Stealing food should not

be "necessary" in order to eat. This is not the 1800's. 

I am conscious of places like the Foodbank and the van which feeds some of the homeless. When the Senior Cat was alive and going to church each Sunday I would hand him items of food or toiletries to go in the box which was taken to the Magdalen Centre in the city.There it would be distributed to people in need.

I have tried to go on doing that. Now I wait until I have a box full and then a friend takes it up to the church for me or D...., the priest, will call in for more timber from the shed and take it with him. No, I am not "rich" in the sense that I can buy a lot but I am careful. I can budget. In that way I consider myself to be fortunate.

My mother was good at doing this. My grandmothers were good at doing it too. My maternal grandmother needed to do it. My maternal grandfather was not a good provider. He could have been, indeed should have been, but the money often went elsewhere. My mother was taught how to manage on very little. We had very little when I was young. Teachers did not earn much and the Senior Cat was paying fees to do his university degree as well. 

My early memories of food are of endless meals of lamb stew made from the cheapest cuts of meat or cheap minced beef with lots of rice or potato. There were other vegetables from the garden and fruit from the trees at my paternal grandparents' home. School lunches were often a Vegemite sandwich - the cheapest possible filling. As children we didn't expect anything better and I think it is likely that children right around us were eating much the same way. 

But, we ate. We grew. There were probably children who were going hungry but I strongly believe that almost all children came to school with something much the same as me to eat. There were even children who bought their lunch from the tuck shop on a regular basis. Their fathers were probably the well paid "wharfies", men who worked on the docks. 

When we moved to the country it was not much different. The bread was generally home made because there was no bakery in any of the places we lived in. The sandwich fillings became mutton from the Sunday roast, wallaby or kangaroo, or Vegemite again. Fruit was more scarce. We all found the quandongs too sour to eat without sugar. My mother would give us a few dried apricots or a dozen or so sultanas along with an apple bought at a shop in a town some distance away. Any other fresh fruit was very expensive, far too expensive for most people.

At night people ate mutton and more mutton. It was killed on the farm. We got our share from a local farmer - a hind quarter one week, a forequarter the next. Mum would make it last. She added potatoes, pumpkin and carrots. The peas came from a packet labelled "Surprise". It was a monotonous diet but we accepted it.

Now I wonder about the people here in the city who, according to the article in this morning's paper, are stealing food to survive. I have no doubt that some of them are very short of money. I have no doubt they are really struggling to survive and feed their children but I wonder how well they would survive if they were put out into the remote areas we lived in and had only the food my mother and the other mothers had. Those remote farms did not have much in the way of vegetable gardens. There was no water for that sort of thing. You had a bath once a week and all washed in the same water. 

Here there is plenty of food on the shelves in the supermarket and much of it is "own brand" now. Occasionally I have looked at things I might need to buy if I was feeding a family. I think I could feed them quite well on a very limited budget. The problem is that it would take time and knowledge to prepare the food. It is something many people no longer have. It would also mean having a family willing to eat a diet which many people would find dull now, which children might resent. There wouldn't be pizza or other fast food. 

Nobody should be going hungry here but whether some of them are able to prepare and willing to eat what we ate may be something that needs thinking about. If they were it might leave more for those who are in really desperate need.

Railway journeys alone

are on my mind - but not in quite the way you might think. 

Something popped up on Facebook yesterday. I don't know how I came to get it but it was about the tiny spur line near one of the places we lived in when I was a mere kitten. 

I know I have mentioned it before but someone was talking about the excitement of using it to go fishing from the jetty at the end of the road. I had not forgotten seeing the boys (they were always boys) with their fishing lines. I remember seeing them on the train. They would go on to the stop at the far end of the road, across the Esplanade and on to the jetty. Brother Cat always wanted to go with them but was considered too young. Still, there were boys of nine or ten among them, little older than he was.

I also remember something else. What I had forgotten was how many times I must have done it. I went on the train alone. I started to do this at age seven. This must seem extraordinary now. If I was going to see my "other" grandmother "Nana" then my mother or my grandmother "Grandma" would take me to the station. I would pedal my tricycle and it would be "parked" in the station master's little office (where it must have been in the way of his duties). A ticket would be bought and I would wait sitting on the seat for the train to come. 

