Blame the algorithm?

The federal government is attempting to push through more "social media" laws. This time they are asking for "opt out" laws to be passed. They are laws designed to give social media users greater control over what they see in their feeds.

That is the argument anyway. 

This is the same government which is, at least in part, blaming their own unpopularity on "the algorithm". It is also complaining the rise of our redhead's party is due to the same algorithm.

Here is our very own Minister for (among other things) Social Media complaining 

    "the power of online is so strong, the algorithm is so strong that it is overwhelming our public institutions and this is problematic for everybody". 

Really? It is all the fault of Elon Musk and X is it? Is this why there is apparently a wide spread belief the government, particularly the Prime Minister, is lying to us? It doesn't have anything to do with the actual, verifiable fact we are not getting lower electricity bills?

Wrongly used social media is a blight on everyone but demanding the social media giants control the content is wrong. Allowing the government to control the content will doe even more harm. The present government would be more than happy to both blame the algorithm and collect massive fines from social media for failing to  ensure that nothing which harmed the government's chances of re-election was made available. 

There are other things which could be done before that. One would be to require, as required by law, the ABC to actually observe their charter to provide fair, balanced and accurate reporting. It could demand the same of a good many the other media outlets which the general public relies on for news.

There is a good deal of information in the state newspaper this morning about the collapse of an inquiry which was supposed to uncover what would have been appalling instances of "racism" in a major football club. Had they been true then people would possibly be facing court. They were reported as true and kept on being reported as true even when the first doubts were raised. Now someone who was responsible for many of the allegations being made is facing court on a charge of the embezzlement of a large sum of money. It was money intended for indigenous communities.  He was also making claims that the indigenous players themselves have said are not true. Their fellow team mates say the same but the damage done is still great. They have been said to have been subjected to racism and some of the claims are horrific. Living with those claims and having to deny them may be almost as hard as incidents of racism.

The Prime Minister is claiming the purpose of the legislation is to allow people to be in control of what they see. Really? It seems very unlikely to me. The vast majority of people have no idea how such things work or how they are being manipulated. It will also allow the government of the day to heavily influence, indeed ensure, that most people only see what the government wants them to see.

It might be simpler if the government just banned social media for everyone perhaps?  Would that work? 

A school principal has lost her job

over her refusal to endorse  "Wear it purple day" in her school. She was the head of a school where the pupils are under the age of twelve.

"Wear It Purple Day" is apparently a day that encourages people to "create a safer, more supportive and more inclusive world for LGBTQIA+SB young people," according to its website. I had never heard of it.

The school principal felt those matters were not something which should be discussed at school. They should be discussed at home and inside the family. She felt it was not like ANZAC Day or even NAIDOC week where schools do discuss issues around war and racism. 

I will not go into the rights and wrongs of discussing these issues in school although I will admit I would not personally feel comfortable about doing so with young children who were not related to me. Is this really what school is intended to be about?

I know there are people who feel very, very strongly about these issues. They are much more vocal than they were even five years ago. There are court cases which relate to these issues. Some of those cases remain unresolved. People have lost their jobs over these issues. They have been shunned and banned. It has all become very nasty at times. I still do not believe that this is what school is about.

School should surely about giving students the skills and capacity to read, write, calculate, reason and argue? Am I wrong in thinking this? Perhaps I am. Have parents stopped discussing these issues with their children? Perhaps they have. Perhaps they do not have time to deal with such things?

I do not believe people should be losing their positions over these things. The principal in question is apparently just opposed to the issues being discussed in schools. I wonder how she feels about the continuing publication of books about these issues. The local library has many of them. One mother I know has complained to me that she feels it is not appropriate to have books about "gay grandfathers" on the shelves. I wonder if they are really necessary - or appropriate.

We do need to be open about these things if children ask questions but my guess is that most children do not. Why would they? They might think someone is "different" but such differences usually mean very little in childhood.  

It seems to me we are teaching children to believe something is far more significant than it might otherwise be. We are telling them that differences are more important than similarities. I am not sure it is a good thing.  

I have been making a book list

for someone and came across another list. The second list was intended for students in their senior year at a Catholic high school somewhere in the United States in 1965.

It is an extraordinary list. The books on it are books which even the brightest university students would now struggle to read. 

It begins with  four books to be read "before September" - presumably the start of the school year.  There is a book by Thomas Merton and I know nothing about that. Then there is Harper Lee's  "To Kill a Mockingbird" (now banned in some places), Antoine de St Exupery's  "Night Flight" comes next, then Ivan Turgenev's "Father and Sons". 

I have read just two of those and only glanced at the Turgenev.

It goes on to other books. The first on the list is Joyce's "Portrait of the Artist as a young man". When I was about ten the Senior Cat was studying that as part of his university degree and I remember him reading me the part where Stephen's mother is washing his ears. It is not the sort of thing most ten year olds hear about I suppose. I did read the book later.

The rest of the list covers some interesting material.  It ranges from things like "Lord of the flies" and "The thirty-nine steps" to "War and Peace" and "Crime and Punishment".  I have read Lord of the Flies and The thirty-nine steps but gave up on the other two. 

In between there is Paton's "Cry, the beloved country" and Shute's "On the beach". They are interesting choices for their time and were probably considered controversial as well. Willa Cather appears too, as does F. Scott Fitzgerald and John Le Carre.

