exciting, informative, snarky, and very likely fabricated tales of life as an american expat in london

premature pancakes

by Jen at 11:03 pm on 28.02.2006 | 2 Comments
filed under: mundane mayhem

Happy Mardi Gras to all!

Here it’s celebrated as Shrove Tuesday, or Pancake Tuesday. Everyone has pancakes for dinner – something about the tradition of using up the lard and flour, though why you’re not allowed flour during lent, I have no idea. What they call pancakes here in the UK are what Americans think of as filled crepes, but I still think it’s cool to make fluffy stacked pancakes.

Funny story. In the run-up to Pancake Tuesday, you see a lot of syrup and baking mixes in the shops – not usually all that common, otherwise. A visual reminder of the impending holiday. So *LAST* Tuesday, I was in the shop and saw some real maple syrup on sale, thought “oh, pancake tuesday!”, brought it home, whipped up the last of my Jiffy mix (from a care package), and we had a short stack ofAmerican style pancakes for dinner. Only on wednesday, when watching telly, did I see a jamie oliver advert saying “don’t forget pancake tuesday on 28th february” (the subtext of which was “and please buy my frying pan to make your pancakes in”), did I realise I’d got the date wrong. good lapsed catholic that I am, i never even bothered checking a calendar.

So I thought the whole anecdote amusingly ditzy, and I was relaying my goofy little tale about my funny mistake to my work colleague, and turns out *she’d done the exact same thing*, right down to the frying-pan-advert-dawning-of-realisation.

So tonight, we went with jambalaya instead.

Technorati Tags , , , ,
2 Comments »

giving up

by Jen at 5:22 pm on Comments Off
filed under: mutterings and musings

So I am nominally Catholic, and even though it’s a Catholic thing to give up something over the Lenten period, other churches have sometimes adopted this as well, and most religions have some observance of abstention at some point during the year.

I remember growing up that we would set an extra empty place at the dinner table, and then donate the cost of the extra meals over the Lenten period to a charity. The idea stayed with me and at certain points in my life I have deliberately fasted in observance of an event or belief. I fasted when the US first went to war, as my private way of registering my moral objection, in solidarity with those being bombed. It would seem silly to most, but I couldn’t go throughout my daily routine, flipping on light switches and water, going to work and coming home, opening the fridge and cooking my dinner – I couldn’t do all that resolutely ignoring the fact that there were people in Afghanistan huddled in their houses in the dark with their children gathered around them, praying for their lives because my government decided they should die.

So even though I don’t generally observe Lent any more, I have been thinking a lot about the meaning behind giving up. For me, going without represents a way of being deliberately conscious, of acting with purpose and intention. Too often I find myself following the path of least resistance, or sleepwalking through day, and the idea behind “giving up” something is a way of making me feel more present.

I am so incredibly fortunate. I have never lived without water or electricity or food. I have never gone without clothing or shelter. And yet, that is not the norm for the majority of people in the world. I think it’s important for me to stop taking the basics for granted, and through my tiny act of self-deprivation, identifying more closely with those who go without, *not* by the luxury of choice, but by default. Those who are wanting, and needing as a matter of everyday survival.

My sacrifices are negligible and I want for nothing of importance in this world – and sometimes I need to remind myself of that.

Comments Off

the law of fundamentals

by Jen at 6:34 pm on 27.02.2006 | 1 Comment
filed under: londonlife, mutterings and musings

Was sent this story by a friend earlier today (thanks for the link, A) about using mobile phones to track someone’s movements

These sorts of tracking services, now available in the UK, get information from the network about which cell your phone is currently in, and, for a small fee, display the location on an online map.

As well as checking where a certain phone is right now, you can run scheduled lookups, or snail trails, to record the phone’s movements throughout the day, and produce a report for you to peruse at your leisure.

The only thing currently regulating this usage is a voluntary code of conduct. I’d be shocked to the core if the government is not already using this technology.