When the train arrived the station master would help me on to the train and inform the guard I was going "all the way". "Nana" would meet me in the city and we would catch another train to her home which was just behind another train station. (We would climb through the back fence to get to her house.) 

When it was time for me to go home in the afternoon it would all happen in reverse except that the station master at my home station would simply see me off down the street to my own home. I would cross three small streets on my tricycle alone. I must have done that journey several dozen times. Nothing ever went wrong that I remember. 

It is something you would not even consider allowing a child to do now, particularly a child who had problems getting on and off the train. (The guards used to lift me on and off because I was not steady enough on my feet to get off alone.)

I liked those train journeys. It wasn't because I was going to visit "Nana" - something I didn't actually enjoy at all - but because I liked to watch out the window or read a book. I knew I wasn't supposed to talk to strangers, particularly strange men, but no man ever bothered me. There were always people on the train going into the city. On the way home there were not as many but there was always someone, often someone I knew. They often knew the guard too. 

It was always considered safe for me to do it. I wonder at that now. I also wonder that there are children now who have never been on a bus or a train. They have always travelled in cars and even planes. They would have no idea about how to pay for a bus or train journey but I knew. I was the one who asked for my ticket and paid the money. Now, I can't even do that because I just validate my plastic card.

I'd like to do it just once more, do it the old fashioned way with a station master, a guard and a little cardboard ticket.  

"The oldest living culture...

on earth" is the proud claim of some indigenous people in this country but is it true?

It may be but the claim does not take into account at least two things I can immediately think of. The first is that there is no single culture which relates to all indigenous people here. The second is that we have near neighbours who might well make the same claims.

There are, despite the recent trend to say "First Nations", no nations among the indigenous people in this country. There were tribes and clans and there are still tribes and clans but there were no "nations". Before white settlement many indigenous people moved within just a small area of the continent. People on one side of the country were not even aware of people on the other side. People in the north were more likely to be aware of inhabitants in the islands to the north. People in the far west of the country did not know people in the far east of the country. Their languages and cultural practices were quite different. 

The idea that there is some sort of single "oldest living culture" is nonsense but it keeps being repeated.

And then, if we look a little further north, there is a large island across a short stretch of water. It is the world's second largest island - divided into two Papua and Papua-New Guinea. It is mountainous and, as is the case with such geography, it also has many small tribal groupings. Each of those has a language and a culture too. Some of those areas are so remote it is only possible even now to reach them on foot. In some places contact with the outside world is still very limited.  I am quite certain that some of those people, if the concept was explained to them, would claim to have "the oldest living culture on earth". 

I do know though that their languages do not meet the needs of living in urban communities in this century. This is much more than a matter of translating from one language to another. There are concepts which do not exist, for which there are no words and no combination of words. Their lifestyle and relationship with others can still be very limited, much more limited than anything in this country. There are still groups who live in their own remote valleys and with whom contact is not merely difficult but dangerous.  

Do we have that in this country? No, we don't. There are some relatively isolated communities but they have much more ready contact with the rest of the country. Vehicles and satellite dishes, shelter and much more have eroded languages and cultures to the extent that there isn't as much left as we are often led to believe. The idea that some sort of single "oldest living culture" has been retained or that what is left can even be preserved is simply false.  It is as false as believing the Picts have retained their language and culture against the invasion of my Norse ancestors.  

I have said elsewhere in this blog that the "traditional dot paintings" claimed by some indigenous people are not actually traditional at all. They date from 1971 and the idea was introduced by an art teacher of European origin. Now you are not supposed to try and copy this style and it is held to be "traditional". It isn't but the media has many people convinced that it is. There is more to the "oldest living culture" claims than that but the idea that there is some sort single, pure culture across the continent is wrong. We might do more to save the remnants of the cultures which are left if we recognised that.

 

Who is Taylor Swift?

I was asked this question yesterday by an elderly dog walker (in their 90's) who stopped for a moment to check on me.

"Some sort of pop star," was my response. He nodded and then said, "I don't understand the fuss they are making...all those people spending all that money to go to a concert."

I don't understand it either. There are two people I know who are flying interstate, paying accommodation for a night as well as paying for tickets to see this person perform.

Now she may be good, very good. I have no idea but I worked out that the cost for them both to do this is much more than I would be prepared to contemplate. The tickets cost between $79 and $379 each. The air fare is around $520. Accommodation I cannot guess at because I don't know where they are planning to stay or for how long. It won't be long though - two nights at most. Then there are the other expenses of food and transport to and from the concert. It will probably cost them at least $800 each for a couple of hours of entertainment.