It is a mixed list but there is serious literature on it. It is an interesting list because I have just shown it to the only neighbour I know who does any reading for pleasure. He looked carefully at it and then said, "Well, I have heard of some of them but the only one I have read is Lord of the Flies. It was a set text in my last year at school." This neighbour is twenty-two years younger than I am. His children have not read any of these books. He thinks they will not even have heard of anything on it. The idea of them reading four books on it before the beginning of the school year made him laugh.  "Not a hope," he told me.

I know quite a number of teenagers in their final two years of school and I have to admit that not one of them would be likely to read anything on that list by choice. They might read one or two of the shorter and better known books if they were forced to do so but most of those books would not be read except under duress.

So, what are they reading? Is that the right question or should I be asking, "Are they reading at all?"  I know some of them are not reading now. Hopefully they will go back to books when Year 12 has ended and before university begins.  

 

Ecclesiastical vestments are not

something I know much about. The subject is likely of no great interest to most people. I certainly never planned on needing to know anything.

As a child I went to Sunday School and, where there was no Sunday School, I was expected to "sit quietly" in church. I suspect I went more often than many children, often twice on a Sunday when we were in the city. I went to the Presbyterian Sunday School on alternate Sunday mornings and endured the Christian Science version on the other Sunday when we lived in the city. The Presbyterian one was something my brother and I actually looked forward to attending. Looking back I realise we must have had some exceptionally good teachers there. They were not "do-gooder" older women but young and enthusiastic people who provided activities.

But, for all that, the Presbyterians were a "black and white" lot. I do not remember anything colourful about the clothing worn by the Ministers or Teaching Elders. The only thing which marked them out were their plain "bands" and clerical collar. The same was true of the ministers who appeared out in the remote rural areas. There in fact the preacher was more likely to be the Senior Cat in his Sunday suit and tie. 

My brother and I found the occasional Church of England service "colourful" compared with what we were used to experiencing but the occasions were rare. I did not set foot inside a Roman Catholic church until I was an adult. Since then I have been to many others as well - for weddings, funerals, baptisms and more. I have been inside temples and synagogues too.

And most of these places have been more decorated than the very austere Presbyterian churches I knew as a child. It is always one of the things I find extraordinary about religion in general - the enormous amount of great art, architecture, music and literature religion can generate.

So, why ecclesiastical vestments? I never thought I would try to make anything remotely related to one. Next year however "the church on the hill" the Senior Cat attended is having their 175th anniversary year. Planning is apparently well underway for this. As I see and hear this from the oldest parishioners (I see them often in the local shopping centre) I know that they are concerned they might not be there to experience the year in the way they would most like to do. They want to participate but they may not have the ability or the energy to do it. 

I also know it is going to be a great deal more work for the priest than many of them understand. He is a good man. He works hard. He was a regular visitor to the Senior Cat. They spent hours discussing woodwork and teaching techniques. There was very little "religion" in those visits and I know D... got as much from them as the Senior Cat did. D... may have been given some timber from the Senior Cat's shed but I have always wanted to thank him in another way. 

So, I sat and thought and then I did some research. The result has been a "stole" - that long, thin scarf like affair that the priest wears over his white robe on Sundays. They come in different colours according to the time of the church year and some of the modern ones come in many colours and designs. Many of them are as beautiful in their way as the oldest ones from centuries back. Could I knit one with one hundred and seventy five colours in it? One for each year of the existence of the church on the hill? 

It had to be long, but not too long. There had to be a cross in the centre at the back and one on each end. I had to find something that would provide all those colours. I had to shape it so that it will not bunch up at the back. There were more challenges. 

The result has been something knitted from very fine weaving cotton and embroidery thread. The weaving cotton is green - for what D... will call "ordinary time" and a pack of cheap Indian embroidery thread provided the colours. As most of the greens (and there were a lot of them) could not be used I still had to experiment. I have made no attempt to sew or weave the ends of the single row "flashes" into the fabric. That proved impossible. The thread just slips out again.  Two days ago I pinned out something which is 2.8m long and 10cms wide. I sprayed it to keep it flat and it has been drying. When my friend M... gets back from visiting family I will pass it over to her to see what she thinks and, if approved of, then ask someone else to line it so it can be used.

Yes, definitely a challenge and I would do it differently if I needed to do another one but I have managed to learn a good deal on the way.

This is a not very good photograph of it. Now I can go back to other things instead. 
 

And now for a longer and much more serious

post. (And yes, I think I have managed to do that back up all by myself. I still think it is a complicated way of doing it but it seems to be done...and I checked that what I put there before starting came up.)

But, much more seriously, I want to say something about a very disturbing new website. It is called "Call It Out" and the purpose of it is to  provide " a simple and secure way for ANYONE to report incidents of racism and discrimination towards First Nations Peoples."

Now I have no time for racism but this site is saying the incidents have to be towards "First Nations Peoples".  The site mentions "stolen land" so I am assuming they mean the descendants of the people who lived here before white settlement. 

However that in itself is a problem. There is no actual legislation defining a "first nations person". There is nothing said about how you "identify" either. My friend M... always ticks the "prefer not to identify" box on a form if he has the opportunity. He sees no point in "being aboriginal". He sees himself simply as a person like anyone else. I hope I see him and his family and aboriginal friends in just that way. I try to do that. They have never made it difficult and we have shared some wonderful occasions together. 

