Males working in nursery schools

is apparently under discussion in England right now. There was an email to me this morning asking for my views on the topic. In it the writer asked me, "Isn't there someone in Victoria who has just been taken into custody for a similar offence?"

The answer to that unfortunately is "yes". I have not gone hunting for the story. The media made much of it at the time. The perpetrator is not likely to be out of prison any time soon - if ever. 

There are a lot of hard core criminals in prisons. That will not surprise anyone who has even given the idea a moment's thought. What might surprise some people however is that sex offenders generally need to be isolated from the general prison population for their own safety. I really do not know much about this. I once spent a few hours visiting our main correctional facility for male prisoners. It was part of my teacher training course and a long time ago now but I remember being told that, even among prisoners, sexual abusers (especially of the very young) are not liked or admired. Why should they be?

The question of whether men should be permitted to work in nursery schools however is quite a different one. My late mother was asked to take a male teacher into the pre-school (three to five years) in this state. He was one of the first very few to be employed in the area under the new "equal opportunity" legislation. My mother really had no choice because teachers were sent to schools by head office, not chosen by principals and parent bodies. And no, she was not happy about it. When she met him she was even less happy to have him there. All sorts of "safety" arrangements were put in place, some known to him and others not.

 He was there for about eighteen months and was then transferred to another school. The following year he was arrested for sexual offences. For some time after that no male teachers were appointed to pre-schools but the past thirty years have seen that change. I am aware however of a constant concern, a concern which is more than it is for women in the profession.

Yes, there probably are men who want to work in very early childhood care and education. Some of them will want to do it for the right reasons. They will do well and genuinely care for the welfare of the children in their care but there will always be questions. What is a man doing there? 

Would I employ a man in that role? I was asked that question and I have to say, "I am not sure. Given two equally qualified people I suspect I would choose a woman." Is that right or is it wrong? 

What is a university for?

 There is a "discussion" going on at present between the classicist and academic Mary Beard and a Charlotte Gill about the way universities function. 

Dame Mary held a professorship in her own right at Newnham (Cambridge University). She spent many years teaching there. She was teaching in London (King's?) when I was a student in another part of the university. I managed to get to a lecture by her, a friend took me. I remember it well enough to think I would very much like to have been taught by her. She welcomed discussion.

I am not sure what Charlotte Gill's qualifications are. She is not the Canadian writer but she does write about what she calls "woke waste" - funding for woke projects. 

The "discussion" or argument seems to revolve around whether universities are involved in teaching and questioning ideas or whether they are places where you regurgitate the "correct" ideas.  The "what is a university for" argument. Trying to debate this at all on "X" let alone properly is almost impossible.

It is a topic I have commented on before and will no doubt comment on again. I had a discussion about it with the mature age student who lives across the dividing footpath where I now live. He has strong opinions about the way he is expected to abide by the ideas being put in front of him. He has been marked down for arguing against them. This is not "my lecturer/tutor doesn't like me and I am only getting a pass grade" but something he has been told he cannot afford to do. He is passing but he is not getting the grade he should be getting. He is getting distinctions but not high distinctions.  He is studying "counselling".  He refuses to accept there is only one correct answer to the questions he is being required to answer in assignments. His hopes of doing a masters have been cut to zero. There is no room for someone who does not follow the correct ideology in counselling. 

The late Senior Cat used to tell the story of how one of his lecturers slashed a line through an entire page of a student's work saying, "X (a critic) will not do. I won't have him mentioned."  How do you write a reasoned argument if you are not free to refer to and use all the resources you have at your disposal?

I have seen this happen more than once. I was a victim of it when I was doing my teacher training. There were "guidelines" and we were expected to follow them. There was only one way to write a lesson plan and we had to stick to that lesson plan. As a teacher if a child asked a good thoughtful question the rest of us would be off that plan and I would be getting them to argue the point being made. It meant we sometimes had to make up work to cover all that needed to be covered but the only complaints came from one or two lazy ones.

At tertiary level there should be room for argument. If a student raises an issue in a way which suggests they do not understand then they need one sort of help. If they raise an issue because they have done their "homework" and they are questioning something then they need to be encouraged. They don't need to be told "this is what you have to say even if if it not what you think".

My doctoral thesis turned an idea in psychology around another way. It was not what I set out to do. It just happened as I was searching for answers to the problem I had set myself. It came as a surprise to me, to my supervisor and everyone else. Even now I realise I was incredibly fortunate that I did not fail because the external examiner, a big name in the field, found his own work being questioned. It was one of those times when things could have gone either way. At my viva he really pushed me hard. The other two examiners barely asked a question. I know they were worried and I was very, very frightened. At the end of it though he told me, "I don't like it but I have to accept we need to change our thinking here." The data was there.  

The result might have been very different if my thesis had been in the area of "gender studies" or "indigenous studies" or one of the other current woke ideas. It will also take a brave student to argue against the meaning given to a particular word when studying one of the indigenous languages of this country, or suggesting that nuclear power might still be something that needs consideration. Try saying indigenous children should be taught in English from the start and you would lose any chance of a job working with them, perhaps of working with children at all.  The list of topics that may not be argued is long.

I suspect both Dame Mary and M/s Gill still have much to say to one another. I also believe it is both the university you attend and the course(s) you do there which will inform you of whether you are permitted to argue other ideas. Here they are not always welcome, particularly in woke areas or if their purpose is to train you for employment or both. 

Myself? I think universities are there, or should be there, for the exchange of ideas and the development of them. It won't happen if you have to agree in order to pass.  

Could we have some honesty please!

The mass shooting in British Columbia is an appalling event. In a small town (2,500 pop.) it will hit even harder than the mass shootings which have occurred in other places. Any mass shooting is horrendous. It is to be condemned.  It is wrong.

It is also wrong to pretend it is something it is not. In this case I heard the news of "an active shooter" being reported as, "The police are saying it is a woman." 

I wondered about that at the time. There were a number of reasons for this. Women who murder rarely do so using a gun as a weapon of choice. Women who murder often do it to protect their young. Going into a school and randomly shooting seemed highly unlikely. This was coming from the police in the town and a usually reliable news source.

The international news service repeated the story. They used the word "woman".

This morning there was a picture of the person alleged to have done the shooting. That person is said to be eighteen years of age. That person had a very obvious need to shave - or grow a beard. Perhaps there is a legal requirement to say "female" but I suspect the vast majority of people will look at the photograph and say, "But that's a man." Would it be better to say, "A person who identified as female." Possibly. Would it be more accurate?

A neighbour, out washing his car, told me, "That's not a woman. It reminds me of all those ridiculous claims about being indigenous when you have blue eyes and fair hair like that so-called professor of indigenous agriculture." Would it be better to say, "A person who identifies as being indigenous"? Possibly. Would it be more accurate?

Would it help people understand the event? In the tiny town where it happened I am sure the reasons for the shootings are being discussed and discussed at length. There will be an investigation and many people will wonder why they or others "missed the signs" but trying to suggest that the answer is simply, "They were "transgender" or "that person was a woman" " is not the answer. It should not be reported in that way. 

Our media has been making much of the visit of the Israeli President. Those who did not want the visit to occur have had most of the coverage, of course they have. If however we rely entirely on what they have to say and what the media has said then we only have part of the story. As I pointed out yesterday these people often deliberately break the law. It makes good news footage. Police bashing can be talked about and that is always considered useful news. It has taken the columnists, not seen or heard by the majority, to point out that at least some of what is being said is completely incorrect.

On a number of occasions I have been interviewed and I have not enjoyed it. Why? Because so often what I have said has been twisted to suit the agenda of the interviewer. When it is further reduced to fit the time or space available the message can get completely lost.  Is this dangerous? It can be. Is it dishonest? Yes. 

Before we sympathise with the protestors

perhaps we should ask ourselves some questions. The first of these would have to be, "Were they breaking the law?"

The answer to that is yes. They had permission to be peaceful in one place and not cause a disruption - nothing more and nothing less.  They had tried to get that overturned and they failed. Instead of abiding by the decision they went ahead with their own plans. They chose to break the law.

