"Icecream is bad for you"

Really?
I met a tired, harassed grandfather in the chemist queue yesterday. His wife was home with the three grandchildren. It is school holidays and they have had them "all week" instead of "just  before and after school". 
     "We've had enough. I thought I'd give R... a break and bring them up here for an ice cream." 
R...is his wife and does a lot of the caring because he volunteers as a driver for Meals on Wheels - something that needs to continue. 
     "What happened?" I asked thinking that most children would jump at the chance of an ice cream and that they must have been playing up.
     "The eldest told us she didn't want an ice cream because ice cream is bad for you. It is apparently what she is now being taught at school."
He went on to tell me that she has, at the tender age of seven, started to dictate what the family can and cannot eat. It all comes from her teacher and a "healthy food" program at school.   
    "She won't eat this and that and the other thing. We had a set to at breakfast on Monday because she won't eat toast and Vegemite any more."
    "What did she eat?" I asked wondering if this was more the beginning of a serious illness.
    "Porridge."
Porridge is fine, very good in fact. Toast and Vegemite (the Downunder equivalent of Marmite to you Upoverites) however is the other breakfast staple. 
    "And what is wrong with toast and Vegemite?"
    "It was the wrong brand of bread and Vegemite is too salty."
    "But surely your daughter doesn't allow her to get away with this?"
    "She is trying not to but you know time and the running battle every morning. R.... says send her to school without breakfast and a note saying she refused to eat it."
That probably won't help a lot.
    "And lunch boxes are checked I suppose?"
    "How did you guess? At that age - well a bit older - I would go to school with four rounds of white bread slathered in butter. One would be left over meat from the Sunday roast or peanut paste or Vegemite and the other would be jam. Mum would throw in a piece of fruit if we happened to have any. All of that apart from the fruit would be frowned on now. "
I remember those sandwiches. White bread was almost the only sort available. There was something called "brown" but it had very little colour. In our family it was almost always Vegemite - Vegemite was cheap. A jar went a long way. Occasionally we would get cheese or tomato. We never had jam sandwiches but that didn't stop use from swapping Vegemite for ersatz raspberry occasionally.  We did get a piece of fruit because we had fruit trees. Our mother would cut it into pieces and wrap it firmly in waxed paper.
It never occurred to us to question what we were given to eat. We didn't like everything. What child does? We still ate it because there really was nothing else in our house. 
Ice cream was a huge treat. It was almost always our paternal grandfather who bought it as a "once in the school holidays" treat. We were "little angels" when we knew that was likely coming up.
I thought of all this and I thought of this seven year old who is being taught about "healthy food" at school. Did we learn about healthy food too? I remember lessons about food groups and the things that we should try to eat and those that were good for us. I know we were taught  about too many sweets "rotting your teeth" but we were never told we should not eat those things. We were I suppose taught about "moderation".
Before we moved out to rural parts again our family lived next door to a Serbian family. This was highly unusual when I was a child. I remember Mrs S... making what we thought of as strange things to eat. She would sometimes give my mother a tray of something or other. It would be in return for the English lessons my parents were giving her family. We children were happy to devour whatever came our  way - and often hugged her for it. I know some of it was very sweet. I don't know how "good" it was for us but we were a healthy and active lot. We survived very nicely on all that "unhealthy" food. Part of it was probably to do with being so active.
But the three grandchildren missed out on ice cream because the seven year old refused point blank to go with her grandfather to get what should have been a treat. There is something very wrong about that. 

Closing state borders

is not something done lightly.  Efforts to keep the  Covid19 virus contained have necessitated that.
The disruption to the lives of so many people will have an enormous social and economic impact - and not just on those living in the region "locked down". People cross state borders every day. Some live in one state and work in another. They go shopping for essential items across the border and much more. Understandably there have been many questions and, from some, complaints.
There was also an entirely unwarranted criticism from a columnist about some remarks which were made. The columnist in question would be aware of sec.92 of Downunder's constitution. It reads:

  On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free. But notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, goods imported before the imposition of uniform duties of customs into any State, or into any Colony which, whilst the goods remain therein, becomes a State, shall, on thence passing into another State within two years after the imposition of such duties, be liable to any duty chargeable on the importation of such goods into the Commonwealth, less any duty paid in respect of the goods on their importation.

<sup>It is the word "intercourse" which is causing the difficulties here
 
"intercourse" is the ability "to pass to and fro among the States without burden, hindrance or restriction". (Cole v Whitfield)

Despite the wording in the Constitution however decisions of the High Court have allowed some restrictions to occur. 
Whether state Premiers have the power to close state borders and under what circumstances is something sec, 92 does not state.  If the current closure of state borders is challenged in the courts then it is highly likely that the High Court will take the "individual rights" approach - and say that the closure was a "permissible burden or reasonable regulation". 
What powers state Premiers have within their own states to order a lock down will vary with the different state constitutions. If they are questioned then the courts are going to have to find a way through to the greatest public good. 
I don't envy them. 
Criticising the present Prime Minister for acknowledging the constitutional issues involved is hardly helpful.</sup> 

Who pays for the police?

