The Iranian women's football team

is currently stuck in a hotel in another state. They cannot go anywhere right now. 

If they could fly home then they would likely already be gone. They would be home but without any great fanfare. I do not know if they won any matches because I have no interest in such things but I do know they must have lost somewhere along the line as they are now out of whatever competition is taking place.

The reason I am taking an interest in them is something quite different. They made headlines because they refused to sing their national anthem at the first match. Their country was being bombed. 

Why weren't they singing? We don't actually know. There might be more than one reason for that. I do know I would not feel much like singing anything if I was abroad and my country (or one of them) was being attacked.

People who know me will also know that I have no time at all for the "national anthem" of this country. Of course it is no longer "God Save the Queen (now King)  It is instead perhaps the least musical anthem I know. It sounds like a dirge. I do not know anyone who knows all the words. The words were changed a while back so that they were "less offensive" and "more inclusive" but it makes no difference. Many people simply have no idea what the words are and some cannot even recognise it. Is it a source of "pride"? I wonder. 

I would not recognise the national anthem of Iran. It is not mine. There is no reason I should but I wonder how the team feels about it? How do they feel about what is happening to their country? They are more fortunate perhaps than the women of Afghanistan in that they are playing sport. Their faces can be seen but they still have to cover their heads and women from there have said they feel the restrictions on them would be even greater if their "Supreme Leader" had his way. They still feel pride in their country, or at least what their country has been and may yet be. It is a country with an extraordinary cultural history and to lose more of it would be a catastrophe for them and for the world.

So, do we give the team asylum if they ask for it? Do we offer them temporary protection? Certainly they can go nowhere at present and they cannot be left in a hotel forever. What other skills would they have to offer if given protection here or would they be a "drain" on the economy? 

Compare them with the "ISIS brides" seeking to return here? That is another question.

I am glad I am not working for the Department of Foreign Affairs right now. There are some serious issues to be sorted out.  

"It's illegal"

and "he shouldn't be doing it" and "they were already going to give him what he wanted..."

Yes, I suspect everyone reading this will have heard those sort of comments about the actions of the "leader of the free world". How dare he go ahead and bomb another country when they were surrendering????

Well, first of all it is probably not illegal. That does not make it right but it does not necessarily make it wrong in law either. It may not be morally right but is it illegal under "international law".

There is actually no such thing as "international law" in the sense that there is a group of principles everyone respects. It does not work that way. There are recognised international codes for things like shipping and aircraft. They are there for the protection not of the other party but for ourselves. We obey them because nobody wants a very expensive aircraft or shipping vessel to be harmed. It would cost us something. Doing harm to someone else's ships or planes is just something to be shrugged at. Too bad. They got in the way. 

So, no the President is not acting illegally but he still should not be doing it. Whether the other side was going to give him what he wanted is another story altogether. We simply do not know that. There is another major party involved and they would have wanted a lot. Who can blame them? They have been under attack for years - and under attack in more ways than most of us care to recognise. Whether you agree with it being there or not Israel exists. The vast majority of people who live there are willing to live in harmony with their surrounding neighbours. Lebanon exists in much the same way. They have no desire to be at war with Israel. 

It's the gangs in between. The small groups of bullies in the school yard, Hamas and Hezbollah. They want the playground to themselves - and then they will probably end up fighting one another. 

I suppose that is one way of looking at it. Right now I look at Iran and think that this is not the right way to go about it. There is no effective opposition in Iran. If you start bombing people then you might find that the people who were afraid of  and even loathed their headmaster or their Supreme Leader might just start to seek his support. They will not choose a new leader. They are in no position to do that. It is just possible they may end up being even worse off... and no, the bully who is happily throwing stones in the school yard right now has no right at all to dictate who the next headmaster of the school or the leader of the country will be. 

It is not, as some seem to think, a simple matter of "this is illegal so make them stop". The idea that "they" might have been willing to give up their weapons and never have them again is unlikely but were they prepared to give in for now? If they were then it might have been possible to start some negotiations which would have led to peace in the playground for some time to come. We have lost that opportunity.  

My mother relied on her elbow for weather

forecasts. A later farmer friend B... relied on licking his thumb and holding it up to the west of where he was standing. Yesterday a friend who worked in agricultural research looked up at the sky and said, "Cloudy tomorrow." (It was clear blue at the time.)

My mother claimed her elbow would ache when the weather changed. She had broken it many years before and "just knew". In reality she was one of those people who was aware of the environment around her. The farmer was of course doing more than licking his thumb. He had been observing the weather since early childhood. He was, perhaps unconsciously, aware of many things that told him what was likely to happen. The researcher was the same. He had spent thousands of hours out among the fields, the paddocks, the gardens and more. Experience told all of them more than a range of machines in a weather forecasting bureau can do. 

I write this because our Bureau of Meteorology is failing farmers. The old farmers still know but their sons and grandsons no longer know. They have been relying on the BOM to tell them...and the BOM is failing. The BOM is struggling to get even the forecast for the next week correct.