Yet people seem singularly unfazed by this. And why should they be? They’re already captured on CCTV nearly everywhere, tracked via Oyster cards, tracked for friggin’ TV licenses and car tax, for crying out loud. Remember, this is the same nation that feels it’s perfectly acceptable to keep your DNA on file, even if you were falsely arrested, even if you are completely acquitted – just in case.

It reminds me a bit of a discussion I was having the other day with J about the difference between freedom of speech in the US and freedom of speech here. In the US, laws enacted must prove they do NOT infringe on reasonable expectations of freedom of speech, or undermine the spirit of the first amendment. The expectation is that you can say and express yourself however you like, and the government has little right to limit that.

From wiki:
Text of the Virtual First Amendment (heavily abridged)

No State legislature or the Congress of the United States shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press all media of information; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This general prohibition shall be subject to the following elaborations, extensions, restrictions, limitations, interpretations and conditions: a. The absolute freedom of engaging in or refraining from speech and non-verbal communication, and receiving or refusing to receive information, without any coercion, shall be a rebuttable presumption in any administrative or judicial proceeding, concerning any attempts to abridge them. The onus of rebutting this presumption shall rest entirely on the party seeking such abridgment, by showing that the speech or non-verbal communication sought to be restrained, or the information to be withheld, do not, by virtue of some other conflicting and overriding considerations or necessities, fall within the categories of freedoms that this section is intended to protect;

(emphasis mine)

The burden of restriction rests squarely with those who seek to make any impositions on freedom of speech.

Here in europe, it’s explicitly stated that free speech is only free insofar as that which they have not made illegal.

From the European Convention on Human Rights:

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

(emphasis mine)

And it occurs to me that the different sensibility in approach to privacy is much the same. For example…

The Fourth amendment of the bill of rights states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You see, even where it doesn’t explicitly state a right to “privacy”, per se, that right is implied in the nature of what is enshrined in the constitution. In other words, one must prove that laws passed do not transgress the rights implicit in the ten amendments of the bill of rights.

Once again, the wishy washy European convention on human rights states:

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life1

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

This difference of approach is an important distinction. The crux of which is that Americans operate in their day-to-day lives with the presumption of a certain set of givens, which are all meant to underpin this principle: that unless they break a law, the state may not unreasonably interfere with their person or property or everyday life, and it is incumbent upon the state to prove that they have not done so.

Here, there is no constitution, there are no enshrined rights. There are no absolutes. There is nothing which is sacrosanct. I find this the hardest thing to adapt to. The notion that freedoms exist only in regard to what they have not yet chosen to make illegal. there is nothing the state can’t legislate. There is not behaviour, speech or action which they can’t outlaw.

This is why they can track people’s innocent car journeys, collect their most intimate genetic makeup, and tell you what you can and cannot say. As an american, it chafes.

I just hope to get the hell out of here before the implementation of ID cards…

Technorati Tags , , , ,
1 Comment »

one word: velveeta

by Jen at 10:56 pm on 26.02.2006Comments Off
filed under: blurblets, eclectica

proof that the brits know sweet fuck all about macaroni and cheese. This guy voluntarily eats (and rates) mac n’ cheese from a tin
as if there’s any rating other than “crime against humanity”??! vomit

Comments Off

hockey happy

by Jen at 3:25 pm on Comments Off
filed under: blurblets, this sporting life

sunday, so trying to stay calm and relaxed. had a good run this morning with almost no knee pain, which is encouraging.

just watched sweden beat finland in the olympic men’s ice hockey finals… brilliant game. though i was rooting for underdog finland, they were just marginally outplayed by sweden, who were a bit tighter, had a better passing game, better flow, larger size, and a bit more energy. boston bruins forward pj axelsson now has a gold medal for his neck. (which is good, since it looks like, sadly, the bruins won’t be winning anything much this year. they remain solidly in the middle of the league, but at the bottom of their division.) J had to laugh at my constant chatter as i urged the team on, exhorting them through the television screen.

wow, I really really miss watching ice hockey.

