Fly there - if you can

because it is a long journey by road.

Those of you who live Elsewhere will be largely unaware of how big this country is. We take visitors into the "rural" areas close to the city and they think "aren't the farms a long way apart". We think "aren't they close together". For us "a long way apart" can mean hundreds of kilometres not five or six.

The looming fuel shortage is making people who live in those areas very conscious of their isolation. For them, and those of us who once lived there, it is seen as a very real problem. At the best of times you do not simply "hop in the car" to go shopping or get to the doctor or dentist or drop the kids at school. Going somewhere means using fuel and fuel is expensive. Working the farm which will give you the income to buy the fuel also means using the vehicles which use fuel. 

Yesterday morning I was waiting at the pedestrian lights near the library and I watched the cars going along the road which leads to the CBD.  Car after car after car had just one person in it. There they were cosily tucked into their transport. One person was drinking from a takeaway container - his breakfast perhaps? Another was - illegally - on his phone. They were ignoring the fact that at least four different bus routes use sections of that road. They were ignoring the fact there is a train line that, even stopping at five more stops after the local station, takes just thirteen minutes to get into the city.  No, they would be paying for fuel (and all the other expenses) and parking...and they would be using the fuel which we should be keeping for people in rural areas. 

It is unlikely those driving their cars would even think of this. They would be intent on getting home easily when work finished for the day or telling themselves that the walk at the other end was too much. They would be "picking up the kids" and "going to the gym" or any number of other things.

Out in the country all this gets infinitely more difficult and there are even more problems if you are ill. Rural areas do not have all the services the city has. People need to get to the city for consultations with specialists, for treatment. It is an expensive business and it is time consuming. The plane flights from the most distant points of the state are an essential part of the service. Cut the flights out and some people will have no access to essential health services. Cut the flights down and you might still be able to access the services but it will be even more inconvenient (and possibly more expensive) than before. The airlines do not want to provide the services because, even using small planes, they are running at a loss. Yes, you may be ill and feeling dreadful but it is not the role of the airline to see you get to your appointment.  

Food is more expensive out there. The variety in the (much smaller) supermarket is not as great. Quite likely there is nowhere to buy the shoes your child needs for school. That has to wait until you visit the nearest "big" town. When we lived in remote areas my mother would buy things in bulk and they had to last until the next trip back to the city.

The government is trying to tell us that our fuel supplies are adequate, that there is no need for rationing. As someone said to me yesterday, "That's enough for me to believe we are running short and the government should bring rationing in." I hope he is wrong.

I am thankful I can still use pedal power.  

  

There will be a bail hearing today

where an attempt to have this country's most decorated soldier released from custody. It should succeed but it may not. If it does not then we can be even more certain than before that this case is politically motivated.  

Yes, someone who is accused of murder must face court. It is the manner in which the case against that person is handled which is of concern here. Somewhere out there a journalist is probably congratulating themselves on what they have managed to achieve. They have brought down a hero. They have succeeded in having a defamation case thrown out. They have caused endless time and trouble to be devoted to the alleged actions of someone who has faced more life and death situations than the journalist can even dream about.  The journalist no doubt sees themselves as the "hero" now.

The media has gone headlong into reporting all this. There have been claims of "innocence" and "guilt" and all sorts of conspiracy theories flying through the ether and on the air.

There are some things which can be said. The first of these is that the bail hearing should bring about a release from custody. It may not but it should. It should because this person is not a flight risk. If bail is not granted then he could remain incarcerated for years before the matter comes before the court again. The prosecution may argue that the evidence against him is too strong for that. It will be interesting to see which way that goes.

The defence may also try and argue that, if he remains in custody, he needs to be transferred to his home state. That is where it could get very interesting. 

There are politics involved in this case. The manner of this man's arrest was highly political. The media was tipped off. He was arrested outside his home state even though multiple reports suggest he offered to attend a police station on more than one occasion. That the offer was not taken up by the prosecution and that he was not arrested in his home state strongly suggest there are other factors at play here.

When this matter goes to trial the charges do not allow him to elect to be tried by judge alone. It must be a jury trial. When the jury is being chosen only three potential jurors can be dismissed. The questions which can be asked of jurors are also limited. While the jury is supposed to be chosen randomly from the electoral roll there is, simply because of the population mix, a much higher chance of a jury who will not be sympathetic. Add that to the very high media coverage which has already occurred and finding a neutral jury is almost certainly impossible. Both prosecution and defence will be aware of this. 

People have asked why this has not been tried by "court martial". The answer to that is that a court martial does not try criminal cases and the charges are criminal charges. 

I am not a potential juror. I live in another state. I can and will say that a "fair" trial may not be possible here. It may not be possible for a number of reasons. The most important of these is that nobody can remember clearly anything which happened so far back. Unless there is physical evidence and witnesses to that evidence are available then a case can fail. The "but all the other men are saying..." argument fails here.  It fails because people do not remember. They make believe they do. They will not be "lying" as such. They simply will not be telling the truth because their memory is not reality.

Would I grant bail? Yes, I would.  

Learning English

is essential if you are to become part of the community in this country. Like it or not English is the official language. 

Yes, English is a difficult language to learn. If you come from another country and you have not had the opportunity to get much of an education it might be very difficult. It still needs to be done.

There was criticism in the media and elsewhere when the leader of the current Opposition said policy would be to require people to learn English if they wanted to become citizens of this country. They would need to do this along with accepting the "values" of this country and doing that by formally signing a document. 

Apparently this is not seen as acceptable. One of my neighbours actually considers it to be "racist" and "Islamophobic". When I tried to point out that learning English actually increases the safety and well being of individuals he responded with the well worn "this country is multicultural and people have the right to use their own language". 

No, they do not have that right. The first language of this country is English. It is the language which allows us to function as a society. Yes it is possible to do what my sister's late mother-in-law did. P...learned very little English. She relied on her husband and her children to deal with many things. She shopped in the supermarket where there were Greek speaking check out assistants. She was a dressmaker by profession - and a very, very good one - but it did not mean she needed to speak English. Most of her clients were Greek speakers. With Middle Cat she spoke a mixture of Greek and English. She did the same with me. Middle Cat went to Greek classes and understood far more than I did. I did not go to Greek classes and would guess what she was trying to tell me from the context. That is changing now. My nephews understand some Greek but last Christmas nobody was speaking Greek. The next generation will probably not understand any at all. 

I have a smattering of this language and that language and I understand more than I can say in more than one language but I do not speak a second language. Had I moved to a country where English was not the first language I would have made every effort to learn the other languages. It would have been something I saw (and still see) as essential. It is a safety issue. It is a mental health essential.  I consider myself very fortunate my own first language is one which is so widely spoken and understood. 

I am concerned, very concerned, when people come up with phrases like "diversity, equity and inclusion" and suggest people should not need to learn English when they come here. It is divisive. It is not equal. It excludes. 

"I'm frightened she's going to die!"

I was on the train yesterday and the child opposite me, a girl of about fourteen, was having a conversation with someone on the phone. It was impossible not to hear it. She knew I could hear it.

She was relating a story to someone of how she had come back from school one afternoon last week and found her mother collapsed on the floor, bleeding and only semi-conscious. It would be a terrifying situation for anyone to be in, let alone a girl of that age. She kept her head sufficiently well to call an ambulance and her mother is apparently currently in intensive care.

The police took over at that point and she is currently in the care of people she does not know. This is not working well. It rarely does. She was close to tears as she spoke.

When the conversation was finished she glared at me, obviously furious that I had been able to hear it. I was almost going to say nothing at all but then I decided to say something,

"If you want to swear at me go ahead."

She swore, fiercely and fluently but quietly. She told me what an awful person I was to listen in on a private conversation and how I could not possibly understand how she was feeling. 

Then, suddenly, she stopped.  

"It's my station," she told me and then, "Thank you so much for letting me do that. Thank you. Thank you."

She actually managed a lopsided attempt at a smile and rushed off the train.

All I can do now is hope that she will be able to cope with whatever comes next. 

I suppose someone will ask, "Why didn't you just ask, "Are you okay?" The answer to that is that it was perfectly obvious she was not okay. I didn't think that question would have been right at all. I didn't really think about what I told her but now I know I was giving her permission to be rude to a stranger who dared to think she was not okay. In a way I am glad her station came when it did because I have no idea what I would have said or done next.  