We might not like that law. We may say it goes against the long held belief we have a "right" to "free speech". It makes no difference. A law has been passed in parliament and the protestors chose to challenge it. There were good reasons for putting the law there in the first place. We may not like that either but, like the laws about speeding or paying tax, it was put there for a reason.  If we want to change it then we do so by writing to our MPs and getting a change at the ballot box if necessary. Do we want to support those who choose to break the law and potentially harm others?

Then there is the question. Do we know what the protestors are protesting about? No, don't just tell me "they are protesting against the war in Gaza", Why are they protesting about that particular war? What makes it so special that they have been out there for twenty-seven months? Asked what they are protesting about and they will give you a simplistic answer. If a problem is solved to their liking then they simply find another way to state it or another problem, another grievance.

Have we asked, "Where is the money coming from?" It costs money to protest and keep on protesting, to keep on rallying supporters of the cause. There is money behind these protests. Who is providing it, why and what do they want in return? It also costs the taxpayer in the policing of protests, even the most peaceful of protests. It also costs the businesses around the areas where the protests take place. Are they open. Is their trade being diminished?  Do the protestors believe that the $27m or more (and I am told this is a conservative estimate) spent on policing the protests in just one city is justified? What about all the services it could provide or how it could be used to educate people about their grievances?

Do we know what it is the protestors hope to achieve by protesting? Do they want to influence government policy? Is it in keeping with the policies of the day or is it a view held by a minority? Is failing to implement their demands genuinely harming our national fabric or our international reputation?

If they are protesting against a war in Gaza then why are not also protesting against something like the war in Ukraine, the war in Sudan or the regime in Iran? How do those conflicts differ so much they are apparently not worthy of protest? What about the Uighur in China, the restrictions the Taliban are placing on women and girls in Afghanistan? Why are they not shouting about the kidnapping of students in Nigeria?   Do they want women, including those protesting, to live under Sharia law?

And if they are arrested for violence, for assault (of each other as well as the police) or for blocking a public road or footpath and hindering the passage of others then what do we believe should happen to them? Do we release them without charge when tempers have cooled? Do we require them to appear in court? If so do we scold them, fine them, record a conviction or fail to record one? Do we keep a record of who they are so that it can be used against them later if they breach the law again? Does the right of some of them to pray five times a day include hindering the passage of others even in contravention of their own religious guidelines?Are they hoping we will make martyrs of them so they can expand their grievances and perhaps take the matter even higher into the legal system? How will all this be paid for?

There is no legislated right to protest in this country but we do enjoy the freedom to do it. I enjoy that freedom when I write this. It does not give me the right to harm others or restrict their freedoms and indeed rights. There is more than one way to protest. I still believe the most effective is to write an actual letter to someone who is able to make a difference because they have the authority to do that or belong to an elected group which has the authority. That will often mean a member of parliament. There are ways to write such letters - if you want them to be read and acted on.

Yes, I know I have not given you the answers. There are legal and moral questions here. We need to ask questions.  

 

  

 

  

We do not have a STEM problem

in this country. We have a language problem, an arts problem, a creativity problem.

The "person of the year" is an astronaut and, dare I even say this, a female astronaut at that. She is the first person to be an astronaut under the flag of this country. (Yes, you can forget Andy Thomas apparently - he trained with the Americans.) 

Now this "person of the year" is speaking up about the need for people to do STEM - science, technology, engineering and mathematics.  This is what is expected of her, no it is doubt one of the reasons she was chosen for the role.  I have no arguments with that. We need scientists and mathematicians and the technicians and engineers and other professionals which go with all the employment in those areas.

The problem is that none of this can happen without language and nothing will develop without creativity. The would be scientist, mathematician, engineer or technician needs to be able to read and read well. It is not sufficient to be able to read the instructions on the box and put the widget together. The widget has to be put together and used. If we want that person to build a better widget then they need to know how the widget works and why it was made that way. They need to know this before they can use processes like logic and creativity to improve the performance of the widget. It might appear to be as if it is all grounded in science and maths and engineering but in reality it is not. That comes next. It begins because someone has the language and the capability to apply language to the problem.

I said this recently on a mathematical project page set up by an Oxford mathematician. I was howled down by people who tried to tell me that mathematics was more important than language. They appeared to completely ignore the fact they were using language to argue their case. They ignored the fact that unless they understood words like "one" and "two", "multiply", "integer", "division" and more they could not even begin to find a square root or calculate a Chi square. The Oxford mathematician agreed with me but it left me feeling alarmed by how little importance some people place on the ability to use language or how essential it is in order to participate in the world. 

A speech pathologist once said to me she was always amazed by how hard some people with severe communication disabilities will try to communicate. I do not find it amazing at all. I expect nothing less. It is why I will go out of my way to overcome communication barriers and help others to do the same. It is our ability to communicate in multiple ways which marks us out from so much of the animal kingdom. 

We need people who can read, who read with understanding and who read for enjoyment as well as information. People need to be able to read critically, to think about what they have read and assess it. They need to create their own ideas from what they read, hear and see. This cannot be done without language. This is what we need to base the education of the young on. 

We are being warned the government plans to spend less on libraries this year. That is wrong. We should be spending more, much more.  

Don't blame the majority for

the decisions of a minority.

The Israeli President is coming to visit and the pro-Palestinian "action group"(s) are making it clear that they are not happy with the invitation. They want him "disinvited". If he does come they want the government to arrest him and send him of to the International Court of Justice at the Hague. 

The pro-Palestinian groups have been active for many months now. They have been disrupting traffic, transport, businesses and other people's lives with the support of the law. They have claimed a "right to protest". They do not like what is going on in Gaza. 

The vast majority of people do not like what is going on in Gaza. How could they? It is the most appalling and distressing mess. But who is really responsible for this? Is it every person in Israel? Is it every Jew around the world? Is the President to blame?

I don't know as much as I perhaps should about the powers of the President of Israel but how is he supposed to halt government decisions? I doubt he can. As I understand it his role is largely ceremonial. Is he then to take the blame for all the decisions of the Netanyahu government? What about the Israelis themselves. By no means all of them voted for the same government but are they all responsible? Some of them at least have been protesting about what is going on. If there was an election held tomorrow would the government change? It well might. Who becomes responsible then?

And on the other side who is responsible? There was an election you say. The people of Gaza voted Hamas in. They are responsible. Really? What sort of election was it? Free and fair or manipulated? Is the destruction of Gaza what they voted for? How many of them would have settled for returning the hostages immediately in return for peace but have never had the opportunity to say that?

We have an election coming up in this state. I will vote. I am required to vote. The law says I must vote. My vote is just one vote. It is quite likely the candidate I vote for will not succeed and that the government will not be of my choosing. Do I have to take responsibility for all decisions made in the future? Do I accept a democratic result or must I go on protesting? 

Where does my responsibility end? If I want to blame someone else do I object in a civilised, quiet manner or do I need to protest loudly, perhaps violently? 

 

  

"Little girls wear pink"

my maternal grandmother informed me as I told her I did not want to wear pink, that I did not like pink, that I wanted a blue dress. 

"Blue is for boys," she told me.

"It's for girls too!" 

I can remember being smacked hard for saying that. Nana was determined that I would be a "little girl" and that I would wear something pink and frilly. 

I still "hate" pink and frills. 

Nana made the dress of course. That is how things were done then. Your mother or your grandmother or your aunt or someone you knew made your clothes. There were no chains of Target or KMart or BigW back then.

I can remember that dress. It was made from a cotton fabric I think was called "haircord" and it was printed with tiny pink roses all over it. Yes, it was "pretty" I suppose. I remember the same fabric and same design also came in other colours, blue, yellow and possibly green. I would have been happy enough with blue or yellow. I did not like pink. Add in a frill of broderie anglaise "lace" that Nana thought looked "very nice" and I loathed it. The frill tickled.

It was my "other" dress. It was not my Sunday dress. That was green robia spot voile and smocked across the yoke. The smocking was not there just for decoration. It was there to make the garment last from one summer to the next. I wore it when I was two and then when I was three. The hem must have been lowered but I remember nothing of that. 