Comments Off

world gone mad

by Jen at 8:45 pm on 25.02.2006Comments Off
filed under: blurblets, like a fish needs a bicycle

Kansas is one of 12 states in which underage sex — under 16 in this case — is a crime even when it involves teenage peers. In 2003, state Attorney General Phill Kline, a bandstanding prolifer, interpreted that law to require doctors, educators, counselors, and healthcare workers to report virtually all sexual activity by those under 16 to the state…

There was also the testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Shadigian, best known as a stalwart of the abortion-gives-you-breast-cancer misinformation campaign. She said that teenage girls are always the victims of sexual activity because ”there’s always a power differential between a boy and a girl.” When girls have sex, they aren’t doing, she said, ”they have been done to.”

…Kline’s real purpose in mandating reports is to scare teens away from birth control and abortion clinics. If Kansas actually believed that all under-16 sex was harmful, why would it allow 13-year-olds to marry?

America is soooo fucked up.

Technorati Tags , ,
Comments Off

not done yet

by Jen at 7:26 pm on 24.02.2006 | 2 Comments
filed under: like a fish needs a bicycle, rant and rage

as an expat, I’ve never felt further away from where I need to be. I want to take to the streets, and shout and protest. Yet my rage from 3000 miles away makes me feel so alone.

I know a lot of pro-choice women. In fact, the most vehemently pro-choice women I know are mothers. I’ve known a lot of women who’ve had abortions. I have NEVER in my entire life met a single woman who thought an abortion was a Good Idea.

But the minute they tell me I CANNOT control my uterus … that’s a *part of my body*. Whatever you may think about abortion in general, neither you, nor Bush, nor anyone gets to tell me what to do with *MY* body, because it is the only thing in this world i was born with and it is the only thing in this world I will die with, and it is the ONLY thing in this world that makes me ME.

I don’t think anyone can appreciate that until someone tells you what you can and cannot do with your penis, or your mouth, or your hands. The state didn’t give me a right to my body – only God or fate or whatever universal capricious force you believe in, gave me a right to inhabit my body. It is the only thing that I think with, breathe with, exist with.

I understand there are people who believe that unborn fetuses have those same rights.

What I don’t understand is at what point those rights take over *MY* rights, and, most importantly, why it’s not God or fate or whatever universal capricious force you believe in that’s deciding that, but the state. That’s what I don’t get.

I was up late thinking about this. Crying over this.

Men grow up with the given assumption that they have complete primacy over their bodies.

Women grow up with the idea that at some point, they will voluntarily cede control of that primacy to a baby’s needs.

The idea of having to *involuntarily* cede primacy of one’s body is pretty upsetting.

But do you know what happens to women who don’t have abortions? Who can’t/don’t care for the baby? Those children become foster kids.

Adoption? That happens to a small proportion of newborn white babies who are given up by healthy normal mothers.

The rest – the massive numbers of children who don’t get adopted, end up in the system. If they’re lucky, they end up there from birth. If they’re not lucky, they get taken away when they’re older because bad things have happened to them. Know what happens to them? Go visit a childrens home (yes, orphanages still exist in this day and age). Go talk to the 10 year old who’s lived in 12 different foster homes, and has exactly 4 pairs of pants and 3 photos to her name. Go talk to the little girl with cigarette burns on her back, who got raped at 3 years old. Go talk to the brain damaged kid with special needs who was born addicted to crack. Go talk to the child who was abandoned at age 2 by and found alone in the house after 3 days. Go talk to the HIV positive kid who might not live to see their 13th birthday. Go talk to the kid who’s been bounced back and forth 4 times to see if their mother can “get her act together”.

Think I’m exaggerating? I swear to you, I’m not. Go see for yourself. These are the children who are not wanted. If they’re not fucked up before they go into the system, they sure as hell are coming out. there are more than *half a million* children in the system.

What happens to these children? Who makes sure they don’t drop out of school at 16? Who helps them try to get into college? Who teaches them how to get a bank account, get a job, get a apartment? What happens to them at 18?

What happens to the children whom society treats like stray dogs? The ones who’ve never had anyone to love and guide them? Who don’t love themselves?

Unwanted pregnancy is about more than just the mother. It’s about the children.

