Little white lines

Annie Mole of Underground blogging fame writes about her pet peeve:

People with loud music carrying through their headphones is a pet hate of mine and many others.

I’ve taken to the closest you can get to London opprobrium for those who emit high levels of headphone leakage. A mean squint and direct eye contact. In terms of London discourse, I think the next step on the ladder is violent affray. I have regular fantasies about snip-snipping the headphone wires of offenders.

I’ve noticed more often than not that if I can hear headphone leakage then the wires are white. Meaning crappy Apple iPod headphones.

I’ve been told by someone in the know that the headphones are manufactured not by Apple but by some other well-known company – and it’s really all their fault. So you say…

But I’ll still be suing Apple when I go on iPod rage and really hurt somebody. (Oh, woman sitting next to me with your hip hop leakage last night on the Victoria line you came awful close. You’re lucky that I only squinted at you and silently cursed you with a wish that you suffer long term hearing damage instead.)

fish kill

It looks like there was a gas attack on our pond. All of our goldfish are dead. I’d like to think it was no one’s fault really – there was kind of a perfect storm of conditions which contributed to the untimely death of Smoky, Larry, Darrell, Blackie and Swimmie. But, in truth, better pond maintenance might have prevented this.

Dismal track record
This isn’t our first fish death. No – Caspar Weinberger and Blaze died under less than favorable circumstances. And one day Darrell and Darrell disappeared. Just vanished. We suspected the al Kitti insurgency. I also accidentally poisoned some bottom feeders once, too with algicide before I started blogging. Ooops.

Remembrance of things past

How did it happen?
During the morning of the snow, the pond didn’t exactly freeze over, but slushed over – to a depth of about three inches. I’d never really seen that before, but figured that it was ok. You shouldn’t really let a pond freeze over – not because of the cold, goldfish can stand the cold – but because of the gas created by rotting vegetation and fish poo and fish breath exhalation. I was pretty sure the fish were alive that morning, I think I saw them moving around and Fancy was messing around in the pond, pushing the slush aside trying to get at the fish.

It warmed up by the afternoon and hasn’t frozen over since. But the fish must have died that day without me really noticing. (Fish are a little bit boring in winter). The Vol-in-Law noticed they were dead this weekend. We haven’t found all the bodies, but there were enough floaters to bode ill and we didn’t see any additional movement this weekend.

Our plan for victory
Now some might question our pond tactics and some might ask if we should have had a pond in the first place. Doubters. Sceptics. Fish-and-freedom-haters. Now is the time to reinforce failure our fish stock with a surge in goldfish numbers.

Just kidding. I think we’ve decided that with a baby on the way maybe we shouldn’t really be in pond business anymore. Those things are really nothing but fish charnel houses at best and toddler drowners at worst.

I’ve enjoyed the pond and it helped us use a space that although sunny and sheltered, was paved over and not used for much else. But ponds are trouble and clearly we’re not cut out for fish husbandry. I’m going to drain the plastic tub, backfill it with soil and grow tomatoes there instead.

Tomatoes aren’t as interesting as fish. Plus without a pond, we’ll actually have to remember to give our cats water.

Learning from our mistakes
The Vol-in-Law doesn’t really like to talk about the dead fish. “Clearly, I’m not cut out for this. I can barely remember to give our cats food. And they’re mammals, much more interesting than fish,” he said guiltily on Sunday and then got up and fed the cats.

Yesterday I said to him “Doesn’t it make you nervous that we’re expecting a baby and we can’t even keep goldfish alive?”

“Fish are very fragile and we’ll try harder with a baby.”

Culture, culture, culture

My brother and I went to Italy a few years ago. It was after my grandfather died and having lived with him (and my mom) after my parents split up, I think we felt extra close to him. But we weren’t his children, either and it was difficult to express and for others to fully empathise with how we were feeling. So we went off, on our own, to Italy – as one does. And in the process we discovered that we could travel well together, a happy thing.

We had a great time – all that culture and pasta was very therapeutic. And I think we both liked Florence. But the problem with Florence is that it’s just too amazing, too full of fabulous things to see. I love museums, I love art, but even my eyes were starting to curl. Oh look – I’ve seen that painting in many an art history text, (yawn) look it’s another Great Master. Oh yes, this square is perfect in proportion – yes, I do have an odd feeling of peace. Ho hum. I think that’s because Michelangelo designed this place, too.