Yes, I was arguing about not wearing pink at age two. We were in the drapers which was just down the road from where my paternal grandparents lived. Nana must have come down on the train from the other side of the city. My mother was there. My paternal grandmother was there and Nana was there. Nana would get her way of course. If she did not then she would sulk and not do a good job of the dress. (She  was a good dressmaker.) 

I was reminded of this yesterday when a three year old I know appeared in front of me. She was wearing a pair of overalls that were a miniature version of an adult workman's work overalls. There was a spanner in one of the pockets and a small hammer in another. Her mother smiled and shrugged and said, "Her choice. I thought she might want to wear the pink ballet skirt."

"No, today is work. I am going to work," we were told.

As a garment the overalls were very practical apart from the difficulty of getting them on again if she "needed to go". She can pull them off her shoulders but not get them on again. Fair enough. They get flung in the washing machine. There is no need to worry about "spoiling" them. Oh, I would have loved to wear those.

Nana went on insisting I wear pink and that meant Middle Cat wore pink because clothes were passed down.  We had other clothes of course. Clothes were often passed around until they were no longer fit to be worn. Other pink things must have appeared but I do not remember them in the way I remember having to wear a pink frilly dress because it was what Nana wanted. 

Much later I remember my mother buying two dresses for my sisters. They must have been "on special", perhaps shop samples, from a drapery that was regarded as rather "exclusive". I do remember the sale sign across the window because of a black mark on it. It was still rare to buy clothing that way but those dresses were good. One was the colour of milk coffee. The other was a very pale teal. Both were embroidered around the borders but must have had deep hems as well. They lasted my sisters a long time, the way clothes were meant to last.  Me? Nana had made me yet another pink dress. It was made from pink nylon and "it doesn't need ironing". I loathed it but had to wear it. 

Grandma had brought up two boys and knew about practical clothing. She made shorts and overalls and knitted us traditional ganseys in the pattern her mother in law taught her. We girls had smocked dresses for "best" but there was never anything pink apart from the pink in the grub roses embroidered into the smocking.

Years later Grandma and I talked about this and she told me, "Your grandmother was dressing herself, not you." 

She was right. I still don't wear pink.  

  

There is a house being built

on land behind the group of units in which I now live. I was aware of it mostly because there were "fence" problems and the owner of the land in question was not being cooperative. 

It now turns out there may have been very good reasons for him not to be cooperative. He has been actively avoiding anything happening on "his" land until the footings were dug out and the foundations laid. That has now occurred and he, smilingly, came up with an offer to pay his half of the fencing costs. 

What he had not done was deal with the issue of a drainage pipe which flows from the units and the surrounding properties on to his land. Apparently it is "not his problem" because "it isn't there". It is apparently not on the paperwork at the local council and they are responsible for allowing building works to go ahead. 

The neighbour who came in to see me about all this told me the council has informed him the council says their records only go back to 1970. That seems very unlikely but this is what they are claiming. The units were built in 1966. As far as they are concerned the pipe does not exist. Really?

The water supply company also says "not our problem" because "our responsibility stops at the street". This is despite the fact that the pipe would have been put in by them when water was connected to all the surrounding properties.

It is a drainage pipe and the building works are lower than this unit so I am assuming water flows in that direction. Yes, it will flow on to the property. The pipe must direct the flow of the water from the neighbouring rooftops? I am no physicist and I am no engineer but it just seems to me you would want to avoid this sort of situation. It would be wise to get some advice? It would be wise to cooperate with your neighbours to be on this matter?

No, the owner has had the builder block the pipe with concrete. It was filled in when they laid the foundations. It was filled in against advice from a much more knowledgeable plumber.  Where will the water flow now? According to the owner of the land it is not his problem. The manager of the units is trying to do something about the situation. We have had no rain for weeks now but I suspect we might have a problem when it does and the water has nowhere to go. It might also mean the land beneath the new building dries out and damages the foundations. 

It is a potential muddy mess.  

  

If we want children to read

then they must be taught to read. I would have thought this was obvious but apparently it is not. It seems some parents believe the process can now be left entirely up to "day care" and "kindy" (kindergarten) and "pre-school" or wherever else they put their precious little ones to be "educated". Parents no longer have "time" to do anything like this.

I know I was lucky. My parents were teachers. I might have driven my mother to distraction but she did put the words for everyday items on them, on the 'fridge and elsewhere. If I wanted a word I could ask for it. It would be written on a piece of paper in her excellent "infant school" printing and it was there. All I had to do was learn it. 

I knew my letters early because the Senior Cat read me my bedtime stories as soon as I started to take an interest in the pictures in books. I cannot remember that but one of my earliest memories is sitting on his lap in front of the wood burning stove. He has his left arm around me. His left hand is holding the book and his right hand is pointing to each word as he reads it to me. I cannot have been more than eighteen months old. And yes, I do actually remember that. I can feel and smell the memory of it as well. They say you need words to remember and I must have had those words. It isn't the clearer, sharper memories of later but it is there. I have similar memories of other happenings. 

I didn't "just pick it (reading) up" of course. My parents contributed to the process. When my brother came along I was there to help. He was another early reader. My sisters were not as fast. My parents had more to do and the Senior Cat was doing a university degree part time. That alone tells me that parents need to be involved. 

Most parents would not be able to do what my parents did. They are not trained teachers. Quite possibly their children would not be as interested in learning to read but it does not mean that nothing should be done. Every so often there will be another news item about the importance of reading to children when they are young. It is one of those things that "everybody knows" is important but is still largely taken for granted. It does not always get done.

It does not always get done because parents are now "time poor". If both parents are working full time then there is very little time left for parenting. Your child(ren) will be brought up by the staff at day care in whatever form it takes. The lucky children will be those who are left with caring and able grandparents who take them off to "story-telling" at the library and have the time to satisfy the curiosity of the child who wants to know what something "says".  It is not just that of course. It is the individual interactions which matter, the playing with words. I heard a child saying "beat" the other day. Her grandparent responded, "heat" and the child said "cheat". It was a game between two. It was fun. 

All forms of day care have a place but none of them are quite the same as individual adult time devoted to words when it comes to learning to read. That is only a start of course. There is much more to it than that but it still matters and there are too many children missing out on it. 

 

 

 

The "Thriving Kids" program

outlined by the government is supposed to reduce the cost of the NDIS scheme. Whether it will or not is yet to be seen.

I was talking to a young mother yesterday who was worried her three year old son "might be autistic". He was running around and around the park adjacent to the library pretending to be a pilot. 

"He just keeps going like that all day. At kindy (kindergarten) they keep telling me he has to learn to settle down and listen to instructions and do what he is told. They are worried because he can't count properly past ten and he doesn't know how to read anything. He can read his name but he can't write it and they say..." 

"Does he sleep at night?" I asked. It felt exhausting just watching him.

"Oh yes, that's not a problem."

"Do you read to him?"

"Yes, it's why we come here on Wednesdays. It isn't a kindy day so we come to the toy library and I always get some books for him. He will listen to a story...I mean he will wriggle around but if you ask him then he has been listening. He can tell it back to you."

I listened to all of this as he turned a perfect somersault in the grass to "land". He was talking away using words like "landing gear" and "flaps" and "throttle". It all sounded perfectly normal to me. He seemed to me to be a healthy and active little boy with imagination and the apparently excess energy of childhood. 

But apparently there are "problems" at kindergarten level. He does not fit into the required groove or hole. He is a round peg that can turn around and around and the hole is square. It does not want him to roll around. Someone has suggested he "might be autistic" because he does not fit neatly into the expectations and requirements of the kindergarten. He is not learning the way they require children to learn. 

Of course I do not know the child at all. There may be other problems, problems the mother did not want to mention. Still it seems to me that having a very active and healthy child with an active and healthy imagination should not be seen as a "might be autistic" problem. The idea of putting him on some sort of medication "to calm him down a bit" was worrying the mother. It would worry me too. 

Is this how we treat three year old children who do not fit into the requirements being laid down?  

