There was an "outage" yesterday

and it seems there was chaos with it. A major communications network was "down" and it seems we could not cope. 

The transport system was badly affected. Some train services were not able to run. Buses had problems too. Traffic lights were "out" everywhere. (At least one lot was flashing red though so I imagine patience was what was really needed in many places.)

People could not make or receive calls, not even 000 was working. They apparently missed about three hundred and thirty calls. Yes, I do consider the latter to be serious. It is serious, very serious. At the same time I suspect many other phone calls could wait. This is the school holiday period so traffic was lighter than usual and not so many people were dropping their children off.

It was not possible to look at the internet on your phone on the way to work. No, it was not the internet that was down. It was the phone network. That is a problem. What on earth do you do? Sit on the bus and stare at the scenery? Read an actual book? Talk to your neighbour? I suspect most people just stared impatiently ahead of them. 

The supermarkets and other shops had problems because people could not pay for goods. Most people do not seem to have any cash. All sorts of other transactions were also halted. People could not phone an order to a business.

Yes, there were major problems and I do not want suggest they were not serious. They were serious. It was alarming to realise just how vulnerable we are when a major system fails. This is why the "renewable energy" ideal is not the answer to everything. When did you physically last check on someone during an outage?

For those of you in Upover, here is Spooner's cartoon showing our "renewable energy Minister" trying to dial the emergency number in Downunder. 

 

 

"Highly inappropriate"

does not even begin to describe the Prime Minister's words on that "podcast". He should not even have appeared on the podcast. It is not an appropriate forum for anyone who wishes to be taken seriously. 

I do not pretend to understand the podcast idea very well. I do not  "have the app on my phone" or "follow" any. Perhaps I could, perhaps I even should - but I don't. 

I did not even need to do it to learn about "what the Prime Minister said". It has been reported on television, on radio and in the press. I saw the incident on the news service I (rather reluctantly) watch. Friends in other countries, and not just English speaking countries, have inquired about it. 

Politicians know how to avoid answering questions they do not wish to answer. Journalists know how to ask those questions in an effort to make them squirm even when they know the question will not be answered. 

So, why did the Prime Minister answer the very inappropriate question in an even more inappropriate way? If he had simply avoided the question most people would never have known he was even appearing on that podcast. Was that why he did it? Did he want to be seen as a "good mate who just happens to like a very popular singer"?

Our Prime Minister keeps reminding us he "grew up in public housing" and did it with his "single" mother. That story is just a little more complicated than he makes it out to be. Most children in council housing whose mothers are on a "disability support pension" do not attend expensive fee paying schools. They do not go on to university without excellent scholarships and outstanding results. There is no evidence of these things here. He is unusual in what he has managed to keep quiet about. His emphasis on the council house and the single mother is what he needs people to concentrate on.

The remarks on the podcast have been described as "lewd", "crude", "disrespectful", "misogynistic", "vile", "embarrassing", "smutty" and "disrespectful" as well as "inappropriate".  They were all those things and more - and his "apology" has not gone down well. 

Our state newspaper apparently emailed every member of his party who has a seat in the Lower House for comment. Only one of them has apparently replied - and that was with what is described as a "cryptic, thumbs up emoji". Of course they have not replied. Some of them might be feeling uncomfortable, even very uncomfortable, but they are not going to criticise the boss. That they have demanded the resignation of members from other parties for far less is of course irrelevant. They believe "the other side" would do the same given the chance. There would be demands for a resignation or, at very least, removal to the back bench. 

In this instance I am not too sure about that. My radical left wing neighbour has just informed me he is "disgusted" but "he's a great man really". Really?  

 

 

Please look after your volunteers!

Yes, I know there is a "Volunteers Week" somewhere in the calendar of events. I know there are "volunteers" who get those gongs for "service to the community" and I know there are many people who put in more than ten hours a week "serving others". They usually get some sort of recognition.

There are also all those quiet volunteers who make things happen. They do the dirty jobs. They do the things nobody else is very keen to do. They work "behind the scenes". 

I am thinking of someone I was talking to yesterday. I innocently inquired about a group she belonged to and how it was going.

"I've left," she told me. It was said quietly and I was not sure I was properly hearing what she said to me. She had been there for years. I have talked to the group on two occasions and she was always the one busy in the kitchen, clearing up after the afternoon tea.

Recently she was in hospital for eight days. I went to visit her. (It took two trains in each direction.) When I got there she was out of bed and helping the person in the next bed with their afternoon tea. One of the staff told me, "She's lovely. It's been a real help to have her around."

