And then there were 3...

Charlie came to join us yesterday (but please don't tell the landlord :)

She is about 1.5 years old, originally a stray but adopted by very nice people who are now moving away and can't keep her. Came "free to a good home". We had to go through an interview process where we clearly came out as top candidates. There will be a follow-up visit though to make sure Charlie is truly happy.

She is definitely not aloof or timid. Has explored the whole house, sniffed everything and jumped everyone she was allowed. Knows where she is NOT allowed (eg kitchen benchtops), will try to push the boundaries but backs off immediately if you are onto her. Quite affectionate when she feels like it, but will give you a little warning nip if you are bothering her. That may be the stress of moving to a new place with new people. Fully toilet trained :)

Tim spend the afternoon building her a cat flat (again, don't tell the landlord :)

I thought Politicians had to be presentable?

...but looking at this former
Liberal candidate I do wonder whether the morbidly obese are under-represented in the political sphere.

The guy wrote some pretty offensive anti-muslim statements on his Facebook, but when he was interviewed all I could think of was where his neck was and whether it went to a good place.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/how-did-david-barker-become-a-liberal-candidate-20100726-10rqy.html#poll

Inception

A Hollywood movie with an original idea - yes, it is possible! Christopher Nolan again proves his worth as a great director, and Leonardo DiCaprio as a great actor.

This is a movie that must be watched a few times before you can really follow all the plots and the subplots. One of the best movies I've seen this year.

Bible bashers and the people who love them

Anyone who knows me knows that I am no friend to religion, and here is a perfect example of why:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/man-and-wife-thats-best-for-baby-20100715-10c2b.html

The thrust of the article is this:

"Our society needs public encouragement to embrace those family forms that are best for children. We need to get serious about our public policy endeavours on behalf of children and promote the value of marriage, with its attendant public commitment, along with the value of biological connectivity for child wellbeing."

I don't think I would have a problem with religious belief as long as was purely a personal matter, confined to the sphere of spirituality for a particular individual or group. But I vehemently object to the role that religion seeks to play in:

- Holding religious rules to be a voice of moral authority for EVERYONE
- Seeking political power and influence over the setting of public policy for EVERYONE
- Lobbying to include religious considerations in fields completely unrelated to it but that effect EVERYONE, such as education and medicine

I notice that the author, Mr Chis Meney, also the director of the Life, Marriage and Family Centre in the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney declines to suggest any specific social policies that would support “desirable” family forms. Maybe that’s because some of these policies have had rather questionable results in the past, e.g.:

- Making divorce as difficult as possible
- Encouraging single mothers to give up their children to be raised in healthy, loving environments in religious institutions
- Taking children away from their indigenous parents and raising them in healthy, loving environments in state institutions

But I don’t mean to imply that there no new progressive ideas to solve the problem of undesirable family structures today. I am curious as to what he might suggest.... hhmmm... maybe abolition of welfare for single mothers would do for a start?

I don't believe it!

For once I actually agree with Miranda Devine:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/more-shabby-treatment-in-the-greatest-love-story-ever-sold-20100714-10b20.html

And here's another interesting article on the topic:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/many-flaws-in-the-hawke-myth/story-e6frfhqf-1225891803714

I know I am being a lemming but I like this guy :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7e_igiPIUI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLTIowBF0kE

Shrek 4

It wasn't very good. It wasn't particularly bad either - it was just tired, old and predictable (much like Shrek himself). After about 5 minutes the plot could be fairly accurately surmised, and you only sat through the rest to confirm that what you already knew would happen, happened. This wouldn't have necessarily been a fatal flaw if the movie was actually funny... but it wasn't.

Times have moved on

Just saw this article, which demonstates perfectly why Bettina Arndt is so out of touch:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/onethird-of-babies-born-out-of-wedlock-20100705-zxn9.html

Back to the 50s...

I was very disappointed to read this article last week:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/shacking-up-is-hard-to-do-why-gillard-may-be-leery-of-the-lodge-20100628-zexr.html?comments=210#comments

Not only does it reflect an archaic view of society and the role of women, but it's patronising, judgemental and moralistic in the extreme. The basic premise is that Julia Gillard being "a popular role model for women" (if only that were the case!) her "lifestyle choice" of being childless and unmarried will "influence other women into making big mistakes about their lives". These big mistakes consist of:

- drifting into living together, which then
- leads some women to miss out on having children or
- becoming parents despite unstable relationships

Not only does Bettina Arndt make pretty wide-ranging and unsubstantiated assumptions regarding the nature of relationships and commitment, but she stops just short of claiming that Julia Gillard is not qualified to lead the country because she is "deliberately barren", as one old white man (aka Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan) famously did before the last election:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/outrage-at-senators-latest-attack-on-gillard/2007/05/02/1177788183427.html

Back then Julia responded with the salvo that "modern Australian women understand that they face a set of choices, and are supportive of women having those choices". But here is a perfect example of women judging other women for their choices... what's next? A really good, in-depth discussion regarding her fashion sense and hair colour?

The only positive thing in this whole affair is the overwhelmingly negative reader response to the article. Good to see that most people don't care about her lifestyle choices - they care about her abilities as a PM.

NB: Bettina Arndt also believes that women owe it to their partners to put out, whether they want to or not:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/women-need-to-say-yes-to-sex/1447294.aspx