Belated News

My twin cubs arrived a little early, at 33.5 weeks, on 25 May 2010. They arrived pretty healthy, a good weight (both approx 2.5 kgs). We were able to bring them home, fully breast fed, in just under 3 weeks, which was wonderful. They are now 7 weeks old and appearing to thrive. Both are a hundred or so grams under 4 kilos, and are fattening up their cheeks and limbs nicely. Should be chubby little cubbies soon! I am ecstatic and exhausted and slowly working my way towards normality. Sleep debt is slowly being paid back, though we are still feeding around twice a night, they are stretching their night feeds slowly, but surely. It is every bit as wonderful and magical as I thought it would be and my other bears seem just as delighted with them as I am. Hubby is over the moon, which goes without saying if you know him, which you don't, which is why I said it. I've included the picture of them here, because, beautiful and unique though they are, as babies they are essentially anonymous and untraceable, so I feel safe enough sharing them here. Plus they could be photos of any old babies, couldn't they? I may change my mind about this...

Political Commentage

I have wanted to make comments at various posts and sites over the last year, but either couldn't be bothered, or couldn't find the words to say. There is a lot going on in the world and in Oz, and I do have an opinion to share on some of it! So I hope to see you around cybertown sometime, in between looking after the 5 growing cubs in my care. Might even make an occasional appearance back here now and again, wonders will never cease. Latest additions shall be cyber-christened, Special K-Bear, and Little D-Bear.

Two

It's been a while. I've been Bolt and Blair bothering randomly, but have not bothered to include them here, as they've been short and generally not worth reading again, even for me! And now, I couldn't find them if I tried! Actually just tried looking for my last outburst, regarding the vilification of Tony Abbott, and it appears both of my comments never made it. Not sure what happened there, but there were a lot of comments, and mine were both quite long... Anyway, probably better not published really, given what I remember of what I wrote...

Well, the title of this post is a little ambiguous. Get to that later. The Brown-Eyed Bear (BEB) is an adorable 14 months now, and life has been busy with him. I haven't been taken by the writing muse since having him really - odd that my best work was during his pregnancy, but there you are. Clearly I need to be pregnant to write well, or perhaps sit down long enough to write well. Not that I'm one of those "energiser bunny" types, but I do feel less guilty sitting and "resting" while internetting when pregnant, than when not. That sounds as though I've been pregnant a lot. I suppose in today's environment, 3 is a lot!

I've really enjoyed number 3. I enjoyed the other 2, don't get me wrong, but I was so much more able to let go of the stresses and anxieties and I really was able to enjoy every aspect of his infancy and development to toddlerhood, which he's still in the middle of. He is such a lovely baby! So engaging, he manages to make everyone fall in love with him. And it's not as though the first two weren't also lovely, beautiful and engaging, he just upped the ante! Not sure what it is about him, he looks a lot like the Brown Bear did at his age, and he's feisty like the Bearess, though more placid, until breaking point, than she is. I don't know. Doesn't really matter I suppose!

The better half always wanted 4 kids (well since we had 2, he thought 4 would be perfect) but BEB's pregnancy was super-hard! So much less fit, so much more weight, more and different kinds of pain. Labour was, in hindsight, an answer to prayer, but at the time a frighteningly speedy event that left little time for questions, drugs, second thoughts or even breath! He was in a hurry to come out, but that meant my recovery was awesome (drug free, no c-section) so I was back on my feet and in the shower within an hour. I was shell-shocked, but physically really good. Anyway, all things pointed to 3 being it for us. But my little BEB growing up, becoming less of a cub and more his own bear made me all nostalgic for those happy baby times...

So you guessed it. I'm pregnant again for the 4th time. I'm about 18 weeks along at the moment. I was pretty ready to be a Mother of 4. It seemed eminently doable. It was comparatively unplanned this time around. BEB took a while in coming so we helped him along by getting my cycles tracked, so we weren't exactly expecting to fall pregnant before we really started "trying" if you know what I mean. So it was a bit of a surprise to discover we'd manage to do it without help this time! Didn't find out till I was about 8 weeks in, frantically booking appointments with GPs and the OB and thinking how conveniently life works out when you're making other plans...

Then, imagine our surprise at our first appointment with our wonderful Obstetrician when, lo and behold, the little ultrasound screen flickers into life to show me... two.

Two little blobs, in two little sacs, with two little hearts pumping away merrily. I knew it straight away, and like Princess Leia, felt that "somehow.. I've always known". Was still dumbstruck though. Dr L chuckled softly and told the better half to come forward for a better view. He had been watching from behind his shoulder, mouth already agape, and said "is that what I think it is?" Dr L. then looked at me and asked if I'd worked it out yet. The best I could do was "there's two, isn't there?" And then I started laughing. Dr L then said he should check and make sure there was "just two". Ha ha.

