Greta Thunberg's emissions advice

would appear to be a catastrophe in the making - if it has not already happened.  "Everyone should get on to climate change issues and follow her advice," I was told  yesterday. It is one of the many interesting little snippets of conversation it is possible to have with complete strangers when "minding the shop" at the state's Show. 

I did some hours  there yesterday sitting at the information desk in the Handicrafts area. I answered queries about where to find things, why certain things had won prizes, why something had two blue ribbons, how long it might take to make "that quilt". I fielded complaints about the way things had been judged and more about the way things were displayed. At one point I talked to a woman of 96 who has been entering things in the Show for more years than I have been alive. (Her granddaughter might have brought her in a wheelchair but she was still planning her entries for next year.) 

Inevitably I spoke to a number of people I know or had known in the past. Someone introduced herself as a person who had been in the same primary school class as the Black Cat. Another as someone the Senior Cat had taught even more years before that. 

And there were some oddities. There was the man who had just retired and was teaching himself to quilt using only recycled items of clothing. "That's not the way it was done,"he told us of the art works on the walls. Yes, in a way, he was correct. There was the severely autistic boy for whom the sensory overload of the surroundings was getting too much. His carer was getting anxious and looked positively alarmed when I spoke quietly to him and got him to touch what I was working on. I gave him one of the tiny leaves I had just knitted. I need to knit many more and the soft texture was just what he needed. No, he didn't thank me or even look at me but he quietened down and they went on their way. 

And there was the inevitable "climate change" warrior. He wanted to tell me "all about Greta Thunberg and how amazing she is". He went on and on. He was not in the least interested in anything any of us might have to say. He was totally determined to deliver his lecture on the way "a sixteen year old has changed the world". He told us "what she has done is absolutely amazing. It helped to get the present government to take climate change seriously. They need to get her out here to address parliament and get all those deniers to listen."

He had plans of his own too - all taken from Greta Thunberg's activities. Like so many other zealots he had "ideas" that are completely impractical. 

Alarmingly there are people who are so convinced of the rightness of all this they are going to bring about power and water shortages if they are allowed to proceed. Thunberg was sixteen when she started her campaign. She is nineteen now. In three years she may have made some people more aware but she has not solved the world's climate change problems. It is likely she has added to other problems and that there will be other catastrophes as a result.

I was eventually saved from all this by one of the paid security staff coming up with a, "Excuse me but I need you to come and look at this."

I excused myself saying, "This building runs entirely on renewables and recyclables." (It does.) The security person led me off and pointed at something in one of the cabinets asking quietly, "You did need rescuing? He's been doing the same thing all over the place every day."

Yes, I did. I just wish someone would take him up to the roof of the building and show him. It's a very big building indeed and it was planned to be very energy efficient long before anyone had heard of Greta Thunberg.   

There have been two murders

in this state in the last two days. 

Murder is relatively rare here and two in rapid succession have caused more concern than usual.

"Are we becoming more violent?" one of the dog walkers asked me as he passed this morning. 

I don't know what the statistics are but it is something I too have wondered. We seem to see and hear more about such things now. The nightly news seems to be full of that sort of thing. Last night's news from Canada was genuinely horrific. I was not watching it as such as I was, as almost always, doing something else. I couldn't shut out the horror of it though as I thought of all those directly impacted by the violent death of at least ten people. Yet again I wondered what causes people to do such things. 

One of the things the government in this country, a relatively new government, wants to do is have a referendum on "including an indigenous voice in parliament". The arguments for this are not convincing but, given the general lack of understanding of our Constitution and how the political process works,  it may succeed. What it is not going to do is change the levels of violence in many remote communities. 

Murder has occurred there. A much needed and well respected nurse was killed in one of those communities several years ago. There is nobody doing the job there now and there are still discussions about the need for there to be two people doing the job at all times. I can't see that happening. It is simply too expensive because too many of these communities have an unemployment rate so high it could scarcely go higher. Children attend school sporadically even when they are supposedly being taught "in their own language" and "about their own culture". I wonder if that is not actually contributing to the problems rather than solving them. How do children in those communities learn the fluent standard English and the skills which will help them get employment? 

I am told, by more than one source, that the "language" these children are taught in does not, shall we say, "cater for life in the twenty-first century". It is not the language of their ancestors. The communication needs of their ancestors were different. And the idea that they are being taught "about their own culture" is equally incorrect. They are learning something about it but only those parts which are open to public view. Much of it lies behind closed ceremony and is being rapidly lost. Yet others keep saying that all this must not be lost, that it must be "preserved".

I think "preservation" is part of the problem. If you want to live it then it also has to be free to change and develop. If we don't do that then we will have frustrated and angry people who will do harm to others. 

We do have a space industry

of sorts. 

No, we are not sending astronauts up to that space station somewhere "up there" but we do help other countries to do that - and to keep those who make the journey safe.