It was M... who sent me the link to the website. He sent it along with the words, "What fresh hell is this?" He sees it as encouraging a belief in racism even where it does not exist. I suspect he is not far wrong.  He does not see it as being used by those who might have some real cause to believe it. In his view it is more likely to be used by those who "identify" on the flimsy basis of one great-grandparent or the like. 

And that is just part of the problem. This is just one way "racism". It does not cover the indigenous woman who, being given shelter in a women's shelter run by the Catholic church, told a nun who sat down next to her "get away from me whitey". The nun quietly rose and sat down again further away. Was the comment racist or not? Can racism work in one direction but not the other? It is a problem not addressed here and which never seems to be addressed elsewhere. 

And then there is the problem of how you define "racism"? Here is what users of the site are being told,  

" All reports of racism and discrimination can be made to Call It Out: anything that you feel is unfair or unjust towards First Nations People based on race can be reported (e.g. interpersonal or structural bias, prejudice, or discrimination). You can tell us as much or as little as you like in your report."

Is it racist to complain about Aboriginal flags flying at an event which is supposed to unite all of us? Is it racist to complain about "welcome to country" ceremonies when there are no visitors from another country present?  

I could go on. The site disturbs me because I think it is encouraging a belief in racism where perhaps none exists. If we have something like this (and we do in the Equal Opportunity Commission) then the definition of what racism is has to be much clearer. The problem is that I suspect it will not suit the activists who see racism and disadvantage at every opportunity - and they make it so much more difficult for every other person who sees things differently.  

Short post for now

 The computer needs to be backed up and I am on the laptop instead so today it will be a short post. I am going to try to do some clearing out now that I have finished my last project! Paws crossed.

Writing statutory declarations is

is something I have done more times than I care to think about. I know how to do it. I know where to find the various forms I need in order to do it. I know where to find a witness to my signature. Once in a while I have had to write one which I consider "personal" - in other words it relates to my personal affairs rather than my work.

I have just written one such declaration stating that the work I entered in this year's state show is my own work. I will go and get my paw print witnessed later this morning. Having to do this is something I should never have had to do. It is something I have never had to do in the past and I hope I never need to do such a thing again. It should not have been necessary. 

Anyone can put an entry into the handicrafts section state's annual agricultural and horticultural show. It is not difficult. You make something. You fill out the form on line and you pay your entry fee. Apart from one class in Knitting and another in Crochet it is even possible to put in something where the maker has followed a commercial pattern.

I do not use commercial patterns. Part of the challenge for me is to design something. I see no fun in doing what someone else is telling me to do. Perhaps that has led to part of the problem but I do not think so. 

No, I received feedback from more than one source that there were questions being asked about whether it was really my work. Upset? Yes, I am. I am upset. I am trying not to be angry too. I think I know what was behind the remarks which were made. It is one of the oldest things in the book of awkward social relations, jealousy. 

There have been emails backwards and forwards and an interesting offer was made to me which, while not an admission of guilt as such, is a strong indication of "yes, we were wrong". I have politely declined the offer as there is an alternative solution which is better for all concerned.  

None of that really matters though. What matters is that one person has not had the good grace to contact me early on and asked a simple question. It could have saved so much bother and done so much less harm.

Next time you think you know something negative about a person but are not sure ask about it first. It might save a lot of harm being done.    

Basic domestic economics

tells me if I have to pay more for something, but have no additional income, then I am less likely to buy it. For some things this will not matter but it will for others.

I have noticed this in the supermarket. The price of chocolate is double what it was a year ago. I rarely buy chocolate but it is hard not to notice the price when it is "on special" and sitting outwards on the end of the aisle. One of the staff told me "people are buying less of that and more of the cheapest bread". I am sure they are.

I am not too concerned about chocolate. It is not an essential part of our diets. (Yes, I know there are some who will disagree but...)

I am concerned about some other things, two in particular. The first is the rise in the cost of health insurance and the cutting of the "rebate" for older people. This is poor economics, very poor economics. It is older people who are most likely to (a) struggle to pay for private health insurance, (b) most likely to need it and (c) be a drain on other taxpayer funded services if they can get them. Why would you do anything which might add to the public waiting lists and cost more for everyone in the long term?  If I need a joint replacement and I have been paying into an insurance scheme to cover it then it might make sense to see I get it. It could, especially for someone like me, be the difference between independence or being a costly burden on the rest of the community.

The other is the slashing of funding to fee-paying schools. We all pay taxes and some of that money goes to education. There is surely an argument that all children should receive the same basic amount  of funding? After that, and only after that, should some children receive more - and many of those children will be children with special needs. I have no problem with paying more to help children with special needs. I do have a problem with saying, "Some children will receive less than the taxpayer funded amount given to most other children. The idea that "Your parents are wealthy and they can afford to pay for all you educational needs. The state does not need to contribute." is surely wrong? Quite apart from anything else there are multiple reasons why children attend fee-paying schools and their parents are often far from wealthy. 

There are many people opposed to any funding for such schools. They claim it is wrong but if all those schools were suddenly to close then the reality is that the education system could not cope.  

Not so long ago our government found the money to fund the start of a football team in our closest northern neighbour. Many millions of dollars have been allocated to this. More millions of dollars have been allocated to athletics in other Pacific countries. There are many dubious "environmental initiatives" and the current furore over a climate talk-fest in the Pacific. This is not money being wisely spent however much the government might try to argue otherwise but it is popular where it matters. Yes, other countries may well need help with respect to environmental initiatives but those initiatives need to be those which will actually assist. They must not be "climate change" programs which allow any other government to say, "Look what we are doing. Aren't we good?"

