King hit

There has been a spate of assaults in Sydney over the past weeks.  The scenario all too often involves young men out in the city, going to clubs and drinking.  What is alarming is how it seems to be escalating, with the worst cases ending in hospital on life support, or in a morgue - and that so many attacks are either unprovoked or the provocation so trivial that it is incomprehensible.  Last weeks victim refused a stranger a cigarette.  For that he was king hit.  He is so severely injured he requires brain surgery.  His friends who tried to deflect the attacker were also injured. The perpetrator? A man out on parole.

I can think of at least three examples of offenders on parole in the news recently for committing significant violent acts.  These men were supposedly rehabilitated, surely that is the only reason they could be considered for early release?  Why is our justice system all of a sudden having all these failures?  These men (and they have been men) have been locked away once for violent acts, then set free to do it all over again.  And I am not an advocate of locking people away indefinitely, not at all, but something is going badly wrong, and it needs to be addressed.  

I must admit, these items of news do draw me in, and I have been reading the paper more recently, so perhaps it is the change in my own behaviour as a news consumer that is at issue.  I am interested in the items because I have a son in the age group of these victims, a young man of 19, who does enjoy a night out in the city with his friends, seeing bands and having a beer.  And he goes by train. And the last train home gets to our stop at 12.30, meaning the night out finishes at 11.18pm, or he stays in the city till the next train at 4.03am.   Neither of these are good options.  I don't like the idea of him in the city, or on the trains at night.  He's a big bloke, and strong but that is no guarantee of safety.  Being in a public area is no guarantee of safety.  

When my children were babies, I naively thought that that time was the hardest time.  I was so terribly tired and disorganised and life felt out of control.  It seemed endless and the days stretched ahead of me.  Now, I'd love that degree of control, knowing they were all tucked up safe and well in their beds - before I got into mine, safe and warm until morning.  Even the stumbling in the dark as I tended to their physical baby demands, then their toddler nightmare anguish, school child anxieties and teenage heartaches pales into insignificance, compared to lying in bed waiting.   Waiting to be sure they return, safe to me again.  Waiting for the reassurance that the nightmare of random violence has not fallen on my family this night.

Kevin and Julia

No doubt the blogosphere is teeming with angsty posts about Australian politics today.  It is inevitable after the latest leadership debacle (no other word quite encompasses the situation).   Only months from the federal election, Australian Labor have voted out the current PM, and chosen another.  The same man they tipped out of office 3 years ago, just before the last election. It is a last ditch effort to win back the voters, with a leader who is apparently 30% more popular than Ms Gillard, and it worked for them three years ago, so who knows what will happen come election time.  The Australian voter is a capricious creature, unpredictable, changeable as the wind.  I didn't think Ms Gillard would triumph three years ago, so my prophetic abilities are dubious, and I have no idea what will happen in September, I don't even know who I will be voting for.

The picture the Herald printed last night of Mr Rudd smirking looked undeniably smug.  I am sure I heard him interviewed on the radio in the last 12 months insisting he was committed to the current leadership and had no intention of challenging it.  This is a man unable to keep his word, and what will that mean to the electorate?  I think as a nation we have a problem with authority figures, and in three years, if Kevin gets in, he'll be equally unpopular.  He's only attractive now because of the weird under dog thing we have going, we like the losers until they succeed, then we ruthlessly cut them down and toss them in the trash. 

He does present an alternative to Tony Abbott, a politician I truly dislike.  Just an aside, but why can't we have a well dressed, smart looking head of state like in the days of Paul Keating? Now he knew how to dress.  He had polish.  Rudd looks like he's ready to get into a scrum on a footy field, maybe that's his appeal, though I think his major appeal to the common man is that he isn't that red headed woman.  I don't understand why red heads are so maligned, it's just a colour (and a pretty one).  As for maligning women, there is undeniable precedent for that.  