The weirdest thing is not the thought that it will be difficult to have two at once. I've always wanted twins (2 for the price of 1, how good is that?) and now that I've had the experience of 3 babies, I understand what we're in for with 2 at once, but understanding just makes it easier to prepare yourself. You know it's going to be tough, but you can mitigate the circumstances, and know also that this too will pass. No, the weirdest thing is getting into my head the thought that I am now a Mother of 5. It's just one number up from 4. But it's so much bigger than that in my head!

We spent 2 weeks at my brother's place in Canberra over the summer. He and his wife just had baby number 5 six months ago. No multiples, all in a row from age 9 down. It was a blast staying with them. Our kids loved it, BEB was desperate to get in the action but still being a crawler couldn't do hardly anything with them, except when they played with him, which was pretty often. Didn't see the elder two from sun-up til sun-down most days, and was only called upon to arbitrate disputes and make sure the babies didn't get stepped on, thrown around or otherwise "loved" to death! I could see that life with 5 is good. No better or worse than life with 4 or 3, but that's good! You need to be organised and on top of your game, but again, it's doable. It's just not done that often anymore (so much so, that you have TV shows about big families and books written by people who have 22 kids.) 5 is so different to 22, but it's still so much more than what the average family is these days. I remember feeling so exposed when we went out, for example, to eat.

Table for 10, plus 2 high chairs please.

Whaaa?

4 adults, 8 kids, 6 of whom are independently mobile.

Even when they are quiet and well-behaved, they're noisy! They attract attention, they demand an audience. They are charming and engaging, uncivilised yet eminently noble in their innocence.

And having too many of them freaks people out these days. I'm pretty private at the best of times. I hated feeling like I was "on show" because of the amount of kids we had with us. Most people were pretty nice, but even saying that suggests that somehow I expect most people to regard us like fruit cakes and treat us accordingly. Not a nice thing to think about your "fellow man".

Raised eyebrows, smirks and outright looks of bafflement and incredulity are not in themselves a big deal, but they add up to making you feel, well, defensive. I'm not ashamed of having a big family, nor do I think people who have big families are weird, I just never expected to be one of them. It's kind of incremental how these things happen. The difference between 2 and 3 didn't seem insurmountable, in just the same way as the difference between 3 and 4 was negligible, but I don't think I would have ever chosen to have another after the 4th. Having said that, I was almost resigned to having 3, except for this niggling sadness I felt, almost immediately after having BEB, that I wouldn't be having another merely due to the physical difficulty. It was like the choice was taken out of my hands because I felt I couldn't physically or emotionally cope with just bearing another child, not because I felt I'd had enough children. The distinction seems slim but it was a palpable sadness that overcame me whenever I thought my "baby-mamma" days were over. Anyway, I think it unlikely that I'll feel that way if and once the twins are delivered safely, but you never know.

So, back to my original thought, thinking that I'm going to be labelled fruity by anyone who cares to notice all 7 of us when we are out (7!!), for choosing to have more than the average 2.1 kids, made me feel uncomfortable. It hasn't made me regret the decision to go for number four! We are still so excited, and our family and friends are happy, excited and supportive of us, but it's just weird for me that I would think these things at all and these thoughts would be what makes me uneasy.

I've never been one to follow trends or go with the flow, having always chosen my own path, and generally preferred to swim against the tide of public opinion. I guess it's just a shock to have to deal with the fact that I did not "choose" this, but it was chosen for me. And in His greater wisdom, He honoured my desire to have twins (I think I always fell short of actually praying for them, fearing the old adage, be careful what you pray for), but He honoured it in his own time, for his own purposes, and ultimately as always, for my good and His glory.

I have not once felt angry, bitter or even shed a tear in fear or anxiety over this blessing, for which I am grateful. Those are overwhelming emotions I am glad I haven't had to work through, yet! In the end, it is bewitching to think there are two hearts beating close to mine, and two souls who will be added to the three for whom we have already been granted responsibility. It is humbling but invigorating to think of the challenges, great joys and necessary trials and hardships we will go through, but mostly I just think of two.

It's a magical number.

