I have Jane Gardam to thank,

at least in part, for a major twist in my life.

She was a guest at our Writers' Week on two occasions. The first time I met her she was alone. On the second occasion her husband, David, was with her.

Writers' Week was actually for writers back then. (Yes, it was a long time ago.) There were sessions for the general public of course but there were also sessions for writers. Jane was talking at one of those, along with the late Judith Wright and others. I was there to help Judith, who was severely deaf by then, follow the question and answer session at the end of panel discussion.  It was Judith who pushed me, literally, into asking a question of my own. 

I cannot remember what the question was now but Jane's answer, the last of the three, brought a burst of laughter.  She came to find me as people started to move around again and asked who I was. I introduced her to Judith thinking she would be much more interested in meeting our renowned poet. No, she wanted to talk to me as well. We had a short but, for me, memorable chat. I mentioned I was considering returning to university because I thought I needed to add some legal knowledge to my other qualifications.
     "Oh, you will know JJ Bray then?" she asked me. No, I did not know "JJ" as he was known when not presiding in court. She promptly introduced me, told him what I wanted to do and why. I did not think he would be at all interested. I was wrong. He was interested, interested enough to see I actually entered the most appropriate law school in the country. 

I have Jane to thank for that.

Fourteen years later Jane was back as a returning guest. We had not had any contact in the intervening years but she saw me and approached me again. She had remembered me and what I had planned to do. On this occasion she had her husband with her. Had I done that legal training? Good. Now here was her husband and would I entertain with some information about growing up in the country here? 

I was more than happy to do that. David proved to be a very pleasant companion on and off over the week and, like Jane, he gave me some very valuable contacts which helped with my work later. I have much for which to thank both of them.

Before you go and vote

could you please at least think about others as well as yourself? It might be too much to ask you to actually research the issues but could you at least think about what might be best for the next generation and the generations after that.

I have a new great-nephew by my "niece"/goddaughter. Yes, I am genuinely delighted but that delight is tinged with a deep concern. I look at the very young passing me in the shopping centre and wonder what the world will be like for them if they reach my age. Perhaps it is something that people have done for centuries but I suspect more thought is given to it now.

Brother Cat and  his then partner (now deceased) and Middle Cat and her partner made the conscious decision to have just two children. Only if the second born had been a twin or more would they have had three or more. Their decision was based on the philosophy of "replace yourselves" and "there are enough people in the world".  

It is not the sort of thing that everyone agrees with. I have a distant cousin who has six children. She might have gone on to have had more - and homeschool them - if she had not been given medical orders to stop bearing children. They are lovely young adults now and they are all contributing to society but I still wonder at having had six children. 

And now young J... has arrived I really do wonder what the world will be like for him. Will he have a world I would recognise? There might be some things the same or more developed. There will be things I do not even recognise. 

What has all this to do with voting? I am thinking of all the people I have had conversations with in the past few weeks. Almost all of them are talking in ways which suggest they are voting for themselves and for their own interests. It does not surprise me. 

Human beings are essentially selfish beings. Yes, there is that mother instinct and that is the one which ensures the survival of the human race. Even that does not exist in all mothers. There are a very few genuinely selfless people who take risks to save the lives of others without any thought of rewards but they are rare. Most of us, even when we believe we are thinking of others, think of ourselves too. 

I cannot help wondering what the election result would be like if all those who voted did so with others in mind. I suspect it would be very different. The candidates would probably be very different too.  

What you wear and how you behave,

especially at a funeral, say a lot about you as an individual.

Many funerals I have attended in the past few years have also been attended by people in a variety of attire. There is no longer a requirement to wear black. Men do not always wear suits and ties. Some people will even attend in jeans and t-shirts.

These are what most of us would call "ordinary people". They are people special to us but they would not want us to "stand on ceremony" for any reason. There was no sea of black for the funerals of either of my parents or for anyone else I have known. On one occasion the funeral announcement actually asked for everyone to wear bright colours. On another people were asked to wear a pair of socks knitted by the person whose funeral it was. We were asked to remove our shoes at the doors of the cathedral in which it was held. Other people, also knitters, wore their own handmade socks. It was a special tribute to a very special person.

But there are other funerals where formality is required. They are the funerals of people like royalty, heads of state and so on. The funeral of Pope Francis was one such occasion. I looked at the reports on the news service and something jarred. In among all those respectful dark suits there was a quite bright blue suit. Yes, President Trump wore a bright blue suit. It was wrong. It was disrespectful. He would have been told what was appropriate. His wife would have known it was wrong. She was respectfully dressed. 

Was it deliberate? I suspect it was. The President made no secret of his boredom. He was caught on camera looking at his watch and looking at his mobile phone too. It was not fitting behaviour at a funeral, particularly during the service.

But President Zelensky was just as disrespectful you say? He was wearing fatigues! As I understand it Zelensky is not a military man. He wears army fatigues but he does not wear a uniform. He has no medals to show. His clothing has been chosen to say, "I am your President. We are at war."

President Zelensky, who is Jewish by birth, wore fatigues as a sign of respect. It might also be what we see him in when he appears on camera but on this occasion I am told he wore them out of respect. He was acknowledging the support Pope Francis had given the Ukrainian people. We did not see him looking at his watch or at the screen of his mobile phone in the middle of the service. 

The dress and behaviour of some people can say a great deal about them.

 

Flying three flags when giving

a press conference as the Prime Minister or as a member of parliament is not appropriate.

We have a flag in this country. I am well aware some people do not like it. They would be happy to see it changed to something they see as "more inclusive" or any number of other political statements. They fiercely oppose the Union Jack in the corner, say the stars of the Southern Cross are confusing and get confused with our cousins across the Tasman pond.  Perhaps they do but I don't think it matters. The flag acknowledges our colonial past and the stars acknowledge the indigenous people here before that. 

It is this government, likely to be returned if the opinion polls are correct, which has started to appear in front of three flags. The "aboriginal" flag often appears in the centre. It is as if this is the most important of the three. I am aware that some people, while they know our national flag, are not even too sure what or who the third flag represents. Told it is there for the Torres Strait Islanders they remain confused. Are the islanders citizens of this country or not?

The Opposition has stated they will revert to showing just one flag except on special occasions. This is as it should be. They have also stated they would reduce the number of "welcome to country" and "acknowledgment country" ceremonies and statements that have sometimes overwhelmed any gathering in the past few years.

It seems however the government is not listening to the increasing demand for these things to, if not stop, at least become much less in number. People are tired of them. They have become so common they are irritating and lacking in any meaning. Does it matter? Do these things help anyone? Are they bringing us closer together?

I was talking to my good friend M... yesterday. He has been busy ensuring the aboriginal community knows how and where to vote. It is something he finds difficult because many of them are, as he puts it, "disengaged".  

Yesterday though he had another concern. He was talking to a candidate standing for the party likely to win another term in office. That candidate told him the government is "giving serious consideration to legislating a Voice to Parliament". The Voice to Parliament was of course the subject of a very expensive referendum, one which failed by a large margin. That the government could even contemplate trying to legislate something like this is disturbing. 

M... saw the Voice proposal as unnecessary and divisive and I have to agree. Trying to impose it on the nation by legislation when it failed would be wrong but it might just succeed. It might succeed because the government could be returned but only with the support of a minor party or "independent" members. Anyone opposing the introduction of such legislation will of course be held to be racist. It is possible however that the opposite is true. It could be seen as divisive.

Flying three flags is not about any sort of cohesiveness or acceptance either. We need to stop and think about what we are really doing. 

 

"Does anyone actually think

about the issues?" I was asked yesterday.

A friend came in and did a small job for me yesterday. He is one of those casual sort of friends. We do not visit one another's homes in the ordinary sort of way. It is more the "stop and chat" in the street or in the shopping centre sort of way. 

I knew his parents, both long deceased. When J... was recovering from knee surgery I gave his wife a small pile of DVDs that the Senior Cat had accumulated. J... is "not a reader". I had him down as a "union" man. 