Perhaps the biggest problem however is that moves like this one are just playing into the hands of a certain red-headed politician...and that could be very dangerous indeed.  

There are five murders which took place

in this city between 1979 and 1983 which are called "The Family" murders. Only one person has ever been convicted of any of those murders and he is now dead. 

He died in prison last year and, if he knew anything, it went to the grave with him. That person knew he was dying. How likely is it that, if he knew any more about the others involved, he would have said nothing at all? He is described as having been a "psychopath" and "completely lacking in empathy". 

The murders happened at a time when a great deal more was going on in the community.  One of the victims was the son of a well known news reader on commercial television and, perhaps because of that, his case received even more than the usual attention. 

What marks the five cases out however is something much more disturbing, as disturbing as the murders themselves. It is the secrecy which surrounded them and still surrounds them now. Order after order was made to suppress evidence. Evidence was suppressed even during the trial. The prosecution achieved a guilty verdict even when there was evidence not put before the court. 

Yes, it is likely the evidence would not have resulted in a "not guilty" verdict. That was not the reason to suppress the evidence. The reason given was that it might harm the case of others the police were pursuing in relation to the murders. At one point a doctor was brought before the courts as a potential killer. He was released again because the evidence simply was not there. The charges were dropped even before the trial took place. 

We have been left with a situation where the suppression orders may still be protecting people who should have been required to face court. The siblings of those murdered are making one last appeal to have the suppression orders lifted - as their parents had tried before them. They say they, and perhaps the public at large, have the right to know who the suspects are. It is said most of the suspects are likely now dead. Those that are alive are likely very elderly.

One of the victims lived not far from where we living at the time. I did not know him. Brother Cat had "seen him around" but not had anything to do with him. I remember that it still hit us hard. Our parents were, rightly, very worried.  Many other parents were as well. Were their sons safe?

Two more things happened which I still wonder about. The first is that one of the local boys disappeared for some days. Nobody knew where he was. The media made a great deal of it. We knew the neighbours of this boy and thus learned more than most people from two sensible and concerned adults. All they could tell us was that the boy had appeared again. He was severely traumatised and quite unable to tell anyone what had happened to him. His injuries were very similar to those of the victims. His family moved out very suddenly, out of a home which had been theirs for more than twenty years. The father left work abruptly. Nobody knew where they had gone. The only other thing we ever learned, again from the concerned neighbours, was that several years later the boy committed suicide.  He had never been able to speak about what happened to him. Was it another death related to those murders? 

So yes, it is tempting to wonder who was being protected by those suppression orders and why they are still protected. There may be nothing in it. Those named as suspects who are deceased cannot defend themselves. The question of "right to know" has been firmly brought to the front again. If there are murderers still alive I wonder if they are worried by the latest moves or if they know they are still very firmly protected for reasons we know nothing about.

Some day care centres are closing

at a time the government is claiming the sector needs to grow. Why? I suspect there are many reasons and those reasons may be more complicated than the media is suggestion.  

I was interested in what a father had to say to me yesterday. His partner has been visiting day care centres with the idea of sending their child to one so that the mother can return to work.   

"Mummy" is  a teacher. I have not met her. The parents are not married and they do not live together. (Yes, it is one of those complicated modern arrangements.) The father is actively involved in the child's life but there are things he feels he cannot do. He would not attempt to dictate whether a return to work for the mother was a good thing.

The mother knows what to look for if her child is going to be cared for by strangers. Finding those things is proving very, very difficult. I am not surprised.

Childcare, good childcare, is not something it should be possible to make a profit from if you charge the sort of prices parents can afford. It costs a great deal to build a safe environment, fill it with the best toys and equipment and staff it with well trained staff at an acceptable child-staff ratio. There will always be things which are not "right" but a parent will accept if they feel that strong urge to return to work.  I say "strong urge" rather than "compulsion" because it is still possible to be a "stay-at-home" parent. What it may mean is that you will not have all the material goods you are looking for and the house you want to buy may not be possible.

Recently I heard someone in authority say something which went like, "Yes, I do know "people are struggling". I will be told "you don't understand" and "we don't have a choice" and "everything is so much more expensive now". Perhaps those things are true but what is more important - the house or the child, your job or the child?" 

The statement brought me up with a bit of a jolt and I thought, "Yes, where are the children in all this? They are being treated rather like a commodity people feel they must have rather than human beings who are wanted. Is this why some people choose to have pets they try to humanise rather than children? 

Recently I was interested to discover that, in Sweden, it is illegal to leave dogs and cats alone all day. Dogs must be allowed out and walked within a six hour period. Cats must be actually checked on at least twice a day. Putting food and water out for them is not enough. It led me to wonder what would happen if a similar law applied to children. What would happen if you could not leave your child in the care of others for more than six hours? I suspect child-care options would change dramatically. Would it be a good thing? 

Renaming things, places and even people

is apparently becoming more common but renaming Lake Ontario? Will future generations need to be taught "Some Men's Horses Eat Apples" instead? (Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and America rather than Oats?)

