Sunday, March 25, 2012

Getting more settled

Getting more settled now. Last Sunday it was an amazingly beautiful day. The sun was out and a cool breeze was blowing - so I headed for the Point Cook Coastal Park. Found a good log to sit on took a big book to read - which I didn't because the bay was just so beautiful.  Its strange to be looking out at a bay that faces south when for 58 years the ocean has always been on my east - its rather disorientating  - I think it amuses the kids to see me confidently point in one direction and declare that its "North" when it is some other total direction. May have to get myself a compass. I am pretty good with sunrise and sunset as one would expect but when out of sight an bushed.
My spot down at the Coastal Park Point Cook

I am aware that when my ancestors came here in 1841 and 1855 (mainly) it was into Port Phillip Bay they came and what on earth took them up to the Upper Hunter area of NSW has me beat - you would think that after travelling in the hold of overcrowded ships for months on end they would have been happy to plant their feet down as soon as they could. I am assuming they might have sailed up to Sydney from here - but I know one branch found their way up gradually after spending some time in Corowa. I was thinking about this and trying to imagine their feelings - this area at least would have been closer to what they were used to looking than say Brisbane or further north or west - that's if they arrived in winter. I know my mother's father's people buried a daughter at sea on the trip and when I look at the photo of that mother 9taken in old age) I feel a connection - I used to think how brave they all must have been but am revising my concept of bravery. i think we can all be just as brave if we have no choice - and they had no choice. it was stay in Ireland and all starve or leave and at least have some hope. When faced with these choices we would either take the road of hope or just let go of life. Once the "choice" was taken then the only choices were that we forge through and do the best we can to stay sane, to stay civilised and to hold together  - or again to let go. Both choices as brave as the other. One has to hope never to be put in situations like this... but no doubt most of us will be called upon in our lives to make what appears to others as "brave" decisions. This is not to say that they weren't brave - but that we also have that ability in us if called upon.

Its getting colder much more quickly that I am used to and realise I may need some warmer footwear - as well may need to revive coats i have bough over the decades which are unworn because it was just never really cold enough to wear them even in winters on the NSW Mid North Coast.

I am getting used to not having my beautiful tank water to drink, cook and shower in. For a few months my hair went crazy and my youngest agreed with this. I looked like a wild woman from Borneo. I has to spend money and get decent hair products but realise we wouldn't need all this garbage if we used tank water to wash hair because the change was so dramatic - noticed more because my hair is long. I bought a water filter which takes out 99% of everything including fluoride which is notoriously hard to remove. you can boil away Chlorine but if you do this it actually concentrates the Fluorides. We don't even use fluoridated toothpastes - there is already too much of it in the atmosphere and it is not a nutrient - as they still use it as a rat poison - years ago it was proudly emblazoned on the packets and which i have seen - years ago fluoridated toothpaste was marked as an S4 poison in the US not any more -
Only added this to prove the point - its up to individuals to accept or not - I choose not to. As soon as I can I will be getting a water tank - my advice to anyone who is in doubt is to just type in "Fluoride" and "side effects" and then make up your own mind as is our right in s free country. Something the health Authorities have kept from us as they only ever present the viewpoint of the Pharmaceutical and Chemical industries in this area. 

Enough about that. The last photo I sent to my Port Macquarie friends because how odd it is to take what is obviously a rural coastal scene in the foreground is contrasted by the high rise so close in the background...this is so incongruous.

I am liking living here - am finding it hard to deal with having to keep my voice down when i talk to myself because the houses are so close. I am missing the amazing sunsets that were just outside my front door and which spun gold across the paddocks from the horizon to me... a friend suggested I put  cameras on my aerial and point  them to the east and west - hook in into my Tele and there they would be sunrise and sunset- the bastard was joking! I am getting closer to getting stuff started such as picking up the Tafe course started last year (and finished) I need to refresh this and this starts in July - after a few weeks I should then be able hopefully pick up some work - am following up on improving some health issues which are long overdue.