He was a "union" man for many years but he voted early so as not to have to spend too long standing in a queue on polling day. His knee is still troubling him but when he heard what I needed he said, "I'll be round to do it later on Friday if you are home."

His wife told me, "Please let him do it. He wants to thank you for the DVDs."

It seemed a more than reasonable exchange to me, especially as I was not expecting anything more than the enthusiastic thanks I had already been given. He was taking the old bit out of the troublesome device and about to screw the new piece in when he asked me, "Cat, do you suppose anyone actually thinks about the issues at election time - or do they just vote the same way all the time?" 

It is an interesting question and one which deserves serious consideration. I doubt it is given much consideration at all in this country. People vote because they must vote. Some of these people would never vote if they were not compelled to vote. 

Many of these compelled to vote people are people who do one of two things. Some simply vote a "donkey" vote - that is they mark the candidates with a "1,2,3" down the paper without thinking about it. They do this because they do not know what else to do. Others do it out of sheer exasperation and the belief their vote makes no difference. Others slavishly follow the "how to vote card" or the pieces of paper given them by the party faithful at the doors of their polling place. These voters know their first choice and then just dutifully do as they are told for the rest. It would seem many of them vote the same way for life.

Not so J... He thinks about his vote. He may have been a union man. Union membership was compulsory in his working days but he told me, "I like to know what I am voting for, not just who I am voting for."

I suspect he is a fairly rare voter.  He grinned when I told him, "Well I go in with a piece of paper in my hand reminding me of the order I want to vote in."  I don't need a "how to vote" card because I have made up my own mind.

This is the way I think it should be. If I had my way "how to vote" cards would not be handed out at polling places. If people do not know how they are going to vote when they get there then they are not voting with any thought at all.

I suspect this is what political parties rely on. They know that far too many people will do just as they are told to do. They take the line "My Dad voted for the Calathumpian" party and it was good enough for him. My Mum always did what he told her so...."

I am not sure my parents voted the same way. I know how the Senior Cat voted at the last election because I had to fill out the ballot paper at his direction. He could not see well enough to do it. I actually voted the same way. We had discussed the issues. Whether he always voted in the same way I do not know.  I do know he thought about the issues.  I know one of my siblings is of a very different political persuasion...but will at least think about the issues. Their vote may change from one election to the next. Another will do a donkey vote and resent having to vote at all. The other will think about the issues but vote on personalities rather than policies.

Do we really understand what we are doing? It is clear that, even within my own family, we may need a great deal more education about the political process.

 

Please do not politicise ANZAC day

or anything about it.

I went off to a "Dawn service" this morning. I had promised a very elderly friend I would wheel him around to where it was being held in his nursing home. Yes, it was absolutely worth the effort of doing it. There were only a very few old men there and one woman. She had been in one of the medical units. All the men had seen active service.

I felt like an outsider but only for a moment because I knew all but one of them. They are all people who have lived in and around the district for many years. I was greeted with smiles and various comments. 

A young friend came in just as a staff member and I were making sure everyone was settled in a place where they would be able to see and hear what was going on.  P... is thinking seriously about entering the priesthood. It has been on his mind for several years now. His father, a man I know and like, is a priest. P... knows how hard it is. At present he helps with hospital visits, home visits and simple services in places like the nursing home I was in. 

P... had put a lot of thought into this occasion and I could see he was feeling a little nervous. He had told me earlier, "Cat, I have no idea what they went through. I can think it but I can't know it."

The staff member who was there nearly wrecked everything by insisting on a "welcome to country" - actually an "acknowledgment" before the service began.  She felt it was an "appropriate" way to begin. Nobody said anything but the four who are still very alert were upset by it. 

I admired P... for being able to pull things together after that. He did a very good job. He kept his words short and to the point. He told them he could not possibly know what they had been through but his appreciation of their service was genuine and it showed.

The staff member obviously saw the occasion differently. She wanted to hustle people out to their very late breakfast and get on with her day. Yes, I understand it in a way. There are things that need to be done and this was a disruption to routine but this is that "one day of the year" that means so much to some people. Their numbers are growing less every year.

P... helped one of the other residents into the dining room and we left them to the grey porridge and stewed tea. Outside P... told me, "Thanks for being there Cat. I should not say it but I wish that woman would stop it."

I knew exactly what he meant. There is a time and a place for an acknowledgment just as there is a time and a place for a welcome. They are essentially political statements. This morning's little service was not the right place or the right time. It should have simply focussed on the occasion. 

 

So we are short of "tradies"?

You surprise me. 

I needed something done the other day. It is the sort of thing I cannot do myself. It needed a masonry drill and other items I do not possess. It needed skills I do not possess.

Fortunately my BIL has the necessary tools and skills and he came around to do it. Middle Cat and I told him where the necessary handle needed to go and he had the job done in about ten minutes. 

My BIL is very good at this sort of thing. He is so good the rest of the family tends to rely on him too much. I will ask him to do something only as a last resort but he does have an enormous variety of skills. If he is not certain how to do something then he will look it up or seek advice. He likes to know that sort of thing. When he was at work his boss would come to him to get things done even when they had nothing to do with his actual role. My BIL would get infuriated by these "compliments" but had no choice.

It is choice I have been thinking about. We are being told over and over again that one reason for the present "housing crisis", or shortage of new homes being built,  is because we have a shortage of "tradies" - the sort of people who can build a house, put in the plumbing, paint the walls, tile the roof and wire it all. Why? 

One side of politics is offering "free TAFE" (Technical and Further Education) for people who want to work in these areas. The other side is saying they see a need for more secondary schools where people will get a head start on these skills.

We had these sort of schools once. They were called "technical high schools". You went off to one of these at the end of your primary schooling if you thought you wanted to be something like that. They were unashamedly intended for "less academic" students. Other students went off to high school. In "area" schools we were divided into two groups, the "public examination" stream and the internal examination stream which was much the same as the technical stream.

Then came the idea that everyone needed to be in the same sort of school. Students could not be held back. Everyone needed to have the same opportunity to reach university entrance standard and more. The curriculum changed dramatically. The amount of woodwork, metalwork and domestic science taught was reduced to almost nothing. You don't need these things at school we were told. You can do it later at TAFE colleges. 

Students did not do this. The students who could not cope with the more academic curriculum ended up bored or misbehaving or just miserable at school. The more able students were being held back by the "trouble makers". Students were, and still are, leaving school earlier. There are not as many students taking up apprenticeships. When they do take up an apprenticeship their bosses are finding these students do not have the most basic skills or, as one put it to me, "which end of the hammer to hold". 

The Senior Cat always said it was a mistake to do away with technical high schools. We both knew people who had done extremely well after attending such schools. A former Governor of this state was a student at one. A matron at a hospital was one, a multi-millionaire was one. A person who developed a small but life saving medical device was one. There were more applicants than places for apprenticeships too.

Were "tradies" in short supply? No doubt we thought they were when we could not get one instantly but it seems there were plenty around. A good plumber and a good electrician always seem to have more than enough work to do. The best of them are highly respected in the community. They have not needed to go to university to do their jobs but they have needed to learn their trades.

We keep being told that students should not need to make decisions about what they want to do until much later in their schooling than the end of primary school. That may be true but I still believe there are many students who know they are not going to reach the level of university entrance. They have no desire to go and will never have the desire to go. There are some who will always struggle to read. They have no desire to learn computer programming or set theory or read the classics or know about the past. Nothing will change that and trying to teach them those things is not in their best interest. It would be better for them to be in the metalwork room learning the skills which will lead them to make the equipment for someone else to be a surgeon.

I am wondering now if there isn't a gradual shift back to such things. Is this why one of the major parties is suggesting the need to build more high schools and, in doing so, saying they need to be technically oriented? Would it be holding students back or giving them a hand up into their future? Might we end up with a glut of tradies instead? 

"Election sausages" are

a traditional part of polling day here. All over the country people go to vote and find themselves confronted with the inevitable barbecue run by a school or church or charity. It depends on the location of the polling station.

One of the advantages of voting early is that you can avoid the barbecue. I am not one for a greasy sausage smothered in tomato sauce and wrapped in a slice of cheap white bread. It amazes me how many people do succumb to these culinary delights.

