tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16636805781122607442024-03-19T19:17:18.110+10:30Catdownundercatdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.comBlogger5596125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-58220476525312975202024-03-19T08:20:00.001+10:302024-03-19T08:20:46.025+10:30The late Stormy Summers<p><span style="font-size: large;">was a stormy woman.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">For those of you in other parts of the world allow me to introduce the late, great, weird, wild and stormy Stormy Summers.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Stormy Summers ran a brothel before brothels were even mentioned in the "city of churches". She was a "character". </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I always thought Stormy was a lot older than me. Yes, she was older than I am but not quite as old as I thought she might be. Perhaps it might have something to do with the life she led.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">She smoked heavily and drank heavily (mostly scotch) until about ten years ago. She dyed her hair outrageous colours long before dyeing your hair outrageous colours was acceptable. She often dressed in outrageous clothes. She drove a black BMW sports car (won at the casino). It had the number plate "STORMY". She ran for parliament and once ran for Lord Mayor. (She didn't get either job but she made a very good showing at the polls.) </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The "sex industry" is something that deeply disturbs me. I find the idea of it sickening. I am also realistic enough to know that we are not going to stop it. There is a need for laws around it, not simply laws which try to halt it. Stormy knew that women were at risk, that some of them were doing it to support families. She tried to give them a safe place. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Despite the cigarettes and the alcohol she was implacably opposed to other drugs. Anyone caught with drugs on her premises was out on their ear with no second chance. I heard about this from a woman I once helped with the pile of forms she needed to fill in. She loved Stormy for helping her turn her life around. The other "girls" she "employed" loved her too. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Even the cops admitted her premises were clean and well run. The problem was that they were not legal. The cop who referred the woman who needed help with the forms actually said to me, "It would be better for everyone if she could run that damn place without interference from us."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Stormy had her ups and downs. Some time ago I did actually wonder what had happened to her. I assumed she had died but no she was still alive at that time. She had "retired" long ago. She was apparently caring for her third husband - a man she had already divorced. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The men in her life were often rough and tough. They were members of bikie gangs and more but there were also politicians (often of left persuasion) and one of the city's most colourful journalists. I know of one Roman Catholic priest who counted her as a good friend because of the way she helped some of his parishioners.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Stormy was a "character". She was one of those people who does a great deal to help others without making a fuss about it. There was an occasion on which a hotel in the city was going to sell their old blankets before buying new blankets. Stormy went in and bought the lot. Then she went around the park lands and made sure that the homeless had new to them blankets. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And yes, she ran a brothel - and therefore had run ins with the law. Eventually the police managed to get the brothel closed down although she defied them all the way...and not just to court. Many in the community argued it was wrong to prosecute her. Stormy ran a brothel because she cared.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-55489839893230227062024-03-18T08:35:00.000+10:302024-03-18T08:35:02.608+10:30Is a "traumatic upbringing" the<p><span style="font-size: large;">answer to everything?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There is a second case of someone using NDIS funds to enable them to have sex with an underage girl. The abuser in this instance is said to be "autistic" and to have "cognitive impairments". Apparently that excuses the behaviour.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">My question is "does this person know the difference between right and wrong?" I know people who are autistic and who have learning issues. They also know the difference between right and wrong. Their behaviour may be impulsive and they may behave in ways which seem strange to other people but they obey the law. Indeed these people are much more likely to wait for the green man before they start to cross the road than most people. They don't shoplift. They validate their tickets on the train too.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Perhaps they have not had a "traumatic upbringing" though. Perhaps it is a valid excuse for behaving badly. It is certainly an excuse that is used often enough to try and explain away wrong doing. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This bothers me because I know other people who have had very traumatic upbringings who have done well in later life. They have, against all odds, managed to succeed. These are people who have lost both parents in childhood or have fathers who have been (or still are) in prison. They are people who have been sexually abused. They have been through refugee camps and come here with nothing but gone on to be successful members of the community. There is G..., an orphan, who lost both hands after being attacked by a machete in a refugee camp. He now teaches maths in a higher education facility in Africa. He has married and has two children of his own. There is J... who was brought up in the cult like atmosphere of a religious sect and not only left at sixteen but finished school and went to university. He supported himself throughout. There is M... who, at sixteen, was told she would be marrying a much older man. He was a widower with three small children. She sought help before it happened and left her family and her community. There is Y... who was sexually abused by her father and grandfather who finally found someone willing to help her. She has gone on to have a professional career and to care for the person who cared for her. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A traumatic upbringing is not the sole reason for wrong doing. It may well contribute to it but people do overcome that. It isn't easy to do but they have done it, even without high levels of support from others. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I admire the people I have mentioned above. They have had to work to get where they are today. There are others I know who do not have that intellectual capacity but they are not likely to break the law. They would not seek sexual pleasure using NDIS funds. If NDIS funds are being used for that purpose then all their funds need to be withdrawn. There are other people who can use the funding. </span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-68305385944426348302024-03-17T08:06:00.001+10:302024-03-17T08:06:36.399+10:30Eek! It's St Patrick's Day!<p><span style="font-size: large;">Actually I am not too sure about this "day" business.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As regular readers of my witterings on these pages will know I have a very good friend who just happens to be a nun. I have known her for a long time. We have had many a conversation over the years but I don't think we have ever had a conversation about St Patrick or any other "saint" as an individual. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I know very little about "saints". I do remember saying something to a former priest of the church the Senior Cat attended about some tedious process requiring "the patience of a saint" and his response as we were still trying to get the task done, "Most saints were very impatient people." I have also said it to some dog owners I know as they wait, with varying degrees of patience, for dogs to do what dogs do. I am impatient too but I am no saint. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I am not really sure what saint hood actually is. What are these things called "miracles"? Most of them sound pretty unlikely to me....and others can be explained in other ways. Perhaps it is the timing of things which matters. If miracles occur then it was surely one when, after months of not going into his beloved shed after my mother died, someone phoned the Senior Cat and said, "I need some timber cut on your circular saw." It meant opening the shed and the two men spending a morning carefully cutting some of the most valuable timber available for the purpose of repairing something in the cathedral. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When B... asked for that and the Senior Cat said, "Of course" then things changed. The Senior Cat went back into the shed. Things did not "go back to normal" because "normal" had changed but the Senior Cat went back to creating things for other people. That mattered. It was a huge step forward in the grieving process for the Senior Cat - and a huge relief for me. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">B... would laugh if I told him he was a saint. He isn't one. He is just an ordinary human being who happened to ask for the right help at the right time, help to do something for someone else. I suspect this might be true of a lot of "saints". His surname happens to be an Irish one.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I won't go looking for leprechauns today. I will smile if P... tells me it is St Patrick's Day and there is some sort of special mass for the occasion. I am conscious we don't seem to worry about St David or St Andrew in the same way. It will be good if some of my Irish friends have some fun in their own way.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And I will remember the man who said, "I need some timber cut on your circular saw." <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-91762971875636836222024-03-16T09:14:00.003+10:302024-03-16T09:14:31.079+10:30"Mac" attack?