I neither liked or disliked him or

considered him to be a "friend". He was simply someone I knew. I also knew he was lonely so I would listen when he spoke to me.

I had not seen J... around for several weeks. The thought passed through my mind that he had, despite the football season still going, headed off to spend some time in the country community where he and his partner had a house. I was not too concerned. The owners of the cafe where he would eat a sort of brunch did not mention him. They are used to people like J...  

People like J... are generally male. They have lost their partners. The shopping centre is where they eat if they are not comfortable eating in the pub. At least three places will give them a meal for about the same price as the pub. It saves them having to put something in the microwave at "home". One small cafe is particularly good. Without being told or being intrusive the owners somehow know there are people who need support. The should be paid them for it. They are performing a social service.

That is how it was with J... If he saw me he would comment about something which was going on. He would read the state newspaper and ask what I thought about something written there. He would spend four or five hours a day in the shopping centre. Brunch at the cafe would be followed by time sitting on a seat nearby or another coffee at the cafe at the other end of the building.

He was a football fanatic and a cricket tragic. When his partner was alive he would sometimes stay behind in the tiny unit they owned in the city just so as to attend matches. He would tell me, "You really don't understand that do you Cat? It's important."

Yes, it was important to him. Although he had been a teacher reading, apart from the paper, was not important to him.  His partner had been a school librarian for many years. She had been on the Senior Cat's staff at one time and he had always spoken highly of her. The Senior Cat shared my views about J... and, like me, would let J... talk. It was all we could do.

I suppose the death notice in this morning's paper should not have come as a shock but it was...shall I say a surprise. Here is another person I will not see in that sort of "casual but important" way. I will not have another conversation with him, the sort of conversation which is important. 

Too many of us can go through the local shopping centre and forget there are people who seek company there. Too often I have been guilty of hoping I can rush in and out without seeing someone I know, someone who needs to chat for just a few minutes. I am thankful I did stop for a few minutes on that last occasion - but did I do it often enough?   

No, the war is not to blame for

inflation or the underlying anxiety many people are feeling. 

The biggest driver of inflation is government spending. Those of us who know anything about basic economics are concerned by that. There are also concerns about the attempts to introduce increasing controls over what we can hear, see, say and do.

You cannot spend your way out of debt. We added to the debt mountain when Covid hit. That was debt it would have been difficult to avoid. We were not the only country to spend more than would have otherwise been spent in an attempt to keep the economy going. Yes, we probably did spend more than we should have spent then. That is not the problem.

Since Covid we have spent far too much, far too much on keeping a government with a massive majority in power. Some of that money has been spent wisely but more of it has been wasted. When I think of the money wasted on a referendum for the "Voice" I feel angry. All that referendum did was divide us. It would not have given the government any power to change anything. That would have required another referendum to change the Constitution. More than one constitutional lawyer of my acquaintance doubts a second referendum to try and do that would fail.

It cost over $400m just to hold the actual referendum. A great deal more was spent in the lead up to it. The "Yes" side spent almost three times as much as the "No" side - and "No" still won. The government was advised before the campaign started of the likely outcome but it went ahead anyway. They deliberately wasted a great deal of money for what they hoped would be their political benefit.

The same government has agreed to give our nearest northern neighbour a $600m grant over ten years for a rugby team. I firmly believe that the best form of defence for any country is the foreign aid they give other countries but funding a rugby team is not foreign aid. It is an indulgence. No matter how you dress it up this was not something that was "needed". The money could have been spent on programs designed to produce income here or there.

The cost of the NDIS has expanded...and expanded. It needs to be reined in but doing so will mean some people will lose "benefits", things they now believe they are "entitled" to. That is politically unpopular of course, unpopular among those most likely to vote for the present government. At the same time there are still people not getting benefits they actually need.

