"Arresting Gerry Adams will

just wreck peace in Northern Ireland," someone told me yesterday. This man has strong views on Ireland. He was born there but came to Australia as a very small child. He has never been back. It does not stop him having strong views about Northern Irish politics.
His parents, now deceased, were once supporters of the IRA - until they ran into trouble and had to leave. I suspect that this man is a sympathiser.
I don't know whether Mr Adams is innocent or guilty of the crime he is being questioned about. Given his history it is unlikely that he is innocent of all crime - but that will not, of course, mean that he should be convicted of something he did not have some role in.
But will it "wreck peace"? Should those charged with enforcing the law risk peace by arresting a popular figure? They are interesting questions.
If a "peace process" fails because of the arrest of one man for a serious crime then surely there never was peace? There might have been a temporary truce but it would never have been peace.
I suspect most people in Northern Ireland and other world trouble spots just want peace. They want to get on with their lives. This was certainly the view of a Northern Irish teacher with whom I went to university. She told stories of how her class in Belfast would dive under the desk whenever they heard gunfire in the late 60's and early 70's. I often wonder how children like that have turned out - and how so many other children in other similar situations have turned out and will turn out.
And should law enforcement risk that peace? Some people will say "no" and that the arrest of a high profile figure like Gerry Adams is "politically motivated". I doubt that. No government wants to risk a situation degenerating again. It costs too much in political, social and economic terms. Others will say "yes" and that there must be some reason to do so.
It may well be the end of the political road for Gerry Adams. He is now, whether convicted or not, likely to be considered too much of a liability. There has always been a question as to how far he was involved. Now other political leaders are likely to question whether he has been too involved. He may not be found guilty but the questions have finally been asked in a way that cannot be ignored, "What did he order? What did he know? What influence did he have? What control did he have?"
The families of those who "disappear" in any war have a right to answers.War doesn't end with peace and the signing of a treaty. It goes on for generations.

"Let you out of the loony bin did they?"

I held my tongue and tried to ignore the ignorant individual who asked that question.
As most regular readers of my witterings know I have been visiting a friend who is currently being cared for in hospital. She is rational, lucid, intellectually able and still in control of her life. She is in the secure psychiatric ward because that is where a bed was available and she needs physical help.
They are trying to sort out pain medication and reduce her need for oxygen.
The staff in the psychiatric ward seem, from my observations, to like her. They look in as they pass. They chat. I have been in and out so many times that they know me as well. They "buzz" the door open if they see me coming and told me not to worry about reporting to the desk. Although ward rules say that patients can only use a phone near the nurses' station they have twice whisked a cordless phone down to her so that she can speak to the solicitor who is transferring her affairs from a neighbouring state.
Nobody is suggesting that she is anything other than "normal" - and she isn't. But, it is a disturbing place to be.
I know other people in there do have issues - some of them have serious issues. One or two are on frightening amounts of medication to keep them quiet.  One of them wandered into my friend's room the night before last - shouting in another language.
Yesterday she tried the same thing while I was there. I spoke to her in one of the few words I know in her own language and she stopped shouting and started crying instead. One of the staff led her off - talking quietly and calmly.
"It's all right," the staff member told me, "You did the right thing."
Perhaps I did - perhaps crying is better than shouting when you are confused and surrounded by people who don't speak your first language. They don't want to restrain her or increase her medication and have her completely lose control. My friend understands that and has even tried to calm her as well. Perhaps she comes to my friend thinking that she will be able to listen to her?
Yes, some of those people have issues. Some of them are out of touch with reality but I am puzzled by this concept of a "loony bin". These people are human beings. They see the world differently. None of them are a danger to anyone except themselves - if they are even a danger to themselves. Most of them are unhappy. I'd turn the television set in the lounge area on to a non-stop quiet comedy show - not the commercial channel it is tuned to - but what do I know?
The ward is a strange place and I admit I feel more comfortable away from it but I don't feel alarmed or concerned about being there. I feel much more concerned by the person who went by and wanted to know whether they had let me out of the loony bin.
He has a much bigger problem to deal with.