Roman

Commenting at Tim Blair's on this:

I have been “young” enough to remember the time of this Polanski’s incident. From the photo published back then, this 13-year old girl was so well developed that she could easily pass for a 20-year old. Why would the director ask for her age. What about the drug party scene at Jack Nicholson villa? Why wasn’t Jack and his guests arrested for possession? Wasn’t it a ploy to divert police attenton, cry rape and testify against Roman Polanski as did Anjelica Houston to save her then boyfriend Jack from bigger embarassement. After Polanski’s wife died in a heinous way at the hands of psychopath Charles Manson while 8 months pregnant, perhaps it’s a tall order to expect Polanski to be of the highest moral character?
PS. The name is Polanski, not Polanksi. Shows how much opinionated bloggers really are familiar with the director and perpetuate this typo.

Grazia of Sydney (Reply)
Wed 30 Sep 09 (09:32pm)

Infidel Tiger replied to Grazia
Wed 30 Sep 09 (10:02pm)

I hope you don’t live near amy high schools, you sick and perverted freak. F.O.A.D.

Habib replied to Grazia
Wed 30 Sep 09 (10:38pm)

More defence of the indefensible by the left, whose moral compass swings more wildly than any chemically-enhanced shindig in Laurel Canyon.

Bottom line- if the Romester was some random pervert, unconnected to the self-aaponted elite who seem to believe their duty in life is to hector the humble about how to live while carrying on like a sackful of civet cats on crstal meth and viagra, you’d all be calling for his bollocks to be nailed to a table.

Because he’s from the sensitive and talented set, any behaviour is excusable, and indeed usually celebrated as a sign of genius.

Bang the old pervie up with some other priapetic deviants.

Dave S. replied to Grazia
Wed 30 Sep 09 (10:40pm)

You’re a repellent human being. For God’s sake, don’t reproduce.

Bruce replied to Grazia
Wed 30 Sep 09 (10:45pm)

Here ya go, read all about it: the Grand Jury transcripts.

Got a link to those pictures of the child in question that you remember so clearly?

Dave Surls replied to Grazia
Thu 01 Oct 09 (12:10am)

“From the photo published back then, this 13-year old girl was so well developed that she could easily pass for a 20-year old.”

Seems unlikely that a photo was published, since her identity was kept secret until many years after the event.

“Why would the director ask for her age.”

Polanski testified under oath that he knew she was 13.

“Why wasn’t Jack and his guests arrested for possession?”

Nicholson was out of town at the time, his girlfriend was arrested for cocaine possession when the police searched Nicholson’s house. Polanski had quaalude in his possession when he was arrested at a hotel (which he supposedly tried to ditch).

“I have been “young” enough to remember the time of this Polanski’s incident.”

I think you may have Alzheimers.

JanineV replied to Grazia
Thu 01 Oct 09 (01:09am)

Grazia,

Quite apart from the appalling political incorrectness of absolving a monster’s guilt because the unfortunate 13 year old may not have “looked like” a 13 year old in published photos you may or may not remember accurately at the time, you then proceed to add irrelevant details to the argument. Who gives a bleep where Jack was, what his “guests” were doing or what Anjelica Huston (thanks Dave Carter below, otherwise I would have been soooo embarrassed) may have been saving her boyfriend from? That was just your ploy to divert attention from the facts at hand.

But you go on to suggest that because his wife was brutally murdered while 8 months pregnant, we should not expect high moral character from Polanski? What does the one have to do with the other? He either has the moral character to not drug, molest, rape and sodomise an unwilling child, or he has no moral character at all. Having suffered a terrible loss in such a violent manner should have no bearing on this issue, except to make it all the more appalling. It is neither mitigation nor excuse for poor moral character.

And your PS says it all. I know this man, I’ve seen his movies, he’s an awesomedirector, his movies made me cry, and if you opinionated bloggers really understood his art you would understand that he was really the victim in all this and that b**** girl with her overdeveloped breasts and overbearing mother deserved everything she got!!

You are more worried about the spelling of the paedophile’s name than the fact that what he did eviscerates the idea that little girls are UNTOUCHABLE by ANYONE, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. THERE IS NO EXCUSE, NO REASON, NO JUSTIFICATION, NO ARGUMENT, NO ART, NO FAME, NO STATUS AND NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION.

I’ll say it again - nice and loud in case you may have missed it the first time. ALL LITTLE GIRLS ARE UNTOUCHABLE!! EVEN IF YOUR NAME IS ROMAN POLANKSI!

ThinAndBritish replied to Grazia
Thu 01 Oct 09 (02:40am)

“From the photo published back then, this 13-year old girl was so well developed that she could easily pass for a 20-year old.”

OK, right, I see your point; if it’s got big tits then I guess it’s OK to rape it.

PS: “Why would the director ask for her age” should end with a question-mark, if we’re going to descend to that level.