"Renaming" has been going on rather a lot around here too. It is a sort of "political correctness" phase we seem to be going through. I am not sure it works.  Local people are still referring to the library complex in the hills behind me by the old name. I suspect they will go on doing that. It is simple, easy to remember and say. The "indigenous" name given to it is not simple or easy to remember and almost nobody knows how to say it. Other things have also been given "indigenous" names. I put the word into inverted commas because there is nothing certain about the correctness of the words used and the language they are in belongs to a plains tribe, not a hills tribe. The majority opinion appears to be that the renaming is more about the political views of a tiny minority than any deep felt need to change the name.

There has been some discussion about naming a small street or lane in the city centre after a nun who rose to fame some sixty years ago for her rendition of the Lord's Prayer and her work with domestic violence victims. Sister Janet never sought fame. She just went on being a nun. Renaming a short lane after her might cause some people to ask about her in the future. I am not sure how she would feel. My guess is that she would feel embarrassed. 

I am told that there have been calls to rename the Nashville Airport the Dolly Parton Airport - or something of the sort. The dear woman is dead but it might not hurt to remind people of how much good she did. I might not have been too keen on the sort of music she is associated with but I am very keen on the way she did so much to encourage a love of reading. I just wish I had kept the letter she hand wrote to me before International Literacy Year.  Honouring someone in that way is renaming that can be good. 

Our capital territory has a policy of naming only those who are no longer here but worthy of recognition. Anyone who cares to do so can learn a great deal of history from those names. That is the intention. School students there are perhaps a little better informed than most people. 

Recently we renamed an electorate here. I am not sure that should have been done. I admire the work of the woman it is now named after but it has also obliterated and important part of our past. We need to think about whether this is the right thing to do.

And that of course where the problem lies in renaming Lake Ontario and calling it Lake America.  Ontario is not an English or French word. It is a word which was used by the native North Americans. It is far older than white settlement in either country. It means something like "great lake" or "shining/sparking water". It does not belong to American culture or Canadian culture. It belongs to the people who were there before that.  Retaining their name for it was long ago seen as the right thing to do. Renaming it will do nothing for the relationships between two countries. The name does not belong to either of them.  

Banning someone from Facebook

 at the "request" of entitled parents who have failed to make their little darlings understand that actions have consequences? I suppose it can be said that filming the little darlings and putting the result up on your political party's FB page also has consequences.

I mentioned the "protest" a little while ago. The action has escalated. I suspect the parents are still intending to take the member of parliament in question to court. It will be interesting to see how far it goes.

I have no time for the MP in question and I will never be voting for him but did he have the right to do it? That is the question which has to be asked. 

It will be for others to answer it but there are some interesting ideas here. When is it permitted to film others who are publicly protesting? What is the point of protesting if you are not there to be seen and heard? When does it become an "invasion of privacy"? Are some forms of protest able to be filmed and not others? Is where a protest taking place a political act (in this case the steps of the state parliament) or something more private? Does the age of the protestors (or just some of the protestors) mean they cannot be filmed?

They are just a few of the many questions which immediately come to mind. Opinions on all this seem to vary widely.

Footage of the protests held on the same day right around the country was shown on television. It is still widely available on the internet because it was "reposted" over and over again. The MP who has been barred from FB is by no means the only person who filmed what was going on. There were others, including the protestors themselves, who filmed what was happening. The protestors have shared the footage. I have been shown some by students who attended the protest and by others to whom it was sent. Apparently it is reasonable to film each other and pass it around but when the MP whose party they were opposing films it and posts it then it becomes an offence which is labelled abhorrent. He is accused of paedophilia because some of them are "minors" and he "caught" them "kissing in public". 

All this of course is about denigrating the political party in question. Those protesting will consider it even more urgent now that the same party has apparently just won a resounding win in a by-election. 

Will all this go further? Quite likely it will but I wonder if those who protested and their parents have considered it might not have quite the effect they were hoping for? 

I hope I am wrong because the possible consequences alarm me. 

I found this below in my time line this morning. It seems relevant right now.  

Translated from French

We will broadcast, via television, numbing entertainments, always flattering the emotional, the instinctive. We will occupy minds with what is trivial. With incessant chatter and music, to prevent the mind from questioning, thinking, reflecting. Günther Anders

"On diffusera, via la télévision, des divertissements abrutissant, flattant toujours l'émotionnel, l'instinctif. On occupera les esprits avec ce qui est futile. Avec un bavardage et une musique incessante, pour empêcher l'esprit de s'interroger, penser, réfléchir." Günther Anders

"Emotional support" animals

are not "assistance" animals. There are people who might like to claim that emotional support animals are vital to their well being but it does not give them the right to have their animal enter every establishment.

I am writing this because apparently someone has taken a small, community owned and run cafe in Scotland to court because the cafe refused to allow her to bring her "emotional support" dog into the cafe.  I do not know all the details. I only know what was sent to me to read. 

If the reporting was in any way accurate this appears to be a case of someone wanting to have special consideration in circumstances where it was not justified. She wanted to take her dog, an animal of which she is fond, into a cafe which does not permit dogs which are not assistance dogs to enter.  It sounds perfectly fair and reasonable to me.

I happen to like dogs. I may not like them as much as I like cats but I get on pretty well with dogs. I am not like Middle Cat who will engage in "conversation" with a dog at every opportunity but I do talk to dogs who are tied up next to where I park my trike. I acknowledge dogs. For the most part they respond with wagging tails and eye contact. I only pat with permission and if I sense they are looking for it. I am wary of dogs who do not respond in a friendly manner. I do not interfere with dogs who are assistance dogs. They are trained and they are working when I see them.