You are supposed to have a good excuse for voting early. You can vote early if you will be outside the electorate where you are enrolled to vote, you are more than eight kilometres from a polling place, travelling or unable to leave your workplace to vote. If you have religious beliefs that prevent you from attending on polling day you can also vote early. Most people are aware of those rules.

There are also other rules which allow you to vote early. They are perhaps even more important. Some of them relate to personal safety. "Silent" electors can vote early. These are people whose names do not appear on the electoral roll you or I would see. There is usually a security issue involved.

You can also vote early if you have a "reasonable" fear for your safety or well being. That can be very helpful for victims of domestic violence and others who are under other forms of social pressure.  

Electoral officials will go into prisons so that people serving a sentence of less than three years can vote. They will go into nursing homes and hospitals so that people do not have to travel to a polling place. And you can vote early if you are seriously ill or infirm or due to give birth or disabled - or caring for someone who is. 

Some people can also get a postal vote. The late Senior Cat had a postal vote for the last three elections he voted in. A good friend witnessed his signature on the first two occasions - it has to be added to the outside of the envelope you seal with the papers inside it.  On the third occasion I had to do it. I had to fill out the papers according to his instructions. He knew exactly what he was doing and he was not prepared to trust the nursing home staff or the electoral staff to do it for him. He voted just as I expected he would vote but I still felt unhappy about him having to tell me or anyone else. 

I have done this for other people too. It always makes me feel a little uncomfortable. I can still fill in a ballot paper clearly. I wonder what will happen when I cannot do this. In many ways I think it would be better to have someone I do not know at all. 

Yesterday I voted early. I had several valid reasons for doing this and the process was not as smooth as it should have been. The person marking names off the roll was obviously nervous. He could not find my name and I had to explain again where to find it. He passed over the ballot papers, one for the House of Representatives and the other for the Senate. I took them from him and went to fill them out. As I did so the official in charge gave me a smile and said, "Take your time."

I filled the papers out, put them in the relevant boxes and was on my way out the door when the official in charge was coming back in the other way. She stopped me and said, "There's someone here who needs some help. He says he knows you and would be happy for you to help if you are willing."

I looked back and there, to the side of the queue, was an old student of mine. He gave me an anxious smile and I gave him a thumb up to let him know I would help.  Soon I was filling out the papers according to his instructions. There were no surprises but he had felt the need to come early more because his brother, a man of radical political persuasion, would not vote the same way. "And I didn't want him doing it for me or getting me one of those b... election sausages."

There were no election sausages to be seen anywhere. It is yet another advantage of being able to vote early.

 

Whatever you may believe or not believe

then we must surely at least acknowledge that Pope Francis had an impact on the world. 

I have a good friend who has spent many years in and around the Vatican. He is not a Roman Catholic but his work has taken him there to the Vatican library. He was still a student at university when he spent a year in Rome, most of it in the library which has become so familiar to him.  

Over the years he has sometimes made quiet remarks about the Popes who have come and gone during that time. He has known six of them. The first was Pope John XXIII. P... was a very young man then. I did not meet him until much later than that. He is a much older man now and he has seen a lot in his lifetime. I trust his judgment of these men.

P... is not a man given to criticism but I sensed he did not care for Pope Benedict at all.  When Pope Francis took up the position I sensed relief and I have heard more small stories about him than about any of the others.

Yes, apparently the morning after he was elected he really did question the two Swiss guard about whether they had eaten breakfast and sent them off to do it. Then, as the newly elected Pope, he went off and lined up with everyone else for his own breakfast and also lined up to pay his bill for staying. "It set the tone for his entire papacy." P... told me, "He never expects to be waited on. He is always thanking people. He smiles at them. You get the impression that he really does care about everyone."

Early in his papacy there are stories about Pope Francis going out into Rome at night. It is said he liked to simply walk around and talk to "ordinary" people.  Of course to him these same "ordinary" people were not ordinary at all. They were the very reason for his being there.  P... said he would sometimes glimpse Pope Francis going from one place to another in the Vatican and see him stop for a moment to chat to someone. "He stopped me and asked a question which showed he was extremely well informed," P... said of him once.

There was an email from P... this morning. "Cat, I have lost a friend. He was a good man. He tried and he kept on trying to the end."

I think I know what P... means. A pope has limited powers. He is not the all powerful leader many believe him to be. He has to work within the limits of a religious organisation which all too often has resented even a suggestion of change. It guards its powers with extreme jealousy. Trying to change that is something that cannot be done overnight. Pope Francis will be criticised for not doing this, not doing that, for being naive about some issues and not firm about others. He made mistakes - and admitted it. Those who know the inner workings of the Vatican well will, if they are honest with themselves, admit life was not always mentally and spiritually comfortable under this man. It should not have been. He saw it as his role to challenge their comfortable sense of self-satisfaction.

P... tells me, "He was basically a very good, honest man who did the best he could do until the end."  

Somewhere I have a letter from Pope John-Paul II's Ambassador or, as they call it, "the Apostolic Nuncio" in Canberra. It is a personal letter and relates closely to Pope John-Paul II. It is one of the few I have kept from what now seems a distant past, one that did not really happen. For all it is a personal letter it is also a very formal one. The language is very formal, very correct. Yes, it is written by a man whose first language was not English but it is more than that. There is a sense of "keeping distance".  

I wonder what a letter from Pope Francis might have been like. If he had actually written one himself to me about the same topic I suspect I might have found out something about his reading habits as a child and, within that, what drove him to be what he became.  It will be interesting to see what is made of his papacy now he has gone and who they choose in his place. 

RIP Francis. You tried to make a difference.  

If you know nothing about

a medical issue then it is probably wiser not to comment on it. To comment on it specifically to make a very nasty remark about someone is something which should not be done at all.

One of the election candidates in this seat has endometriosis. It is a medical condition which can have a very, very serious impact on all aspects of a person's life. It can cause severe pain, fatigue, infertility and depression. It is not something you can "cure", rather something you "manage".

The last time the election candidate was in parliament she joined with a woman on the opposite side of the house to set up a "Parliamentary Friends of Endometriosis Awareness" group. It is one of those activities which show that, behind the scenes in the debating chambers, politicians on opposite sides can and do work together at times. 

The candidate in question happened to mention this and that it had been done in conjunction with a member from an opposing party. It was a very balanced mention, especially at a time when she could have tried to make political mileage out of it. 

Of course someone had to take exception to this and claim she was making a "political" issue out of it. I growled a comment about informing yourself before commenting and padded off to do other things. A number of people "liked" the comment which is I suppose "nice" but it is not why I made it.

I made it because it seems to me that the original commenter was using the situation to make a particularly nasty snide comment about someone they do not wish to see elected. It also seems to me that the same person may or may not be aware of what endometriosis is but they should have informed themselves before making that comment in such a public way. If they have informed themselves and still choose to make that comment then it surely says something far more negative about them than the person they were criticising. 

People with "hidden" disabilities and conditions are often subject to criticisms from others who are unaware of their problems. All too often they will not be believed. Someone I know had a quite serious epileptic seizure in a library recently. I happened to be there at the time. People panicked as they always do. There were demands to call an ambulance, a belief he was "having a stroke" and so on. I knew what was happening. I have seen him like that before. Fortunately one of the librarians knew too. They all know him. The librarian just ordered everyone to leave the area and dealt with the situation. Away from there as people tried to escalate the situation I tried to explain. They did not want to listen. It was all too dramatic and too exciting for that. I wonder what they went home and told their families.  

I went back to the area and, seeing another member of staff, asked if J... wanted someone to sit quietly with him now that the episode was over. I said I knew his partner would come and get him. J...accepted the offer with a weak smile. I just took the book I was using and went on working. His partner turned up about twenty minutes later and with a quiet, "Thanks" they both left. No, I did not do anything special or dramatic. It was just that I happened to be informed about what was going on and what needed to be done. There was no need to make an issue of it.