There are people in this world who should never have had children. And we, as a society, only continue to desperately fail those children again and again. And then they grow up and the cycle begins again – lather, rinse, repeat.

3-4 million dogs and cats are adopted every year. We should feel utter shame at allowing a half million children to go unloved without families.

There are lots of people who try to make a difference, but it’s like sand against the wind. The foster care “system” is a massive, abysmal crime against children.

Until what’s broken can be fixed, I see legal abortion as an option which keeps more innocent kids from becoming part of that torturous, horrific cycle. I know others don’t agree – but that’s why *I* cannot and will not be dispassionate about it.

Technorati Tags , , ,
2 Comments »

failing words, falling back on sisters

by Jen at 9:33 pm on 23.02.2006 | 3 Comments
filed under: like a fish needs a bicycle

since eloquence eludes me, i’ll let others say it better than myself:

bitch ph.d.: not to put too fine a point on it

Of course, women with money will just leave the state for their abortions. If they’re smart, a lot of them won’t come back… I predict that poor and principled women in South Dakota will start learning how to do at-home d&cs.

feministe: ignorance typified

this law really does call bullshit on any “pro-lifer” who claims that the anti-choice movement cares at all about women…This ban additionally states that “life begins at the time of conception,” which again demonstrates that politicians probably shouldn’t be making laws about medicine when they have no idea what they’re talking about (hello there, “partial-birth” abortion!). “Conception” isn’t a medical term. Fertilization is, but pregnancy doesn’t start at fertilization — it starts at implantation. And if “life” in South Dakota starts at “conception,” they’re going to have a skyrocketing miscarriage rate…

shakespeare’s sister : the anger we all feel

I don’t know if I can accurately convey my feelings about being an adult women, with a good mind and a purpose and a family and a home (all of which is one way of saying I have a life that’s important to me), who stands to have fewer rights and less value under the law than an unwanted fetus. That if I am raped, or my health is under threat, my soundness of mind and body are worth less than an unwanted fetus. That there are people who do not feel my uterus should be under my own control.

It’s insulting. It’s belittling. It’s unfair. It’s infuriating. And none of that matters to the people who would seek to protect a life that doesn’t exist at the expense of mine, which does.

This issue is not just about women who may, at some point, want or need abortions. It’s about all women—and our standing in society, our autonomy. Control over my own body, of which legalized abortion is a significant part, is part of how I define and understand myself and my role in our culture. Taking that away from me is taking away a part of myself, and make no mistake, that’s what this fight is really about.

Technorati Tags , ,
3 Comments »

misogyny is alive and well in south dakota

by Jen at 5:58 pm on Comments Off
filed under: like a fish needs a bicycle

A US state legislature has approved a bill to ban most abortions, in a move aimed to force the US Supreme Court to reconsider its key ruling on the issue… It calls for jail sentences of five years for doctors who perform abortions, even in cases where the woman has been raped, her health is threatened or she became pregnant in an incestuous relationship

can i vomit now? my stomach is churning.

you can say this isn’t a bill meant to be enacted… but it just makes me want to cry. what kind of sick, twisted, women-hating lawmakers would *vote for this bill*??? what kind of world are my nieces growing up in???

I feel so violated as a woman. to think that someone would consign me to having the baby of my rapist if i lived in south dakota. to think that people find it okay to subject me to the mental torture of carrying the seed of some evil fuck within me for nine months, giving birth to it, and being responsible for it, *on top of the trauma of being violently robbed of my body in the first place*.

to be molested by one’s father/brother/uncle, and having to carry their baby as a permanent reminder of that invasion.

this is the kind of shit which will bring back bloody hangers and bleach douches. this is the kind of shit which will drive women to suicide. my lone ineffectual rage cannot stop this.

the thought of all this makes me feel so helpless.

and somehow, i’m sure that’s the point.

