.... I have extracted my foot from my mouth, yes it does fit, normal programming will now resume. Every one can now heave a collective sigh of relieve. Don't worry, it wont last. Mind you, I wouldn't mind meeting Jane Still one day. I did like what she had to say and it was/is relevant. May the Jane Still's of this world continue to write and give us their wisdom. We sure do need it.
There is a forum I frequent which has a thread called "So... How was your day?" Our was most agreeable, excellent even. This morning we attended the Sung Eucharist service at 9:15 at St Lukes.. It has hymns. I like hymns. OK, I am old. But I like hymns and I like my KJV that I have had for 30+ years. We were given a presentation on CE in schools. After the church service finished we went to Bayside for lunch and then off to Forrest Hills for an afternoon with friends of Stephanie's. Yes, it was most agreeable. Now, normally we would have a Sunday Roast for our evening meal and if I were home, I would cook it. Not so today. Today we have fish and chips. But that is the cost for visiting folks who live a good distance away from us.
Sunday, 22 June 2008
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
Wednesday 18th June 2008 Sometimes...
Sometimes we need to think a bit more before we post. My last post was one of those times. I should have read the post and thought a bit more before I published it.
This is, in part, what I wrote: "Jane Still wrote that. I sort of think maybe she is the little girl she writes about". I should have put a bit more. Sort of along the lines of "And I apologise if I am wrong." Apparently, I was wrong. Sorry Jane. No harm or insult intended.
I do hope I was able to get my point across.
Unless any one should get the wrong impression. Let me state loudly and clearly, I do not, in any way at all, support the idea of child pornography or exploitation of children or teens at all, full stop, end of story! Do I make myself loud and clear? I hope so.
I got responses to the 2 emails I mentioned in my last post on this matter. It appears I am the only one who sees it the way I do. That is sad.
Having said that, I don't back down from what I said at all. I should perhaps, with the benefit of hind sight, been a bit more careful in my comments regarding Jane Still. For that I do apologise. But not for the gist of my comments.
In fact, I am going to sort of state it again. We ought not to call something dirty that God has called good. And God said what He created was "very good".
This is, in part, what I wrote: "Jane Still wrote that. I sort of think maybe she is the little girl she writes about". I should have put a bit more. Sort of along the lines of "And I apologise if I am wrong." Apparently, I was wrong. Sorry Jane. No harm or insult intended.
I do hope I was able to get my point across.
Unless any one should get the wrong impression. Let me state loudly and clearly, I do not, in any way at all, support the idea of child pornography or exploitation of children or teens at all, full stop, end of story! Do I make myself loud and clear? I hope so.
I got responses to the 2 emails I mentioned in my last post on this matter. It appears I am the only one who sees it the way I do. That is sad.
Having said that, I don't back down from what I said at all. I should perhaps, with the benefit of hind sight, been a bit more careful in my comments regarding Jane Still. For that I do apologise. But not for the gist of my comments.
In fact, I am going to sort of state it again. We ought not to call something dirty that God has called good. And God said what He created was "very good".
Saturday, 14 June 2008
Saturday 14th June 2008 - I am saddened
"Once upon a time, a just-pubescent girl stripped naked in front of a middle-aged man, who gazed at her physique, judged its best angles, and how her image might best be presented to the world, and he photographed her. Then she dressed and went about her life, and goes about it still. While we discuss Bill Henson’s work and its putative merits, and the fate of our society-gone-bad, just hold that thought in your head, and let it temper your response." That quote is from this article "Henson exhibition - In your outrage don't forget the subject", in the June edition of the Melbourne Anglican. Jane Still wrote that. I sort of think maybe she is the girl she writes about.
And this From the June edition of the Australian Christian Lobby's e-news letter, under the heading "Art controversy highlights need to address sexualisation of children"
"ACL believes the wrong test has been applied on this issue. The question should have been whether it was right to use, whether there is parental consent or not, a child to pose naked for photographs or any art meant for public consumption and ultimately profit. We believe that the fact that no charges can be laid points to a flawed law, not a weak case.
