"Surrogate grandparents" are a sad sign of the times

Surrogacy is usually defined as having someone else's baby for them. So we often hear about surrogate mothers. But now there's a variation on the term: surrogate grandparents.

It seems that increasing numbers of Australian families are so fractured these days that senior strangers are being asked to fill these traditional family roles. Parents of kids missing the gentle presence of caring codgers advertise for them online so frequently that law firms are issuing warnings about the potential legal complications of the practice.

The whole thing is bizarre and depressing. It's spookily reminiscent of elements of the comedy movie Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star.  In that flick, a former sprog celeb hires a real family to give him the experiences he missed as a child so he can land a part requiring the emotional maturity he never developed. 

Surrogate grandparents -- another phenomenon to go into the "life imitating satire" file, I reckon.

Cory Bernardi's warnings about bestiality not that far-fetched

In various leftie strongholds there'll be a lot of eye-rolling, head shaking and even some cafe latte-spluttering over conservative senator Cory Bernardi's statements regarding gay marriage, in which he warned of the possibility of the legalization of bestiality, among other things.

But I don't think that his concerns are too far-fetched. If there's one thing you can be certain about with the cultural Left it's that they're never happy with what they get. Think about all their favourite issues like feminism, mult-culti, and environmentalism. Can you think of just one leftie warrior who has ever said: "Gee thanks, pollies. You have finally given me what I have been demanding. My work here is done. I can now stop shrieking, whining and stamping my feet and be a normal, reasonable person at last!"

No way. They're just never satisfied, these people. On the contrary, whenever they make a gain in the culture wars they are emboldened and invigorated by it, and immediately start ratcheting up their demands.

The reason for this is simple. Most of the time, deep down, they really couldn't give a tinker's cuss about the actual issues they spend their lives squawking about. The thing they're really after is the power. And the more the better.

So they can never settle. Their identity depends on upsetting the identities of others. They have to keep advocating for change, haranguing and intimidating people just to know who they are.

That's why, if they win on gay marriage, there will inevitably be demands for more "diversity" when it comes to "relationships". When you've exhausted all the human permutations bestiality is the next step. 

And the Left has certainly got some apologists for it. Take Peter Singer, one of the philosophical fathers of the Australian Greens. Better known for his views on offing tots, he's also got some pretty wacky views on zoophilia.

While most Australians think this guy is out where the buses don't go the hand-wringing, latte-slurping squitterati reckon he's the, er, duck's nuts. And there are quite a few people more extreme than him. If you think they won't be emboldened by such a radical cultural shift as the legalization of gay marriage then you really are pretty naive.

Ron Boswell called a "dinosaur" regarding gay marriage

One term of abuse long favoured by lefties is to call someone a "dinosaur" when he doesn't share their views. Apart from it being nasty, it also doesn't make much sense. Why does something immediately become better because it's up to date? Surely there are things that we should retain because they have stood the test of time, even if they are not perfect.

This certainly applies to this attack on Ron Boswell. Senator Doug Cameron has said that his beliefs about gay marriage, including that it undermines the family, are "dinosaur views". It's also ironic coming from a bilious trade unionist with what could be termed, er, unreconstructed attitudes on industrial relations. 

Also, the conservative senator's views are hardly unusual. Gay marriage advocates keep pushing this line that a majority want gay marriage. But I suspect they're being extremely optimistic. I think Boswell's is the majority view.

And just on his use of words: He says that gay marriage "undermines the family". Yet its proponents, many of whom are greenies, brush this argument aside by saying: "We're not trying to ban straight marriage, just be more inclusive. Its character will remain unchanged."

Yet don't green nimbyists invoke a similar argument to conservatives when protesting against local development? They say: "If your highrise goes up next to our lush park, there goes the neighbourhood!"

Doesn't matter that the developers are building on a vacant lot, not in the park. The protestors are adamant that it will destroy or erode the character of the place.

So, maybe they should try to look at the issue that way. They might start to understand why people are resisting their gay marriage push.

