Author Archives: gerard oosterman

Bali’s Writer and Readers Festival

06 Saturday Oct 2012

Posted by in Gerard Oosterman

≈ 3 Comments

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-05/festival-draws-readers-and-writers-to-ubud/4298204

The Ubud Writers and Readers Festival is underway this week in Bali, attracting 140 authors from across the globe to the mountains of the small Indonesian island.

The festival was started nine years ago by the Australian chef and writer Janet de Neefe, who wanted to turn around the devastating impact the Bali bombings had on tourism.

Today, the festival attracts more than 2,000 literature enthusiasts, and has expanded to include programs for children in Bali and across the Indonesian archipelago.

“The festival was born out of the first Bali bombing,” de Neefe said.

“I think at that point that’s when I realised that I could make a difference to the community, I could perhaps help boost the community or do something. It was my time to give back.”

As Bali prepares to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the bombings next week more than 140 writers from 30 countries have descended on the picturesque mountain village of Ubud.

The line-up includes figures such as East Timor’s former president Jose Ramos Horta and journalist, author and filmmaker John Pilger.

“Ramos Horta and Pilger will be pretty fantastic,” de Neefe said.

“Nick Cave of course, but also some of the other names, the African women that are coming are so extremely interesting, Lemn Sissay, the poet from the UK… Jeffrey Euginides and of course Anna Funder and all those other wonderful authors and that’s what the festival’s all about.

“It’s about the sort of authors that you’ll never see together in one place.”

De Neefe also hopes the children’s and outreach programs will inspire a new generation of writers across Indonesia.

“Post-festival, we go to six different cities around Indonesia,” she said.

“So we take some of our authors and they engage with these literary communities like in Aceh and Sulawesi and Ambon and Papua and all sorts of places.”

In another classroom, author Marcela Romero has been telling students traditional Mexican stories.

“Storytelling and stories are very good tools for education,” she said.

“But when you go abroad and you actually can have the opportunity to go and see the children, it is amazing how it happens that you can actually help them realise that we are all human beings, we are all people, that we are have dreams and all that.”

Topics:author, books-literature, arts-and-entertainment, bali, indonesia

A Crumbling Kingdom (Alan Jonesss)

02 Tuesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Politics in the Pig's Arms, Warrigal Mirriyuula

≈ 18 Comments

Tags

Digital Mischief by Warrigal Mirriyuula

Kingdom crumbling as Jones loses fear factor

THE motto by which Alan Jones lives his life is unravelling. The qualities he trades on – blind loyalty, fear and commercial power – no longer function.

Towards the end of his life he is flailing about like some deposed Eastern European dictator, demanding respect and fairness when he has displayed little, claiming victimhood when he has engaged in an act of victimisation which even by his standards sets an abysmal new low.

I have had a few private dinners over the years with the Sydney broadcaster. It is a rite of passage when you edit a newspaper in Sydney, as I did, to pay homage to the man and bask dutifully in his perceived greatness.

I’ve been on his show several times and 2GB hundreds of times. I’ve been to his apartment in the “Toaster” building, where his servant prepared chicken and celery sandwiches with the crusts cut off, and served Irish Breakfast Tea in the finest Wedgewood china.

Jones’ mantra in his personal dealings is “pick and stick”. It is both a promise and a demand of unwavering loyalty, by which those in his circle pledge to stick by each other through controversy and scandal. Jones is an inveterate letter writer and will put pen to paper to upbraid those he perceives as disloyal or disrespectful. He would probably regard a column such as this as fitting that category. So be it.

His comments about Julia Gillard’s late father were a disgrace. His subsequent apology was pathetic. Anyone with a pinch of decency should now be prepared to man up, as Jones laughably declared at the start of Sunday’s press conference, and tell Jones where he can stick his pick and stick.

In order to understand Jones you first have to recognise that he is defined by a deep-seated siege mentality, where life is regarded as a permanent ideological war and those around him are drawn up on the lists he assembles in his mind of friends and foes. The contradiction of Jones, who has no real personal life at all, is that when he is not broadcasting he busies himself with generous acts for put-upon individuals and families, doing unpaid charity work, writing letters to ministers on behalf of people who are illiterate or uneducated.

This kindly work fuels his sense of indignation when he is at the centre of scandal.

What he has never been able to recognise is that the kindly nature of his private work is often eclipsed by the sometimes desperately unkind or unpleasant nature of his public conduct.

At every controversial juncture in his career Jones has acted as if he is the victim of a conspiracy.