  

 

  

So interest rates are up again?

And the government is blaming everyone but themselves? Why am I not surprised?

I spent most of my time yesterday morning going to and from the bank. To get there requires pedalling to the station, catching a train changing to another train and then pedalling again at the other end. (Yes of course you do the same in reverse to go home again.) I arrived at the bank during the shopping centre's "quiet hour" - the one which is supposed to cater for people with "sensory needs".  It was not particularly quiet.

I had to actually go to the bank because all attempts to do what needed to be done could not be done on line. Please allow me to explain how much of this is a government induced problem which causes a rise or two in the cost of living.

First, it should not have been necessary to go that far in order to actually go to a bank. There should be a bank nearby. There were once four banks in the immediate vicinity. Now there are none. There were four ATM's outside the shopping centre. Now there is one. There is another inside run by a private company that charges people each time they use it.  All this has been done in the name of things like "electronic banking", "efficiency", "time saving", "reduced costs"... I could go on. Has any of this actually made life easier? No, it has reduced human interaction.

It has also increased the possibilities for fraud, greatly increased those possibilities. Oh and don't think about using the ATM unless there are plenty of people around or you might find yourself being held up by a teenage gangster looking for a bit extra to spend at the fast food places across the main road.

So, "reverification" of my bank details are necessary because now I could be anyone at all. After the failed attempts to do it in other ways and a now angry email from the bank I gave in and decided to go. The one thing I was refusing to do was "make an appointment".  Thus I made the trip by trike and train. Two trains? Yes, our public transport system tends to go in and out of the city, not across the suburbs. There is one "connector" bus service which does a loop but I cannot take the trike on the buses and it would involve even more time and buses. The entire system is designed to encourage the use of cars.

Oh yes, cars? Most people have access to one. They can drive. They have a licence to drive. It has "photo ID". You can use it to prove your identity. I do not have a licence to drive of course. I have a "proof of age" card. It also has photo ID. It is issued by the same people who issue the driver's licence cards. To get a proof of age card you have to provide a hundred points of ID which means at least two things like your passport, your birth certificate, your Medicare card and (wait for it) your licence to drive.  It is supposed to be an alternative to the licence to drive when you need to provide ID...except sometimes. The bank will not take that form of ID on line. 

So there I am, sans "appointment". I tell the service officer at the "welcome" desk why I am there. He starts to say I should have an appointment and I tell him, politely, that I am not going to make one because I happen to know that they have appointments available right then. (I looked that up before I left.) His shoulders sag. Is this going to be a difficult customer? He looks my details up. There is a flag on them saying I have already put in a complaint. The complaint was polite. It was reasonable. If they accept my suggestion it will, I hope, make a change to bank policy and life a little easier for all of us without a licence to drive. 

"Plenty of time," the nice female officer tells me. She groans when I tell her what the problem is...and agrees with me that reverification of details is largely due to fraud caused by the lack of face to face transactions. The idea that my proof of age card is not adequate for reverification purposes on line is something which causes her to sigh in frustration and mutter imprecations about inefficiency and more. I was on my way home when she actually phoned me to say that the bank has now accepted my proof of age card as ID...but it still cannot be done online. 

I hope my new passport turns up soon. I might need it as ID.  

I am reeling at the stupidity of

some people. I have just lost my temper. Anyone who knows me will also know it takes a lot for me to actually lose my temper. I can get angry but this is something different.

There is a fire in a conservation park south of here. I know the area. It is very difficult terrain. There are a lot of eucalypts there and a lot of other growth. It is pretty dry right now. There has not been a lot of rain recently.  The wind is changeable. There is no rain in sight. The roads in and out are narrow and winding. It is the very worst sort of fire to have to fight. 

The police are asking people to "stay away". The last thing the fire fighters need are thrill seekers - sight seers - people "going to have a look" or "to see if they can help".  No you can't help. Stay the hell out of there. Stay away. Let the people who are risking their lives to put the fire out get on with the job without hindrance. 

If you were told to get out then I hope you got out. Don't rely on those firefighters to come and rescue you.

I know something about bushfires (wildfires). I have been too close to one for comfort. Let me explain.

There was a fire when the Senior Cat had a school in a rural area. The school, like most area schools, had an agricultural stream. There were sheep and some small areas of crop and the like. The Senior Cat and the teacher in charge of the agricultural stream were responsible for the safety of that as well as the safety of the school. It was a weekend. The children were not at school which was a good thing because the school was needed for other purposes. It was the command centre. 

I do not know too much about the details of the fire. What I do know are some things which will stick in my mind forever. We herded the sheep into the back garden of the school house. They were bleating fear. My brother was set the task of hand pumping the water into the overhead tank (which is how we had any water pressure at all) and he also had to control the hose which was there to make sure that any sparks which landed did not start a major fire. 

I was sent over to the school's domestic science kitchen where food was prepared for the men fighting the fire. The town's only shop had sent up all the available bread along with other supplies. I spent the night and most of the following day making sandwiches as the men came in to the kitchen in relays.  They would lie on the floor in the room next day and "get some kip" before going back out on to the front lines having had an hour or so's break. They were filthy dirty and red eyed. Some of them had minor burns and blisters. They were exhausted but they had to go back. There were simply not enough men to do the job which needed to be done without them. The school's generator had to be kept running so there was power at the school. 

Eventually everything was under control. The area around the school was a mess but it was not as bad as it might have been. Everyone was exhausted and I mean exhausted. They were not just "very tired". There was still a lot of cleaning up to do, spots to be watched and roads to be cleared. 

Compared with what they are now fighting I suppose it was a "small" fire but it did not feel small. The terrain was not as difficult but other issues made it awkward. The cause of the fire was thought to be a dry lightning strike. Nobody lost their home but some people lost sheds and many of them lost sheep or had to go out and shoot the injured sheep. Contrary to the belief of many farmers do not like doing that.  

It was talked of quietly for weeks. I remember the vague feeling of trying to be as grown up as the women working in the kitchen but it was hard. I knew where my parents were but they did not know where their fathers, husbands and sons were or if they were safe. I was the only teenager in the room and it was one of those times when I definitely kept my head down and my mouth shut. I suppose it was a "growing up" moment but it is a memory which still disturbs me. 

So, when some fool thinks it would be "interesting" to go and look I let him know how selfish he would be. The last thing they need is someone getting in the way and putting their lives further at risk. Please just let the men out there get on with the job and let the back up women get on with theirs too.  

  

The political devotee who knocked

on my door yesterday was a nice young girl but very immature and very misguided.

I will assume she was eighteen but she looked younger than that. She stood there and told me that she was campaigning for the candidate of her choice and wanted to talk to me about it. 

I do not normally engage in conversation with any political candidates or their representatives but I had already heard her talking to one of my neighbours. What she was telling them was complete nonsense. The party in question was going to do this, do that, do something else. It sounded wonderful but it was completely impossible. I am sure the candidate does not believe it. It would not be in their party's political manifesto.

We talked about the "free" solar panels. No, I was not to worry about that. Everyone was going to get those. I first pointed to the roof and said, "We cannot put them up here." (There are good safety reasons for this. The place would need a new roof.) I explained why. 

Her response was, "But we could help you do that." Really? I very much doubt it.

I asked her where the money was coming from. "The government of course." And where does government money come from? That caused a slight hesitation and then, "Well some of it is our taxes but most of it comes from business."  Really?

Climate change? Her views on that were, as I expected, in keeping with the worst case scenario. No, greening the planet was not the answer. Trees are nice but you don't need them in the way you need housing.

And why do we need so much housing? Because everyone has the right to their own free standing home. Really? I tried to tell her that this is not how most people live but she still felt it was the right thing to try and achieve. After all, or so she informed me, we need to bring in at least another hundred thousand people a year over and above the (increased) numbers we are already bringing in.  Those people also have a "right" to live as they choose. They do not need to integrate because we are "multicultural". She genuinely could not see that as likely to cause any problems.

We stopped about there. We did not cover the "stolen" land issue or the other issues of concern regarding "indigenous culture" and "first nations" people. I could be almost certain of her thinking on those issues.

