Quarantining Care

 

Pic courtesy UQ research.

Disgust and outrage as a response to reports of child abuse in day care centres is completely understandable.

It is also justified, but I strongly doubt that the disgust and outrage will, in the long run, make any difference.

A possible royal commission is offered as a solution, and tightened regulation and enhanced supervision will no doubt result from this tragic set of circumstances.

Unfortunately these measures can be dismissed as knee jerk responses, and they follow whenever a vulnerable section of the community is abused. This holds for seniors, people with disabilities, unemployed people and refugees.

The NDIS is a novel institutional response which has tried to put one specific minority in a position if power when it comes to decisions about quality of life, but it has its own failings. Unscrupulous individuals have used it to fill their pockets.

Frankly, I don't see much difference between fraudulently cashing in on a scheme like NDIS, and paying child care centres taxpayers' money through the CCS scheme.

There is a fundamental flaw in taxpayers' money being paid to parents and caregivers for a service which in Australia in 2024 is simply essential.

Forty years of experience in special schools, where the most vulnerable children are supported, taught me that child protection is fundamental. This was in a publicly funded organisation where the motive was learning, not earning. As soon as an organisation supporting the vulnerable is run for profit, it creates the risk of putting that profit ahead of care. Care and protection are simply incompatible with making money.

This very simple proposition ought to be obvious, but given the history, it clearly isn't.

Any organisation created to care for children cannot safely be used as an earner. After all, profit depends on minimising costs and often cutting corners.When Child Care organisations become investment vehicles, it becomes obvious where the priorities lie.

There is one very simple solution. We need legislation that outlaws care for profit. If we haven't learned that from the tragedies that have dogged aged care and child care, we never will.

The child care industry should be nationalised. That is the only sure way of quarantining it from the profiteers.

The Follies Revisited

 

Pic courtesy Political dictionary

Those of you, gentle reader, who are of an age that remembers the war in Vietnam, will recall the Five O'Clock Follies.

This was a daily press briefing that was given by the US military in Saigon (most often at the Rex Hotel) providing a consistent narrative of success in the conflict.

We all remember how that worked out.

I've always believed that Americans, whilst members of a supposedly well educated community, have  a blind spot when it comes to understanding history. 

This blind spot, when coupled with what is called American exceptionalism and nationalistic fervour,  distorts their appreciation and understanding of historical fact to the point where very little of what is officially published is credible.

One of the clearest examples of this was reporting during the Follies of the destruction of the Ho Chi Minh trail. Certainly, the trail (basically a series of dirt tracks) was bombed incessantly, but what was destroyed were a series of these tracks. The VC simply created a new detour, often in hours or days, and the flow of armaments and personnel would resume.

The more primitive the infrastructure, the easier it was to rebuild it. Eventually the American public saw through the notion that "destruction" was temporary rather than permanent, and along with the shock of the 1968 Tet Offensive, they withdrew whatever support they had for the war.

I'd be very surprised if the long term outcome of the attacks on Iran will be any different. 

Elsewhere

 

The media/political/international relations scene is depressingly chaotic.

With that in mind, I'm confining my blogging to more cheerful content until things settle down - if they ever do.

Start here.

History Rhyming in Images

 

Los Angeles 2025

This post, gentle reader, is a montage of images.

Half were photographs taken in Europe during the second world war.

Auschwitz 1944

The other half were taken in Los Angeles during the last couple of days.

Los Angeles 2025

They're posted without comment, except to point out that in each case one minority group was targeted by government.

Berlin 1943

Warsaw 1942

Los Angeles 2025

During World War Two those targeted were Jews.           

During the last few days, the people targeted are undocumented immigrants.

You can come to your own conclusions.....

Malice or Bitterness?

Pic courtesy CAWA

No doubt, gentle reader, you came across the reporting of shouts of abuse directed at a Welcome to Country introducing this year's Anzac Day dawn service at Melbourne's Shrine of Remembrance, and at a similar ceremony at King's Park in Perth.

It seems that there was a degree of organisation behind the Melbourne disruption, but the Perth incident was not planned.

Cries of outrage were heard from a range of sources, both directed towards the disruptions, and the place of Welcome to Country rituals at Anzac Day commemorations generally. Ex-service community social media networks lit up, again displaying strong feelings and abysmal ignorance.

The controversy highlights currents of malicious chauvinism that have simmered below the surface in this country for at least a century.  

The first of these currents relates to Anzac Day. The day is simply a commemoration after all. It is not a celebration of national pride, or a glorification of the warrior class - whatever that is. The men who died are not honoured by the screams of outrage directed at the inclusion of Welcome to Country ceremonies. Their memory is demeaned by it.

Anzac Day belongs to the whole nation, and is essentially an inclusive tradition. Welcoming attendees to a dawn service is simply a manifestation of this.  

The ignorance revealed by objections to all Welcome to Country ceremonies, not just those on Anzac Day, is another issue entirely. In the first place, given that indigenous Australians comprised over five hundred  distinct clan groups, welcoming people to country occupied historically by that clan by an elder is an entirely authentic process.