To the average Australian though, there is a degree of distaste at the bickering, and changing and ganging up.  I don't profess to know much about politics, but it really doesn't present well, however good the reasons behind the moves are.  I suspect it is all smoke and mirrors and we are being manipulated in some way to do something.  Maybe this is why we don't spend money on education, dumb down the population so we are easier to fool.  Maybe.

How does this happen?

When I first saw Kristi Abrahams during this interview for the television news, I was unconvinced of her sincerity, there was something that just didn't "feel" right.  And I wanted to believe her.  I wanted to believe that no mother could ever do what it was suggested she had done.  I wanted her to be better than I felt in my heart she was.  I told myself that I couldn't judge her by her appearance, by her awkward manner. She was a woman who had just lost her child, who was I to say how she should or should not act under those terrible circumstances.

I followed the Facebook page a little obsessively, dismayed that the reaction to her was so similar to my own.  Where was our compassion? 

It took more than a year for the truth to come out, more than a year before her body was found in a shallow grave, in a suitcase.  And as more and more facts of the case are revealed, the more my heart breaks over this poor broken little girl who was betrayed by the people who should have protected her, and by a system overloaded with other heart breaking cases of neglect and abuse.  Overloaded to the point that even though they knew that Kristi Abrahams had burned her daughter with cigarettes, that she was almost constantly covered in bruises, that she was screamed at and hurt, they did nothing.

In the 4 or 5 months that she should have been in school in what was the last year of her short life, Kiesha attended 4 times.  4 days that yielded a total of 7 separate reports to DOC's.  And they left her there.  She told her case worker that Mummy made the bruises and the burns.  And they left her there.

They did take her for 18 months at one point, after Kristi bit her so badly that she had to attend an emergency department for treatment.  She bit her.  I cannot fathom what kind of deranged human being thinks that that is ok.    And DOC's gave her back.

The news articles that describe the child's ordeal are chilling, and I can hardly bear to read them, except in some way I feel like I owe it to that little girl, to know her story, to grieve for her, to care in a way that the adults in her life failed to do.  And that is so very little.

Resilience

I have been pondering resilience for a while now, specifically working to build it in my children.  The fact is, life is often not very nice.  We cannot control the way other people speak or behave, what we do have control over is our response to this.  Basically, because some parents fail at the kindness lesson, I need to help mine gain skills of resilience, so they are not crushed by those others.

I read this in the SMH this morning, and it more or less confirmed what I thought, though it goes quite a lot further.  Are children getting "soft"?  Does all our reassuring, and shielding really produce more confident children, or are we creating a generation that will crumble at the first sign of hardship?

Being kind of a control freak, letting my children make mistakes and learn from them has not been easy.  And I've probably failed a lot of the time, though I am making an effort to rectify the errors of the past, and they can now all light their own birthday candles, crack eggs and peel and chop vegetables.  I should probably work on ironing next.

Looking at this, I think there are two types of resilience that need to be formed - emotional and practical.  Our children must learn that life can be uncomfortable, and that people are sneaky, conniving and unkind, not all of them all the time, but most of them some of the time, and this must somehow be dealt with.  The trickiest bit is helping them respond to the bad stuff - calling the bullies on their actions without diminishing themselves by responding in kind.  I don't think I've had enough practice myself to be honest, but I have to lead the charge on this one, and propel them towards their adult lives as functioning citizens who can not only take care of their own stuff, do their own hair, feed and clean themselves, but also navigate the uncomfortable emotions associated with failing.  Because they cannot be cushioned from that inevitability forever.

Different church, same scandal

The Sydney Morning Herald ran this story this morning.

Abuse of children has been wide spread in many religious (and other) institutions.  I say has been, because I am hopeful that it will become less common, that there will be more accountability, that the monsters who prey on little children will be caught and punished rather than shielded from consequences as they have been.  I have to be hopeful, because accepting that it is inevitable and unavoidable it not something I can comfortably contemplate and keep living in this world.