Technorati Tags , , ,
Comments Off

all apologies

by Jen at 11:50 pm on 22.02.2006 | 2 Comments
filed under: mundane mayhem

i’m feeling really burned today. i sat down to write, and my mind was a blank. the creative juice was squeezed, no rage, no flame of passion, no inspiration. writer’s block is what i’d call it if i called myself a writer. but it’s deeper than that. it’s only the itch which is the symptom, not the disease. really, i’m just burned out on everything. burned on work. burned on this city. burned on writing. burned on reading. i wake up tired and come home feeling tired-er. i’m even burned on daydreaming, because it just makes the days seem longer, though i’m not quite sure how that’s even possible. i can’t even summon the energy to feign interest in the things i’m supposed to be interested in.

i’m too through. i’m phoning it in. going through the motions. all style, no substance. the lights are off and no one is home. elvis has left the building.

i just want o-u-t. out of this job/city/lease/lifestyle. i want to go where my umbrella doesn’t break on the rainy days, where urban life is not assaulting me from all sides, where i don’t have to pay exorbitant amounts of money to fight my way onto the tube, to get to a job i don’t want to go to, to earn enough money to get to work tomorrow. lather, rinse, repeat.

so it’s my long winded way of saying sorry today’s blog is not more interesting. please forgive my temporary lack of sanity. tune in again tomorrow.

2 Comments »

alito’s abortion audition

by Jen at 8:40 pm on 21.02.2006Comments Off
filed under: like a fish needs a bicycle

Fucking scary – the supreme court will decide the constitutionality of a late term abortion… without the tie-breaker former justice o’connor, who previously insisted that any restrictions must carry exceptions to protect the health of the mother. this is a *federal* ban, folks. a ban on something very rarely ever carried out except under extreme circumstances anyway. Y’know, I just don’t think anyone can ever, ever, ever tell someone what to do with their body. Ever. I’ve talked about it before, but the minute you start encroaching on the right to preserve that last bastion of self-determination, the last frontier of the most personal boundaries, the most literal definition of who we are as humans, our individual physicality… that’s the minute *none* of us completely own our bodies. Man or woman. If that doesn’t scare you, it should.

in the end, none of the other arguments even matter to me. the fetus may be a potentially viable life – but the actual living breathing existing woman has rights which will supercede those, full stop, and i can’t wrap my brain around any argument to the contrary.

edited to turn off comments – while everyone is entitled to their opinion, i’m not interested in sponsoring a link to some rabid prolifer on my site. and luckily, it’s my blog.

Technorati Tags , , ,
Comments Off

one down, only forty-nine to go

by Jen at 12:06 am on 20.02.2006 | 3 Comments
filed under: now *that's* love

today is our first wedding anniversary, so i thought i’d tell the story of how j and i met, since i’ve never really done that here.

first, there was the meeting that neither of us remember. in the summer of 2003, i had a kiwi friend from work named nicola, who was going out with this south african named john. she and i spent a whole summer hanging out and travelling together, and i was slowly introduced to the little expat ccommunity she was part of – she had a bunch of kiwi friends from home who were all here on working holidaymaker visas, and her boyfriend belonged to a similar cohort of south africans. the two little circles eventually melded into one big fluid circle of friends, and apparently i was once hanging out at nick’s house when j dropped by with a few other saffas. that meeting doesn’t really count, however, since both of us were a bit “under the influence” and only discovered later we’d been in the same place at the same time. if a tree falls in a forest, and neither remembers it, does it make a sound?

subsequent to that summer, i was deported from the u.k., and only made it back to london just before christmas. nicola invited me to join a group christmas dinner the big expat circle were doing, but i had already told my flatmate i’d have dinner with her and her boyfriend. unfortunately the flatmate and her boyfriend had an ill-timed big drunken, screaming, slamming row on christmas eve until the wee hours of the morning, and needless to say that christmas day was spent in awkward silence staring at the telly and drinking sherry. dinner was late to start and late to finish and when it finally ended, i rang nick, who assured me I should still drop by as the group dinner had segued into a big party. determined to salvage some part of my holiday, i cheerfully forked out the £25 cab fare (double fare on xmas with no tubes running) to get the hell out of the house. once at the party, i hung out drinking and dancing and indulging, and spent some time unsucessfully flirting with another kiwi guy who was there. at some point in the evening, i ended up in a discussion with j.

