Posted on

Leave Those Clothes On!

Can someone please explain to me why Sports Sunday presenter, Emma Freedman, was castigated for her comments following the latest shared-photo-of-nude-woman scandal? And while you’re at it, why she should have had to resort to explaining her comments via a lengthy Twitter post? And where does “feminism” come into it anyway???

Okay, so feminism is all about women being free to make their own choices, which is great, except that it doesn’t automatically mean that every choice a woman makes is going to be a good one. Nor does it mean that when a woman makes a silly one, like posing nude for a football player (duh!) and expecting him Not to circulate the pic amongst his mates (double duh!) that she is exempt from having to take any responsibility, in any way, for the fallout!

Football players behaving trashily towards women is not new. They also get away with it a lot of the time despite clubs “promising” to do something about it and as a result, some players are still doing lowlife things like sharing naked woman snaps with their mates because they believe they can. What they don’t do is consider how the woman is going to feel about it. No surprises there! But the thing is, the naked snap and share trend has been happening for some time and we have all been made well aware of it because the media jumps all over it every time it happens. And so it should, because the men who do this need to be named, shamed and made accountable for what they have done. Because of the exposure however, it should be obvious to all that choosing to pose for such a pic with such a guy is a real bad idea because the chances of Naked You going viral are really high. In this particular instance, did the young woman agree to pose on the assumption that the pic would remain private? Silly girl if she thought that. Did she specifically say “don’t share this, okay!” believing he wouldn’t (duh again). Or did he say something like “Wow, this looks great, mind if I share it?” (doubt it) to which she (no doubt at all!) would have been unlikely to have given her consent and believed he wouldn’t (face-palming here). The bottom line though is that she did pose and he did share and why is anyone surprised?

Which brings us back to the freedom of choice thingy. Yes, women have a lot more freedom today to choose what they do, but with freedom comes accountability as every action has a reaction and opting to pose naked for a footballer who then opted to share the image with all his mates was possibly one of the worst choices this young woman could have made. Has the player stepped completely out of line in sharing it? He most certainly has, but is the young woman exempt from all responsibility? No, I don’t think so. She would have been aware, thanks to media coverage in the past, when other women have been caught out by lewd player behaviour, that it could come back to haunt her. Surely she must realised that. Look, I don’t think for one minute that what happened to her is okay, but surely she must have had an inkling it could all go horribly wrong.

Which also brings us back to Emma Freedman’s comment about one not taking one’s clothes off. It was a very honest and valid comment and Ms Freedman was entitled to make it without suffering the backlash which resulted in her feeling she had to explain herself via a Twitter comment, which she should not have had to do! She was 100 percent correct! “Don’t take your clothes off!” Seriously, if you would not want your friends or colleagues, partner, siblings, parents or grandparents to see you posed provocatively in the altogether, Don’t Take Your Clothes Off!!! It’s as simple as that!

You can choose to say No.

 

 

Posted on

The Gender Thingy

Gender issues have been all over the media a lot lately, haven’t they? What with LGBTI, gender fluidity (what exactly is that anyway?), the Same Sex Marriage debate and the contentious Safe Schools program, you could not be blamed for fessing up to being genuinely confused about the whole thing.

But let’s start with the basics. Just about everything on the planet is either male or female. Nature dictated this so that species could breed, be they plant or animal and sexual orientation forms in the womb and that’s that. Generally speaking, that orientation means an attraction to the opposite sex but sometimes it orientates toward same sex. Nothing wrong with that. Still with me? Okay, good.

Anyway, still generally speaking, primary school-aged children tend to avoid their opposite sex classmates on the whole because, well, they each think the other really gross when they are that age! This phase only lasts though until the hormones kick in and they begin to see each other in a whole new light. This would probably be the same deal for those attracted to their own sex. But as I said, orientation begins in the womb and while little kids aren’t necessarily consciously aware of which way their attraction goes, subconsciously they are.