Did I do the right thing? Should I just have "shut up"? Phone calls used to be conducted in the privacy of our own homes. I was reminded of the old "party line" calls that were possible when we lived in remote areas. The Senior Cat had to "book a call" if he needed to talk to someone in the Education Department in the city. (This was so nobody else could listen in to the conversation.) It all seems so strange now when people conduct their business quite openly.

I just hope that young girl's mother recovers and they can be together again. 

Twenty million dollars being spent

on advertising the fuel issues facing this country is apparently seen as justified by the government. The fact they also managed to get a major advertising campaign underway so quickly is also a curiosity.

It will of course have nothing to do with the fact that the initial report on anti-Semitism is due out shortly and there is also a judgment being brought down on a gender issue. It will have nothing to do with the arrest of a person of interest.

Mmm... perhaps I should start again. The initial report on anti-Semitism will quite possibly not contain much at all. The terms were written in a way which is supposed to keep much of what perhaps should be discussed from being discussed at all. It would lead into some very dangerous territory for the government. I hold no great hopes for the final report either. There are areas where the government, any government, will not dare to go - and certainly not go if they do not want to lose votes.

Gender issues are also tricky. How do you keep those who are so good at getting media attention happy? Give them what they want even when it means denying others theirs? Do you follow science or belief? An advertising campaign relating to fuel just might help to deflect attention.

And the arrest of that person of interest? Make it as public as possible. Look at the wonderful job we are doing of bringing criminals to face court. 

My Jewish friends feel nothing will come of the report into anti-Semitism. I hope they are wrong but worry they are right. My gay and lesbian friends are concerned about the way gender is being treated. They would like to get on with their lives without having to worry about "gender transition" issues and being treated as if they are the ones at fault here.

And it would be good if all the "lawyers" out there would actually study the law. Yes, there are some very real concerns at the way the matter is being conducted. There should be a bail hearing on Friday and we may actually know more then. At some point I will also state some facts. 

As one of those men told me a couple of days ago we need "support, not suppression". The advertising campaign is being served to us as support when it is actually suppression.   

Joining the armed services

used to be a "thing" for some families. There was a "proud tradition". At one time wealthy families saw it as their "duty" to have at least one member of their family seen to do active service.

In my own extended family there is a history of naval service. The Senior Cat would have joined the navy if he had passed the medical. That they did not even want him during war time perhaps says something about his eyesight and his very flat feet. I am grateful he did not get accepted. My mother might not have had his love and support. My siblings and I might not be here. He would not have been the same person. 

No, we did not go the route of one in the services, one in the legal profession, one in the church. I do know families like that but they are less common now.

I had one of those casual conversations about it yesterday. I was on a train going into the city when the people opposite me had been discussing this. One of them turned to me and asked what I thought. I suppose it was perfectly obvious that I had been listening. It was the sort of conversation you cannot avoid hearing.

We talked for a bit. These two men were "returned" men. They had seen active service. Would they recommend it as a career path now? Their answer was "no". 

"Up until last week," one of them told me, "I might have suggested it, especially for some young one who was not sure what to do with their life. Now I would tell them to stay away. If the government can't support their military men then don't (...) near it."

The other man agreed.

They were of course referring to the arrest of our most decorated war hero. We discussed the psychology of the battle field and the way those on active duty react. We discussed the aftermath. I told them of my experiences living in a "soldier settler" area. (We discovered people we all knew.) 

One of them helped me get the trike off the train and we parted company but the other said, "Spread the word - support, not suppression." 

It's an interesting thought, one that is being discussed elsewhere. I know, from personal experience, if your employer does not support you or the people you work with, then loyalty and a willingness to stay goes out the door with you.   

The flu season is

upon us and I have just had my annual vaccination. 

This year I was finally at the age where I can have my shot at the local pharmacy.  I made an appointment, filled out the necessary documentation and, Medicare card in my paw, I went at the appointed time. I was jabbed - not quite painlessly - and told to sit and wait ten minutes before prowling off.

It was at that point I rebelled. I do not care to sit in the shop itself. This is where they would like me to sit, there or on the seats immediately outside.

I looked at the nurse who had given me the jab. The nurse looked at me. No, I was not going to be foolish enough to put my paws on the pedals and ride off into the start of the school hour traffic.  

"I will go and get myself a drink," I told her. I told her where I was going. She agreed.

I know the people who run the little "hole in the wall" cafe in the shopping centre. They know me by name. It is not because I spend much money there. I don't. They know I do not but we exchange other things. They are Syrian. I help with their English because they know they can always ask me for help with that. They will ask after Middle Cat if they have not seen her. She has treated both parents on occasion. 

So, I prowled the twenty or so metres to the cafe and, making sure I had the cash, I did the rare thing and bought hot chocolate. It was good hot chocolate because it was actually hot, not lukewarm. I made sure I paid cash because A... will try and "pay" me for the English lessons if I use my debit card. He brought it over with a little bow and then turned to someone else he knows by sight, "Cat is my friend. Do you know her?"  I felt like royalty.

I took my time over my hot chocolate. I watched them at work. By mid-afternoon things are quietening down for them. A... was clearing packing to the big recycle bin outside. P... was scrubbing the area she likes to keep so clean. Someone came up wanting coffee and something to eat. I know him. He is a doctor and he had been doing a clinic with some refugees. She shooed them into a nearby seat and, late though it was, she made him a proper cafe meal. "If I do not, you will not eat properly." She told him. 

I have no idea how these people make a living. It would be very little but they are refugees who recently became citizens themselves and they are intent on making the most of their new country. A... came back from the recycle bin and cleared the tables around me. I was talking to someone I know and making arrangements to do something. The doctor ate his meal, gave me a tired smile and asked if I would arrange for someone to get a library card. Then he was gone. I took my own mug back to P... because it had all gone quiet.

Yes, ten minutes had come and gone but it was a good time. A... and P... know their regular customers. They will go out of their way for them. It is a tiny place and people wonder how they manage to keep it going. I suspect I know. It is something we can all learn. 

Means testing the NDIS

is not the answer to trying to rein in the exploding cost.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme was not intended to be means tested. It was intended to provide assistance to people who face extra costs because of their disabilities. Those costs can be high, very high. I have known parents working two or even three jobs in an attempt to cover the extra costs. There are too many families where the relationships break down because of the financial stress, where siblings go without in order to provide the essentials. How do you means test all this fairly?

The problem with the NDIS is entirely different. Put simply there are far too many who are receiving funding who should not be receiving any. There are also far too many who are receiving funding for things the NDIS was never intended to cover. Add these things to the number of people who "run NDIS services" and you have costs which have blown out far in excess of what they should have been allowed to do.

The "he's on the spectrum" disability (and boys far outnumber the girls) has added immensely to the cost of the scheme. I know people will argue with me but I am personally aware of individuals who are getting funding so they can play sport. This has included transport there and back, the clothing and footwear, the membership fees and more. Yes, sport is important and participating in it has benefits but it is not what the NDIS was intended to cover.

Funding for holidays has occasionally been mentioned. I know there are people who say, "Oh that doesn't really happen." It does happen. I personally know one family who went on holiday at taxpayer expense. They had a week in another state and visits to a marine park and an entertainment park were included. The NDIS was never intended to cover this sort of thing. It was not intended to cover "sex workers" or visits to the pub either. Yes, it happens.

Those who run the NDIS also see it as an endless stream of money flowing in their direction too. If you need a gardener to mow your tiny lawn then NDIS will organise it. They will charge you at least twice the rate you could get it done for if you organised it yourself and they will charge you for the full hour even if it takes just fifteen minutes. No, you cannot organise it yourself. This is part of your "package" and this is how it has to be done. No, you do not have to believe me but this is actually what happens to my friend J... The neighbour puts her bins out for her and often has to pick up after the gardener has gone. The charge is more than twice the rate usually charged but the person mowing the lawn will not be seeing anything more than a basic wage.

Another NDIS recipient needs help getting ready for work in the mornings. He works from home as an accountant. Recently he had the embarrassment of having to attend a meeting by zoom still in his pajama top and without shaving . The NDIS worker had not turned up. Nobody else was available. His neighbour had rushed in and helped him to the bathroom and made him a hot drink before heading off to work himself.  The service was not provided that day but he still had to pay for it because it was "the package you pay for".  How do I know? I was at the same meeting. T... is doing his best to work and be independent and the NDIS should be working for him but it comes at the cost of constant stress.

