As Andrew has had some bad news about the progress of his diabetes (sad face), it seems to be about the right time to start eating a little more healthily again.
A few weeks ago I was discussing the difficulties of balancing a full-time job with eating as a family in a healthy, nutritious, and (most importantly) time-efficient way.* In the course that conversation my friend mentioned that she had started her family on a reduced-meat set of meals.
I won't go over all the arguments for this again here, but you can read the following article in The Guardian if you are curious:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/18/halve-meat-consumption-scientists
So, I started to do that this week. The result? I just seem to have made dishes with cheese and egg in them. I don't think that's quite the point. Not only is it still an animal product, it's not at all healthy for a diabetic at increased risk of heart disease. I blame Nigella Lawson because the recipes are mostly from her Nigellissima Italianish cookery book. The macaroni cheese had four different kinds of cheese in it! It was the most delicious macaroni cheese ever, but still, four... Which four? Parmesan, mascarpone, mozarella, and mature cheddar, since you ask. It was actually supposed to be Gruyere, but my Tesco didn't have any, so I used mature cheddar instead. Seemed to work.
I also ran out of food to make meals with by Tuesday. Clearly my skills with shopping and cooking with less meat need work.
Back to the drawing board for next week!
*If you're wondering why I chose to use an Oxford serial comma, then I will direct you to Bigglethwaite and Windermere's Guide to Proper and Exquisite English. . The context seems to fit their rules.
Thursday, 30 May 2013
Thursday, 23 May 2013
Awkward Questions
It's been another busy few weeks in the Law household.
I had the Focused Women (the bank's gender diversity network, of which I am chair in Scotland) annual conference this week, and an Inclusion conference last week (with a networking evening the night before), and then another Education committee up at the Council (most interesting 2 hours of my week, no question), and my last Parent Council meeting as chair of Broughton PC (*sniff*). These all conspire to take me away from my day job, and often away from Andrew and the girls later on into the evening.
I couldn't do half of the things I do without having a husband who is as supportive as he is, so as it's coming up for Father's Day I thought I would give him a little shout out on the blog.
And that brings me on to the awkward questions - I regularly get asked at events a question along these lines, "I read your bio and you seem to do so much - how do you manage it?".
That's a very awkward question to answer, my self-effacing side wants to say, "Well, I don't do half the things I do as well as I should, and I have a very untidy house" but that's not strictly true. I don't do things if I don't think I can do them well, and some of the house is quite tidy (mostly because of Andrew!).
So, I usually say, "Because I have a very supportive husband who does all the things that I can't do."
This week, I made that reply, and the woman asking me told me that she too had a husband at home, and it didn't really seem to make things that much easier. That was awkward. I wasn't sure how to respond!
I also get asked, with alarming regularity, "Do you ever see your children?", to which I have to resist the urge to snap, "Of course I bloody do. Do you think I would do half the things I do, if I didn't actually have time with them?"
Instead, I explain about the way we chose to live on the way to school so I can drop them off in the morning on my way to work. And how Andrew and I have alternate lie-ins on weekend days, so basically the whole of Saturday is me/Jo/Lori time, and Sunday is relaxing family time.
Funnily enough, I don't often hear the Dads at work being challenged on whether they spend enough time with their children.
I had the Focused Women (the bank's gender diversity network, of which I am chair in Scotland) annual conference this week, and an Inclusion conference last week (with a networking evening the night before), and then another Education committee up at the Council (most interesting 2 hours of my week, no question), and my last Parent Council meeting as chair of Broughton PC (*sniff*). These all conspire to take me away from my day job, and often away from Andrew and the girls later on into the evening.
I couldn't do half of the things I do without having a husband who is as supportive as he is, so as it's coming up for Father's Day I thought I would give him a little shout out on the blog.
And that brings me on to the awkward questions - I regularly get asked at events a question along these lines, "I read your bio and you seem to do so much - how do you manage it?".
That's a very awkward question to answer, my self-effacing side wants to say, "Well, I don't do half the things I do as well as I should, and I have a very untidy house" but that's not strictly true. I don't do things if I don't think I can do them well, and some of the house is quite tidy (mostly because of Andrew!).