I wonder how the person who made the snide comment about turning endometriosis into a political issue would have reacted to this if the person who had the seizure had been the candidate? Perhaps I am wrong but my guess is that they would have made a comment about that person not being "suitable" or similar.

Trying to inform the ill-informed about facts rather than opinions is probably a losing strategy. Too often now we are being told "facts" which are actually opinions or which are less than all the facts. Trying to be well informed rather than simply informed is getting increasingly difficult. I just have to hope I get it right. 

Could we have a bit of respect please?

If I have done my sums correctly then we have had twenty-nine Prime Ministers so far in Downunder. Of these I think perhaps thirteen of them could be called "believers". The others have attended church on occasion but perhaps because they were required to do so. 

One former Prime Minister was openly agnostic. I also have serious doubts about the beliefs of those who probably put something like "lapsed Catholic" or "Baptist" or something else on the census form.  It is much easier to believe one who could put "failed monk" in his resume or another who was filmed on multiple occasions at his "charismatic" church. 

The two leaders of the main political groups vying to form government after this election are nominally "Catholic".  I wonder just how strong the beliefs of one of them is. His comments lead me to believe he is a "Christian of convenience" rather than a committed Christian. There are many people like that.  The other man I cannot comment on. I know very little about his beliefs. All that needs to be said is that attending church is apparently not part of the weekly routine of either man. Whether this is important is something others need to make up their minds about.

What bothers me however is the way all this is portrayed. There are likely to be stories in the media if a Prime Minister or Premier attends a synagogue, a mosque, a temple or a place of worship other than a church. Ramadan, Eid, Passover, Divali all get a lengthy mention. Last week we were informed about Songkran and this was followed by mention of a string of other New Year celebrations in other Asian countries. Maundy Thursday barely rated a mention.

We seem to be going out of our way to talk about the religious beliefs of others.  It is good to know about these things but why do we do it when we do not do the same for Christianity? Most people I know will simply shrug and say it is not important. In doing so they do not recognise (or refuse to recognise) that the laws of this country are based on Christian traditions and values.  Tell them this is why arranged marriages without consent are illegal in this country and they will say "but we would have that anyway". No, we would not. Pakistan has recently ruled that a girl can marry as soon as she has had her first menstrual cycle. Their highest court has ruled that this is what Islamic belief tells them. 

With all the emphasis on other religious traditions and beliefs we are being told to "respect" those traditions and beliefs as well. If traditions and beliefs do not affect me or others and do no harm to me or others then perhaps they are best left alone. I would however question why they are so important that I need to be informed about them in greater detail than others need to be informed about Christianity. I may not be a church goer but our society's laws and values are rooted in Christian values and traditions. I try to abide by the commandment to "love one another" and so do many others I know. Respect for that commandment is surely something that matters to everyone. Respect comes through being informed. We need more information. 

I have just been warned off

 trying to visit the United States of America. Yes, seriously. I have been told I am not likely to be welcome there. 

I could get an Electronic System for Travel Authorization or ESTA. It would not be a problem for any other country which uses the system but apparently my name appears on so many documents in America I would be denied entry using an ESTA. I would be denied entry until they had sorted out whether I was some sort of spy or terrorist or something else. It would be funny if it was not so ridiculous.

Apart from the desire to see some good friends there I have no particular desire to go to America so it probably does not matter too much. I am sure there are some lovely places to visit. Some of their national parks look magnificent. There is undoubtedly some very interesting history, especially in some of the museums. I can live without it if I have to. 

All this came up because I am hoping to make a start on arrangements to go somewhere else. I need a holiday. It is something I have not been able to do anything about for far too many years. I have not been out of the state since 2002. Even on that occasion the Senior Cat and Middle Cat were with me. It was a short trip into the next state. We were still adjusting to life without "Mum" and I am not sure how much the trip really helped. 

Middle Cat has been on to me to actually go while I still can. I am all too well aware of what she means. I am a great deal less mobile than I once was. (I got pushed off a bus by a raging teenager in the city. It caused considerable damage and I have never fully recovered from it. Such things do not help when you already have a mobility issue.) Still I know I should try. 

I want to see my new grand-nephew in Singapore. As a "sleeping peacefully" newborn in arms he looks absolutely adorable. I want a cuddle! I want to visit friends in the UK. Some are people I have never physically met but there are still several very old friends who are now getting very old. Already I have lost several close friends - the sort of people I still corresponded with several times a year. I had done this ever since leaving London and not being able to see them again is something I have found hard. Yes, they may have been older but they were (with one or two exceptions) not really that old. I know if I do not go soon they will all be gone. 

I know going back will not be the same. Nothing is ever the same. London will have changed but I know it will still be the same in some ways. When someone posted a map showing the movement of the trains on the Underground or, as I know it, the Tube I could still pick out the relevant stations and know I would be able to get where I needed to go - except I doubt I could safely use it any more. I once knew the system intimately as I visited schools all over the network.  Still, it should be possible to work out efficient travel using it as a guide. 

"Does it really matter if you don't go Cat?" I was asked recently, "Wouldn't it be better to save the money for something you really need?"

It is not the sort of question you should ask me. I do feel guilty spending the money on myself. I know it is why that little nest egg in my English bank account is there but should I save it for the inevitable nursing home if I survive? I seem to have spent my entire life living on less than everyone around me - and working more hours than most people I know. Am I still being selfish? I hope not. I really do need to do something about getting an ESTA and using my passport before it runs out without having been used again.

Election campaign lies

are to be expected. It is part of the political "game" played by the parties. There are all the "he said, she said, they said" words which come out as if they are actual facts when they are actually carefully culled to make it appear as if the opposite is true.

And then there is something else. There was a curious advertisement which appeared on the evening news site I watch. It is the channel which concentrates on the international news rather than the local news so the election material has not been quite as intense. There it was though and it looked wrong.

It looked wrong because it was wrong. It is wrong and I think it is a step too far even for those implacably opposed to anything nuclear. The advertisement is designed in such a way as to give a very strong impression that there is a group inside a major political party which does not support their stance on nuclear power.  The advertisements use the same colour and the statements made in them give the strongest impression that there is strong disagreement within the party concerned.  

Now whatever you might or might not believe about nuclear power it is a debate we need to have. It needs to be an informed debate. It does not need to be the sort of emotionally charged "discussion" which usually takes place. If nuclear medicine could save the life of someone I loved or the life of a much loved child or the life of someone who went on to do great good in the world then I am not about to reject all things nuclear.

The mob producing this advertisement obviously think differently. They also want to try and make sure the party suggesting nuclear might be in the future energy mix never get into power. If you are opposed to all things nuclear then you may feel differently. Look a little closer though. Look at the person who is the "leader" of this group. He apparently has a reputation as a writer of letters to the editor. Those letters are apparently almost always in support of the present government's policies. He writes these and is still pretending to be a member of the opposition's party - a party he has never been a member of. 

He is being funded from other sources. He may be a former builder and have some of his own money behind him but he is definitely not running this campaign without the support of people who have their own commercial interests in seeing that nuclear never becomes a reality. I have no doubt these are people who would support nuclear if they believed there was money in it for them. Yes, follow the money. 

It has taken a while but the media has finally said something. They have said something too late of course. The damage has already been done. Many people will now believe there is a serious rift in the party concerned over their nuclear stance. There are differences of opinion of course - but there are differences of opinion on the other side too.  

It seems the Electoral Commission is powerless to stop this sort of thing. They are already unable to stop even the blatant lies of both major parties. Psychology tells them that trying to prevent this sort of thing is a waste of time. 

It would be good if all political advertising had to cease three months out from an election. Anyone caught advertising should be barred from seeking election or re-election. Anyone attempting to advertise on their behalf should also be penalised.That would still allow for statements of verifiable fact and statements of "intention" or policy. Do that and we might be able to cast our votes in a more informed manner...but it won't happen. 

Why wasn't this in our news?

In a news feed yesterday the ruling I was waiting to see came through almost as soon as it was announced. It is a legal ruling of huge significance for women everywhere.  It was not even mentioned here. 

I listened to the international news service last night and, even with an election coming up, it should have been mentioned. It was not mentioned. I have read this morning's paper. There is still no mention of it. It has not rated as much as a paragraph. 