In his public life Jones instinctively regards any attack on him not as the result of his own wrongdoing, but the small-minded hatefulness of his persecutors.

This was the case with the cash-for-comment episode, a dictionary definition scandal, in which Jones and 2GB were paid large sums of money by the Australian Banking Association to go easy on the major banks. It is hard to imagine a greater betrayal of the people who live on what Jones and his former stablemate John Laws liked to call “Struggle Street” than parroting praise for the banks to a working-class and pensioner audience.

Yet Jones never grasped the moral bankruptcy of his conduct, regarding his pursuit by ACMA as an appalling example of the tall poppy syndrome.

This typical sense of persecution underscored Sunday’s press conference, at which Jones breezed over his apology to launch a fresh attack on the government of Ju-Liar, as he likes to call her.

Laughably, he took aim at News Limited for having the audacity to report his speech – as if it is the media’s job to ignore one of the most powerful people in Australia make the most appalling remarks in front of our next generation of political leaders and current members of the parliament.

As a result of the Gillard remarks, Jones has found himself with few friends. Many of those who are in the pick-and-stick club, who in the past would habitually declare that their friend had been fitted up or taken out of context, have unequivocally declared his comments a disgrace.

Jones has historically cowed politicians into appearing on his show. While Jones is Australia’s archest conservative he does not as a matter of course go after all Labor MPs. Some, such as Bob Carr when he was NSW premier, managed to get an often favourable run by paying homage to Jones and stroking his ego.

Conversely, others were bludgeoned into appearing after sustained on-air attacks, only to relent for an interview where the shellacking was even worse.

It has now dawned on politicians of the centre and the left that they should no longer worry about their Jones strategy. It has taken a long time for this penny to drop. The reality has always been that Jones’ audience does not comprise many swinging voters. He is preaching to the angry and the converted, many of whom keep listening to 2GB because they are too frail to get off the sofa to change the dial.

As the Kyle Sandilands sagas have demonstrated, the only currency which radio networks understand is the advertising dollar, and it is here where the ramifications from his remarks could be most acute.

Six big advertisers have confirmed they will not advertise on his show, some have said they will boycott the entire network, and more will surely follow.

Jones, who is fond of talking of himself in the third person, lashed out at the Twitter campaign for an advertising boycott, and talked about how horrible it was (and it is) that some have wished his cancer to return.

“This is the best way to neutralise and silence Alan Jones. They use this as an excuse to silence Alan Jones,” he said.

It’s almost as bad as saying a woman’s father died of shame over their daughter. This is karma writ large. Alan Jones is getting everything he deserves.

” Bernie”

16 Sunday Sep 2012

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

If you have given up on the American Dream or, as I have, avoid anything with a twang or a Golden Arch with Coke, all is not lost. There is “Bernie”. It is a movie made by Richard Linklater and is a mixture of non-fiction with fiction. Most of the cast are non-actors but the main characters are Jack Black and Shirley Maclaine.

An undertaker takes up a friendship with a very wealthy but acid nasty widow. The more he does his best to accommodate her the nastier she becomes. A true opposite of natures as he, Jack Black ( Bernie Tiede), the undertaker of the town, is the darling of the Texan community they live in. He can’t do wrong and spends his time genuinely interested in the world around him. He helps everyone because no other person can ever do evil and at funerals he has a kind word for everyone, even if the dearly departed spent life boozing, abusing  and in crime.

The story is factual and about the very real M/s Nugent, the very nasty widow whose grave hardly  anyone ever  visits… We might well all know similar acid-nasty people. Avoid them would be my advice!

Anyway, I felt is was one of those movies that should not be missed. Black comedy at its best and American to boot, amazing!

No Cure No Pay

02 Sunday Sep 2012

Posted by in Gerard Oosterman

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

In The Netherlands it is proposed that if a medicine doesn’t produce a noticeable cure, the cost of it is sheeted home to the pharmaceutical company. Not a bad idea seeing so much of medicine is produced with claims of a cure greatly exaggerated. Have a read!

http://www.dutchnews.nl/

Minister opts for ‘no cure no pay’ for some new medicines

Friday 31 August 2012

Health minister Edith Schippers is to introduce the principle of no cure no pay for certain medicines, following advice from the health insurance council CVZ.

‘This is certainly a good idea for new, expensive medicines that have not yet proved their worth,’ Schippers told BNR Radio on Friday. ‘It has little advantage for medicines that have been on the market for a long time in various varieties and where prices are low,’ she said.