i wish i could say it was love at first sight, but to be truthful, the conversation was a bit bland, and though i remember thinking he was cute and smart, i didn’t immediately fall head over heels. the thing that i remember most about that evening was that after mentioning i was thirsty, he kept bringing me glasses of water throughout the evening. we went our separate ways after the party, knowing little more than each other’s first names. i mentioned in passing to nick that i thought he was really cute, but didn’t expect to ever see him again.

fast forward to valentine’s day 2004. i was out at a big party with my flatmate when i got a call from my friend nick. she mentioned some people were congregating at her place, and did i fancy coming by? i declined politely, as i was having fun where i was, and getting to her place would require a bit of travelling i just didn’t want to bother with. about an hour later, i got another call, trying to convince me to come through. and then another call. and then another. eventually i got out of her that j was there, and he wanted to meet me again and she was trying to arrange a hook-up. so i told her to give him my mobile number, and have him call me.

he called me a few hours later, and when i rang him back the next day, we had a very easy and comfortable conversation and arranged to go out. i was actually a bit nervous, because i had only a vague recollection of what he looked like, but when i finally spotted him, it was instant recognition. we had a great first date, the usual drinks and dinner, and though i was dying for him to kiss me on the way home, he didn’t. in fact, he didn’t kiss me until the very end of our second date, standing at the bus stop after i deliberately missed my bus to give him the opportunity to plant a smooch.

the third date… well, it was the third date (*delicate cough*). after that we were nearly inseparable. i was nervous – i’d fallen hard before only to end up gutted. but after he told me he loved me (10 days later) all that just melted away. we decided to move in together after three weeks. we decided to go around the world after four. then we went away for a long easter weekend to cornwall. We were in St. Ives on our second evening there, and we decided to have a drink and watch the sun set at this bar with an outdoor balcony overlooking the water. We were talking about being married previously, and our travel plans for around the world, and how excited we were to be moving in together. And we did this little routine we’d been doing for the past few weeks, where I said “Can I keep you?” and he said “Absolutely”, and I said “For how long?” and he said “As long as you’ll have me” and I said “Forever?” and he said “I’m yours”.

And then, I couldn’t hold it in any longer. it had been on the tip of my tongue for days, and I just blurted out “Will you marry me?” And he looked me right in the eye and said “Yes”. And I said “Really?” and he said “Yes”.

And so I started bouncing up and down and he said he wanted to ask me to make it official, so I said okay, we’d wait until he asked me, thinking it’d be a few days or weeks, and later that evening we were just cuddled up talking and out of the blue he said “Will you marry me?” and I said “yes”.

And then I burst into tears, and couldn’t stop crying.

that was 6 weeks after our first date. a year to the day of our first date, we were married at cape town, in a small ceremony on the beach. it was exactly perfect.

when i first got divorced, i spent a lot of time getting used to the possibility of being on my own for the rest of my life. i learned to be okay with that. i never thought i would remarry. i never thought i would want to.

i never would have picked j as someone who was exactly perfect for me. but he’s steady and ambitious and incredibly goofy. he’s got a perspective on life which constantly amazes me and he always knows what’s really important, yet never takes himself too seriously. he makes me laugh like no one i’ve ever met, is completely unafraid of facing stuff head-on, is always up for fun, and can still kick my ass at chess.

and for some unfathomable reason, he seems to fancy me. and makes me believe. he makes me believe in pablo neruda love poems, and 50 year anniversaries, and in that impulse that would make one lay down their life for another. he makes me believe that there might be a force in the universe which has a plan for my life, and that perhaps he is part of that plan. because i can’t conceive of any other explanation for it without attributing to blind luck, and i refuse to believe that such an incredibly significant event in my life could only have occurred through a random act of capriciousness.

he makes me believe in the possibility of forever – because i can’t imagine my life without him.

happy anniversary, j. one down, only 49 to go.