The entire NDIS needs to be reviewed. We need to review who is being funded. We need to know why they are being funded, whether they are getting the services they need and how much they are being charged. 

The Minister's reaction to these concerns has been to suggest that the NDIS needs to be means tested. His party blocked an inquiry into the NDIS, told us it had been done, brought in yet another scheme to support children with autism and seems to think the job has been done. No, it has not. Things need to change.  

     

Forty-three babies have been taken

from their parents so far this year. This is according to a report in this morning's paper. 

There were the usual words about how dreadful this is - and it is - but it is interesting to note who the focus was on. It was on how dreadful this is for the parents, not the child.

I often think the children are given less consideration than the parents in these cases. All too often they are passed backwards and forwards as if they are objects and have the right to be possessed. 

Some time ago I remember talking to a grandparent who had to leave another event early. It was time to pick up two children from school. His wife was home minding two other children. They come from two different families.

His words shocked the little group I was in. They went something like, "These are the designer kids. I don't know why they bothered. Our daughter didn't want children. We take their kids to everything."

At the time I thought he was exaggerating but, talking to his wife later, I discovered that they are effectively bringing up their grandchildren. It has not been done by choice. Perhaps it started when the two children at school were born. They are twins and they arrived despite birth control measures. Their mother could not cope. The other two children are their son's children and their daughter-in-law is a professional person who has also gone back to work. 

Yes, the children have been in and out of "day care" as well but there is still a heavy load for the grandparents. They do it out of love for their grandchildren and the belief they can give better care than the children would get with strangers. This is almost certainly true and I am glad the children have their grandparents but I wonder about their relationship with their parents. 

"Oh we have "quality time" together," I remember a mother telling me as she picked up her child from a neighbour.  Her genuine belief was that a short time devoted entirely to the child each evening was sufficient. It was as good as parenting for extended periods.

I remember all too well the stress the Whirlwind's father felt when he was trying to be both parents to his daughter. He desperately wanted to be there for her. When she had to board at school they talked every night. It did not matter where he was in the world or what time it was where he was she knew that her father would call her. They spent time together at weekends doing simple things like cleaning the house, gardening, going for a bike ride together, visiting the library. He worried that he was not being "hands on" enough. It was not perfect. Nothing ever is but he was doing the best he could. His own poor state of health now has in part to be due to the loss of the person who meant more to him than anyone else. 

I want to shake people who believe that children can be passed backwards and forwards as parents appear to be "coping". This is not how you bring up children. Yes, we are short of foster parents but this is one of the reasons we are short of them. Who wants to take on the responsibility for a child for a few weeks or months or even a year only to have them taken away? All too often they are taken away and then, when things "don't work out", they are taken away again...and again...and again. Who is really thinking about the children?

The grandparents above are trying to avoid that. They are trying to make sure the children in their care are really being cared for and I can only admire them for it. The real question though  has to be, "Is anyone really thinking about the children?" 

"The medicalisation of the normal

range of neurodiversity" is how one of the government's own members of parliament has described the "blow out" in funding "needs" of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That member is a doctor. 

If her statement is correct in saying that around forty percent of those receiving funding are people who are being labelled as "autistic" then we have a problem. Has the number of children with autism really grown so much? Are we "better at diagnosing it" or are too many children being diagnosed as "autistic"?

My third and final year in teacher training college was where I had my first encounter with the idea of someone being "autistic". I was supposedly studying "special education". Looking back all I was getting was the briefest overview of an incredibly complex area of education. I had already managed to learn far more by working one day of each weekend in a residential nursery school for profoundly deaf children. It was on the same campus as a school for visually impaired children. I had to learn to read Braille "just in case". I was also helping with the Girl Guide company at a school for children with severe physical disabilities. Those experiences and my own personal experience of disability taught me far more than the lectures at college did.  All that aside though "autism" was something I knew almost nothing about. 

One of our lecturers was very keen to explore the area. She was regarded as something of a pioneer in the area. Yes, these children were challenging. Their behaviour patterns were very challenging. They had severe communication impairments. Could they learn? Some of them seemed able to learn but they did learn "differently". Yes, any reasonable person would find them "disabled".

There were very few of these children. There was a unit with just eleven of them. Those of us doing the "special ed" course all spent some time there. I found it very challenging. It was an area I was asked to consider "specialising" in but not one which attracted me to the point of wanting to work there. Other types of communication issues interested me far more. All the same I saw, and still see, these children as having very severe disabilities.

I do not see children who have difficulty in sitting still as "autistic" but it seems this is now regarded as "mild" autism or "being on the spectrum".  "Fidgety" children have always been a challenge but they are undoubtedly more of a challenge in a modern classroom where there is so much more to distract them. Are they disabled though? Are they so disabled they need to be labelled as such and provided with a package by the NDIS?

A good friend has a granddaughter who had multiple medical problems at birth. Some of those problems have been overcome with surgery and medication. There are still some ongoing problems but the child herself is working hard to overcome them and reach the point where she can go to school. She receives no NDIS funding. She is not considered eligible even though she will be home-schooled for the first two years. The reason? Apparently it is because her problems are regarded as "temporary" and "not ongoing".  That her mother cannot go to work right now is not considered an issue but, to me, this is what NDIS funding should be about.

The Senate has just voted against an inquiry into fraud in the NDIS. I am not surprised. They say there is something being done about it. Perhaps there is but I am hearing too many stories about what can only be described as "medicalisation of the normal". They are children, often boys, who are restless and fidgety. They are having difficulty learning in the modern classroom. It simply does not suit them. They are not "engaged". They have been fed so much slick "entertainment" by screen - even the sort supposedly there to educate them - they cannot adjust to what is now required of them. These things do not make them "disabled". It makes the system unfit for their needs. It is the system which needs to change.  

 

I do not know if Ben Roberts-Smith is

guilty or innocent, innocent or guilty. His arrest yesterday for the "alleged crime of war murder" however disturbs me for reasons not related to his possible guilt or innocence. It was far too public for that.

This man has already been in court and attempted to prove his innocence. He took a television station to court because of the comments they made about his potential guilt. He claimed the comments were defamatory. His appeal was lost on the grounds it was heard in a civil court where the standard of proof is based on "more likely than not" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt".  Much of the evidence presented was not made public and some of it came from people who claim they were "obeying orders" given by him.  They were people with a lot to lose if he was found to have been defamed. All this is far from the way in which other murder trials are conducted and to try and do this as a defamation issue in a civil court was quite extraordinary.

But there is something even more disturbing about this. If the news reports are correct then the Federal Attorney-General was the one who gave permission for his arrest. Why? Perhaps the question will be answered in other ways in due course but it does not merely suggest the government is involved in the process it tells us that they are involved. Why they are involved is something we are not being told but politics might be playing a part in all this.

There is a report due into the way the authorities failed to pick up the actions of the two terrorists involved in the November attack at Bondi. It has even been suggested it was not "anti-Semitic" - hard to believe when it was a Jewish event and the attackers were Muslim. 

Then there are the two female senators in federal parliament who just happen to be Muslim. One of them was born in Afghanistan. There are genuine questions over her right to be in the Senate at all. Senators cannot hold dual nationality and she almost certainly has not properly renounced her Afghan citizenship. She claims it is not possible because of the situation in Afghanistan. My own view is that if it is not possible then she has no right to a seat in the Senate. Other Senators who have found themselves in a similar position have had to resign and then seek a means of return. One had to do it when the law changed in another country after his election. This particular Senator has not had to do that, indeed refuses to do it. She was elected as a member of the Labor party and then left the party. They are not happy with that but she has a large Muslim following and they want, at very least, the preferences which will flow from those voting for her next time around. Keeping her as happy as possible is very important.

The other female Muslim senator comes from Pakistan. She has recently been demanding our government funds "gender equality training" not here but in Pakistan. Keeping her on side is also important. She is a member of the Greens and they have a massive and very successful media presence. Their views on the BR-S case have already shown a desire to lock him up and throw away the key. None of this helps. 

There are also current problems with the efforts to get gun ownership reduced again. The urgency of the Howard era reforms has been allowed to slide. The present government does not want this investigated too closely. They may need those votes.