But dogs who are not assistance dogs are not trained. An assistance dog may give emotional support to a war veteran with PTSD but their role goes much further than that. The same is true of a guide dogs for the visually impaired. An assistance dog has been taught how to behave in a shop, on public transport and elsewhere. The owner of the assistance dog will know what the dog's role is. They will know it is not merely their "friend" who gives loving licks. A working assistance dog is not a friend at all. It is a partner, a trained partner.

I have seen similar problems here. There are entitled people who believe they can bring their dogs through the shopping centre and even into the supermarket. Recently someone had their dog in the child seat of a supermarket trolley and got upset when told that this was not appropriate. The manager of the supermarket happened to be a short distance away and came over. The customer was politely told to shop elsewhere. The customer went off in a huff but the other customers applauded the manager. Some days later a local woman with a guide dog was in the same supermarket and one of the staff was willingly helping her reach something she could not find. The dog was standing there quietly waiting. It was working.

A friend of mine has a hearing dog. My friend  is profoundly deaf. It is her second dog. Early on there were issues with her first dog but now people in her local area know about the dog and to what it can alert her. She can go into the local shops with it and, like a guide dog, it will sit quietly and wait. It is trained and it allows her to be safely alone during the day, do the shopping and occasionally enjoy coffee with a friend on the beachfront. She came to see me recently and travelled by train to do it. The dog came too and there were no problems.

Recently I was told I could no longer park my trike where I had been parking it at a community facility here. Things had changed and it was now a safety issue. I did not jump up and down. I accepted the decision. A week or so later I had an email saying "can we talk about this because we think we can accommodate you in another way?" I really did not expect that and I appreciate it. If I had complained and threatened legal action I don't think that would have happened.

 I wonder what the woman complaining about the cafe not allowing her dog in believes. If the reporting is correct it could lead to the cafe closing for good because of the legal costs. Will she say "serves them right"? Will she feel proud of her actions or will she find other people shun her for them?

The Nepalese and Tibetans I know

here are genuinely lovely people. They have all made a lot of effort to fit in to the community around them. They volunteer. They have made the effort to learn English. They expect their children to be polite and work hard in school.

These people have come from one of the most beautiful areas of  the world. It is also one of the most dangerous.

I am not sure the rest of us really appreciate this. Tourists head off with the idea that it will be interesting, perhaps even exciting. They think they know it will be "different" and that they will "experience another culture". There is an idea there that somehow they are being courageous in going somewhere so different. One or two of them might try and learn a couple of words in what they believe is the "local language".  They will usually travel in a group. 

There are also the "spiritual" travellers. I will not call them "tourists" because many of them are Nepalese who are returning for genuine spiritual reasons. Among them there will be a tiny number of other people, often "Westerners" who are genuinely in search of an experience which can be impossible to explain to other people. They are not those caught up in some sort of mystical belief imposed on them by an experience at a temple somewhere but those who have spent years trying to come to some sort of limited understanding of the world they are experiencing. 

And there are aid workers I work with who go in and out for limited periods of time who, like the spiritual travellers, may experience something a tourist will not experience.  They know there are risks but something drives them to go anyway. There are schools, hospitals, bridges and roads to be built. Nothing happens there the way it happens in their comfortable western existence. They need to be prepared to learn as much as they must be prepared to teach. Their work is nothing like the work of those who go in with aid organisations. Aid organisations have teams of people who can work together and support each other. They will have equipment and more.

Yesterday I sat down with three people who know the disaster region well. We went through the old communication boards. We updated them. Phone calls were made. Emails were sent. Funding for air tickets was found. There are people we know who have now packed their backpacks and are on their way. They will help the local people with rebuilding things like bridges in Nepal.

In Tibet it is a different story. The Chinese government has so far not asked for assistance and has actively denied entry to outsiders. The Tibetans need help too but will they get it?  Think of them too please. 

  

Parents are threatening legal action

because their little darlings were filmed shouting obscenities and using some very threatening language at the "protest" last week.

Apparently it is acceptable for their children to behave in this way but not acceptable for others to film them doing this.

I have no time for most protests. They are a waste of time. They simply irritate everyone else. They are "feel good" events for those protesting but they do little, if any, good. They often do more harm than good. They can even bring about more support for the cause they are protesting against. 

In this instance they are likely to be doing more harm than any good at all. The protestors were missing school classes and university lectures. They were using far left rhetoric in order to protest against far right ideals. Neither group is balanced.

Some of the school based students would have been there with the support of their parents. They were likely told they had to have excuse notes from their parents in order to attend. It is likely these are the parents who are now complaining the loudest. They are likely the one who are threatening legal action.  

The reason they are doing it? There is the possibility that the protestors might be seen. They might be seen not just for the time they were there at the protest but at some point in the future. If the footage appeared on the internet then someone else might not view it favourably. It could affect their future employment. 

All that is speculative of course. How many employers for the most everyday and mundane sort of positions are going to trawl through protest footage to find those involved? In reality it will be very few. 

But yes, there will be some and it will have consequences. There will be people who will miss out on employment in more sensitive areas later because they behaved foolishly when young. They will learn the hard way that actions have consequences.

In this case though parents and schools also need to be held to account. Both need to teach students there are other ways to make themselves heard. Teach them how to do that in an acceptable and responsible manner. Quite a number of those protesting will be able to vote at the next election.  