The CVZ is recommending an experiment with no cure no pay where the health insurer only pays for the medicine if it has a measurable effect on the patient. If there is no effect, the bill will be sent to the manufacturer.

Asthma

The first medicine being tested under the new regime is Xolair, used in the treatment of severe asthma. According to the CVZ, Xolair has no effect on three out of ten patients. It costs €16,000 per patient per year. For those patients who show no improvement, the cost will be reclaimed from manufacturer Novartis.

The CVZ says it has already made an agreement with patients, lung doctors and Novartis and expects no cure no pay to save between €1m and €2m a year.

‘This is the first time the cost of a medicine depends on the effect of the treatment,’ a CVZ spokesman told BNR Radio. The organisation hopes other medicines will follow.

The move comes after the CVZ advised the minister not to continue payments for serious illnesses such as the rare metabolic diseases Pompe and Fabry, advice which Schippers said she would ignore.

Family Court excludes Children. Where are their voices?

01 Saturday Sep 2012

Posted by in Gerard Oosterman

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Family Court excludes Children. Where are their voices?

Fam Court excludes hearing the Children. Where are their voices?

In Australian Family Court disputes it is often the children that miss out on being heard by a Federal Judge or Magistrate. In most cases, even though the judge or magistrate has the power to hear the children, it is rarely exercised. In many cases it is the Independent Children’s Lawyer who represents the child/children/ (ICL). In Germany and many other countries, the Family Court Judges always hears the child. The argument generally holds that there is now a growing understanding of the importance of listening to the children involved in children’s cases. It is the child, more than anyone else, who will have to live with what the Court decides.

At the moment while Federal Judges and Magistrates can hear the children in Court. A survey has shown most decline the opportunity and rely on the ICL and other ‘experts’ for advice during the procedures. The cases coming before the Family Courts deal with property and access to children. The fact of Court action is generally a sign that the parents haven’t been able to amicably deal with the separation. Access rights to children are often just as heatedly fought over as the division of property.

The Family Court in all cases  decide what is ‘best for the children’; it seems therefore ironic that the children are not given the opportunity to bring their wishes in front of the Court like in many European countries that are signatories to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.(UNCRC)

While it is unsatisfactory to say that children should all have the same rights as autonomous adults, including the rights of freedom of expression and the freedom of association and all other rights that adults own, it is equally unsatisfactory and unjust to say that children have no rights of this kind and that their rights in Court matters are irrelevant to the task of adults determining and deciding what is best. It seems to ignore the claim of children to be treated with respect and dignity instead of, as is often the case in Family Court battles, fought over objects.

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/library/spca/docs/Childrens%20participation%20in%20family%20court.pdf

As Australia has been a member of the convention since 1990 it seems  to beg the question why children are not heard in front of a Court and allowed to give their choices of those matters which the Court determines is in “the best interest of the child’. Why should they not be given the right to appear in Court?

Often the reason given is ‘parentification’ of the child.  In parentification the child is choosing one parent over the other as a need to protect the one parent over or against the other. In Family Court cases it is not unusual that one or both parents are deemed to have put the child in this position to try and enhance the prospect of getting more time with the child than the other parent. The child is expected to act as the parent to their own parent and sometimes over other siblings as well. The issue is very complicated because in some cases one of the parents might indeed be totally unsuitable as parent or as the primary caretaker. This is especially when there is violence against the other parent or children alleged, or in the case of drugs and alcohol abuse. However, parentification together with alienation theories about children in relationships remains highly controversial amongst psychologists, psychiatrists and therapists, who claim they are often simplistic or erroneous.

http://healthyparent.com/Parentification%20Web%20Preview.pdf

In the Family Courts it is the job of the ICL to sort the wheat from the chaff and investigate to get to the bottom of the issue if ‘parentification’ of the child is occurring. The Court appointed lawyer acting for the child will then call in an ‘expert’ in those matters. Both parents are to meet up with the ‘expert’ who is often a qualified child psychologist or therapist. Anyone who ever had dealings with Courts knows that at every turn huge amounts of money is spent. The ICL with the help of the Expert’s report weigh heavily in the final decision making by the Judge or Magistrate.

The report by the children’s expert is drawn up as a result of a few hours or a day spent by both the parents and the children with the expert. Sometimes first in each other’s company then separately and then the children on their own. After parents as applicant and respondent  have filed into Courts numerous times for ‘mentioning’ and ‘final hearings’ the case is put and then includes the affidavits, responses and reports by all the parties’ lawyers including the ICL and ‘experts’..