The present government has a massive majority but it is built on a very sandy base. They had just 34.6% of first preference votes. Our electoral system then gave them 62.7% of the seats. They want to keep those seats and add to them if possible. Their agenda depends on it. A much stronger opposition would make it very hard to do. The opposition has something to answer for here as well. 

Tell me then that the very public arrest of BenR-S is not politically motivated. It could have been quietly done at his home - and it could have been done months or even years ago. He may be guilty or innocent but he should not be used as a political tool. 

Perhaps we need to talk about Fletcher Jones

or rather, the demise of Fletcher Jones.

Let me explain for those of you in Upover. Fletcher Jones was once a clothing store here in Downunder. I would not normally even consider writing about any clothing store. Those of you who know me that I am not someone to wear "good" clothes. I do not "dress up" to go out. I go to the library, the shops, the post office, to the doctor and the dentist wearing the same style of jeans I have worn for years. The jeans have actually not dated. People ask where I found some with the oh-so-useful pockets. 

But, Fletcher Jones? There is a story here, perhaps not a big story but still an important story. 

David Fletcher Jones was the son of a Cornish tin miner. He had a severe stammer as a child and it was one of the things which led him to leave school at the age of twelve. For a while it seemed he had overcome his stammer but it returned when he suffered shell shock while serving in WWI. (He was reportedly buried alive for some hours.)  His thoughts of being a missionary in China were halted by the stammer. What else could he do?

On his return however he took up the unlikely occupation of door-to-door salesman, then bought a clothing shop in his home town and built up a business from there. He worked on the basis of cash only and insisted people be fitted for the trousers they were buying. He also insisted on quality. WWII brought a contract for the services and his workmen's trousers were also highly regarded. All this was enough to build the factory in his home town.

It is there where the story starts to get really interesting. He insisted the factory had to have a garden, a proper garden for the staff to spend time in. They could eat their lunch there or just sit. It became a tourist attraction. I was taken to visit it as a child and it was definitely an attraction with the pool and the well kept gardens. Yes, it must have cost something but this was a workforce that he cared about.

And it went from there to something even more extraordinary. He gradually turned it into a "co-operative". At first the staff had a one third interest but he gradually turned it over so they had a two thirds interest in the company. It worked. 

By the mid-50s they were doing well enough to branch out into women's clothing. It was clothing which lasted. My paternal grandfather, a tailor, actually approved of the factory made clothing from that company. It met his very high standards for "off the rack" when he was considering the need to retire. (He was in his 80s by then.) 

My mother bought a skirt from Fletcher Jones. It was the sort of classic garment which does not go out of style. Hemlines did not bother her too much and she wore it for over thirty years. On entering teacher training college (where we were not permitted to wear trousers!) my parents bought me a "kilt skirt". It could be let out if I put on weight. (I did not. That came much later.) I finally discarded it when I moved here - almost half a century later. Their clothing lasted.  

But it seems all good things come to an end. We were run over by the big American chain store idea. We now have places like BigW, KMart, Target and the like. They sell cheap clothing imported from Asia. People buy it believing they have a bargain. It is often bright and "in fashion". It is "throw away". Mountains of it get thrown away. Recycling is at a minimum. Much of it is polyester. It has contributed to the demise of the wool industry. It is not clothing which is intended to last.

So Fletcher Jones, a company which served us and those employed there so well is going to be gone. I don't consider it progress.  

Child psychiatrist Jillian Spencer

could lose her medical licence for the offence of questioning gender based treatment for all children who, it is claimed, need it or want it without first reviewing their mental health carefully and thoroughly.

I would have thought that what she is advocating would be sound medical practice. Investigate the problem. Is what appears to be the problem really the problem? Is it perhaps a different problem? Is there another problem? What treatment is available? Is it the best possible treatment? What are the potential side effects? Can they be avoided?

I could go on asking questions but I won't. I am not a doctor. I am not a doctor but I am in the business of asking questions. My job involves asking questions all the time. I need to know what it is you think you want to know. Yes, complicated.

We do not ask enough questions. We assume we know things when we really know very little. Yes, I am as guilty as everyone else when it comes to that. I fail to ask questions I should ask, that I would have asked if I had sat there and thought a problem through. I should be more careful than I am at times.

When I started teacher training I thought we might be taught about the importance of questions. We were taught nothing at all. The art of asking questions was not even mentioned. Apparently it still is not mentioned. I managed to learn something about the art from my parents, particularly the Senior Cat. He knew how to ask questions, all sorts of questions. I once, just once, taught a group of doctors about this. They said it was useful. I hope it was because I hear doctors asking questions and realise they need to know more about the art. It isn't their fault. They simply don't get taught. They do not get answers because they are asking the wrong questions or asking the question in a way that is not understood. They use language others do not understand. It can be frustrating and confusing. It can lead to outcomes which are not the desired outcomes. It can also mean that questions sometimes do not get asked. 

But Jillian Spencer is asking questions. They are uncomfortable questions. They are questions we may not always be able to answer. They may go against what the current policies and practices say is "right" but that does not mean it is wrong to ask those questions. It is all the more reason to ask them. It is all the more reason to ask even more questions. It is not questions which do harm. It is the answers... and not listening to those  answers. 

 

  

"No, you should not be driving"

is what I want to say to someone I know.

J...phoned me yesterday. This happens occasionally. It usually happens when she is worried about something.

I reminded her to turn her clocks back an hour and then waited.

"I had to go up to the hospital," she told me. She has a range of medical conditions so this was not unusual in itself. "I had a medical for my driver's licence."  

That is not unusual either. She is some years older than I am and she is classed as "disabled". Her licence to drive means she can go out alone. I know it has been a lifeline for her even though someone else now takes her to do her shopping.

"They said I had to do a driving test." 

I responded to that with a neutral comment but I was thinking, "This is the person who did the medical test thinking they do not want to tell you it is time to give up your licence."

J... has had three quite serious accidents in the last three years. Nobody has been injured, one collision related to a bus stop, another to a car parked across the street and the third to a stationary car. She has also been pulled over by the police for straddling a line ("I couldn't see it properly") and failed to renew her licence and her registration on separate occasions. I have personally observed her back into a tree and remove the bark from it. She was getting "lost" coming to a group even when I gave her a very simple map to follow. She no longer comes to the group.

On the last occasion she was without her car for several weeks. It had to be towed. It could have been driven but she was not prepared to take it to the other side of the city and get a taxi back. It was "too expensive" and her insurance would pay for towing. In reality I think she knew she could not safely drive that long distance on a particularly busy route. 

She should not be driving. I know she should not be driving. I may not be able to drive myself but I can observe others who do. I also know I am not the only person who believes she should not be driving. It is quite likely her own doctor believes this but does not want to say it. It is likely that doctor sent her off to the hospital with some sort of excuse and the hospital is passing it on to an unfortunate driving tester. 

The driving tester may even give in and allow her to drive "only in day light" and within a small radius of her home. I do not think that is the answer. It is other road users who need to be considered. 

This is what does not happen of course. I can understand it. Take away someone's licence to drive and you take away all sorts of other things as well. I think of it often as I head out into extreme weather and think how nice it would be to "just hop in the car and go". If you have had a licence then the lack of one can mean major changes to the way you live. I do not want to wish that on her but I also think other road users need to be considered. 

I wonder whether the tester will have the courage to say, "No" or whether I will get another call down the track telling me, "I had a bit of an accident today." The problem is that it likely will not be an accident and someone else may get hurt.  

The "treaty" in a neighbouring state

has, if media reports are correct, now resulted in a situation where any law must also be approved by the members of an unrepresentative minority group before it can become law. 

The "treaty" between "indigenous" members of the community and everyone else has resulted in a situation which is potentially very, very dangerous. It is, if correctly reported, the way apartheid once worked in South Africa.

Why on earth would anyone give so much power to such a small group? Don't misunderstand me here. I still believe there is far too big a gap between the lives of some indigenous people and the rest of the population. I also believe there is a rich and diverse cultural heritage there that we will be the poorer for losing. Those things matter.