There was a letter in the state paper

yesterday, the first letter. I finally got around to reading it after several people had asked things like, "Did you see...?" and "Was that you? and "Do you remember?"

The letter was talking about the writer's experience of the school library at a school where I was the librarian for a year. It, embarrassingly, mentioned me by name. 

I do not remember the child that was then. If they came up to me in the street and introduced themselves I may still not remember them. This would not be through any lack of interest on my part. There were around six hundred children there and I simply cannot remember all of them. I wish I could. 

I especially wish I could remember all those who came rushing into the library at lunch time to change their library books before going off to play. I wish I could remember all those who came to learn the basic chess moves or call me over to demand an end to a dispute about the way a word could be used in Scrabble. I wish I could remember the name of the child who, not having finished a jigsaw puzzle, wanted to know if I could "keep it safe".  I would be really interested to find out about the career of the boy who wanted to know about dinosaurs other than the muttaburrasaurus. He would have been about six at the time and it was not the usual childlike interest. It would be so good to know whether the regulars went on reading and what they read now.

The school library was the place where I felt I could make an actual difference to the lives of children who came from mostly poor backgrounds. The library was "free". All they had to do was come to school and head for the library at lunch time. I know the other staff thought I was odd. I could have done occasional lunch time "yard" or "playground" duty like they did. Instead I kept the library open. Often it meant I had a ten or fifteen minute "lunch break" and not the half hour I was supposed to get. It did not matter. I had children in there and reading. I had mothers coming in to help cover new books and talk to me about what book to buy their child for a birthday or Christmas present.  There were parents who thought reading was not important but I hope I changed that. I know at least some of them told others how important reading was for their children.

I almost stayed in school libraries. Being a school librarian then was a fascinating job. Encouraging children to read was something I felt passionate about. It was very difficult to leave but I knew it was only part of what I needed to do with my life. I went on to other things.

I know I made the right decision but it was a difficult one. To stay in school libraries would have been easy in many ways. I miss the thrill of a child asking, "Are there any more books like this?" or telling me, "It's an absolutely super book and you really ought to read it." Now there are schools without libraries. Those that do seem to have computers rather than books. If a child wants to read fiction then they need to belong to the local council library network. 

We have lost something along the way, something important. The letter in the paper might have caused me some embarrassment but at least it told me that there is one former child out there with grandchildren. Those grandchildren are being encouraged to read because the child is now a grandparent who had access to a school library. The expense of rebuilding school library resources has to be met if we are going to meet the needs of all children. 

Yes I do have "private health insurance"

and yes it is essential and yes it is a lot to pay. It will soon be even more. 

I resent paying it but it really is essential. I am not just older but, when I need a hip replacement or cataract surgery or something else which comes with age, I cannot afford to wait for years.  Nobody can afford to wait for years but, for me, it really will be the difference between living reasonably independently or existing in a nursing home. 

I cannot expect my family to care for me. In my case "family" means Middle Cat. The reality, as our GP pointed out to Middle Cat, is more likely to mean that I will be doing things for Middle Cat. We live close to one another and she has multiple health issues which have led to time in hospital.  Middle Cat is the one who travelled with a backpack of medication. 

Yes, she has private health insurance too. Without it she would likely not be alive. 

Brother Cat would almost certainly have had a lower limb amputated if he had been forced to wait for treatment for a serious infection. It was initially thought to be something else but help brought in because there was insurance to help cover the cost means he is walking around on his own feet. The long term saving and his ability to go on helping his family and his community is surely worth it? 

Private health insurance really is not an "indulgence". You are not "fortunate to be able to afford it". You are simply doing the responsible thing. It is not, as some people suggest, "queue jumping". It is saving the public health system for others who also need it and ensuring you can give back where possible.

The present government sees this differently. They are about to make private health insurance for older people more expensive. It means I will struggle to pay for it but others will not be able to afford it at all. They will go on to the "waiting lists". They will become less rather than more able. Eventually it will cost more to care for them. The move is a short sighted one designed to suggest they are "saving" money and spending it in areas where it is needed even more. In typical government fashion they can make it sound good until you start to actually think about the consequences.

Does the government really want me to stop paying a contribution to my own health cover?    

It seems "Book Week" is now

more about dressing up in a costume than reading a book.  Has this happened because books are not being read any more? 

This morning's editorial is talking about some schools no longer having libraries and there is the inevitable article about "bought" or "home made" costumes. Going to school dressed up as a character in a book is becoming competitive it seems.

I worked in school libraries for a time. I might have stayed there if I had not had the burning desire to see that as many people as possible had a means by which to communicate, that they could read and enjoy books. School libraries were important back then, very important. There was actually a "School Libraries Branch" for the Education Department.  Money was spent on school libraries. 

Other staff thought I was odd because I took just a few snatched minutes to eat a sandwich at around lunch time. It meant I could keep the library open through the lunch hour. It meant the library was over flowing with children almost all the time. Libraries should be like that. 

And "Book Week"? Yes, we had Book Week. It was the week I would talk to the "Mothers' Club" and the School Council about how much the books we had bought were being used and how many more we needed. It was the week I would talk to the young readers about more "book things" as they would call information about how books actually came to be. There was the competition run by the state newspaper where you "wrote a book" and illustrated it. Much of that would be done in the classroom but there would be children lined up in the library to get help from me or older children. The best of these would go up to a big store in the city centre to go on display. There would be author visits to schools. New books would come out just in time for Book Week.