But, when all the lengthy proceedings come to an end, there is this glaring omission. The fundamental rights of every person including children to be heard in Court are totally ignored.

The ICL and other child experts cannot help but put in their own submissions and even if based on the best of intentions and the best advice given, it is second hand and not direct. How is it possible that the ‘best interest of the child’ excludes this fundamental right?

One reason given is the perceived intimidation of the Court system with its tradition of the dreaded three knocks on the door and ‘all rise in Court’, the bowing of all and then the entrance of the black gowned judge or magistrate on the raised podium. The procedures are often seen as unfriendly if not silly as well. Surely the system can change when children are involved and become child friendly. I could ask, why not change it even for adults?

We love adhering to convention, but what about the children?

Julian Assange goes on, and on…and on.

24 Friday Aug 2012

Posted by in Gerard Oosterman

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

. Swedish Q&A: do Assange’s   claims on extradition stack up?

Crikey’s Cathy Alexander and Mark Klamberg from Stockholm   University write:
EXTRADITION, JULIAN ASSANGE, SWEDEN
There’s   been plenty of commentary in Australia and the UK about the likelihood and   legality of Sweden extraditing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the US,   should it secure his extradition from the UK for questioning on s-xual   misconduct allegations. So what do the Swedes say? Crikey puts some questions to Mark Klamberg, doctor in public   international law at Stockholm University …Why   can’t Swedish authorities go to London to question Assange?

Swedish   authorities can ask for legal assistance from the UK, which would mean they   could go to London to ask questions, subject to UK law. However, it is under   the discretion of the prosecutor responsible for the case to determine   whether she should ask for such assistance, or ask for surrender under the   European Arrest Warrant Procedure.

The   Swedish prosecutor is arguing they need to have the interview in Sweden   because they may need to do several interviews and cross-check with the   victims. It is not generally the case that Swedish prosecutors travel to the   preferred place of the suspect, i.e. it is not up to the suspect to dictate   how an investigation should be carried out. Moreover, as indicated above, if   Assange was in the custody of British authorities he could be subject to   coercive measures (under UK law), but that is more difficult/impossible when   he is in the embassy, i.e. the prosecution will not be able to control the   interview to the same extent as they normally do.

Would   it be easier for the US to extradite Assange from Sweden than from the UK?

No, for   several reasons. First, Sweden and the UK both have bilateral extradition   treaties vis-a-vis the US. The UK is able to extradite people to the US under   similar conditions as Sweden, and has done so.

Second,   the UK as well as Sweden are parties to the European Convention of Human   Rights. Following the landmark judgment called Soering from 1989,   both Sweden and UK are prohibited to extradite somebody who can be put on   death row and/or be subjected to torture (which includes inhuman or degrading   treatment or punishment).

Third, the   Swedish extradition agreement with the US (you can read the 1961 agreement in Swedish or English here,   and read the 1984 supplementary convention here) does not   allow extradition when the offence is purely military or if the offence is a   political offence. For example, espionage is a political crime and no   extradition is possible for such charges. Fourth and finally, if Assange were   to be extradited to Sweden and if the US then requested extradition from   Sweden, such a request would have to be approved by Sweden as well as by the   UK. This would require an approval by the Swedish Supreme Court and   government. The government cannot approve extradition if it’s denied by the   Supreme Court.

Pursuant to   the rule of speciality and the regulations concerning a European Arrest   Warrant, the decision to extradite Assange to Sweden for allegations   concerning r-pe and s-xual misconduct is not enough, the UK Home Secretary   has to make a second decision concerning the US charges (for example   espionage), subject to UK law.

As I   understand it, Ecuador has granted Assange political asylum, i.e. Ecuador is   arguing that the US is seeking Assange for a political offence (espionage).   Moreover, they fear that Assange will be subject to the death penalty and/or   torture. As explained above, extradition from Sweden would for several   reasons not be granted in such a case.

It is   theoretically possible that i) the US might charge Assange for an other   (non-political) crime than espionage and that ii) the US would be willing to   issue a guarantee that the death penalty will not be issued. The latter has   happened before — see for example the aftermath of the Soering case. Could Sweden   extradite Assange in such a case? The answer is yes provided that the UK also   approves, but I have great difficulties to see what kind of non-political   crime that would be.

Is   Sweden “US-friendly”, and would it be more likely to do the US’   wishes than the UK?