Not one member of the group she has done so much for had even inquired as to how she was. Yes, they knew where she was because she was not able to get to the meeting. She had sent an apology when she left a message to tell them how to get the tablecloths and tea towels she had washed and ironed. 

I know this because I spoke to another member of the group last night. She was upset over the resignation and said how useful this person had been. 

"Did you ever tell her that?" I asked.

"No, but she knew how much we appreciated her," was the response.

Really? There are people in the group who have been given "life membership" for far less.  

The person doing the washing up and putting the rubbish out is every bit as important as the person running the meeting. Unless you say "thank you" they won't know you appreciate them.  

How hard is it to forecast the weather?

 The Bureau of Meteorology has a job to do. It is supposed to forecast the weather. 

Now I know it is an "inexact" science at the best of times but they have a lot of very expensive equipment, including a satellite or two, with which to do it. Surely they can give us a rough idea of what the day holds? 

As a kitten I can remember being taken to a weather station. The entire school, around fifty of us, were taken to the "big" town about a hundred kilometres away. This was done by crowding everyone into  the two school "buses" (a Kombi and a Ford transit type) and cars. It was the big excursion of the year. 

We were excited. We were going to see the weather station, the "School of the Air", the airport and the dock for the ships. I often wonder what the modern child would make of these things. We thought it would be interesting. 

It was.  We said "hello" to our mates at a couple of the "stations up the track". (No, not railway stations but big sheep farming properties.)  The teacher at the School of the Air had arranged that even though nobody was too sure what to say to each other. We saw a plane come in to land and were then allowed to have a closer look. We went down to the water and a couple of the boys found a dead fish. We had lunch on the foreshore and there was the big treat of ice cream for everyone. 

Then we went to the weather station. It would be quite different now but back then it was a fascinating place of "things" going around in circles and bars and graphs and a telescope we could look through. (There was no stars of course. It was daylight.) And then the man in charge of the station showed us "the balloon". It was black. It had to be inflated. He told us how it would help to predict the weather. Then he did actually inflate it and, at the correct moment, it went up. Now, he told us, they would be able to tell what sort of weather we were going to have.

Suitably impressed by this we left and made the long trek back to our little school.

The following day the Senior Cat did all the proper follow up lessons. He talked about the balloon, of course he did. We had all been rather impressed by the idea that a balloon might be able to tell us what the weather would be like. 

It all worked very well until one of the boys who was repeating the final year for the third time because he was not old enough to leave school said something like, "I told my Dad and he said to go and ask Grandpa because Grandpa always knows too." 

I remember the Senior Cat nodding and saying, "Yes. That is the next thing we need to talk about. How do farmers know what the weather might do?"

We went on to learn about "observation" and "experience".  Our BOM could do with some of that generation of farmers to teach them a thing or two. This year's "dry" year has produced more rain in a month than we get most years.  

It is expensive to study

in another country. I know. I have done it. It is not easy.

It was easier for me than it was for many other students. I went from one English speaking country to another, to one culture which was very much like the one I had left. I could walk into the supermarket and find familiar items, even familiar brands. 

Supporting myself was relatively easy. I tutored. I did not need to try and find a job in a fast food outlet or as a cleaner. Well, realistically I could not have done those things. Tutoring was about all I could do and I knew I was lucky to be able to do it. Later I had a job looking after a small library. I did more tutoring and supervision.

Most students I have tutored have been students from other cultures. For many of them English has been a second or even third language. They have varied greatly in ability. Some have been outstanding, others less so...and a few should not have been here at all.

It will be interesting to see then whether the twenty-five percent rise in student visa fees has any effect on the numbers applying or their motivation for doing so. A staff member at one of our universities has expressed concern about this.

"We are too dependent on those students," he told me yesterday. "They bring the money in and, so far, it has kept me in a job but is it a good thing?"

He is a member of staff at the "new" university. This is the university which is the amalgamation of two of the three we had in this state. It took a long time to recognise the population here cannot, even with the large number of students from other countries. support three universities. 

I have long been of the view that there are subjects and courses taught there which could be better taught in TAFE (technical and further education) colleges. There are practical subjects which are now "degree" courses. It seems everyone needs a degree now. It is quite unlike the teaching, nursing and farming courses my fellow students went into from school. I found the "handbook" for the time I was at teacher training college recently. It was interesting but it made me realise that most students went out into schools as teachers after just two years. Somehow they managed to teach and many of them did a very good job of it. I rather doubt that the new teachers going into schools are doing a better job simply because they now train for twice as long and have letters after their names. They actually spend less time in the classroom than we did. 