Or is she thinking at all? I am sure she regards herself as politically well informed. In reality she has very little idea of how complex many of these issues are. I doubt she would believe anyone if they tried to tell her. I suppose it makes her the perfect political devotee of her chosen party.  

 

"Is it all right not to like someone?"

a strange child asked me yesterday. He was standing there glaring at someone who had just walked off quickly.

"You don't have to like everyone," I responded. We were outside the shopping centre. The place where I park my trike is also used by people to tie up their dogs. The child, a boy of about nine, was standing there next to a dog of indeterminate breed but determinedly friendly nature.

Dog and I said hello to one another and the child said, "I like you because you talk to my dog."

"I like talking to dogs. They talk back to you."

"Yes they do but that man doesn't like dogs. He was rude about Ben and rude to me. He said dogs like Ben should be put down and put down means killed. He said they were no use for anything but Ben is useful"

I was soon told about the way Ben kept this child's grandfather company after the death of the child's grandmother. Apparently, "They go everywhere together except inside places like this where you aren't allowed."

This child was, rightly, upset. The dog was securely tied to the railing and doing no harm to anyone. He was not barking or making a nuisance of himself. The child claimed he had not said anything to the man who made the comments and I believe him. He was one of those "nice" children you instantly feel warm towards. His relationship with the dog was excellent.

I like dogs I suppose. I tend to talk to them when I see them. If they are tied up where my trike is tied up then we might have a conversation of sorts. There are dogs I know quite well. I know some better than I know their owners. I am sure there are people who think I am odd because I talk to dogs. I talk to cats too. It just seems to be the right thing to do. We have no idea how much they understand but I suspect it is more than we recognise. 

So is it all right not to like some people? I considered this as the milk I had just bought was in danger of curdling before I managed to get it into the fridge. The child wanted an answer to this question.

"Yes," I told him, "It is perfectly all right not to like someone. You don't have to like everyone. It needn't stop you being polite and I am sure you were. There are people I don't like either but I know the people I like usually like animals."

The child nodded and then said, "I won't tell Grandpa what happened then."

A tail thumped in agreement.   

Yes we are giving another $50m

in aid to Afghanistan through the United Nations...and yes, a lot of it will be wasted.  We still need to do it.

There has been a backlash here in Downunder because the government has provided another $50m of aid to Afghanistan. The backlash comes at a time when the interest rate set by the Reserve Bank is likely to rise next Tuesday, food costs have gone up, power costs have gone through the roof and more. People are saying we should spend that money here.

There is also an increasingly strong anti-Muslim sentiment in this country. It has been simmering under the surface for a long time and in the last few weeks it has begun to bubble a little more. Providing aid to Afghanistan has never been popular but it is even less popular now. Many people here believe we have done our bit by trying to rid them of the Taliban. That failed so there has been what is seen as a "flood" of refugees from there instead. 

In all honesty they do not mix well. Their culture and way of life was very different even in relatively peaceful times. It is much more difficult now. They find integration difficult even while many of those who come are more than willing to try.

Afghanistan's exports amounted to less than US $2bn last year and most of it came from agriculture, mining and small enterprises or cottage industries like carpet making. There is not enough being done to feed the population of around forty-four million of whom almost half are children under the age of fourteen. We also need to recognise that men eat first, then boys. Women and girls get what is left. 

Women and girls are very definitely second class citizens in Afghanistan. It has been that way for centuries. The situation improved slightly under the previous government but when the Taliban took over again, despite what they claimed they would do, things went into a downward spiral. The Taliban's version of "strict Sharia law" now means that access to everything is being reduced for women and girls. That includes access to all forms of health care because women cannot be treated by men and the number of women who were previously trained and are still able to work is decreasing. Girls are growing up into a society where medical help will be almost non-existent. They are growing up without schooling. Yes, some go to school in the early years but there are increasing reports of some girls getting no schooling at all. Why bother to send a female child to school if they can work?

If none of this matters to you then I suppose you will believe that the money will be completely wasted. On the other hand it is just possible that the money might help one girl get an education - and then make a difference for all.  Is that worth doing?  

I took a risk yesterday

and, after searching in a social media site, made contact with someone I last saw over twenty years ago.

This may not seem very unusual to most people but, for me, it was. It is not the sort of thing I usually do at all. I have never been the sort of person who can "just call on" someone else. I have never understood the sort of social life where people contact other people on impulse and suggest going somewhere. No, I make arrangements to do it in advance. Most of my friends are the same. I think it is a generational thing. 

I grew up in a family where visitors came by prior arrangement. We went to them by prior arrangement. It did not happen often. It is also highly unlikely other people were very different. The means of communication was different back in the last century. There were no mobile phones and no computers. If you wanted to communicate with someone you did so by letter, by phone or face to face. There were telegrams and eventually that wonder we called "the fax". 

Not so long ago I was talking to someone who said much the same thing. He was talking about how social arrangements for Saturday nights were made at school during the week. If someone did not turn up at the appointed place at the appointed time there was no way of getting in touch. I tried to explain this to an eight year old the other day and he could not understand it at all. He has a mobile phone. It can do no more than make and receive calls to a limited range of people but it is still instant communication. 

But is communication really any easier now? The demise of the phone book has left us without the means to simply look a number up. There is no equivalent for mobile phones. Accessing the electoral roll is no longer possible without good cause. (You can tell them who you are looking for and why and they will confirm or deny or, in very rare instances, give you an address.)

It is why I went to social media. The name I was looking for is not a "Mary Brown" or "John Smith" sort of name. It is unusual. I found four people with that name on social media. Three of them live in other countries so I thought the fourth was likely. I wrote the message and pressed send. If nothing happened then at least I had tried.

Yes, I was lucky. It was the right person. They professed to be delighted to hear from me, had "often wondered" etc. The information I needed was quickly supplied (although I wondered if they would even have it) and there was the "we must meet". I wonder if we will. If they do contact me again to make arrangements will I want to go? Would we have maintained contact if we lived closer? I doubt it but it did set me wondering about the ways and means of contacting people now...and then.  

 

354 days of 40'C

and above in this city since January 1st, 1888?

There is a letter from someone in our state newspaper telling us this. (The writer apparently has been working on this statistic for some time and says, "Yes, get a life" as he comments.)  He goes, "That's 0.7% of 50,405 days at the time of counting. In twenty-nine years the temperature never reached 40'C. In 1908 there was a "heatwave" with the temperature going over the 40'C mark for six days and then four days. 

My great-grandparents had not air conditioning. They had no electricity. They tried to keep things cool with wet towels but my great-grandmother still had to cook on a wood burning stove.  Yes, food had to be cooked because so much would spoil in the heat. 

My grandparents did not have much more. There was no air conditioning. My paternal grandmother never had more than one tiny electric fan. She would turn it on for an hour after she had done the housework and given my grandfather a cooked lunch. 

When the Senior Cat as a child all my grandmother had was a "cool safe" with a block of ice and a drip tray to collect the water as it melted. She could keep milk and butter there overnight but not much more. They eventually had a tiny refrigerator but there was a limit to what could be safely kept even in that. She shopped most days in summer and walked to the shops in the heat to do so. 

We have been grumbling about the heat for the last few days and I am not looking forward to the size of my electricity bill but I cannot work in extreme heat. (The computer, rightly, complains. It sulks in the heat.) There has been increased talk about "global warming" and how the temperatures are caused by that. I find it odd that some years back we were being told we were heading for another "ice age". Do the climate experts really know? 

 

Our electricity system is failing

and the power network people have sent messages out to say that next Tuesday we will be without power altogether. It is a "planned outage".  They apparently have to do some work on the system.

It will take more than some repairs to deal with the issue. I live in a city in one of the driest and hottest places on earth. I am watching in despair as successive governments make decisions which contribute to both these things. They are cutting down trees for a golf course that most people will never use in an area which already needs far more trees. They keep telling us "solar, solar, solar" and that "look, this big battery solves the problem when the sun goes down". They are cramming more and more low level housing on increasingly small plots of land, building houses with black roof tiles and no eaves. Street trees are further apart to make way for cars. 