<p><span style="font-size: large;">Apparently there was an IT problem yesterday - at the location of a "MacDonald's" frequented by a young male of my acquaintance. No, he is not related to me. I know his grandparents. (His grandfather told me about this as he was out walking the dog.)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It is this boy's habit to go home or to his grandparents from school via this fast food establishment. He has more pocket money than his grandfather thinks a boy should have and some of it is spent in this way. Yesterday disaster hit. There was an IT problem. The place was closed. It wasn't fair! </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">He turned up at his grandparents place "starving". There were apparently a great many other teens from his school in the same position. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">"He had two slices of toast and Vegemite instead," his grandfather told me, "Of course M... (his grandmother) wasn't going to see him "starve". The kid doesn't know what "starving" means. We don't either."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">No, we don't. Food was sometimes short in our house when I was growing up but Mum always managed to put a meal on the table. We ate home cooked food, had the once a term "treat" of buying our lunch from the school canteen and the once a holiday treat of fish and chips out of greasy butcher and then newspaper wrappings. We thought those occasions were wonderful.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Yesterday I took some time out and went with one cousin and his partner to see another cousin and his partner. The second set have not been well and they wanted to celebrate some good news at last. We had a simple "brunch" sort of occasion at a small cafe overlooking a lake. The surroundings were very quiet and very peaceful. We chatted quietly and caught up with each other's news. We watched people walking their dogs and the boats sailing on the lake. The temperature was perfect for sitting outdoors in the shade. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">"That was as good as being on holiday," my cousin's partner said at the end of it.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">He was right. It did feel like that. We had "coffee" and a small amount to eat. The food was good and the staff were friendly and helpful. None of us do it very often. I certainly cannot afford to do it. It makes such occasions all the more special and memorable.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The young male who goes home via "Maccas" everyday will never have that pleasure. I really feel rather sorry for him. </span><br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-22231709543089671332024-03-15T07:47:00.001+10:302024-03-15T07:47:19.642+10:30Building houses in remote<p><span style="font-size: large;">indigenous communities is the latest move by the current federal government in their attempts to "lift" the well-being of these communities.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The cost is said to be $4bn over the next ten years. They will build two hundred and seventy houses a year - at a cost of $1.5m a house. $1.5m? That alone should be ringing alarm bells about the scheme. Even allowing for the extra cost of building anything in a remote area that seems excessive. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Something similar was tried more than two decades ago under another government. They took the advice of the now defunct ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torrens Strait Islander Commission) and built some houses in a remote community. It did not work. The houses have been trashed. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">One major reason for it not working was because the houses were built where there was no work. They were built where people said they wanted to live because it was "their" land but they had no means to support themselves there. And they are doing the same thing all over again. They are building houses where there is no work, where there will be no work. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">"Oh but this is where they want to live," is the argument being put forward, "They have the right to live on the land they consider their tribal land, the land to which they have a connection. We need to provide housing where people want to live."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">No, we don't. You provide housing if people have no other choice. It might sound harsh but this has to be an economic decision as well as a lifestyle decision.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">My parents were required to teach anywhere in the state. The Senior Cat had some tough schools, much tougher than many of his colleagues. He was regarded as the Education Department's "trouble shooter", the person sent in to sort out issues and then be moved on. We lived in some remote places and yes, housing was supplied. It was not supplied to all teachers. Young single teachers lived with families. They often shared a bedroom with the students they were teaching. In one place they lived in caravans parked next to the houses the government had supplied to people moving in to clear land and farm. We lived in the most basic of fibro asbestos housing. In one place the house was so poorly built there were tree growing under the house because the land had not been properly cleared. The bedrooms were so small Middle Cat and I spent our time there sleeping on a mattress on the floor. There was no running water or electricity when we arrived.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We put up with all this and many other issues because we had to. The place we lived in has barely grown in the past fifty years. There is a silo there now that was being built when we left and that is the only reason the population increased. It will not increase in any other way because there is no work there. The farms are being consolidated as young people move to where the work is.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In other remote areas other young people are also moving away because there is no work. According to the last Census the communities in which it is proposed to build these houses are also smaller than they once were. People are drifting away, even those who claim great cultural attachments to the land. They are moving to areas where life is more comfortable and a lettuce does not cost $11. They want all the stations available on the television set not the single station which supposedly caters to their interests. They want the doctor and the hospital. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Those of them who are concerned about such things also want opportunities for their children. They want their children taught in English in schools that have more facilities. That may be the most important issue of all.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So why are we going to build houses in those areas? Is it really what people want or need? Or has it got more to do with people who live much more comfortably in the city and who have employment telling us something else? Is this really about "preserving the culture" of the wrongly named "oldest living continuous culture on earth"? If it is then that is nonsense. We may not like it but the "traditional" culture and way of life no longer exists. Building houses is not going to help that but employment might help to preserve what remains. </span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-88374494180988781352024-03-14T08:05:00.004+10:302024-03-14T08:05:39.391+10:30Who should pay for aged care?<p> <span style="font-size: large;">There is currently a "discussion" about who should be paying for aged care - and the inevitable suggestion that the "wealthy" should pay more.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I am not wealthy by any means. For the purposes of this argument I would be considered "poor", even "very poor". That said I am not expecting the "wealthy" to pay more for their aged care than they already do. Most of them are already paying more anyway.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Senior Cat was paying 85% of his income into the nursing home at the end of his life. It was by no means the only expense involved. That was just the base rate. There were all sorts of hidden costs involved. We dipped into his savings all the time he was there. We did his laundry because it was an additional expense. We bought his pharmacy items. (We also bought the latter from the chemist of our choice which was much cheaper than the chemist the nursing home used. They had a neat little arrangement between them.) We paid for anything above his basic board and lodging, even the "entertainment" he was often helping to provide.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Despite all this he would be one who would be "caught" by the current proposal. The house would have been sold and yet more money would have been taken from the proceeds. I doubt the standard of care would have gone up. The Senior Cat had a reasonable standard of care given to him but it was (a) because he was articulate and polite and (b) because Middle Cat and I took it in turns to go in on alternate days. That was hard work but I do not regret the commitment we made one little bit. It was the only way we could be sure he would be as well cared for as possible under the circumstances. I still wish he had been able to end his days here in his own home. I still feel guilty that I am no longer going in and out of that nursing home on alternate days because, as one of the staff told me, "Visitors like you keep us on our toes." They should not need visitors to be doing the right thing. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I am tired of being told the elderly need to do more to pay their own way. They often have. Many of them have worked hard for fifty or more years. They scrimped and saved and bought their own homes, homes without landscaped gardens, patios and swimming pools. If they went on holiday it was not to Bali. Most of them made one big overseas trip when they retired. Some of them bought a caravan and "did a bit of travel" around the state - or even to another state if they could afford the fuel costs. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The next generation, the more recently retired who are not yet in need of home care packages and nursing home facilities are retired only from paid work. They are the generation which do the school runs, the before and after school care and the school holiday care. They care for children when they are ill and often for the very elderly as well. This is also the generation which coaches the footy team and makes sure the school has enough volunteers to help with hearing the little ones read. These are the people who do the vast majority of the "volunteer" work without which society would fall apart. They spend their days so busy doing things for other people some of them wish they were back at work for a rest. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">An aging population is an issue. It is a problem. The idea that everything should be taken from them in order to pay for their care is not going to solve the problem. If people believe that is going to happen then they will simply spend what they have while they can. </span><br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-30160377803481157552024-03-13T07:46:00.002+10:302024-03-13T07:46:41.317+10:30Daylight saving is now beyond<p><span style="font-size: large;">usefulness. It is a bad joke.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It is no secret that I have never liked "daylight saving". I am a morning sort of person. I get my best work done then. I miss the light early mornings of my childhood, before the nonsense started.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This morning I have put a load of washing out in the 7am semi-darkness. As I did that work began again on the demolition site two doors down. Yes, they can legally start at 7am in the semi-darkness. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We have almost another month of this madness. Our clocks don't return to "normal" time until the 7th of April. It is even later this year than it was last. It is being done to appease those who tell us that this is what people want because they are going to "Festival" activities and playing sport. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The reality is that only a very small proportion of the population is doing these things and they mostly live in the city. People in rural areas have other concerns. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But there is also another little oddity. This state is already out of kilter. We are currently nine and a half hours ahead of GMT but we should only be nine hours ahead. The half hour is wrong. If anywhere should be half an hour ahead it is the neighbouring states. What we should really be doing is turning the clocks back an hour and a half...and leaving them there.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Daylight saving is supposed to be a good thing. It is "used" by people to do things in the evenings...or so they tell us. I have yet to discover anyone who consistently uses the lighter evenings to garden, play sport, go to an open air concert, walk the dog or even just sit outside with a glass in their hand watching the kids tear up and down the lawn they have just mowed in the evening. It just does not happen. People may do these occasionally, very occasionally. Most of the time they come home, make a meal, chivvy their young into doing their homework and watch television or use their computers. They go to bed at what seems to be the "right time" because they always go to bed at that time. They get up at the "right time" in the morning because that is the time they have always done it. They feel constantly tired but they put it down to other factors. The idea that they might not be getting enough sleep when their body tells them they need it is something they dismiss as nonsense. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">At the changeover point back to a time which is more in keeping with the natural rhythm of nature we will have the usual spate of accidents caused by the time change. There will be other health related issues too although they will not be quite as bad as we go back closer to what our bodies tell us we need. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I am willing to accept that daylight saving may have some use somewhere. I do not know where this could be but perhaps some far flung point of the globe has a need for it. It isn't needed here. At our latitude it makes no sense at all, especially when we are not even in time with our longitude.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If you live in this part of the world and really use daylight saving every day please let me know. I would like to "meet" someone who really benefits from it. </span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-8213645517668400022024-03-12T07:10:00.004+10:302024-03-12T07:10:46.224+10:30The Greens leader has spent more<p><span style="font-size: large;">on two private jet flights recently than I have spent on everything in the entire year. He added another $57,000 on commercial flights (twice the amount I had to live on) and $12,000 on car hire and a further $29,000 on COMCAR and taxi trips. On top of that he has spent $204,000 on "printing and communications". </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I have travelled in COMCARs (these are chauffeur driven cars provided to parliamentarians) and I have also been given taxi vouchers to get to meetings. When these things have happened something has been said like, "Cat, there's a COMCAR bringing in X... and we can divert it to pick you up as well" or "Cat, there's a train strike but we need you at the meeting so here's a taxi voucher." Fair enough. They want me there. I don't have a travel allowance.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But some politicians seem to think they have the right to unlimited travel and unlimited expenses. When it comes down to the Greens leader, a man who leads a minor party which wields far too much power, this is even more disturbing. Does he really need to do that much travel?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Zoom meetings may not be perfect but it is possible to get a lot of work done this way. I do it all the time, so do my colleagues. We all think it is a vast improvement on waiting for each other to respond to emails. I am sure there are many other people who can work the same way and do work that way. I know my BIL is only too pleased not to have to catch the "red eye express" interstate. It saves time and money. He isn't quite as happy that he sometimes needs to work until midnight because his firm is global but that is another story. Still, why catch a plane to go to a meeting if you can just go into the office and attend the meeting that way?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Actually seeing people in the flesh is good of course. Zoom meetings are not quite the same but they can be done. The "National Cabinet" met that way during Covid lock downs. So why does the Greens leader, the very person who should be working that way, choose to travel? Is it because he is only "green on the outside"? I suspect this is the case. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-10742672425103374032024-03-11T08:14:00.000+10:302024-03-11T08:14:29.358+10:30Do you know what a "stobie" pole is?<p><span style="font-size: large;">Unless you live in this small part of the world then you have probably never heard of them. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">They are power line poles made of two steel beams kept apart by a slab of concrete. They are used in this state because white ants would otherwise eat the timber which would be used. The stobie pole was designed by a Mr James Stobie in 1924.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">He designed some other things as well although I nothing about these. My maternal grandparents lived next door to his sister and Mr Stobie apparently spent a good deal of time in my grandfather's workshop. The "new" workshop certainly showed signs of being designed by someone who had designed a steel and concrete pole.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">These poles have been the cause of many accidents - or so the drivers of the cars which have hit them will tell you (if they survived to tell the tale). They are also the cause of another problem now. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">They are apparently where the infestation of fruit bats or flying foxes are choosing to roost. Middle Cat tells me that they are getting more and more outages in the evening because the bats land on the poles. The outages may not last that long but they are long enough to cause widespread problems. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">How to solve the problem? There are two solutions. One is the very expensive solution of putting the power underground.They have done this with the new suburbs to the north of the city. It is not likely to happen in the old areas around here. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The other solution is to get rid of some of the bats. That solution has the tree-huggers up in arms. What? Why should we get rid of any of those bats? There were around 10,000 before Covid and now there could be as many as 60,000. They are actually a Covid related problem - caused by some things not being done during lock down and more. The pampered darlings of the "green" industry have even been treated to cool showers of water in the heat.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">These creatures are the carriers of some of the most serious diseases we have. They are causing economic as well as environmental harm. This is apparently something some of the tree-huggers believe we should just accept. Really? I would much rather the parrots outside my window right now had the apples from the tree in which they are sitting. I do not care for bats. </span><br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-50896868044072125212024-03-10T09:01:00.001+10:302024-03-10T09:01:08.585+10:30There was a fight on the <p><span style="font-size: large;">railway station platform yesterday - or so I am told. My informant told me that a drunken aboriginal man was staggering along it. He was apparently in genuine danger of falling onto the tracks so someone caught hold of him. Then the "fun" started and there was a "fight" as he lashed out and called those who had gone to his aid, "F.... white bastards."