So, I usually say, "Because I have a very supportive husband who does all the things that I can't do."
This week, I made that reply, and the woman asking me told me that she too had a husband at home, and it didn't really seem to make things that much easier. That was awkward. I wasn't sure how to respond!
I also get asked, with alarming regularity, "Do you ever see your children?", to which I have to resist the urge to snap, "Of course I bloody do. Do you think I would do half the things I do, if I didn't actually have time with them?"
Instead, I explain about the way we chose to live on the way to school so I can drop them off in the morning on my way to work. And how Andrew and I have alternate lie-ins on weekend days, so basically the whole of Saturday is me/Jo/Lori time, and Sunday is relaxing family time.
Funnily enough, I don't often hear the Dads at work being challenged on whether they spend enough time with their children.
Monday, 13 May 2013
Labyrinthitis and a Rest
It doesn’t feel like it, but it’s been over a month since my last blog post. Writing doesn’t just write itself, it turns out.
I’m not sure why I stopped, but perhaps it had something to do with a feeling of general overwhelmedness that I’ve been feeling for the last few weeks. That culminated last week in a bad cold, which turned into sinusitis, which turned into labyrinthitis. Labyrinthitis is not pleasant, but it’s also not completely incapacitating.
You know that feeling you get when you get off a roundabout or from spinning a child round and round in circles, or from doing too many pirouettes without spotting properly? It’s like that, except ALL THE TIME. Except when lying down in a semi-darkened room, or walking really fast, bizarrely.
That was me, all of last week. I think my body just gave up in a huff, and decided that my balance system was probably the best way to gently incapacitate me.
I’m back at work today, and I feel a lot more positive. The overwhelmedness has lifted, a little, although the news that our landlord is planning on selling our temporary accommodation before we are ready to sell Flooded Flat, makes me panic a little every time I think about it.
It seems I will be spending a lot of my time over the next few weeks packing boxes, chasing contractors and insurance companies, and panicking over where we’re going to live in June.
Monday, 8 April 2013
The Crockpot
In a previous post, I mentioned that I was going to start using my slow cooker over the Easter holidays. Which I have!
So far, I've made three dishes, all from very different parts of the world.
The first was Pork Paprikash, a Hungarian dish. Andrew really liked this one, but I was not as keen on the intense paprika and green pepper flavour, although the pork was quite tender.
Next up was a New England Pot Roast, no prizes for guessing where that came from. A familiar set of English flavours, in a New English style of cooking. We both enjoyed this, and with the addition of Yorkshire pudding, and some Dill and Horseradish Cream, it was delicious.
Finally, I tried some Cowboy Pork and Beans, with rice. I didn't have a few bits and bobs that this one needed, so I improvised with some leftover Cajun spices - it was about the same in the end. For some reason, the sauce came out quite thin, but it was still flavoursome, and the pork just melted away.
No picture of this one, but perhaps some more posts to follow, as I have bought a whole load more stuff this week! Recipes can be provided, if anyone wants them
So far, I've made three dishes, all from very different parts of the world.
The first was Pork Paprikash, a Hungarian dish. Andrew really liked this one, but I was not as keen on the intense paprika and green pepper flavour, although the pork was quite tender.
Next up was a New England Pot Roast, no prizes for guessing where that came from. A familiar set of English flavours, in a New English style of cooking. We both enjoyed this, and with the addition of Yorkshire pudding, and some Dill and Horseradish Cream, it was delicious.
Finally, I tried some Cowboy Pork and Beans, with rice. I didn't have a few bits and bobs that this one needed, so I improvised with some leftover Cajun spices - it was about the same in the end. For some reason, the sauce came out quite thin, but it was still flavoursome, and the pork just melted away.
No picture of this one, but perhaps some more posts to follow, as I have bought a whole load more stuff this week! Recipes can be provided, if anyone wants them
Thursday, 4 April 2013
Welcome to the Golden Age
The post title is not sarcasm. It is simply fact. Despite what the gutter press would have you believe, the institution of a welfare state circa 60 years ago has not led to the gradual devolution of our country into a sad reflection of a once golden nation. There never was a golden age. At every point in the past of this country more people died, of illness, violence, poverty, and general ignorance, than they do now.
