Wearing Trackies

Belated News

2010-07-04T15:06:00.005+08:00

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

2010-01-14T21:18:00.006+08:00

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

2009-10-01T11:57:00.002+08:00

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

2009-08-20T22:29:00.001+08:00

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

2009-05-16T15:42:00.002+08:00

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

2009-05-07T13:27:00.002+08:00

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

2009-04-29T14:10:00.003+08:00

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…

Boat-People

2009-04-28T14:09:00.002+08:00

I finally found the comment I made last week to this post at Bolt's. It was midnight, hubby was away camping with the Brown Bear, and I was ticked off at the tone of the commenter I was responding to. I think it suffers from the lateness of the hour, and fails to make its point succintly, but I doubt many read it anyway. I so hate people telling me how my religion is supposed to work. They have no clue. Here it is in its entirety, including the other responses that I did not see before I posted mine...

How many of the Howard supporters commenting here have actually visited one of Australias refugee camps?
How many of you have needed refuge yourself? How many of you go to church and pray?

Just because you have a mouth doesn’t make you qualified to comment and the world would be a better place if some of you kept your biggoted harsh right wing comments to yourself.

We need more compassion with less agro if we want to survive and live peacfully in a better world. Answer a simple question, why do I deserve a better life than anyone else? We all deserve equal opportunity, fortune and compassion bar none but very few can say they get it.

Andrew Bolt you need urgent surgery to extract your head from John Howards bum so you can actually see what is happening in the real world.

John of Colac (Reply)
Fri 17 Apr 09 (05:37pm)

Davo replied to John
Fri 17 Apr 09 (07:30pm)

>How many of you have needed refuge yourself?

We’ll need it soon, thanks the 5th Columnists that are undermining Australia.

JanL replied to John
Fri 17 Apr 09 (08:29pm)

I suggest that you do something about your own shortcomings before you go ordering others about.
First on your list is to acquire a few good manners.
Second would be to curb your rudeness.
Third - wash out your potty mouth.
Fourth - get your head out of the clouds and face reality. There will never be equal opportunity, fortune or compassion bar none, as you put it, and the one and only reason such a Utopian dream as your could never become reality can be explained in two words - human nature.
Finally, I suggest you take a good dose of salts to remove your SOL, and get a brain transplant as the one you’re presently using is extremely inferior.

Bernie replied to John
Fri 17 Apr 09 (08:43pm)

I don’t think that the “good news geek” has either

John from Newcastle. replied to John
Fri 17 Apr 09 (08:56pm)

How about Australia sends all the refugees that lie their way into Australia over there to Colac.
Old bleeding heart John would be the first to start whinging about the antics these new residents get upto.
And how about you say a prayer for us poor bloody taxpayers that have to pay for these parasites John.

Arthur McArthur replied to John
Fri 17 Apr 09 (10:33pm)

Are you ok John?
What’s it like in delusionland?

Irobot replied to John
Fri 17 Apr 09 (11:06pm)

People, people. Don’t belittle John. Now if we can all sit in a circle, hold hands and sing a few verses of Kumbayah, everything will be all right and all of the nastiness will disappear.

Call me when you are ready, I just need to go and feed my unicorn.

JanineV replied to John
Sat 18 Apr 09 (01:52am)

John,

I have never visited a refugee camp, and thanks to the undeserved blessings of good family, friends and the amazing relative security of a civilised western democracy with a functioning (for now) economy and the rule of law, have never needed refuge myself.

So what?

I go to church every Sunday and pray every day. I thank God for the above blessings and more, because, but for the grace of God I would not have them.

So what?

I have a mouth and a brain and plenty of opinions, which were endowed by my Creator and that gives me my inalienable right to free speech, in this glorious Judeo-Christian western democracy I am blessed to live in. A world where there is no freedom of speech, for everyone including people who do not share your opinions, is not a better place. And to call others bigoted because they don’t think like you is highly bigoted and also shows fascistic tendencies.

So what?

We don’t need more compassion with less agro. We need people who are prepared to deal with the realities of humanity as it is, not with the fantasy utopian ideals of humanity as they wish it to be. I assume you are a church-goer? So I hope you understand the fallenness and brokenness of this world that is unsalvageable but for the saving work of Jesus on the cross, right?

So what?

Your “simple question” demonstrates to me that you have no understanding of the grace of God. No-one on this earth deserves a better life than anyone else. NO-ONE deserves equal opportunity, fortune and compassion, the Bible is very clear about this. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, John. We all deserve misery, suffering and death, and but for the grace of God and Jesus’ atoning sacrifice on the cross, that is what we will be getting, for ETERNITY.

So what?

The fact that a small proportion of humanity enjoys peace and favour today is because of the rich Judeo-Christian heritage we share in the founding of our societies. At no other time in the entire history of man, have so many enjoyed so much peace for so long, EVER. If we want it to last any longer, we have to remember why.

You “social gospel” people need to get the hell out of the way of the real gospel that changes lives for eternity, because you and your “BIG GOVERNMENT” ideas can’t make heaven on earth. It’s not possible, not your way, not now, not ever, not even with bags more money, and more legislation, and more masochistic deluded self-hate. It’s not your fault that you have been blessed to live in freedom. What is your fault is sticking your own head up your own bum for so long that you have no idea how we got here or how to keep us here or how to get anybody else here.

So what?

I assume you pray. You should take your guilt and your misplaced self-hate and lay them at Jesus’ feet, John. They are not helping you or anyone else.

And next time, maybe think twice before playing the “do you go to church and pray” card, because you might meet someone even more fed up with it than I am.

Old Bolt Bothering

2009-04-25T16:45:00.001+08:00

Found this comment from this Bolt post, while searching for a more recent comment I made on a Bolt post...

Is anyone really surprised that the rights of the most vulnerable, the innocent children, are inferior to the rights of their biological parents in our society? In a country where the right to life, the most basic human right, of the even more vulnerable - babies in their mother’s wombs - is inferior to the right of the biological mother? How dare we suggest that children’s rights come first after they are born, when they don’t come first before they are born?

We would applaud these mothers if they had the foresight to just kill their babies before we had to see how badly they would treat them, wouldn’t we? It’s so much better if we kill them before they learn to cry, to speak for themselves, before their very existence demands of us a response, demands of us compassion and shows us the absolute depravity to which our society has sunk. How do we change a culture that values children, values life, NOT absolutely, but only at our convenience?

JanineV of Perth (Reply)
Tue 28 Oct 08 (12:22pm)

Jan replied to JanineV
Tue 28 Oct 08 (08:09pm)

Dispose of them before they can ask [sarc] “ Can I call you Mum” and can I “say I love you”. These are beautiful words you forgot to include, JanineV, as put by one concerned reader on this blog, otherwise well said.

Bolt-bothering

2009-04-25T14:47:00.002+08:00

Comments made at Bolt's blog...the first from a while ago, in response to a question - posted with all other responses included.

I believe that Christianity might still be stuck with the Old Testament punishment ethos that hardline Islam still shows if it wasn’t for the Roman rule in the Middle East.

Did the Romans rule Mecca or the nomadic tribes of that region at any time? I suspect not but can anyone reading this confirm that.

John of Ringwood (Reply)
Sun 05 Apr 09 (03:51pm)

dowp replied to John
Sun 05 Apr 09 (05:21pm)

John - Old Testament is Jewish.
New Testament is Christian.

elsie replied to John
Sun 05 Apr 09 (05:45pm)

Sadly, Mohammed was born long after the Romans quit that part of the world!

Stephen P replied to John
Sun 05 Apr 09 (05:49pm)

I believe that Christianity might still be stuck with the Old Testament punishment ethos that hardline Islam still shows if it wasn’t for the Roman rule in the Middle East.

The Roman method of execution, crucifixion, was as barbaric (if not more so) than Jewish stoning. Perhaps you’ve forgotten the popular Roman entertainment of throwing Christians into the coliseums to be torn apart by lions and devoured.

It is obvious you have no knowledge of New Testament teaching. Jesus instructed His followers to love their enemies, pray for them - and leave judgement and punishment to God who alone is righteous. The Romans had nothing to do with it.

Age of Stupid replied to John
Sun 05 Apr 09 (10:31pm)

You’re right Stephen, were as once almost everyone understood basic Christianity and either accepted it or rejected it a large portion of this generation have absolutely no idea. They even stuggle with basic history and tend to prefer hearsay.

JanineV replied to John
Mon 06 Apr 09 (11:43am)

John,

This is a bit late, but I started it yesterday then realised I was going to be late for church! FWIW…

Christianity, by virtue of the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, broke ties with the OT “punishment ethos”. Jesus came to fulfill the OT Law, so while the Law is still in effect today, it exists to demonstrate our utter inability to comply with the laws of a Holy God, and to point the way to the cross, where God, in human form but without sin (a perfect law-keeper), took on the punishment for all our sins and provided a way for us to return to relationship with the Holy God who created and sustains us.

The Roman Empire was a useful tool in spreading the gospel message, but isn’t the reason why Christianity isn’t “stuck with the Old Testament punishment ethos”. We have a fire and brimstone message, but we tend not to back it up with stonings. According to the good book, we should judge not in this life, lest we be judged ourselves in eternity.

The cross, as a symbol of crucifixion, was a Roman tool to horrifyingly punish, shame and bring fear to their subjugated peoples. In Roman times, Jewish people would find making jokes about crucifixion about as appropriate as making jokes about Auschwitz today (thanks Don Carson for the analogy). It was not, nor should it ever be, considered bling.

Blog-Bothering

2009-04-24T18:12:00.003+08:00

My comments and replies from this post at Tim Blair's about Obama's alleged plastic fantastic media fakery in Iraq... Apologies for the formatting, I can't be bothered working out how to make this look better.

I decided to drag myself back out from the occasional lurk to respond to the comments made by the I with the great first name and SDI et al, but I realised that it’s impossible to explain to people who have already drunk the Kool-Aid that their entire world view is completely warped to the point that they are incapable of rational thought.

This is how it is with the left:

I know GWB is stupid, I believe it with all my heart. I mean he looks like a monkey, he talks like a southern hick with that dumb-ass drawl, he gets his words backwards and he even reads kids books upside down. Everybody I know thinks he’s as dumb as a bag of hammers. He’d never even been overseas before he was President! Don’t waste my time with your evidence to the contrary, that’s all just a Rovian conspiracy.

I know Obama is smart, I believe it with all my heart. I mean, he must be smart, he speaks so eloquently and walks with such an effortless grace and his skin is so smooth, like melted chocolate and ooh that sends tingles up my thigh… you know what? You can throw all kinds of evidence at me and I will never, ever believe otherwise, and gosh darn it, I’m a little peeved at you even suggesting that’s the case or even pointing me in the direction of evidence to the contrary, so I am going to try to shut you out and do the cyber equivalent of closing my eyes, stuffing my fingers in my ears and shouting “la-la-la-I can’t hear you la-la-la!” Don’t keep asking me questions about what he’s done before, he ran for president dammit! That is a massive administrative operation! He was a senator, he voted present because he was present! What’s wrong with that?

I mean, when Obama messes his words up it’s because he’s tired from visiting all those extra states that nobody knew existed (you see he even creates states where there were no states before, man), and he’s like just over being questioned by people who ask hard questions he’s not prepared for, it’s only natural to get a little testy, we’re all human after all. And he doesn’t have to keep his promises because he’s doing his best for us, the people, whom he loves so much, and we love him back, and love is all you need really. If he has to break his promises it’s just tough love, because we’ve been bad. He’s our leader, and I’m going to try a little harder, give a little more, because he’s the one with the really tough job, you know? So give the guy a break. Bush was an idiot, and nobody I know voted for him, so he must have stolen the election so he deserved everything he got and anyway, he didn’t love us or feel our pain the way Bill did or Obama does, I know he does, I can see it in those big beautiful brown eyes…

You can’t argue with blind love and devotion. And in a way, it’s kind of sweet to see them being positive and almost happy for a change. Try to be happy for them, the world will come crashing down on them soon, and like Humpty, the King’s soldiers won’t be able to put them back together.

JanineV of Perth (Reply)
Wed 15 Apr 09 (01:27pm)

spot_the_dog replied to JanineV
Wed 15 Apr 09 (01:56pm)
Are you sure you don’t want to marry me, JanineV? Hey, I know you’ve already got 1 hubby, but I’m cool with the whole polygamy thing ;~)

P.S. Forget about Treach - he’s a twit, and you and I know you’re just plain outta his league…

Mick Gold Coast QLD replied to JanineV
Wed 15 Apr 09 (02:09pm)
JanineV you’ve made me day!

The whole charade and departure from reality is depressing but, at last, Pythonesque clarity at last - Michael Pallin or Eric Idle could not top this. I must remember to retain my sense of humour and my preparedness to recognise high farce and giggle at it.

Well done!

strange days indeed replied to JanineV
Wed 15 Apr 09 (05:14pm)
You can throw all kinds of evidence at me and I will never, ever believe otherwise, and gosh darn it, I’m a little peeved at you even suggesting that’s the case or even pointing me in the direction of evidence to the contrary, so I am going to try to shut you out and do the cyber equivalent of closing my eyes, stuffing my fingers in my ears and shouting “la-la-la-I can’t hear you la-la-la!”