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I am glad I was not there to witness the event but it made me wonder yet again about just who is responsible for what. I wondered who would have been held responsible if the police had been around - as they often are at the railways station. It is all too likely that, if charges had been laid, the white men intervening would have been called out for "racism". The idea that they might actually have been doing their best to help would perhaps have been taken into consideration but they would almost certainly been asked if skin colour had anything to do with their actions.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And what would have happened to the aboriginal man. "F....white bastards" is a pejorative term is it not? If the word "black" rather than "white" had been inserted then wouldn't any reasonable person see it as "racist"? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">"They were just trying to help," the person telling me the story said. She had been shocked and a little frightened by the incident. "I know he was drunk but the way he was behaving was just going to make someone be racist."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> Before it eventually closed I had a long association with a school for children with cerebral palsy. All the children there were considered able to learn, some less and some more than others. They were all considered able to learn something of great importance - good manners. It was something the school was very, very particular about. When manners were being talked about there would often be a reminder that these students might need more physical help than other people. It was absolutely vital that they accepted help graciously, that they said "please" and "thank you", and that they made the effort to do as much as they could for themselves. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It was an approach which worked. The students of that school have turned out to be fine citizens. All those with the physical an intellectual capacity found employment. In some cases it was "niche" employment in roles designed to suit them but many of them went into open employment. Those able to do it went on to further education, several went to university. Until the school closed they had an annual reunion. I was always invited even though I had not attended school there. The same level of good manners was on display at the reunions. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I have heard horror stories of other reunions but these were always a way of getting together, of checking on each other for well being before social media took over our lives. They had grown to be the sort of people who would, given the capacity, have reached out to help the man on the railway station platform. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Racism is abhorrent. I have been with friends when they have had racist insults and slurs directed at them and I know it hurts. It should not happen but there is the other side to the story too. There is a need to accept help graciously when it is needed and know how to decline it when you can do something on your own. There is absolutely no reason to hit out at help and call the would-be helper "f.... white bastard". That just makes it more difficult for people in the same position as yourself. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-78797381569233731382024-03-09T09:06:00.001+10:302024-03-09T09:06:40.306+10:30Where do you get your news?<p><span style="font-size: large;">I was asked that question yesterday, asked by someone who "does not bother with any sort of news".</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">According to him "it's all lies". Where, I wanted to know, does he get the information that allows him to vote in an informed manner? Oh, he gets that from the "stuff" he gets in the letter box..."but I always vote Labor" he told me.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This same man has an opinion about a great many things. I have often heard him telling others about his views. Most people take very little notice. He is actually a bit of joke - except that he isn't. I consider him potentially dangerous. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The current issue of whether Meta should pay for the news it disseminates is a serious one. Governments and the mainstream media services want them to pay, of course they do. They equally object to paying Meta to use a service they believe should be "free". Somewhere along the line there is going to have to be a "balance" of some sort. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It won't be balanced news as such but it will perhaps provide news from more than one source. We need at least that much. The current government in this country is trying to introduce measures to prevent what they call "false" news from being disseminated. There will be strong penalties to try and prevent people from spreading such "information". </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">That may seem like a good thing if it stops people from telling the rest of us that every single virus infection can be cured by learning to stand on your head and eat garlic licorice while doing so. It is not so good if it also prevents people from being told to wash their hands in order to help prevent the spread of germs.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Trying to stop the spread of "false" information is not going to work. It will just send such information underground and cause it to spread unhindered. It may even have a reverse effect to the one intended - unless our access to social media is severely curtailed. As we do not live in North Korea it is unlikely people will tolerate the sort of restrictions placed on those who live there. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I am fortunate in that I get my information from a wide variety of sources. I also know the information I get is coloured by the knowledge and opinions of those who have gathered it. It is possible for me to read two stories about the same issue and get very different "information". It will depend on who is telling the story - and for what purpose. The only thing to do is try and look at the "facts" presented and see where they agree. There might be a nugget of reality in those "facts". That is surely better than news filtered by Meta or the government? </span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-28843026767001582872024-03-08T08:04:00.000+10:302024-03-08T08:04:33.697+10:30Why do "elite" sportspeople<p><span style="font-size: large;">go out and get drunk?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I will have no sympathy for this Sam Kerr person if she is found guilty of the alleged offence of calling someone else a "stupid white bastard". I will have no sympathy because it is not acceptable to call anyone that - whatever you might actually think. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I certainly do not have any sympathy with someone who does something like that while drunk and, allegedly, having left a seat in a taxi covered in vomit. If that is true too then the offence is even greater than simply calling someone names in the heat of the moment.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Middle Cat and I were talking about this yesterday. We are both at a loss to understand why these so called "elite" sportspeople would go out and get drunk in such a public manner, indeed why they would get drunk at all. Yes, they are under pressure to "succeed" by "winning" but surely that is all the more reason to remain sober? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I have perhaps more knowledge than many people about the damage alcohol can do. I have never been drunk. I have never come close to being drunk. In all my life I have never had more than a few sips of alcohol. Each time it has left me with a sensation that is akin to touching stinging nettles - inside rather than out. It has been acutely uncomfortable. The solution is simple. I don't knowingly drink alcohol.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Obviously these sportspeople do not react like that. They apparently enjoy drinking the stuff but do they actually appreciate it? I know some people who tell me that a "glass of good wine" is a very enjoyable way of relaxing. If that is all they have and they take it slowly and really do enjoy it then that is fine with me. Who am I to argue? That does not bother me but if they drink the entire bottle simply because it is there then I am bothered. It surely rates with eating a family size bar of chocolate on your own at one sitting? Does it actually increase the pleasure of either thing? I would have thought it is more likely to diminish it.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But there is also the damage that alcohol (or that much chocolate) can do to the body and the potential damage alcohol can do to the individual or to others. How often has excess alcohol left some innocent person dead or injured for life? How often has it ruined a reputation?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Sports people at the level of Sam Kerr depend on their bodies to perform. I would have thought that alone would make them wary of consuming alcohol, especially alcohol in any quantity. All too often there are stories of sportspeople who are inebriated and who end up in a fight or an "accident". Oh they will apologise profusely and promise not to do it again. All too often they get away with a minimal fine or even just a slap on the wrist. The "public humiliation" is seen as punishment enough for some. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The problem however is that they should never have drunk so much in the first place. They know they are the darlings of so many sports mad people. They know they are "representing" their teams, their states, their nations. On top of all that they are often paid obscene amounts for doing just that. Perhaps we need to stop paying them so much?<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-22876183019719146212024-03-07T08:56:00.001+10:302024-03-07T08:56:17.287+10:30Our biggest trading partner?