Its so good to be closer to family and I love this. When I am close to our youngest I find myself really missing our eldest - would be wonderful to have them all close but they have both been left home now longer than they were living at home as our children. I am used to it just as my own mum had to get used to it - am lucky that I am such good friends with the girls - they are just about the sanest people I know and they keep me in line!!! (they try to)

Seaweed and seabirds
Homestead House shore and Melbourne Highrise

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Don't often go in for soppy stuff - but its Saint Partick's day and here is an Irish Blessing for you - its music by the blind harpist Turlough O'Carolyn and its an Old Irish Blessing - if you like the music look up O'Carolyn's music it is something else.
For something a bit more earthy - And then there's the Dropkick Murphys - you got to love them

Couldn't get this to embed but the link is worth it who else likes the Dropkick murphys??? 

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Please take the time to read this article

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

A group of ethicists has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion
A group of ethicists has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion Photo: Alamy
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.
Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.
“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.
They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.
Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.
Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?'
He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.
Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.
What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.
While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”
He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.
Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary's University College, said: "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen?
"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new."
Referring to the term "after-birth abortion", Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide.

Martin Walker posted this about this article on his facebook page “They say of both the foetus and new born that "'neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life.’" My blood ran cold when I read the words 'a moral right to life'. I wonder when they will start testing for this amongst adults? Obviously there are some clear cases in which it would be useful to use such a criteria — some politicians would clearly fail the test as would some medical ethics researchers, newspaper owners and their offsprings and a large number of pharmaceutical company directors and executives — although in such severe and obvious cases it might be better to have stopped their parents from procreating in the first place.” This is so sickening. My husband was a Quadriplegic (25 years after work accident) until he was killed by gross medical (research??) negligence in 2007. He was so much against Euthanasia being legislated because having a good grasp of how officialdom just can help but "fix" what's not broken - he said that there would come a time when relatives were pressured to have those badly injured "put down" - about what happened to him, sadly. I cannot believe that many human beings can hold so much evil inside all the whole appearing like "normal" people. 

Sunday, March 11, 2012

What a hard life my cats have.
I took this the other day as my daughter was talking to her sister on the phone -

This is Tiger a no good layabout who stalks the other cat and hides outside the laundry door and jumps on her so that Cuss the other cat - is becoming very nervous about using the kitty litter or eating/ drinking
This is cuss (rhymes with Puss) with her one white whiska...a quiet cat you seldom notice till in total frustration at being attacked by the much larger Tiger she lashes out and there is a hissing and spittng fight in almost ever room of the house - to see them sitting this close is something - but think its because they are currying favour with Alison who seems oblivious

Don't seem to have many stories to tell of things that have happened - still love my new place but i so much miss the outlook - its hard not to see anything but the fences  - must find somewhere where I can just look and enjoy - hope I never have to go to prison I think I would not do very well being confined - I find suburbia extremely confining... but am looking past that - needs must

Tuesday, March 06, 2012

This is really disturbing and concerns us all

March 5, 2012
Australian Government Moves To Quickly Pass Laws To Sterilize, Electroshock, And Restrain Children Without Parental Consent

Another draft mental health bill, this time in Australia is mirroring global efforts in what is now an international and deliberate surge by government officials to remove parental consent. If passed, the shocking new law will allow children who are considered sufficiently mature, to be subjected to horrifying procedures including sterilization and electroshock.

An important message by the Director of Applied Scholastics in Western Australia based in Perth, Alison Tarrant was sent to the public on behalf ofThe Athena School. "Some very disturbing information has come across our path in relation to a Draft Mental Health Bill which concerns our precious children and our rights as parents," said Tarrant in a statement in the February 29, 2012 letter.

Tarrant initially thought the information lacked authenticity and was later astonished when she found out the document was legitimate. "When I read it I was quite shocked and thought someone was playing a joke on me but then I went onto the main website which is the Government Department of the Mental Health Commission and looked at the actual Draft Bill," she added. recently reported that vaccinating without parental knowledge will soon become the norm across the world. There is now a confirmed global initiative to remove any consent parents have to safeguard their children's health while simultaneously removing any chance of informed consent by those who are considered of "mature" age regardless of their status as a child or teenager. These proposed bills are poised to become law and their frequency is increasing especially in the U.S, U.K, Canada, Australia. 