Right, but the trend at the moment appears to be getting started on little kids early and “educating” them about gender thingies that they would barely understand because they are just too young to really grasp the complex issues of sexual orientation. Let’s face it, they are just too young to fully grasp sex, full stop! Hence the brouhaha over the Safe Schools program that was packaged as an anti-bullying campaign when it really wasn’t about that at all.

Anyway, there seems to be a big a focus on prompting primary schoolers to think too much about which way they lean, with a big emphasis on LGBTI and that’s probably not a great idea with kids of that age. Inherently they probably know their own leanings , even if they are not overtly conscious of them, so do they really need to be influenced (pushed) toward what’s currently on trend? Has anyone ever thought to ask a primary schooler what LGBTI and/or a same sex relationship actually is? Kids being kids, they probably have a completely different interpretation of what it’s all about and the social engineers driving the program have no idea! No surprises there.

But let’s face it, kids are easily influenced. I went to a Catholic primary school and in Year 2 every little girl in my class (me included) decided we wanted to be nuns when we grew up. All, that is, except the one who was double-jointed in almost every joint in her body (we were so jealous) who wanted to be an acrobat. Either that or a famous actress who would star as an acrobat in movies about circuses (yes, I know, but we were only seven at the time) and one other who was hell bent on being an air hostess, as they were called at the time. But the rest of us were going to be nuns because we liked our nuns at school. They were wonderfully mysterious and about as holy as one could get! What was not to love? The reality, of course, was that none of us would end up running off to join the convent but at the time we were surrounded by nuns and were unwittingly influenced and that was without any pressure or programs to get us into the mindset.

But today there are books and programs geared towards getting young children to identify with their sexuality and if they can be coerced into identifying with something other than heterosexual they are celebrated. That’s enough to get any little one’s attention! I suspect the push toward getting female school children out of uniforms that are dresses and into long pants and shorts might be connected, even if the powers that be deny it till they’re blue in the face!

Certainly, teaching tolerance of others at an early age is a good thing and a child leaning towards an LGBTI identity should be able to feel safe at school and comfortable with who they are, but does that mean all their little classmates have to follow the same orientation? It doesn’t, but the program doesn’t seem to recognise that obviously heterosexual kids have the right to feel comfortable in their own skin too, and that’s what has rubbed so many people the wrong way, who are then wrongly labelled as homophobic or something.

Primary schoolers really don’t need the hassle of having to tackle complex sexual issues that they are still years away from really understanding, so please stop!

It’s messing with their little heads.

Posted on

The “M” Word

Buzz words have become a bit of a thing, haven’t they? Some even find their way into the dictionary eventually, but while “marriage” has never really attracted buzz word status, if prefixed with “same sex” you get the the buzz word of the moment; same sex marriage.

Okay, fine, so that’s three words (buzz phrase maybe…?) but those three words have been dominating the media in Australia for quite a while, with the promise of a plebiscite being followed by a non-compulsory postal vote that won’t necessarily have any impact on changing the current Marriage Act, which would allow same sex couples to marry.

Confused? Me too, but the nation appears to have split into two very distinct groups regarding this matter and both are steadfastly defending their right to their opinion and how they intend to vote.

On one side of the fence are those in favour of same sex couples having the right to legally marry, granting them the same rights as opposite sex couples. The “Yes” voters really want this, hence the lengths they have gone to in the hope of convincing the rest of the nation to vote with them, hence the barrage of text messages to mobile phones, the Facebook posts, the protest marches, door knocks and a whole lot of other vocal shenanigans to put the “Yes” vote perspective out there. Fine, that’s all well and good, right?

Except with those on the other side of the fence. That’s where the “No” voters are holding fort and they are just as passionate in their opposition to changes to the Marriage Act as the “Yes” voters are for it. They just haven’t been as noisy or demonstrative about it.