These are big items, the sort of items that appear in the news from time to time. There are other perennial issues like housing, transport and more. A government which wants to remain in power will design housing to fit the dream, not the reality. It will provide roads rather than rail because roads allow people to own cars and the transport industry to flourish.  The billions spent on indigenous issues are reported in a fragmented way. The money being used on the futile attempt to move to "net zero" using solar and wind power may be mentioned but the real cost is far higher.

Now we apparently need to be protected from reality. The government is attempting to bring in laws which will prevent us from knowing all sorts of things, including how much they are spending to prevent us from knowing.  The reason we are so deep in debt is, according to the Treasurer, nothing to do with this at all. It is because of the war in the Middle East. That has increased the price of our fuel. Really? I wish it was that simple. 

  

"He now owes more on the house than

the house is worth," is something I overheard recently. This morning's paper confirms that was almost certainly true.

The 5% deposit scheme dreamed up by the present government is not working. It was never likely to work, especially if house prices were associated with such schemes. 

No, I do not pretend to understand the economics. It just seems to me if you introduce a scheme which allows people to borrow money to buy a home with only 5% of the deposit then you will get more people involved than if you ask for a 10% deposit.

I went to see Youngest Nephew yesterday. He has recently moved back to this state and is now living not too far away. He is buying the place he is living in. His father, my BIL, has insisted his two sons need to own their own homes. Neither place is palatial or even particularly convenient but they are likely good investments for their long term security. They are not intended to be anything else. The repayments are undoubtedly a worry but they can manage them. 

Neither place is a single unit three bedroom dwelling on a block of land surrounded by a landscaped garden. They do not need it. They might like to have something like that but they do not need it. Middle Cat is concerned that one place has stairs but she is looking long into the future. I suspect it will not be a problem. Youngest Nephew will move out to a more accessible dwelling at some point. For now he is prepared to have what he can afford.

Is that part of the problem? A Dutch migrant friend recently said, "In Holland a bedroom has the bed and not much else. The room is much smaller." 

Yes, the bedroom there has what it needs - the bed. Here the bed will be surrounded by space. Space costs money when it is associated with housing. Unless you are using a wheelchair do you really need a wide walkway around the bed? 

The place I now live in is a generous size for one person and I still have more belongings than I actually need. That said I do not live in a three or more bedrooms house with a garden right around me. Would it be nice? Of course it would be good to have the space but I do not need it. It would be a costly responsibility in terms of both time and money. 

It is things like this which make me wonder if the "housing crisis" might be of much less concern if people were allowed to need less, especially less to begin their housing journey.  Not everyone wants a three bedroom house on a quarter acre block but are they being told this is what they need? Is that contributing to the problem?

  

Group projects are not

things I normally get involved in by choice. My working life has required a great deal of working in (mostly small) groups. I like to leave them behind when I am taking some time away from work.

But, I belong to a group of knitters and crocheters who meet once a month in our local library. They have, and continue to be, a wonderful group. They are friendly. They support me and each other. I regard them as good friends. A group project with them is something I can do.

We have done several now. They have been done for the "Christmas Tree Festival" which is held once every two years. It is held up the hill in the same building as the other council library. We have covered trees in blanket squares and turned them into charity blankets after the event was over. We made a lot of crochet "smiley" faces and hung them and then passed them out to children and others in need of a smile. 

We are already working on what we hope will be next year's tree. A tree made of knitted and crocheted "wind spinners". The spinners can be passed on individually later. I have provided most of the yarn in the sense I proof read a thesis for someone. I did not want to be paid for doing that as I felt the person needed support but the result was a very, very large quantity of cheap acrylic yarn appearing in front of me with the words, "Use it for your wind spinners. Is it enough? I could get some more." 

There is more than enough. I took most of it to the library yesterday and members of the group went home with almost all of it.  

We were planning on doing all the work ourselves but the person who is the "Community Officer" saw several spinners we had made and inquired about them. When we explained he was enthusiastic and a meeting with the man who is responsible for the "community shed" has led to a promise a collapsible tree frame will be made by them. They will provide the necessary timber. It is becoming more of a community project. 