Darling, I guess “all kinds of evidence” for you means even non-evidence. Go figure:

...the accusations may – may – turn out to be accurate. Let’s wait and see.

Did you ‘wait and see’? No - that would be the process of forming a world-view based on evidence. Have I fingered your world-view, darling, and exposed you as a gullible fool? Yes. Do you realise just how stupid your post is? I doubt it. Do you believe AGW is a load of crock? Yes. Do you have any peer-review evidence to back it up? As much as you have on Plastic Obama.

Merilyn Williams replied to JanineV
Wed 15 Apr 09 (05:54pm)
JanineV; Now that was very good. Thankyou. M Williams

JanineV replied to JanineV
Wed 15 Apr 09 (06:48pm)
Darling SDI, just propose to me as all my fans do.

Well, all two of them, so far, not including the one I accepted. Thanks spot, I can always count on you!

SDI, I’ll see your embittered contempt, sugar and raise you two hubris!

I’m trying to be happy for you, sweetums. Do you really want to hurt me?

I was just making fun of you, cuddle-pie, do you know how stupid you look now?

Here, at the risk of casting pearl before swine, have a random proverb:

Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue. (Pr 17: 28)

There. That all makes about as much sense as you did.

thefrollickingmole replied to JanineV
Wed 15 Apr 09 (07:23pm)
Geez just how deep in denial do you have to be to ignore the comedy playing out in the white house at the moment.

FFS the vice president said this about his boss.
October 2008 “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” On Barack Obama, at the start of the election campaign
Thats just about as close as “he scrubs up well for a n***er” as you can get.
just in case sean and Co are a bit slack and cant click the link heres some more Bidenisms.
March 2009 “Gimme a f***ing break.” To a former Senate colleague who referred to him as “Mr Vice-President”

September 2008 “Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice-president of the United States of America.” He was in the running to be vice-president at the time

September 2008 “If you want to know where al-Qaeda lives, you want to know where bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me, come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500ft in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are.” It later emerged his helicopter had landed because of bad weather

September 2008 “Stand up, Chuck, let ‘em see ya.” To Missouri state Senator Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair

September 2008 “Look, John’s last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the No 1 job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. JOBS, jobs.” On John McCain’s economic policy

One heartbeat away......

Now some Obama stuff ups.
1: On a recent appearance on NBC’s “The Tonight Show” with Jay Leno, President Obama gaffed when speaking of his bowling debacle on the campaign trail. Obama, who scored a 37 in seven frames at a bowling alley in Altoona, Pa., said, “It was like the Special Olympics or something.”

2: On the pirates problem: Obama, calling the safety of the captain “our principal concern,’’ started by saying that he is committed to fighting the “rise of privacy‘’ in the region.

3: Unable to even fill the positions on his cabinet months after the election. “taxes are for little people”

4: Grovelling before the Saudi king and giving the Queen of England an Ipod with his speeches on it.

5: Teleprompter king.

Thats the short list, still its early days yet....

Catwoman replied to JanineV
Wed 15 Apr 09 (08:41pm)
Janine V,

I believe SDI really does
want to hurt, if not you, perhaps he’d like you to do him a favour!

Odd bods like SDI are only happy when they’re bleeding all over your lounge room carpet. Interesting dinner guests but, there’s only so many cigarettes you can stub out on him since most of the population has given up the glorious weed.

Sheepish

2009-02-24T13:30:00.002+09:00

Yet again, my vanity has made me slightly embarrassed. I found this today while surfing Technorati for mentions of (why do I do it?) me. Thank you for your kind congratulations Spot, Ash, Bingbing. Apologies for not replying at tizona, and sooner. Well, I'm only partially sorry I found this so late. Had I seen it closer to the posted date, I probably would have cried. You know, hormones and all that... just so sweet, with the flowers and the bear and the balloon...sniff...said such - blub - nice things about me...gulp...sniff...waaaah!

It's OK, I'm fine now. Back to the politics. What about that stimulus stuff eh? And, and er...that crazy ETS? Oh, and something about climate disruption or warming or whatever! Yup, back in the saddle, sharp as a tack.

Well, only when I'm talking parenting. Then I'm wound just a little too tight...

Bringing Up Baby

2009-02-20T17:41:00.003+09:00

A friend emailed me about the above show on ABC last night. I wrote this, but have decided to post it here, not including my friend's email, as I think it's a demonstration of my ability to rant uncontrollably, and not a good reply to her. Maybe. I'm right about everything of course, just think there's a less ranty way to say it! This is beginning to be baby blog central, guess I'm a little focused at the moment.

Yes, I watched most of it, and noted that the 1950s routine woman (who actually based her ideas on a book written in 1913) was portrayed very negatively. She had some curious ideas (like the "fresh air" idea, and the no picking up baby at all between feeds - is that true? I missed the beginning bit), but I don't think all the negatives associated with 1970s woman and 1960s woman have been properly played out. The Amazonian idea of having baby in a tub at home, and then having to be "rushed" to hospital after 30 hours of labour, which then caused, surprise surprise, serious problems with the baby, wasn't treated with much concern by the producers. Or the completely crazy idea that you can't breastfeed or "bond" properly with your "innately wise" newborn if you don't have physical contact with your child within the hour is a complete crock. It also places an innordinate amount of pressure on mothers who may have difficult labours or children that require immediate intensive care in order to have any chance of survival, as it apparently condemns them to not being able to breastfeed or bond successfully with their children ever. Thank goodness Xxxxx wasn't exposed to such moronic ideas, as she has been able to breastfeed very successfully after two weeks of only tubefeeding her son, and he seems to be very bonded with her. If her midwife or carer had suggested such dimwittery I would have advised Xxxxx to slap her upside the head. What a thing to tell a mother of a newborn who is already having the normal attachment difficulties that come with most newborns. Oh but she said it with such a caring face! HAH! "I can understand why they bottle fed your newborn" (after being born with various unspecified complications and low blood sugar) "but you know it hasn't helped with the breastfeeding". Well, duh! Perhaps instead of accusing the medical professionals who ensured her baby was born alive after she sat in a warm tub at home for 30 hours, you might help her to feel positive about the breastfeeding experience, not saddle her with the pressure that she won't ever be able to bond with him because she can't get the breastfeeding to work!! Sorry those kinds of women make me so angry! And what of those women who for other medical or physical reasons are unable to breastfeed at all? Is there no bonding possible there? The implication that 'Bottles are from SATAN', when people say "Breast is Best" leads to all sorts of unnecessary pressure on women who then end up clinically depressed and then actually unable to bond with their child solely because there was so much pressure and expectation placed on breastfeeding. So wrong!! Isn't it better to be grateful and thankful that your baby is ok and alive, rather than second guess every thing that happened that wasn't in your birth plan or other idealised expectation of birth and parenting?

I can see exactly where this 'study' is going - I'll be very interested to see how it plays out, but I won't be surprised if the routine woman gets a bum rap, regardless of how baby or parents turn out. I'm a big believer in routines, but not where you watch only the clock - it's called 'Parent Directed Feeding', and it helps you to stabilise your baby's hunger cycle allowing you to feed them fully at every feed, play with them and bond with them, and then put them down for a nap. It works, I've seen it work for every baby I know who's been "subjected" to it, and while I wouldn't leave a newborn crying for 1.5 hours, I don't think it's fair that 'routine parenting' of newborns is represented by such ideas. I expect this woman gets called in after 3-6 months and has to instigate such draconian ideas to get the parents to understand what routine means. But we shall see. In the end I expect we'll discover that a blend of styles is what 'Noughtie Babies' need!

As for this experiment being cruel, I agree - only it's cruel to the parents who place upon themselves ridiculous expectations like having the child attached to their boobs for 24 hours a day. Tell me Ladies, does that sound like fun to you? Sure, I can get stuff done with an 8 kilo 12 week old attached to me 24 hours a day! I already have back problems but you want me to pick up a 2 year old, change her nappy, get her dressed, cook breakfast lunch and dinner, do the dishes, get my 4 year old to school, wipe his bottom on the toilet, hang out the washing, fold the washing, go to the toilet, HAVE A SHOWER?!! all the while having Brown-Eyed Bear in a sling around my chest until he's 6 MONTHS OLD!! Are you insane, Amazonian woman? Or do you plan on limiting all women to just the one child then? Or perhaps their Daddies and other care-givers will be on hand for the first 6 months so bubs can be held 24 hours a day? What's funny about this is that parents who have more than one child quickly discover that routine is what naturally happens, because the baby can't be attended to every time they squeak. Haven't you heard the old story - oh the second baby was so much better, really flexible, goes to sleep where ever, is more content, feeds better...SIMPLY because they have been given (an unnatural and clearly unloving) routine as they have to fit into the routine of the first. I don't think anyone can suggest that all subsequent babies are somehow less bonded or 'abnormal' developmentally because they didn't have 'unfettered access to the breast' (what a nightmare) for the first 6 months. And I think it's bordering on slander to suggest that women who use routines somehow love their children less than women who give them unfettered access to the breast - can you tell I just love that phrase? I plan on using it a lot in conversation in future. There's a great Little Britian sketch about such things..."Bitty, Bitty!!" (Insert Mr Burns like shudder here).

And after 6 months, what then? How do you get that child to spend any time away from you, and fall asleep not in your lap with a nipple in its mouth? Is there some crying involved, perhaps? I haven't met the child that would naturally and easily transition from having their mother's attention 24 hours a day to not having it for any length of time at all, or are they just the babies without the requisite 'innate wisdom'? Hope the babies with Amazon woman as their expert have the same innate wisdom as those anthropologically researched tribal babies from ages past...

End Rant.

Hmm, yes, definitely went a bit overboard there. Glad I didn't hit send...

The Big List

2009-01-22T16:17:00.003+09:00

I've added my name to this list, and linked it here, mainly so I can point to it and say I actually was one of the deniers, when suddenly world opinion does an about face and everyone realises that "Climate Change" is a tautology...you know, because climates change, like, all the time. And I don't just mean the weather. Climate refers to average weather patterns in a given area over a long period of time, and the longer you study, the more variability you get, in the same area. Climate is a study of weather patterns; weather patterns change. If the weather is variable, then more of the same thing is probably variable too. If you say the weather is going to be warming up at this point in time, and that reflects a significant change in the pattern that has existed since the world came into being, then if the weather doesn't warm up at that point in time, what does that mean? If the same area has shown massive variations in weather for as long as the world has existed, what does that mean? I think it means Climate. AKA "Climate Change", tautologically speaking.

The Workshops of Identity

2009-01-09T10:10:00.002+09:00

Just wanted to keep a link to this article. I have only had time to skim it to the end, but it seems to say everything I have ever wanted to say about the USA. A great resource I think. Have always liked Bill Whittle's stuff since his early Eject!Eject!Eject! days. I have been glad to see his rise on Pajamas Media in recent times.

The Overpopulation Myth Returns

2009-01-09T09:21:00.002+09:00

Not sure why I chose this post and this particular comment to return to commenting. I guess it just irked me that people are so quick to blame Christian or Catholic "religious fundamentalism" for everything wrong in the world. Even if they eventually get around to mentioning the Islamic threat, Christianity always manages to get lumped right in there with them. I suppose the issue of the number of children drew me in too, for obvious reasons!

So where does that put the Pope, who says that environmental damage is one of the new Seven Deadly Sins, yet doesn’t permit his flock to use reliable contraception?

perturbed of NSW (Reply)
Thu 08 Jan 09 (09:01am)

jo replied to perturbed
Thu 08 Jan 09 (10:18am)
The pope represents a hypocritical organisation.

Anyone concerned with this planets resources must recognise prolific breeding is irresponsible.

Religions which encourage ‘mass production’ are only concerned with having a strong power base, not the environment.

perturbed replied to perturbed
Thu 08 Jan 09 (11:12am)
The pope represents a hypocritical organisation.

That was the point I was trying to make.

Toiling Mass replied to perturbed
Thu 08 Jan 09 (12:29pm)
I think the Catholic Church teaches restraint as a contraceptive, and emphasises the relationship between sex producing children. If you don’t want kiddies, no shagging.

I do not believe the Church puts physical pleasure on as high a plane as the rest of society in general.

JanineV replied to perturbed
Thu 08 Jan 09 (12:33pm)
Good grief. So the Pope gets stuck with a “hypocrite” tag because he says that the environment is important but also has a problem with contraception? Why? Is the “science in” on the whole “humans are a virus” meme? Or is this just another way to conveniently avoid addressing that “other” world religion that has an even more medieval approach to procreation and interpersonal relationships? Much easier to bash the Pope. Not being a Catholic I’m not in the least bothered by the Pope or the Catholic Church’s position on contraception, but I do think it’s a bit rich to call him a hypocrite over this.

I mean, it’s not at all possible to care for the environment and not subscribe to the already floated and completely pwned theory that human overpopulation is the harbinger of doom for the planet, is it?