Yes, we are told to worship "renewable" energy, sport and single dwellings which we reach by cars, preferably electric cars. We actually pay considerably more for electricity than the neighbouring states although, so we are told, more of our electricity is produced by those wonderful "renewables". Something has gone very wrong here. 

The last couple of days have been brutally warm for city dwellers. My electricity bill is going to be far too high. I have tried to use air conditioning system responsibly. I do not leave it on all night or even all day. I know other people who do. There is good ceiling insulation here but not everyone has that. New homes must have it but how many are putting in the expensive batting we had in the last house I lived in? I don't imagine many people can afford it. We would not have been able to afford it but for getting the remainder from a much larger installation at a reduced price.

Cold can kill just as readily as extreme heat. Extreme cold can be very dangerous indeed. We recognise that but people forget extreme heat. The workmen arrived to start replacing the old and rusty guttering yesterday. They knocked on everyone's doors to let them know and my first words were, "If you need more water don't hesitate to come and ask." The youngish man standing there looked startled but I meant it. They needed it. They can ask again today.

We need to rethink this "renewable" idea. It isn't going to save the planet. It is actually contributing to the problem. We have lost far too much valuable farm land and valuable green cover to the renewable gods. We contribute less to those nasty emissions in a year than China does in a day but they keep telling us that we can save the planet by going down the "renewable" path.  I don't think it is going to happen. It is not yet 9am and I am already a hot and unhappy cat.  

  

"It is too dangerous to go out"

was the message relayed to me yesterday.  It had taken fifteen days to reach me - from Iran.

While the rest of the world has been focussed on what is happening in places like Gaza, Syria, Ukraine and Sudan there has been a major uprising in Iran as well. Much has been made of the truly appalling behaviour of the ICE agents in Minnesota, of the weather, of this... and that... and more elsewhere. There has been very little coming out of Iran. 

Oh yes, riots. We have been told there have been some riots. There have been a few short clips on the news. Oooh...some people died. There is the late Shah's son talking about it. People want an end to the rule of the "supreme" leader. They are tired of being told how to dress and how to behave and how to think. Yes, all very sad. It's wrong but...

Really? Is that all? Have you any idea what is really going on there. Do you care? Do you actually care? 

I wrote recently about someone who was there to do something to help. He was able to leave...but only with difficulty.

The other message came from someone who lives there. She is a retired teacher of English who still tutors students on an individual basis.  From time to time G... has helped with communication issues. I have never met her in person but I suspect I would like her if I did. I sense she has an excellent sense of humour. It matters in a country like that. 

Right now though there is little to laugh about. Two of her students have been badly injured. Others live in fear of their lives. The regime may be claiming they are not imposing the death penalty on protestors but the very fact they are learning English is danger enough. The death toll is believed to be far greater than our news services are reporting.

It is curious that our news services are making so little of what is going on there. It is not simply the difficulty of getting news out - when has that ever stopped them making claims?  It is not simply because those involved fear for their lives. There are  people willing to take those risks. 

Are we being cowards? I suspect we are. The person who told me it is too dangerous to go out is relying on others to do her shopping and help her when she needs it. She has such poor eyesight she cannot even see what is going on but she has been listening for years and knows what is going on. We are closing our eyes and our ears. It is easier that way - and it may come back to bite us.  

"Saluting the flag"

was something we did every Friday at school assembly. We recited the lines about who we were, loving our country and so on as we stood there in neat, straight lines. Sometimes we were made to repeat it because it did not sound as if we meant what we were saying. 

I am not sure I ever meant what I was saying. It was just one of those school rituals which had to be endured. It was marginally better than "PE" or "nature studies" but that was about all. I often wonder what other children made of it all. I suspect most of them just accepted it as something that we did.

What new migrants made of it all is an even greater mystery. We had a few in my early years at primary school, even one or two who did not speak English. They soon learned. We taught them out in the school yard.  

There was only one flag back then. It was the same flag for everyone. We were taught how to draw it and how it had come into existence and how it was important. There were "flag monitors" who raised and lowered the flag each day. They knew how to do it "properly" too. It was attached and detached correctly, folded with precision in the correct manner.

We were taught about explorers in this state, of the importance of the wool industry and rust resistant wheat. More than one father was a "wharfie" who loaded the wheat bags on to the ships which queued in the port.

Today is our national holiday. Children no longer "salute the flag". We have two flags, sometimes three. Many children are now told they belong to another ethnic grouping even while they are legally citizens of this country. Some people say it is a day of mourning. They might be an increasing minority but they get a major share of the day's news and a recent $1.48m grant from the government to investigate if the date should be changed.

The wool industry has declined dramatically. Wheat is being genetically modified. The grain there is goes to silos and wheat bags have all but disappeared. The "wharfies" still exist but they drive cranes to load containers on to ships in the outer harbour. Their sons search for employment in other places.

Today is now forecast to be 45'C - up from the previous forecast of 40'C. We will be told this is "climate change".  Yes, things have changed - but are they all for the better?  

So we didn't go to Afghanistan or

Vietnam or anywhere else there was a war on?

I can understand the furious European response to President Trump's suggestion they did not pull their weight in those wars because it is much the same as that of those in Downunder.  We did go to war and we lost service people in them. And yes, it does matter to us and to our European allies. It matters a lot.

My first real confrontation with war was in my teens. The Senior Cat was appointed to sort out the problems in an "area" school which was based in the middle of a "soldier settlement". These soldier settlements were a government project designed to give returned servicemen employment on the land. The problems associated with them were many. 

On the Sunday after school started for the year I happened to answer the house phone. There was a terrified voice at the other end. The words still haunt me. ".... my father is trying to kill my mother".  This child's father was chasing his wife across the paddock (field) with a hot poker. The father thought his wife was the enemy. He had, like so many of the men over there, been so traumatised by the war that he was having yet another episode of mental illness. The Senior Cat had been told about these incidents. He had been told what to do. The farmer was stopped before any physical harm was done and taken to the city for treatment but it was an experience I have never forgotten. Yes, frightening but not nearly as frightening for me as it must have been for that family. They considered themselves among the "lucky" ones - they came back alive.

ANZAC day came not too much later in the year. The school stopped for the day. Everyone went to the service. As Guides and Scouts we wore our uniforms - something city children did not do but there was a special dispensation for us. We were expected to participate. I saw grown men weeping for the first time in my life. It was another salutary experience for us. If they went and played "two up" while getting drunk in the local "club" it was understandable on that day.

In my last year at my last school one of the former students was killed in Vietnam. That one of our own was old enough to go to war and be killed did not seem real.  I did not know the boy as I was new to the school but the others had known him well, mostly as a footballer. It was a long time before the days returned to normal and his name was mentioned as a student rather than a soldier. I was careful not to talk about him at all for fear of being seen as "interfering". 

I went on later to university in  London. I met a young man who was by then working as a civil servant. We developed a relationship and were planning a trip back here for Christmas to tell my parents we hoped to marry. He was going to join me in Singapore after he had completed a task in Vietnam. It never happened because he was knifed on a street corner as he waited for a colleague to buy something. He was still seen as "the enemy" even though the war had finished some years before. My life has been very different because of what happened there but Mr Trump would no doubt simply shrug and say, "Too bad. There are plenty of other men out there." No, there aren't. I have never felt the same way about any other unrelated male. Almost two years ago his mother left me her wedding ring. It is in a bank deposit box in England. She felt I was her last contact with her son.  

A former neighbour served in Afghanistan. He won't talk about it but one day the Last Post was sounding on some program on the radio as we were talking outside a business and he grabbed me so hard that I was bruised. I said nothing because there was nothing I could say that would comfort rather than embarrass him. 

The US President has absolutely no idea about these things. The idea that the rest of the world has simply stood behind American service men and women is wrong. That is in no way intended to denigrate their role. It is in no way intended to suggest that the role they played was not important but to suggest that others held back and let them do all the work is wrong. Perhaps I should not criticise the President of another country, a country which is supposed to be a close ally, but I am conscious of the fact that he avoided the draft - college and something to do with his foot, a spur on the heel or something? I know Americans who went to war and then went to college...and some who never got to college because they went to war.