Some of the more disturbing clauses draft mental health bill include:
  • CHILDREN OF ANY AGE TO CONSENT TO STERILISATION: If a psychiatrist decides that a child (under 18 years) has sufficient maturity, he or she will be able to consent to sterilisation. Parental consent will not be needed. Only after the sterilisation procedure has been performed does it have to be reported and then only to the Chief Psychiatrist. [Pages: 135 & 136 of the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011]
  • 12 YEAR OLDS WILL BE ABLE TO CONSENT TO PSYCHOSURGERY: Banned in N.S.W. and the N.T., psychosurgery irreversibly damages the brain by surgery, burning or inserting electrodes. This draft bill proposes to allow a 12 year old child, if considered to be sufficiently mature by a psychiatrist, to be able to consent to psychosurgery. Once the child has consented it goes before the Mental Health Tribunal (MHT) for approval. Parental consent is also not needed for the MHT to approve the psychosurgery. [Pages: 108, 109, 110, 197,198, 199, 213]
  • 12 YEAR OLDS WILL BE ABLE TO CONSENT TO ELECTROSHOCK (ECT): Electroshock is hundreds of volts of electricity to the head.  Any child aged 12 and over, whom a child and adolescent psychiatrist decides is "mature" enough, will be able to consent to electroshock.  Also, once consent is given, there is no requirement for parents or anyone, including the MHT, to approve the electroshock. Electroshock should be banned. Its use on the elderly, pregnant women and children is especially destructive. [Pages: 100, 101, 103, 104, 194, 105]
  • RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION OF CHILDREN: Children can be restrained in a psychiatric institution, with the use of mechanical restraint (manacles, belts, straps etc.) and bodily force. Chemical restraint - the use of psychiatric drugs to subdue and control the person - is not covered in the draft bill, so there are no legal safeguards to prevent its application. Death can result from all forms of restraint. [Pages: 122, 121, 113, 246]
  • INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN: A psychiatrist can involuntarily detain any child for up to 14 days if "suspected" of mental illness. Parents will not be able to discharge their child during this period and take them home. The psychiatrist can then make a "continuation order" to continue the detainment for up to 3 months and thereafter for each subsequent 3 month period. During detainment, the child could be drugged, restrained, secluded, given electroshock if over 12 and could be put into a ward with adults. Parental consent is not required to continue the detainment or for any treatment, including the child being placed on a legal order to continue to receive drugs at home. The MHT hold hearings on the detainment of a child, but there is no guarantee the child will be able to go home. In 2010/11 there were 1,248 hearings for all ages and only 58 people had their status changed from involuntary to voluntary. [Pages: 21, 22, 35, 19, 107, 36, 53, 54, 183 -185, 190, 191, 213, 214,18, 46, 47, 48, 65, 66, 70, 73, 75-77]
  • WHO WILL BE ABLE TO DETAIN A CHILD IS NOT FULLY KNOWN: An "authorised mental health practitioner" can also detain a child or adult in the draft bill. Exactly who an authorised mental health practitioner is, is not defined by the draft bill. The Chief Psychiatrist can literally give anyone or any profession the power to detain someone just because he considers they are qualified and by publishing the decision in the Gazette. This clause must be removed from the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011. Only a judge or magistrate should have the power to order someone be detained, and only with full legal representation for the person facing depravation of liberty [Pages: 246, 247, 21, 22]
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS DRAFT BILL?: The Western Australia Mental Health Commission (MHC) were responsible for writing the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011, with Mental Health Commissioner and clinical psychologist, Mr Eddie Bartnik overseeing the process.
Tarrant suggests everybody write a letter saying exactly what you think of this absurd legislation. Write expressing your objections to the Mental Health Commission and to your state legislator.

Email: on  or
Mail: GPO Box X2299 Perth Business Centre, W.A. 6847  
Send a copy of your objections to the Mental Health Minister, Health Minister and your local Member of Parliament. 
Please don't let your citizenship stop you from speaking out against these human rights violations. This destructive movement against humanity is global and it's a pressing concern of grand proportions. If we don't speak out now, the health and safety of future generations are in serious jeopardy.