The “No” voters oppose changing the Marriage Act to allow same sex couples to marry because they believe it will cause a domino effect which will open the door to other changes within society that they aren’t comfortable with. They are predicting further complications, like someone using the changes to the Act to attempt to marry their cat or their goldfish or the stunning frangipani tree in their backyard. Admittedly, people wanting to marry something other than another person would have to be in the minority but if that passion for the frangipani burns hot enough, all they’d need is a smarty pants lawyer who can find a loophole blindfolded and with one hand tied behind his back! And that’s one of the biggest issues with the “No” voters; the smarty pants, loophole-finding lawyer!

Oh, and the rainbows. Once a popular non-political thingy, the rainbow now appears to be monopolised by the “Yes” campaign. Actually it has been a symbol of homosexual pride for a while now but I see where the “No” group is coming from here. Once just a pretty decorative element on clothing, rear window and bumper stickers, and anything vaguely to do with the hippy scene, it has now become somewhat of a political statement. The “No” crowd really object to the rainbow being used in that way and they want it back.

But meanwhile, where are the pollies in all of this? Well, you’ll find them perched precariously atop the fence separating the “No” voters from the “Yes” voters and waiting to see who gets the greatest number of votes and then side with them accordingly. But I think the truth is that none of our pollies want to go down in history as being the guy who changed the Marriage Act! Especially if it does open the door to further issues that blur the lines of that to which society has become comfortably accustomed. There will be sufficient “No” supporters out there to say “Ah ha! We told you so!” And then they will not vote for the guy that changed the Act which will probably mean he can kiss his political career goodbye. He won’t like that. Unless, of course, there is an overwhelming number of “Yes” votes which will guarantee his political position is as safe as houses. But remember, an overwhelming “Yes” vote via the postal vote does not guarantee the Marriage Act will change in the foreseeable future…

Plans to wed the frangipani might have to go on hold.

 

Posted on

All work and No Play…

It’s an old expression, “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” but it is still very relevant today and something that many parents seem to have forgotten in the race to ensure their offspring is smarter than everyone else’s.

Well we would all like to think we have bred little geniuses, but the truth is that not many of us do. Sure, some kids are naturally brighter than others and while it’s nice to encourage them, the thing is that bright kids will shine all on their own if left to their own devices, but the average ones are going to really struggle if pushed to achieve beyond what they are capable of. There’s nothing wrong with being average though. Or “age level” as some like to put it today. The kiddie operating on an average age scale can do well in school and go on to a good career in adulthood and parents of average little achievers should not feel let down by that because there’s nothing wrong with it.

But we are in an age where smarts are In and average is Out, hence educational programs aimed at toddlers to make them “ready for school”. How unfair on the toddler, not to mention potentially damaging. Little kids like to play and that’s a good thing!. Play is a wonderful learning tool as it allows children to develop social skills, problem-solving skills, creative skills, plus a myriad of others and the beauty of it is they have such a great time learning and developing them.  Play also gets them off the couch and on the move which is also important for fitness and the development of fine and major motor skills and to build confidence in their physical capabilities. That’s how important unrestricted, non-organised play is.

What’s not important is whether or not they have an “appreciation” of classical music, contemporary (Oh how I loathe that word!) dance/drama, can read, play several instruments, are trending Shakespeare or commenting on political issues by the age of three.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with average, age appropriate intelligence but too many parents are pressuring their young children into activities that just aren’t suitable or appealing to their age, micromanaging every moment of their young lives in an effort to make them, or at least make them appear to be, uber smart. It doesn’t work. Children with average smarts can improve on their academic levels via study and an interest in what they are doing but those things will not a little genius make. It will go a long way toward helping them pass their exams though, so a little encouragement in the study department is not a bad thing. But when it’s all said and done, geniuses/super smart kids are born, not made and if they do fall into the super smart category, they don’t need you to organise their lives for them as they are quite capable of doing that themselves, which they usually do!