Is this something which should always be taxpayer funded or are there times when groups should pay?
It's a question which was raised in our state newspaper yesterday and one which I have since given some more thought to as it is of importance to me.
I volunteer as a steward at our state's annual "Show".I have written about that event before. It's a big one  - not going ahead this year because of Covid19 issues.  
Many people in this state would be surprised to learn that "the Show" is not a government run event. It is run by a not for profit organisation with charitable status. It is expected to pay for itself. It does own a large area of land near the CBD - something developers would no doubt love to get their hands on. Over the years buildings have gone up and come down. School and university exams have been  held there for thousands upon thousands of students. It has hosted thousands of events apart from the Show - everything from equestrian events to rock concerts. I have worked at craft fairs held there - and of course at the Show itself.
The Show however is very different from most events held there. It is intended to be a showcase for the entire state. The rural community depend on it to display, buy, sell, educate and more. The tourist industry uses it to do much the same. It provides companies with the opportunity to inform customers about new products as well as old products. Hundreds of thousands of people can go through the gates over the ten days in which the Show is held. Entry prices are still very reasonable when you consider you are getting an entire day's worth of entertainment - well into the night in fact as you can stay until 10pm. 
In a big crowd like that you need a police presence. As volunteers we see them walking around in pairs - and we can listen to the police band provide some entertainment too.  There is usually very little trouble at the event because people are there to enjoy themselves. Any big crowd will have petty theft issues and there have been accidents  - for which there are also ambulance officers on site. Occasionally other issues arise but the police attending the event normally enjoy their shift on duty there. It's a chance for the public to see them in a way they don't often see them.
We already pay for this through our taxes... or I thought we did. Now the state's police force want to charge organisers for attending the Show. 
To me this is not like charging for a police presence at a football match where there is a need for crowd control and a risk of hooliganism or a fight breaking out when emotions run high. At a rock concert where illegal drugs are likely to be sold and crowd control is also essential then a police presence is also vital. Such events are not, even if they bring money in, for the benefit of the entire state. The Show is for everyone. It benefits everyone in the state - even those who do not attend. The government is a big beneficiary. 
It is one of those times when our taxes should be used to benefit everyone.

One of our most outspoken Senators

has apparently been kicked off one of those television news-chat shows for comments she has made about the residents of some tower blocks.
The tower blocks in question are under a total lock down because there has been a cluster of the Covid19 virus in them. These tower blocks are "social welfare" housing. 
I lived for a year in the city in question. The university I was doing research at has one campus not too far from the tower blocks in question. The tower blocks were newer then but they were still a problem area. Many of the people in them were single parents. Almost all of them were unemployed. Drugs were a problem - although not in the way they are now. Mental health issues were common. Domestic violence was a very serious issue. The police presence there was almost constant. 
At one time I interviewed some of the mothers about the way their children played. Many of the older children played out in the street - unsupervised. 
That was a long time ago now. The population in the tower blocks has changed to include people from a much wider range of ethnic backgrounds. Some of them are refugees, others  hold temporary working visas.  International students who can find nowhere else are crowded into illegal sublets. 
The cultural lifestyle of many people in the tower blocks is often very different from that of people who live in single housing units out in suburbia. "Social distancing" is impossible if you live in a flat with seven children under the age of ten. It is impossible if you have to share the corridors, staircases and laundries with hundreds of other people.  
The tower blocks were known as a problem area before they were placed into "total lock down". People in them might say they know about the "social distancing" requirements. Knowing and being able to adhere to them are two different things. 
Refusing to acknowledge that is another sort of problem altogether. I do not like the Senator in question. Her way of saying something about the problem was offensive and less than helpful. There are issues which need to be addressed.  
A health official likened the tower blocks to "vertical cruise ships". All I can say is I feel intensely concerned for those who live in them.

Who else is going to "run for President"?

I should not comment on the politics of another country. (We have enough problems here in Downunder.) I will however say I was rather bemused to see that yet another individual has put his hand up to have a shot at winning the Presidency of the United States.
Who would actually want the job?
I would not want to be Prime Minister of this one - although the job might be a little easier.
I once came dangerously close to being a member of the state parliament. Even now I breathe a huge sigh of relief that things turned out differently.
I attended a meeting at the request of one of the organisers. It was one of those, 
     "Cat, can you please come along? We have the official registration and X.... is going to stand as the candidate. You know more about how these things work than the rest of us so can you help us get through the hoops?"
Against my better judgment I went. Let it be said that I sympathised with the general aim of the party - an increased awareness of the rights and needs of people with disabilities.  
There were far more people at the meeting than anyone expected - about twice the number.  That didn't altogether surprise me either. I knew that some people had been working hard behind the scenes to get people there.
As they came up I answered questions as best I could. Then someone said,
    "We can afford to put a second candidate up and we should. It will show people we are serious."
    "We should."
    "Yes, good idea. We should have someone in reserve."
People looked at the candidate who would be number one on the ticket. Would he agree? 
Yes, he thought it was a good idea too.
Then the pressure was on me. It was on me because "you know a lot" and "if they see your name there then lots of people know you and they might vote for Number One."
I refused...and refused. Eventually I said, 
    "Why don't you call for nominations for a second candidate and see who is willing?"
They chose another candidate.
Number One died suddenly and completely unexpectedly before election day. The issue got considerable publicity. The party got what had to be a "sympathy" vote from voters and the young girl who had believed there was no chance was catapulted into parliament.  It was something  nobody expected.
She had a strong team and generally good advice behind her so her one term in parliament was, as such things go, a success. I knew it was very unlikely that she would get a second term. She did not. The party is no longer a political party although it is an advocacy group.
I discussed this with someone who raised the issue of a certain "rapper" wanting to be President of the United States.
    "You should have done it Cat. You would have won a second term easily. "
I doubt it. 
I would have hated the job. There were things the party wanted that I could not in all conscience support. I would have been trying to get action on issues I know will never be acted on in the ways party members wanted.  Some things are simply impractical. The money will never be there for others. I could not have delivered.
Outside parliament I can still do more than I ever could have done inside.  