This mornings report was not about the Catholic church which has taken a beating (deserved) in the media, but focuses on a Sydney Jewish school.  The rabbi quoted, apparently said that the child in question had given consent.  The child in question was 11 years old.  I have an 11 year old myself, and if some adult man ever took advantage of her in such a despicable fashion, and then subsequently described her as a "consenting partner," I would rip that persons head from their body.  What an utterly disgusting thing to imply.  What a repellant man the Rabbi Lesche is, that he would dare to suggest that the child, child! was in any way to blame.

Rabbi Lesche does not confine his loathsome commentary to the 11 year old in question.  He would have us believe "teenagers from poor backgrounds had ''nothing else to do in life, only thinking 24 hours about sex with each other, members of their own families and even dogs."  He continues in this hateful fashion by saying that that "some non-Jewish boys, who he termed ''goyims'', began acting or thinking sexually from the age of five."  There are so many offensive things in these sentences that I am having trouble separating them.  Apparently "the poor" are more sexually deviant than the rich, as are non Jews in comparison to Jews. 

How sickening that someone who is apparently part of an educational institution is far more interested in protecting dirty old men who molest those in their charge, than in protecting the innocent.  And worse, maligns the victims, demanding that they share some of the blame.  He asks that the offenders not be reported as it will destroy them.  Says that it was all so long ago, that nothing can be achieved by pursuing them.  Only justice, only righting a wrong, only closure for the victims of crimes so heinous that reasonable people are sickened by them. This man is a disgrace to education, to religion, to decent society. 

Sometimes I just can't see the point in human beings. 

Asylum Seekers and Leaky Boats

I am not a political creature.  That is not to say I don't appreciate the privilege it is to be allowed a say in our government.  It is something I have always been glad about, and I looked forward to be being 18 so I could start having a say in the process.  It is something I take seriously, and probably too much to heart.  I have cried after casting my vote, because I have been overwhelmed by the responsibility, and unsure if I made the right decision.  I like to consider the issues carefully, and vote accordingly.

In September we go back to the polls, and I am torn.  As usual.  But the biggest problem I have this time, is that I feel like I am choosing between two bad options, or two options that are so similar that it really won't make a difference.  I won't vote for any party that uses that abominable catch phrase "stop the boats".  I hate hearing that, and the implication that stopping the boats is about protecting Australia from being over run with dodgy foreigners makes me angry.

It seems so obvious, that the only people who are going to get on a barely sea worthy vessel are so utterly desperate to leave behind their present situation that they have no other option.  Asylum seekers who arrive by boat are far more likely to be genuine refugees than those who arrive with valid visas.  If you don't have a passport, and can't get one, what are you supposed to do?

 This picture shows the aftermath of an attack at a Shia Muslim rally at Meezan Chowk in Quetta on September 3 2011 that killed 42 and injured 80 people - mostly Hazaras.

Above them is an Australian-sponsored billboard saying "Don't go on a leaky boat - the illegal way. Just stay where you are".




 Sure, stay where you are, because that is going to work out so well.


 It is not illegal to seek asylum.  These people want the same things the rest of us want, peace, freedom, safety.  It is not too much to ask, not at all. 

From the Australian Human Rights Commission website:

"Australia has obligations to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, regardless of how or where they arrive and whether they arrive with or without a visa.
As a party to the Refugees Convention, Australia has agreed to ensure that people who meet the United Nations definition of refugee are not sent back to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened."

This year, come election time, I am looking for a party with a bigger idea than just stopping boats.  I want leaders with compassion, who don't play on the general public's ignorance and prejudices.  

As Bob Hawke so pithily put it:  "We're all bloody boat people.  That's how we found the place."

University and Breastfeeding and Exams.

Discrimination? I don't think so

This news article popped up in my Facebook feed this morning, and I read it with a degree of disbelief.  The woman at the centre of the story insists that she is being discriminated against, because she wasn't allowed to take her ten month old daughter to an exam - a university exam.  She says she was planning to let the baby sleep, then breast feed her when she woke up.