So why don’t pushy parents get this? Personally, I think it is more about the parents being able to talk about their children’s achievements than any genuine desire just to see their kids to well for their own sake. Kids are individuals who develop at their own pace and when allowed to do that, the result is generally a happy child who grows into a well-balanced adult. The problems start when parents are hell-bent on their child being brilliant. They have to qualify for the best schools, the gifted and talented class, musically, in literature, etc, etc, etc! The average child pushed beyond their limits often ends up either stressed out all the time or just plain lifeless. Dull,in other words. The kiddie slightly above average becomes obnoxious from all the “positive reinforcement” until they crash under the pressure of being in a gifted and talented class that they can’t keep up with. The genuine little geniuses, however, are very good at tuning out over-achieving parents and just go their own way anyway so why waste the energy?

Preschoolers don’t need early academic education. They don’t need to be able to read, write and do maths before they start kindergarten. they certainly don’t need to be dragged to activities that probably have them mentally climbing the walls because they are bored beyond reason by “drama appreciation” and “music interpretation”. They are little kids.

Just let them play.

 

Posted on

What’s with the step-counting apps???

Well to be perfectly honest, probably nothing. I don’t see the sense of something that counts how many steps we have taken in a single walk from A to B, so of all the apps being pushed on us as a great idea, this one just isn’t.  Sure, I get that fitness is still big business and those who can manage to cash in on it will do so via useless items like calorie counters, lycra, activewear and little bracelets and/or phone apps that count how many steps you take in a single day. I mean, how often do you really don that lycra outfit you spent a lot on? Or actually use that calorie counter? Chances are that a week or so after dashing out to buy it, it has found a spot in the back of the wardrobe/cupboard and remained there ever since. It happens. It’s all gung-ho and then…nothing, until you rediscover it and sell it for a tenth of the purchase price on eBay.

So why splurge on some gadget that is going to count your steps all day? Okay, so you walk to work, take the stairs to your floor/office, at lunchtime walk to that earthy cafe for a macro salad and a lite decaf, walk back to work and then walk home. You know you have done a reasonable amount of walking, right? You’re happy about that, yeah? So isn’t that all that matters? You made a conscious decision to walk. End of story. Are you really going to get all excited by a step reading? Okay, so you are. That could almost be a bit pedantic. What possible rush could you get out of knowing to the last footfall how many steps you take in a single day?

But step-counting gadgets are literally walking out the door because many of us have been hyped into thinking we need them and the retailers and the manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank. Possibly on foot but I bet they’re not! Meanwhile another person on a fitness fix has bought one of the bracelets or apps to tell them that their power walk to the shop, around the block or wherever has upped their step-count and burned X amount of calories. But you can guess that on your own, surely. As in, walk instead of transport equals good for you and it stands to reason that you would have burned up calories and a few fat cells into the bargain. Shouldn’t that be all you need to know?  You got off the couch and got yourself into motion and it did your body a whole heap of good.  Your mind too for that matter. You don’t need to know how many steps you took to achieve that.

Forget the apps, just do it!

 

Posted on

The Barbie Myth!

You know, I am seriously over the “experts” and the utter nonsense circling the Barbie doll and it is beyond me why it’s still getting column space.  I was furious enough, when the ridiculous accusations directed at the Barbie doll first surfaced, to have written a couple of columns myself because I could not understand how someone could get credence for blaming a doll for girls developing issues with their body type.

We are talking about a doll here. One we all had a lot of fun playing with when we were kids and then our kids followed suit, but for the last decade or so there has been a little group of agitators trying to convince us that little girls who play with Barbie are on the road to anorexia, bulimia and a lifetime of body image issues which will see them clocking up hours on the analyst’s couch for years to come. Now, if that is the case, the last few generations prior to Barbie being outed as the Body Image Satan or whatever, should be severely depressed and seriously underweight as they desperately try to whittle themselves down to a two inch waist and a naked weight of just a few grams. As that is not humanly possible then they should all be dead! But they’re not because they saw Barbie as just a favourite doll and not something to try and emulate! Children are not stupid.

Oddly though, I’m not hearing anything along these lines in regard to buff action figures and little boys. I’m guessing this is because it would not get the same reaction from the politically correct crowd who love to tie themselves in knots over girl issues, hence minimal to zilch media coverage.