 "Country" does not refer to Australia in this context, something entirely ignored by those who mistakenly believe they are being welcomed to 2025 Australia. Various ex-service organisations made a virtue of declaring that nobody had the right to welcome them to the country they had fought for, completely forgetting that none of these clans have ever claimed to represent the whole country.

Then there are those who take offence because the elders who conduct the ceremonies are usually paid for the privilege. I find that strange, given that one of the hallmarks of a successful capitalist community is its willingness to pay for ritualistic expressions of symbolism. 

It matters not whether putting money into a collection plate at a church service or paying for admission to a football match is payment for witnessing a form of social ritual, these practices are very much part of contemporary mores and have been for a long time.

Frankly, I believe that anyone who would object to a gesture of welcome has been very poorly brought up. As my mother would have said if she had been alive to witness these objections - "They need to grow up!"

  

Karma and the Voice

 

Image courtesy Om Swami

Karma (as it appears in the AI overview in my Google search) is defined as "the ultimate consequences of an earlier action. Essentially, good karma leads to positive outcomes, whilst bad karma leads to negative ones".

The Coalition had a dose of bad Karma on May 3rd, and I'll attempt a quick analysis which I reckon informs the result. I'm no political commentator, but there are patterns in the results that are pretty obvious.

Peter Dutton used the Voice referendum as a wedge to both unite his party with the Nationals, and discredit the ALP. In both those strategies, he was successful, and plenty of pundits forecast that his negative campaigning leading up to the referendum would be poisonous when the country next went to the polls.

So let's see if there's any truth to that notion.

Here's a list of seats that the Coalition lost to Labor -

Banks; Bonner; Leichhardt; Sturt; Bass; Braddon; Deakin; Menzies and Moore.

Quite a few of these seats recorded a better than 40% "Yes" vote in the Voice referendum. Here they are -

Bonner; Sturt; Deakin and Menzies.

Then we should take a look at the so-called Teal seats and other Independents recording better than 40% "Yes" in the referendum -

MacKellar; Warringah; Kooyong; Ryan; Curtin and Clark.

In fact, all of these seats with the exception of Fowler, Indi, and Kennedy, recorded a majority "Yes" vote.

The fact of the matter is that the strong swing recorded against the Coalition on May 3rd was led by voters who supported the Voice. The evidence is clear when you look at the electorates Labor won and the Independents held.

It's completely likely that they carried their disgust about Dutton's campaign to the ballot box.

What goes round comes round..... 

Update -

The Coalition has broken.

Remember how Dutton followed Littleproud in kicking Blackfellas.

More Karma?

A Cautionary Tale

Pic Courtesy Scamwatch

Until a few days ago, gentle reader, I thought I was scam-proof. I've always avoided the usual traps (clicking on links in emails, etc) and am security conscious to the point of hypervigilance.

Not so.

Two days ago, I had my card refused at the bakery early in the morning, so paid cash, wondering what was going on.

I had been home only a few minutes when my bank phoned saying there had been suspicious activity on my card (overseas transaction). Once they knew it was an unauthorised transaction, they gave me the option of cancelling my card, or letting me monitor transactions closely.

I chose the latter because I didn't want to be lumbered with using cash until a new card arrived.

Then, almost on cue, an email arrived, telling me to contact PayPal because there was unauthorised activity on my account. I checked the account, and indeed there was a transaction (purchase of antivirus software) that I had not authorised.

(I use PayPal to sell my book).

I phoned the number on the email, and then began a long conversation with someone who sounded South Asian, was very polite, and had all my details at his fingertips.

The problem was, he wasn't working for PayPal. He was a very sophisticated scammer who had set up a successful ambush. If I had checked the number when I logged into PayPal and found it was different, I would have realised what was going on, but I didn't.

Over about twenty minutes he kept me on the line whilst he claimed he was ensuring my account was secure. He wasn't. He was moving funds from my account using money transfer Apps which he convinced me to download to my phone, on the pretext that he would use them to test the security settings.

At this point I became suspicious, especially when he heard me talking to my bride, who by this time, was also becoming suspicious. He asked me who else was on the call.

I hung up, and phoned my bank. After the usual identity process, they put me through to their security team, who confirmed that $5000 in two separate transactions had been removed from my account.

A prolonged conversation ensued, during which the bank agent sought as much detail as I could provide. It was a very thorough interrogation, and apparently useful.

The bank retrieved the funds overnight, but my card was cancelled, and access to my online banking denied until I could get the two devices I used (iMac and iPhone) certified cleaned. 

This involved cost and inconvenience, and the technician involved told me he was getting an average of five jobs a week cleaning and certifying devices which had been used by scammed customers. 

There are a couple of lessons. One is never to phone a number on an email, until you're absolutely certain it is genuine. It's easy to do so by checking the origin address on the email. I didn't - first time ever.

The other is to follow your instincts, which I subsequently did by terminating the call, but not before the damage was done.

I was very impressed by the thoroughness of the bank, and their persistence in securing the return of the funds. I'm not entirely sure how that was done. Readers may make suggestions through commentary.

I dodged a bullet...