What happened to Helen Haines

is appalling and, like most people, I am very upset by it. I am also upset that something like that should happen in this country. We are supposed to be a "safe" country but I am growing increasingly concerned that we are becoming the opposite.

Whatever happens however this incident must not be used by the government as a means of demanding their "digital duty of care" act is passed by parliament. It will not make things "better" or "safer". It will do more harm.

It is not social media which is the primary problem. I know we like to think it is but it is the government itself when it has a "dirt sheet" about her sent out into the community. Don't try and tell me it was not deliberate. Of course it was. This sort of thing happens inside politics all the time but it has become much worse recently. The current federal government knows it is in trouble. It still has "an election winning lead" with around 25% of the first preferences but that is a long way down from the last election. Dishing out the dirt on anyone and everyone outside their own party has become the name of the game. 

They also see it as more important than ever to pass that "digital duty of care" bill. Indeed we are being told that what happened to Helen Haines would not have happened if the bill had been passed. That this is absolute nonsense is not something they are even prepared to discuss. All we apparently need to know is that this sort of thing could not happen because we would not know...anything. 

I wonder where all this is taking us. Will they succeed in turning us into the "communist" state some think. 

 The other major culprit here is the main stream media. The present government pays them a good deal. In return they are, despite attempts to deny it, shall we say "careful" about how they portray the government. There has been some criticism recently and the story of the "dirt sheet" on Helen Haines has come to be more widely known but it took an horrific act for it to happen. This is not "social media" at work. It is not ordinary, everyday citizens. Has the media finally started to wake up to the fact that the government wants more control in order to control everything we can know as well as say? Is it too late?  

Tone down the rhetoric?

Our Prime Minister is telling us we have to tone down the rhetoric... that the social problems besetting this country are our fault. Really?

Apparently the problems have nothing to do with not listening. It is apparently fine for him to say whatever he likes. He might try to camouflage it with words he believes are carefully chosen but he is still able to say what he wants us to hear. He does not want us to respond. There is no room or time for listening. 

"Look, it is what we have decided to do. If the electorate doesn't like it too bad. Give some of the biggest whingers a lolly to suck and ignore the rest. We can blame it all on that red headed woman," is how it apparently goes in our nation's capital.

Communication is a two way street. What is happening is not communication. It is dictation. Argument is not being tolerated. Dissent is not being tolerated "People have to learn..." 

Two days ago we had an incident of the most appalling violence. One of the members of parliament was deliberately hit by a vehicle driven by someone who is obviously not normal. It was not normal behaviour. I have not heard one person express anything but shock and concern over this. "If we want to change things then this is not how you go about it," has been the general view. 

The politician in question is an "independent". I may not share all her views but it seems to me she was doing a better job than some I actually know. Her life will never be the same again. Our Prime Minister said what was expected of him but he went on to use the incident for his own purposes. Now we are being told that "social media" is to blame for what happened, that this is why the government's "misinformation/disinformation" or "digital duty of care" bill needs to be passed. It needs to be passed "as soon as possible" to "prevent anything like this happening again". 

What absolute nonsense! This will make martyrs of people whose views differ from his own, that the government does not want expressed and most certainly not debated. It is an attempt to prevent healthy debate not stop those with extremist views making their voices heard. 

Social media gets inflamed by main stream media. "Protests" continue in part because main stream media encourages them with constant reporting of the events. The "climate change" message is constantly slipped into news reports. We are given the impression that bullies and murderers should be allowed to succeed in their efforts "for the sake of peace". All this is what we first learn through main stream news but it gets expanded and twisted in social media, often with encouragement from "leaders". Politicians use main stream media to "get the message across". It is a very powerful tool. Abuse it and you can do a great deal of harm. Try to stifle it and you can do a great deal of harm.  

The desire to control social media is understandable. It would make us much easier to govern. Is it possible? I think not. Communication is a two way street - and trying to stop the traffic flow will cause "accidents". Some people will aways try to find a way around it to do even more harm.  We need to keep the communication lanes open. 

"Suicidal empathy" might be

one way to describe what is going on in France and now, it seems, spreading across Europe.

There is certainly much more to it than our media is suggesting. This is not about school buildings or resources. It is not about class sizes or teacher training. It has very little to do with education at all.

"Oh but France has always had student problems," someone told me today, "I remember when we were in teachers' college they were rioting then."

There were some problems then. It was a long time ago. They were nothing like the current problems, problems which fuelled by social media and much darker forces which use it.