I remember the empty desks at school at harvest time. The boys were at home helping to bring in the wheat harvest. There would be a forecast change in the weather which made it urgent to get the wheat in. The farmers would work through the night helping one another where they could. Now it is apparently all mechanised and it is a lonely business sitting in an air conditioned cabin bringing in a crop which has been grown to standards demanded by an organisation somewhere in the far distant city. Is the crop "organic", is it "genetically modified" and "does it conform to all the regulations"? 

As a very young kitten I ate bread made from flour grown in the fields of wheat and barley and oats around me. I knew how it grew. I saw it harvested and I went more than once to the mill where it was processed. I knew the miller and the baker and where my porridge oats came from. 

I didn't know about the weather but I spent most of my waking hours out of doors. Every other small child did the same. It was where it was expected we would spend our time unless it was very wet or very cold. Did we learn from this? Perhaps we did. If I had remained in that part of the world and gone on through childhood like I might also have managed to learn something about forecasting the weather to the level of the farmer or the researcher. 

Does it matter? I think it does. It is an old skill but it is one which needs to be revived. We need people with that curious "instinct" for the weather, the people who have learned to observe and read the world around them. They can do it without the expensive equipment which keeps failing farmers. You cannot build crop yields on the science which worships the gods of climate change. The weather and the climate are much more complex than that.   

So the "ban" is not working?

Did anyone seriously believe that all that had to happen was for the government to say, "We are banning under 16s from social media" and it would actually happen.

Did the government seriously believe that the companies owning social media would suddenly be "responsible" and put in place to make sure measures would be taken to implement the ban?

Did anyone seriously believe that those same under 16s would willingly give up social media and suddenly become good, law abiding little citizens?

Hmm,...then why is it that it is thought that only about thirty percent of those who were on social media platforms are now no longer on them? I would be surprised if even thirty percent of them were no longer on social media. They are simply those who are reporting they no longer spend much time there. For some of them it was probably a relief to get away from the time spent scrolling away but they are not in the majority.

The only real difference I have noticed is that the teens I know no longer do it so openly. They are not gathering around in their usual "hang outs" and laughing over video clips. They are doing it more cautiously.

"Big tech" as many people call it will not take responsibility for implementing the ban. They can put measures in place but this not alcohol or tobacco or other illegal substances which have an actual tangible presence. Yes, you can make people responsible for supplying those. Trying to make social media platforms responsible for a ban on something which is much less tangible is unrealistic. 

I recently went through the process of getting a new passport. In order to do this I had to provide a certain amount of information. I had to appear at a post office and get my photograph taken. My identity was checked against my old passport records and verified by the staff member at the post office. If I had done it all on line my identity would still have been verified by someone else who had physically seen me and could verify they knew me. This is the government at work making sure I am the person I say I am. It is not someone who prints the passports or a travel company providing me with a ticket to travel.

We have set about this the wrong way if we want to stop teens using social media. It is not the role of the companies to do this. It is the role of those who are responsible for the under 16s, parents and teachers for the most part. 

Parents allowing a child access to social media have to be held responsible for harm done, so do teachers while a child is at school.  Yes, difficult but it does not make it the problem  or the responsibility of the social media giants.  

Apparently all the following are responsible

 for the economic woes, particularly inflation, we are experiencing in this country.

The first one is those "talking the economy down". Apparently mere mention of anything negative will do it. 

Then there is Vladimir Putin. Well yes, the war in Ukraine and his territorial ambitions there and elsewhere do have to be paid for by someone and apparently that is us. 

And his mate Donald Trump is apparently adding to our economic woes. There might be something in those tariffs I suppose but they are probably doing more harm elsewhere than here.

Follow that with a list of past Prime Ministers like Scott Morrison (who had Covid to deal with but let's not be too concerned about that) and Tony Abbott and John Howard and...now wait a moment Paul Keating? Yes, he is on the list. Was that for the "recession we had to have" and those double digit inflation rates? Of course the Coalition is to blame and let's throw the former RBA Governor into the mix. What did Philip Lowe do for the economy through the Covid crisis and more?

Then there is that nasty duopoly of supermarkets Coles and Woolworths and the corporations around them. Those four big banks are so naughty and the smaller ones are daring to go the same way... even when you said you wanted them to make some of those changes which disadvantage the rest of us but bring the money in. 

Oh now we get to the really big ones "climate change" is costing us so we have to go to the expense of "net zero" and that will cost us before the cost comes down - if it comes down at all. We do need to be prepared for the continued expenses there. Perhaps those greedy pensioners could help. They have worked all their lives but they should not be putting their hands out now. Like everyone else they spend too much, especially around Christmas time.

Let's not forget the cost of the nuclear power we do not have and the fossil fuels we get paid to send abroad. Perhaps we can make that red headed politician in the Senate responsible for those? The defence of the country is responsible for inflation too and private business is responsible for that along with what Treasury is doing and of course high speed rail and the "intergenerational inequity" which means the "next generation" does not own their own homes but perhaps you can blame the war veterans for insisting they need somewhere to live.