Of course, I’ve just had my third baby so perhaps I’m biased, but I think any child is worth exponentially more than any random number of flights on any random number of jets to any random destinations. I wouldn’t sacrifice my freedom, my intellect or even my dignity on the altar of your enviro-doomist-cult, don’t even think about asking for my children!

Bat doo-doo replied to perturbed
Thu 08 Jan 09 (01:57pm)
Everybody needs a good poop!

perturbed replied to perturbed
Thu 08 Jan 09 (02:12pm)
That other world religion doesn’t get a free ride at all; it’s just that the Pope has been particularly vocal about damage to the environment being a sin, whereas the only thing the loony fringe of Islam seems to say about the environment is how nice it would be with Jews and Western white people out of it and women under the thumb, an attitude which IMO should land them in Hell.

Of course, I’ve just had my third baby so perhaps I’m biased, but I think any child is worth exponentially more than any random number of flights on any random number of jets to any random destinations. I wouldn’t sacrifice my freedom, my intellect or even my dignity on the altar of your enviro-doomist-cult, don’t even think about asking for my children!

I completely agree with you. But since you’re not a brainwashed sheep of the Pope, or worse, an enslaved victim of hardline Islam (like the Afghans for whom our troops are fighting and dying used to be), you have the right to stop at three if you so desire.

And… My enviro-doomist cult? I’m about as far from that bulls**t as you can hope to get, but resources here on Earth ARE finite - and if we don’t use what we’ve got to get out into space where they’re essentially infinite, or to develop really, REALLY efficient recycling capabilities, or preferably both, we’re going to run out eventually. The more people there are down here, the sooner that will be and the less time we have to avert disaster.

Science and technology are the only things that can save us, and neither is going to come to the forefront if the world’s population is dominated by hardline Catholics and fanatical so-called Muslims.

Of the two, the Catholic Church has the huge advantage that it no longer tortures or murders the people who disobey it. What to do about the other lot is a vexatious question, because it will quite probably mean a long war and fields of Muslim corpses before we can bring them to heel.

JanineV replied to perturbed
Thu 08 Jan 09 (05:16pm)
Hmm, so encouraging Catholics to STOP procreating will ensure the salvation of the earth? Have you read anything about demographics lately? The cultures that are currently at the forefront of science and technology are the ones the cultists (if not you) are wanting to curb their irresponsibly prolific breeding.

The more people there are down here, the sooner that will be and the less time we have to avert disaster. Science and technology are the only things that can save us, and neither is going to come to the forefront if the world’s population is dominated by hardline Catholics and fanatical so-called Muslims.

I hadn’t realised that “science and technology” are these amazing abstract concepts that improve, evolve and solve human-defined problems on their own, without human input. I hope the scientists and technologists who are going to come up with the plan to save us are already alive and kicking, otherwise there’s a bit of a flaw in your plan.

And it’s interesting the suggestion that science and technology will somehow disappear if the “hardline Catholics and fanatical so-called Muslims” dominate the world. In countries where Christianity was the dominant religion (ie. countries with a distinctly Judeo-Christian heritage, aka much of the “West”, especially the US) science and technology seem to be expanding in leaps and bounds! I won’t bore you with examples as anyone can see the West is synonymous with technological advancement, and not all of it happened AFTER it declared God was dead and became officially ‘post-Christian’.

And just as a side-note - what does “so-called Muslims” mean?

..but resources here on Earth ARE finite - and if we don’t use what we’ve got to get out into space where they’re essentially infinite, or to develop really, REALLY efficient recycling capabilities, or preferably both, we’re going to run out eventually.

You say that like it’s the absolute truth, and there is a ring of umm, common sense and logic about it. Sure there is only so much oil, so many minerals, metals etc etc, but there is actually no way of knowing or predicting accurately when things will run out. People have tried, and they have failed, spectacularly! What makes you think you know it all? And what your statement fails to take into account is human ingenuity. And for that you need humans. And like resource depletion, it’s really hard to predict where and when the smart ones will be born, so it’s no good encouraging the technologically advanced countries to stop breeding (what am I saying - encourage?! Most are barely at replacement rate as it is!)

Of the two, the Catholic Church has the huge advantage that it no longer tortures or murders the people who disobey it. What to do about the other lot is a vexatious question, because it will quite probably mean a long war and fields of Muslim corpses before we can bring them to heel.

OK, totally agree with you there, but the best way to win a war, be it cultural or martial, is with people. You want to raise an army of culture warriors to overcome the barbarian hordes? You need to breed, and then teach your children what you value - your history, your morality, your culture. You don’t want to do that - then you are leaving the world to those who will.

You’ve hit the nail on the head, right at the end there. It’s not about the environment. Mother Earth doesn’t care who treads her ground - ‘she’ is not sentient. The only way to ensure your way of life is maintained is to go to war. We are losing the cultural one (probably already lost it in Europe) so you better start hoping someone is preparing for violence, lest it be fields of Western corpses you envisage.

Not sure how this ended up being a discussion of the Clash of Civilisations. I’d apologise, but I think it was you that mentioned war first…

wreckage replied to perturbed
Thu 08 Jan 09 (06:02pm)
Anyone concerned with this planets resources must recognise prolific breeding is irresponsible.

Untrue. Factually and scientifically untrue at worst, and an unprovable assertion at worst.

Blah blah blah finite resources

Ultimately any resource shortage is a social construct. There is effective to any realistic projected human population, infinite everything.

But even if we go beyond that, into ridiculous population projections that ignore the tendency of human populations to self-regulate, there will be no resource shortfall in the long term. That is because the world is an object on the scale of a planet oddly enough and even shoulder-to-shoulder humans a barely perceptible biological film on its surface.

Jim Jones Documentary on SBS

2008-12-10T09:36:00.005+09:00

Watched most of this on SBS last night (stumbled across it while feeding the Brown-Eyed Bear) and watched as the tragedy played out before my eyes. I had always known the scant details (mass suicide etc) but had never seen footage of the man or his "church". I had never seen interviews with former members, had never understood what it meant for one man to be able to "persuade" so many others to die - not only that, to kill, their own children before taking the poison themselves. I guess after you'd watched your children die, frothing at the mouth, looking up at you - with what kind of questions or desperate fear on their faces? - knowing that it was by your hand they suffered and died, it would be easy to drink the Kool-Aid yourself.

I understand the jokes people make about "drinking the Kool-Aid", especially during the recent US elections. But then I heard the story of that man, who found his wife and baby son after she had given him the poison to drink, heard his voice describe how he was frothing at the mouth, while a still photo of them all floated in view, and I looked down and saw my 2 week old son in my arms, drinking his fill of his Mother's milk, content and happy. I finally understood the personal tragedy of it. I cannot explain the fury, and the sadness, but most of all the plain bafflement I felt. How could 909 people succumb to this madness?

I know the reason why - we are fallen beings, but we were created for worship - if we cannot find the Creator, whom we are meant to worship, then we naturally search for and find cheap facsimiles. It's how we are made. But it still doesn't make sense to me. Then again, if you are not a believer, then what I have just said seems just as nutty as what the people in Jonestown believed. Believing anything at all, of a religious and therefore inexplicable nature, is only half a step away from joining a cult and giving away your independence and your rational mind!

I can't properly explain why it's different - why the Christian truth, the truth of God, as he reveals himself in the Bible, confers absolute independence of heart and mind (real freedom means freedom from sin, the freedom to do good not evil!) and requires your utmost rationality, even as your "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1, NASB). How awful when that faith is misplaced, when that hope brings nothing but devastation and death.

Socialists believe they can make heaven on earth, because they deny the fundamental truth about the nature of humanity ("the doctrine of total depravity" which I am just reading about in this month's Briefing). Once you step away from that truth, it's really hard to make sense of humanity. So I guess I do understand how and why things like the Jonestown Massacre can and do happen. But it doesn't make it any easier to digest.

News Flash

2008-12-09T09:21:00.003+09:00

I slipped it in as a kind of update on the last post I think (should check before I type, but oh well!) but I think it deserves a mention of it's own. Our third child and second son was born on 25 November 2008. He is a hale and hearty lad, who shall be named "The Brown-Eyed Bear" if ever mentioned here again, with jet black hair who is doing all the right stuff (eating sleeping pooping). We are tired, but that is typical and I have little energy or inclination to comment or post much at the moment. Bingbing - thanks for the recent encouragement, I will return, if only to save my name from horrible ignominy at the hands of JanineI! I never thought I'd find a Janine I didn't like, I always thought they'd be Jeannine, or Jeanine or some other horrid spelling...

Update 10/11/08: I feel guilty about the JanineI comment - mainly because I can't really say I don't like a person I've never met. I guess what I meant was I didn't like her comments/opinions, or even more accurately, didn't agree with them. I still like lots of folks whose opinions I disagree with. So, I guess I'm saying I never thought I'd find a Janine who I disagreed with...

The New Stolen Generation: Change We Can Believe In!

2008-11-24T11:15:00.006+09:00

A reply I made today, to a comment made at Andrew Bolt's blog regarding this post about how more children are being removed from Aboriginal care now than during the mythical "Stolen Generations Era".

When we as Australians place people in a class we will always have problems. For years, Aboriginal people were placed into a class of their own in that they were not allowed to be a part of white Australia unless they were jackeroos, housemaids or something similar where their service was usually the lowest paid (if at all) and then after work having to get out of town to their various camps that we now call a disgrace. Why were they living in camps in the first place Andrew if we are all equal as Australians? Therefore they were in the lower classes of our society due to white ignorance of the time (and now in reading some of your replies.) Aboriginal servicemen returning from war zones unable to drink in an RSL due to their colour; well done Australia. Aboriginal kids not being able to use the same swimming pool as the white kids. Well done Australia. All of these things point to them being placed in the lowest class of all by upstanding Australian citizens. Lower than even the terrible dole bludgers of this country!
I myself served for 23 years in the Australian Army and saw what all Australians should be striving for; equality no matter what your colour, even ‘though at times the “old Australian attitude” of making a joke of ones differences to hide a deeper disrespect rose its ugly head occaisionally.
Where a complete generation has been mistreated and neglected of course the next one will be at a disadvantage. How can a mother or father be an example to their kids when they didn’t even learn the basics from their parents. Surprise surprise, even white kids are like this today and also get taken away by DOCS.
Wake up and look deeper into this national disgrace Australia, instead of following blindly what Andrew Bolt tells you. You might be the better for it.

Ian P of Broken Hill (Reply)
Mon 24 Nov 08 (10:06am)

JanineV replied to Ian P
Mon 24 Nov 08 (12:23pm)
Ian P,

Australia, and every country, race, ethnicity and cultural/tribal grouping on the face of this earth has much to be ashamed about in its past, especially as it concerns the treatment of “the other” in its society. We believe in the inherent equality and dignity of ALL people only because our society is a product of the Judeo-Christian heritage that founded it. It is extraordinarily special and can easily be lost. And yes, you are right, it has also been imperfectly applied and ignored by our society too.

Andrew is not arguing that Australia has never had a racist past in relation to its dealings with the Aboriginals. But you ask an interesting question - why were the Aboriginals in “camps” if they were considered equal under Australian law? Let me ask you - why are communities of Aboriginals living in squalid and filthy conditions in camps in “the outback” and on the outskirts of rural and mining towns NOW? Why are they living in places where there is no work, little to no educational opportunities and less than little or nothing to do? Have you ever visited these communities? Do you know where they are, why they are there and what conditions are like there, NOW? I have only been to one, a dry community and by current standards it was probably one of the best, but still several orders of magnitude below what we would consider appropriate living standards for ourselves and our children.

WE put them there, Ian, in our enlightened present, not our racist past, because we bought into the “Noble Savage” myth and wanted to wind the clock back to keep them as they were before the arrival of the white man - as though Aboriginals are, even now, incapable of co-existing in our “advanced” society, as though this is the only way for them to be happy, to find peace, to express themselves or to live in accordance with their traditions.

We placed them there, threw some money, welfare and the odd social service at them, and then left them to fester and intoxicate themselves deeper and deeper into an abyss of rage, victimhood, violence and abuse, which lacking any other resource, gets poured out on the innocent children who are born into it. We put them there and we keep them there still, Ian, because we are so afraid to be seen as racists we would rather have babies, children and adults raped, neglected and abused to death or to become abusers themselves, as long as we don’t have to SEE it. We keep them there Ian, because as Andrew suggests, to not do so means to question everything we have done in our enlightened present.

Perhaps in our haste to pronounce ourselves as the evil racists, we have become merely patronising and paternalistic, and have condemned Aboriginals to a lifetime of servitude to our notion of their victimhood. We have made them slaves to our myths and have ensured their continued degradation so we can continue to flagellate ourselves and our society about how evil we are. What is so wonderful about this situation is that, as with most leftist “solutions” to social problems, this costs us nothing, as it requires of us no effort and produces no result, yet all the while gains us brownie points from the “compassionate” and useless elites.