There was not a costume in sight. There was no need for them. The children would draw pictures of their favourite characters and there would be "morning talks" about books they had been reading. There were endless questions around "are there any more like that?"

Half a century later we seem to have lost sight of what a library is in a school. Some schools do not even have libraries. They have become classrooms. The textbooks and any non-fiction material is sought on line. Reading fiction for pleasure? It is still done of course but it is not considered nearly as important any more. 

I am not sure how we expect school students to move to university and do the research of the future if their imaginations have not been stimulated by fiction.  Putting on a shop bought "costume" is not going to help much. 

I don't have much time for the "Brethren"

by which I mean the "Exclusive Brethren" or "Plymouth Brethren". My personal contact with them has been varied but I am wary of them. Let me explain.

Those that I know, and they vary from place to place, lead lives which are separate from the rest of the community. They mix as little as possible. They do not eat with anyone outside their own church and those people must be "in fellowship". They do not live in any form of communal housing. There must be no common walls or shared facilities. 

Out in the community they do not normally engage in social conversation with other people. Their manner with shop assistants is abrupt. Self-serve in the supermarket suits them nicely although their use of computers is otherwise limited to business use or essential study. Their children are now educated separately if at all possible. While certain things must be taught the Brethren elders will remove "unsuitable" material from the text books.

Outsiders are not welcome to attend their Sunday services. Inside their buildings women sit separately from men. Their participation in the service is limited to singing the hymns and, sometimes, choosing them. During the week there are prayer meetings and Bible study. They use a version of the Bible that is slightly different as well.

Women are subject to the authority of men. They must wear skirts or dresses. Their hair must remain long and they wear a "token" (ribbon) or headscarf to show their "submission" to male authority.

I have known several of them from time to time. There were quite a number of them living in this area some years ago. I still see some of them around. I came to know them through their children. 

They are not barred from voting but many of them abstain from voting on the grounds that only God has authority over them. This does not mean that they feel free to break the law, far from it. They are generally very law abiding people. They will drive excessively hard bargains but they generally do not break the law. 

There is an inquiry of some sort going on in another state at present which has, among other things, been questioning their involvement in an election campaign. Their involvement has been considered very right wing. The left wing dominated inquiry is trying to suggest their support for the opposition candidates amounted to a "political donation".  I find this curious.

I find this curious and a little disturbing. I am not sure I would welcome their involvement if I was attempting to enter politics. It may actually have done more to harm than to help. 

There is however something very odd about all this. Those running the inquiry have apparently not considered that, on the left, there are organisations like the union movement and "Get Up" and more which also involve themselves in political campaigns. 

Is the involvement of the Brethren really any different or is it because they are seen as a "cult" by some and they are involving "God"? I may not like all the Brethren do and believe but, so far, they have not harassed me the way some union members and the Get Up group have.  So, tell me, are they so different they need to be stopped from their political activities? 

I have never eaten and Oreo

and I am not likely to do so by choice. The same goes for all the other sugar laden "cream" biscuits on the supermarket shelves. I had the occasional "Monte Carlo" or similar as a child. This would happen if we were visiting someone else and they were offered to us. We had to check with Mum first and there was no guarantee she would say "yes" but, on most occasions, permission would be granted and we would "remember our manners" and then nibble them slowly to make them last. I still prefer shortbread (the sort which is homemade with a recipe which comes from Scotland and is made with actual butter) or ginger nuts.

Now it seems the "Oreo" is a thing. I have seen them on the shelves in the biscuit aisle of the supermarket and apparently they appear in school lunch boxes. It is their appearance in school lunch boxes which is apparently cause for "jealousy" and a mother has demanded they not be allowed because her child is envious of a child who gets one when her child does not.

I wonder what on earth is going on here. Since when did the appearance of a biscuit in a lunch box mean your precious little darling was so upset no other child could have one. No, we are not talking about an allergy here. We are talking about "I want one too" and a parent saying "no" for some reason or another. 

I can totally understand the allergy issue. It would only be the most irresponsible of parents who would knowingly pack something which would cause another child to have an allergic reaction. The question apparently does not arise with the biscuit. There may be little or no food value in the biscuit as such but they appear to be sweet and it is likely a small treat in a lunch box that probably contains a sandwich or a wrap and perhaps some celery or carrot sticks and some fruit which has already been cut up in the hope that it will be eaten. 

The idea that all children should be denied something because the parent of one child cannot afford or does not want their child to have something is plainly ridiculous. Where on earth would that have to stop? 

I remember all those days at school when the "lunch orders" would be brought in by the "lunch monitors" and the classroom would be filled with the smell of hot pies, pasties and sausage rolls or fresh yeast buns. These would be for those we thought lucky enough to be buying their lunch that day. Envious? Of course we were but we would not have demanded they stop buying their lunch. My brother and I were allowed to do it just once a term. It would be on the last day of term and we had to get full marks in arithmetic, mental and spelling in some weekly tests in order to do it. Yes, we worked for it. We might have thought it was "not fair" but we did not dare say it and the idea of our mother complaining other children bought lunch more often would have been unthinkable.

I wonder about the mother who made the demand. What is she teaching her child? Does she also demand her neighbours do not have a new car or a holiday because she cannot afford it? 

"Oreo envy" is surely part of childhood. It teaches us we cannot have everything we want and that is surely a good thing.  Telling us other people should also do without is not.