My maternal uncle worked on the early space program in Downunder. Every so often he would be off for a few days to the mysterious "rocket launching site" in the north of this state.  What he did there was a mystery. It remains a mystery. He was not permitted to talk about it. We knew he was helping with the rocket launches but that was all. 

As he was, like his father, a "precision man" he was probably working on something that required the sort of measurements that are hard to comprehend  - the one thousandth of a millimetre type.  I doubt I would have understood a word even if he had told us anything. My brother would have been more interested -  but not so interested he wanted to go into that sort of work. I know one young man  who would be interested. He is studying "micro-engineering". His real interest is in medical applications but he would see connections.

Our present space industry is supposed to be one of those areas where the future lies but it is struggling for funds. There are people who simply think it is all a waste of money. They sit there each day and work via computer and forget that without the space industry we would not have the satellite connections that allow the internet to work. Knock out a satellite or two or three or more and the world would be a very different place. 

As a kitten in primary school I went on an excursion. The entire school, about fifty children altogether, went to the weather station on what is known as the "west coast" of this state. We saw all the equipment which was used and the meteorologist there answered all our questions. He also launched a black balloon which was used  to help with the forecasts.  I remember the awed silence as he explained all this. 

Now it all seems very primitive. Satellites are used for weather forecasting. They let scientists make observations about climate and natural disasters.  There are still all sorts of instruments here on the ground, some of which make those fascinating patterns, but  a lot of the work is now done using satellites and the instruments within them.

We need a space industry. I am not sure about "sending men to Mars" but help to read the weather is useful....and so is the internet.  

Is "parenthood" a career?

At the recent "Jobs and Skills  Summit" there was another demand for more women to return to the workforce. We are being told that there are all sorts of economic and other benefits to come if this happen. 

Women are told that it is their "right to go to work" and their "right to have a career" and that they will find their lives more "satisfying" if they have something "outside the home". I note the same things do not appear to be said about men. 

When I was a mere kitten many more women stayed at home and cared for the children. "Day care" and "preschool" were unknown and "kindergarten" was, if it was available, something you attended perhaps one or two mornings or afternoons a week. Now children as young as six months can be place in "long day care". The standard of care in such places varies enormously. Some of it can be very good but much of it is less than desirable when compared with good at-home care. 

Add to that the belief that both parents need to work in order to pay the bills. Yes, it might be true but it is less true than people want to accept. It costs a lot to have a child, even more than one child, in day care and preschool care. That has been recognised by "subsidies" provided not by the government but by other taxpayers.  Those subsidies, while often very generous, do not cover the whole cost. As children grow older there is "out of school hours" care, "holiday care" and much more.

Then there is expense of going to work (often a second car is involved), the appropriate clothing, the extra food expenses because "pre-prepared is faster", and all the other expenses associated with both parents going to work.  When available grandparents are also expected to help - expectations which come from government as well as parents. 

Having "more women in the workforce" is supposed to be "an economic game-changer". Perhaps it is. It has certainly allowed more people to work at childminding - minding the children of other people. 

My mother and other women of her generation who stayed at home and looked after their own children got something called "Child Endowment". It was a non-means tested,  universal allowance brought in by the Commonwealth government in 1941. small payment intended to be used for the expenses of caring for any children after the first under the age of sixteen. The first child was also included later. It was paid to mothers, not fathers at the rate of five shillings a week. 

I remember my mother going to the Post Office to collect the payment with a bank book. I also remember seeing many other women do the same thing. It is likely that the money represented the difference between eating and not eating. Of course there would have been men who demanded that the money was turned over to them and men who kept back that amount so they could use it for themselves but, for the vast majority, it was welcome extra which could be used on food and clothing for the children. It was certainly how my mother used it. "When the child endowment is paid we can...."

"Child support" payments now are much more generous but not everyone is eligible for them. It is one of those ways in which mothers are "encouraged to return to work".

But I do wonder about all this. I know mothers who did not want to go back to work. They would have welcomed a small payment to stay at home. The "economic benefit" of them being in the workforce was so low they were working for, at most, a few dollars an hour. There was all the stress of being a partner and a parent too. At the same time they felt compelled to return to work because that was what was and is expected of them. Sometimes they have to keep up professional registration and employers do not want part-time employees so they are working extended hours.

If we want both parents in the workforce surely we need to at least consider more part-time work and more job sharing? That of course will also involve ways of making that possible and cutting away a lot of the red tape involved in employing someone and the demands being made by the union movement. 

I am not holding my breath. 

The Show starts today!

One of my small neighbours has just reminded me of this...and then "that means one more sleep before we go!"

I assume that means his family is going to our state's "Royal Agricultural and Horticultural Society" Show tomorrow. It has been three years since the  last one and he cannot really remember it apart from being permitted to pat one of the animals.

I was at the showground yesterday. It was a very busy place. As I had to both deliver and collect I was feeling a bit concerned. Normally I can pedal right in to the centre of the grounds. This is where the main office is situated. On most occasions there is simply a gate open at either end. People with cars can park in one of the car parks and access the office easily.