wedding

Technorati Tags
3 Comments »

grief and guilt

by Jen at 9:37 pm on 19.02.2006Comments Off
filed under: mutterings and musings

i started this morning with a giant crying jag, because i read about someone making the difficult decision to put their pet to sleep. suddenly, images flashed in front of my eyes, memories unfurling unbidden. i can still feel the supersoft spot of fur on her forehead, still smell the cornchip smell of her paws. the remembrance is a physical ache to hold her, and i still hurt from the emptiness of her last breath in my arms. it’s been more than two years and that sob is still caught in my throat. i know i made the right decision, but i still live with the guilt of it, fresh as it ever was, if i allow myself to think about it.

it was the hardest thing i’ve ever done, and it took far more strength than running a marathon or walking on hot coals or throwing myself out of a plane. facing her death was much harder than confronting the possibility of my own. because she was mine – but i was also hers, and her passing took something of me with it.

i suppose in some way, i am writing this here now, because i still haven’t forgiven myself. and i can’t ever forget – but i wouldn’t want to anyway.

Comments Off

reason number 47793 why i love my husband

by Jen at 9:01 pm on Comments Off
filed under: now *that's* love

he responds to the name “tea boy” and brings me chocolate at *all* the right times…

Comments Off

i’d hit that

by Jen at 10:52 pm on 18.02.2006Comments Off
filed under: tunage





MP3 playlist (M3U)

the podcast link is here

Comments Off

it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it

by Jen at 8:18 pm on Comments Off
filed under: londonlife

so even though i’ve been watching the olympics nearly non-stop, overall it’s been a pretty big disappointment. the bbc coverage has been just *terrible*. the brits just don’t seem to understand how to tap into the inherent *drama* of sport. I suppose that’s to be expected from a country which regularly televises billiards and darts, but honestly, the commentary makes it sound like they’re watching paint dry. long gaps and silences between very reserved observations, no human interest background stories on the athletes, and at times you can practically hear them trying to stifle the yawns.

i suppose part of that can be attributed to the fact that british olympians are few and far between, usually noted as an afterthought that the national competitor “placed a respectable 25th”. i can see how it would be hard to generate enthusiasm for an event in which your countryman is unlikely to distiguish themselves from the pack (which, is in and of itself, terribly british, but that’s another post altogether). still, i noticed just how dramatically different commentary styles were when they aired a clip from the local *italian* coverage of the speedskating heats. the italians could barely spit their words out fast enough or loud enough, so palpable was their excitement. they were all completely caught up in the action unfolding in front of their eyes, tumbling over each other with heated exclamation, shouting passionately and practically high-fiving on air. it didn’t matter that i didn’t understand a word they were saying, i was enthralled. i turned to j and said, “now *that’s* sports commentary… why can’t we listen to that??”

Comments Off

wtf?

by Jen at 11:53 pm on 17.02.2006Comments Off
filed under: mundane mayhem

no friggen clue why my site is suddenly in miniature… it’s not the site design, which has not been touched…

arrrggghhhh…. I am so fed up.

Comments Off

homespun fun

by Jen at 1:57 pm on 16.02.2006 | 1 Comment
filed under: eclectica

working from home today, and in an effort to turn my goofing off into something productive, here’s some fun stuff i’ve run across…

the newest craze? spoof movie trailers… including a whole spate of “gay cowboy” movie takeoffs like “brokeback to the future”, “star wars: the empire brokeback”, and even “brokeback penguin”. but it’s amazing how a little creative soundtracking and editing can change the whole tenor of something. witness “shining”… with jack nicholson as the heartwarming wacky dad, or “taxi driver” with a hapless deniro as a slacker just trying to fit in.

if you’ve missed the podcast, check out the blog for vh1’s “best week ever”. recent highlights include:

Dick Cheney came out of his bunker to talk to Brit Hume about what happened the other day, you know when he shot some guy in the face. Apparently, Cheney said it was his fault, but Hume held Cheney close, stroked his head, and said, “There, there. You aren’t to blame. It was the White House press corps. They are to blame.” Then Cheney fell asleep in Hume’s arms. Unfortunately, we didn’t get that last part.