But it costs Aboriginals everything. Would you rather be seen as the culture that so values all its citizens, it protects the innocent, gives them education and skills and helps them develop into functioning and contributing members of its society, regardless of the colour of their skin, or is it better to be seen as a society that has so little real compassion for “the other” in its midst that it condemns it to a slow, agonising death in order to salve its own misguided conscience?

UPDATE: Ian responds...rather weirdly. Will copy my response when it's up at Bolt's blog...

Ian P replied to Ian P
Mon 24 Nov 08 (01:35pm)
Janine. My wife is Aboriginal and I couldn’t agree with you more. However, she and her excellent family have taught me more values and morality in the last 8 years than I would have known had I not met them. We put them there because WE didn’t and still don’t know how to fix a basic problem of human decency! I agree that if a child is in danger that they need to be taken and I agree that there are alot of people in this country that need to take a bex and have a lie down when crying about racism. If there’s a problem with a family, black or white let’s fix it the best way we can and make the hard decisions that need to be made. Alot of Aboriginal people shy away from mixing into the mainstream because rightly or wrongly they STILL feel ostricised from mainstream white Australia. They still feel victimised and judged and by reading the comments and opinions here I can understand why. Why wouldn’t you want to live in a place with little or no work in it if it was the only place you had ever known and all of your family was there? Why would you want to move away and be on your own amongst strangers who are most likely judging your Aboriginality.
Did I even mention the word racist in my post? No, but you have. Did you answer my question why Aboriginal servicemen were denied entry to RSLs? No. Did you answer my question why Aboriginal children were shunned from some swimming pools because of their colour? No.
Why do you bring up about babies being raped as if this is the norm in Aboriginal society. Is it because the media told you so? Does this happen in white society? You bet ya it does. Why don’t we hear about this like we have in the intervention that has taken place. Did I mention the noble savage myth? No I didn’t and I also think that that is a crock. Why do you ask if I’ve been to a community? What difference does it make? Does it make you a good white fella if you have? Wow, you must be proud of yourself.
Read what I’ve written properly and reply with something enlightening and something that we didn’t already know Sherlock Holmes.

and then this wacky little aside further down...

Reply to Janine. I didn’t say that Aboriginal Australians were in town camps if considered equal under Australian law because they weren’t until after the 1967 vote to include them. Gee, it only took us until 1967 to give them equal rights and we reckon South Africa was crook.
Read what I wrote correctly!

Ian P of Broken Hill (Reply)
Mon 24 Nov 08 (01:40pm)

As I said, I'll post my replies when they're up...

UPDATE II: My responses...

JanineV replied to Ian P
Mon 24 Nov 08 (03:45pm)
Ian,

Why did you bring up that your wife is Aboriginal? And why do you assume I’m a white fella (I’m neither white nor a fella)? What difference does it make? Does your opinion carry more weight now? If so, then my experience at seeing a community also does.

You didn’t mention the word racism, but you question why I did, and then ask me to explain why Aboriginal servicemen were denied access to RSL clubs, or why children were not admitted to some pools because of their colour, thereby answering your own question?

What do you want me to say? I freely admitted Australia has a racist past and present. There are people alive today who would judge me and my half-caste children, because of the colour of our skin. By the way, my husband is white and I have learned more about values and morality from our joint Judeo-Christian heritage in the last 35+ years of being alive than I’ve ever been taught anywhere else - so what? Does all this mean that I believe the Government of this country has a direct responsibility for all the racist feelings people have against me, or that they have a current racist policy against people of my ethnicity? Is that what you believe?

You are right, I brought up the Noble Savage myth. Pardon me for adding something new to the conversation. You belittle my intelligence, and tell me its a crock, but provide no answers to the questions I asked. I’m not suggesting that Aboriginals in these communities currently have a reasonable choice to leave their families and the only homes they know. I’m not suggesting that their “victimhood status” is something they can get themselves out of easily. What I want to know is why is it OK for public policy to not protect children in Aboriginal communities, when they would protect children in mainstream white communities suffering the same abuse? You are asking me if I think it’s normal in Aboriginal communities to do these things (eg rape babies)? By the response of the state, in keeping these children in situations like this primarily because of the colour of their skin, when they would otherwise remove them, could easily be used as an argument to say yes, it must be normal! Again, I see inherent racism in what we do now. What do you see? If the Noble Savage myth is a crock, explain why we are doing what we are doing right now?

In the end, Ian, I am not sure what you are arguing about and what makes you so angry. Do I see racism against Aboriginals in this country right now? Yes I do. You rightly state that Aboriginals now feel ostracised from mainstream Australia. What are you going to do about it?

Getting angry with me or Andrew Bolt, accusing me of small-mindedness and believing only what the media tells me is the real crock here. Do you think that if the State happened upon some ultra-freaky-religious white community out in the wilds and found the kinds of child abuse going on there, that we wouldn’t have heard about it? I know enough about the liberal media in this country to know that that would be splashed all over the headlines and people would be taken into custody, children would be removed and the general public would be outraged.

I can’t work out the point you are trying to make, Ian. If you “couldn’t agree with me more”, then why do you argue with every point I make and then end your post with so little effort at civility? From the tone of both of your comments, you are suggesting Australia is a racist society, even though you take pains to point out that you never used the word itself.

Oh, I’m just repeating myself because your arguments are weirdly circular. This is how carefully I have read your comment Ian, do me the honour of reading mine with as much attention, here you can borrow my Sherlock Holmes magnifying glass if you need it. Then work out how you are feeling, type up a response, and maybe we can get a rational conversation going. It’s hard for me to be enlightening if I have to keep repeating myself to answer your questions.

And to the second separate comment...

JanineV replied to Ian P
Mon 24 Nov 08 (03:53pm)
Ian,

I have a lengthy reply above, but in response to this interesting little epithet, this is what you said:

"Why were they living in camps in the first place Andrew if we are all equal as Australians? Therefore they were in the lower classes of our society due to white ignorance of the time (and now in reading some of your replies.)" (Emphasis mine)

So, I apologise if I misunderstood your statement “equal as Australians” to be “equal under the law”. However, the debate about semantics is as pointless as this pathetic attempt to point score. In essence, you answer your own question, and agree with me that Australia had a racist past. Can we move on now?

This is kind of fun!

UPDATE (3 December 2008): There were some rude replies from Ian, which I can't be bothered adding here, as its old news, but just wanted to mention that my lack of replies at Andrew's blog had more to do with my giving birth to our third child on 25 November 2008, than Ian's devastating repartee. Things are all going very well with the third bear, I think we shall call him Brown-Eyed Bear, to go along with my eldest, 'The Brown Bear" and my second "The Bearess", if they ever get a mention here again. Unlikely, as I have a private blog for stories about my bears! So Gordon/Spot, if you ever check back here again, that is why I disappeared mid-conversation with Ian P! And who is that fool who thought I'd been banned - as though anything I wrote could have remotely been mistaken for Janine I's usual commentage...

Still fun, though...

What I said about Media Bias (A. Bolt's Blog)

2008-11-24T10:27:00.002+09:00

I suddenly thought a great way to keep track of my commenting is just to repost them here! A bit slow aren't I. So here is the comment I made which elicited the response as outlined in the previous post (link in previous post too):

Has everyone missed the point of the poll? It’s not that Americans are DUMB, I mean we all know they are, as are most Australians, proven many times by the Chaser’s vox pops during election times followed by the big graphic “This Person Votes!”. We are all dumb, ok, we get it.

However, the point was that the general voting population get their information from the mainstream media, and this poll highlighted the fact that negative FACTS about Obama/Biden were under-reported, if reported at all by the MSM, while negative FACTS and misinterpreted quotes from Palin/McCain shown on comedy shows were overreported and hammered by the MSM. The general bias being so obvious that people attributed Obama & Biden’s dumb comments to Palin, because she’s a dumb as a box of hammers, doncha know?

People know what they are told to know by the MSM. I was most impressed by the voter who actually asked what the correct answer was, and then was blown away that she hadn’t heard that before. Admittedly, she then stated she wouldn’t have changed her vote based on those facts, but I like to think that was just some face-saving in front of the camera, and by the look on her face, I think she was beginning to worry about exactly why she cast her vote the way she did.

Either way, it’s not about how dumb the voters are. It’s about what they knew, and how they knew what they knew. If they were equally as clueless about Palin’s wardrobe costs and pregnant teenage daughter, then you would have to make different claims about the MSM’s reporting. If they didn’t automatically assume that Palin/McCain were the only ones who said dumb or damaging things during the election, then you would have an argument that perhaps the media wasn’t presenting a biased picture of the candidates. But the poll speaks for itself.

It’s not about sour grapes, guys. Or Andrew’s right wing group think. These are legitimate questions about the nature and power of the “free press” in America, and here. If you just want to bang on about how dumb people are, then nothing has changed, has it? You’ve been banging on about how dumb voters, and their elected officials have been for the last 8 years at least. What’s new?

JanineV of Perth (Reply)
Thu 20 Nov 08 (12:25pm)

Outed!!

2008-11-20T17:17:00.003+09:00

Ok, some guy named Gordon at Andrew Bolt's blog found my previous post about my 15 minutes of fame (or perhaps more amusingly "4 and a half minutes of s***" thanks to the Late Show). How embarrassingly self-aggrandizing of me. Well he's linked to it so now I'm out. Thanks Gordon, I do appreciate the kudos. Didn't think anyone would go looking to be honest.

And apparently people have commented, here... Good grief. I may need therapy. Well, I guess I'm still mostly anonymous and "girl with trackies" was a pretty lame pseudonym...

Sheesh, outed on Andrew Bolt's blog, could it get any worse? Perhaps most people won't notice the link...So I have a new label now - Cyber-Agoraphobia! Luckily I deleted most of the personal posts about my family already. Deep breath in... and out... and in... and out...

15 Minutes of Fame

2008-11-13T11:25:00.003+09:00

I just had to record this for posterity. I made a comment at Tim Blair's Daily Telegraph Blog, in reference to a post he made about the cringeworthy "From 52 to 48 With Love" website that someone set up. I will repost it here, followed by my comment and the various comments in reply to it. It generated quite an impressive response, including a proposal of Marriage from one Jim Treacher, also posted and linked to. As another commenter took the liberty of reposting my "essay" as he called it, to Little Green Footballs, he advised I had some more new fans of my "work". I find it so fascinating, and ego-boosting of course admittedly, but also a little perplexing. The "essay" took probably about 45 minutes to write and edit. I always edit and re-edit comments before publishing because I hate bad grammar, spelling and syntax, even in blog comments. As egalitarian as we like to think we are, we still have a societal response to poor spelling that equates to lack of intelligence. It's manifestly not true, of course but there you go. It was well-written, and I think funny, but surely not all that?! Well, see for yourself...

So the original post from Tim:

Tim Blair
Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 12:25pm

Victor Davis Hanson:
When I hear a partisan insider like Paul Begala urging at the 11th hour that we now rally around lame-duck Bush in his last few days, I detect a sense of apprehension that no Democrats would wish conservatives to treat Obama as they did Bush for eight years.
There may be something to that, especially considering that the same types who apologised to the world for Bush’s election four years ago are now urging that everybody get along because we are “all in this together”.

Jim Treacher responds:
There’s nothing easier than telling the guy you just beat that he should forget the depths you plumbed to do so.

More annoying is that the get-alongers are deleting the best entries.

And then my comment and the replies if this works:

That website made me want to puke. Those head-tilts are now not of compassion but condescension. As if the left has anything to teach anyone about graciousness or moderation in attitude or behaviour.

Of course conservatives will “get along” and make nice - it’s why they knew they could get away with all the atrocious things they’ve said and done the past 8 years. Did anyone hear GWB whining about all the stuff that’s been said and written about him? Has he blackballed a network for asking “tough” questions? Has he querulously queried a news anchor about being a shill for the opposing side?

Do you know why conservatives generally have the capacity for graciousness in victory and defeat? Because, as a rule, conservatives are happy with who they are. There’s no cognitive dissonance going on, because we live what we believe - we like free markets, so we consume; we actually care for our less fortunate neighbours, so we give generously (of our OWN money that we earn) and we buy their stuff so they can gain wealth; we don’t believe the economy works by taking from one and giving to the other (as though a dollar for you means a dollar less for me), so we work hard, pay our taxes grudgingly and rejoice at the success of others while working to secure our own; we don’t believe in AGW, so we don’t agonise over the recycling or flying or driving anywhere. It’s bliss.

If you’re a lefty in a western capitalist democracy, this is impossible because you are living off the wealth created by a system you think you despise. You are inherently angry and bitter all the time, because your life can’t measure up to your impossible ideals, and you are naturally self-absorbed and self-centered because of this anger and bitterness. It’s all consuming.

Of course, I’m generalising. I’m sure some of the head-tilties pictured were appalled at the treatment of the conservatives at the hands of the minority (but vocal) radicalised elements of their pseudo-religion, and in the last 8 years raised their voices again and again in protest at such unprovoked and vicious assaults on the character and person of their political opponents, all the while gently counselling their wayward brethren to focus on critiquing ideas, and having genuine debates rather than resorting to name-calling.