What does not matter is the alleged disadvantage of many urban "indigenous" people. I put "indigenous" in inverted commas here because I do not believe that having a single great-grandparent who was "aboriginal" disadvantages you. It is much more likely that, unless you claim to be "indigenous" nobody will even recognise you as such. They will walk past you in the street and not see it. Yes, it might be important to you. You are welcome to feel it is an important part of your heritage. It is. It is not however so important in every day life that you should feel or are disadvantaged by it. It is much more likely you are disadvantaged by other life choices, those of your own as well as your parents.

And yes, it is some of your own direct ancestors who have contributed to the very disadvantages you now claim to have. The blame for all these things cannot be placed at the door of other people. That you should now be able to choose how the rest of the community will be governed, under which laws the community will operate seems wrong to me. I know the "that's not the intention" and "that's not the way it will work" arguments but put a test case to the courts and it is very likely it is the way it will work. The courts will look at what the legislation says.

In this state there is a "voice". It was brought into being by the government after the people of this state voted against a similar voice at federal level. It was a deliberate attempt to go against the wishes of the electorate. The government did not go so far as to try and bring in a "treaty" or give similar powers to the "voice".  It was not democratic however. Only "indigenous" people could vote to be part of it. 

It has already shown signs of failure. The vote to be part of it was voluntary. Only ten percent of those who were eligible bothered to vote. There are forty six members of the "voice" and some were "elected" with no votes at all. (They are females and just being on the ballot paper was sufficient.) Others received just fifteen votes, a few just twenty-three. There was plenty of publicity about the vote, about the opportunity to stand for election. It was a very expensive exercise and perhaps done with the best of intentions. It simply did not work. 

Indigenous people I know were mostly opposed to the entire idea. They do not see such things as necessary or likely to work. One or two might grab the idea of being able to dictate to the rest of us but most  would see it as ridiculous.  

My friend M... refused to be part of the process. He does not believe it is right or necessary. I have yet to talk to him about the law in the neighbouring state. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say.  

  

There is a bike ride which

is a rite of passage for the young around here. It involves putting your bike on the train at the local station and then going to the end of the line. 

The line ends up in the hills behind me. You exit the station and then you do the hair raising ride down the hill. The road is steep and winds around. It is often busy. 

The ride is a thrill. It requires skills you cannot develop anywhere else. It is something which can occupy several hours of your time on any weekend - and right through the school holidays. If you are in your teens and your parents are not supervising your every activity during the day then you might even be able to do the ride twice in a day. 

I have never done the ride. I would not even consider it. I do not have the skills or the right sort of bike. It is not designed for tricycles at any point.

Middle Cat and the Black Cat did the ride once. Our parents did not want them to do it but agreed they could do it just the once. Once was enough. They found out what it was like. 

They also did the ride more than fifty years ago. They did it when the ride was not nearly as popular as it is now. It was not nearly so common to see dozens of young riders coming down the hill at terrifying speeds. Yes, you can break the speed limit coming down the hill - and they know it.

Now, if the weather is good, any weekend and daylight train into the hills is likely to be crowded with bikes. They are going "up to do the ride". It is almost exclusively the male of the species who participates in this activity. I have seen a female just once. 

I have also talked with them occasionally. We may not have said a lot but they will sometimes make a remark like "cool bike" of my tricycle. My response will be something like, "Thanks. Runs on banana power". That will usually produce a similar silly sort of response. I cannot say I feel comfortable crammed in with them and I avoid it if I can. The driver is usually happy to have me in the first carriage although the rear carriage is the "bike" one. They will tell me to come to the first carriage along with any wheelchair, gopher, pusher or pram.  Yes, I prefer that.

All that said I cannot help wondering about the woman who attempted to film the young who were "abusing" her in the rear carriage. I know any group of young can behave in ways they would not behave on their own or even in pairs. I know they can show off and even do harm. I have also discovered the best policy is to ignore that sort of behaviour, ignore it for my own safety. 

If I need to exit the train and they are trying to crowd on before I am off then the "hey guys more room for you if I can get out of the way" usually works wonders. They might even say "sorry".  

I know there will be renewed calls to try and stop them using the train to get to the start of the ride, perhaps to stop them doing the ride. I do not think that would be right. It would cause more trouble.  Let's face reality. Most of them will grow up to be law-abiding citizens if they can let off steam now.    

An address to the nation

or an encouragement to do the opposite? That is the question.

Our Prime Minister is not well liked. This is not simply because he is a politician and the "leader" of the party currently in power. He is not liked within the party itself. Their internal rules would make it very difficult to replace him so we are stuck with someone who is not liked and, from all accounts, not competent. 

I do not say that simply because I do not like or trust the man but because the evidence is there. He is not a leader. He dithers. He does not make bold decisions.

There he is with a huge majority in the House of Reps. He could do almost anything with it...and the threat of a double dissolution. He has done nothing of note. 

We seem to be stuck with "Net Zero". He is so captured by the increasingly unrepresentative trade union movement and their demands that we are not increasing manufacturing. We are increasing red tape and form filling. He seems terrified of investigating the unsustainable National Disability Insurance Scheme. Don't talk to him about anti-Semitism but do mention Islamophobia because of the votes not supporting concerns about that will lose. Allow a Human Rights Commission to deny rights to almost half the population. Encourage the leading medical body to deregister doctors who express concerns about potentially harmful practices after anonymous complaints are made by lay people.

Stand in front of three flags instead of one national flag for announcements of national importance while you tell us we do not have a fuel shortage - yet. Oh and don't forget to remind us that we won't have a fuel shortage because we are going to "net Zero" and show the world how it is done.

Yes, the Prime Minister may have meant well last night but he has just made the problem worse. Like it or not "oil" is not a dirty word. It is an essential part of human existence in the  21stC. We need it. Without it we are going nowhere. It is time to recognise that.    

Chocolate for Easter?

I am not sure when chocolate became a "thing" for Easter. It has to be a commercial thing of course. It is something which can be sold to us as "traditional"...and expensive.

The big bars of chocolate have more than doubled in price over the last two years. I bought the last bar of "the good stuff" for the Senior Cat around five years ago. It took us several months to eat it. Yes, we liked it but it was not something we wanted every day.  Prior to that my Easter chocolate consumption was limited to a chocolate "bilby" given to me by a very elderly woman I kept an eye on. I shared some of it with the Senior Cat but most of it was eaten by visiting children. 

The late Whirlwind tried to make me an egg one year. It was marshmallow and supposed to come out of the mould cleanly. It was a mess. I hugged her for the thought and we had hot chocolate without marshmallows. I still can't face marshmallows with hot chocolate. 

When I was a kitten Easter came with eggs...two eggs. There was the chocolate egg from my paternal grandparents and the sugar one from my maternal grandmother. (My maternal grandfather never played a role in these things.) We were not permitted to open them or eat them until Easter Sunday. They were rationed out on the Sunday and then in pieces until we had eaten them.  

One year we were also given hard boiled eggs which had been dyed red and beautifully decorated by the woman next door to the house we were living in at the time. She came from the old Yugoslavia and the eggs were traditional.  It was years later that I came across such eggs again. Middle Cat's mother-in-law did not decorate but she did dye eggs red. Other people gave Middle Cat's boys chocolate eggs. Unlike most children they were not interested. After they had gone to waste one year the older of her two told her to give the next lot away. I doubt we could have done that as children.

Now I look around the supermarket and wonder at the amount of chocolate on display. It has doubled and even tripled in price because of the cocoa shortage and other shortages. People still seem to buy it. At our library knitting group last Saturday the community officer appeared with those small gold covered chocolates and told us they were "Easter eggs". After he had gone they sat there until two small boys appeared with their grandmother. They ate some. The rest of them got taken home to others who would eat them. I have some sitting here which Middle Cat is supposed to collect today. They have a visitor coming for the weekend. He apparently likes chocolate. I wonder about that. He's a retired dentist.

Eggs. Maybe I could have a boiled egg for breakfast on Easter Sunday morning? 

  

The "gender" debate seems ro be

heading in even more directions.

I have always believed people who feel very strongly about the need to alter their gender should be given support. They need it. Making such a change is not easy. It can work well, very well. It can also work badly. It can cause people to lose the support of family, friends, colleagues and careers. We all need to step in and accept their decision. 