<p> <span style="font-size: large;">I wonder when and how much more it is going to take for those currently in charge of our trade relations to realise that we have made a major error in allowing China to be our "biggest trading partner". Yes, it is a huge "market". Yes, there might be "opportunities" there. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This does not mean that these things are what is best for us. I have said elsewhere that our relationship with China has been built on laziness, on what is easiest for us. We have also allowed China to bully us into doing things their way.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There has been a recent spat between our current Foreign Minister and a former Prime Minister (of the same political persuasion). I have met both of them...and like neither of them. The FM and I clashed over an issue when I wrote to one of her colleagues suggesting that another approach might be more "diplomatic". She disagreed. The two of them ended up doing something else altogether and I had some feedback suggesting that this was because I, and a number of other people, had "interfered". Too bad. Had they gone ahead wiser heads than mine would still have been sorting out the subsequent earthquake.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The former PM is the man who flatly refused to employ me in the role everyone who knew me at the time expected me to get. Nothing could be done about it. He once strode ahead of me and slammed a door in my face - deliberately. I neither like nor trust him.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But both of them seem to think that we should be Asia-centric above all else. We also get told that by almost every other politician - even when they privately believe something else. Our current FM might well be "mending" the relationship she and her party like to claim was harmed by the previous government questioning the origins of Covid19. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It is certainly a politically tempting move to suggest that the problems all lie with a previous PM of a different persuasion but it is actually much more complex than that. The real problems were caused by the more favourable deals that government had managed to negotiate with individual businesses in China. They made the mistake of thinking Chinese officialdom was going to allow that. They forgot that Chinese business is done according to Chinese rules. They do not negotiate. They tell us how business will be done. If we do not like that then they have power to go elsewhere and make sure we do not get business elsewhere as well. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We need to work on that. It is going to take very, very hard work to restore our trading ties with the rest of the world. It is going to take a great deal of diplomatic skill to do it. The problem is right now nobody seems to even recognise and acknowledge that let alone do anything about it. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The former PM needs to stay silent. The current FM needs to stop pretending the problem can be solved under her watch without a major change in the way we do business with the rest of the world. If that does not happen then the generation after next are going to be doing as China says. It won't be pleasant. <br /></span></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-41280334984121711402024-03-06T07:40:00.003+10:302024-03-06T07:40:48.931+10:30A direct flight from <p><span style="font-size: large;">this part of Downunder to almost anywhere else should be possible. We may not be able to go from here to London without refuelling yet but we should be able to hop across "the pond" to the Kiwis or up to Singapore, Hong Kong or Tokyo. Perhaps we could go to Los Angeles or Vancouver too.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Apparently they are now "talking about it". I won't hold my breath. There is one direct flight to Singapore at present. It is also the most expensive option. This seems ridiculous but it is actually the case. It is actually cheaper to fly to another state and then fly from there - even though the distance is greater.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I was in my teens before I flew on an aircraft. That first flight was on an old "Fokker Friendship"...the plane that flew between the island we were living on and the mainland. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Nobody had thought to prepare me for the experience. I don't suppose anyone had even thought about it. My sense of balance, not the best at any time, did not like the sensation of taking off, of circling. It is also a rough trip at the best of times because of the variation between land and sea. I was not a happy cat. I actually felt ill, very ill. Landing was not much better but at least I knew we would soon be on terra firma again. I have never enjoyed flying ever since. The same thing has happened every time I have flown. It is a long time since I have been on an aircraft. My siblings take it in their stride. They go places. They do things. Of course I have to admit there has been no reason for me to fly anywhere. There has been no opportunity either. I have not been on holiday in more than twenty years. Plans to go on one have been thwarted more than once...and are now being thwarted again. Grrrrrowl!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But direct flights to places would benefit many people. We might have more people come here if they could just fly straight in without the need to change planes. Bringing in goods might be cheaper. It would certainly be cheaper to send goods out. That would be a huge benefit to our farming community and the fishing industry. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This morning I was woken by planes flying in. This happens sometimes when they need to change the flight path coming in from the east and north-east. It happens when the times need to change. The airport, once situated "out in the country", is now in a very urban area. The first house Middle Cat and her husband lived in was directly under the flight path and very close to the airport. My BIL could hear the plane he was going to catch arrive at the airport and then leave for the airport. This was before all the security measures they now have in place and he was catching the "red eye express" to the next capital city. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We still do not use planes in quite the same "commuting" way that North Americans or Europeans do...and perhaps they do less now that Zoom meetings are possible. Our airports are perhaps not quite the same. I don't know. They are still interesting places. It still amazes me that those heavy objects can actually fly. If they can fly direct to somewhere I want to go then maybe I will get the chance to go...but I am not looking forward to take off. </span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-67264635549896736822024-03-05T08:06:00.002+10:302024-03-05T08:06:36.184+10:30So "screen time" leads to less <p><span style="font-size: large;">conversation with your one to three year old? Who would have thought that? Really? Someone has done some "research"?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The article in the paper this morning has left me - bewildered? I would have thought it was obvious that young children, the one to three year olds in this study, were not interacting as much with an adult if they are looking at a screen. If they are not interacting then they will not vocalise as much. They will also hear fewer adult words and engage in less conversation. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">"Oh, he doesn't say much yet," is something I have heard sometimes. I have sometimes wondered about that. I have actually wondered, "Is this the result of being put in front of the electronic "babysitter"? I have also wondered if it is something to do with being delivered to "day care", "child-minding", "preschool" or some other form of out of home care. Yes, some of that can be good, even very good. It can develop language in other ways. It can provide the vocabulary a child needs in order to begin school - but is it providing the one-on-one conversation a child once got at home when talking to an adult? I doubt it. How could that be provided in the same way? Surely it is something that teaches a child far more than the uniform vocabulary being taught in his or her other place of learning?<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Children do not learn language in the way they once did. That's surely obvious? When children went to work instead of school they were surrounded by adult language and interacted with adults. It would be interesting to look at the differences in vocabulary use between groups of children who live in places where the "employment" of children is still high and their counterparts who attend school. I might be wrong but I suspect the "employed" children would use more words used by adults...simply because those are the words they would hear.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There are all sorts of claims made for having children in out-of-home care, including claims made about language development, but I do wonder how often this current generation of young children play with words the way we did. Why were the children I know so delighted when the Senior Cat recited nonsense rhymes to them? He was always shocked to realise they were not engaging in that sort of vital conversation. Yes, it is vital. Screen time cannot teach you to play with words the way we did. </span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-33391386153136128962024-03-04T08:20:00.003+10:302024-03-04T08:20:58.829+10:30"We are here for the fibre confused"<p><span style="font-size: large;">I tell the bewildered looking person on the other side of the information "desk". </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There is a wry smile and yet another person asks another question. All this is hard work but good fun too. People have come to enjoy themselves.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Middle Cat and I spent the day at an event known as the "Fibre Feast". It is there for the purpose of buying and selling that all important commodity known as "yarn". It is vital to the life of those who knit, crochet, weave and work other miracles with long, thin, flexible strands of fibre. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The event itself is a particularly well organised one. The people running it have been doing it for a number of years now. They put an enormous amount of work into it. Middle Cat and I went along to be an "information" stand. We were there to talk to people about the event itself, where to find things and who they should be talking to about the things they wanted. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I had put in hours of work getting information together about patterns and where to find them because most of the stands sell yarn but they don't sell patterns. The sellers are often farm people, wool growers who sell their own yarn. Some of it comes from special breeds of sheep with their own special wool qualities. There are alpacas of various types too. This year there was someone who owns three camels and had some camelhair yarn. She had also imported some possum yarn from "across the pond" - New Zealand. There was silk and mohair and of course more and more wool mixed with all these things. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">"How much yarn do I need for....?" People kept asking this question. The answer to that often has first to be, "How long is a piece of string?" I talked people through, telling them where to find likely patterns, showing them the lists of likely sources. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Middle Cat neither knits nor crochets - she draws and paints - but she can still encourage people to enter the RAHS Show. We both did all we could to encourage the men who expressed an interest. There was one cheerful young man in a wheelchair. He told us he had a disorder that we know is progressive but crochet is good therapy. He is also enthusiastic about it as he tells us what he has tried and wants to try. Put something in the RAHS Show? He had not thought of doing that - but if what he was wearing was any example then he should be showing things for the rest of us to see.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I caught up with some old acquaintances, people I only see at such events. My good friend W... who is almost 90 borrowed my walker to sit on for a while and showed someone how to solve their problem. Middle Cat distracted young children and dogs while their humans talked to me. Someone wandered through with two large parrots - one sitting on each shoulder. Another person came through with a guide dog in training. Later we provided "rest break" services to several stall holders who were there alone. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">By late in the afternoon the crowd started to thin out. I was almost hoarse with providing so much information. I left Middle Cat talking to someone about temper tantrums and alpacas and bought some yarn for a friend who could not get there. On the way back I stopped for a moment to talk to one of the organisers. Will we do it again next year? We looked at each other. Of course we will! </span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-4893159650076940792024-03-03T08:00:00.001+10:302024-03-03T08:00:00.127+10:30A "scathing assessment" of<p> <span style="font-size: large;">Downunder? Apparently a Swiss tourist was asked for his thoughts about how this country is run...and what could be done to improve it. He had some interesting things to say about taxation (much higher here than in Switzerland) and resources (we have many).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There has been yet another discussion elsewhere about how many levels of government we have.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We have three main layers of government here. There is the federal government which deals with matters that are outlined in the Constitution. There are state governments (one for each state and territory). These are supposed to deal with things not in the Constitution and in cooperation with the federal government where things overlap. There is local government -supposedly there for roads, rates, rubbish and the like. All these things are supposed to work with one another, to cooperate.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Of course it does not work like this, especially when the federal government is one "flavour" and the state or territory is another "flavour" and the local government "councillors" are there because it is a stepping stone to a seat in parliament. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We need a shake up, a big shake up. We need to be rid of at least one layer of government. It could be done. It would save millions of dollars. It would speed things up. It would bring in much more uniformity. This state has only just gone over to ending primary school at the close of year six instead of year seven. It has finally been brought into line with the other states. People fought it, said it wouldn't work and much more. From what I can see it seems to be working rather well.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We are also being told that uniform "planning laws" won't work because the needs of various communities are so different. Oddly enough we have wide ranging needs here and it seems to work. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Perhaps it all made sense when communications were so much more difficult. Decisions needed to be made locally. There wasn't always time to get instructions from the other side of the country. Now there is no such difficulty. There are multiple means of getting in touch, with holding meetings and the like. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But of course the state governments do not want to lose power. The immense duplication of services does not seem to worry them in the least. I do wonder though what would happen if it was put to a referendum. What would people decide it they were told a leaner system of government would ensure decisions were made much more rapidly and that it would give them thousands more in their pockets? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-12793559142840000402024-03-02T08:27:00.005+10:302024-03-02T14:17:50.242+10:30So Facebook doesn't want to pay<p><span style="font-size: large;">for news content provided by other people?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The previous Downunder government tried this one with the "News Media Bargaining Code" and the result has been a $200m benefit to the news media in this country. They no doubt will tell us that this has been a good thing. I also believe that you should pay to use something belonging to other people. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But do people actually read the news on Facebook? I have a Facebook "account" but I don't actually read the news on it. I suppose I could look for it there but I can't be bothered. I have a paid subscription for the state newspaper and, because of my work, paid access to a number of other papers. I don't spend hours every day reading "the news" provided by them on line for free. I doubt many people do. There might be a few people who can get behind the various pay walls and other devices but that there might be so many doing this the government can demand Facebook pay for this is something I rather doubt.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I tend to be very cynical about things I read (or hear) on the media. My sources of news, real news, can sometimes be very different. There are journalists I trust to do the best they can but news gathering is a very difficult art, particularly in a war zone or a disaster situation - the sort of thing that makes the headlines all too often. Journalists will be relying on "sources" which are all too often not very reliable. Even my sources, some of them in the very centre of a situation, are not "reliable" in that all they can give me is their point of view. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I "pay" for my Facebook account by putting up with the advertising. I could put an "ad blocker" in place but advertisers do pay to put their content up and that is where the revenue to run the service comes from. Ignore the advertising and just read what you want to read is how I approach it.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">What I do not want to pay for is government controlled "information". Our taxes are already supposed to pay for that. We have "the ABC" (the almost-equivalent of the BBC) and the various state newspapers. (Ours is actually - and very accurately - called "The Advertiser".) Our national newspaper is slightly different and the standard of journalism is perhaps a little higher. The newspapers are behind pay walls. I was not aware that Facebook was simply taking them and putting them out there for nothing. No, people here are doing that. They are putting things out there because they want us to know something or are trying to convince us of their point of view. I am absolutely certain that Meta does not have someone sit down every morning and put these papers online. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Are the governments opposing "free" information really more concerned about having to pay to disseminate propaganda rather than getting paid to disseminate it?</span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-16484455783371823272024-03-01T08:04:00.004+10:302024-03-01T08:04:34.075+10:30So, who is the spy or the traitor?<p><span style="font-size: large;">It is a question a lot of people are asking right now. The head of ASIO, the Downunder "intelligence" service, has said that a former politician used his/her position to "spy" for another country. Apparently the politician in question passed over information to another country, information they should have kept to themselves.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now people are demanding to know who that person is or was. I can actually think of a few who might well have been the person in question. I don't think anyone doubts which country was involved. Nor do I doubt that this sort of thing is still going on. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It is still going on but a good deal more discreetly and subtly than before. People who are accused of such behaviour do not always realise they are giving away such information. Many of them, although not all, would be appalled to think they had actually done something which might harm their country.