And it is a community project. Anyone can join in. If someone does not have knitting and crochet skills then we will happily teach them. If they need woodwork skills then the woodworkers will help. The library staff like the idea and don't mind the few hours of mess once a month. Other library users will wander over to see what we are doing and play with the spinners. It is working as a means of bringing people together.

I know there might be some ups and downs before we get the tree up in late November 2027 but I believe it will happen. It will be good. It is not something we expected any sort of funding for, indeed did not ask to be funded. That a small amount of timber can be bought and turned into a tree frame for us is an unexpected but very welcome addition to the project. 

I thought of all this as I was reading through the list of community projects being funded by the current federal government. The multi-million dollar grant to the golf course in his electorate is just part of the problem. There are too many projects there which are not community projects. They do not potentially benefit everyone or allow for everyone to participate. I have just read the comments of someone who was trying to justify the way the money was being spent. The argument was that the projects would help migrants "integrate". We are being asked to believe just 94% of the funding has gone to electorates which favour the present government, electorates they naturally want to keep. Apparently that is "normal" and "acceptable" just as it is equally acceptable there is no means of applying for a grant. They happen by invitation only.

If the same sort of process occurred here at this level for the project our little group is working on then several of us agreed that we would have said we did not want to accept anything. It would take away part of the value of what we were doing. The Christmas Tree Festival is for everyone. You do not need to Christian or a church goer in order to participate. It is a community event. Any community organisation or group within the council area can join in. Anyone can join our knitting and crochet group. People have come along and done their cross stitch and their macrame before now and may in the future. 

We want it to be a real group project - one where everyone interested in it can join in to the best of their ability.  

I am tired of being lied to by

politicians and the journalists they pay. It is likely that the vast majority of people would feel this way if they were more aware of what is going on. They are not.

"The room was full..." we were told but we were not told the next three words "of empty seats". No, not all the seats were empty. Not even the most loyal journalist could report our Prime Minister talking to an empty room. They could try to make us believe that there were many more people there. It was apparently important to do that.

The reality is that the biggest international auditorium of them all was not full. There were more empty seats than occupied seats. Some of those seats were occupied by Downunder's own delegation. Almost all the rest were occupied by representatives of the countries who depend on aid from this country. They were there to protect their own interests. 

I have been unable to ascertain whether any leaders of those countries were present. My informant (who was there) did not see any but tells me "there might have been". That person was not in a position to actually look around. 

"It was what we expected but it was embarrassing. I think he genuinely does not realise how little people think of him."

As I pointed out several days ago the only person to meet our PM when he arrived in the United States was our own country's Ambassador. There was no US official there, not one. We did not get informed about this on any news service of course. What we got was the story about him meeting with one of the "big tech" people. I do wonder what that person made of our Prime Minister. I wonder what he made of our present government's attempts to control access to the media and the technology which powers it. How convenient to be able to keep the "hacking" story until such time as it would make the maximum impact - the maximum impact here. All this of course is designed to try and make us believe that the "Digital Duty of Care" legislation is not just desirable but essential to protect us from harm. Really?

I do believe AI is potentially dangerous. Of course it could be. In hands which wish the rest of us harm it could be very dangerous. It would also be dangerous to allow any government so much control over what we see and hear. People are already asking whether it means that discussions about issues like biological sex or climate change would be controlled under the proposed legislation. They are issues about which there are very strong opinions. Are we really in need of being told that only one point of view is acceptable? 

Our Foreign Minister has tried to describe us as a "middle power". If we are one then it is because our official language is English. It is not because of anything we do or say on the world stage. We may have a large land mass but our population is small. The idea that what we do or say can have any sort of major influence on the major powers is nonsense. We have little, if any, influence almost anywhere. It is why we fund football teams in neighbouring countries instead of projects which have actual meaning and value. 

Those "selfies" with the big names at that meeting mean absolutely nothing. If we want to make a difference then we need to start here and do some hard work. How many people really want to do that?  

Show some compassion?

A year ago a small boy went missing from a remote property in the north of this state. He has not been found.