There is a young woman I have met. She works in the local supermarket. She is "converting to Islam". She now wears the hijab, long sleeves and a long dress. She was "a Christian" but her current boyfriend is apparently a Muslim. She is doing everything he asks of her and seems to be completely under his control. She praises the pro-Palestinian protest movement and more. 

I wonder what she thinks of the way in which Christian and Jewish people, groups and businesses are being attacked while Muslims are being left unharmed not just in France but elsewhere. Is she happy with the way our federal government has given millions of dollars to Muslim groups, including to the mosque where the preacher has been telling his congregation it is acceptable for men to beat their wives? I have no way of knowing this and I most certainly do not think it would be right for me to ask but I do find it of interest. I would be concerned for anyone who was doing just as their partner was demanding they do.

Is this part of a wider problem though? Are we really aware of how much we are all being told what to think, what to say, what to do. How many of us have blindly accepted "climate change" and "renewable energy" or that Ukraine should give up land forcibly taken by Russia in order to end that war? How many of those on the pro-Palestinian "protests" believe that Israel alone is to blame for what is happening there? We are being told "multiculturalism is good" and opposing bringing in more migrants and refugees makes us racist. What if we do want more migrants but only those we see as fitting in with our beliefs? What if we believe refugees should go home when the situation in their country changes? Do we or do we not allow more than one legal system into our country so as to accommodate different beliefs about how people should be treated?

One of my neighbours was asking these questions yesterday. He had seen the video clip of the shop keeper who was bewildered at the way some of the rioters had looted her shop. She was telling them "but I said I wanted you here..." His reaction was, "They should be grateful they were allowed to go there or that they can come here."

No, they will not always be grateful. There will always be people who are angry and will go on being angry. They will go on believing they have lost everything and they have a right to take anything they want from others. Any attempt to prevent that is likely to make them even more resentful. 

We are told we should be empathetic, kind, tolerant, understanding and much more. If we are then do we also need to understand that such empathy might not be appreciated? Do we need to tolerate that even at risk to ourselves? 

I have no answers to that but perhaps we do need to think about the harm "suicidal empathy" could do if we allow it. 

Barb is going

and some will miss her. 

Who is "Barb" you ask? Oh the owner of "that wool shop down near the beach".

Barb has been an institution for more years than most people would care to think about. According to the piece in the paper yesterday she is "pushing eighty". I suspect she is rather older than that. 

Barb had a wool and haberdashery shop in one to the little side streets off the "main street" where I once lived. I knew of it because I had been there. I frequently had to point it out to visitors, especially overseas visitors who wanted something to knit in the summer. I often wonder what they made of her. She was feisty! 

Barb sold wool in balls and skeins and on cones. She sold cheap yarn and expensive yarn. It came in all sorts of colours and weights. Ask her, as I did, for some lace weight yarn and she would argue with you about what lace weight meant and actually was. (She found some under a pile of other things. It was old and too "fragile" to use. She tried to sell it to me anyway - at a reduced price.)

Barb sold buttons, hooks and eyes, snap fasteners, elastic, the knitting needles and needles to sew the knitting up. There were patterns untidily arranged. Barb knew what was there. Some had been there so long they were getting dog eared.  She kept a knitting machine near them and tried to get me to take up machine knitting. I could not get her to understand that, for me, hand knitting was and is therapeutic. I tried to explain that hand knitting is a sort of portable mental health kit but she never understood that.  Barb preferred the machine. I wonder if she will go on with that now she is "retired".

Retiring was not the plan. She tried to sell the business but nobody wanted to buy an old-fashioned business that really kept going because Barb took in the dry cleaning when "that place around the corner" closed. She did repairs too. All the clothing shops along the main street relied on Barb for the sewing on of buttons and the altering of hems or the mending of a badly sewn seam.  

I went in there a number of times but not that frequently. It made no difference. Barb knew me, knew me well. I went on to help my friend P... at craft fairs. Barb did not like craft fairs. She claimed they took away from local business. Perhaps they did but what P... sold would never have appeared in Barb's shop. There I was though helping P or rather one of P...'s customers. Barb stood there and glared at me,

"Come and see me in the shop."

I lived on the other side of the city by then. I never did go back. Perhaps I should have but Barb's shop was untidy, very untidy. I would not have found what I needed there. I am more likely to find an interesting mill end, or bring in something from a remote corner of the world. Now I am not the student teacher looking for something I could afford to use.