In the   diplomatic cables made available by WikiLeaks, the US embassy in Stockholm   describes the current Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt as a   “medium size dog with big dog attitude”, meaning someone who thinks   he has more power and influence than he really has. Sweden has good relations   to the US, probably close to or equivalent to US relations to the UK and   Australia. However, Sweden as a country has a history of opposing some of the   US military interventions abroad, for example the Iraq war in 2003 and the   Vietnam war (our prime minister compared the 1972 bombing of Hanoi with the   extermination of Jews at Treblinka, which was probably the low point of Swedish-US   relations).

In the   context of the Assange case, many point to the rendition in 2001 of two   Egyptians from Sweden to Egypt, apparently following a request from the CIA.   The transport was also carried out by the same agency. It is perceived as one   of the largest scandals in modern Swedish history. The UN Committee Against   Torture issued a decision where it established that Sweden as a state had   violated its obligations under the torture convention. The constitution   committee of the parliament (Konstitutionsutskottet) found the government had   violated Swedish law. The Swedish state compensated both of the men with 3   million krona (E350,000) each. At least one of them was granted permanent   residence in Sweden (which he has applied for).

Read   the full story on our website
RELATED LINKSGillard on top in a week of   wide and varied stories  |  Trying to remain civilized   on the Assange allegations  |  Rundle: Assange as Poppins   meets HR Pufnstuff

 

The Colonoscopy

22 Wednesday Aug 2012

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

THE WRITER:   Dave Barry is a Pulitzer Prize-winning humor columnist for the Miami Herald.

Colonoscopy Journal:

I called my friend Andy Sable, a gastroenterologist, to make an appointment for a colonoscopy.

A few days later, in his office, Andy showed me a color diagram of the colon, a lengthy organ that appears to go all over the place, at one point passing briefly through  Minneapolis.

Then Andy explained the colonoscopy procedure to me in a thorough, reassuring and patient manner.

I nodded thoughtfully, but I didn’t really hear anything he said, because my brain was shrieking, ‘HE’S GOING TO STICK A TUBE 17,000 FEET UP YOUR BEHIND!’
I left Andy’s office with some written instructions, and a prescription for a product called ‘MoviPrep,’ which comes in a box large enough to hold a microwave oven.  I will discuss MoviPrep in detail later; for now suffice it to say that we must never allow it to fall into the hands of America ‘s enemies…
I spent the next several days productively sitting around being nervous.
Then, on the day before my colonoscopy, I began my preparation.  In accordance with my instructions, I didn’t eat any solid food that day; all I had was chicken broth, which is basically water, only with less flavor.
Then, in the evening, I took the MoviPrep.  You mix two packets of powder together in a one-liter plastic jug, then you fill it with lukewarm water. (For those unfamiliar with the metric system, a liter is about 32 gallons). Then you have to drink the whole jug.  This takes about an hour, because MoviPrep tastes – and here I am being kind – like a mixture of goat spit and urinal cleanser, with just a hint of lemon.
The instructions for MoviPrep, clearly written by somebody with a great sense of humor, state that after you drink it, ‘a loose, watery bowel movement may result.’
This is kind of like saying that after you jump off your roof, you may experience contact with the ground.
MoviPrep is a nuclear laxative. I don’t want to be too graphic, here, but, have you ever seen a space-shuttle launch?  This is pretty much the MoviPrep experience, with you as the shuttle. There are times when you wish the commode had a seat belt.  You spend several hours pretty much confined to the bathroom, spurting violently.  You eliminate everything.  And then, when you figure you must be totally empty, you have to drink another liter of MoviPrep, at which point, as far as I can tell, your bowels travel into the future and start eliminating food that you have not even eaten yet.
After an action-packed evening, I finally got to sleep.
The next morning my wife drove me to the clinic. I was very nervous.  Not only was I worried about the procedure, but I had been experiencing occasional return bouts of MoviPrep spurts.  I was thinking, ‘What if I spurt on Andy?’  How do you apologize to a friend for something like that?  Flowers would not be enough.
At the clinic I had to sign many forms acknowledging that I understood and totally agreed with whatever the heck the forms said. Then they led me to a room full of other colonoscopy people, where I went inside a little curtained space and took off my clothes and put on one of those hospital garments designed by sadist perverts, the kind that, when you put it on, makes you feel even more naked than when you are actually naked..
Then a nurse named Eddie put a little needle in a vein in my left hand.  Ordinarily I would have fainted, but Eddie was very good, and I was already lying down.  Eddie also told me that some people put vodka in their MoviPrep.