Justified public outrage over this issue has also highlighted the highly sexualised environment in which children are now raised."
Who is right and who is wrong.
This is what I wrote in two separate emails to friends in the last 24 hours over this issue.
"Have we become so paranoid in our efforts to protect our children that we have allowed ourselves to be paralysed in that fear? Stan"
"I am really saddened that the ACL have taken this stand. You see, Dave, as I said in my other email, we are so frightened of offending so called sensibilities that now we now are denied the right to take certain photo's. Not every photographer is a pornographic paedophile. And, yet this is exactly what we brand people who take such photo's. What next? The thought police will now have a look at the photo's we take of our own children?
And this From the June edition of the Australian Christian Lobby's e-news letter, under the heading "Art controversy highlights need to address sexualisation of children"
"ACL believes the wrong test has been applied on this issue. The question should have been whether it was right to use, whether there is parental consent or not, a child to pose naked for photographs or any art meant for public consumption and ultimately profit. We believe that the fact that no charges can be laid points to a flawed law, not a weak case.
Justified public outrage over this issue has also highlighted the highly sexualised environment in which children are now raised."
Who is right and who is wrong.
This is what I wrote in two separate emails to friends in the last 24 hours over this issue.
"Have we become so paranoid in our efforts to protect our children that we have allowed ourselves to be paralysed in that fear? Stan"
"I am really saddened that the ACL have taken this stand. You see, Dave, as I said in my other email, we are so frightened of offending so called sensibilities that now we now are denied the right to take certain photo's. Not every photographer is a pornographic paedophile. And, yet this is exactly what we brand people who take such photo's. What next? The thought police will now have a look at the photo's we take of our own children?
In our efforts to protect children from paedophiles we have paralysed ourselves completely.
Stan"
I haven't seen these photo's. So as to the content of the photo's I can't/wont comment. And I don't take nude photo's of my girls. That also is not an issue. What is at issue is the media driven, and may I suggest even possible Feminist driven hysteria over what should be a celebration of the human body. In their collective efforts in protecting the innocence of these children, they are actually making sexual objects out of them.
I am reminded of a conversation I once had with a now departed Aunt of mine. I had noticed she had some pictures of sculptured body's complete with "those" bits. I called them dirty pictures. She admonished me not to call what God had created beautiful, dirty. That conversation occurred over 40 years ago.
In the intervening years a lot changed. We came up with all sorts of discrimination and harassment laws. Now we must be the master of "correct" speak. Now, if you are a single man, you do not under any circumstance lay hands in any manner on a young child, or for that matter, a teenager. You may well find yourself branded "paedophile". If you game enough to speak to one of the opposite gender, don't. You may find yourself up before the sexual harassment board. Do not under any circumstance call an Englishman a "pom" or you will be up before a race discrimination court.
Presume everyone guilty before they open their mouth.
Better still, wrap every one up in cotton wool, don't allow them access to a camera, gouge out their eyes so they can't see and let every one live in isolation.
I haven't seen these photo's. So as to the content of the photo's I can't/wont comment. And I don't take nude photo's of my girls. That also is not an issue. What is at issue is the media driven, and may I suggest even possible Feminist driven hysteria over what should be a celebration of the human body. In their collective efforts in protecting the innocence of these children, they are actually making sexual objects out of them.
I am reminded of a conversation I once had with a now departed Aunt of mine. I had noticed she had some pictures of sculptured body's complete with "those" bits. I called them dirty pictures. She admonished me not to call what God had created beautiful, dirty. That conversation occurred over 40 years ago.
In the intervening years a lot changed. We came up with all sorts of discrimination and harassment laws. Now we must be the master of "correct" speak. Now, if you are a single man, you do not under any circumstance lay hands in any manner on a young child, or for that matter, a teenager. You may well find yourself branded "paedophile". If you game enough to speak to one of the opposite gender, don't. You may find yourself up before the sexual harassment board. Do not under any circumstance call an Englishman a "pom" or you will be up before a race discrimination court.
Presume everyone guilty before they open their mouth.