That said, I don't think that most of them sincerely believe this argument anyway. They are not just asking for greater inclusiveness and "diversity". They really want to throw the furniture around. It's a power grab as much as anything else. If they, and not conservatives and Christians, can call the shots on this issue, well, they know they've got the upper hand. And that's what it's ultimately all about for the Left -- power over others.

Dumb Drunk and Racist crew sneer at the bogan caste

Watched Dumb Drunk and Racist again last night. One thing that is consistently annoying about it is its simplistic, didactic, patronizing tone. But then it is on their ABC. They all have that born to rule attitude there, and they just can't help themselves.

As with so many shows on the national broadcaster, it's kinda like Play School for adults. Actually, the whole concept of taking four Indians on a tightly stage managed tour of Australia and asking them to describe their reactions at various points is like a hugely expensive and prolonged game of show and tell.

DDR is relentlessly PC, drearily predictable, and utterly obvious. You can always see exactly what the production team are trying to achieve with their cynical manipulations of their Indian participants.

For example, when Joe Hildebrand takes his guests -- all from a country in which the cow is sacred -- to a cattle sale, he confesses to being nervous about what their reaction might be. Nervous about what, I wonder? That they might not be appalled by the scene as hoped?

And when a show is made entirely by middle class urbanites there is sure to some mockery of the rural working class. So part of last night's episode involved trying to define and locate some bogans (accurately described by one of the guests as a caste in itself). The exercize involved getting one of the Indians to dress up in classic bogan garb including "wife beater", thongs, and stubbies.

Will they feature such a mocking take on members of the "sneering hipster" caste? I suspect such parodies are considered off-limits, since that would alienate the audience. No matter. To anyone not a member of this ridiculous demographic, the whole production is an unconscious self-parody anyway. 

But back to the show's perception of bogans: No doubt many latte slurping wankers watching approvingly were rolling their eyes when one of the designated bogans said that he "dropped out of school to drink and become a tradesman". Ironic, since they themselves would've dropped out of the work force to get stoned and become "artists" and academics.

They should remember that bogans such as this bloke skilfully build and maintain much of the infrastructure they take for granted, as well as generating the wealth that funds their stupid, pointless, self-indulgent lifestyles. 

You'd think that being self-described lefties and champions of the underdog, they might take the bogans' side on occasion -- or at least be less condemnatory of them. But they are too mean-spirited to manage even that. What a revolting pack of parasitic snobs they are.

Dumb Drunk and Racist was entertaining but incoherent

I watched the first episode of the show Dumb, Drunk and Racist the other night. It was entertaining, but I don't think it shed any light on the question it purportedly sought to answer: Are we really dumb, drunk and racist?

Well, who's this "we" that host Joe Hildebrand kept talking about? Hell, there are over 22 million individuals, and numerous cultural, racial and religious groups in Australia ... Or was he talking about the country's official government policy?

Obviously, there are many racist individuals, and even some overtly racist groups here. While many of these people are white -- that is, of Anglo-Celtic or Western European descent -- many are not. (I know that PC lefties find this impossible to comprehend, since they can't see non-whites as fully human individuals in their own right and so believe they are incapable of racism -- a patronizing attitude that is a kind of racism in itself.) But these white bigots, while quite numerous, are surely very much in the minority.

Sure, the Australian government was officially and overtly racist when it had the White Australia policy. But it's certainly not officially and overtly racist now -- although there are some elements of politically correct racism (you know, the compassionate, well meaning kind) that have exacerbated racial tensions, or even created some that didn't already exist.

The whole idea of taking four Indians to a racially and culturally diverse country where many thousands of their countrymen are already living, working and studying seems utterly pointless. I mean, obviously it's not a racist country, because if it were, they wouldn't have been let in in the first place, right? Or if the people here were overwhelmingly bigoted against Indians most, if not all, of them would have quickly found it intolerable and buggered off, wouldn't they?

I know the reason the show's producers chose Indians who haven't been here before was because they wanted to test the very negative stereotype of Australians currently being widely promoted in that country. But surely it would have been equally valid to just ask some Indians who lived here already if all the outrage back home was justified.

