Saturday 30 July 2011

The Man in the Grey Overalls

A man with grey overalls stood there stock-still and stared at the River. Looking at a ghost. Certainly not at the River, the houses beyond, the trees around him. Not the bench he was not sitting on. The pram, the same colour as his overalls, stood quietly. If there was a baby inside, it slept peacefully, silently. The feeling was of tragedy, of impending doom. Had he done something terrible? Was he about to?
She went home and briefly checked the local news, the police website. Nothing about a stolen baby, no baby thrown in the River. The next day she checked but there was nothing there. The man in the grey overalls and his quiet pram were uncomfortably forgotten.
Many weeks and days later, the right combination of day and hours occurred. Round the corner in the quiet small woodland, the man in the grey overalls reappeared. This time, she could see his face. He was in his late fifties. He wore his grief like a shroud. The pram was still grey, and quiet. She approached it, silently. He couldn’t see her, but he couldn’t have anyway. He stared right ahead. He was walking into a ghost. The baby was beautiful. One of those unreal babies that sleep peacefully and look like a white westerner’s idea of a cherubic angel.
The man stared ahead, pushed the pram.
His life partner had died, in a burning caravan, along with his son, and his son’s girlfriend – the baby’s mum.
He looked at the ghost of the fire, the screaming, his own desperation and then the realization that the baby slept quietly, in that boxed area, as yet unaffected by the fire. He looked at the ghost of himself, in the last impetus of life he’d ever had, tearing the door apart, getting the baby out, then switching off, looking at the Caravan burning, hearing the silenced screams. The baby still slept – unaware – blissful. Sirens. Firemen.
Time.
A shop, a grey pram, nappies, a woman who came in during the day, as he worked his work, got home, strolled with the pram, stopped in front of the river, and stared at the ghost.

Thursday 7 July 2011

Googlebloodyplus: bye bye before we even met properly

So, someone just shared with me a note from Google+. It presented itself like an email, so you open it. You read it, because it was sent to YOU; apparently. Then you realise you cannot comment on it, as you’re not in Google+.
But you read it nevertheless because of a very intrusive way of sharing. In Facebook, (or Diaspora, which I'm still hoping many Facebook friends will move to eventually) I can choose to see notifications in my email. Or not. In twitter, I can open the application and read tweets, open shared links. Or not. In Google, I get it in my Inbox. Or not.
I just unsubscribed from any further communication from Gmail+.

That’s a lid on the coffin for googleplus’ relationship with me.

Google+ Email Settings
Settings saved.
Unsubscribe from all Google+ email notifications
Don't unsubscribe. Continue sending email notifications to valsarno@gmail.com

Save
What is Google+?
With Google+, you'll immediately enjoy an enhanced experience from Google. It's the web made better by you and your friends.
Learn more or sign up now

Tuesday 5 July 2011

Should pregnant women be entitled to abuse their bodies?

I find myself trying to vocalise my opinions as little as possible: I can't seem to agree with anything that I read anymore, even things that one can only, apparently, disagree with, have some right in them, and vice versa. I read an article and I can see that, if well written, it will naturally make you agree with them. I read very few where the opinion of the writer is so held back that you can actually form your own opinion: this isn't one of them.
I read this article http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/151508/15_year-old-girl_faces_life_in_prison_for_a_miscarriage_why_conservatives_are_criminalizing_pregnant_women and of course, it seems absurd. But carry on reading and you see that these are not "ordinary pregnant women" who are being criminalised: they are drug users. They will produce children who, if lucky enough to be healthy, will almost certainly have a tough, horrible, abusive childhood. 
The article goes on to say that it foreshadows a new way of looking at women. It says this is all related to being against abortion. To me that seems only a speculation of the writer of the article, as it has not given me any reason to think so, on the contrary.
It seems to me that they are imposing harsher laws on mothers and fathers who think they have the almighty RIGHT to cook meth and do cocaine and smoke drugs and do heroin or be alcoholics with their children in or around them. Clearly they are not perfect in their application yet and they are susceptible to abuse, as most laws in these delicate matters are.
But, I suppose, the question is: if you think these women should not be made to fear for their freedom in discouragement from abusing their children, what does that say about how you feel the children should be protected, before and after their birth?