And I know, some conservative once called you a name so we are just as bad. Boo hoo. Go cry in your victory herbal tea, winner, and try to figure out just how to run something and lead something for once, instead of making dopey-hopey-changey noises and singing “How many times must a man blah blah” while wearing your “Abort Sarah Palin” button on your “Sarah Palin is a C***” t-shirt while waving your “GWB is not my President” banner and throwing a molotov cocktail at the McDonald’s on the corner. Oh, and did I forget to mention the “No War for Oil” hat on your head?

This makes me sound unhappy doesn’t it? But the above is what the left actually DID. It’s so bitter, angry, twisted and unhinged that merely stating the fact makes me sound bitter, angry, twisted and unhinged. So sad. (head tilt) But I weally, weally wuv you guys and want to make it work so your heads don’t explode. M’kay?(/head tilt)

JanineV of Perth (Reply)
Sat 08 Nov 08 (06:22pm)

Jim Treacher replied to JanineV
Sat 08 Nov 08 (07:47pm)
Holy mackerel. Maybe it’s the beers talking, but that might have been the best thing I’ve ever read in my entire life. Thank you for explaining to me who I am, and who I am not.

Tom W. replied to JanineV
Sat 08 Nov 08 (08:45pm)
My brother is a head tilter, and usually he speaks like HAL the computer.

When he talks about people who don’t like to pay taxes, though, his voice gradually rises until he’s almost screaming.

I asked him why he thinks D’ohbama (he HATES that name) will change the world if we had to lower all standards for him to even become president. How can he change the world if he’s too fragile to even be asked questions?

No answer.

I also asked him if he would’ve stood for a white evangelical Christian Republican presidential candidate who refused to unseal his records, lied nonstop about his relationship with an unrepentant terrorist, had big empty spans of time in his life he couldn’t account for, and was involved in about 500 different shady transactions with various convicted felons.

No answer, but a lot of anger.

The only good thing about this fiasco is D’ohbama is going to renege on all of his campaign promises, which will make his rabid cult turn on a dime and hate him more than they hated Bush.

I think it’ll happen sooner than we think. This guy ditches everyone as soon as he doesn’t need them anymore, and he’s already “tempering expections”: i.e. reneging.

This might just be really fun.

spot_the_dog replied to JanineV
Sat 08 Nov 08 (08:52pm)
Hot mama! Now that’s speakin’ truth to power!

Jeez, I’m glad you’re on our side.

spot_the_dog replied to JanineV
Sat 08 Nov 08 (08:54pm)
P.S. Will you do that head tilt thing again? It’s cute as. ;~)

JanineV replied to JanineV
Sat 08 Nov 08 (09:02pm)
Holy Mackerel! I think it must have been the beers Mr Treacher but I’m going to say thank you anyway. And now that I have I just read your latest blog post, I know it must have been the beers! Have one for me, Treach. Cheers, JanineV

MarkL of Canberra replied to JanineV
Sat 08 Nov 08 (09:44pm)
Um, Janine?

Encore, Encore!

Very well said indeed.

MarkL
Canberra

wronwright replied to JanineV
Sat 08 Nov 08 (11:57pm)
Wow. Are all sheilas feisty? I like it. Keep it up and we might put you on our VRWC induction list. If that happens you’ll know it when you suddenly awaken in the middle of the night by the shadowy presence of two MIB standing at the foot of your bed.

Dave S. replied to JanineV
Sun 09 Nov 08 (01:36am)
That’s some primo commentage there.

What she said.

Jim Treacher replied to JanineV
Sun 09 Nov 08 (01:38am)
I just read it again.

It wasn’t the beer!

Please direct us to your blog, or if you don’t have one, please start one.

RebeccaH replied to JanineV
Sun 09 Nov 08 (02:58am)
Brava, JanineV! That’s hitting the nail squarely, I tell you.

FredA replied to JanineV
Sun 09 Nov 08 (07:00am)
Janine V

That (all of it) needs to go on a
T-shirt (along with the “delicious nuts” dog’s bollocks image posted previously)

If that happens let me know and I will definately buy one!

meme of The Great Satan replied to JanineV
Sun 09 Nov 08 (09:44am)
Wow.

saw a bit of this at Mr. Treacher’s blog this AM and just had to see what the responses were like.(like I didn’t already know) wonderful stuff, thanks, and if Jim T is too young maybe...... errr nevermind.

tiredofitall replied to JanineV
Sun 09 Nov 08 (12:45pm)
Wow, way to go JanineV!

The_Real_JeffS replied to JanineV
Sun 09 Nov 08 (12:57pm)
Bravo, Janine. BRAVO!!!!!!

Merilyn Williams replied to JanineV
Sun 09 Nov 08 (03:10pm)
JanineV; that was terrific!!! Well Said. M Williams

Chris E. replied to JanineV
Sun 09 Nov 08 (04:56pm)
Gawd, Janine, I really feel sorry for the leftists in Perth. That was brilliant! More, please.

JanineV replied to JanineV
Sun 09 Nov 08 (05:09pm)
You know, my husband takes the kids camping for the weekend, and look at the trouble I get myself in to!! It’s his fault, he’s more into politics than I am, luckily we are both conservative… Anyway, I would feel bad for you Jim, except that I just noticed you are getting some help in the ‘hot republican babes’ department, and I am almost certain you were in jest in the first place… (head tilt) I’m a teensy tiny bit embarrassed, can you tell? (/head tilt)

OK, off-topic but I feel obliged to answer Treach’s question: I don’t have a blog. I tried it once but it’s a lot harder than it looks, so I have a lot of respect for people who do the blogging thing well! So, Treach, Tim and others, please keep blogging. If I ever give it another go, I will let you know. Thanks for the compliments!

Patrick Chester replied to JanineV
Sun 09 Nov 08 (05:10pm)
Awesome!

Aw… I’m going to have to fight Treacher in some duel like that one on Vulcan from Amok Time, aren’t I?

spot_the_dog replied to JanineV
Sun 09 Nov 08 (05:58pm)
Gawd, Janine, I really feel sorry for the leftists in Perth.

Actually, JanineV is the sole reason we don’t have Leftists in Perth anymore.

JanineV’s Akubra is made from 100% dead moonbat skins. Her Ugg boots, too.

It’s not ‘Global Warming’ that makes Western Australia so hot - it’s JanineV.

Western Australia is giving up maintaining the rabbit proof fence - JanineV’s laser-beam eyes scared them all back across the Nullarbor.

JanineV wears a full-length Drizabone to avoid getting blood on her designer bikini when killing Leftards.

Oh, and don’t bother Googling her: Google won’t search for JanineV because it knows you don’t find JanineV, she finds you.

bingbing replied to JanineV
Mon 10 Nov 08 (02:07am)
I’ll take JanineV over JanineI any day.

Steffan replied to JanineV
Mon 10 Nov 08 (05:58am)
Janine, you have some new fans—I took the liberty of posting your essay, with the link, to Little Green Footballs.

“Head-tilties.” I’ll have to remember that one.

mandible claw replied to JanineV
Tue 11 Nov 08 (09:53pm)
Oh please, people.

JanineV of Perth.

Joe the Plumber.

Karl Rove (does he have a replacement in the leftard lexicon of right wing political figures to be compared to Himmler yet?) slipped up one too many times. Andrew Sullivan is on the case.

Show us your ti.. Uhm I mean your birth records, JanineV!! Prove to us that you’re who you say you are!! Has anyone seen JanineV and Joe the Plumber together in public? Hm? Thought not.

Is that hilarious or what?? So now I'll link and repost from Jim Treacher's blog, and from LGF, and the couple other mentions it gets in the general blogosphere that I found using Technorati and Google's Blog Search.

First, Treach:

IN WHICH I MAKE AN ABSOLUTELY SINCERE PROPOSAL OF MARRIAGE TO JANINEV OF PERTH
I apologize to Tim Blair for poaching his comments, but I'm sure he'll be okay with it because we're "mates." (That's one of the words they use down there.) This comment on Tim's post about the dumb "from 52 to 48" site contains many, many, many buckets of yes:

Jim reposts my comment here..

Thank you to JanineV of Perth for explaining to me who I am and who I am not. I have no money, but I'm useful for moving moderately heavy things from one place to another and would make a mostly acceptable husband. Please don't answer rashly.

P.S. I am not entirely opposed to this contest, although I do extend my condolences to the winner.

Posted by Jim Treacher at November 8, 2008 01:01 AM

Although the Green Card would be great, I am happily married...

Steffan's comment on this post at LGF:

Steffan
11/09/08 10:23:38 am

OT, or maybe not: Tim Blair had a column on the "52 to 48" website.... but the true winner is the comment from Janine V of Perth (scroll down):

Steffan reposts my entire comment here...

Ya gotta love her.

:)

And the replies he got to his post:

rightymouse
11/09/08 10:27:32 am

re: #8 Steffan

OT, or maybe not: Tim Blair had a column on the "52 to 48" website.... but the true winner is the comment from Janine V of Perth (scroll down):

Ya gotta love her.

:)

That was excellent. Thanks!

MandyManners
11/09/08 10:29:09 am

re: #8 Steffan

Go cry in your victory herbal tea, winner, and try to figure out just how to run something and lead something for once, instead of making dopey-hopey-changey noises and singing “How many times must a man blah blah” while wearing your “Abort Sarah Palin” button on your “Sarah Palin is a C***” t-shirt while waving your “GWB is not my President” banner and throwing a molotov cocktail at the McDonald’s on the corner. Oh, and did I forget to mention the “No War for Oil” hat on your head?

One of the best sentences ever written anywhere.

Spiny Norman
11/09/08 10:29:42 am

re: #8 Steffan

OT, or maybe not: Tim Blair had a column on the "52 to 48" website.... but the true winner is the comment from Janine V of Perth (scroll down):

Ya gotta love her.

:)

Yep. Comment of the Year.

least
11/09/08 10:34:08 am

re: #8 Steffan

Most excellent
This post should be an up-ding magnet

Janine V rocks!

I think that was the last of the comments related to Steffan's post, but as there are just over 1000 comments for that particular LGF post, I confess I couldn't be bothered scrolling past 400 with any serious deliberation!

And lastly, in the final portion of my 15 minutes of fame, the random bloggers who reposted and linked to my comment:

The Smallest Minority

Sunday, November 09, 2008

More Right-Wing Hatemongering

Unix-Jedi emailed me this morning with a very interesting link. It seems that the very same people who apologized to the world for Bush getting re-elected are now advising us that we all just need to get along.

Jim Treacher had something to say about that. Specifically:
There's nothing easier than telling the guy you just beat that he should forget the depths you plumbed to do so.
So did Victor Davis Hanson:
When I hear a partisan insider like Paul Begala urging at the 11th hour that we now rally around lame-duck Bush in his last few days, I detect a sense of apprehension that no Democrats would wish conservatives to treat Obama as they did Bush for eight years.
Which was picked up by Tim Blair. But what U-J sent me was a link to a specific comment at Tim Blair's Daily Telegraph post. This one:

My comment reposted in full...

You go girl!

Just a Typical White Person

Who simply titles his post "This About Says it All" and reposts my comment linked and in full, with the comment: "The voice of reason from a commenter in Australia."

The Tizona Group

In their post about From 52 to 48 site, links to Jim Treacher's post and offer of marriage with the comment:

Pssssst: JimT {hearts} JanineV … pass it on!

So there you have it. 15 minutes of fame out here in the blogosphere. At least it's an encouragement to keep writing and opining!

Alma Mater

2006-07-28T16:35:00.000+08:00

Does that term apply to high school, or is it only university? Did I spell it right?

Anyway, my high school turned 21 this year. As I was one of the students in Year 8 when it first opened its doors, this makes me feel WAY old. The school had a Tree Planting Ceremony to comemorate the occasion and invited all the old Head Boys and Head Girls from each year to attend and plant a tree representing each year group. Not exactly 21 years as when I first started there was only Year 8 and Year 9, so the first Head Boy was from the Class of 1989. I always liked the fact that I was Class of 1990 - must be the round number thing. So, as I was Head Girl for my class, I was invited to attend.

Apart from the fact that the Council hadn't delivered all the trees by 9am this morning so we all got to stand around one tree, and have a photo taken while the oldest Head Boy, who by the way looked as though he hadn't aged a day, pretended to shovel some dirt around the recently planted tree (here's one we prepared earlier...) it was really great to be back there.

I took great care with my personal presentation. Having just had a baby 8 weeks ago (today! we shall call her "polar bear") for some reason it was important to me not to turn up looking like I usually do at 9am in the morning (hair not brushed, wearing jammies or my usual day wear of tracky-dacks, what else, t-shirt, jumper and bandanna, mmm yummy), so I got up at 6:25am, showered and dressed, gave the polar bear her morning feed, got the brown bear up, dressed him, packed the car, did my make-up and was out the door at 8:15am. Later I wondered what this said about me?

I confess to feeling a bit strange at the desire to impress - the self-conciousness I felt at not being a "working mother" and needing to mention that I just got my Masters last year. It didn't help that I was the only one silly enough to bring my children along and genuinely regretted not having the brown bear babysat as he was absolutely fractious for most of the morning. Another embarrassment for a woman who has chosen to stay at home!! Can't even manage her own children!! Grief. I did bring babysitters with me, my mum and step-dad, and at least the polar bear behaved herself and slept in her pram until she needed to be fed late in the morning.