That said I also think there are lines which need to be drawn. If a five year old tries to cut off "her" penis then that is a matter for serious concern. It is not a result of a child being "denied" the right to attend a group which has hitherto been "girls only". Five year old children do not, whatever a gender advocate or a journalist might want to say, reason "I am a girl even though I have a penis. I am being told I cannot go to Guides because I have a penis. If I cut off my penis then I can go to Guides."  Yesterday I was told I did not support "gender diversity" because I did not believe a five year old could think this way. The person who told me this and showed me the article in question has extreme views about diversity, so extreme they are of concern to more than one person. Their views impact their job and that is one which involves young children.

I know I am in very dangerous territory here and that the most radical advocates will say that even a three year old can make an informed decision to change gender. All I can say is that many others will disagree with you. It is not so long ago that I came across the mother at the playground who, after I had thrown back the ball which had landed in the road, informed me of her child's "confusion". She had been told by the child's play group leader that children should be "asked" what gender they are. This child was a boy one day, a girl the next and then back to being a boy. He was either very confused or playing a game or perhaps just thought his parent was being silly. You will notice I have used the masculine. His mother said he was "all boy" and "into all the boy things". We may not like the idea that there are objects and ideas which many still relate to the old masculine ideal of sport, cars, engines and the like but the reality is that the idea is still there. "Anything with wheels" is still considered acceptable for boys. It doesn't mean girls cannot be interested but we do not consider it unusual if a boy is. It is simply considered "part of being a boy". 

I do not believe that the move to "ban" some from competing in events at the Olympics is surprising. Apart from anything else there is no "ban" at all. If the athlete is good enough then they can still compete but they may need to compete against a different set of athletes. They will simply not have a potential physical advantage. Whether this is "fair" or not is still being debated of course but I believe it goes further than a willingness to abide by the wishes of the President of the host country. It is a decision which has almost certainly been coming for some time.

There was someone in the chemist this morning. That person was wearing a pink frilly blouse and floral trousers. They had long hair tied back with a pink ribbon. There were sandals with sequins on their feet. The same person was also wearing a mask. I am still wondering whether it was for fear of catching something or infecting someone else - or was it to hide the very obvious facial hair?  The pharmacy assistant was indiscreet enough to inform me that this same person sometimes appears dressed as a male and without a mask. Perhaps they would be happier if we accepted that it is acceptable for men to like things which are often regarded as "feminine". We do not seem to worry too much about girls in masculine work outfits so why do we worry about the reverse?

We have five year old children starting school who are not toilet trained. How can we believe they know and understand so much about their bodies they can make an informed decision about their sexuality? These are ideas being imposed on them by adults.   

The "Kaurna" language

is dead. There are no speakers of the Kaurna language or, more accurately, the Kaurna group of languages as it was spoken in the 19thC.  The last known speaker of a Kaurna language died in 1929. Even by then the language had been lost because the old woman who spoke it had nobody else with whom to speak it and nobody recorded it. 

The present speakers of the Kaurna language are going to be furious with me for saying this. They will say they are "proud speakers" of it and that I know nothing about it or how much it means to them to have preserved. They will be upset and distressed but I believe something needs to be said when someone presumes to tell me that she speak "Kaurna" at home, that it is an ancient language which goes back thousands of years and that it is still relevant today. She tells me I know nothing about this and that it is people like me who make her feel unwelcome in her own country. I will ignore the fact that just one of her great-grandparents was here before white settlement and concentrate on her heritage from the one who was.

I do know something about this through the history of my mother's family. Her paternal grandparents, my great-grandparents on her father's side,  were the "missionaries" in charge of the "aboriginal mission" where the old woman who is said to have spoken it lived for the last part of her adult life. She was the cook there and she was mentioned in letters my mother found when she was clearing out her father's papers.  I might have kept those letters but my mother, who had good reason to loathe her father, destroyed everything. That is, to say the least, unfortunate but I did have a chance to read the letters before they were thrown on a bonfire and I am glad I did. Even as a teenager I wondered about the claim there was an aboriginal language still being spoken in and around the city. Other languages fascinated me even then but I had never heard that one spoken.

 Nobody seemed to know anything about it. Certainly my paternal grandfather knew nothing about it. He would surely have known something because my great-grandmother would have known something. She knew a great many of the local indigenous population when she ran the dairy farm on a river on the other side of the low mountain range. Some of them spoke what would have been an entirely different language but she would have been aware of it as she employed some of the men. (And did so on exactly the same basis and expectations as the "white" men she employed after her husband died.) It seems however the urban indigenous population used English or at least a form of it. This was in the late 19thC and around the docks of the main harbour at the time.

The language was dying then and dying rapidly. Thirty years later there would have been nobody speaking anything like that in the state's "capital". Yes, there would have been some of the intrepid Lutheran missionaries going to the farther reaches of the state to try and find out what they could about the languages spoken there but it is unlikely they recognised the importance of trying to save anything closer to hand. There was a sort of "pidgin" spoken sometimes between the older aboriginals and white settlers but the younger aboriginals spoke better English. Many of them were getting at least some education but it was of course an education in English.

The old woman who is said to have been the last speaker of Kaurna was literate in English and that alone would have meant that her knowledge and understanding of her language had been heavily influenced by her education. Even if someone had attempted to preserve the language it would not have been in any sense "pure". There would have been a need for words the original inhabitants simply did not need.

The same is true now. There were some words, or approximation of words, left. Landforms had sometimes been given names that might have been the names the native population had given them. The accuracy of even those names needs to be questioned though. We simply do not know and there is no way we can find out.

Even if it had been preserved in full any language called Kaurna now would have to have changed dramatically. It would have had to change from the very beginning because there was a massive culture clash. There were too many things that were strange and new and not needed by the original inhabitants. They simply did not have words for many things.

To now suggest that people still speak some sort of language called Kaurna which was spoken when the first settlers arrived is nonsense. There are perhaps some ghostly impressions of that language in what is a new language, a language which of necessity has many words and ideas imported from English and the German once spoken in the hills behind me. 

If people wish to use and develop that language they are welcome to do so. What they are not welcome to do is pretend that it is an old language which needs to be respected as "indigenous" or given that status.  Disagree if you wish but I believe we need to recognise this. 

   

Taking care of the elderly

is something I do know about. I have done it. It is hard work. It requires commitment, organisation, time, patience and any number of other things.

I also know that I was one of the lucky ones. I was incredibly fortunate in that my father, my beloved "Senior Cat", was so easy to care for even when he needed so much help. He was intellectually alert to the end of his life. He was good tempered, polite and forever saying "Thank you".  

I also know I was very fortunate in having my sister, Middle Cat, there to help. She was the one who took him to medical appointments when he could still get in and out of her car. She went with him in the access cab when he could no longer go in the car. On the rare occasions she could not go with him and I went she would always check to see we had arrived there and back safely.

Being at home for so long meant that I could see the Senior Cat had proper meals, meals he liked, meals he wanted to eat. I did the best I could to provide good nutrition and I did what I could to make sure they were presented to him at set times during the day. We both knew when to expect things to happen. 

These things matter for the very elderly...and the Senior Cat was almost ninety-eight before he made the decision it was all too much for both of us. He was the one who made the decision about "going into care" and I still feel I let him down by not arguing too hard. Yes, I was tired. I had spent too long sleeping "with one ear open" like a mother of very young children. I doubt I will ever catch up on the lost sleep.

Once in the nursing home Middle Cat and I alternated days so he always had a visitor. He had other visitors too, far more than most people. We just thought of it as the right thing to do - and it was the right thing.

I am saying all that now not to say "how good of us". No, that had nothing to do with it. It was the right thing to do. It was what should have been done. It is what should happen to all older people. It doesn't.

This morning's paper has the preliminary stories to a campaign the paper says it will be running. Their campaign is called "Care Repair" and is supposedly going to deal with the "reforms" in aged care that were supposed to lead to more care and have actually (and not surprisingly) led to less. They are talking about those who are getting one shower a week at triple the previous cost. They are talking about a pack of seven "fruit smoothies" which retail for less than $20 and cost $120 when part of the package. Is this how we keep the elderly clean and provide them with the fruit they can no longer prepare for themselves? 

There are people out there making an enormous profit. They must be. I know employing people is expensive. There are all sorts of additional superannuation, insurance, leave loadings and so on to consider. Even with those things there are people making a big profit. It is why they are in the business of "providing care". The problem is  they are not providing "care" at all. They do not care. It is simply a business for them.

