What would you do to save Downunder?

 

One of the regular columnists had a piece in the paper yesterday where he offered some thoughts on what he would do if he had a year to "save" the country.

 

His first offering was to say we should forget the debate about changing the date of our national holiday. Something like 67% of people strongly agree with this and a further 22% have no strong opinion one way or the other. That leaves around 11% agitating for change and getting almost all the media coverage. 

 

Ah yes, media coverage. The columnist in question would like to see the ABC "defunded". I have not watched the ABC for years but then I really don't watch much television. Right around me however people are complaining about the bias being shown by our national broadcaster. If it is even one tenth as bad as the bias shown on the only news service I do watch then yes, it should be defunded. From the glimpses I have seen it is not acting in accordance with its charter.  Most of the people I know watch news services for facts not left-wing opinions. I am not sure about defunding the ABC but perhaps they could replace some staff and there could be an external review panel to ensure more balanced coverage. I might go and look at the ABC some time if they do that.

 

If the media is there to agitate for change as well then they would surely be in favour of calling for an audit and review of where the funding for indigenous bodies is actually going. We spend an enormous amount of "indigenous programs" but they don't seem to be doing much good. I know my friend M... agrees with the columnist on this one after all there was $5.3bn spent on these programs in 2023 and 2024 and things don't seem to have improved much.  He also suggests getting rid of the "First Nations Ambassador" while we are at it. I know more than one indigenous person who agrees with that one.

 

And, like the columnist, I do think we should employ the best person for the job. Employment should not be defined by quotas relating to sex/gender orientation/race/disability/ethnicity or anything else. Changing that requirement across everything would really make a difference. 

 

The columnist's comments about the rorting of the current overseas student visas were also timely. If you are here on a student visa then you leave when you finish or if you drop out. I remember all too well that anxious two week wait to get my right to stay in the UK extended - in order to simply finish my own studies. It had the support of my supervisor, the head of the research unit, the head of the institution and the local member of parliament but it was not a given. Here there seems to be a very casual attitude to extensions.

 

We could fly the miscreants out on our flying kangaroo if the flights are not cancelled leaving passengers waiting with no assistance at the airport. The idea of mandatory compensation for passengers when flights are cancelled for "operational" reasons is something we should be considering seriously. This country is so big it needs reliable air travel in the 21stC. 

 

The columnist tells us that is a start. There were people agreeing with him this morning. He might be encouraged to add more. I can think of a few ideas myself.  

.

A bus as an air-bnb?

There is a rather extraordinary story in this morning's paper about a young couple who decided to do something rather different. They bought a bus and turned it into short stay accommodation on their leafy property in the hills behind me.

The bus can no longer be moved. It just sits there. The couple have done most of the renovation work themselves. From the photographs it looks as if they have done a good job of it too. If I was the sort of person who wanted a couple of nights in a quiet location surrounded by bushland to "recharge my batteries" then it would be ideal. 

The bus has actually been used for this purpose. It was starting to prove quite popular. And then? Yes, someone else put in a complaint. It was an anonymous complaint of course. Such complaints often are anonymous.

The bus can no longer be used. The local council moved in and have seemingly found a raft of reasons as to why the bus cannot be used as accommodation. They have also said there is no way the objections to the bus can be overcome. They have cited the "fire danger" and more. (I am not sure how there is an increased fire danger from a dwelling that was once a bus if it meets all other requirements.)

Now yes, it could be said that the young couple were rather foolish in that they did not investigate all the requirements before they spent the money on the bus and the renovations. It would have been wise. If they had found out what they know now they would not have done all that work. They would not be out of pocket. 

It could also be said that other people are now missing out on the opportunity to "get away for a couple of days". The location apparently does not overlook anything else. There have been no complaints about noise. It was bringing in a little business to the surrounding community.

The council's actions are the sort of thing which stop people from trying to show some initiative, from doing something different and from offering others something they have made for everyone's pleasure. Yes, there is a need for rules and regulations about safety but these need to be applied sensibly. The number of rules and regulations surrounding something like this it seems are ever increasing. 

A late friend who was a potter was told she could not put a sink with a tap inside her work shed in the garden. It was a council regulation "to stop people from living in sheds in the back garden". That a potter might need a steady supply of water was apparently not a consideration. It was a "council regulation under the building code" and could not be changed.  

It was just one complaint that led to all this. I am wondering if the complaint was made out of envy. Perhaps those who wrote the scripts for "Yes Minister" could do a series on local government? 

It is almost certainly illegal

under international law.

I do not know the finer points being put for the kidnapping and detention of the President of Venezuela but it is almost certainly illegal under international law.  