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Over the course of my work I have signed more than one "official secrets document"...at least that is how I will put it. It sounds dramatic but all it means is that I have undertaken to keep any information I might gain in the course of my involvement to myself. It has not been difficult to keep those undertakings because I have usually been very low down the line of "people who matter". I do not have a high level security clearance of any sort. If I did I most certainly would not be talking about it. I might well have been - or would be - putting someone else's life at risk. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So why do people do it? The obvious answer is "money" of course but there are also people who do it because their allegiances lie elsewhere. There are still others who do it because they are afraid not to do it. They are afraid of harm which might be done to others they love or of the potential damage to their own reputation.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Demands to know who the person was or is are to be expected. Do we have a right to know? The answer to that is not straightforward. The ASIO boss says the person in question is no longer involved and that the present laws were not in place at the time of the behaviour. He says nothing can be done. Perhaps that really is the case. There is also something else which occurs to me and that is the involvement of a third country, a security partner. They may well know what is going on, almost certainly do, but they may not want it known either. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Whatever occurred we are not likely to know. The real problem is that not knowing "who" leaves every former and present politician in the country under the questions, "Is or was it you?" and "What did you know about it?" <br /></span></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-76416300921837117612024-02-29T08:24:00.001+10:302024-02-29T08:24:18.132+10:30Mail delivery?<p><span style="font-size: large;">The mail finally arrived after 4pm yesterday. This is the one delivery in a day every second day. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We do not get as much mail as we once did. It is impossible to get some things in the post now. If you want to keep a paper record then you need to print the bill, the receipt, the notification, the information off for yourself. Examination results day was a nightmare (or should that be daymare?) of waiting to hear the "postie's whistle". On a birthday there would be an eager rush to the letter box "just in case" someone had sent a birthday card.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Yesterday's mail, so late in the day, was late in another way as well. It contained some papers I had been asked to look at. There they were in a large bright yellow envelope. There was my name in very clear, thick black print. The address was correct. The post code was correct. The amount of postage was correct. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Why then has it taken the Downunder postal service seventeen days to deliver it from an address that is just 11.2km away? It would have been faster for the sender to walk over here. Had either of us had a car it would have been faster to deliver it by hand. (The sender is in his late eighties and no longer drives.)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I phoned him to let him know it had finally arrived and that I would deal with it immediately. He sighed. "Thanks Cat. I'll get my son-in-law to pick it up from you.When would be convenient?" </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We arranged a time for later last night. I went ahead and did the necessary work for him. I wrote the letter he will need with it. When his son-in-law arrived full of apologies for all the "fuss and bother" I told him it would not have been a fuss and bother at all if the postal service was working as it should work. I told him I had written a letter as well and suggested, as he knows all about the problem, he read it through. We could change it on the spot if necessary. He read it through quickly and shook his head, "That's fine. If P.... doesn't like it for some reason can I email you? I'll run anything else by you as well. I should have scanned the damn stuff in and sent it to you that way."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We looked at each other and then he said, "And, guess what?" </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">"You will be delivering those papers by hand," I told him. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So much for the postal service. Is it any wonder they made a $200m loss last year? </span> </p><p><br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-64208732026827701022024-02-28T08:39:00.002+10:302024-02-28T08:39:33.052+10:30Ah those statistics<p><span style="font-size: large;">are at it again! Really, they should be rounded up!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The "gender pay gap" issue was in the news last night and in the paper this morning. And yes, I believe equal work should result in equal pay. The Senior Cat also believed this. He was one of those who fought for female teachers to be paid at the same rate as male teachers. He also fought for their right to "continuous" service when they married - instead of the absolutely ridiculous requirement that they "resign" and then be "re-employed" - losing all their sick leave and long service leave in the process. Yes, those things made a difference to their pay packets as well.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But the report seems to have been about something different. It took "averages" here, there and everywhere. It did not look closely at the differing types of work done. There was no real consideration given to the fact that women tend to work in areas where everyone is paid less. It may not be right but it is what happens.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I wonder how accurate the report really is. Yes, there will be differences but do all women really earn less for paid employment in positions of equal responsibility when you take all the other factors into account? There is a comment by someone that female airline pilots get the same rate of pay. I know bus and train drivers do too. Supermarket employees vary but that has more to do with length of service and responsibilities. There is a female surgeon I know who earns more than many of her male counterparts in the same field.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The neighbour who works for the tax office complained that he was not earning as much as several of his female colleagues but he works from home. The last time he went into the office was in November. He doesn't need to travel to and from his workplace. He takes his two children to and from school. He is doing what many women have done for years...and gets a little less because he is actually doing a little less which is directly involved with his work.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Perhaps we need to look at these things and then adjust the statistics and work on the pay gap from there. I think the pay gap exists and it needs to be rectified but it might be that there are other things we need to take into account.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Still, it won't do any harm to round up those statistics and put them in their rightful place. </span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-31397226265681280192024-02-27T07:12:00.001+10:302024-02-27T07:12:25.585+10:30"Unemployed" or something else?<p><span style="font-size: large;">I have been going through someone else's "work" history and it makes interesting but very depressing reading.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This person did not finish school, did not finish the secretarial course they went to do instead and lasted just eleven weeks in the first position they were lucky enough to get. This was as a very junior office person and apparently it was "boring" and "I don't want to be stuck in an office all day". </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">All right, find something else to do. They flitted from one thing to the next, a few weeks here, several months there. "No, I don't know what I want to do." </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There was marriage but the need to work to pay for the new house. That did not work either. There were still multiple jobs that were "boring". The marriage was dissolved. There was travel overseas on the money from the settlement although there were debts owing. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Back here there were more low level jobs that never lasted. It was always someone else's fault when told employment would be terminated. The jobs were still "boring" and "nobody gives me anything interesting to do" and.... well, a litany of excuses. There was one course after another at TAFE but these were never quite finished. After all, finish the course and you might be qualified for something.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This person now "qualifies" for the age pension...and has done nothing of value in their life. I know of other people who are the same.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I also know of a man with Down Syndrome who has been in open employment all his working life. He retired at the end of last year. He needs a bit of help with his finances but he has his own unit and a regular income. When he retired, knowing he would need to feel useful, someone found him a role in a large charity facility. He was delighted to be "going to work again". I saw him yesterday and he gave me a cheerful wave as he was carting out rubbish. "Getting a bit dirty," he told me.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I pedalled on thinking to myself, "No, you aren't getting dirty. You have never been dirty. You are clean. It is the first person who has done no real work in their life who is dirty."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I am alarmed at how easy it is for someone who doesn't want to work to avoid the responsibility of doing just that. They are taking up places at TAFE that could be used by people who really do want to do the courses but are pushed to one side because these people have priority. The money being wasted on these policies is ridiculous. The "mutual obligation" requirement and the demand that applications be made is not working. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If someone with Down Syndrome who can barely read and write can hold down a job for more than forty years then so can many others. Perhaps we need to change the way those avoiding work are being "paid"?<br /></span></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-57437114105219352922024-02-26T08:10:00.004+10:302024-02-26T08:10:52.644+10:30Clementine Ford has no place<p><span style="font-size: large;">at Writers' Week. That someone who is openly helped to out a private group of Jewish artists, writers and other creative people and published details about them simply to stir up trouble is totally and utterly unacceptable. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">No doubt I will be heavily criticised for saying that. I will be told that this is about "freedom of speech" and that Ford has "every right to express her opinion". If you do say that then you will be wrong. This was not about any form of freedom of speech. There was no need to do what was done. It was not done to try and prevent harm. It was not done for the purpose of informing people. It was not done for debate. It was done for hate.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We do have a right to express opinion in this country. I am doing it right now. That right comes with responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is not to cause harm to others. Ford knew full well that publishing that list was going to cause harm. She intended it to cause harm. She has made no secret of the fact that she is anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. She also uses her position to make sure others know what she believes...and encourage them to believe the same.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Writers' Week, as I first knew it, was a wonderful event. It was there for writers as much as it was there for readers. I am fortunate in having met many amazing writers. They did not always agree with one another. There could be some clashes at times but, with one or two exceptions, they would shake hands or clap each other on the shoulder or hug at the end of a session. They would introduce me to their friends and their not-so-friends. Their politics varied as widely as their writing styles. They went out into schools to talk about writing, not politics or issues. The events for the general public were also about writing too. It is what people wanted to know about. How do you write? Where do your ideas come from? How do you plot? What is structure? How do you build a character?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It seems that has gone now. The week now seems to be largely about people like Ford and politicians, past and present, who are there with a "message". It might stir people up - but are they reading? I suspect most of them will go to the library for the latest well written crime or romance instead. Perhaps they will be better off for it as well.</span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-50218202123781772332024-02-25T07:48:00.001+10:302024-02-25T07:48:27.044+10:30How to dress for the part<p><span style="font-size: large;">you are playing is back in the spotlight. One of the big supermarket chains has apparently told its workers they may not wear "stickers" relating to indigenous or sexual preference issues. Outrageous!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Or is it? The supermarket I normally shop in has a dress code. The staff wear black or black skirt/trousers and white tops. There is a "tie". This means the staff are recognisable even if the younger members of staff sometimes managed to do a bit of "styling" to their clothes. They have name tags - given names only. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I would do away with the tie but I see nothing wrong with requiring them to wear black or black and white and the name tag. They are after all at work. I don't believe they should be able to add contentious statements to their clothes. In that supermarket they don't. I assume it is company policy. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the other supermarket in the same shopping centre the clothing requirements are different. It is there that apparently some staff are demanding that their "right" to wear contentious "stickers" is "respected". They have a "right"?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">School uniforms are still worn by the vast majority of children in this country. It is something which causes comment from some overseas visitors from time to time but it is generally accepted as a good thing here. There are no arguments about what to wear to school. There is much less competition around clothing.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We see uniforms in other places as well - the police, the ambulance service, firefighters, the armed services and in companies providing all sorts of services to the public. The are the robes worn in court and in church. On the rare occasions on which I have gone into court I know I am expected to dress to a certain standard - preferably darker, plainer clothing. It is because I am there to be a support for someone else. I am not there for myself. It is not about "look at me". I would not be doing my job if I went in wearing "look at me" clothing.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And surely the same thing applies to anyone in a role which involves serving others in any capacity? Unless your role directly relates to the issue in question shouldn't you leave your stickers, badges, t-shirts etc at home waiting for your time away from work? I don't want to be served in a supermarket by people who blatantly display a preference for any one thing over another. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The idea that there is some sort of "right" to do this, along with all the other "rights" some now demand leaves me wondering what is going on? Have they forgotten they are there to do a job - and that someone else is paying them? <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663680578112260744.post-49817393431002547792024-02-24T08:42:00.002+10:302024-02-24T08:42:44.321+10:30Keeping financial records<p><span style="font-size: large;">is something we are required to do - for seven years. Anything prior to that is not usually something we need to look at. Bills are usually paid by then. Tax is sorted out. Gifts given have long been put into use or used. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There are people who keep "everything" and they may keep it forever. Most of us don't do that. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Right now it is making my life, and that of two of my siblings, very difficult. I have no idea how it will go. I thought however of some things I have had to deal with over the years. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">At one time we lived next door to two elderly spinster sisters. They were interesting people. Both of them had travelled widely, indeed done so much that travel companies called on them to lead tour groups when they retired from their other employment. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When one of them died the other called on me and the neighbour on the other side to clear out her sister's belongings. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">"There is rather a lot. I just can't do it. I can't face it, " she told us. We thought there could not be that much...and we were wrong. K... had kept everything, or so it seemed. There were boxes and boxes and boxes. She had kept receipt after receipt after receipt. One ancient receipt recorded the first hat she had bought from her first pay. The envelope in which she had received her first pay was there too...cash in those days. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Over the years she had kept all her cheque butts, all her bank books and bank statements. All these things were neatly bundled together in disintegrating rubber bands. She had almost certainly never looked at them once she bundled them together like that. Her wardrobe contained shoes she had not worn for years. She had been careful with those and her clothes. All of them showed signs of being mended when necessary. The shoes were stuffed with old fashioned "keepers" and winter garments were covered in cloth bags. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Senior Cat came in and took away boxes and boxes of theatre tickets, bus tickets, rail tickets, airline tickets, theatre programs, art exhibition catalogues. All of them were incinerated in the incinerator we were legally allowed to have then. We packed her outer clothes into bags. We put the shoes in boxes. Along with seven umbrellas and eleven walking sticks we took it all to the charity shop. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We were left with her books, mostly travel related. The Senior Cat called someone he knew to come and see if there was anything of any value. I remember him saying, "I don't think so...unless someone is interested in travel memorabilia." There was one entire bookshelf filled with photograph albums. The albums were full of photographs she had taken and postcards she had bought. There must have been many thousands there. Her sister just shrugged and those were thrown out too. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I wish now we had kept those albums and some of the other things, kept them long enough to write a biography. It might have made an interesting exhibition too. There was a whole life in a detail that most of us could never hope for. It might have taught us a lot about life as it was from when she was born in the reign of Queen Victoria and into an era when she could fly to all of Europe but also to all of Africa, South America, China, Japan, Mongolia. She trekked into Tibet, climbed Mt Kilimanjaro...and always regretted not going to the Antarctic as well as the Arctic. There is nothing left. I hope nobody wants proof she bought that first hat with money from her first pay packet. </span> <br /></p>catdownunderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189081688973141295noreply@blogger.com0