But getting back to Barbie. As the doll continues to sell like hotcakes, “research” teams continue to run studies aimed at “exposing” the Barbie doll as a bad news toy for little girls and the most recent, published in something called Body Image Journal is making the unbelievable claim that just one play session with a Barbie doll was sufficient to influence girls as young as five to develop a “must be thin” mentality. The study is based on interviews with 160 girls aged from five to eight at various primary schools around Australia and naturally the team leader (female) claimed to have found that playing with Barbie, or even just looking at images of her even once was sufficient to make girls strive for a thin body. But how leading were those questions? Another “expert” on body image, a Professor of Psychology at an Australian university (also female) appears to support the findings and believes girls should not be given Barbie dolls to play with when young but in the case where they already have them, their parents should encourage them to do more than just make Barbie look pretty. I have no idea what the Professor means by that. What exactly would she have them do…?

Mattel however, the company that makes Barbie, has wisely chosen to strongly disagree with the research’s “findings” , claiming the researchers failed to accurately represent the Barbie brand and the realistic play experience with the doll and like it or not, I’m with them. Barbie is just that, a doll.  A child’s plaything, and in all my years I have yet to see or hear of any little girl growing up damaged psychologically because she had played with Barbie. But to hear the “expert” tell it, exposure to Barbie promotes “internalisation of the thin ideal, leading them to see appearance as being important and being skinny is good!” Girls naturally see appearance as being important, even very young girls. It’s in their make-up, but to blame that on a doll is absolute drivel.

Let me tell you where that mindset really comes from. The schoolyard goddesses. These (usually blonde) girls appear to have been absurdly blessed by Mother Nature and are the epitome of beauty from the top of their glossy tressed heads to the soles of their fashionable school shoes and many a little girl has compared herself unfavourably to the class stunner and believed herself to have come up short. It becomes even more pronounced  when they reach high school, which is a breeding ground for issues about looks, none of which has ever had anything to do with a Barbie doll. It’s about hours spent  in front of a mirror wishing they looked as good as Whatshername and slamming the bedroom door on parents who, lacking empathy, fail to cough up the funds for the spray tan and the go-blonde visit to the hairdresser.

So leave Barbie out of it.

Posted on

The Lost Art of Common Sense

It used to be one of our life skills once upon a time, but for the last few years or so I’ve come to the conclusion that much of the population wouldn’t know common sense if they fell over it. I think it may have been shunted out the door when the age of entitlement, along with the concept that people are no longer responsible for their own actions, got a foothold because for the last decade or so it has become the norm to blame everything else for one’s own stupidity and, coupled with the Nanny State mentality on the loose throughout the various community organisations and minor government wannabes, we have a growing population of people sitting back and waiting for someone else to fix their lives for them.

Take obesity.  The bottom line here is that if you and/or your offspring are unhealthily overweight, it is actually your own fault. It is not the supermarkets’ fault. Nor is it the fault of the various fast food outlets or television advertising. It’s not even the government’s fault! It is yours. You see, common sense would have told you (and probably did but you chose to ignore it) that a steady diet of burgers, chips, soft drink, fried chicken, alcohol, confectionary, pizzas and general laziness was not good for you or your kids and would probably result in you all becoming morbidly obese. It is not, then, up to the government or any other organisation to fix that for you, yet taxpayers are funding things like star ratings on food and other programs designed to educate you about good diets and healthier eating. Why is that? Once upon a time people knew the deal and lived accordingly.

Illegal drugs. So despite all the information out there on how harmful and addictive they are you still opted to try them all and start using regularly. Then you got hooked. You have since committed various offences while under the influence of your drug of choice or in order to get the money to pay for your next fix and now you’re in trouble up to your eyeballs because the offences are nasty ones. This is actually your own fault. Why? Because you ignored the warnings that common sense definitely told you were worth heeding.  Therefore, why should anyone be expected to come up with excuses for you or be able to blame your addiction for your crime spree? You knew these things were bad news yet you still chose to use. Why shouldn’t you go to gaol instead of receiving another good behaviour bond (to add to the long list of bonds you’re already been granted)?