What happened? The Supreme Court in the United Kingdom issued a ruling that the terms "woman" and "sex" in their Equality Act refer only to biological women and biological sex. It was a unanimous decision in a judgment which runs to more than eighty pages. 

They said the legal definition of a woman does not include transgender women who have gender recognition certificates. This will likely have huge ramifications for access to services intended for women only. 

Whether you think the ruling is right or wrong is entirely up to you but the issue has now been addressed. The judges have said, the definition relates to "the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words" and it "corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman." I have no doubt that somewhere in the judgment recognition is made of the genetic variations which can occur but the words "plain and unambiguous" still appear. The ruling also makes it clear that the privacy, safety and dignity of transgender people is still protected under Equality Act.

Here the case of Tickle v Giggle brought about an opposite ruling in the Federal Court. There the judge ruled that "sex is changeable". The appeal in that case has not yet been heard. We are not required to follow or even consider the rulings of the court of any other country but I have no doubt the matter will come up. 

The case was brought by a group called "For Women Scotland". As I understand it much of the money used to fund the case was donated by JK Rowling of Harry Potter fame. I imagine those individuals and groups which have criticised her stance on this issue will be even more against her now. I have no doubt at all they will now begin a campaign to have the law changed.  That is the way the world works. 

Vegemite is a rite of passage

here in Downunder. It is an essential part of life from early childhood. For anyone reading this who is not familiar with Vegemite then I suppose it is necessary to explain? You have not heard of it? Really?

It is made from brewer's yeast, a by-product of beer making. Salt, various vegetable flavours and vitamins are added to produce a savory spread. It is a cousin to Marmite but Downunderites (naturally) consider Vegemite to be a superior product. 

You need very little of this dark brown spread on your bread, your toast or the after school weet-bix. It is economical and does not require refrigeration.

As a kitten I often went to school with a Vegemite sandwich. It was not because I was particularly fond of Vegemite sandwiches but because this was what my mother could afford to give me. Two slices of bread put together with the merest scraping of butter if we happened to have some and Vegemite. If my memory serves me correctly there were a good many other young ones with the same sort of lunch. We lived in an area where money was very short in many families.

We also had Vegemite on toast at breakfast time and Vegemite on those after school wheat biscuits - the thick breakfast sort that you were really supposed to have with milk and sugar. Those biscuits were relatively cheap too I suppose. We did not always get them but we did not waste a wheat flake when we were given them. The other treat was a boiled egg with "Vegemite toast soldiers". If we had not been well then Grandma would produce this when we were starting to feel better.

Vegemite has continued to appear in every place I have ever lived in. I went off to university on the other side of the world with a jar of the stuff tucked into my luggage. Mum thought I would need it. It was only a tiny jar but it was there. She had no doubt I would find some more somewhere in London. 

I did find it. Harrod's sold it of course. It was there in their Food Hall. I saw it when we went to get fancy biscuits for a special birthday afternoon tea for a fellow student. I remember the late M... holding it up and saying, "Look Cat!"  I looked. I did not buy it there. It was expensive. I went off to a shipping company where the receptionist sat behind a display piled high with Vegemite. It was much cheaper there.

I now have the smallest jar because I do not eat a lot of it any more. It is not because I no longer like it but because I do not eat as much bread or toast. My shopping trolley is not filled with multiple loaves of bread ready to be turned into multiple slices of toast and Vegemite for teenage boys and their after school snack. Their mothers and other carers buy the largest jars available. It is still a relatively cheap snack unless you slather the butter on. 

And all this reminiscing has come about because the Canadian government has suddenly realised that Vegemite contains something not allowed in foodstuffs in Canada. They have banned imports of it and the sale of it. This is so even while they allow Marmite into the country. I have Canadian friends who are frantically trying to find ways around this. They became Vegemite addicts at university in London. I have little doubt they will succeed somehow. 

If they do not succeed then there is always Marmite I suppose...but somehow it is just not the same.  

The Palm Sunday massacre

in Ukraine has to be condemned. There were no "mistakes" about this. It was a deliberate act. Putin's forces were not targetting a meeting of military leaders. They were targetting ordinary people, many of them going to church. The "second strike" is enough to show that this was the intention. 

Putin could not care less about the people he killed and maimed. His military commanders do not care either. They do it with drones. They plan on remote maps and they push buttons. They send in poorly educated soldiers to finish off their handiwork. 

Of course there is a faint possibility that they are finding it harder to put soldiers on the ground. They are using soldiers from North Korea and China now. There might not be too many of them but I have no doubt that Kim and Xi are happy to be rid of some of the less competent or those they view as less committed. 

Putin is not going to give in until he gets what he wants. Nobody is absolutely certain how much he wants but everyone knows he wants more than he now has. He wants to see Russia become the glorious USSR of old. Allowing him to keep any land he has taken by force is simply going to encourage him. Why should the Ukrainians give up anything to a bully? Why especially should they be required to give up mineral rich land to someone who has already devastated their country? 

This was never a "special military operation". It was a grab for land and power that could never be justified. Even so I have no doubt that Putin will be filmed going to church for Easter.

All of that has hit the world headlines as did the bombing of the last fully functioning hospital in Gaza. It won't worry Muslim Hamas supporters that the hospital was funded by Christians and is being bombed by Jews. 

For Jews and Christians this time of the year is supposed to have  profound religious significance.  I just wonder if it means anything to some of them at all.

More election flyers have

landed in the letter boxes where I now live. There have been so many of them they now spill out into the street. Being a non-littering sort of cat I picked them up and put them in a nearby bin ready for today's collection. 

Someone else watched me do this and told me that I should have returned all the flyers to the various letter boxes. He said I was "stealing" mail and threatened to report me. As the flyers are not addressed to individuals this is not possible and I am sure the policeman who lives next door would laugh. I actually suggested he go and get that same policeman but he simply walked off. I wonder if he has been doing some of that "letter boxing".

Most of these flyers are printed in colour on shiny paper. They must cost a lot. They have to be delivered too but they may be done in part by volunteers. I wonder how many people actually read them and, if they read them, whether they bother to think about what is being said in them. 

There is one issue in our local electorate for which the incumbent is taking credit. The problem is that the work was actually done by the previous member and her party. When challenged on this the response has been, "But it was finished by us." 

Yes, of course it was but you were not responsible for all the work that went into it. You just moved in and took credit for it. No wonder they call you "Lazy L...". I still have not seen you in person but I have seen the candidate for the other major party. She has been in and out of the local shopping centre more than once. I have heard other people saying they have seen her elsewhere too. It does not surprise me. She has a reputation as a "worker" but it may not be enough to get her over the line.

Her supporters have been out and about too. They have been handing out useful shopping bags and small packets of jelly beans. I declined both again yesterday but their efforts did not annoy me. The volunteers doing it are young and enthusiastic.

I am tempted to go and vote early. It is something I could do if I so wished. That way I could simply go past anyone trying to tell me how to vote and say, "I've already voted." 

The problem is that those wretched shiny flyers will still appear in the letter box.  

Tax cuts, bribery

... and corruption perhaps?

I am not going to try and work out who is promising what because it will not make a great deal of difference in the end. If it was not so serious it would be funny.  The mob who want to retain power are promising cuts to this and that and cheaper this and that. The mob who want to gain power are promising other cuts and cheaper this and that. Of course they are.

I was back to thinking how much I would like to have a shot at reform of our tax system. It is much too complicated. There are three levels of taxation and there is the GST (goods and services tax) which might be considered to be part of one level or it might be considered to be something else.

Our local or council/shire taxes are intended to pay for things like rubbish collection, footpaths, trimming the trees and keeping the median strips tidy. It is also intended to pay for the library services and the ovals on which sport is played. 

Our current Mayor also likes to use the funds for political purposes such as renaming things with "culturally significant" names.  I think rubbish collection is vital. I put a paw around the library doors frequently and look after a group which meets there.  