They are excited and I really do hope they enjoy it - but I wouldn't do it.  If there was someone performing here, someone I really wanted to see perform in person then I might be prepared to pay for one of the cheaper tickets. And yes, I do know something  about the expenses involved in putting on these concerts. My late cousin was the manager for more than one very well known group. Some of his tales were hair raising. 

And I also thought of another group we grew up with, something quite different. The "Harold Raymond" concerts were given to raise money for what was then our residential school for blind children and deaf children.  They were put together by "Mr Raymond" and consisted of a small group of people, some of whom volunteered, Mr Raymond's pianist and Mr Raymond himself. Mr Raymond was blind but he travelled the state far and wide with the help of his pianist and the volunteers. The school children in each location he stopped in sold the tickets beforehand. There was the incentive of a small prize to do this. Local communities provided their community or church halls free of charge. I suspect their accommodation was also offered at a reduced rate. 

My parents, who had known Mr Raymond for years, always provided the whole concert party with a meal. I hope other people did the same thing. Any money saved went to the school. It helped. I worked weekends in the residential nursery school. It was a volunteer position too. It had to be. They were desperately short of money at times but the full time staff would sometimes, "That's a Raymond item" meaning it had been possible to buy it with money he raised.

Looking back the concerts were not very good but people went, not just to support the cause but because it was a rare night out. It wasn't the local "footy dance" which was about the only other entertainment. 

I wonder what would happen if they tried something similar now. There might be a few takers in remote areas because few people could afford to do what the young couple I know are doing. I really do hope they enjoy themselves - but I'd rather spend the money on something else.

Frog cakes

are quite popular here. No, they are not made from frogs. 

I have no idea who thought of the idea but they are little cubes of plain cake topped with fondant. The cube is cut in half horizontally. There is a thin layer of apricot jam spread between the two halves. The cake and fondant is covered with green icing . The icing and the fondant are slit open at an angle with a bit of cream coloured icing inside for a "mouth" and then a couple of spots for eyes. 

That is the traditional "frog" cake from my childhood. You can now get chocolate and pink coloured "frogs" as well. These are not considered quite "right" but they are made. They are quite expensive to buy - understandably as they require construction in a way that other bakery items do not.  

I have not eaten one since childhood and can only remember doing that on very rare occasions. I am not sure I would enjoy one if I was given one to eat now. 

They were once unique to this state...along with "fritz" (a sort of processed sausage put in sandwiches) and "Fruchocs" (chocolate covered pieces of dried apricot - now expanded to include other fruits), and "Kitchener buns" (doughnut like balls slit open and filled with raspberry jam and cream). 

And now the business has been sold on to another business which plans to take the frog cakes to a national level. I am not sure this is going to work. These frogs were something that made us unique. It is something tourists discovered or came to find. Many of them may have been disappointed but their very rarity made them all the more precious. 

I know one child who refused to eat one "because it's a frog" (but then she refused to eat chocolate frogs too). I know an adult whose "guilty pleasure" is a one of these frogs at the end of each week. "It's better than beer." Yes, even I would prefer the frog cake.

They are an oddity we need to preserve, just for the fun of it. We need to preserve them along with the other little pleasures in life. Don't make them too common though - that would spoil them.  

Not permitted to vote?

I was interested to learn that some form of ID is apparently now required if you wish to vote in an election in England. There have also been some serious concerns expressed that this has prevented some people from exercising their right to vote. 

As I really don't know enough about what is happening there to express an opinion I will say no more. I can however say something about the situation in this country.

We do not currently need any form of ID to vote. If our name appears on the electoral roll (and we are required to register) then we must vote. Very few people are exempt from voting, mostly on religious grounds.

When we go to vote we are asked if we have voted in that election before, our names are manually crossed off the roll, and we are given the papers. We must "mark" the papers and put them in the relevant boxes.  

In reality there is nothing to stop people putting in blank ballot papers. There is no actual requirement to vote as such. Officials will however prevent you from taking the ballot papers you receive directly to the relevant boxes because of the requirement to "mark" them. I am well aware of someone I know who claims he always writes "none of the above" and then puts the papers in the boxes. It is almost certainly true. He "doesn't believe" in the voting process.