Anyway, after the failed tree planting moment, we were taken on tour by Year 11 student councillors and had the chance to natter amongst ourselves about how everything looked smaller (yes, I actually thought and said this, so dweeby - in front of everyone no less - when they sprung on us the gift of certificates and pens to be received with a few small words about your time here, eek!) but also the same. I wanted to take a look at the Rec Centre and Performing Arts department as this was the home of some of my strongest and favourite memories of my school years. Oddly enough, the rooms even smelled the same. I guess adolescent children impart the same aroma now as we did back then.

What amazed me was how many teachers I recognised. The school I went to has a pretty good reputation for a state school that doesn't have a "special" status like Rossmoyne or John Curtin, Perth Mod etc. The teachers love it so much they just stay... for decades. My Lit teacher is retired but still does relief, only at this school. The Deputy Principal during our years only retired a few years back after 17 years, I think, with the school. The dance teacher is still there, as is my chemistry teacher - who looks exactly the same, which brought back fond memories of Year 12 Chem for me. I almost failed TEE Chem but I loved Chem classes because this teacher was a lovely guy and it was a fun class. I sat at the back with Naomi, Clare and Nicol I think and just giggled the whole way through at whatever the boys in front said. I may have had a small crush on said Chem teacher, but he was such a nice guy and he reminded me of Cliff Richard, and don't forget I come from a broken home... Cliff Richard??!!

I have a ridiculously bad memory, and consequently remember very little about my schooling, but I should try and write down some memories as the act of writing brings the memories back. I remember the popular boys in our year used to hang out by this particular water fountain, all the time. I remembered the recess treats that are apparently unique to my school even now - "Snagger Buns", which were and still are only made on Thursdays (so my lit teacher reminded me) - delectable half hot dog rolls grilled with a crumbed sausage and grated cheese covered with a line of tomato sauce (Blanders would shudder I know) and my almost regular lunch of a chicken and salad roll in Year 12.

The Head Boy of my year turned up too, so it was great to catch up with him if only briefly! I missed my reunion which I would have attended except we were in the UK at the time, so it has been pretty much 16 years since I last saw any of these people. Nobody else from my year was there, but it was good all the same and I have joined the alumni association so in future I might catch up with them. I left high school with no regrets though. I wasn't that upset to leave and my graduation night was not gut-wrenching for any of my friends or I. We even did an item, Kirsty, Sharon and myself, a skit really, where we began humming the melody of "Memories, light the corners of my mind, misty water coloured memories..." while Kirsty waxed poetic about our school years until we launched into a rather tame version of "We Gotta Get Outta This Place" by the Angels. It fell horribly flat as apparently everyone else did have "misty water coloured memories". One of the other students mentioned later that she was glad we started singing the Angels song as she was welling up during the intro! Which was supposed to be a joke! Perhaps it says more about our delivery than anything else? Perhaps the Angels was a bit ambitious for 17 year old girl voices?

Anyway, this has really become a complete ramble so will end here. I think the brown bear is awake from his afternoon nap, and I should really have done the dishes instead of sitting here talking to nobody! I may write more about this, or more likely, write nothing for another few months. Luckily there are few of you holding your breath for more...

2006-05-04T10:52:00.000+08:00

New photo! I like it it's cool - I found it on Google Images but couldn't find the original source document - it's supposed to be at www.trackydacks.com

Anonymity is King

2006-05-04T10:11:00.000+08:00

Actually I have nothing of interest to say here but wanted to post something while online to see if my profile changes have come through. I decided to go even more anonymous than I was before as the feeling of being too exposed and vulnerable hasn't waned.

Cyberspace is an interesting place and if I was a sociologist, this is where I would be doing most of my study. I just finished a research paper on blogs in my profession and that was the most interesting aspect of it, not that I had opportunity to delve too deeply into that, but the sociological and psychological aspects of why people blog (why not?) and how the relationships work is fascinating to me. The opennes with which people express themselves, mostly never knowing who exactly might be reading is quite bizarre to a naturally private person.

And yet, I have been blogging for a while now, making very personal, if only philosophical, comments about things, and I haven't told many friends about it, but really anyone could stumble across it. I used to comment at friends' blogs using my blogger id, but don't anymore as I got nervous about who that might expose my blog to, and not having any control over that made me very nervous! Yet, I don't want to stop blogging because of the cathartic effect and having an outlet to express these things, all be it anonymously to those who don't know me, is quite fun! It's not the same as keeping a diary, which I used to do quite regularly before I got married.

Being human is strange.

Abortion, up close and personal

2006-03-27T13:50:00.000+08:00

If you have read much of what I have posted recently you will know that I have pretty strong views about abortion. It is so much harder to translate those strong views when random people you don't expect tell you their abortion stories. When I was pregnant with the bear 2 years ago, one of the volunteers at the library I used to work in told me, the same day I announced to the staff that I was 3 months pregnant, about her sad abortion story. She is a woman in her 50s/60s, Indian but living in England at the time, and I can't remember the exact details but she was going through a divorce, not easy for her culture at the best of times, but discovered she was pregnant and chose to terminate the baby because she just couldn't cope with it at the time, another decision doubly difficult given the era (the 60s I expect) and also her cultural background. At the time I remember feeling angry that she would tell me such a depressing story after just finding out that I was pregnant, and I think I just mumbled how sad that was because I had no idea what to say to her. She is still unmarried and had no kids after that, so is basically alone and dotes on her sisters kids, although she said at the time that she is much happier that she can just enjoy her nieces and nephews but not have to raise them, but people don't tell you things like that for no reason. It's not really the time to say that I completely disagree with you for murdering your unborn child, is it?

The reason I'm writing about such an old story is because it happened to me again, today! I am 7 months pregnant and I went to get my legs waxed at a salon different to the one I've been going to. So anyway, the beautician asks the normal questions (when are you due? did you have morning sickness or sore breasts? ok the last question is a little more intimate than I'm used to) but then qualifies the questions by saying she was pregnant (and before I even have time to think, oh poor thing she lost the baby) she says my boyfriend and I decided not to keep the baby. And my head went numb. I thought and prayed, there must be something right for me to say here, what is it? But nothing sprang to mind. I think I made a sympathetic oh sound, but words failed me. She went on to say that she was on the pill and it was totally unexpected, but she had really bad morning sickness and also sore breasts that are still so sore she can't sleep properly, so I realise that this was really recent. And I still had no clue what to say? What do you say? My head was spinning with things like, well your breasts are probably still sore because your body is adjusting to suddenly not being pregnant anymore and that will take time to settle down, but I thought, I'm not qualified to give that kind of advice! What do I know about the medical and physiological responses to abortion? Plus the response came out of anger and would have sounded like - well it serves you right, you killed your own baby while it was in your womb so maybe you should expect some kind of physiological response to that - your body was getting ready to nurture that human being and you had it poisoned or crushed and vaccumed out of you!! Meanwhile, she's telling me that everyone she's talked to who's been pregnant says that they didn't get morning sickness or sore breasts, so you know why her?

I know that God puts people like this in my path for me to do something more useful than what I did, but I just felt so helpless. How do you convey sympathy, without giving them implicit approval for what they've just done? Do I assume she's completely comfortable with the decision and therefore I can tell her that I don't agree with killing babies just because the time is not right for you, or you're only 21 and just not ready? Is that my place? Do I tell her I'm sorry for your loss? What I find most disturbing is the language she chose to use. She said we decided not to keep the baby. Most people don't refer to aborted babies, as babies! They usually try to separate the baby part from the terminated part, but she didn't. Is that because she's comfortable with her decision or is she really torn up about it? She sounded so matter of fact.

Anyway, I'm pretty much silent at this point, not really expressing anything, so I guess I'm expressing disapproval? Who knows. I'm lying on the table, getting my leg hairs removed and thinking that this woman had a little baby in her womb, just like I do, but now that baby is no more. I said a prayer for the little one, and asked again for something to say that might be of remote use to anyone, but my brain was frozen. Should I have asked if she needed to talk to a counsellor about it? Perhaps I should have suggested she talk to her Doctor about the sore breast thing and maybe got her to open up a bit more on matters less biological and more spiritual that way?

The hard thing is I get so angry about the concept of abortion, but that emotion is absolutely useless when you have a person contemplating undergoing, or has already undergone, the "procedure". My only other experience like this is an old friend told me years ago that she had had an abortion, long story, but again I could express no disapproval, didn't even tell her that I thought it was wrong, and she was telling me what an awful, wrenching experience it was for her, which is a perfect opener to say that maybe it was the wrong thing to do, in a nice way of course. She now has a little boy and twin girls I think, different fathers, but I think she is doing ok and is married to the second dad.

Of secondary interest is the question, why would someone open up to a pregnant person about their abortion story? What in their minds makes them think that there is an affinity between them? Simply being pregnant is kind of a physiological affinity, but they've got to know that a woman who is going through with a pregnancy is more likely to be distressed, or horrified, by the fact that you've recently or otherwise, aborted yours, surely? Is it simply a cry for approval/help from someone they desperately want approval from - women who choose to have babies giving approval to those that terminate theirs, because in our society it's all about the WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE?

What did she want me to say to her? And why couldn't I say anything about how I really felt about what she did? Is it wrong and/or cowardly of me not to want to say to her that I think what she did was morally wrong and a crime against humanity? Is there a nice way to tell someone that actually the decision "not to keep your baby" is the same as murder and should be called infanticide? Was she trying to ask for forgiveness?

Looking back over the whole episode I realise that although I felt anger coupled with overwhelming emptiness, which I can't explain, the main feeling I felt was a combination of pity and regret, for both mother and child. It doesn't matter how comfortable you tell yourself, or anyone else, you are about it, you know that 'not keeping your baby' effectively means 'killing your baby', and if you are blessed with children down the line, babies you are ready for and want to keep, you will always remember the one you didn't want, and you will always wonder who they would have been, and who you would have been, had you chosen to keep them. Will you tell your wanted children, that Mummy threw away an earlier baby, who was for all intents and purposes just like them, because she simply didn't want them at the time? How would you feel if that was your Mother telling you that? How could you ever look at your babies and not think of the one you destroyed first - who will always be your first, not first-born of course, but always your first.

Is there a way to convey that nicely to a complete stranger you just met 3 minutes earlier, and with whom you have nothing but a commercial relationship?

Born in Defiance

2006-03-13T14:56:00.000+08:00

Andrew Bolt wrote another brilliant article about abortion (I posted on an earlier article he wrote on the topic). I was reading this article through tears last night, and both want to read the book he recommends and don't want to read it because I expect I will weep all the way through it. 100,000 babies every year. In Australia alone. State sanctioned and paid for. Just think about that number, and then read the article, and his earlier one, to have it really hit home what each one of those 100,000 decisions really meant - to the parents, to the families and to the innocents, as well as to God.

How the Kids Took Over

2006-03-06T21:54:00.000+08:00

The title refers to a Four Corners report just aired tonight on ABC and the comment below is one I sent in to the feedback site for Four Corners. It made me so angry!

"Regarding the Four Corners/CBC report about how kids are being targeted as consumers by corporations, I have only one thing to say. What a crock!! I am in control of what my child eats, wears, plays with and sees on TV. I will not relinquish that responsibility to anyone - either the corporations or the government - for any reason, because I am the one who knows what is best for my child.

If you cannot say not to your child when they want something that they don't need or that you cannot afford to buy them, that is not the government's problem and no amount of "legislation" controlling "marketing" will help you. The only pity I feel is for those children who are not being equipped to live in this world as real adults because they are being indulged, before they can handle it, with all the freedom of adult choices with none of the responsibilities. Where do you think you learn that - at school? At University? It's too late by then!

We are raising generations of adults who will not be able to cope with the pressures of normal life, let alone what the future might throw at them. Think about your children - they don't need STUFF to be happy, they just need you to love them enough to spend time with them, giving them YOURSELF. They need the STUFF because you train them to need it, you train them that STUFF is an adequate substitute for REAL LOVE and REAL RELATIONSHIPS.

Corporations will do what they will for the bottom dollar, it is up to you as parents to do what you will for what and who is most important to you. It is disappointing to me that this point of view was not included in this report because I can guarantee that I am not the only parent in the world who feels this way and who would have been appalled at the conclusions inferred by this report."

Update 13/03/06: Always know I'm really steamed when the all caps come out. Too much? I had a bit of a surf a few days later at the feedback site and noted one comment which suggested that it's not so much that people can't say no to kids, it is the marketing which creates an atmosphere of peer group pressure making it impossible for kids to "fit in" without having all the aforementioned "stuff". You know, it sounds reasonable, but again, it's a total cop out. One of the commentors noted that in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s kids had fads that they all had to have and those that couldn't afford it had to manage without. I think you are still copping out on your parenting responsibilities by falling for the line that "marketing men" are responsible for creating an environment that requires you to buy the latest stuff so your children can make friends. I would like to raise my children to be above and beyond that kind of materialism and to have such self-assurance that if they are challenged by kids who have the "stuff" they can simply laugh at them and go hang out with real friends. Does that seem like a pipe dream?