I have no time at all for renaming things for the sake of renaming things. Apart from anything else I am almost certain that they are not being correctly and accurately named. Such names are harder to pronounce, spell and remember. I have met almost nobody who agrees with the policy to "acknowledge" the local people. Those who do know anything about it are quick to point out that the language being used is a plains language, not a hills language. In other words not even the correct language is being used. And all this renaming costs money which could be spent on other things. The local council would like more money to be spent on such things.

Given the chance to reform the tax system there are things like that I would not want to see taxpayer money spent on. It would be better spent making sure that the tripping hazards on the paths to those places were repaired. 

This is not to say I believe that no money should be spent on cultural activities. There was an event in the memorial park adjacent to the library last weekend. It was not organised by the council but by a service organisation. The council put something into it and of course gave permission for the area to be used for that purpose. The event was an opportunity for local social, service and sporting groups to make their presence known and try to encourage people to participate.  

It was a good use of council money and a local park. One of the good things about the event was that there was something there for everyone in the community. Of course we cannot cater for all people all of the time. Some groups need funding more than others. Some groups do need extra help. It can be very wise to see that young people are catered for and that the elderly get a bus service to do their shopping. At a local level it is perhaps easier to do this.

But at the federal level I am left puzzling over "help to buy" home schemes which benefit very few and funds towards batteries for solar systems which will benefit only those who can afford the rest of the cost. I wonder too at cutting the debt of those students who have not yet repaid their loans when others who have already done it are getting nothing. I suppose it can be said that a cut to fuel excise benefits everyone - but that is only supposed to last twelve months. The immediate tax cut being offered will only benefit those who are actually paying tax and will vary too. 

Find me something that will benefit everyone, especially those who need it most and might feel as if the election isn't all about tax cuts, bribery...and corruption. 

 

 

How to read music

is about much more than quavers, semi-quavers, minims, bars, rests and more. It is not just "FACE" and "Every Good Boy Deserves Fruit" as we were first taught.  It is extraordinarily, and perhaps gloriously, complicated.

Yesterday someone came up with a question which startled me.

"Cat, why did you make music such an important part of the lives of the Cathedral Cats?"

Oh, did I? Yes, I suppose I did. I have them cleaning the organ pipes and putting the used notes back in the proper places on the page. I let them have their own purring carol. 

I have also mentioned how the cats, particularly Bach, like to feel the music when Tom is playing the organ. That is something more than just the vibrations; it is Tom's interpretation of the music on the page. Decani understands that the marks on the page tell Tom what to do but he also understands that this is only part of it all. 

The Cathedral Cats love music. All of them are probably frustrated musicians. It is why I gave them the fancy flashing light balls one year. They can keep in perfect time with those. I hesitate to give them drums. How often is Bach's Christmas Oratorio played in the cathedral?

Music is of course an important part of cathedral life, a very important part. It is an important part of religious life everywhere. There was a "hymn contest" here recently. I think there were something like thirty-three entries. You could write the words to a known tune or you could write words and a tune. I suspect that, being the Anglicans were running the competition, "Hymns Ancient and Modern" featured large in it. Certainly the winning one in the "known tune" category was to a tune I knew. The winner in the other category sounded very similar to many tunes they use. (In order to support the local priest, a man I rather like, I sent in a very simple set of words to a well known African folk-song. It was not mentioned. I would be curious to know what the organist thought. He probably thought it was impossible to play on the wonderful organ they have there.)

The question I was asked came up at the same time as a very interesting exchange that came up on a news feed I read. In that someone was writing about other ways to "read" music and to listen to it. They mentioned the work of Pauline Oliveros and her "Sonic Meditations". This is something I can very vaguely remember having made a bit of a splash when I was in my teens. Someone in the music department at my teacher training college was involved. It was considered very, very radical. 

It would be considered much less radical now but the idea of allowing yourself to become that deeply involved in any piece of music surely should not have been. Isn't this the way conductors work when they interpret the markings on a score? 

I am not musical in that way. I can read music but I cannot read it in the way a musician does. I am not like Middle Cat's music lecturer at her teacher training college. I saw him morning after morning on the train. He would have a musical score in front of him like a novel and it was very obvious he was completely oblivious to what was going on around him. He would be immersed in the music. I often sat opposite him. On one occasion he looked up and I, naughtily, made a few gestures as if conducting. He looked at me in a puzzled sort of way, then back down at the manuscript. Then he shook his head and gestured back. All I can think of is that, completely by accident, I had done something close to what he was thinking about. I have no idea what piece of music he was working on.

I have often thought I would like to conduct an orchestra. If you could get them to produce the piece in the way you imagined it would surely be a source not so much of satisfaction but of relief. It would be an "I thought this and it can be done" moment. It would be done not so much for myself but for the composer. Did I get it right? Probably not but it would be good to try.

Perhaps all that is why I allow the Cathedral Cats to be musical. They have Tom and the organ - an orchestra in itself - at their disposal. They tell me there are many ways to interpret music and, being cats, they can involve themselves more deeply than any human I know. I am just a little jealous of all that. 

 

Tea cosies are

are little jumpers, pullovers, ganseys, sweaters or vests for tea pots are they not?

I first made one when I was around about eight. It was made from thick blue "blanket" wool.  This came after the pot holder  (made in the same yarn) that was my first ever knitting attempt. The pot holder took me a very long time. I really struggled to learn to knit. Looking back I wonder how much of that pot holder was my attempts to knit and my grandmother's "fixing" of all the problems. The tea pot cosy however was mine. I had finally "got the hang of it" and although Grandma had to pick up a stitch occasionally I was knitting. The cosy was made and she used it on her small teapot - the one she used for her breakfast tea. Grandpa and I used the bigger pot between us.

There was another cosy that Grandma had "for best". It was used if there were visitors for afternoon tea. It was made from red and gold silk fabric. The fabric was a remnant which had been given to Grandpa by a woman who ran a "Chinese emporium" in the city. "Miss C..." had a husband for whom my grandfather had made more than one suit. Grandma had taken the fabric, padded and lined it.  Miss C had an identical one, also made by my grandmother.  It was the only use they could think of for the fabric. 

My maternal grandmother had several cosies. They had all been knitted or crocheted by her. There was the "Dolly" one - a lady of sorts in a crinoline skirt, there was the "house" one in brown and gold and the pleated one in pink and blue.  They all fitted the large teapot. There were no small teapots in Nanna's house. 

My mother did not bother with tea cosies. She did not drink tea herself and we kittens were not allowed to drink it at home. The Senior Cat made his own tea more often than not. If there were visitors Mum would make the tea but there was still no tea cosy. Perhaps it was because sitting there over a cup of tea was not something that happened. There were always too many other things to do.

All this is something I have thought about recently because I have just made another teapot cosy. It is intended as a "thank you" to S...  S... put the computer desk together for me. It is something I could not have done for myself and I am genuinely grateful. 

All that now needs to happen is that I put the side seams together and sew the "1" on one side. There is a maple leaf on the other side because S... is Canadian by birth. I had to design all this of course and I am not sure it is as good as I would like but this is the third attempt. It doesn't look too bad though. I could almost imagine the teapot snuggling into it.

But.... I have to admit it is not an exciting tea cosy. I am aware there are thousands of designs out there. On one website alone there are more than a hundred of the most extraordinary designs - everything from footballers to fairies and strawberries to sheep. I looked at all these things. They amuse me but I have no desire to make them as teapot cosies. Would they make hats, silly hats? Perhaps.

I like the simplicity of plain off-white yarn and a red maple leaf. If a cosy is needed at all then perhaps this is the way to go. The problem is that I tend to make my "cuppa" and then get on with doing things. The tea does not need to stay warm. It just gets drunk instead.  

Our MSM is biased

and this is not simply because I do not like a lot of what is being said at present.

Not so long ago I pointed out that one high profile presenter at our ABC left, stood for election and was elected. She lasted just one term. In that term I suspect she discovered that she had less influence as a mere backbencher than she had on screen. I suspect the party she was affiliated with found the same thing. She has never recovered that level of influence over the rest of us.