I have also met someone who was investigated because he was assumed to have voted more than once. When the rolls were checked it was discovered his name had been crossed off in multiple locations. Fortunately for him he had actually had a postal vote and was out of the country on the day of the election. Someone else was trying to make trouble for him. The authorities had a good idea of who it might have been but it was never proven. It did however mean that someone else managed to vote enough times to cancel out his own legitimate vote.

There was also an occasion when, following election day, we woke up to the news that a small group of troublemakers had apparently managed to vote more than hundred times. They must have spent some time planning and researching it because they apparently used the names of people not likely or not able to vote. If they were ever caught we did not hear about it.

Exactly how they did it is something I don't know but I do know it was possible because there is no requirement to present any form of ID when you tell the electoral staff who you are. All you need to do is state your name and address and that you have not already voted in that election. 

There are also many, many breaches of trust where people require assistance to fill out the ballot papers. It is an issue which I once researched and presented to a Senate Inquiry. They questioned me at length. Despite the findings and the acknowledgment there was an issue nothing has changed. It is probably considered "too hard" and "not likely to make a difference". I continue to disagree. 

It is a matter of "trust" I suppose and our Electoral Commission seems to be satisfied that it works, that very few people abuse that trust. It may well be true. I don't know. They may also suggest that the amount of fraud is so small it makes no difference to the outcome. I am less sure about that. Elections can be manipulated. Our "preferential" system is wide open to it. The major parties will tell you they don't participate in it but it happens, especially when people unthinkingly follow the "how to vote" (for me) card handed to them just a few metres from the entrance to the polling station.

I have said elsewhere in this blog - and on more than one occasion - I believe there is a right to vote. I also believe it is a responsibility. I do not however believe anyone should be compelled to vote or even to "attend the ballot box". I also strongly object to anyone stealing the vote of another. We have both compulsion and the strong possibility of theft, especially of the less able, in this country.

The vast majority of people do have a form of ID here. The question has to be whether we need to use it to prevent an abuse of trust.  

Five minute friends?

 There is a short piece in the paper about "five minute friends" which perhaps more people should read. It might not be quite what they think. 

The writer is talking about the rising use of "self-service" and the lack of human interaction. It is something I too have been thinking about recently. 

That concussion from the bang on the head has led to me being at home for the past couple of weeks. I am under strict instructions not to pedal anywhere until the end of this week - and then only to take a short ride up and down the street or around the block. I am not talking to people the way I usually do - or not as many people. 

For me this means simple things like saying no more than "Morning!" to the person pedalling past me in the opposite direction and "How are you?" to an oxygen dependent man who can no longer walk to the end of the street but often sits watching for me. (I did ask his wife to tell him what had happened.) Talking on the phone is an effort for him and, really, we have nothing to say to each other apart from the greeting.  There are several elderly people who live alone and I had to let their neighbours know that I wouldn't be doing any of their usual errands. One neighbour told me, "He's missing you just saying hello." Yowl! I don't like that.

I have not been in and out of the library. Middle Cat has returned and picked up books for me but that is not the same as a quick chat and a question, "Have you read....?" or "What would you suggest for....?" from the staff. 

Our favourite supermarket has not yet gone self-service. Middle Cat and I think it is because so many older people shop there. They can get help. We can talk to the check out staff - indeed I know many of them by name. Thankfully the greengrocer we go to as a matter of choice has no plans for self-service and his staff know many of the customers by name. I have missed that interaction too.

Middle Cat can chat to anyone. There are times when I am reduced to prowling around as I wait for her but those interactions are often as important for them as they are for her. "How do you know her?" or "Where did you meet him?" I will ask and it will be "in a shop" or "at the bank" or "getting something for S....(her partner)" or some other location. 

I am not as able to do that but I will do it in a more limited way. I try to be meticulous about saying "thank you". I have yet to use self-serve in a supermarket - and don't believe "nobody is losing their jobs because we are putting them behind the scenes". 

All this is just the same as losing the interaction and the service of the railway staff I mentioned yesterday. People are losing jobs because of self-service. The world is not as friendly or safe when you are looking at a machine rather than a face. Taking that interaction away is not an improvement.

The only growth industry that might involve human interaction is likely to be the mental health services - or maybe we will be faced with machines that dispense mood pills?