Well, there'd be no journey, no confrontation, no drama, no "colour and movement" then. You have to have people cussin' an' fightin' for it to be good TV, don't you?

And there certainly was quite a bit of that. Firstly, there was the clear, vile racism of people abusing Indian call centre workers. That was the classic white racism that people normally associate with the term. Sadly, there's plenty of that here, but I have no doubt that most white Aussies are appalled and disgusted by it. 

Then there was the clear, vile racism of the Muslim passerby who was outraged by the "Say No to Burqas" mural in Newtown.

Watch that scene closely. It's fascinating. If my memory serves correctly the Muslim guy calls the mural's creator, Sergio Redegalli a "wop, dago c**t". He also calls one of the Indians Sergio's "little lap dog", something that understandably riles the visitor.

Of course, hand-wringing lefties will ignore all of that and say that the mural's creator was the real racist. Well, if you believe that, you're conflating race and religion. Cloth is not skin, remember.

And it's a lay down misere that the sneering hipsters with the most frothing foam in their mouths about that mural will be just the kind of people who gleefully applaud the provocative trashing of  Christian religious symbols such as crucifixes and nun's habits. But with so many Christians across the globe being non-white (perhaps even the majority?) then by their own logic that would be racist too, wouldn't it?

Er, no. Lefties are special, see.

But back to Redegalli: Yes, there may be some submerged racism in his motivations for creating such a mural. But it's clearly not the main driver. If he had a big time bug up his ass about Middle Eastern people then the mural would read something like "Bugger off Arabs!" right? Hell, he's gonna be accused of racism either way, so why wouldn't he just say what he truly believes?

Nope. Redegalli is being disingenuous when he says he doesn't want to provoke people -- and he's certainly religiously intolerant. But his mural is not racist in itself.

This outrage about "anti-Muslim racism" (a nonsensical term if ever there was one) says more about the fulminator's own prejudices than anyone else's. Classic case of projection, I reckon.

Hilderbrand's own reaction was revealing too. When the artist gave security reasons for condemning the burqa after originally citing freedom of speech issues the host accused him of being inconsistent and confused.

Eh? So you're only allowed to have one reason for creating political art now?

Then when Sergio drives his car -- emblazoned with anti-Muslim slogans -- through Lakemba and doesn't get any reaction Hildebrand says of the Lakemba locals: "Seems like they're more tolerant than you are."

But hang on. Hilderbrand himself was right there when a Muslim passerby chucked a tanty over the mural. And it's an established fact that it has been defaced scores of times.

The host then contradicted himself again by farewelling the artist with a handshake and the words: "You're a brave man."

That said it all for me. That episode revealed more about the doco makers' fear of offending Islam than it did about whether "we" (whoever the hell that means) are dumb, drunk and racist.

Wonder what the next episode will reveal? I'll be keen to find out.

Recruitment drive for Perth sperm donors

Several years ago laws were introduced that required sperm donors to supply their identification along with their genetic material, making it easier for their kids to contact them in later life. Not surprisingly, the number of men willing to donate plummeted. So IVF clinics have been getting much of their supply from overseas. In Perth, they're trying to get some local blokes to make up the shortfall, without much luck.

Gawd, but it's a loathsome little industry isn't it? The men most likely to donate sperm are the ones who want to have least to do with their offspring. Imagine being one of the kids whose life resulted from this process. How would that make you feel, eh?

Of course, creepy social engineers say that there's no harm done to the child if he or she has loving parents. But love can only go so far in assuaging the angst resulting from such a deep, existential issue. The fact that half of your DNA came from someone who didn't want to have anything to do with you is going to have a big impact on your psyche no matter what. It would surely be like a hole in your heart that you would want to at least attempt to fill at some stage by finding out who your dad is, and what he's like as a person. (Actually, as far as I'm aware the fact that so many children of sperm donors wanted to do this was one of the main reasons the law was changed back in 2004.)