"But we have given both sides an equal amount of time," was an answer I once got to a very lopsided campaign. The person I was challenging tried to tell me that an equal amount of talking about both major parties was enough to make it "fair" and "balanced". When I pointed out that what they said and how they said it also had to be taken into account they walked off. They knew as well as I did that their coverage was biased.

In the current election campaign it is easy to see "bias" on all sides if you happen to be a supporter of the one of the other candidates. The media on the other hand will tell you that a hundred "undecided" voters at the "first debate" will give you a better idea of what people are thinking than around twenty-thousand people who read a Murdoch brand newspaper. 

Dare to suggest that those "undecided" voters were not really undecided at all and you get told "yes they were". Ask how they were selected and get told, "We follow the well established guidelines". Really, they were "undecided" and you knew how to select them so as to give a balanced cross section? Anyone who knew why they were being asked for the purpose of the debate only had to lie anyway.

People lie when answering poll questions. It is why the "pollsters" sometimes get it wrong. What they are hoping for is that (a) enough people will not lie and (b) those that do lie will cancel out the others who are also lying. Sometimes there will be so many people for or against an issue that the polls will give a very clear answer but they are not the sort of polls those in authority are interested in. 

Despite all this the polls will continue right up to election day. The media will twist and turn the figures and try to convince us that the present caretaker government should be returned to office. They will tell us sometimes that this "might" be with a majority and at other times that they will be in "coalition" with a minor party or dependent on an array of "independents". Those journalists, presenters and columnists with strong views will go on attempting to influence our vote.

We can look on this as part of their job - or we can damn well make up our own minds. It just becomes more difficult when they keep twisting things. After all they are "wordsmiths" and it is their role to convince us that "red is blue" and "blue is red". 

 

Herding kangaroos is a very

difficult task. The wretched creatures tend to jump all over the place. They change their minds in which direction they want to go. They can jump unexpectedly high. Their rear feet can knock you flat. Their front paws can do immense damage when they are aroused. They can move at speeds which always take their herders at surprise. Sometimes they can even sustain those speeds for some distance. They eat copious amounts needed by others.

We vote for these kangaroos of course. There are the "red" kangaroos -currently in the "caretaker" position. Only the males are "red". Despite all the claims to the contrary the females, with one notable exception in the past, are always smaller and a rather odd shade of grey. Occasionally the females manage to jump into positions of authority in smaller areas of grassland but they rarely lack the authority to do the job. I can think of one or two exceptions. (One of these is always straying off to feed on other pastures.)

Then there are the "grey" kangaroos - both "eastern" and "western" varieties. The "eastern" variety have "business" grey fur. The "western" variety tend to have browner earth coloured fur. These two mobs seem to get along well enough - although they might get along better if they became one mob. The females are less likely to hold front line positions of power in the feeding grounds but they sometimes do a remarkable job of keeping the rest of the mob together.

And then there are the "antilopine" mob - except that they really are not a mob at all. They are a diverse lot always getting in the way. They trip others up or refuse to budge from the blades of grass they are feeding on. When they have exhausted one patch they are quite happy to find a new patch of grass - even if it is an entirely different sort of grass.

There are no real leaders in any of this. There are a few who try. They fight among themselves and fail to keep an eye on what their mobs are doing. The idea that they might actually look at the grass and see what really needs to be cared for is something which seems to be beyond them. 

Now they are all being threatened from a different sort of animal. It is seeking out the best places to plant the bamboo on which they live. So far no kangaroo seems to be aware of this. At best they are vaguely conscious of the existence of these creatures - often regarded as "cute" and "cuddly" even though in reality they are neither.  The kangaroos have actually been prepared to eat the tips of the bamboo on which these creatures feast. It saves the kangaroos the effort of caring for their own grass.

Nobody seems to be aware of the possibility that these creatures might take over the feeding grounds and plant more and more bamboo to feed their young.  They like their bamboo plantations to be efficiently managed so as to bring about the best possible return for their work.

Is it just possible we are heading for regulation under a Department of Panda Efficiency? DoPE? 

Using children in election campaigns

should be banned. I do not care if they are "child actors" there is something very, very wrong with using children to try and sell your political message.

Seeing politicians hugging babies is bad enough. It is something which can be blamed on a parent either being too nervous to refuse or to anxious for the photo opportunity. The baby will suffer embarrassment later in life but that is not the issue here.

Children are being used in an advertisement which cherry picks comments by politicians the "climate" based party disagrees with and wants to see ousted. The comments themselves are being used out of context in an attempt to convince voters that this is what the policies of these politicians are all about. That there might be another side or two or three to the story is of no concern to them. This is politics. It is an election campaign. The gloves are off. 

Yes, we can expect that but this advertisement is using children who are not aware of the complexities of the debate. How can they be when most adults are not aware? It is being used to try and influence not just adults but children. Children do not vote. Yes, their parents do and this is designed to try, among other things, to get children to tell their parents how to vote. "Vote for these people or our future will be ruined." It is designed to make parents feel guilty, not just now but well into the future.

I became the doting aunt of yet another baby yesterday. The first for S...  I am delighted to have another one to buy books for but I also worry what the future holds for him. The idea that he has come into an already overcrowded world does concern me. I do hope I can do something more for the future but do I have another project in me? I know I have to try. 

I must try but it does not mean taking the easy way out and thinking that a vote for a group of radicals with no real policy ideas beyond climate fantasies will change the world. It won't. Children should not be used in this way.  

The National Press Club

is not a place I am ever likely to put a foot in. It is in the national capital and I do not think it is likely I will return there. Even if I did it is unlikely I would ever go there. Perhaps I could buy a ticket for a lunch there but it is not something I think I would be likely to do.

That said I have just penned a letter to our state newspaper suggesting I would actually like to get up and give a speech there. Well no, I would not like to do it. I loathe, hate and detest getting up in front of a crowd and having to talk. It frightens me. I am a timid cat. I have plenty to say on paper but saying it out loud is something else. 

So why would I even contemplate the idea? Would I do it if asked? What would I want to say?

I contemplate the idea because the current election campaign needs a kick in the pants. Voters need a boot up the backside. Everyone is just plodding along as usual. There have been no fires lit under the campaign or the ideas. No major party has come up with anything new. The same tired ideas and lies are being pushed in front of voters.

I suspect part of the problem is that voters have had enough. The very divisive campaign over the "Voice to Parliament" and the subsequent referendum has caused voters to be even more cynical than usual. We are required to attend the ballot box in this country and that means there is no need to work for votes. All politicians need to do is work at swaying the small number of "swinging" voters and ensuring the "preferences" flow in their direction. 

Would I give that speech if asked? Yes, I would even though I would find it very difficult to do. I would want to give it to our current politicians and some members of the press who make no secret of their political bias. I would want to tell new candidates that there are limits to what can be done under our system. We are not the United States. Our Prime Minister cannot do just as he or she wishes - even if the media is trying to portray the Opposition leader in this way. There are limits and consequences - as President Trump may soon discover. 

What would I want to say? I would want to say "don't be afraid of new ideas" and "don't be afraid of looking back and reconsidering". I would want to suggest "potential" and "best for the future". I would want to tell people that what they want might not be what is best for the majority. I would want to talk to them about rights, privileges and responsibilities.

I will never get the chance - but I will keep on hoping that someone half my age but old enough to have some life experience will do it for me.  

$4000 for a battery?

The latest election "promise" has come from the present government in the form of a "promise" to provide up to $4000 for a battery for home owners who have solar panels installed. This is almost certain to be a vote winner - but it should not be.

There are a great many things wrong with this but they will be ignored by most people. It is assumed, rightly, that most people are so alarmed by global warming they will grab any opportunity to help reduce the problem. Yes, we should be alarmed by the way we are treating the planet. We should be doing a great deal more than we are about the problems associated with the abuse of the environment. The problem is like the problem of "exercise". 

Middle Cat, a physiotherapist by training, knows the value of the right sort of exercise done in the appropriate way and at the appropriate times. Even she will admit to not doing exercise when she should. It is so much easier not to do it, to rely on something else such as another painkiller or "I'll do it later when I feel more like it". We are treating the environmental problem in just the same way.