We were outside the Museum of the Duomo (Cathedral), leaning against concrete traffic bollards and sucking on Marloboros – and I was trying to convince my brother to go in to this one last museum. He was reluctant. A British tourist stopped just next to us to light his cigarette – and I asked him – as one can do in the brotherhood of smokers “Hey, what’s in there? Is it worth going in?”

“Well, there’s some Michelangelo, Donatello and Raphael. Yeah, it’s worth it,” he said with a shrug – probably thinking “philistine Americans”, but sounding a little culture weary himself.

“Hey, VolBro, it’s got three of the four Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles, it’s gotta be worth seeing,” I said.

So in we went. And I can’t say I saw things with exactly fresh eyes. But the thing about great, truly great works of art, is that even when you’ve ceased to be amazed by merely the wonderful you can still be stopped in your tracks by a truly powerful work that can speak to you.

This one did. I saw it in expat blogger Anglofille’s Flickr photostream this morning. And of course a sneaky pic can never have the power of the real thing, but it did take me back to an August afternoon in Florence this gray and cool London morning.

_________

Rather interestingly, she her latest post is about her grandfather, gone 9 years and their connection that remains.

Wireless

I successfully changed out our broadband router, splitter do-hicky thingy – for a slicker, smooth-white ipod-y looking thingy that also does wireless broadband Internet access.

I only had to dial up one call centre (though I did have to navigate through about 50 touchtone menus). And you know what, they gave my the password to my husband’s new email account – and all I had to know was our address and his mother’s maiden name. I had to do that ’cause I couldn’t register the broadband without it.

I didn’t break anything or put any holes through walls and I only swore quite a lot. My marriage wasn’t under threat at any point (though I do wonder the Vol-in-Law didn’t do this himself, given that it was on his account).

Today was a good day.

A different take on gay marriage

Here’s one I hadn’t heard before:

First of all, I do not believe that the Biblical definition of marriage is a union between man and woman. Marriage, as defined by God, is a covenant between man, woman, and God. Many non-Christians marry every year in Tennessee. Their marriages aren’t Biblical, but they are alright with that. They are legal though. So from a Christian standpoint, there shouldn’t be any difference between two non-Christians marrying and two homosexuals marrying. Why do we allow one “non Christian” marriage and not the other? Why are we so concerned about what two homosexuals are doing that we are willing to go to the trouble of passing a constitutional amendment defining marriage? The reason to me is simple. Many of us, obviously the majority, have an extra bit of contempt for homosexuals. What it amounts to is bigotry. I know I am in the minority on this, but think about it. Why would we even care one iota about what two homosexuals are doing, unless there was something spiritually wrong with us?

Although I suppose I’m ethnically Protestant, I wouldn’t consider myself to be a card-carrying Christian anymore (or at the time of my wedding). So I guess, my marriage falls into the same category as any old non-Christian – or even homosexual marriage. And Glen Dean apparently thinks that should be OK.

I can’t say I’ve ever heard this particular argument before – but if it’s one that makes you feel better, great. I guess in a way it’s more liberal and laissez-faire than my own reasons for supporting gay marriage.

Deer park

Yesterday we took a long walk in Richmond Deer Park. It was one of the first weekend days with a bit of blue sky that I can remember.

We went down to the lake and saw Sam the dozy looking English shephard mix nosing around the water, upsetting the swans. The swans were hissing and spitting. His owners were concerned – as well they might have been – a swan can break you arm with one beat of its mighty wing. They kept calling “Sam, Sam” – but in a nice sweet way. Sam ignored them and the swans.

These swans were mighty upset with Sam.

Then we walked past a big open field of dry bracken. I didn’t really notice anything special about it at first, but then the Vol-in-Law pointed out that the field was full of deer. They are about the same color as the bracken and only their antlers were poking over the top of the dead vegetation.

Feral

Feral parakeets live in South London. Refugees from the pet trade, there are colonies all up and down the Thames. There are quite a few in Richmond Deer Park. They squawk and squeak and unfortunately usually stay too high up in the trees to get good pictures of them.