Still, I rather like Barb. She is fierce. She definitely does not "suffer fools gladly" but she is one of those "characters" it will be hard to forget. I wonder what that area will do without her. Will people point the shop out and tell their visitors looking for yarn, "Well, there used to be a shop there.."?   

Why should the elderly "downsize"

just to suit the government's housing policy?

According to those responsible for housing us, too many "old people" are living in dwellings with one or more bedrooms which are not being used.  There are complaints about this. Apparently we oldies need to "downsize".  Apparently we are being "selfish".

My paternal grandparents lived in the same house for almost all their married lives. It was my home for a short time in early childhood. It went on to be the place where I felt safe as a teenager...and not simply because there happened to be a police station a little further along on the other side of the road. 

Location wise it was excellent. There were "the shops" just around the corner, an entire row of everything you needed from a post office and bank to the butcher, the greengrocer, bakery, barber and more. The doctor was on the corner. There was the strange shaped "A" church too. There was a "general store" next door and the big "haberdashery" place a bit further one. Grandma only went into "town" - the CBD where the "big" (department) stores were when she absolutely had to go. Her life was in the local area. She walked everywhere. She never learned to drive. She did not need to learn. There were the buses and the train service. 

It would be impossible to find something like that now but the reason my grandparents resisted moving anywhere else was because all that was there. They knew people. People knew them.

It is not quite the same now but it still matters. When Middle Cat and I realised I would need to move out of the family home we also knew that, if possible, finding something in the same area was important. It was not simply because being close to her was important. It was just as important for me to be close to the library I use so often, the shops I know and, most of all, the people I know. 

Yes, we looked far and wide. I was prepared to move to an entirely different area and try to start all over again. I know I would not have been able to retain many friendships because I am simply not mobile enough. If you do not drive a car then relationships are different.You do not simply "hop in the car" and go somewhere. I did not want to do it but I had faced the fact I might need to move. That I have not needed to move outside my familiar area is something I still find hard to believe. I know I have been incredibly fortunate.

I also know it is why many people do not want to move. My aunt lives not far from here. She wanted to move into something much smaller in this area but the Covid lockdown put an end to her plans. She now stays where she is as one person in a four bedroom house. She would like to move to a much smaller place in this area but it won't happen. It is beyond her physical abilities now and trying to find somewhere would be almost impossible. In just the short time I have been here the situation has changed dramatically. 

Older people do not want to move from what is familiar. Even when the garden is becoming "too much" they know the local shops. They still know people around them even if the new young neighbours have not even found time to say hello. They use the local services. Moving out of "the house" is not easy. Moving out of "home" is harder still.  

No, the Plymouth Brethren are not

a "cult" group. The "Exclusive" branch may be but even that is debatable. It is the "exclusive" branch under scrutiny at present.

Let it be said here I do not have a lot of time for any group that demands women wear skirts, head scarves, no make up and say they cannot have a cup of tea in my home. I have had some disturbing contact with them. The Senior Cat had problems with some of them in his last school. They try to socially isolate themselves and that cannot be good for anyone.

The "Brethren" are back in the news at present. There is a "joint committee into electoral affairs" (parliamentary) inquiry about their activities at the last election.  They are not required to vote. (They can claim that nobody but God has authority over them.) Some of them do vote, others do not.

It has not stopped others trying to suggest they attempted to interfere in the electoral process or that the church was behind some "stunts" which aimed to embarrass the Prime Minister. There is more than that.

I have also been quizzed by the same committee. It is a long time ago now and they did not much like what I had to say but thanked me and a small change was made as a result. I went in with actual evidence. There was no publicity. It is only when matters become controversial they make the news - or when what is being said might impact on the next election in the case of the electoral affairs committee.  This is what is happening here. Media reports suggest the group is "far right", that they are MAGA like. There have been suggestions that their leader is "like the Pope". 

The reality is that they are a very, very small group of people, around fifteen to sixteen thousand. Their influence on any political party would be minute - if there was any at all. Their leader may exert considerable influence but it is influence over the members of the group, not the wider community.

There have been attempts to claim that the behaviour of some members of the Brethren behaved in an intimidating fashion at some polling booths. That has been likened to the Spanish inquisition and religious persecution. The media loves this sort of thing of course. Their presence was evident at no more than a handful of polling booths and their behaviour was, according to other reports, no more or less intimidating than any other group. It suggests there might be other reasons for concern among those who hold very different but equally extreme views.

 

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.