I have no time for Maduro or his regime but this was almost certainly a step too far. My knowledge of international law is limited but I cannot think of anywhere in any convention or any other document where it says "You can kidnap the leader of another country if you think they are a drug dealer or law breaker even if that leader is there by force rather than popular vote." The United Nations charter certainly does not permit breaches of another country's sovereignty - but they happen. Look at Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan, India, China, Sudan, DRCongo and more.

Drugs are more likely to come from somewhere like Colombia than Venezuela. They are more likely to come by much more circuitous routes. They may route through Venezuela, almost certainly do, but they are likely to come from other sources. That they are a problem is obvious. That Maduro is a dictator who has no legitimate claim to power is also obvious.

But is this really what the raid was about? If this is the case why not Putin in Russia or Kim in North Korea? They are both effectively dictators with no legitimate claim to their positions. Closer to America what about Díaz-Canel in Cuba? 

Taking out Maduro and taking over the running of the country is about something else - oil. Venezuela has the world's largest known oil reserves. Sanctions on trading oil were being broken. Control the flow of oil and you have potentially have even greater power than you already have. There are also vast mineral resources. This is surely why President Trump is saying they will "run the country for the present". 

Venezuela's oil industry is not in good shape right now. It needs a lot of work. The companies with oil interests, like Chevron, may not be that interested in trying to repair it right now but they will be given incentives to do so if this coup works.  Yes, it is a coup of sorts.

President Trump has territorial ambitions. He has stated Canada and Greenland will become part the United States of America in the future - not that they may like to but that they eventually will. For him there should be no border between the USA and Canada and Greenland is needed for "strategic" reasons. Really? Will Mexico be next? Will the Panama Canal be next?  If the Panama Canal why not the Suez - for "strategic" reasons perhaps?

Should we be celebrating the downfall of a dictator or concerned by the way in which this has happened? Yesterday someone asked if we were headed for a wider war.  I hope not.  

 

 

   

Research funding is not available

for a project which has shown a positive advance in a technique which could improve the eyesight for some people with macular degeneration. Research funding is not available for looking at the effectiveness of non-electronic communication aids in developing the communication skills of children who have profound physical and/or intellectual disabilities.

These are just two research projects of which I have first hand knowledge. Both of them were worthy of funding. They both had the capacity to directly advance the quality of life of others. Both of them were turned down on spurious grounds. 

There is another project I am peripherally involved in which involves communication between medical staff and patients. I would have thought there could be no doubt at all about the value of this project. Good communication between doctors, nurses and all other medical staff and the patients they are treating would seem to be absolutely vital for best outcomes. There was a tiny grant for a limited study but the grant did not come from the funds of our nationally based "research council".

This morning our state newspaper has an article saying that our national university has just been given a $1.48m grant for a four year study into changing the date of our national day (currently 26 January) and the failure of the referendum on the Voice (the indigenous voice to parliament). Both of these are issues which the research council seems to think are important and both have had plenty of media attention.

There is a group of people who think we should celebrate a national day on a different date. Their reasons for doing it vary but the reason that gets the most attention is that it celebrates "invasion day". This is the day that white settlers "took over" this country. We are constantly told by those who object to the day that it is "offensive" and "hurtful". Yes, there is a possibility that a very small number of people feel that way. My own experience is very different. There is no strong feeling among indigenous people about the date. Those claiming offence and hurt often have as many or even more ancestors who are guilty of the acts which claim to do so much harm. This is one of those issues which allow people to be "activists". It is fanned by the media as a way of keeping the issue alive. Without any media attention the issue would dwindle to almost nothing but with media attention there is scope for "rallies" and "marches" and "demands for reparations" and more. 

The Voice was doomed to failure from the start. For all the support it was given in the media the reality is that it is not what indigenous people themselves wanted. The idea that there needed to be something permanently attached to the Constitution to permanently protect indigenous people was seen by indigenous people I know as saying "you will always be citizens in need of special protection". It is not the way they see themselves.

We need to address the issue of what it means to be "indigenous" and who that means. It is however seen as an untouchable issue. There does not appear to be any means of acknowledging the division caused by the demands made by a small group of "activists". It has grown out of control now. Are you really "indigenous" if just one of your great-great-grandparents might have been but this cannot even been proven? We have become fearful of being termed "racist" if we even question such claims or the access to the benefits of such a claim. 

This is research funding being wasted on perpetuating division and claims to disadvantage. I know what I would prefer the available funding to be spent on and I am sure other people would also like to lay claim to equally worthy projects.  

 

Other people's marital relations

are none of my business unless they directly affect me. By that I mean if a friend wants me to child mind so she or he can deal with a marital issue then I need to be involved to the extent that the children are cared for if I can do it. Please, leave it at that.

I am not interested in the marital issues between a sports person and their partner. It is none of my business. It is none of the media's business. It may be the business of some "club" or other if it is affecting their financial affairs I suppose but it does not need to be splashed all over the paper for days on end. 

