Thursday, May 29, 2008

The horrifying incident in the night.

Sitting on the couch, watching Brad and Sandra flirting on the late news and I get a news flash of my own; a blood curdling scream with follow up screams and no ad break.

Like a salmon I rise from the couch and head down the hallway with all engines full ahead. Rachel goes past the end of the hall, on her way to the bathroom where she gets into the shower fully clothed and turns the cold up full.

While trying to do up the lid on a hot water bottle she half dropped the bottle, pressing it against her pregnant belly, and emptying some of the boiling contents all over her belly and chest.

At once I see this is bad. There's skin hanging loose and its red and angry. Rachel can take pain like I can take beers, but appears to be in serious pain. I do what any sensible person does faced with such a situation, I call an Ambulance and talk faster than a horse racer caller on crystal meth.

I finally get it all across to them, the MICA arrives ten minutes later, I pack a bag of entirely inappropriate and "mere male" fodder clothes* and Rachel goes of to Cabrini, with me in the car 10 minutes behind.

Of course it turns out ok. Pain reduces, a smile returns, no long term scars, baby is fine, I am wrecked. We get home, cuddle each other and our baby and sleep comes like many drugs.

I go into 3AW this morning and foolishly chose a controversial topic and get fired up and call a listener an idiot for the first time ever.

* the clothes I packed were as follows: One non maternity bra that does not fit, a sports bra, one g-string, one pair of useful undies, one pair of trakkie daks, one pair of slippers two of my t-shirts as "she'll want something loose fitting"

Labels: , , ,

posted by thr at 9:51 am 0 comments links to this post

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

It's about lifestyle- or is it really?

Presuming to speak for me, Peter Berry had the following to say:

KEVIN Rudd, like John Howard before him, has done the right thing intervening against Jon Stanhope's proposed changes to effectively redefine marriage.

An honest examination of the situation reveals this is not about rights, as claimed. Previous areas of unreasonable discrimination against homosexual couples have been addressed through new legislation. Consequently, there is no good reason to dismantle and redefine this age-old and time-proven institution.

Our society and our children need marriages to be supported and strengthened, not diluted. This is now simply about justifying a lifestyle by forcing society to accept, despite its better judgement and legitimate concerns.

Peter Berry, Chirnside Park
"This is now simply about justifying a lifestyle by forcing society to accept, despite its better judgement and legitimate concerns."

Careful Peter, your homophobia is showing. Oh an you missed a line. After "justifying a lifestyle" you meant to put in "that is dirty, dangerous and against God's teachings".

Really, I feel the other way. I want marriage to include as many people as possible. Why on earth do certain members of the heterosexual community feel the need to keep marriage as a heteros only club? Before I got married I used to joke that gay folk should have the right to marry and be as miserable as much as anyone.

But now as a married man, I want to be inclusive. Being married is actually much more important to me than I thought it would be. I thought I was satisfying a traditional requirement, but now it feels like more than that. I can't really express it, but lemme say this; it's pretty damn good.

To me, it's the equivalent of not offering mirgants the vote. Oh sure, we want you to contribute, to work and so on, but we don't want to include you.

What a load of rubbish. It's 2008- we can do better.

posted by thr at 1:21 pm 1 comments links to this post