Here's the thing.  I am a big advocate of breast feeding.  I really am.  I was disgusted by David Koch and his ignorant comments on the morning show earlier in the year, when he asked for women to "be discreet" about feeding their infants.  It was all a bit of a sideshow, and I doubt he's ever had more press for anything, which may have been the idea all along, or that could just be the taunting voice of my inner cynic speaking to me.  Anyway.  I do think women should be able to breast feed at will wherever they feel like it. 

This particular case though, could be the exception that proves the rule.  Babies have no place in examination rooms.  The end.  It is that simple. A ten month old is unpredictable, noisy, and on the move, none of this belongs in an exam that other people are also taking. This woman had a hiccup with her baby sitting arrangements, and by calling a breast feeding foul, is trying to circumvent university protocol.  The university allowed her to reschedule the exam, and I think that was bending over backwards to be accommodating.  Asking for a separate room, and comparing having a child to being disabled is laughable at best and offensive at worst.  Babies are a choice, and the limits a child puts on your life have an end point, bit by bit you regain a portion of your freedom.  Disabilities aren't like this.  This young woman has a serious case of entitlement.  The world will not stop for her because she has a baby, like every other parent on the planet she needs to work out how to fit her baby into her lifestyle.

Additionally, I have a clear memory of my second son at ten months eating pizza with the family on a road trip.  He only had about 8 teeth, but he could suck the topping off a pizza pretty well.  He was still breast fed at the time certainly, but it wasn't his only source of sustenance, or even his main source.  Supplementary is the word.

This shouldn't have been a story.  There is no story.  Just another selfish young woman who thinks life is all about her.

Beginnings and I ponder good driving

Starting a brand new blog is almost as much fun as starting a new diary, there is that same crispness, albeit of the imaginary variety, and that lovely newness is still there, even if it only exists in my mind.  The screen is unsullied by my thoughts as yet, and the binding is tight.

Or something.

I want to write but I need to be more disciplined.  I've tried (and failed) before this, and who knows how long I can sustain writing every day, it is my very good intention to do that, but I have a history of enjoying beginnings a little too much, and neglecting the follow through.

My thought, as I was driving to school on this cold winter morning in June, was that I would find something, some piece of news, or trivia that I came across in my day, and write a response to it.  Now, this is not a new thought, it isn't even an original thought, but as I am not publishing the fiction I write on a blog (yet), this could be the exercise that keeps me going, and makes me exercise my writing muscle.

Today's response is to yesterdays morning radio show.  I listen to WSFM on my way to school in the morning, I like the morning team of Jones-y and Amanda (Keller), and the music suits me.  I don't listen beyond 9am when those two finish, that's when I turn to my ipod.  But I enjoy the programme (I do confess to turning off Delta Goodrems interview this morning, I don't know why she bothers me, but she does).

So yesterday they were talking about driving, and asking people to ring in about their pet peeves, re driving.  I am as impatient as the next person on the road, and have been known to quietly curse the stupidity of the masses.  People are generally irritating, and never more so than when behind the wheel.  Callers listed the usual suspects, not using the indicator, tail gating, driving in the right hand lane, overtaking on the left.  All very annoying, and all things that I am reasonably sure most of us do, perhaps not deliberately, or consistently, but certainly occasionally, when our concentration lapses for whatever reason.

I started thinking about driving, and all the drivers on the road, and there are many many many of them.  All those people driving, every day.  And every day, I might see 1 or 2, or on a bad day, 4 or 5 examples of bad manners and recklessness and thoughtlessness in my 30 - 40 minute journey.  But.  I see hundreds of cars in that time.  Hundreds.  All scooting along between 50 and 120 kilometres an hour, depending on the road.  All multi - lane roads, with traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, varying speed limits and other unexpected hazards.  And if all those drivers are driving 30 - 40 minutes too, that is a lot of driving that I am exposed too.  Really, it's a wonder I don't see more instances of lapsed judgement.  Driving is a complex skill, and lots of us can do it, and do it with a reasonable degree of competence.

So despite my irritation with bad driving, I've decided, that in the grand scheme of things, we are probably not as bad as most of us think.  In fact, by and large, I think, we are pretty good.