Catwalk modelling

Me: Arghh, there’s cat hair all over these baby clothes.
Vol-in-Law: Isn’t that the outfit you dressed the cat in?
Me: Your point?

The ViL puts the world to rights

I said that if the Vol-in-Law did a good job on the Conservative Home web tv programme, I would post a link. Well, I reckon he did do a pretty good job (though I recognise my bias). So here it is.
And though it means breaking anonymity, the Vol-in-Law is not the young chap with the revealing neckline, nor is he the blonde woman.

He came yesterday wearing makeup (to make him look less shiny) and told me he’d had precisely 15 minutes of fame. So, if your even vaguely interested in the internal workings of the British Conservative party, give him a quarter of an hour to entertain you on the matters of candidate selection, the British relationship to Europe and the Gove lecture on an anti-islamist intelligentsia.

Gay adoption

The UK is bringing in anti-discrimination legislation – which basically means that you can’t treat gay people any differently than straight people. On the face of it, that sounds ok to me. I certainly don’t want the government that I support through my taxes to discriminate against anyone.

Oh wait, the law applies to everyone… private businesses, individuals, churches, synagogues and mosques. And we know how much churches, synagogues and mosques want to hire or serve gay folks (as a general rule).

One of the examples raised by Christian evangelicals of how damaging this would be is the Christian couple forced to lodge a gay couple in their Bed and Breakfast (which are run out of private homes). Now, I do have sympathy with the idea that you should be able to choose who comes into your home, but you’ve made it a place of business… Personally, I would be devastated if any gay friend of mine and his/her partner were turned away from a B&B, say after having made a reservation, just for being gay. I would be horrified and disgusted and hurt on their behalf.

Another area of the law is gay adoption. Christian and Jewish adoption agencies will no longer be able to turn gay couples away from applying through their agencies (in the past when this happened, gay couples were referred on to agencies who would place children with gay couples). This is causing a furore – or as described in the UK press – a gay adoption row.

I’m not sure how I feel exactly about gay adoption. Personally, I don’t think that anyone has a right to adopt a child. I don’t think any adult has this right, because adoption ought to be about the best interests of the child. But I don’t think that gay couples should be forbidden from doing so just because they are gay. However, with two equally suitable couples – I would tend to prefer the married heterosexual couple to the married homosexual couple (technically civil partnerships in the UK) – just because I think it would make for an easier life. But I would also tend to prefer the married homosexual couple to the unmarried heterosexual couple – all else being equal. (I simply cannot understand why a couple seeking to adopt would not get married to demonstrate the stability of their relationship. And since they apparently can’t be bothered to do that, I’d worry about what else they might not be bothered about.)

The Catholic adoption agencies are asking for an exemption to the law. I have mixed feelings about this. If you can’t discriminate between people in terms of adoption – I don’t know when you can. For example, it’s still widely accepted in this country that black children are better off with black families. And a Catholic adoption agency – to my mind – ought to be seeking to place children with Catholic families who seek to follow the precepts of the Catholic church. So does that mean that they should discriminate against me and the Vol-in-Law, say – a couple of deeply lapsed Protestants? Yes. Yes, they should. It seems to me that a Catholic adoption agency should always prefer a Catholic couple to us – if we seem equally suitable. And let’s face it – there are far more couples seeking to adopt healthy young kids than there are healthy young children to adopt. They will always be able to turn up a Catholic couple who are at least as suitable as raising children as we are.

And if a Catholic adoption agency should be able to turn us away – a stable, well-educated, married heterosexual couple – then they ought to be able to turn away gay couples who by living together in a homosexual relationships are clearly violating the precepts of the Catholic church.

On the other hand, it sounds like these religious adoption agencies are not functioning as separate bodies, but as an extension of the state. The Catholic church merely provides an administrative function of Government. There are many such arrangements between the faith and voluntary sectors in the UK. This makes their position demanding an exemption weak – very weak. The Catholic church is now threatening to remove themselves from the adoption agency market. Perhaps that’s the best solution, if they can’t operate as a private adoption agency seeking to be an agency where Catholic birth mothers can place children with the assurance that they will end up with Catholic families.