Yesterday his parents appeared in a pre-recorded video appeal. It was part of the ongoing police investigation. There was also the announcement of a million dollar reward for anyone who was able to lead the police to find an answer to what has happened to the child.

Social media do your bit? Apparently not everyone feels sympathy for the parents. This is so even after the police have made it very, very clear they are not considered to be anything but victims in an appalling tragedy. 

The mother is "not crying" and that is apparently a capital offence in the twisted minds of some people. That she might be weeping at all hours of the day and night off screen does not seem to occur to them. Not everyone openly displays emotions, especially to strangers. It has been clear from the start that this family is a very private one. They live in a very isolated manner on a remote property. It would be a very hard life even if everything was going well. It must be almost unbearably difficult now. 

There are others who claim the transgender grandparent must be responsible. The police looked to them simply because that person was, we are told, present on the property and apparently inside the house at the time of the disappearance. They would not be doing their job if they ignored that. What else they know or were told is not something the rest of us are privy to and speculation is not helpful.

And the theory an eagle may have taken the child? It is unlikely in the extreme. He was four years old. He may not be very big but he was a great deal bigger than a baby. The idea he might have been "snatched" that way is so unlikely the police will almost certainly have rejected it. It is one of those wild theories beloved of conspiracy theorists perhaps but not helpful.

There are any number of other cases of children disappearing and never being found again. I do not think I can even begin to comprehend how difficult it would be to be a family living with this sort of situation. Their lives would be so far from normal any decent individual should only feel compassion.

Some years ago a large reward was offered for information about another event. I remember being at a conference. People were discussing the situation and saying how good it would be to get the reward. I looked at someone I knew and wondered how insensitive people could be. Her child had been murdered some years before. It had taken all her courage to leave her husband for a few short days to come to the conference. I did the only thing I could think of I moved over to her as she stood there saying nothing and said, "It's stuffy in here. Do you feel like getting a bit of fresh air?"

The fresh air was good. The silence was even better.  

 

 

If you try to hide information

or "misinformation" then it is more likely people will believe it.  Someone needs to tell the government this. Their "Digital Duty of Care" Bill is a disaster waiting to happen.

At first the Prime Minister tried to tell us that it was not about trying to censor what we can see and hear but he is now suggesting that "extreme" views could be considered "misinformation". As such they could be removed by no less a person than the Minister. The Minister would have the power to decide what should be removed too.

It does not matter how the government tries to explain this Bill or how hard it tries to wrap it in terms of "protection" it remains dangerous. It is, and always will be, censorship. 

We have censorship in this country, of course we do. There is what most right minded people would consider censorship of pornography, of violence and like material. The very making of such material will normally have other penalties attached to it if the creators are caught. This is not about that sort of censorship at all.

Does this Bill cover something like views about "climate change" the government does not approve of? We are being told "no, of course not" but the reality is that the Prime Minister said as much when he mentioned "extreme" views yesterday while in New York. Does it cover a view about "gender". We already have a problem with that. Does it mean that this can no longer be discussed? Do we all need to accept the current legislation without being able to debate it?

They are just two major issues we hear a great deal about but the Digital Duty of Care Bill would allow the government to go much further than that. It could prevent valid criticism of the government and debate about issues of concern.

Many people in this country are unaware of the fact this government is actually giving millions of dollars to media outlets. Overall it hands out $1.8bn to the media. Most of it goes to the ABC and SBS but there are still substantial amounts handed to other broadcasters. All governments have been required to fund the ABC and SBS is similarly treated. What is not the same are the large sums given to commercial interests. The idea that they are not expected to give back anything in return is ridiculous. An analysis of the way matters are reported, even when they are being critical, is enough to suggest  otherwise.

The reality is that the media needs government funding to function. It can no longer rely on people paying for their news or entertainment funded by those services. That is enough to prevent the media from being too critical. Bring in a Digital Duty of Care Bill and there will be even less criticism or analysis. The Bill needs to fail.