If  all that sounds absolutely ridiculous it is of course but it is a list of the reasons the present Federal Treasurer has given for the state of the economy in the past twelve months. Apparently the present government has absolutely nothing to do with the economic woes of the country. They have behaved in "fiscally responsible" manner at all times. 

If their behaviour is fiscally responsible then fiscally irresponsible behaviour is a never ending nightmare. I suggest they stop spending so much and bring in some measures that will allow us to bring in some much needed money. 

 

 

There is an election coming up!

Oh yes, we should be excited about this...or should we?

I was actually asked by a young neighbour about the state election which is due to take place on 21st March. She was holding a piece of election material in her hand and asked me,

"What is all this stuff we keep getting? Is it important?"

She looked genuinely confused so I told her and then said, "Go and look on line." More confusion appeared so I explained how to look for the policies of each party on line. 

Her response to that was, "But that's an awful lot of work."

Yes, it is. Democracy, even the most flimsy sort, requires work and most of us are too lazy to do anything about it. We just expect to be governed in a way we would like without working for it. This has been all too obvious lately. It appears there are a slew of young people who do not even recognise the current Premier, a man who is very capable at getting himself in front of a camera. I cannot help wondering what these young people, many about to vote for the first time in their lives, are interested in. It does not appear they have any interest in their futures.

One of the political diehards in the district is "very happy" with the current war in the Middle East. According to him it is diverting the bad news here away from the front pages. Yes, it probably is. The incumbents are predicted to be returned in a landslide, in a result that will not lead to the strong opposition they need.  It is no use pointing out to such diehards that it is the lack of an opposition in Iran that has permitted the "elders" to do so much harm. 

I probably have too much to say about politics in my witterings here but I often do it in an attempt to sort my own thoughts out. I try to be an "informed" voter but it can be difficult. Stated "policies" very often differ greatly from what is "possible" and putting "practice" into place can be even more difficult.

Perhaps I should just have told my young neighbour,"Just read those bits of paper. Which ideas do you like the most? Vote for that person." Is that enough?  

"Please don't drink in front of my child."

There are apparently a couple of short clips showing on line where Muslims who are fasting for Ramadan are asking other non-Muslims not to eat in front of them. There was apparently also a "tweet" asking what you would do if you were eating lunch on your lunch break and a Muslim asked you not to eat because they were fasting.

The answers were fairly predictable - and not always polite. 

I might have ignored it. I am well aware that "fasting" takes place between sunrise and sunset. After that Ramadan meals can be, and often are, quite elaborate. Very devout Muslims will not even take a sip of water before sunset but I know some who will drink water. I believe the idea is to focus your thoughts on others who are poor or simply less well off than yourself.

As an idea I really do not see much in it, not when elaborate meals can be had at other times of the day. I once lived in a university hall of residence where we self-catered. There were several Muslim students there and they observed the restrictions placed on them. Not to do so would have led to reports being made to others who could influence their eventual careers. When we had a group meal together we waited until sunset. I checked to see what I was providing was acceptable and asked one of the boys to get the required meat from the halal butcher they used. 

Yes, I will go that far. I do not want to deliberately make people feel uncomfortable in that sort of setting. I believe it is right to do that. It was a group event. If I wanted to participate then I abided by what was best for group cohesion. I did not have to believe, indeed informed them politely I did not.

It was, I believe, an entirely different set of circumstances from the incident at the railway station. It was a very hot day and I try to carry water with me when it is hot, particularly if I will be out for any length of time.  I was asked, quite politely I suppose, to move to the other end of the platform if I wanted to drink. I was asked this of a Muslim man who was there with his son, a boy of about ten or eleven. 

Children are not expected to fast but some boys do from about the age of that child. I don't know if he was fasting or whether his father simply did not want him to see someone who was not fasting. 

I suppose I was fortunate in that the boom gates started to lower as the request was made and the bells started to ring. I did not need to make a decision. It was a simple matter of put the water bottle in my bag and get ready to board the train.

What would I have done? I hope I would have said politely, "I am sorry if you find it offensive but I am not Muslim and I do not observe Ramadan. Most people in this country don't, nor are we required to do so. What is more I feel you should be those who move. I am a woman. I am older than you. I am also much less mobile. Women and those older are generally acknowledged and often still respected."

Right or wrong? I admit I wanted to lash out. I wanted to tell this man that he had absolutely no right to demand that of me. It is not like someone not to smoke a cigarette or drink alcohol in front of a child. 

I thought about "Lent" as the train moved off. There were a number of people in the carriage and I wondered if any of them were observing Lent. Were they "giving up chocolate" (it seems to be a favourite or "not eating meat" (as a friend who is a nun always does) or not having their usual glass of wine with an evening meal? Were they doing something else or nothing at all? Did they even go to church?  

We used to know nuns by their habit and priests by their "dog collars". Now most nuns I know (and I know a few) wear jeans and t-shirts. Unless officiating the priests I know (and again I know a few) wear untidier jeans and t-shirts. I can sometimes pick out a member of a particular religious sect here by the way they dress and I can guess at the Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists. None of them however demand that I behave as they behave.

You can't demand respect.