I have been skipping over the articles about some football/rugby/soccer player for days now. Much has been made of it. It has been much worse than usual. I suspect the "story" is being used to try and deflect interest in our Prime Minister's failure to act and the way his closest allies are trying to support him but also deflect criticism of their own failure to act.

"Cat won't know anything about it," one of my local acquaintances said as we were standing waiting for a train.

"No - and I do not want to know. It is their private affair and if the media would leave them alone then the pressure on them would be much less to begin with," I said.

No, apparently I am wrong. These are "public figures". They are fair game when it comes to what should, in my opinion, be their private lives. All I can do is disagree.

Years ago now I was in a lift in a building which houses a lot of people who are usually considered to be "VIPs". Some of them are very important people indeed. I was, unusually for the lifts in that building, on my own. Someone else got in on the next floor and he was a very, very VIP. He gave me a long suffering look as if to say, "Now I suppose I have to make polite conversation to another complete stranger who will be all over me because of my position."

I took a risk, partly because I was feeling very nervous about who I was going to meet and what I was going to ask them to do. I said, "It's all right. I don't know who you are."  

My assessment of his character was right. He laughed and. in a genuinely interested way, asked what I was doing there. I explained briefly. He nodded and, as we exited the same floor, he made sure that the other VIP's secretary was there to meet me and escort me where I needed to go. 

Some years later I saw this same man on the other side of the room at another event. I did not expect to even be acknowledged. He would not remember me...except he did. He excused himself from talking to some other important people and came over to me for just a moment. He greeted me in a warm and friendly manner. He remembered what I had been there for at the previous encounter and asked how I felt about the outcome. 

I was aware of several people around me wondering what it was all about. They wanted to know of course but I just said, "We happened to meet one day. That's all." 

Those around me did not need to know any more than that.  One of my colleagues at the time looked at me and said to the rest of the group. "Leave it. Cat's right. We don't need to know."

There is a lot we don't need to know. It might make for better relationships. 

I was verbally abused in

the local shopping centre yesterday. Most of the centre was not open and all I had gone to do was re-post some letters that had arrived for the former tenant.

As I was putting them in the box I heard someone running up behind me and then, "You f.... spastic bitch! You have no f... idea have you? You are a f.... Jew lover. They're all the same. They'd kill you sooner than...." 

I won't add any more. I am not sure I can remember it accurately - or that I wish to do so.  It was a stunning assault. It came about following my letter to our state newspaper the day before. It  was the lead letter and a written response from someone with alternative views may not have been so surprising but this was something different. 

There were enough people around that, although shaken, I did not feel frightened. People were looking shocked and two of the men made moves which I guessed would mean my verbal assailant would be grabbed if he tried to make the assault physical. 

I am well used to people disagreeing with me over letters to the editor. It is often the case that I will know they will. They are people who tend to hold very extreme views about the issues under discussion. This was more than that. This person apparently believes that all Jews are guilty of murder, that they want to control the world and that everyone else is at risk. Where they get such ideas from is beyond me.

In my early teens I was given lessons in musical theory by a nun. My siblings were all learning to play the piano and Sister S.... offered to teach me theory as well. She told my parents it would be "useful" and it has been. She told me it would be "more than useful" and taught me much more than simply reading the notes on the page. I can still remember clearly the day when there had been an anti-Semitic incident in the local news. I cannot remember what happened. It was unlikely I would even have been particularly aware of it except for the fact my paternal grandfather knew the man who had been targetted.

"Ask your grandfather child, " Sister S... told me, "The Jews are to be pitied, not condemned."

My Jewish friends may not want my pity but they appreciate my concern. I am not going to stop showing that concern because someone condemns me for it.  

There are no resolutions

being made here. It would be a waste of time and energy. They would not be kept.

I do have a growing list of things I would like to do. They are not resolutions. Most of them are unlikely to be achieved but I can try. 

I really do no see the point of those "New Year's resolutions". It might be interesting to do some research into how often they (do not) happen. That I have a growing list of things I would like to do seems infinitely more important. Making time for at least some of them is simply a matter of commonsense. I feel the need to achieve something or I will, as someone I know put it, "simply slowly slip into slothfulness". Hmmm....I had better not try that one. There is too much to be done that must be done.

But today is New Year's Day. I did not stay up last night to see the New Year in. What is it that makes people want to do that? It was mercifully quiet around here.  Middle Cat's partner is off to a neighbouring state's capital today. He is going to do some work on the bathroom in their son's home. Middle Cat and I plan to be "mice" and play by going to the many flavours of ice cream place for a scoop (or two) of ice cream...taken away and eaten one lick at a time in a quiet place. 

If you are reading this and making resolutions I wish you the best of luck. To everyone else "Thanking you for being here and reading my witterings this last year. I will try to continue them but it is not a resolution."