I was never bothered by peer pressure at school (not sure how I got such a strong id) but I had enough personal integrity in Year 4 that when my group of friends started doing the girl thing of picking on someone for no reason I chose to spend my free time in the library rather than be the target or participant. You could say it was cowardice too, as I didn't challenge the perceived order, but it stood me in good stead in later years and I clearly remember thinking to myself in high school when looking at the other girls who were talking so openly about sex and other inappropriate pursuits for 14-16 year olds, that I would see how happy and well adjusted we all were in 10 years time!! This was before I made a concious decision to accept Christ too. Anyway, I am the product of a "broken home" so cannot really discern what caused me to not chase after male attention - I had the same crushes and things on pop stars and the cute boys at school (I have diaries to prove it - I still remember the start of one of my irregular entries at age 13 or so being "I am in love with Morten Harkett" (lead singer of A-Ha) so funny!) but I think I always knew at the time they were silly and only ever discussed my crushes with my best friend and my diary, who were both completely trustworthy. Fortunately, I was too shy to pursue boys openly and came across as aloof and stuck up, which protected me from the worst of teenage excesses. Anyway, I've waffled, as I always used to do in my diaries and now I've forgotten what this post was about... oh yes, parenting in the marketing-soaked, consumer-driven, capitalist-pig society we call the Free West. You know, it could be so much worse. I could have been born in Afghanistan, under Taliban rule, or in Communist North Korea, or on a desert plain in Africa during a record famine. Instead I was born to essentially Anglo-Sri Lankan parents into a transitioning Muslim post-colonial country and my parents wisely decided to migrate while the migrating was good to a western post-colonial country where we are so free to do our will that the state sanctions the murder of 100,000 babies every year (in utero of course). Yes, it could be so much worse. 100,000 kids never having to know the pain of peer group rejection because their skate shoes aren't the right brand, or their Daddy hasn't bought them the latest camera phone/mp3 player yet.

Cruesli Chocolat au lait

2006-03-01T17:21:00.000+08:00

The yummiest cereal known to humanity (IMHO). I so wish it wasn't only available on the Continent.

Infant Baptism

2006-03-01T15:38:00.000+08:00

What a dilemma! To baptise or to dedicate? We have very good friends who are baptists, and a few years ago we did a course called Back to Basics which was designed to do just that and one of the units was about baptism. Now, in our previous church it was a bit of a thorny issue because there were members of the church who disagreed with the church's position of promoting 'paedobaptism'. Some of these people are the same as the ones mentioned above who are 'very good friends' of ours. Anyway, we spent an afternoon discussing the topic and being given a very good summation on why the church's position was for paedobaptism. Unfortunately, we weren't completely convinced and I've dragged the notes out again because the bear is going to be two this weekend and we are expecting another little bear in a few months time and I've been feeling like we need to make a decision about this rather than just vaccillate. I want to get him dedicated/baptised and having witnessed one of each ceremony since we've been at St Matt's it is clear to me that the church accepts both positions so it really is up to us what we want to do. It's just the more I read about it the more I am concerned that it is such a grey issue which can be interpreted both ways, with both proponents clearly articulating exactly why it is scriptural and that God wants us to do (or at least doesn't want us NOT to do) either infant baptism or believer's baptism.

There is a short and unsatisfactory summation in my New Geneva Study Bible, but then I read this and although it is not that well written (being the transcript of a sermon) and contains quite argumentative language, it was quite persuasive about the shaky ground upon which the church has supposedly based the practice of infant baptism. And it made some bold statements about the connection between state politics and both the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions, although this was not really expounded on with much explanatory detail - not enough to make me a complete believer at any rate. There was a touch of the Da Vinci Code about it in the accusation of conspiracy almost - at any rate in the church's desire to retain political power in favour of doing God's will and living sola scriptura as it were.

But then I read this, and followed the links to the two articles associated with it that are also available at the link and I found the position of paedobaptism a bit more palatable - in the sense that it is a concrete affirmation of our inability to rescue ourselves, which is much more in line with the protestant sola fide principle. The inclusion of children, while not actually expressed explicitly in the NT or OT, can be inferred and does not contradict the principle that it is God who saves through grace by faith in Jesus Christ. Alternatively, holding to a more legalistic principle of a believer's baptism, one can follow through to an assumption that the act of baptism is more about the believer than about the one in whom we believe.

If Baptism is a sign of the covenant of grace where God so loved us FIRST that he sent his son as an atoning sacrifice, which I am leaning towards now, then infants are part of the inclusive 'world' that God so loved and the covenantal sign of baptism is inclusive also because the relative state and merit of the one receiving the gift is irrelevant (are we more deserving as adults now, then we were as infants of the grace and mercy of Christ - in other words, can we DO anything to receive this gift?).

If Baptism is an outward, public act of confession prompted by the faith and belief in the one who is being baptised, then infants and all those who are judged mentally incompetent to express such a belief must be excluded from this sign. Then it does become a situation where God saves (by grace) through faith in Jesus Christ, and I'm not sure whether grace fits into that sentence anymore. Does that make any sense at all? It makes much more sense in the links above...

Anyway, I need to talk to someone who has more of a clue.

This isn't the funniest thing...

2006-02-28T09:51:00.000+08:00

I've ever received via email, but it is amusing. It's funny because it's true.

Men Are Just Happier People.
What do you expect from such simple creatures?
Your last name stays put. The garage is all yours. Wedding plans take care of themselves. Chocolate is just another snack. You can be President. You can never be pregnant. You can wear a white T-shirt to a water park. You can wear NO shirt to a water park. Car mechanics tell you the truth. The world is your urinal. You never have to drive to another gas station restroom because this one is just too icky. You don't have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt. Same work, more pay. Wrinkles add character. Wedding dress $5000. Tux rental-$100. People never stare at your chest when you're talking to them. The occasional well-rendered belch is practically expected. New shoes don't cut, blister, or mangle your feet. One mood all the time.Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat. You know stuff about tanks. A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase. You can open all your own jars. You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness. If someone forgets to invite you, he or she can still be your friend. Your underwear is $8.95 for a three-pack.. Three pairs of shoes are more than enough. You almost never have strap problems in public. You are unable to see wrinkles in your clothes. Everything on your face stays its original color. The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades. You only have to shave your face and neck. You can play with toys all your life. Your belly usually hides your big hips. One wallet and one pair of shoes one color for all seasons. You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look. You can "do" your nails with a pocket knife. You have freedom of choice concerning growing a mustache. You can do Christmas shopping for 25 relatives on December 24 in 25 minutes. No wonder men are happier.

Friends who blog

2006-02-22T08:43:00.000+08:00

A few of my friends at church, including one of the ministers, have started blogging, or at least I have found out recently that they have blogs and have included them in my reknowned blogroll here! They are pretty good, in an online journal kind of way - not as much like the newsy stuff I get from Tim Blair or Instapundit. But anyway, it's nice to know people in the real world who blog in the virtual world. I wonder if I will get a better sense of who they are or whether it will confuse me? I guess it depends on what kind of thing they blog about. I haven't been surprised yet by any of them, and one blogger I only know kind of, you know not very well, and I have been not so much surprised but amused at the direction his blog takes - I guess I am getting to know him a little better by the kind of things he posts and the style he posts with. Anyway, it's nice to read things by people you know. It's a little like getting a letter, but not quite so personal.

I have just been reading a bunch of articles sent to Frank from a new friend who is amazingly more right of centre than we are! Anyway, these articles really helped me understand what it meant to be more right of centre and still be a Christian. There are folks out there who think that US style Western democracies are as much to fear as the Islamofascists out there, in that they have gone beyond traditional western Christian culture so completely as to be truly anti-Christian in the sense that in the freedom that they have been given they stand for things that so totally oppose Christian values that we should consider these cultures alien and enemy to our way of life. I think I'm paraphrasing badly, but one of the articles compared current US democractic culture to the "Brave New World" as depicted by Huxley, and I was actually somewhat depressed by what it said. I think you have to take it with a grain of salt, and it's an interesting point of view but I think (and now I'm paraphrasing Frank) we have to be a bit more optomistic than that. It's worth a look.

I am also reading Philip Yancey's "The Jesus I Never Knew" at the moment, which is somewhat challenging in it's depiction of the 'real' Jesus (as opposed to the sanitised blond and blue-eyed Jesus who comes to bring peace, sunshine and fairy floss to all, that we learn from Sunday School) and the opposition he encountered while on this earth, and the opposition he told us (the disciples) we would encounter if we follow him. I haven't finished it yet, and I'll need to read it again to be able to discuss it more fully but something tells me there's a connection somewhere there in how we should be responding to this clash of civilisations as Christians. I will think more and maybe muse upon this further. I'm not expecting to find THE answer, but an answer that makes sense of my position as it stands now and perhaps how it fits in with a Godly world view would be nice. Perhaps that is too much to expect also!

Comment sent to Andrew Bolt's Online Forum

2005-12-02T11:54:00.000+08:00

"Hi Andrew, I read your article "We Execute the Innocents" last night and was moved to tears. I just finished reading your forum and wanted to say a few words. Like Chris K I was in my teens, before I became a Christian, when I understood that the abortion debate had nothing to do with religion, but a lot to do with faith. Every advancement that medical science has made demonstrates that a human baby is a human baby, regardless of how many weeks it has been alive since conception. How else can pure science explain when "life" begins if not at conception? It is the religious that imbue humanity with souls and spirits seprate to their physical being, but science would have us believe that we are nothing BUT a "clump of cells" arranged rather cleverly, if by accident or random mutation, to look as we do now.

The only difference between us and a 3 day old foetus is time, nutrition and oxygen. Where does "science" get the idea that it can dictate precisely when life begins if NOT at conception? Is it a matter of faith? Or perhaps it is a matter of "out of sight, out of mind"? Yet the miracle of modern science shows us pictures of life beginning at it's most early stages. I guess it's a matter of things not looking human? It's hard to see the "baby" in a picture of a 3 day old foetus - a blob or something icky that is indisctinct and formless. But surely animals don't look human either yet all political vegetarians and vegans would have us believe that animal life is also sacrosanct, not to be killed for food or clothing. So where do we find the morality of science telling us that we are all nothing but a bunch of cells, but those of us with the benefit of a bit more time on our hands have more right to life than those of us just beginning the process of cell division?

It's not about the life beginning is it? I mean it's not like we can remember what life was like when we were only four cells big. It is about my life now. It's about a faith in the science that cannot really tell me when life begins but can dictate with absolute clarity and moral superiority when it can be ended, as long as the mother chooses, and it's done in a safe sterile environment with no risk of harm to anyone 'human-looking'. No wonder the outrage at late-term abortions. "But, but it looks like a baby, it cries like a baby, it bleeds and breaks and dies like a baby!" I have always wanted to have a t-shirt made in parody of the tag-line from the Alien movies, but with a twist - "Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid. In the womb, no-one can hear you scream". Perhaps that is too much truth to be conveyed in such a glib, pop culture way. If such a t-shirt already exists someone let me know, I'll buy a few.

But in the end it doesn't matter what I think - it's all relative isn't it? As you so clearly articulated in your earlier article about Nguyen, we live in a consequence free, amoral society. I choose to believe that life begins before conception ('Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart' Jer 1:5) and continues long after death, I have my faith to sustain that belief, which also dictates the moral principles (and consequences) under which my life is governed. The scientists, feminists and pro-choicers must have some kind of faith that tells them it's ok to murder the unborn simply because the mother chooses to, because there seems to be no pure science to support it. In an amoral world, the contradictions and hypocrisy you describe are not only typical, they are the required mental gymnastics of people who want to live according to their own morality (or lack thereof) but are cursed with consciences that whisper the morality of the one who created them.

Thank you Andrew for daring to discuss this topic from the point of view of the innocents. Unlike these ramblings, you are one of a few beacons of coherent thought in the Australian media."

(Comment edited for spelling mistakes and hyperlinks added but otherwise as it was sent, will update if it is published with any comments). I mean it's not very well written and it's all over the place but the topic of abortion just gets me steamed. It makes no sense no matter how you look at it! Grrr.

UPDATE: It was published and "Andrew replies: Thanks very much indeed, Janine." Now will have to wait and see if comments arise from the forum participants. I guess we'll see how many bother to wade through my ridiculously long comment! Someone else was much more pithy and eloquent:

From: Damien Carson
Comment: Re: "We Execute the Innocents" (30 Nov) - how do you express
horrified silence in an online forum? Words fail me.
Andrew replies: Thanks, Damien.

A little less shiny

2005-11-30T15:04:00.000+08:00

We had our first close call since moving into this suburb. I've always liked it here, imagined living here for a long time, especially in the house we are building although not living in yet. But after last night, it's taken the shine off the beautiful new house we're building.