Better still, wrap every one up in cotton wool, don't allow them access to a camera, gouge out their eyes so they can't see and let every one live in isolation.
Saturday, 7 June 2008
Saturday 7th June 2008 Life is so good!
See the little girl on the left? The baby? Well she doesn't look like that now. The photo in here is what she looks like now. Sweet, isn't she? She's got a bit of a paddy, just quietly. And she did use to sort of crawl fall down those steps. Not so any more. Now she just crawls down. She doesn't walk any more either. She runs. And she is happy, and noisy. Just like her older sister. In fact, you ought to be here in this house when they decide to crank it up a bit. I don't quite know who makes the most noise. I like it mostly. Cathy is now really starting to show her not so nice side. We call it MTR, or More Training Required.
Oh, by the way, did I happen to ever mention that we believe in Jesus as our Lord and Saviour. In fact, everything we do depends on Him. In fact, He is the reason Stephanie and I met in the first place. If we hadn't known Christ as Lord then we would have never had the reason to meet, let alone get married and have two fantastic children.
How does the Lord influence our life? Just about every way you can think of. Take this for instance. My lovely God fearing Jesus rejoicing wife is not only blind she is also a little on the deaf side. She wears hearing aids. This last week the hearing aids sort of fell to bits. So we dutifully went to the hearing aid place to get them fixed. They discovered she was about due for a hearing test. And would you believe there just happen to be an appointment available on June 23 at 11 am and I just happen to be not working that day. Coincidence? Or Christ's timing and influence and providence? Me thinketh the later.
Enough for me for now.
Friday, 6 June 2008
Friday 6th June 2008 Instinct and all that
The kids are in bed and Mum is reading and I am, well, here. Looking at a keyboard.
Mum went to an ABA meeting yesterday. ABA? What's that? Glad you asked. It's about baby's and milk. Straight from Mum. You know. Those bits. Anyway, the ladies meet around once a month or so. Yesterdays topic of discussion was Instinctive Mothering. The question was: Is mothering instinctive? We had been looking forward to the meeting all week. Turns out is was a bit of a fizzer. Sad really. After all, some of these lady's a struggling to keep the whole breast (oops, did I say that word?) going. Some aren't doing it easy. Baby's, especially newborns are demanding and draining.
So, the question at hand is: Is mothering instinctive? I think it is. First, what is instinct? Instinct is the inherent disposition of a living organism to a particular behaviour.
Now I said I believe mothering is instinctive. I have watched my wifey with two of our children and watch her correctly diagnose crying babies of other mothers. Not withstanding that Michele was formular fed, Stephanie knew what to do and when to do it without having to be told. She had held a baby once before. That was a 2 week old and she didn't do very well at that. Apart from that she had never been within a bulls roar of a baby. And yet when Michele was born, she knew what to do and when to do it. She was exactly the same with Cathy, only Cathy was breast fed.
This is what I believe. I can't prove it, but I believe it. I believe that God, when He created all animals, and we physically are animals, (some never change but that's another story) placed within us certain knowledge which we have access to when we need it. Humans are unique in that we can worship God by act of our free will. We can choose to love or choose not to love Him. But certain other things we have no choice over at all. The sexual act once entered into cannot be stopped. A baby is born with an instinctive reflex, or is pre-programmed if you will, to suck and cry for attention. When it cries it invokes in its mother certain pre-programmed responses. She can no more deny those responses that she can stop a building from falling over. She can suppress them, or she can mentally deny them, but she can't entirely stop them.
I also believe that women are "wired" to know what is wrong with a baby. Example. The other day we were out with a friend who has a 10 month old who is a bit of a handful at times. The child got cranky and obviously had a need that should have been met but that wasn't. I knew there was a problem with the child but not what the problem was. I asked Stephanie what the problem was. her response? Feed the child and get it some rest straight away. The mother of the child should have also known this but because she didn't trust/have confidence in our instinct/inner knowledge, didn't know what to do.