One of the Perth IVF doctors whose company is suffering from this sperm shortage describes how they're trying to recruit more donors: "We are focusing our advertising on the message that it is a wonderful gift that you're giving to a couple or person that's been unable to have a child, and it's really a good thing to do for society."

No mention of the rights of the child of course. That would be bad for business.

Creamfields festival fall a sign of the times

I tell you, the older I get the crustier and fustier I become. I'm very unimpressed with the behaviour of young folk today. They seem to have little or no sense of responsibility, and are often severely lacking in empathy.

I know you could find any number of po-mo quackademics who'd disagree vehemently. They'd say I'm pushing an ageist, conservative moral panic and that today's teenagers and twenty somethings are all really switched on and sensible. That's crap, I reckon.

Yes, I am a curmudgeon pushin' fifty but I was young once too, remember. And back in those times I can't recall my contemporaries being anywhere near as reckless and stupid as the youth of today.

Take this near tragedy in which a bloke fell twenty metres from scaffolding at the Creamfields dance music festival. I'm glad he's okay, but he was a total knob for climbing up there in the first place. 

And it wasn't just his actions that were so alarming. Watch the video and you'll see a young woman in the foreground. Look at her reaction as the bloke plummets earthward and in the seconds afterwards, when his fate was not yet known. She actually finds it funny.

Disturbing.

Professor Bunyip, Saffron Howden and accusations of racism

Professor Bunyip has posted an open letter to journo Saffron Howden regarding her piece in The Age. Have to agree with him. I haven't read all of the Amazon reviews of Am I Black Enough for You? But the ones I did read, while sometimes snarky, certainly didn't qualify as racist (that is, implying or overtly stating that the book's writer Anita Heiss was inferior or even merely different because of her Aboriginality).

Fluffy wuffies have an amazingly flexible definition of racism. They use it to describe pretty much anything they don't like (which is a helluva lot). They've now made the word next to meaningless to any rational person.

And they almost never seem to want to explain why something is racist. They just label it so. Look at Howden's article. "Racism" is used frequently but there's never a clarification of why or how the examples she mentions qualify as such. About the only thing that comes close to clarifying what she might mean is this paragraph:

Heiss was one of nine Aboriginal people who took Bolt and his publisher to court over articles that implied light-skinned indigenous people chose to be black for personal gain.

Now, that may be bad, wrong, nasty or whatever. But how is even that racist? If he did do what's claimed, Bolt was being maliciously personal and accusing them of a form of corruption. What, so Aborigines are incapable of corruption, and it's their Aboriginality that makes them so? That's just too silly for words. 

Maybe it's because Howden herself is terrified of venturing a definition that she obediently repeats the politically correct line. After all, she includes this creepy little quote from Jody Broun: ''Let's be clear, Aboriginal identity is defined by us, no one else."

Broun seems to be saying that you simply aren't allowed to have an opinion on the matter unless you yourself define yourself as Aboriginal (and in the way that she and her political allies demand). If that's not totalitarian, I don't know what is.

Imagine if I, or another white person (and when I say "white" the definition does not include fair-skinned Aborigines -- er, is that qualification "racist" too?) were to say: "We define who is to be called white, and no one else." The accusation of racism -- which would no doubt be hurled, along with a host of others -- would actually be true. 

Clearly, these PC zealots believe that if they keep repeating the accusation ad bloody nauseam that it'll become true. Except it won't. All that will do is make it increasingly obvious how meaningless, hollow and fear-based their ideology actually is.

The worrying thing is, though, that their false accusations can have legal force. The Bolt verdict proved that.

So, they are a pretty scary bunch! But you've gotta feel sorry for the poor little petals, too. They've cornered themselves big time.

Trapped in a paranoid, pompous pose of lefteous indignation, they are now incapable of constructing an actual argument in response to criticism. Such a state would be sad for anyone. But if you're a writer or a journo, well, it's tragic as.

Wong and Allouache have a daughter, but where is the father?