At first I was ticked off that I hadn’t thought of this, but then I pondered what would happen if you got yourself too tipsy to make it to the bathroom, so you were staggering around in full Fire Hose Mode.  You would have no choice but to burn your house.
When everything was ready, Eddie wheeled me into the procedure room, where Andy was waiting with a nurse and an anesthesiologist.  I did not see the 17,000-foot tube, but I knew Andy had it hidden around there somewhere.  I was seriously nervous at this point.
Andy had me roll over on my left side, and the anesthesiologist began hooking something up to the needle in my hand.
There was music playing in the room, and I realized that the song was ‘Dancing Queen’ by ABBA.  I remarked to Andy that, of all the songs that could be playing during this particular procedure, ‘Dancing Queen’ had to be the least appropriate.
‘You want me to turn it up?’ said Andy, from somewhere behind me.
‘Ha ha,’ I said.  And then it was time, the moment I had been dreading for more than a decade..  If you are squeamish, prepare yourself, because I am going to tell you, in explicit detail, exactly what it was like.
I have no idea.  Really.  I slept through it.  One moment, ABBA was yelling ‘Dancing Queen, feel the beat of the tambourine,’ and the next moment, I was back in the other room, waking up in a very mellow mood.
Andy was looking down at me and asking me how I felt.  I felt excellent.  I felt even more excellent when Andy told me that It was all over, and that my colon had passed with flying colors. I have never been prouder of an internal organ.
Colonoscopies are no joke, but these comments during the exam were quite humorous….. A physician claimed that the following are actual comments made by his patients (predominately male) while he was performing their colonoscopies:

1.  Take it easy Doc. You’re boldly going where no man has gone before.
2. ‘Find Amelia Earhart yet?’
3. ‘Can you hear me NOW?’
4. ‘Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?’
5. ‘You know, in Arkansas , we’re now legally married.’
6. ‘Any sign of the trapped miners, Chief?’
7. ‘You put your left hand in, you take your left hand out…’
8. ‘Hey! Now I know how a Muppet feels!’
9. ‘If your hand doesn’t fit, you must quit!’

Domestic ‘Stuff.’

13 Monday Aug 2012

Posted by in Gerard Oosterman

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , ,

The Stuff of ‘love’.

Wife: “Could you please bring your plate back to the sink’?  Husband: ‘I didn’t know I left the plate on the table’. Wife: ‘You did’. Husband: ‘Ok, next time I am around near the table I will take it to the sink’.

W: ‘Why didn’t you do it when you got up from the table?’ H: ‘I don’t know, I wasn’t thinking of the plate. ’W: You don’t have to ‘think’ of a plate, you just do it automatically.’’ It makes the place look so untidy.’ H: ‘Well, I think the stack with all those Cosmopolitan magazines on the floor look untidy also. ’W: ‘No, it doesn’t, one expects a room to have magazines’.

H: ‘Are we competing between a plate and magazines now?’ W: ‘Surely, you know that a plate with remnants of food is untidy?’H: ‘And, a stack of remnants of magazines is not?’ W: ‘No, it isn’t’. Go, and put the plate in the kitchen, now.’ Sigh! Husband gets up and puts the plate in the kitchen.

10, 30 PM in bed

W: ‘Gee, its cold tonight, is the window open?’ H: I don’t think so, but the bathroom door is open. Do you want me to check?’W: ‘Yes, check it, my feet are cold too’. H: ‘Oh, that’s no good; your feet too take a lot of time to get warmed up.’ ‘Did you wear your slippers?’ W: ‘No, I forgot.’ H: ‘Well, why don’t you put socks on during the night then?’ W: ‘Yes, I will’. H: ‘Where are they?  I’ll get them for you.’ W: They are on the chair, next to the lounge.’ H: Ok, I’ll get them.’ W: Thanks.’

H: No, they are not on the chair. Now my feet are cold as well.’ W: ‘Perhaps you should put on socks as well.’ H:’ you think so, I have never slept with socks, they might make me feel sweaty.’W:’ I don’t know about your sweaty feet, but have you found my socks yet? H: ‘Yes, yes I am coming back to bed; here are your socks’. W:  ‘Oh, not the grey ones, they are polyester, I want the woolen ones.’ H: ‘Do you think we will get this night sorted out?’

W: It depends very much on you finding the right socks for me!’ H: ‘I think it depends on finding your own bloody socks.’ H: Good night! W: Get f**k#d.