattern on the surface of your drink. What you will get instead is a smile and an actual well made hot drink at a reasonable price.

I am not a regular there but they know my name. They know Middle Cat's name and the names of many other people. I know theirs. I have shared recipes with P... and jokes with A... If I needed a meal I would be happier sitting there than I would be in a Michelin star restaurant faced with one lettuce leaf and a swirl of something I do not recognise.  

  

No Ukraine and Iran are not to blame for

the record number of small businesses going out of business here. The government, particularly our Prime Minister, might keep trying to tell us that the wars in those places are to blame but are they really? Is the greatly increased price of fuel solely because there are wars in other parts of the world?

The figures tell us the Prime Minister is lying but he still insists it is not true. He is ignoring what is obvious even to a twelve year old trying to save enough money to buy a surfboard. 

"At the rate things are going we won't even get to Glenelg this year," his mother told me. I am not sure failing to visit that overrated beach would be any loss but I understood what she meant. The family has usually rented accommodation much further down the coast for a couple of weeks in the summer. It has been a cheap holiday but even that is looking to be too expensive this year. The small business they run is struggling. There is plenty of work and they can still pay their staff but they are taking home less than their staff. They should be doing well but all the additional expenses are strangling them. They have enough work to employ at least another two people but they simply cannot afford to do it under current conditions.  

It is not just the cost of fuel or power or even the cost of insurance but the costs of employing other people that are not related to the wages they provide. It is all the "occupational health and safety" requirements and the "training" requirements. It is a tax on any number of things that do not relate to the actual business and the increased council rates. The "paper work" is done at night after they have both the children in bed. 

On the surface these people appear to be doing well but a closer look shows the strain. Both parents are working in the business. They do far more than the hours their employees are required to do. They are also very conscious that their employees are doing unpaid overtime simply in order to keep their jobs. They do not like this. It worries them especially when one of their employees has Down Syndrome. They say they could not manage without him but they are very conscious they may be taking advantage of his willingness to "help a bit more". They do not see it as right or proper.

Our Prime Minister has never employed anyone. He has never run a business. He clearly has no concept of what it means to worry every day as to whether the bills can be paid. He is not concerned about the increasing price of power or raw materials and the cost of employing people or dealing with all the rules and regulations. He is not concerned about the effect tax increases and changes to trusts will have on a business because those things will never affect him. 

Perhaps all this can be said about any politician. Perhaps it is why so many people really enter politics. Stay there long enough and you get that pension for life. It does not matter how much harm you do because you can blame it on wars elsewhere. Taking responsibility for your own actions, your own failures, is not something you do in politics. 

I wonder if the twelve year old will get his surfboard or whether the increased expenses for other people elsewhere will always put it just out of reach. 

 

  

There are times when it is right to smack a child

before that horrifies you let me explain. Apparently about two thirds of adults in this country think it is reasonable to smack a child with a wooden spoon. An even higher percentage, ninety-two percent, seem to think it is reasonable to hold a child tightly by the wrist. This is apparently the finding in some research done by a university in this country. There were some other findings as well. I will not bother to list them as I have not read the paper itself.

What I will say here is that yes, it is perfectly reasonable to smack a child in circumstances where not to do so would potentially lead to greater harm.  Imagine the scenario where you are all at breakfast. Someone has put another slice of bread in the toaster. The bread gets stuck for some reason. It starts to burn and, in order to release it, someone sticks a knife into the while it is still turned on and plugged into the outlet. Dangerous? Possibly fatal? Yes, almost certainly. 

If the person with the knife is a young child with no concept at all of the danger do you try and "reason" with them or do you swoop and give their hand a sharp slap away from the danger? I know I would swoop and slap. I just hope I could do it quickly enough. There would be no time to try and reason with the child, no time to explain. The idea that you could be prosecuted for "smacking" a child in those circumstances is surely outrageous?

I would say it is equally true of a sharp slap on the leg of a child who started to run out into traffic. There is surely no time to reason in those circumstances. I just hope I would grab in time. The day I put a very young child in my tricycle basket I know I was almost certainly holding on firmly enough to hurt but it was for the child's safety. He had wandered off from his mother and was about to cross a road. 

There will be people who disagree with me. There will be people who read this and think, "Cat's wrong about that. What an awful person." I can handle that because I know very young children do not have the language needed for reasoning with them. Without the vocabulary and the experiences they cannot comprehend the danger. It takes years to develop the necessary concepts.

The idea we can always "reason" with a child no matter how young they are and that it is always wrong to "smack" is something with which I cannot agree. Even adults can do the stupid dangerous thing with a toaster and many often take risks crossing the road but responsible adults do not do those things. They do not allow children to do it. There are simply occasions when safety has to come first.  

Something called "Rocketreach"

appeared in my email this morning. 

I had never heard of it but I am alarmed by it. Apparently I was put on their "database" - without my consent. I researched and hope I have now been removed from it.

It seems that being on "Linked In" or "Facebook" or some other platform was sufficient for them to "harvest" the limited information about someone and use it without their consent. Whatever has happened to privacy?

There is a very strict policy among those I work with that their photographs never appear on the internet. There is a very good reason for this. It is a security issue. We also try to keep as much as possible off any public sites. This is also a security issue. I am intensely conscious if we let identifying information appear it might be the time that someone with a grudge will harm someone who has gone to help. Yes, it can happen. Not everyone has good intentions towards those going in to help. Recently, someone I was briefly acquainted with was shot. When people are risking their own lives then everyone else involved has a responsibility to do everything we can to keep them safe. 

So, I have done something about my "data" being "harvested". I do not know how long the material was available but they tell me it is no longer publicly available. Do I believe them? I have to hope that what they are saying is actually correct but I am still left with doubts. 