and yet another shoutout to the ladies who fug, who were in fine form last week on the grammy’s red carpet. Anyone who can coin the phrase “put your peaches back in the can” deserves a tip of the hat for creative bitchiness. (p.s. I’m weary of madonna’s crotch too. What is with that? She may look great for nearly 50, but who the hell wants to see a pre-menopausal woman writhing around in leotards and eyeshadow she last wore in high school? It’s all a bit disturbing. And here’s a hint: when you’re old enough to have participated in the hideous fashion trend the first time around, it can no longer acurrately be considered “retro”. )

Technorati Tags , , , , ,
1 Comment »

idiotic i.d. initiative

by Jen at 9:06 pm on 15.02.2006Comments Off
filed under: rant and rage

i was going to blog this yesterday, but with all the warm fuzzies, from v-day, i just couldn’t work up a proper rage… but it’s a day later andi.d. cards are nearly a done deal

given how I feel about oyster cards, i’m sure you can reliably predict my stance on this. the fact is that ID cards will only make people safer if they actually say “terrorist” on them. if they can reliably identify who terrorists are (*not* who your average law abiding citizen is) then they will be worth their weight in gold.

But they’ll be utterly and completely worthless the minute someone has the time/money/energy to counterfeit them. Which should be… oh, any day now. I would venture a guess that most terrorists find falsifying identification child’s play.

What an invasion of privacy. What a massive waste of taxpayer money. Even if you accept the government’s proclaimed premise, their own pilot schemes failed miserably. and the truth is that this is much more about a backdoor attempt to control money laundering and illegal immigration than anything else, but they’re playing the “security card” in order to force it down the public’s throat with the least resistance. because many people would very likely protest something that was introduced to crack down on the influx of poor minorities from underdeveloped countries (or even workers from new eu member states that xenophobes claim are taking away british jobs), but really, who’s going to oppose a measure which promises to make everyone safer after last summer’s terrorist attacks?

it’s an expensive farce of an intiative that’s doomed to fail before it even begins. but what else do you expect these days?

Technorati Tags ,
Comments Off

bungled baking

by Jen at 8:17 pm on | 2 Comments
filed under: mundane mayhem

I’ve bitched about this elsewhere, but I’m going to bitch about it here too, as it is infuriating and humiliating and unbelievably pathetic, all at the same time.

I’ve reached a new baking low. For valentine’s day, i wanted to do something special, so i went and specially searched out a box of brownie mix – no mean feat, let me tell you! Now I *could* have made a batch of brownies from scratch, and have done before, but in case you don’t remember my u.k. baking travails, let me recap briefly. Put me in a stateside kitchen, and I am, in all actuality, quite a decent baker. I used to get lots of joy from doing breads and cakes and cookies in the u.s. yet you would never know it by the quality of my efforts here across the pond.

This baking in the U.K. thing has become a personal albatross. My old recipes don’t work since they’re not metric (even with conversion), the ovens are too small, (so everything is either too close to the top or too close to the bottom, and burns), The water is rock hard, (I am convinced that that much calcium is bad for baking), and everything is just always *off*. Flour is different , baking powder is different, and I have turned out more inedible doorstops since moving here than i ever have before in my life, and that includes the innumberable blue play-dough “cakes” i fed my brother as a child .

Thus, the brownie box mix. So we had dinner, and I went to bake the brownies. And I went to follow the directions on the back. The ingredient measurements were in millilitres. And my measuring cup is in decilitres. (you see where this is going, don’t you?) those of you who know me know I’m not great with metric at the best of times. I was tired, and had had a few glasses of wine and I wasn’t thinking properly, and only realised once I had a big bowl of brownie soup, that I had well and truly fucked up. There was much sobbing and J had to calm me down as I poured my brownies down the sink. The cumulative weight of all my culinary disasters caught up to me, and I was inconsolable.

and that, my friends, is the sad tale of what will surely become known as the st. valentine’s day brownie massacre.

Technorati Tags
2 Comments »

shameless schmaltz

by Jen at 4:53 pm on 14.02.2006Comments Off
filed under: now *that's* love

well, what good is a blog if you can’t use it as a public valentine for the love of your life?

valentine

Technorati Tags
Comments Off
Next Page »