We were woken just before 1am this morning by my brother-in-law's fiancee calling quite distressed for my husband to come quickly as there were some Aboriginals in the driveway. Frank was up in an instant but had to put some clothes on and meanwhile she was back at the front door calling again and asking him to hurry. I immediately thought the Aboriginals (a gang, a mob?!) were laying into my brother-in-law. Frank ran out with just pants and slippers on and I followed in my jammies but hung back not wanting to be seen by those outside. The front door and windows are clear glass.

I heard yelling mostly by my brother-in-law, Ben. Frank went outside straightaway, he had already told me to call the police, but before I could do anything they were both inside with the door locked and Kylie was in tears. I hung back just listening, watching the door, expecting hordes of Aboriginals to leer through the glass any moment. Ben and Frank watched the driveway with the lights off inside. Ben called the cops and told us what happened in the meantime.

He was walking Kylie to her car parked on the street, the driveway is long and it's night and that's just what you do, no matter what suburb. Anyway, he noticed a bike at the end of the driveway and thought what's that doing there? The same moment he looked to his right and noticed a man, pressed up against the wall of the house in front of our block and he said, "What the f*** are you doing there?". The typical "nothing" came back but when the question was repeated, he became a little agitated, kept calling for his "f***ing cuz" to come from across the street and said to Ben "what do you care, it's not your house!" Kylie was still with him but when his "cuz" came over finally the little guy got aggressive. His cuz had brought two bricks with him, from the house in front of Ben's. Ben started to retreat back to the house and sent Kylie to get Frank up, and the little guy said, "yeh, you get Frank sis". Not long after that it was all over. The police were there 15 minutes later as the house a few doors down had rung earlier about these two blokes. Ben was out there and spoke to them briefly but as they had their sirens on on the way here those two would have been long gone. Then Kylie had to go as her cousin was still coming in from the airport. I prayed she wouldn't have an accident on the way there. She didn't.

But we were awake for hours, disturbed and angry and feeling vulnerable. What kind of world do we live in where you can challenge someone clearly up to no good on your property or your neighbours property and have them challenge you, tell you it's none of your business and threaten you with bricks and violence to get back into your house? Were Ben and Frank afraid? Yes! Because if anything had happened we were sitting ducks in that house, me, Kylie and the bear. And so what if they managed to beat the crap out of the little bastards? They know where we live. Do you think they don't have other cousins aplenty to bring back tomorrow and teach us a lesson? Or the next night, or day, when the bear and I are home alone?

We have no power to equalise this. In this country if you assault someone trespassing on your property or threatening your life, you can still be charged with assault. In fact, they're more likely to charge you because you are there, easy to be found and have everything to lose.
How can we protect ourselves when we have given up the right to protect ourselves and our property? Whose idea was it to hand over all the power to those who would do us harm, give them all the excuses and all the hand so that they have the gall to threaten us on our property? Our police are hamstrung because they are unable to do this kind of policing. With a citizenry left defenceless and powerless to prevent assaults on their own persons or property, the police are left raising revenue by ridiculous speeding fines and telling us that attendance to an emergency call within 15 minutes is a good thing!! How many times can you get beaten in the head with a brick in 15 minutes?

We're now looking into protecting ourselves the only way we can. Frank's been talking about this for ages, and he's a big, srong man who was left feeling very vulnerable and unable to protect his family last night. It's not enough to call the police and wait for our lives to end like responsible citizen-victims. I'm nervous about the solution, but I don't want to feel vulnerable anymore. I'll be staying at my sister's place on Friday night as the boys will be having an overnighter out bush. Kylie would normally stay with me, but we are both not too comfortable anymore about staying here on our own. I'm sure the feeling will pass with time.

Crying over Oprah

2005-10-25T15:56:00.000+08:00

I'm in WA, Australia, so the Oprah I saw today was probably old, but I just had to mention something. She had on the show a few inspirational people, y'know one of those shows with people's life stories that make you go "I have no reason to complain about any thing anymore", but then two hours later you're complaining? Anyway, I was crying about the college kid who was born as a Congenital Amputee and had awesome parents who treated him like he was any other kid and he learned to do all the things he wanted to with just stumps for arms and legs. But that wasn't what prompted this crazy return to my blog. I just get so fed up with the world. Oprah had another inspirational athlete who only had one leg, and she was telling his story and at one point she mentions how in Ghana, where he's from, children and people with disabilities are outcasts and left to die effectively, and how even this guy's mother was told to kill her litle baby boy because he was born with a defect and she says this like it's so shocking, but in Oprah's own country, a woman with a defective child in utero can simply kill the child BEFORE he/she is born. WTF is the difference?!! Although I'm not sure about Oprah's own views now, this link tends to suggest she is a pro-abortion rather than pro-life advocate. Anyway, it just makes me mad that people can't see the hypocrisy. People like Kyle Maynard are rarely born today, due to the wonders of modern technology we can weed out these little abominations before they're born, you gotta love eugenics. An acquaintance of ours was actively encouraged to abort their little baby boy a few years ago because he had exactly the same "abnormality". Thank God they are Christian and pro-life (yes, those two statements don't go hand in hand anymore)! And that little boy was able to be born and live in a loving home and grow up to be whatever he wants to be!! Anyway, the whole thing just made me want to puke.

Oh yeah, I've got two weeks left before deadline, and I have 2 chapters left to write. Pretty happy with it so far, but we'll see if I pass. Be positive, my supervisor says I will pass so y'know, it's all good.

We're back

2005-09-30T09:58:00.000+08:00

It's been a while. The holiday was great, if a little tiring but o/s holidays always are, aren't they? The bear was very good, the flight was bearable though I felt very sorry for him unable to sleep comfortably in his bassinet (too small) and not really able to understand why. Us adults accept the discomfort because we are aware of the reward at the end, but for little bears its all the same to them and they don't get why we don't just put them in bed!

I am actually writing my paper now and quite enjoying the process, which isn't to say it's any good, but at least it's flowing reasonably. It is due Nov 14, eek! So about 6 weeks away I think. Grief. Chapter One is almost done (and that's just the intro/background chapter!) and Chapter 3 (Methodology) is on its way but will probably need a couple of rewrites even before my supervisor gets to see it - oops actually I sent her the draft which is the awful working document I used and patched together while doing the data collection. which she has seen but is really bad. Oh well...

The other blog is dead I think, can't be bothered writing anything there and when the project is over I'll switch the blogrolling stuff to this blog and get rid of the library blogs I don't really read (natch, most of 'em!) and include the ones I do read which are here on the right. Am looking forward to Nov 14!

Lies, Damned Lies and Promises

2005-08-03T23:08:00.000+08:00

So, it's the beginning of August and I have finished the research but have yet to put words to word processor and properly begin. I have a document called Chapter One Notes, and a document called Chapter One Refs Quotes or something like that, but not a whole heck of a lot in them. Canberra and Newman were great apart from all of us getting sick at some point during either trip. My boy was sick for 5 weeks, three of which he was on antibiotics, I am still working through the repeat of my antibiotics as I ended up sick as a dog for the most part of the Newman holiday. It was really the best time for it to happen (the body knows) as I was able to collapse and know that hubby, and 4 other adults were going to be around to look after the bear while I recouperated and got over the most of it.

Just bought a digital camera for the London holiday, hurrah! Finally joined the 21st century and have a camera that can take great shots but isn't the size of a compact car. Set up the laptop and all that so we are sweet for London and all those travel piccies. Might post some here if I can be bothered to remember how Hello works. Then again, hubby has privacy issues so not sure if I can talk him into it! I do understand, but with 14.2 million blogs around, it's hard to see that anyone other than people I inform are going to stumble on this blog, and if they do, whether they will bother to try to find, and then do bad things to, the people they see on this blog! But, when you talk about kids, any risk is too much to contemplate.

Better get to bed, I seem to always get in the blogging mood around 11pm at night. Why is that?

Not sure what

2005-06-06T17:51:00.000+08:00

the point of this blog is but I really like the name and the URL so I want to keep it. Am too wary to write really personal stuff here, but 'like, that's kinda the point, dude' so am feeling somewhat torn.

What to do, what to do. I think this will end up being my travel blog. We are going travelling a fair bit this year so will summon up the courage to tell family and friends that I will post details and messages here so they can check in when they feel like it. Hmm, summoning.. up ..courage ..to ..lift ...pinky...naah. Can't do it. Try again later...

What do I know about Weblogs?

2005-06-01T23:03:00.000+08:00

Interestingly, a lot, but then not much. I have a lot of primary research to do and very little interest and motivation to do it. Every time I get online I get distracted by all the great stuff that has been written already and can't seem to find the energy to turn away and try and do some thing relevant to my project. Ok, so what I have to do has been narrowed down and all I have to do is study and research what Info Pro's (read: librarians, mainly) are writing about, contributing to and doing with the Blogosphere. But I need to be systematic about it.

Grr. I mean I like organisation and administration as much as the next librarian, but (I'm being so slack!) I just can't get started. I need to spend a day or so just sitting in front of my laptop writing up the methodology and then just doing it! Pick a damn directory or list of lists or even two in fact - the Libdex list and the OpenDirectory list seem like great places to start. And then just systematically look at every blog, tabulate content according to prescribed descriptors and make some assumptions in a clearly defined time frame. How hard can it be?

Well, put that way it seems easy. But it's now 11 pm and I have to get up early tomorrow to get my son ready as he is coming with my husband and I as we have apointments and the Optometrist, and then I have to get my husband to work and I need to get home as my Mum is coming over to watch my boy so I can "get some work done" and then I need to go shopping and get the house ready for the Tupperware Party I am having the day after tomorrow, as I need some Tupperware and figured I may as well help out a friend and sign up for a party as I couldn't go to hers.

A normal week is not unlike this. Life just gets in the way! I don't know how people study and work full time, and have a life. Ah there it is, isn't it? I'm expecting to maintain "my life" and really I shouldn't. Particularly as we have planned a couple of trips this year to Newman, and to London so really time is RUNNING OUT.

I feel better anyway, I think I can manage the above, and perhaps next time I type I will have accomplished the above job and will be moving on to the laborious task of wading through all listed blogs and making copious notes. I think I will just use the lists, rather than ask around on various dis lists as that will just mean more annoying cross-checking against the lists to make sure I'm not looking at blogs more than once. Interesting side issue of descriptors though - what am I looking for and how to describe it? I know that there's educational, marketing and informational library blogs, there's professional development, community and networking blogs. Not many like SOSIG though and there's precious little discussion on preservation or archiving apart from this and this.

That's where I'm heading, better get started. The research WILL be done by end June, and I will have started writing by beginning July. You have my word now, and I am to be held accountable.

New Direction (kind of)

2005-05-17T15:51:00.000+08:00

I have to see my supervisor tomorrow, not sure what new to report, but will keep working tonight, (Tuesday is bad TV night anyway, I think - I'm usually at Bible Study so not really sure what's on on Tuesdays) and I think the new focus is good. I will retain the coverage of the blogosphere in general, but will try to get a detailed picture of how info pros, specifically libraries/librarians are responding to the blogosphere. My first impression, with the reading so far, is that they/we are using the format quite well for marketing, education, reference enquiries/content management tools, but not sure if there is much systematic thought on using the blogosphere as a resource.

There is so much to say about this but most of it politically charged - I don't think I will go there with this paper. It's only got to be roughly 16,000 words anyway, which is why I have to cut down my research area. Such an interesting area, but not having a background in sociology or even any recent academic internet studies is making it hard to keep up.

The Media Report on Radio National has had some great pieces on blogs, bit torrent technology and the future of media. Have a listen.

Seminar Fallout

2005-05-12T11:23:00.000+08:00

Well, the seminar went well apart from the pc projector not working so my ppt slides weren't really useable! Anyway, I got some great feedback and it appears my project is far too large as it is, so I need to cut it down a lot and focus on one aspect of weblogging, really tie it into info professionals and info management, plus there is was a suggestion to focus on one knowledge area (head of school suggested surfing or tapestry or other 'fun' things). My husband suggested looking at blogs about star wars. Would love it, even had a bit of a surf already but I think there's 'fun' and then there's 'silly'. Tossing up using architecture/interior architecture and design as a relevant knowledge area (my undergraduate degree is in interior design) or parenting blogs. Only other knowledge area I'm interested in is current affairs and religion, and I think the current affairs angle makes it far too broad again, unless I choose an aspect of current affairs - like local WA bloggers? It's a thought. Maybe the local studies/archiving angle comes in to play here. BTW, I changed the name of my blog again, to something more like me - basically I'm always wearing trackies when I sit here and type!

Also I have deleted the contents and changed the title of my other blog as I need to rethink how I'm going to use it, if at all.

New Adventures in Blogging

2005-05-02T16:22:00.000+08:00

I have just set up a new blog related to my masters project, and have worked out how to add photos using Hello and their weird little blogger bot thingy. It's not exactly intuitive to me, but I worked out how to get the URL of my profile photo and attach it to my profile so now there's a little photo of me next to my name. Not sure if I'm entirely comfortable with that, but I wanted to do it so I could work out how to publish images as I'm planning on using the blog as part of the seminar I have to present on my "work in (slow) progress" next week. egads, next week??!! What am I doing?