I wonder what we are really teaching people and what the students coming in from other countries are actually learning. Are we giving them value for the money they spend? Is the standard really high enough? Looking at some essays I doubt it. I know some students will be given a pass mark because the person marking the essay will not be permitted to do otherwise. I have even been told, "Just get them to pass something in that looks as if they may have written it."  

Will there be even more of that now the fees have risen? Is this what needs to happen to keep the universities open and all those compulsory units of "indigenous", "gender", environmental", "gene therapy" and other "correct" issue courses taught? I am not sure it is going to work - or will there still be students who will find ways around it all in order to actually learn?   

Another "renewable energy" company has

gone bust in this state. The company apparently had four solar "farms" and one wind "farm". 

I am wondering how many more such companies are going to fail before we come to terms with how much "renewables" cost. How many people believe that, once the solar panels or wind turbine is there, renewable energy is "free"?

It is not free of course. There are costs associated with what is called "renewable" energy. 

There were some solar panels on the house I last lived in. There are no solar panels on this group of units.  There is no way they can be put on our shared roofing.  Would I want them there?

The solar panels on the house were used to heat the hot water. There was electrical back up when the sun did not shine. My BIL, an engineer, had calculated that the panels would be cost effective. Over the time they were there they made a miniscule profit (less than one percent) but only because my BIL was the one who could climb up to check on them whenever there was a hail storm. He would also clean them on a schedule known only to him. They were not something you simply put in place and then left.

Were they the "environmentally responsible" option? The reality is they were not. Without the work done by my BIL they would have cost more and none of the calculations we did took into account the cost to the environment of actually producing, transporting, installing the panels and more. I am left wondering about that.

A couple of days ago one of the very active environmental advocates was telling me gleefully how they had to close down a nuclear reactor in France. The weather was too hot according to him. For him it was proof that nuclear was not the answer.

I do not know if nuclear is the answer or not. (I do think we should be doing much more research into fusion rather than fission.) What I do know is that Europe in general is not used to very high temperatures. They last had a really hot summer about fifty years ago. One summer of very hot weather since then does not "prove" climate change. There is evidence to suggest summers were much warmer several hundred years ago.  Winters were colder too.  Houses are not built for extreme heat...or cold. 

There is also evidence that solar panels and wind turbines are vulnerable to weather events. Advocates for renewable energy claim that events like severe hailstorms which damage the panels or tornadoes which flatten the turbines are evidence of climate change. Are they really? Did we never have such events prior to monitoring climate change? How much environmental damage was caused manufacturing the panels and turbines before they were installed to "save" the planet?

It takes far more water and energy to produce one cup of "almond milk" than it does to produce one cup of milk but we keep being told that the "farm" producing the almond milk is the environmentally responsible answer. Is it?

I am not sure it is...but it might help if we planted more trees. 

   

A "canteen Christian"?

 Someone I do not know muttered this to me as we passed the stand which sometimes appears outside the local shopping centre. There are generally two people standing there with it and there is "literature" about "free Bible study classes" and "the Coming" and more. 

The person who spoke to me moved on rapidly. He may have been embarrassed at actually having said anything at all. That he had said anything was interesting but not that unusual. People I do know find those standing there everything from an annoyance to sad. I know of nobody who actually supports them or has engaged them in more than the briefest of conversation. What conversation there is may be polite but it is usually an irritated, "Not interested" or "I go to church" from the older passers by to, "Don't believe any of that" from younger people.

I pedal past and say nothing. For some reason they have never approached me or attempted to speak to me. I suspect they may think I am a very slow learner. It is a mistake which has been made more than once in my life...or perhaps I really am a slow learner. 

Yesterday I just pedalled around the corner, parked in my usual spot, had a short conversation with the dog shivering in the cold and went inside. I did what I needed to do and, as I was doing it, I thought about the two people standing outside in the cold. They were determined I suppose. I cannot imagine people were queuing up to talk to them or that they were bringing people in to their brand of Christianity. They must get some I suppose or they would not do what they do. 

But the term "canteen Christian" stayed with me. I have often heard the term "rice Christian" - someone who attends church and believes (or believes they believe) in order to eat, or perhaps do not believe at all but attendance means food and companionship.  What then is a "canteen Christian"? 

I thought about canteens and the more modern "food courts", the places where you can go in and pick and choose what you want to eat. Is that what the passerby meant? I am not sure it is. I suspect it was more "they believe they can hand you a meal on a plate and tell you this is all you need in order to survive". 

I also suspect they are saying "We are not giving you a choice. We are telling you this is what you need to eat. You do not need anything else."

I am not sure belief in anything works that way.