Will replied to Grazia
Thu 01 Oct 09 (02:55am)

“After Polanski’s wife died in a heinous way at the hands of psychopath Charles Manson while 8 months pregnant, perhaps it’s a tall order to expect Polanski to be of the highest moral character?”

Seriously? His wife gets butchered, and that gives him a license to rape kids? I don’t buy that for a minute.

Blood

Comment in reply to the below comment at a Tim Blair post...

rebeccaH, it’s a shame you elected to use the Cherokee as an example for your wannabes argument.  The Cherokee were one of the most assimilated tribes, genetically and culturally, in this country, which made their forced displacement on the Trail of Tears even more tragic, especially given how greatly this country has benefited from that assimilation in so many different ways.

If someone doesn’t fit the stereotype of a group then the person in question has to suffer aspersions of inauthenticity, both in the community and from underinformed outsiders.

Isn’t it interesting that people are impressed when someone proves lineage that includes royalty or nobility, however distant. What blood quantum would someone be who was related to King Henry V? It shouldn’t matter because that person is a relation regardless of length of time.

I advocate that all such relations be embraced. Blood quantum was a heinous practice formulated to disenfranchise indigenous peoples of their legitimate heritage, lands, etc.

Blacks have “passed” as whites.  American Indians have “passed” as white and Hispanics.  They did this to save their families from extermination and their livelihoods and property from appropriation.  What may be an affectation for some today was an imposed survival strategy for others. 

I have met “African-Americans” who confessed to me that they had American Indian blood, but who were afraid to publicly acknowledge it for fear it would somehow invalidate their black identity.  There should be no measuring cup for family.

Deborah Leigh of Left Coast, USA (Reply)
Thu 20 Aug 09 (03:10pm)

JanineV replied to Deborah Leigh 
Thu 20 Aug 09 (06:50pm)

Well said Deborah!  An excellent argument for the cessation of these pointless and patronising “special awards” for people with the right kind of “blood quantum”.  It causes all sorts of problems..

First you make awards just for being good at something.  Then you make awards just for being good at something but that only people with the right kind of blood can win, to make sure that those people with the right kind of blood don’t get passed over in the first awards.  Then there’s a bruhaha over how the guy that won the prize for being good at something that was for people with the right kind of blood, doesn’t look like he’s one of those people with the right kind of blood.  Then there’s all sorts of accusations about how he shouldn’t have to prove he’s from the people with the right kind of blood because he’s already had to “suffer aspersions of inauthenticity both in the community and from underinformed outsiders”.  At which point the underinformed outsiders begin to think, well, maybe they need to make some kind of rule that we can measure against so that people who do have the right kind of blood but don’t look like they do, can still qualify - you know, like some kind of idea of how much of the right kind of blood you need to have so we can have an objective standard...oh wait, that’s probably “blood quantum”, huh?  Well, that’s no good because that’s a “heinous practice formulated to disenfranchise indigenous peoples of their legitimate heritage, lands etc.”

You see, we should have just stuck with the first awards - given to any person just for being good at something.  Much simpler.  There’s no need for measuring cups in the “human family”.

And now for a rousing chorus of Kumbaya.

Jason replied to Deborah Leigh 
Thu 20 Aug 09 (09:27pm)

What she said (JanineV).

Tolling Bell

Ok, so WA is voting, has voted, today about whether or not to have Daylight Saving.  Yet again.  I don't know what the result is, but I expect it's a big no.  Yet again.  Why?  Let me pass on a little story.

My brother-in-law and husband went to vote early this morning (I stayed home with the bears and went later) and stood in line behind an old gent, who was probably best described as curmudgeonly.  You know the kind.  B-I-L was asked, "How are you voting?"  "Yes" he replied, "What about you?"

"No."

"Do you mind if I ask why?"

"Because it's going to cost more money."

"Why would that be?"

"Because we're all going to have to buy more cool drinks."

"What do you mean?"

"It'll be too hot, we're all going to have to buy more cool drink."

B-I-L made a valiant attempt to explain what 'daylight saving' actually means, but as my husband pointed out during the retelling of the story to me, "This is what you're up against, why bother?"

So, methinks I hear the tolling bell for democracy.  Death is coming, little one.  You were so beautiful and free, so young and in the flower of your life with so much already achieved in your name, and with so much more to hope for...but democracy has to die.  It only works when the majority of those who enjoy it's fruits do so with at least a minimum of primary education in literature, the sciences and history.  I don't mind people disagreeing about things, as long as there is a general basic understanding of how the seasons work, how many hours there are in a day, and exactly what effect turning the "clocks" back or forward one hour has on those things.  