Batteries, a rapidly changing technology in themselves, are like pain killers. We are being told if we put one in we are "helping the environment". Really? A home battery is not going to store much power, especially at the rate most households use power. Think too of the cost, environmental as well as financial, which goes into making such a battery and installing it. The cost is high but the idea of using less power is like exercise. We believe we can pay for it like we pay for a painkiller and we can reduce our use later in just the same way as we will exercise later.

Still, others more knowledgeable than me think batteries are a good idea - a vote winner. 

Then there is the problem of who will get the benefit. If you live in a multi-story building then you won't have solar panels and a battery. If you live in rented accommodation then you are not eligible and neither is your landlord because the scheme does not apply to rented accommodation. 

Where I now live there are eleven other dwellings, four of them smaller than the others. There are no solar panels. The idea was discussed before I moved in and rejected for sound architectural reasons. We would not benefit from the scheme.  We would help to pay for it because of course what the government is promising is a return of taxpayer money to some people but not to others. 

Some people will argue that this is "fair" because they have gone to the expense of putting solar panels on the roof. They will say it is like the government buying the electricity the panels generate. No, it is not the same at all. This is about propping up a government scheme to meet that fairytale "net zero" target. It makes even less sense than the old "pink batts" (roof insulation) scheme. That had very different problems but modern homes do get good insulation now. 

Last night I listened to someone telling one of my new neighbours what a wonderful idea this proposal is. I have yet to meet the neighbour but he was letting this person talk on and on. When the other man finally drew a breath and wound down the new neighbour said, "We could spend the same amount of money and do more for the environment if we did two simple things which would benefit everyone."

"Rubbish!" came the response but the new neighbour persisted.

"We could make it much more expensive to take the car to work and cheaper to use public transport and we could start to rebuild the green canopy."

They went on arguing about this. I quietly shut the door on what they were saying and thought that the battery proposal was just like not doing the necessary exercise. It is a billion dollar painkiller which won't alleviate the pain. 

"Working from home" does not

work for everybody. It does not work for most people. If you are "public servant" then damn well get back to the office. Get back to the place where the files you need will be available. Don't tell me your "internet connection" is down...again.

I really have had this "working from home" lark by some of our so-called "public servants". It really hit home yesterday. 

I had to have my annual 'flu vaccination yesterday (on top of the second half of the shingles jab last Monday). It meant a morning away from the desk by the time I had ridden down to the clinic, rushed in and bought some very necessary underwear at the local chain store, and then waited for my turn (appointment necessary but they were, naturally, running late). The nurse was quick and efficient. The doctor asked how Middle Cat was as the jab was going in and I was out before waiting the obligatory ten minutes.

In order to save time I went to the Post Office and the chemist on my way home. There was no point in making an extra trip. It was at that point I was accosted with a cheerful "Hello Cat." There was someone I knew. She was sitting having a coffee with her cousin. It is late Friday morning and the two of them look relaxed and happy. "Join us for a coffee?"

"Thanks but I have to get back. I have to get some work done before a couple of people fly out."

I left it at that. The excuse was true but nothing would have induced me to have coffee with those two. Both of them are "public servants" who "work from home". They should both have been home - and working. Instead they were sitting having coffee and looking at photos on their phones.

This is not the first time I have seen or heard of such things happening. There are two people I know, brother and sister, who both WFH but every Tuesday morning they have a long breakfast together in the shopping centre. There is another man who takes his lap top along and says he is "working" but he chats to people he knows too. I am also aware of WFH people at the library. They have their laptops with them. The screens are up but are computer games, chess games and other entertaining items really "work". These are people who tell me they work for "X" or "Y" of "Z" department. They are almost certainly getting good salaries.

The election campaign is being fought around issues like this. The present government, thinking it is a vote winner, is saying people should have the "right" to WFH. The current opposition policy is to send people back to the office. WFH was a Covid issue. It was not intended to be a long term policy or a right of any sort. It was most definitely not intended to be a means of having breakfast with your brother or coffee with your cousin. It should not be about rushing out to bring the clothes in before it rains or picking up the kids from school and not being available because you are doing those things.

The internet does not go "down" as often as some of these people suggest. Yes, a few of them work harder and accomplish more but I suggest they are in the minority. There are the very few for whom it is the only way they can work.  I know of one man who is so severely disabled that getting him to work would take up more time than he could spend there. He puts in a full day at home and is infuriated by some of his colleagues who do not. I came into contact with him only recently but when I explained what I needed to help someone else he responded with a cheerful, "I can probably get to it this afternoon - is four o'clock too late?" His boss says he is the only WFHer who actually is efficient. He wants the rest of the staff back in the office.

"I know all the arguments Cat but the only argument for me is where they actually do the most work and that is in the office."

I have no choice about where I work and, oddly, the internet has only had one unplanned outage in the last twelve months. I have moved my place of abode and had a number of other issues to deal with but I have kept my commitments. I wanted to retire and it has not happened the way I hoped it would. I don't suppose it really matters. It is good to feel that I can still contribute something but it really does infuriate me that there are still expectations of me - and others like me. Why should we pay for people to "have coffee" with their WFH colleagues while we get on with the job?

 

  

"So what has migration done for you?"

I had a rare few hours out yesterday. My cousin T... picked me up and, along with his partner R... we went to the other side of the city to have a light meal with another cousin M... and his partner J...

It was at a cheap and cheerful venue we had all been to before and we enjoyed it just as much this time. It was also just a couple of hours sitting and chatting to people I love and know well. 

Later in the afternoon I was talking to someone else who was complaining about "all those immigrants coming in". He is someone I am wary of and try to avoid if I can. He wanted to know what "all that migration" had done for me. 

"Well I just had lunch out and the place we went to is run by Lebanese migrants," I told him, "It was very nice."

He laughed as I thought he might but I persisted in giving him an answer I knew he would not want. I told him about my personal experience with migrants, not simply the big names who have come to this country as migrants.

I told him about one of my closest friends. I... came here from Italy at the age of thirteen. She never went back to school because there was no job for her father and she had to work to support the family. She did not speak English when she came but she ended up running her own shop. She worked beyond retirement age.

Her story reminds me of Middle Cat's late father-in-law who came from Cyprus speaking no English. He did the same thing and brought out all his siblings one by one and then his parents. They all worked beyond retirement age. 

There is my friend D... who is Jewish. Her parents migrated here after the war. They survived the unspeakable horrors of a concentration camp and went on to bring up two doctors, a lawyer and a university lecturer in psychology. 

There is the delightful Syrian couple who run the tiny cafe in our shopping centre. Just after Christmas I shared a recipe belonging to my great-grandmother with P... She had asked if I would after I gave her a small pack of biscuits as a tiny "thank you" for being so concerned about Middle Cat. Recently P... introduced me as "part of the family" to someone else. She meant it too. Sharing a recipe is an important part of acceptance among the women in Syria.

After the second part of my shingles vaccination on Monday I stopped for a few quiet minutes - as we are required to do - and sat next to a Muslim woman with a small child. The child was curious about me and I engaged the child in conversation. Her mother then joined in and we spent longer talking than I intended. She is going to English classes because she wants to be part of her child's school community.  I came home with her address so I could send her some information about a person who gives free English conversation lessons. I know L... has just seen one family off to another state and is planning on taking on another to help. L... came here from Iran as an older child. She will understand many of the difficulties.

Today I need to get my 'flu jab and get a prescription renewed at the chemist. In both places migrants will be the people who help me.

That is just a tiny fraction of the way migration influences my life. I don't need to look far. I don't need to see the owners of building companies, shopping centres and more. I most certainly don't take the attitude of my questioner. He forgets he is also the child of migrants to this country. He likes to believe he has been here "forever". His family has not. They may have come not long after the First Fleet and mine may have come long after that but they still migrated.

If my great-grandfather had not chosen to be a sailor instead of a dominie-crofter in the north of Scotland he would not have met my great-grandmother. I would not be here now. I am very, very proud of my Scots ancestry - and their courage in migrating. It has done a lot for me.