Why? I believe because our society places pressure on mothers to believe the experts and that a mother really doesn't know best. Why? Because the experts have the latest research to back them up. Well they have, haven't they? Well, yes in part. They do have research. But look at this. Katherine A. Dettwyler castes doubts on how effective some of the research is.
Before I chuff of to do other things. I was listening to 3AW on my way home from work yesterday. I don't normally listen to talk back radio with the bunch of shock jocks that inhabit that part of radio land. But yesterday was the exception. Neil Mitchell was doing his best to do what ever it is he does, well. This is what he had to say.
"What you do is your business. But when it impacts upon me, it is then my business".
He gave the following example. Oh, and before I go too far, the hot topic in Melbourne just now is the 2 am lockout for nightclubs in Melbourne.
Back to Neil's example. It is your business whether you smoke or not. However, should you choose to smoke, and you then blow your cigarette smoke in my face, then it becomes my business. And he is correct.
Your business is your business until it starts to affect me; then it is my business.
Mum went to an ABA meeting yesterday. ABA? What's that? Glad you asked. It's about baby's and milk. Straight from Mum. You know. Those bits. Anyway, the ladies meet around once a month or so. Yesterdays topic of discussion was Instinctive Mothering. The question was: Is mothering instinctive? We had been looking forward to the meeting all week. Turns out is was a bit of a fizzer. Sad really. After all, some of these lady's a struggling to keep the whole breast (oops, did I say that word?) going. Some aren't doing it easy. Baby's, especially newborns are demanding and draining.
So, the question at hand is: Is mothering instinctive? I think it is. First, what is instinct? Instinct is the inherent disposition of a living organism to a particular behaviour.
Now I said I believe mothering is instinctive. I have watched my wifey with two of our children and watch her correctly diagnose crying babies of other mothers. Not withstanding that Michele was formular fed, Stephanie knew what to do and when to do it without having to be told. She had held a baby once before. That was a 2 week old and she didn't do very well at that. Apart from that she had never been within a bulls roar of a baby. And yet when Michele was born, she knew what to do and when to do it. She was exactly the same with Cathy, only Cathy was breast fed.
This is what I believe. I can't prove it, but I believe it. I believe that God, when He created all animals, and we physically are animals, (some never change but that's another story) placed within us certain knowledge which we have access to when we need it. Humans are unique in that we can worship God by act of our free will. We can choose to love or choose not to love Him. But certain other things we have no choice over at all. The sexual act once entered into cannot be stopped. A baby is born with an instinctive reflex, or is pre-programmed if you will, to suck and cry for attention. When it cries it invokes in its mother certain pre-programmed responses. She can no more deny those responses that she can stop a building from falling over. She can suppress them, or she can mentally deny them, but she can't entirely stop them.
I also believe that women are "wired" to know what is wrong with a baby. Example. The other day we were out with a friend who has a 10 month old who is a bit of a handful at times. The child got cranky and obviously had a need that should have been met but that wasn't. I knew there was a problem with the child but not what the problem was. I asked Stephanie what the problem was. her response? Feed the child and get it some rest straight away. The mother of the child should have also known this but because she didn't trust/have confidence in our instinct/inner knowledge, didn't know what to do.
Why? I believe because our society places pressure on mothers to believe the experts and that a mother really doesn't know best. Why? Because the experts have the latest research to back them up. Well they have, haven't they? Well, yes in part. They do have research. But look at this. Katherine A. Dettwyler castes doubts on how effective some of the research is.
Before I chuff of to do other things. I was listening to 3AW on my way home from work yesterday. I don't normally listen to talk back radio with the bunch of shock jocks that inhabit that part of radio land. But yesterday was the exception. Neil Mitchell was doing his best to do what ever it is he does, well. This is what he had to say.
"What you do is your business. But when it impacts upon me, it is then my business".
He gave the following example. Oh, and before I go too far, the hot topic in Melbourne just now is the 2 am lockout for nightclubs in Melbourne.
Back to Neil's example. It is your business whether you smoke or not. However, should you choose to smoke, and you then blow your cigarette smoke in my face, then it becomes my business. And he is correct.
Your business is your business until it starts to affect me; then it is my business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)