Someone posted a comment this morning that the late Queen Elizabeth II saw more active service than the whole Trump family combined. That is correct. You need to apologise Mr Trump.  

  

I have re-verified my "details"

and I am not about to do it again...and again.

The bank wants me to "reverify" my details. This is now a "legal requirement" which is more about trying to stop money laundering than it is about the safety of small accounts like mine. I accept it needs to be done but doing it once should be enough. I should not need to do it three times. 

I have my everyday working account. This is the one my debit card is attached to. I have my savings account which, for reasons best known to three government departments and myself is where I get my miniscule allowance. I also have an account which has almost nothing in it but is there for a very specific purpose. The money in it does not belong to me. The bank is fully aware of the purpose of that account.

Now I have had three separate requests to "reverify" my accounts. Simple? No. I fall at the first hurdle. I do not have a driver's licence. My passport is being renewed and I cannot use the old one for this purpose. Medicare card? You are supposed to be able to use that but, for some reason, the system will not accept mine. Birth certificate? How does that help? It does not give them my current address or the address to which my mail is sent? Why cannot I simply say, "I live here. You send my mail here. Now look it up on the electoral roll. I am not a "silent" voter." (Silent voters do not appear on the public electoral roll.) 

Banks probably do not have access to the electoral roll now. Once upon a not too distant time everyone had access to it. There would be a copy in the local library. Now it is "protected" information. You have to have good reason to want to consult it, indeed you will hand the information you have over to someone else to do it for you. Only MPs have that information available for personal use outside the offices of the Electoral Commission. 

The idea that this is somehow about keeping our personal information "safe" is something I find hard to understand. It seems there is a demand for more and more personal information every time we interact with any service at all. Our GP had to provide two different forms of ID this week just so she could sign off on a form for me. It used to be that just her provider number and signature were enough but not any more.

I am not sure where all this information goes or how it is used or even if it is used. It seems unlikely but government departments seem to be in love with it. If they can dream up something new to ask they will. 

I reverified my details once. I provided the old passport number before I sent it off to be renewed. It is out of date but all the other information is up to date. It is all the bank needs - until I get my new passport...or they decide to accept my "proof of age" card. It would be easier to really be a cat.  

Children have a right to read for

pleasure - or do they? 

In an article in this morning's paper there is a claim from a Professor Helen Adam of Edith Cowan University that "white children are getting inflated perspectives of themselves and what is considered normal" because of the books that are available. Apparently children are being "miseducated" and white children are getting a view of their "centrality".

Adam sees children as passive consumers of literature. She claims children do not question, that they simply accept. She is telling us that children need to become "thoughtful" readers and question what is being presented to them and how it is being presented. 

Colleen Harkin from the Institute of Public Affairs has hit back saying it is "radical ideological judgment, not an educational one". I imagine the argument will go on for some time.

But perhaps it is time to remind myself of that long ago incident in the library when the child looked up at me and said,"I'm sick of AIDS and death and divorce. I just want a good adventure story." It was a comment I hope I never forget. 

They were topics in children's literature which were popular at the time. Now we have "diversity" and "inclusion", "transgender" issues and "refugee" issues and more. Publishers are calling for books about those issues.  This is, I am told by the local booksellers, "what children need to read about". Perhaps it is but is it what they want to read about?

I do not doubt there will be more books published on these issues. Some of them may be outstanding but will they be enjoyed the same way that Harry Potter has been enjoyed? Do we want children to develop a reading habit because they enjoy reading or do we try to convince them that reading is there to change their view of the world to the only one that is claimed to be socially acceptable?   

You cannot legislate "anti-hate"

even when you have "anti-hate legislation".  You can make it illegal for people to do certain things publicly but it is not going to change how they privately feel or what they might privately say.

There was a very good example of that yesterday. Middle Cat and I had been to see our GP so I could get the necessary paper work for a "parking permit" signed off. This is the permit which will allow whoever happens to be driving me somewhere to park in a disability spot or for twice the length of time in another spot. I have avoided getting one of these because I was (and still am) of the view that other people need these permits more than I do. When I am out with Middle Cat we use her permit. (Yes, she does need one - some days more than others - but she uses it only when she needs it.) Both of us are very conscious of it being a privilege to have a permit and aware of the need not to abuse it.

Later in the morning I went to the Motor Vehicles Department and passed the paperwork to the very pleasant person on the other side of the counter. I was aware of someone standing at the next booth but took no notice. I paid for the permit and went out to unlock my wheels. There was someone standing there.

"You don't need an f.... permit!" he told me, "It's the same thing all the time. You all expect to get something for nothing when you don't need it." 

Fortunately for me the MVD is just across the road from the shopping centre and someone I know well had just parked their car to go in and renew their licence. He guessed what was going on and intervened politely but firmly causing the other man to stride off muttering angrily.

"I know you are quite capable of fighting your own battles Cat but that riled me. I hope you didn't mind."

No, I didn't mind in the least. I hate confrontation. 

"He will go on thinking the same thing though. Nothing will change him," he said.

I agree. Nothing is going to change that man's view. He possibly has some other prejudices and it is unlikely they will change. It is because of people like him I do not believe the newly passed "anti-hate legislation" will really work. It may make matters worse. It will send views like that off the radar. People will think but not say those things publicly. They will teach their children and their grandchildren to think the very things the legislation is trying to prevent. Trying to teach attitude change in schools will not work either. It has been tried. It might modify some attitudes - or at least appear to but out of that environment it is not going to work as it is intended to work. 

We are trying to do something in this country that simply will not work. We are trying to be all things to all people. We are telling people we are "multicultural" and that they can keep all their beliefs and prejudices associated with a very diverse range of cultures while still living in a cohesive society. It is an approach which sounds very accepting and welcoming and non-divisive but is actually the reverse of that. 

If we were all the same it would be very dull and very boring and no we do not want that but we have gone too far in the other direction. Something needs to change but anti-hate legislation won't help. 

Applying for a new passport

is something I resent having to do. My old one has twelve months to go but you need at least six months before it expires if you are planning on leaving the country.  Even if you are not planning on leaving the country it is wise to get this done...or is it? What if you need it in a hurry?

I will soon find out because I spent half of yesterday attempting to download the relevant form. It should not be that difficult surely to just download the form? But it was...I had to "prove I was human" so many times I almost felt like saying, "No, look really I am a cat... I can just put myself into someone's carry on luggage. Give me a drink of water on the flight and I won't need to be fed. I will curl up and sleep for the entire journey wherever I am going."

But no... I supplied my full name. I supplied my date of birth. I supplied the name of one parent. I supplied my sex (or lack thereof). I supplied my old passport number...and I kept being asked to verify what seemed like all of these things and more... 

I have a mail box at the post office. The reason for that is that it is a great deal more secure than the street letter box. They would not allow me to use the much more secure address for delivery.  No, they want the street address which means the post person has to come and knock on the door. It is just as well I know her. She is really very nice. We always wave to one another when we are out and about.

I eventually filled everything in and was told that all I have to now do is supply my old passport.. and get a new photograph. (You know the sort - the one that makes you look too ill to travel.) I will endeavour to do that at the post office tomorrow...and pay the exorbitant fee. I will then wait...no doubt to be told that I have to supply something else or that they think I really am a cat.   

"But he can't be President again!"

An American acquaintance was trying to explain this to one of the locals yesterday. He was getting quite frustrated as he did so. 

"Our Constitution doesn't allow it. You can only get elected twice."

That was about as far as he could explain. He asked me but I am no expert on the constitutional law of the United States of America. We looked it up instead. The internet has its uses!

There it was - section 122 of their constitution does not allow someone to be President more than twice. 

"So that's eight years?"

"No, ten," I said.

"But Presidential terms are four years..."

"Yes, but if the president prior to that dies in office then the vice-president takes over and if that is a term of two years or less then they can run for two more terms."