Where does one start with people who are so badly educated (they're not dumb) that they don't know that Kevin Rudd, while the sun may shine out of his arse, cannot under any circumstances, make it shine any longer than it was meant to.  I know it's a state referendum, not a federal one, but the joke wouldn't have worked with Colin Barnett.  Nobody thinks the sun shines out of his arse.

Ok, that was just one guy.  But there are countless letters to the editor over the years that back up such rampant ignorance in the WA populace.  Here's a recent one.

And if you think I'm being dramatic, well you're kinda right.  This is a blog.  But, if this referendum is an indication of the reasoning and intellectual capacity of the electorate then democracy is doomed.  I'm not saying people who vote no are dumb, BTW, I'm saying that people who vote no because they think daylight saving is "unnatural" are badly, badly undereducated.  There is a difference.

Clang...clang...

GFC - Finger-lickin' debt

Comment made in relation to Tim's post and article about someone who lost their savings, in response to another commenter...see link and below!

> “We, the financially useless, are dependent upon the sensible. For example, they buy the houses that we rent.”

Uh, not quite. Maybe circa 1991, when most people who wanted to buy a house could afford one and the only long-term renters were the Hogarthian unwashed. Not since 2001, when plenty of single-income couples who could otherwise have bought a house suddenly saw prices double or triple overnight.

Try “They get in and buy the houses that we would otherwise buy - offering $50,000 extra for their fourth or fifth house than you can offer for your first - and then jack up the rent or the re-sale price so they can get their ‘investment’ back.”

If capitalists were capable of restraining their own greed - never mind ethics, simple long-term self-interest would do - no one would be interested in socialism.

Rod Blaine of NSW (Reply)
Tue 05 May 09 (08:19am)

JanineV replied to Rod Blaine 
Tue 05 May 09 (10:29am)

And if people knew anything about the realities of socialism, they would run with open arms and hug the nearest “capitalist pig” they could find and never let them go. 

Socialism only works in theory, because it fails to take into account the reality of human self-interest.  Socialism fails miserably in reality because it allows one group of people (the state) to make self-interested decisions about another group of people’s (the plebs) consumption and production. 

Capitalism works in reality because it harnesses human self-interest.  The gears of capitalism are oiled on the self-interested decisions made by individuals to trade things they produce for things they consume, judging fairly accurately what things are “worth” without the regulation of a state bureaucracy.  When self-interest becomes greed, capitalism as a system tends to self-correct.  (Others have more ably explained the real reason behind the GFC, so this is necessarily simplistic.)

Are people worse off sometimes?  Sure, but it beats the heck out of a socialist system that denies human self-interest except to a ruling elite, who are then encouraged to wallow in wealth they did not create, leaving the plebs to wallow in the brotherhood of equally distributed poverty. Yay.

Judge capitalism as a whole working system fueled by free people, not by the few who attempt to exploit it.  Are those people now not suffering as prices deflate to what things are actually worth, as per the article above?

wreckage replied to Rod Blaine 
Tue 05 May 09 (12:32pm)

Here’s a tip, Rod. Buy somewhere else. That buying-and-jacking caper is just people trying- usually successfully- to predict the future value of something. This actually results in much fairer prices most of the time.

Comment at Garth's Letter

My friend, Garth, alerted me to this letter that had been published by the Australian.  I read the 8 comments and just had to bite at number 7...They haven't published my response yet, so will add that later if I remember!  It was something to do with who was going to decide who gets to live or die and waxing along that vein.

UPDATE 30 April 09 : Still haven't published my comment.  No great loss I suppose.  daddy dave has made the comment I wanted to but lacked the necessary details for at the time, but even if I had, who would know, as they probably wouldn't have published it anyway...

Gidgee
Wed 29 Apr 09 (09:14am)

This earth, and everything on it has a finite life - we all know that - yet we persist with trying to explain why the earth is deteriorating, or why a sick or aged man is dying, as if such things are not normal, not to be expected - can be stopped. 
If one was to look at the earth from afar over, say, the past two thousand years it would be patently obvious that man has become a sort of global virus, spreading almost uncontrollably to every part of the planet - having noted that awesome fact even the thickest of such imaginary god-like distant observers would not be inclined to blame the burning of fossil fuels on atmospheric changes here on earth but rather the virus which is, clearly, teeming mankind. 
If we think we have the right to address what nature usually fixes anyway (one way or the other) perhaps we should start by being honest with ourselves - it is us mortals who are simply too many - it is us of humanity who are breeding to excess - it is us. 
I don’t profess to know the answer but I do know that stopping the burning of coal or introducing, exclusively and only, nuclear power to do what fossil fuels have done for many many days is not going to make an iota of difference if we keep on bringing our kind, en masse, into this world…