Penny Wong and her significant other Sophie Allouache are now the proud parents of a beautiful baby girl. I use the term "parents" flexibly, of course, because only one of the pair truly is a parent -- that's Sophie Allouache, who bore the child. The other dinkum parent is nowhere to be seen.

He's obviously agreed to take a low profile. Pretty much invisible, actually.

The father of Alexandra is a man known to the couple.

Well, at least they've met the guy. So they didn't choose him solely for the quality of his DNA, as described on some creepy sperm bank database.

His identity is to be kept secret.

Obviously that means that the meeja probably won't be allowed to print his name, even though it's a lay down misere that every hack in Canberra already knows it. (You never know, he might even be one. Most of the press gallery would give blood for the "progressive" cause. So why not sperm as well? Hell, it'd probably be a nice little earner, too.)

This report says that he will be known to the baby. Well, that's good of them.

Still, the poor tot will be left wondering why he, her dad, is taking such a minor role in her life. As she grows up she will almost certainly end up feeling that he fathered her not out of love for her mother but merely for ideological (or perhaps financial) reasons. So what does he truly feel about her? That's a doubly whammy to the heart right there.

Penny Wong and Sophie Allouache may think they've got the situation all nicely, neatly sorted. But it could get very messy indeed. Just as so many children of the IVF process -- deeply hurt by their fathers' absence from their lives -- often seek them out in adulthood, the fathers themselves frequently become much more emotionally involved than they planned to be and and demand more contact. Poisonous enmity often results and the only people to benefit are lawyers.

Really, the idea that bringing children into the world in such a cynical way constitutes social "progress" is just too revolting for words. It's also deeply ironic considering how often the gay marriage lobby cite "love" as their primary motivation.

Drunk Fremantle burglar calls cops out of guilt

The "dumb criminals" genre is popular across all media. There are plenty of amusing examples to satisfy its fans. And here's a local lawbreaker who fits into that category, but who also has an intriguingly strong moral conscience.

See, this young Fremantle bloke got drunk, then broke into a nearby house and stole a laptop. Stricken with guilt he then called the plods, told them what he had done and asked them to come and pick him up!

So not only did the plonk, or whatever he was skolling, bring out his true criminality, it also made him want to 'fess up; to tell the truth.

In vino veritas indeed.

Elderly avenger fights off burglars, sums up legal system

Every week in Perth there seems to be another violent home invasion. Not content to permanently traumatize the owners of the homes they've broken into, the thugs who carry out these acts often beat them as well. Sometimes the victims are elderly. It's truly depressing, and you wonder how anyone could be so lacking in humanity as to do such a thing.

But it is heartening to know that the crims don't get to rob, bash, bully or terrify every oldster they encounter. Take the case of this burglary in Alexander Heights. It went horribly awry for the perpetrators when a senior citizen turned out to be more combative than most people half his age, and sent them scurrying by brandishing a baseball bat. Said the fit great-grandfather:

"They [the burglars] were in my garage and it's just a step up into the house, where I have a terrified wife in her 60s. I would use any means to protect my home. The judicial system is a joke."

I like his attitude. And his assessment is spot on.

Alexander Lebedev does a Ron Casey

Everyone in Australia knows of the infamous punch-up between Ron Casey and Normie Rowe that was broadcast live on the Midday Show back in 1991. I was actually one of the few people who saw it live and the event was seared into my brain.

I was living in a grungy share house type situation in Northcote in Melbourne and had just turned on the TV. I didn't choose that show. It just happened right there in front of me. I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

Recently, a similarly dramatic live TV stoush has occurred in which an older grey haired bloke landed a punch against a younger, more hirsute opponent. The man taking the Ron Casey role was Alexander Lebedev, Russian billionaire.



Note the similarities with the original, Australian event two decades ago. Spooky, eh?

Perhaps there is a grand design to human events after all. Hell (and heaven!), maybe there is even a God. And if so, what is he trying to tell us?

Er, be kind to senior citizens? God doesn't like beards? (No, that can't be right.)

Stuffed if I know.