I wonder if I will reach the point of needing such "care". Will anyone care? It just makes me so glad I was in the position to make sure that the elderly person I loved above all others was given some care. I was not perfect, far from it, but at least I tried and Middle Cat tried. No, he was not "lucky". We just tried to give the Senior Cat what all elderly people should be given - loving care.   

The ban is "not working"

according to the latest reports. Under 16s are still accessing social media.

Yes, of course they are. Did you really expect them to voluntarily give up such a large part of their lives? 

Last Saturday I was in the supermarket. Ahead of me there was a parent doing the weekly shop. In the child seat of the trolley there was a three year old. He was behaving very well indeed. He was quiet. He was not fidgeting. He was not pulling things from the shelves. He was not making any noise. He was apparently completely absorbed in playing a game. 

Not a problem? Yes, a big problem. It was a computer game. It was rewarding him each time he clicked on the "right" answer. It may have seemed like fun to him but it was teaching him to become addicted to such things. 

It was nice for his parent. They had a nice, quiet, well behaved child while they managed to get yet one more of the weekend chores out of the way. There was no attempt at all to communicate with the child or involve them in the food being bought or how it might be used.  It might be that the parent really did not have time to involve the child but it is much more likely that the parent simply did not see it as important. Their child was being "good" and that mattered more. 

Is it any wonder though that children grow up believing this is normal. that this is how you get entertained? Is it any wonder that they are addicted to the screen for entertainment? Should it surprise us that unless school based learning provides at least something approaching that level of entertainment then it is considered "boring"? 

Of course "Big Tech" will provide this sort of material. There is a lot of money to be made here but there is also a huge demand for it. It is not a demand driven solely by the companies providing it. It is also driven by parents who want their children to be entertained the easy way. The "oh, but that game is an educational one" is an excuse which is far too easy to use.  No, it is not "educational". It may teach something but at what cost? 

It is time to stop trying to make "Big Tech" entirely responsible for screen addiction. The addiction begins early and with the choices parents make for their children. They need to see it the way they would see alcohol and tobacco. Parents are making available something just as addictive and potentially dangerous. It is their responsibility first. 

Are they "mentally ill" or

is there something else at work here? 

I refuse to believer that "up to half of preschoolers have a mental health disorder". At least a third of them have a serious one.  This is a wild claim that, if true, should be sending everyone into panic mode. Nevertheless this is what was being suggested in the article in yesterday's state newspaper.

Apparently "anxiety" is a big thing now. I delved a little deeper into the report. Yes, "separation anxiety", "depression", "conduct disorders", "panic attacks" and then "ADHD", "oppositional defiance disorder" were all mentioned.

These are children under the age of five and they are already being labelled as having serious mental health issues. One in five are described as having "two or more serious mental health issues". 

I tried finding more about this from official sources and I am waiting to read how the research was actually conducted. Still, the report was there and, true or not, too many people will feel an inclination to believe it.  

This is ridiculous. Yes, very young children can have issues but are they mental health issues or are they issues caused by the environment in which they find themselves? I am not intending to include children who have very obvious issues such as severe autism here. I am simply asking this about your "average" child, the child going through "the terrible twos", the "why and what threes" and "frightful fours". These are children who, although it may not seem that way to harassed parents, are growing up. They are growing through normal stages of development. 

If a child is left with strangers from six months of age so that both parents can go back to work does it perhaps contribute to issues they might have about being separated from their parents? They may not see the same adults every day at day care. Those adults rarely have the time to offer undivided attention, to answer questions, handle problems. Is anxiety arising from these things mean the child is somehow at fault or mentally ill? Their parents do not spend so much time with them. When they do see them then it is at times of the day when they are in a rush to get the child to day care so they can go to work. At the end of the day the child is tired and often fractious.  A parent can get irritable too.

Small children do get frightened easily. I watched one who had been happily playing on a ride on toy in the shopping centre. The adult in charge of him, presumably his mother had moved out of his line of vision. He suddenly realised it and was, for a moment, panic stricken. As soon as he saw her and was comforted he went back to playing. Does that mean he has "panic attacks" or is it normal child behaviour?

Children will test boundaries too. "No" is a favourite word in their vocabulary. It is one they learn early. It is a powerful word and they know how it can be manipulated. Does that mean they are showing "oppositional defiance disorder" at all times? Of course there are children who show more serious behaviours in relation to defiance but sound consistent discipline from all the adults around them puts and end to most of it. Does that happen when there are different rules at home, at day care, with grandparents?

And do those children really have attention deficits? Are they really unable to sit still when required to do so? My experience of reading bedtime stories has been that small children will bounce around and wriggle even while they are listening to a story. It does not mean they are not listening. Sometimes it means they are anticipating. I also know their attention span can be very short. When they are involved in pushing the plastic dinosaur through dirt the span for concentration can double or triple. 

I might be completely wrong but I am wondering whether many of the "mental health" problems are being created by adults. Are we simply demanding what the child cannot deliver in an environment which is telling him, "Don't try to explore, to ask, to build relationships. Just do as you are told. " 

 

 

Having ten children is

surely irresponsible now? 

There was a "human interest" story about a family with ten children in yesterday's paper. It was about how hard they found it to "make ends meet". The mother spoke of the size of the grocery bill, not being able to afford new clothes for any of them, that they had not been on holiday for two years and more.

I do not quite know what the point of the story was because of course ten children would be expensive to feed. I also wondered how well they were being fed because apparently she only buys 15litres of milk a week. That is only just over a litre each in a week. That is not much for a child. Even if the adults go without it is not much for a child. Yes, they have a vegetable garden but the mother also talked about buying 80c packets of cake mix to feed them. I wonder how much food value there is in cheap cake mix? Do they, even with the kitchen garden they claim to have, get well fed? 

My paternal grandparents came from large families, eleven on one side and nine on the other. In the late Victorian era this was considered quite normal but should it be considered normal now? I think my paternal grandparents ate well for the times. There was a lot of fish available for my paternal grandfather. He and his brothers may have caught most of it.  Great-grandma, if the recipes handed down to us are any example, also knew how to make use of everything a sheep or cow had to offer. She knew about potatoes, pumpkin and carrots too. She grew beans and peas and more. There were no "takeaway" meals available. My paternal grandmother came from a farm and there was clearly no shortage of food at Spring Farm. The Senior Cat could remember many meals there as a child. One of his jobs when he was there was to churn the butter. Milk came straight from the cow. There was a vegetable garden and fruit trees. Feeding all those children was possible because of those resources. Yes, they bought other essentials like flour and rice but most food was there on the farm.

This would not be possible with ten children on a small urban block without access to something like free fish. 

I have a distant cousin with six children. They were "home schooled" and I sometimes wondered how easy it was to feed them. I knew something about how much they could eat because they would descend on us once a month for woodwork lessons with the Senior Cat. I would feed them with some help from their grandmother. The first thing I would do was supply them with a mid morning milk drink and six milk drinks plus tea for five adults was an extra two litres of milk alone. They were nice, well behaved children who have grown into nice, responsible adults but I did wonder what they missed out on sometimes.

Brother Cat and Middle Cat and their partners made the decision to stop at two. "Replace yourselves," they said. Their children have a sibling. By modern standards they were not given much spoiling but they were given opportunities and they used them. They have appeared in films, on stage, played sport, work in medicine, law and education and built a multi-million dollar business.  Many people describe them as "lucky" but in reality they were made to work for what they have. They could not have had the opportunities which laid the foundation for these things if there had been six or ten children. Their experiences would have been not necessarily better or worse but they would have been different.

I really do wonder though about people choosing to have ten children now. Yes, they are getting a considerable amount of government assistance to feed the children they have chosen to have. Was it really a responsible choice though? What was acceptable 120-150 years ago relied on a different sort of lifestyle altogether, one that most people no longer live.   

The "Muslim" issue will have to be

addressed at some point. Trying to pretend it does not exist or is some sort of Islamophobia is not going to do that.

A Muslim friend of mine did address this issue as we came out of the library yesterday.

"Cat, I'm worried.  This phobia thing is not going away. We are good people. We work hard but now A... is finding people do not treat him quite the same way at work. In the library it is good but in the shops it can be bad. I am trying not to use the car but we did need petrol and the man at the service station was hostile."

I really did not know what to say. I did not want to upset her but I know she is right. What I wanted to say is unacceptable.