So a "debt tax" is being proposed

is it?
We will have to wait until the actual Budget Speech to be sure of that but the scaremongers are already out in the media. There are also a range of angry protests from the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, the employed, parents, those with mortgages, those who want to retire before they reach 70,  those who have already retired, indeed those who were "promised" anything at all as well as those who were not promised anything but believe they are still entitled to something.
And yes, the government got in on a "no new taxes" etc. platform.
But someone has to pay for past expenditure. We are in debt. We have to pay the debt off - and the interest bill alone is horrendous.
Oh yes, we could go down the United States road and be so deep in debt that it will be generations, if ever, before even the interest bill reaches a reasonable level. Do we want that? Is it fair to future generations?
I don't think that is wise - but then I am not an economist so what would I know? Perhaps all these people who are screaming about cuts have a point. Perhaps we should just borrow more money - no, wait a minute, the government has already done that.
Australia looked as if it came through the GFC pretty well. The previous government got widely praised for the way it handled things. It really did a lousy job because, although it kept people employed, the money was directed to the wrong things.
The government built school halls when it should have been building hospitals and aged care facilities. It built at least one school hall on a site which has now closed. It built another at a school which already had a new hall - but needed a library.
It put insulation in private housing when it should have been spending the money on regenerating the forests. We now have to pay for those things. 
If money had been spent on aged care facilities it would have had multiple social and economic benefits - places for those who need them - freeing up housing in the community and providing employment. Regenerate the forests and you are also providing on going employment as well as caring for the environment.
There were other things that money was wasted on. All governments waste money - often with an eye to the next round of voting. I am told it was not a waste of money - that infrastructure takes planning (yes) and that the economy had to be kept running (but it was running into debt). Why wasn't infrastructure being planned - and why were people putting obstacles in the way when it was being planned? The airport at Badgery's Creek should have been built years ago. Even now it is likely to run into obstacles at the NIMBY syndrome.
But when I hear people complaining about having to pay for these things when their child has "benefitted" from a new school hall and their heating and cooling bills are lower because they received benefits from the insulation scheme or that they have to pay anything at all for their child to attend a state school because their taxes are supposed to cover the cost then I wonder what they actually expect.
They will even say "there is only a certain amount of money to go around" as if they understand. It seems though that they only understand it in relation to themselves and what they want. They don't want money spent on aged care unless they or a family member needs it. They don't want money spent on disability services unless they need it. They don't want money spent on hospitals and health services unless they are ill.  They are all for "user pays" unless they need to use whatever it is - then "our taxes should pay for it". But they don't want to pay tax either. And, of course, "the rich should pay" - and by "the rich" they mean anyone at all they see as being better off than themselves.
I don't know what the answer is although I do wish that people understood economics a little better - or perhaps just basic money mathematics?
At the moment though the refrain of the economic song seems to be "It's all about me."

The "Paid Parental Leave" scheme

proposed by the present government may or may not happen. I suspect that, if it does happen, it will not be in the presently proposed form.
I don't like the idea of "parental leave" or, in most cases, "maternity leave", for the sole purpose of having children and then going back to work. To me it sends the wrong message.
It sends the message that, yes it is important for you to have children but then you can hand them over to us to bring them up. You can put them in day care and kindergarten and pre-school or hand them over to your parents or a neighbour who is caring for other children. Then you can go back to work. Once they reach school going age the same sort of thing can continue with before school care and after school care as well as the school day being handled by other adults.  It sends the message that rearing children is not "work" or that it is, at best, a part-time occupation.  
It is work and it should be, for one parent, almost a full-time occupation.
I would like to see a scheme whereby one parent was paid to stay at home and be responsible for rearing the children...at least until they are of school going age.  Yes, I know there are all sorts of other issues attached to that - many of them to do with "careers" and "adult company". In other words they are to do with adult desires rather than child rearing.
I don't know what the answer is, especially while we are told that both parents going to work is so important and we look down on those who are "stay-at-home" parents. I have my concerns too about those parents, usually mothers, who stay at home and then "hover" over their children.
But yesterday I was asked to take on a very big responsibility for someone else. It probably won't be for that long and it may not be that onerous but, when I was asked, I was told "I want you to do this because I trust you." Although the person asking me to help is an adult I had another brief but alarming glimpse of what it should be like to be a parent. I said "yes" but saying "yes"frightened me. It also, oddly, comforted me because it gives me an opportunity to do something positive to help someone else.
How can anyone who has a child who looks at them and says, often without words, "I trust you" betray that trust? How can they just pass the responsibility for rearing the child over to someone else? How can they forego that sense of comfort at being needed? We have been told it is all right to do this but is it really?
If we took child rearing seriously, child rearing as an occupation in itself, we would have a very different sort of society. I don't know whether it would be a better one but would it be worth thinking about?

"I've gone gluten free,"

someone announced to the knitting group. Homemade biscuits, delectable homemade biscuits, were being passed around. (Cookies to the Americans reading this.) She declined.
"Oh, have you been diagnosed?" someone asked sympathetically.
"No, I just decided to do it. It's obvious."
"Obvious?"
"What's wrong with me. I feel heaps better already."
"Oh, how long have you been..."
"Since Wednesday."
The exchange sparked more discussion but the person who had asked the question about "diagnosis" looked at me. We both knew what the other was thinking. If you don't feel well, get yourself checked out.
There are people who need to be gluten free. I know someone who actually needs to keep a separate kitchen for herself. Her husband cooks his own meals. She has a severe gluten intolerance and accidentally ingesting any can land her in hospital. Very few people are as intolerant as that.
But the exchange at the knitting group was topical because there is also a short piece in this morning's paper about the way in which foods which are labelled "gluten free" tend to be (much) more expensive. The gist of the article? Some things are naturally gluten free but label them as such and the price goes up - for everyone. Some gluten free foods may also contain extra sugar or other ingredients in order to make them palatable. Labelling something gluten free will not necessarily mean it is good for you.
I avoid the gluten free label and buy the cheaper version.
I have been told by more than one person that they do not like the "gluten free" bread. Nevertheless the insist that they need to it. Some people insist that it is a way of losing weight - although I have yet to meet anyone who has lost a lot of weight and kept it off by keeping to a gluten free diet.
The odd thing in all of this is that someone else I know has gone on a diet. He desperately needed to diet. He was morbidly obese. He has, to date, lost almost 40kg. He wants to lose another 40kg. If he succeeds he will still weigh considerably more than I do - and I am not as slim as I should be. Yes, he was grossly overweight, 
He did not go "gluten free". He sat down with someone and made a list of the things he should not be eating - cake, sweets, sweet biscuits came at the top of the list.
He is eating bread - good quality wholegrain bread in limited quantities. He is eating a good balanced diet in limited quantities. It is the sort of diet he is going to be able to maintain. He is reaching the point where he can now do some exercise with it - when he could not even reach his front gate without an effort.
Perhaps this gluten free diet works for some people but I look at this man and I have a feeling that the "limited quantity" diet might work just as well. 
You see, he tried "gluten free" and just put on more weight. 