The American looked at me and gave a sort of grimace. We began to wonder if the incumbent could find a way around that. Do you have to die in office or could you swap places with the vice-president? If you are no longer the president then could you run again?

There are generally considered to be good reasons to limit someone's term in office if they have certain powers. The constitution here in Downunder has no such limitations but our Prime Minister is not elected. S/he is there because he is chosen by the party which is in power. Strictly speaking the person chosen would not even need to be a member of parliament but of course that would not work so one of their own is chosen. On one side this is done through a complex set of internal "rules" and on the other there is some lobbying, jostling and eventually a vote. 

I have known other organisations where the same people have held office for many years. It has rarely been a good thing. They can come to believe they own the position and the organisation. Other people come to believe someone else will do all the work. I helped to set up a group and was the first leader of it but flatly refused to go on doing all the work. Turns are now taken.  I am the "go to" person for another group but the staff member at the library is responsible for most of what goes on. I can live with that because they know there is at least one other person they can call on. I made sure of that. 

"Political laziness allows communism to flourish," the American said at one point in the discussion, "You don't need to think. You just do what your Supreme Leader tells you." 

It's an interesting thought - and perhaps a dangerous idea.     

There is too much "paperwork" involved

in "volunteering", or perhaps in anything at all. There seems to be a constant demand for "information" and "feedback" and "reviews" and "evaluations" and "assessments" and "appraisals" and more. 

I get "requests" for this sort of thing all the time. The requests are really demands. I know other people are asked to provide the same sort of information about me. 

I send messages back saying, "I do not actually 'know' this person. I have never met them. I am never likely to meet them. I am simply doing something I was asked to do."  Messages will be sent back to me, "The form has to be completed for our records." There will be polite requests and apologetic requests and, sometimes, impatient or even downright rude demands.  Filling out those forms can mean the difference between funding and defunding a project or future projects. That all this really has nothing to do with me at all is beside the point. The paper work needs to be completed.

I spent most of yesterday doing paper work. People seem to have come back to work after the Christmas and New Year break and realised that "things-have-not-been-done". There is apparently vital information that has "not been supplied". There is a need for my full name, my date of birth, my preferred title, my address, my email, my phone numbers(s), my tax file number, my academic qualifications and more.  That is just a start of course. After that comes all the paperwork about the actual work, where it originated, who else is on the team, why it needs to be done, which department, where those involved are going and why and is it really necessary. 

Most of this is absolutely none of my business. I am there to provide words and symbols on request. Yes, I need to understand who is going off to do something and what it is they are going to do. I am all too well aware that they might be going somewhere dangerous but I don't need to know all the ins and outs of a project. I can assess that without all the paperwork. I am not going to help someone blow up a structure that is needed to provide people with water to stay alive. 

There was a questionnaire which ran to almost five full pages yesterday. I could not answer most of it. There was a demand to "evaluate" a project I was only peripherally involved in.  There were other requests to evaluate the performance of people who had volunteered their services. I assume they had also been asked to evaluate mine.

I was ready to throw the key board across the room when I came on a last request, "Cat, could you add a couple of words to this? We want to thank T... for what he did. I'll just write it in the card on your behalf." That was some paper work I was more than happy to do.  

The NDIS is not working

as it was intended to work. The cost has blown out far beyond what was intended or is needed. 

Saying that will not be popular with everyone. It will certainly not be popular with many recipients.  Add in the "out in the community" and "like everyone else" arguments and "disability" is costing the community far more than it should.

The worst part about all of this is the very real problem that there are still some people who genuinely need help who are not getting it. They are simply unable to access help they need in order to live with dignity and even, in some cases, to live safely.

There is still a belief that all people with disabilities should live "out in the community like everyone else" and that they should do this in much the same way as everyone else. We have also discovered that, however well intentioned, this does not always work as well as it should.

H... stopped me in the shopping centre yesterday. H...is in her late 80's.  Her daughter, K..., is in a "group house. K... is profoundly physically and intellectually disabled. K... can do nothing for herself.  She cannot speak. If she recognises you and appears to feel comfortable with you she will smile. There are things she can indicate "yes" and "no" to by her expression but that is the limit of her ability to communicate. Her intellectual ability is perhaps that of a two year old, if that. K... knows me and I always try to include her in the conversation if she happens to be there. It is less often now her mother cannot manage to get her in and out of an adapted vehicle alone. 

H... has been a wonderful mother. She has dealt with all the NDIS paperwork (of which there is a vast amount for someone like K... ) and she visits her daughter everyday. She will help with K...'s feeding which now takes place through a PEG tube because K... cannot swallow safely. There are times when K... would not get fed without her there because not all the "carers" are trained to deal with this. H...will sometimes be called back in to help.  

H... worries about all this though. What will happen to K...when I die?  How will K... survive? Will people care? How will she dressed and fed? 

I have no doubt at all that K... is well cared for now because H... is there and watching. I know H... feels the same way, indeed is very aware of it. She still has to fight for everything K... is getting. The funding "runs out" from time to time and H... tries to supplement it from her own limited funds. She pays for K...'s clothing - something that needs to be replaced frequently because K...dribbles constantly - indeed makes most of it so it is easy to dress K...

As we were talking we were watching a child having a melt down because his grandfather would not allow him to have an ice-cream at the local "Wendy's" place.  I know this child too. He is "on the spectrum". His parents have negotiated quite a large NDIS package for him. His mother told me about it and how much they have been able to get. NDIS is paying for things that would normally come out of the family budget. He is the only child and she has "given up work to care for him". Yes, he has some problems but his grandparents tell me he is "spoilt" and "usually gets what he wants". He is very articulate but is very disruptive in school and at home. He is one of the children whose NDIS package will be affected by the upcoming changes.

His grandfather told me, "And a good thing too. They don't need all this. They need lessons in how to handle him...if it isn't too late."

They do. His mother arrived and wanted to get him the ice-cream to keep him quiet. I don't know what happened because H... and I moved on. I did think about it all though. K... needs all the help she can get and yet H...has to constantly justify it all. It's exhausting even though it was what the NDIS was intended for. The other child does not need his "Little Athletics"  and "soccer" fees paid for by NDIS funds - but they are.  

 We need to rethink the NDIS and who it is intended to help and why. We can say everyone is equally important but do they have equal needs?

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act

makes it unlawful  "to do an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity."

This is followed by section 18D " contains exemptions which protect freedom of speech. These ensure that artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest are exempt from section 18C, providing they are said or done reasonably and in good faith".

I have taken the words in quotes from the Human Rights Commission site. Those sections of the Racial Discrimination Act (1975) are generally considered to be controversial.  They were the cause of a great deal of controversy when they were written and may cause even more controversy now.

Do they matter? Are they a brake on our "freedom of speech"? There is no "right" to "freedom of speech" under the law in this country. Rights come with responsibilities. (I wonder how many times I have had write that?) When people breach responsibilities they risk taking away rights from all of us. I am not saying anything new here.

So does the proposed "hate speech" legislation being put before parliament actually do anything new? Is it simply a way of increasing control over what we can or cannot say? Is there any point in it or should we be doing more to ensure that sections 18C and 18D get applied as intended? 

Will the proposed legislation prevent citizens of this country from being subjected to a fatwa such as that imposed on Salman Rushdie following the publication of "The Satanic Verses"? Will it stop the sort of cartoon like depictions of a prophet which appeared in a Scandinavian newspaper and provoked protest marches around the world? Will it stop anything like the Charlie Hebdo attack in 2015.

At one point the government tried to replace the words "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity" with "harass or intimidate". They did not succeed at the time because it was considered to be "too broad". The current proposal goes further than that. It is a response to a tragedy but is it the right response?  How do you get a balance between "freedom of expression", religion and artistic expression and care of the individual? The last week or so has made it very clear that the "hurt" of one person who has made controversial statements is apparently worthy of more consideration than that of a group. Has this been the right decision? It is still a matter of hot debate.

The debate will continue but cartoonist Johannes Leak did an excellent job of showing up the government's intentions in this morning's cartoon,