Two dogs came to visit yesterday

and their human too of course.
J... is a friend of ours. She has always taken on a dog that needs to be "rescued" for one reason or another. Eight years ago she took on my uncle's completely undisciplined dog. My uncle had to go into a nursing home and of course the dog could not go with him. We did not know J.... at the time. How she trained that affectionate but idiotic animal is beyond me. It was an adult dog by then. From all accounts she did a good job and even occasionally travelled a long distance for my uncle to see the dog again. 
She rescued another dog in between that one and the current two. It was very elderly and spent the last years of its life in a comfortable home with slow walks to the end of the street "and sometimes around the corner".  J.... knows how to care for dogs.
These two have come from an elderly couple who could no longer care for two such lively dogs - lively even at the ages of eight and seven. She is still training them into her way of doing things. 
Would the Senior Cat like a visit from two dogs? Of course! He would love to have a dog but it would be completely impractical if not also downright dangerous. 
As I opened the front door they both bounded in without hesitation. So different from humans! 
The quieter of the two spent some time sitting on the Senior Cat but they both had to explore the parts of the house I had not shut off. I had been warned to do this!
There was dog related conversation of course. J... does not believe these two are particularly intelligent but they were definitely alert. They saw our visiting cat outside and barked. (The visiting cat is very intelligent. It simply looked at them and strolled on. No doubt he will tell me later just what he thinks of visiting dogs.) 
After they had gone though I thought that, pleasant though it was, I am glad we do not have a dog. Dogs are work, a lot of work. They are like small children in that they need to be registered, fed, bathed, trained and walked. There are also visits to the vet.
Cats are much more independent. 
No, I don't want another cat either - much as I am very fond of them. It is all too much work if you care for them as they should be cared for. 
I care about them too much for that. 

The importance of creating things

has been occupying me of late.
One of the Senior Cat's friends rang a couple of days ago. She was wondering if it was possible to get a piece of timber from him. Her daughter wants a shelf. She thinks her son-in-law can cope with making this.
The timber is not a problem. The Senior Cat still has a timber stash like the yarn stash of many knitters of my acquaintance and the fabric stash of many quilters of my acquaintance. 
He even has a few church pews left. They were given to him when the church on the main road merged with the church up the hill. They are made from a species of oak specific to Downunder.
The rest of those pews were turned into toys and other items for two church fetes and a local women's shelter.
I answered the phone and told the Senior Cat what the call was about. He sighed.
    "Plenty there. They can help themselves. There are still a couple of the longer pews there. They might be ideal. If he isn't much of a woodworker I can tell him what to do."
The son-in-law may appear some time today to investigate.
We also have two visitors coming early this afternoon. One of them is a spinner, knitter and crocheter. Her work is beautiful. It is not simply well done but also imaginative. She likes to try things out, to experiment. 
The friend she is coming with likes mosaic work. To me this is incredibly fiddly and hard on the hands but the potential textures and colours and lines still fascinate me. I don't think she has had much time of late but I am sure she will also have something to show me.
The Senior Cat is looking forward to all this because, although he no longer prowls out to his beloved shed he is still wants to make things. The floor around his desk and office chair was a mess of paper again yesterday. He is trying something new in origami and the related arts. I have not inquired too closely. He doesn't like to be bothered until he has worked things out. I know he will talk to the mosaics person while the yarn person and I look at dyes and plies and more.
The Senior Cat often talks to other people about the importance of creating things. He has done it all his life. He encouraged us to do it and the students he had in schools to do it. The most content people I know are those who create something. It doesn't matter what it is - a meal, a garden, garments, objects, poems, books, sculptures. They aren't always happy because we all have down times but even when they are unhappy there is something lurking there that gives them hope for the future. 
There is timber here the Senior Cat will never use now. Brother Cat will take some of it with him. We will eventually find a home for the rest. I have more yarn than I can use too - much of it given to me. I will find a home for that too one day.
But I intend to use as much of it as possible - because we need to create things.