We were talking about mental illness

at the library knitting group yesterday. It's a tricky subject. I know that one person in the group has been through some very dark times. She never says much and I am fairly certain I am the only person who knows how dark those times have been. I am certainly not going to say anything but I am glad I know and can help to keep the conversation on a positive track.
The conversation started because someone else was late arriving. She is not mentally ill but she has mental issues. She is grossly overweight. Her hygiene leaves much to be desired. Her knitting is like that of a small child learning to knit.
When she speaks her voice is strained, high pitched and jerky. The words don't always come out in the order she probably intends.
In her late teens this woman had an accident. She had a "closed brain injury" and it has affected her intellectually and socially.
I suspect her presence in the group has caused other people to come and then not return. Too bad. They are the ones who are missing out.
I see this woman going in and out of the library. We sometimes exchange a few words - if it is a day on which she recognises me out of context. I know someone else who, when she is not having her own issues with clinical depression, attempts to watch out for her. They both live in the same lot of social welfare housing - tiny one bedroom, living area/kitchen and bathroom places which would be depressing in themselves.
Yesterday I told the group how I have been spending a good deal of time recently going in and out of a psychiatric unit at the local hospital. It is where my friend has been placed. She was placed there because of her physical needs. Her mild anxiety due to her breathing problems is well under control now and, according to the doctor who spoke to me at her request, never needed hospitalisation. What she did need was more short term physical care for a range of issues, particularly pain management, than a normal ward could cope with. Extreme pain - with every breath you take - has serious mental consequences and they wanted to avoid that.
The good news for all concerned is that she now has a place in a nursing home. It's not quite as close as the hospital but I will be able to pedal there. She had the news for me when I arrived on Friday - news that made her look happier and more relaxed than she had for days. She won't need to go home and stay alone - a prospect which was causing much of her anxiety. Someone else will always be there to help when she needs it.
So next week she will spend a night in the new place - and then return to the hospital for a little longer for more help with her pain management issues.
As she told me this we were watching the staff gently restraining someone who was trying to climb the tree in the little garden. The tree is not in the least bit climbable and the individual could not have harmed themselves but was still completely out of touch with reality and very distressed.
"I could have been like that," my friend said.
"Any of us could," I said.
And yesterday when the woman with the closed brain injury finally arrived and then sat knitting, apparently content to say nothing after she had greeted us I thought of that incident too. She knows she is not quite "normal" anymore but is, generally, happy.
We should consider ourselves fortunate. We are fortunate.

There was national embarrassment

yesterday when a drunken Australian caused a serious disruption on a Virgin airlines plane. No, it was not a "hijacking" as first reported but it was still a very serious incident. 
I assume that, whatever other charges are laid, the passenger will be banned from flying - for life.
At the same time one of the state's police officers was facing the media to tell people of the death of a disqualified driver, age 21, and his passenger, age 27. Another man is in hospital in a serious condition as a result of the collision which occurred on a country track. The disqualified driver was driving without lights and apparently nobody was wearing a seatbelt.
The first incident was avoidable. There is no need to get drunk - or, surely, any pleasure in doing so. If you fear flying - and many people do - perhaps visit the doctor and ask for something less harmful to yourself and others? I hate to think what the cost of having to unexpectedly land a plane is - to say nothing of the inconvenience and anxiety it caused. The only thing to be said is that nobody died as a result of the incident.
The second incident was also avoidable - and, worse, people died as a result. That will have a major impact on all those involved. The monetary cost will run to well over a million before everything is sorted out. The emotional cost is immeasurable.
"Why do they do it?" the Whirlwind asked me yesterday. It is an issue which deeply concerns her. She is, in a sense, a road accident victim. Her mother was injured in a collision with a drunken driver.  Her mother subsequently took her own life due to the brain injury she sustained. The Whirlwind has had to grow up without a mother and her father without his wife. It's a lifetime of emotional pain. I don't want to count the number of times I had to hug the Whirlwind when she was a small girl and even a bigger one - because she wanted her mother.
I don't know why people do stupid, avoidable things. Everyone does silly things from time to time and they can cause accidents too but downright stupid, avoidable things? It is beyond me.
It also makes me angry.
I