Sense of entitlement and instant gratification. Just because these are alive and well in today’s society doesn’t mean they are good for you or your children. In fact, they are even worse for children because they encourage then to grow up into selfish, pedantic adults who believe that everything still revolves around them and they can get downright nasty if someone contradicts that mindset.

Homeless kids. In the majority of cases they aren’t. They have perfectly good homes with great parents but they object to the restrictions imposed to keep them safe and because the social security services start handing them money from the age of 16, which increases if they are not living at home, they take off. Then impart a farcial tale of woe to whoever will listen. Common sense should have made it very clear to the particular government that introduced youth allowance that it was a bad idea but apparently it didn’t. Before youth allowance payments, kids either stayed at school or left and found work, then continued to live at home until they could fund their own life. Hopefully, common sense will tell the parents of feral kids who nick off to live in dives on welfare, that giving them money to prop up their dubious lifestyle is a bad idea. It just sets a precedent. Better to let them learn what it really means to live independently, things like budgeting and living within their means. They will only do that when you stop giving them money.

Expensive gadgetry for preschoolers. The three-year-old has an iPad and an iPhone. Are you *&$#@)! crazy??! For goodness sake! Where is your common sense? Oh that’s right, no one seems to know what that is anymore.

Makes no sense to me at all.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

O D-ing on vitamin sups

The vitamin and supplement industry is a biggie, isn’t it? Like, you name it and you’ll find it on a supermarket or health food store shelf and if you believe all the advertising supporting them, you’ll already be convinced that you need them. Well chances are, you don’t.

Generally speaking, if you are eating the right balance of fruits, vegetables, nuts, fish and meats with some full cream dairy products thrown in, you will have no need of vitamin or mineral supplements because you will be getting the recommended daily intake from your food. This is really good, yeah? Well of course it is! Vitamin and mineral intake via the foods we eat is the best way to ingest them because they are in their most natural form and that is definitely good. Toss an egg or two into the daily mix and you’ll have it down pat! Seriously, that’s how easy it is.

Or you can open a bottle and toss some of the contents down your throat. That’s easy too, but is it the best solution? The sups on the shop shelves though are not all that natural and according to a recent study, possibly not all that reliable either because the study found that a surprising number of them didn’t contain what they said they did. However, of the ones that did, the amount per day that you would be ingesting should you follow the recommended dosage on the bottle/packet could lead you to overdosing. Now that may not sound all that bad because vitamins and minerals are good for us, right? Yes they are but remember that little warning about too much of a good thing? Good, because taking too much of them is definitely bad for you. The same goes for antioxidants. In the right form and at the right levels they are very useful but overdoing it negates the benefits.

So how do you know if you need to use supplements? Well, if you diet consists of meat, meat and more meat but without the salad or the veggies on the side you can pretty much guarantee that you’ll be missing out on just about every vitamin and mineral known to man. Ditto if your dietary intake doesn’t go past the confectionery aisle. Or your local fast food outlet. If this is you, then it’s a given you are denying your body the things it needs to keep you fit and healthy but now that you know that (and you do because I’ve just told you so!) there is something you can do to counter the lack.

You can a) change your diet to include the foods you need to keep your vitamin/mineral levels up to speed, or b) stuff yourself full of powders, pills and other supplements to counter the damage of the lousy diet. So…will it be fruit and veg or cupboard full of bottles? The fresh stuff will cost you a lot less and you’ll be getting the goodies naturally and even better, one can’t overdose on fresh fruit and veg, no matter how much we consume, as opposed to way to many vitamin and mineral pills and liquids. Way Too Many! You should think about that. Ditto using a lack of culinary skills as an excuse. Anyone can learn to cook and that includes you and your health and lifestyle will definitely benefit from your efforts.

It’s really easy when you know how.

 

 

Posted on

Now I have a cat.