I wanted to tell her. "Don't dress the way you do. Ditch that hijab now. Don't try telling people what you have just said to me. They will not believe it. A... does give the impression he believes he is superior to you and to any other woman." 

I would like to know what was said at the mosque last Friday but I am also afraid that it will have encouraged the sense of superiority her husband displays. He is always polite to me but it is distant. I am a woman and woman are not equal to men. He has told me this. He thinks of himself as being "very liberal" (his own words) but is he? Perhaps he is within his own culture but many of the men I know would not dream of treating a woman the way he does. What is more their wives would have something to say if they did. My friend P... accepts it. He behaves as she expects him to behave. Yes, it is much better than some Muslim men I have known but it is different. His religion requires it of him. This is what he has been taught to believe.

So where do you begin with that sort of problem? It is not a simple issue. There can be "education" but this is religion and, as I know all too well, religious beliefs will all too often take precedence over all other beliefs. How else would otherwise highly educated people believe that something like a blood transfusion was wrong? How else would others believe that their god does not expect them to be happy, simply obedient? How else would they refuse to allow their child life saving treatment or demand they miss out on any form of celebration?

Our national constitution, rightly, does not allow laws to be made about religion. That is actually not the problem. The problem is the "we are right and you are wrong and what we say must prevail" attitude of some.

It is also why our Prime Minister made a major error in attending an Eid service. He reportedly had himself invited which makes it an even bigger concern. There had to be a police and other security presence there to ensure his safety. Some present let him know what they thought in no uncertain terms. That has never been necessary at a church, a temple or a synagogue. It was wrong. Even if an invitation had been freely given he should have excused himself politely. The events at Bondi are still too raw. We do have an issue and it is not going to go away simply because everyone is being told they need to be more tolerant. 

 

  

An $85m pay out?

Apparently the "sacked" presenter of a radio show I had not even heard of is seeking that extraordinary sum as "compensation" for being sacked. 

I do not choose to listen to radio. I do not actually own one any more. Even when I did have one I did not listen often.

I grew up in a family where the radio was turned on for the news service and, as we kittens grew old enough, to listen to "the Argonauts". (For those of you who do not know this was a very well presented program for older children. It was definitely "educational" or we would not have been permitted to listen to it.) Apart from that we did not listen to the radio.

It meant I grew up knowing nothing about the latest "pop" songs to "hit the charts". I had no idea who the performers were. I had no idea who presented these shows. My ignorance was so great that it was not until I went to school in the city that I had heard of the Beatles. I was genuinely confused about the fuss that was being made. My new class mates were very kind to me but I was still bewildered. I didn't actually like the music. My old class mates knew more about classical music because it was what the cows preferred. (Yes, seriously!) 

My paternal grandmother liked silence. The radio, apart from the news, irritated her. My paternal grandfather would sometimes "listen to the cricket" but I suspect he was really asleep. My maternal grandparents did listen to radio in the evenings but not when we were there.  Nana must have listened during the day as well because she sometimes argued with a neighbour about something that had been said. The radio was not on when we there.

But the Senior Cat was like his mother. He liked silence while he worked. He was comfortable with his own thoughts. I am comfortable with my own thoughts. The avoidable noise of other people is something I find irritating. I do not want to hear the endless chatter of radio presenters. Above all the "talk back" shows where people can "phone in" and "have their say" make me squirm. I am intolerant. I know I am intolerant. I do not need to be tolerant do I?

So when I learn that someone apparently had a radio show where they also had a "contract" for $100m and they have now been "sacked" for their lewd remarks on air, remarks which went just too far for their female co-presenter to tolerate, then I can feel no sympathy. Presumably the sum this person was being paid represented something of the advertising the show generated. What it tells me is that too much money is spent on advertising...and far too much is spent on deliberately provocative radio presenters. 

Thankfully I do not have to listen to them.   

No, it was not a "landslide"

even though the result was largely as expected. 

As I am writing this the results of the state election are being analysed and discussed and argued...and more. There is a claim that the winning party won "by a landslide". 

That is wrong. They managed to get 39.1% of the first preference vote at the last count. It means that almost four in ten people wanted them before any other party. After that they had to rely on the second or third preferences or more. In other words people were put in a position where, like it or not, they had to choose another candidate or candidates apart from their first choice. 

Yes, some of you will be tired to death of me saying that yet again. You may even stop reading the blog. Some of you will tell me "it's fairer than first past the post" or "it is fairer than any other system". No, it isn't. It is no more or less fair. It is simply the electoral system we are stuck with. 

What I want to say here however is that the way the media is portraying all of this is a problem. It is not educating people about the way the system works. Is it their role to do this? That is another question.

Given that most adults in this country know almost nothing about actual politics and do not educate the young then it likely is the role of the media. They will not do it but perhaps they should. Of course the problem is that, in order to do it in a fair way, the media would need to be (and remain) apolitical at least while dealing with the topic of voting. It is not something they would find easy to do. Our ABC (the approximate equivalent of the BBC) is unashamedly left wing. If a more "conservative" government came in they may find there are demands to at least "be more inclusive" or "broaden their perspective". It is unlikely to happen. They have an agenda and intend to stick to it.

But they have at least raised the issue of the far right party abusing the preferential voting system in a way of which few people are aware. They were almost encouraging an "informal" vote which then, under arcane rules, requires the electoral commission to make decisions that may not be in accordance with a voter's intentions. If ever there was a reason for a review of our electoral system then this must be it.  

 

Church bells may not be

rung on Sundays.  The "adhan" is allowed five times a day.

Some years ago one of our local churches was ordered by a court to cease ringing the church bell on Sunday mornings. It had been rung ever since the church had been built. It had been rung for three minutes before the mid-morning Sunday service and for funerals. 

The reason it was ordered to cease ringing the bell was because a young couple had bought a house in the square in which the church stands. They found the bell annoying. It interfered with their ability to sleep in on a Sunday morning. Their right to peace and quiet on a Sunday morning was seen to be greater than the right to remind people it was time for the Sunday morning service. 

The young couple had bought the house knowing that the bell would be rung on Sunday mornings but they proceeded anyway. The court ruled in their favour.

It was a decision which still causes concern today. I believe it was the wrong decision. The bell may well have been an irritant but it was doing no harm. Even more than that the young couple knew and could have avoided the problem by buying a house elsewhere. (At the time this would have been very possible.) 

The polling booth at which I voted is opposite that church and someone I know reminded me of the story as I was leaving. They went on to say, "I wonder what would have happened if it had been a mosque and they had that prayer thing." It was an interesting idea. What would have happened if it had been a mosque and the adhan had been called five times a day?

My guess, and I am certain I would be right, is that the mosque goers would have won. They would certainly win now. There would be absolutely no question about that. No court in this country would rule against such a practice. 

The adhan does not bother me. I would probably cease to notice it if I lived near a mosque. I am far more bothered by the recent public gatherings and displays of "prayer" by Muslims. Christians have been prevented from praying in public spaces - and not just outside abortion clinics. I am certain if a large group of Christians descended on one of the squares in the CBD and started to disrupt traffic, even just pedestrian traffic, with prayer they would be held to be a "public nuisance" and moved on. When Muslims do it we are asked to move around them. There is no reason for either group to do such a thing but it seems we must view such acts differently according to the beliefs of those committing them.

I am aware of what recently happened in another state. I am aware that our Prime Minister and one of his Ministers were "invited" to Eid prayers at a mosque. I am aware they went although I believe they should have found excuses not to go. I am aware that a British MP is in hot water for expressing concern about a public display of "faith" for Eid. I also believe it is likely that any attempt by Christians to do the same sort of thing on Good Friday would be blocked.

There are double standards here. Muslim extremists are demanding and getting the "right" to make public displays of their faith. Christians are being told that any sort of public display of their faith at Christmas or Easter is not acceptable. Schools provide "prayer rooms" for Muslims but not chapels for Christians or temples for Buddhists. 

I remember going  to the loo on the plane to England last year. I had to step around a man kneeling on a prayer mat. He still had to shift. He glared at me. He was blocking access to the facilities and obviously believed his right to pray was greater than my access to bathroom facilities. I find it hard to believe that any higher being actually requires me to avoid going to the loo just so someone else can perform a ritual five times a day. 

Perhaps we need to start asking, "Who is being controlled here, who is doing the controlling, why and what do they hope to get from it?"