"It will be okay Cat," I was told, "Just tell them what you are doing."

So, I pedalled up to where I needed to go in and no, it was not "okay". 

"You can go and try the other one but they won't let you in either," the rather sour-faced security man told me.

Middle Cat and I had come across him before. He is one of those "difficult" people who likes applying rules he has made up for himself as well as those that actually apply. I didn't bother to argue with him but went off to the other gate. If they would not give me access then I'd call the Office and either get them to come to me or ask them to say I was to be given access.

But, no problem at all. "Of course, just go carefully."

And oh was I careful! There were not just people everywhere but vans and lorries and cars and electric carts, a tractor and then a very large and slow moving piece of equipment being put into place. I kept well to the side and watched backwards and forwards and sideways.

The Office was very busy too. Phones were ringing and people were moving things in and out. I was concerned that I should need to be there at all. They were all so busy but someone gave me a wave and said, "I'll tell her you are here."

I was out again in less than five minutes and making my way back out the gates. The two security men asked me, "All fixed?" I told them "Yes, thank you!" and they sent me on my way with another, "Be careful now!"

I left behind all the buzz of the set up, all the concern of getting things done on time. I will be in and out in the coming week and it will be interesting but it won't be quite the same as the buzz of the set up.  It is good when people work together like that. 

The university debating society is dead

- or so it would seem. Also gone is something else but I will return to that in a moment.

There were reports yesterday of how one of our biggest and most prestigious universities in the country had to call in security and, for his own safety, escort a former Prime Minister off the premises. It looked a rather nasty situation.

The reason? The Student Union decided he, as a "Liberal", should not be permitted to speak at an event organised by law students. It was eventually held online. 

I do not particularly care for the former Prime Minister in question. There are in fact any number of things about him I do not like at all but he was invited to speak. It was an invitation that broke no laws and he should have been able to accept it without being in any way threatened. If the students wished to disagree with him then the place to do it was in the question and answer session which would undoubtedly have followed his talk. If other students did not want to participate then they should simply have stayed away - not prevented their fellow students from challenging him.

I went to a number of guest speaker talks at university. One was with a woman who later became a High Court judge. I did not agree with something she said and neither did a number of other people. We challenged her but we did so in a way that caused her to say to us afterwards that she had welcomed the "civilised" debate. Good. That's the way things should proceed.

Now there are demands that students follow the "politically correct" or "woke" lines about everything. The student union in this state has recently published something that can only be held to be anti-Semitic. It calls for a Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel. The Jewish students at the university, who generally keep a low profile anyway, felt threatened by it. 

My own time at university, and I went to more than one and have taught at more than one, was not perfect. Nothing ever is but I really do not remember anything quite like the current attempts to stifle all debate. The staff might have had differing views from the students and even on occasion allowed those views to influence their marking but I cannot remember any violence or even threats of violence. The students made demands and things sometimes got heated, even very heated, but I cannot remember any occasion on which someone lawfully on the premises was removed by the police. 

Universities should be hotbeds of dissent but informed and civilised dissent. Only allowing one set of information to be broadcast and one way of expressing it is surely not the purpose of a university? Dissent and debate are essential to progress.

The "Jobs and Skills" summit

being held in the nation's capital today and tomorrow would appear to be nothing more than one of those glorious "feel good talk-fests". 

I have just read the agenda for the two days. It begins with "light breakfasts" for those who are apparently incapable of finding their own. For goodness' sake these are supposed to be high level union and business people and they can't get their own breakfast at their place of accommodation? Yes, some will of course but it would be interesting to know who puts their hand out for a "free" breakfast...and how much they consume at it. 

And then the agenda is filled with what might be termed "the usual topics".  Things like "equal pay" and "growth in productivity" and "wage growth" and "enterprise bargaining" all appear on day one - along with the inevitable "clean energy and tacking climate change" - forty-five minutes are being devoted to that but only thirty to current skill needs. There are a further forty-five minutes to discuss future skill needs on day two. Migration in relation to the labour market is also considered on day two. Changing attitudes, tackling discrimination, and "workforce participation" also appear on day two.

I am no expert but the emphasis seems wrong to me. If this "summit" is supposed to be about jobs and skills then it seems to me the concentration should be on current and likely future jobs and the skills which will be required to fill them. Many of the other issues, while important, are things that are ongoing. They will go on for years. There are no absolute or easy solutions to issues like "equal pay". It is one of those things which is fine in theory but is not always possible in practice. (And, it occurs to me, may be further confused in the current debate about gender.)

There are no easy answers to the skills which might be needed either. At least there though it is possible to suggest where the shortages will lie and question how the future workforce might be encouraged to take up those positions. To do that though surely the schools should also be involved? Of course there are already people working on these things but few of them were invited to attend.

So, what is the point of the "summit". It seems to me it is not a summit at all. A summit suggests something having been climbed. This is about most attendees remaining at sea level waiting for guides who won't arrive.

They can go home early on day two - the summit ends at 2:45pm.