I have recently acquired a cat. This is all good because I like cats and was planning to adopt a rescue cat anyway, but what I have ended up with is The Bloke’s cat, which was not what I had planned. Well yes, she was also a rescue cat and I have cat sat her, on and off, over the years but I never thought she would end up being my full time Resident Puss!

You see, much as I love her, she is not really the cuddly feline I had in mind when I was daydreaming about getting another cat because this Resident Puss, cute as she is, is not all that cuddly. Actually, you are lucky to get in a bit of a pat, let alone a full on cuddle because she is Feisty! To be more precise, you couldn’t look sideways at her when The Bloke first brought her home to his place because to look was to court Death. She was actually on Death Row at the cat rescue place because she was so anti social and the staff there had serious doubts about ever placing her so The Bloke, big softy that he is, chose her, took her home and set himself the task of convincing her that not all humans were bad news.

At least, we’re pretty sure that is what might have been behind all her aggression. During her formative years we suspect she was badly mistreated and as a result she was constantly on the defensive, either that or she was a feral, but I think the former is more likely because of how she was at first. To get too close to her (let alone touch her!) was just asking to lose your face or be slashed to ribbons at the very least. And so went the slow steps to showing her that we were not all monsters and introducing her to a much nicer second chance at life. But it worked and she will now seek us out for company and most of the time will even welcome physical overtures of affection. Most of the time…

But how did she end up with me? Well, The Bloke lives alone and does a fair bit of travelling and Puss hates the car with a vengeance. Longish trips were a nightmare for both of them because she howled the whole way and he was stuck in the car with her. Forget a crying baby, a yowling cat is so much worse! Anyway, if he was going to be away for a while he would leave her with me and then pick her up on his way back. If he was spending time at my place she would have the run of the house and seemed happy here and naturally, being an animal loving type, I spoiled her! But it was when she began exhibiting signs that she Did Not want to leave (think hisses, claws, teeth, etc…) he suggested that I might like to keep her on permanently as she seemed happier here that at his place. And he could still see her.

And so I have a cat and another, more affectionate rescue puss is out of the question as current Resident Puss does not like other cats! So I’m not getting another one.

But hey, I do love this one and it is lovely that she allows me to give her the odd kiss and cuddle, that she sits beside me on the couch and will sometimes sleep on (occasionally in) my bed and she just loves having the run of the house and the acreage it sits on and she looks happy. Genuinely happy, and isn’t that what it’s all about? Yes it is because it is all about giving her a second chance at life and making it a much happier one this time around.

And so I have a cat.

Posted on

When the wind blows…

Do you remember me writing that I could now access the Internet? That I would would blog religiously every week? Come rain, hail or shine? Yeah? Well I have to apologise for missing out last week because when I was writing the rain, hail or shine thingy I forgot all about the wind.

You see, at the mo the signal I am getting is coming from the little town just north of me and is picked up via the Smart Antenna here in the house and sent to my nice new computer and all this allows me to get online. Admittedly, rainy weather can slow it up a bit but it still gets to me and for that I am very grateful. Ditto hail. But I totally forgot about the wind! A strong continuous wind, and it can blow like all get-out here, means the signal suffers and connecting to the Internet is well nigh impossible. This happened last weekend and the only thing I did manage was a short connection during a brief drop of the wind which allowed me just enough time to email my column to my editor…and then back came the wind, fiercer than ever, which shut me down before I could get here to my blog page. Frustrating! Actually, I was hissing several F words but “frustrating” will do for here, this being a public page and all.

Thing is, lovely as my location is, there are those times when the wind blows like a gale and I can’t guarantee that it will back off on Sundays so I can write this, hence my apologies in advance if a week comes and goes with no post. Of course, once all the NBN towers are up and switched on the wind can blow until Hell freezes over because apparently it won’t affect my signal. Right. I hope no one is fibbing here. I also hope the process would hurry the hell up so I can not have to worry about windy weather playing havoc with my online work!

Meanwhile, I am trying to be patient and am still very thankful for being able to access the Internet pretty much most of the time. But I so want that super fast NBN connection. Surely it must be close by now…

Can someone please tell me that it is…?