I have a presence on "social" media. A little of it is "social". I like to think what I do there is simply make contact with friends and, less often, acquaintances. I also have a presence on some other sites which are, supposedly, not accessible to anyone not involved. Would they be easy to "hack"? Some would, some would not. The only reason anyone would wish to do so however would be because they could potentially do harm. 

It is the potential to do harm which concerns me most. Give someone a hand held weapon and ask him to commit murder with it and very few people could do it. Ask that same person to push a button to cause harm in some faraway place and they are much more likely to do it. Distance matters in such situations. Data harvesting works in just the same way. It is also wrong.

 

There were children at the 90th birthday party

and they were all very well behaved.

I did not know them at all. They are the great-grandchildren and, until then, I had only come across grandchildren. 

I have since written a letter to one of the great-grandchildren. She is the one who is currently being home-schooled for medical reasons. She is also the one who loves to read and is reading well above her age group.

I had thought no more about the other, slightly younger, child. At the party I was told he was learning Auslan at school. His entire school is learning Auslan as their "other" language. When he came up to his great-aunt to ask something she told him that I knew some Auslan too. I signed a simple greeting to him and he looked surprised, very surprised. There was definitely more than a little disbelief there. With a nudge from his great-aunt he responded by showing me how he can sign the alphabet but the conversation did not get much further. What child wants to talk to a strange adult in a language he still knows very little about?

What I found of real interest however was something else. His great-grandmother was here for lunch as she usually is on that day each month. This time she said to me, "O... told his mother and then his grandmother about you and how you signed something to him. He thought it was very interesting you could do it."

"Interesting?" I have been thinking about that. I would find it very interesting to know why he was thinking like that. Does he believe that no hearing adult can sign - apart from his teacher? Is the idea of signing rather than speaking so different he does not see it as an actual language? 

I have known any number of non-disabled children who can sign or use an alternate or augmentative form of communication. They have done this because they have relatives or friends who use something. This child has no relatives or friends who use sign language and has quite possibly not seen it used outside the classroom or, at very least, the school. So, what was he thinking? Has he suddenly realised that signing really is a language and he can learn to use it?   

Sorting through the belongings of a deceased person

is not something I would do by choice. I have done it for my parents and helped to do it with my grandparents. Unexpected things have been found of course. 

I was always grateful my mother only had three days of "compassionate" leave when her mother died. I think it is fair to say there was only relief there. It was my great-aunt, her sister-in-law, who removed the most personal things from the house. Mum wanted nothing at all. 

"Not even her wedding rings?" my great-aunt inquired. Mum's response was "Throw them out. I don't want a thing."

My parents had no choice but to move into the house my grandmother had inherited from her husband but I know Mum loathed the place. It must have had some truly dreadful memories for her. When my parents finally managed to move into their own home Mum put her mark on it. The Senior Cat left it entirely up to her. I know there were things he would have changed but he wanted her to have her own space for the first time in her life.

I have thought of all that frequently in the last few weeks. For months I have been surrounded by boxes of goods belonging to someone else. I was not even really aware of what was in them. They were left with me when K... moved interstate with her husband. They were moving to be closer, much closer, to their daughter. K... was ill and had been told she had, at most, a year to live. The intention had always been to move back. The business she ran from home was closed. The stock had been run down over more than two years.

Her husband appeared at my door with box loads of what was left. He thought I already knew what was intended. I knew nothing. If I had been asked I would have said I could not do it, that I had no way of doing it.

I called K...to ask what she was doing. 

"Cat... I am giving you what is left. Sell what you can and use the funds for the children." She gave me no choice.

It has been sitting there for months. I went away and came back. S... was not well enough to help. More than one thing got in the way. S..., bless her, came and we made a start. It has been a lot of work. I spent most of yesterday working on sorting out a messy box of bits and pieces. Most of that cannot be sold on line. It can go to the local charity shop. People often go in for things like buttons. I think K... would approve of that.  

The funds are building up. Those most in need will be able to continue their education. Her husband left me a message late on Friday to say that "K...has left me - just went to sleep and didn't wake up." We both think K... would be happy. I don't mind the work involved. It just feels odd to do it.  

Someone still has to pay for it

if you shift a charge from one point to another. This is not taking a charge away. 

Our Prime Minister proudly announced that "your coffee" was going to be cheaper. He told us that prices would go down, that the price which was advertised was the price we would pay. 

There was more of the same. It sounded good. It is not true. Someone, somewhere had to absorb the cost of the card use fees and it was not going to be the person selling the goods but the customer. Of course it was going to be the customer.

The migrant couple who run the delightful little coffee place in our local shopping centre can only keep it going because their entire family is involved. They all work shifts. The young ones do it in addition to other work and the parents, who are both well over retiring age do the rest. It is hard work, very hard work. 

They did not want to raise their prices. They have a loyal customer base. They have people who see their little place as a sort of social service. It does not mean they can absorb the increased cost to them of the fees being charged. 

Their prices will rise by the bare minimum. Elsewhere in the shopping centre prices have also gone up. Adding fifty cents to the price of a coffee seems a lot but the way the change was implemented means that the price of everything else has also gone up as well. The grocery bill is going to be higher and so is everything else. 

Someone did not think about this. They did not think about the implications. If they did then they either did not care or they must believe it will be extra income for the government through the GST. I doubt the government cares very much at present. There will be reduced revenue for them in the future but they will put it down to other things.

And nobody has considered that anyone who pays cash is also going to be paying more for their coffee...and everything else. The card surcharge is going to affect everyone. No, you won't be paying less however you pay - you will be paying more.