And, in fact, the welfare state has been a significant part of ensuring that we live in what can only be considered a golden age of humanity, certainly in comparison with every other era that has gone before us, and many countries who currently co-exist with us.
However, that's not what many right-wing commentators would have you believe. They are convinced, and subsequently want to convince you, that this society is rotten to its very core. It's populated by scroungers, murderers, layabout, wastrels, and worse, all brought into existence because we have a state that supports the poor, the ill, and the disabled.
Any complaints to the contrary, like, for example that the welfare state supports the aforesaid groups, and that actually, there are bad apples in every society (whether it has a welfare state or not) is met with a chorus of derision.
"Pffft," they say, "You damned leftie. How could anything possibly be worse? Surely, if the state wasn't there to support these people, then they'd have to start working harder? Surely, if we weren't so soft on crime people would stop murdering and thieving and defrauding"
Well, would they? Would they?
Let's have a look at the evidence. And I don't mean someone on benefits splattered over the front page of a trashy tabloid, which proclaims (while lasciviously listing the intimate details of that person's sex life, you know, to show how depraved they are) that they are poor, and ill-educated, and just a bad sort because, because there is a state that supports them.
I mean the long-term evidence about what life is like in this country. Because without that, we can't possibly know whether "things are worse now", can we?
And who knows, perhaps I'll find that mythical Golden Age, and then we can all petition our MPs to return to EXACTLY the same laws, social circumstances, and voting rights that we had then, because obviously, it doesn't matter if child mortality rates have fallen, racism and sexism and homophobia are no longer tolerated by law, more children are educated now and to a better rate than they ever were. It doesn't matter if we now have a minimum wage, or universal suffrage, or a system which supports people who are unable to work through disability, and who would once have had to turn to begging or prostitution.
None of that matters. Do you know why? Because none of that sells papers.
What sells papers is a man with 15 children, who has threesomes with his neighbours and concocts a stupid scheme that kills 6 of his children.
But that doesn't mean the system is wrong. Just because one family didn't work doesn't mean the whole system doesn't work. But that doesn't sell papers.
What sells papers is a blistering attack on the welfare state, which directly equates welfare to why this man killed his own children. Because that's easier than confronting reality.
Which is this: those parents were failing. They received money from the state which they failed to turn into nutritious food, warm clothes, and a rich and loving environment for their children.
And so what do we do?
Choice 1: Take away state money from every other family who needs it. From every other family who is poor and struggling, but who takes that state money and turns it it into food, and clothes, and an environment filled with positive experiences. Take that away, just in case a minority of people abuse it. Knowingly consign children into poverty because of a moral outrage whipped up by the gutter press?
Choice 2: Keep the welfare state. Support families who need support. Don't consign children into poverty and crime, simply because the right-wing media wants more money for the millionaires.
Let's take Choice 2. Choice 1 looks like the rest of human history. It sees the elderly dying of cold, parents choosing to let their children eat rather than them, children bought and sold by people desperate to make money. It sees people choosing between food and medical bills, in a competitive system that is supposed to make it "better for consumers". The ability to make Choice 2 was bought for us by the solidarity of our ancestors, who refused to accept anything less from the ruling elite.
Don't let their sacrifices be for nothing. Don't let the richest in our society fool you into thinking that you will gain from the loss of the welfare state. Don't believe their lies.
And, in fact, the welfare state has been a significant part of ensuring that we live in what can only be considered a golden age of humanity, certainly in comparison with every other era that has gone before us, and many countries who currently co-exist with us.
However, that's not what many right-wing commentators would have you believe. They are convinced, and subsequently want to convince you, that this society is rotten to its very core. It's populated by scroungers, murderers, layabout, wastrels, and worse, all brought into existence because we have a state that supports the poor, the ill, and the disabled.
Any complaints to the contrary, like, for example that the welfare state supports the aforesaid groups, and that actually, there are bad apples in every society (whether it has a welfare state or not) is met with a chorus of derision.
"Pffft," they say, "You damned leftie. How could anything possibly be worse? Surely, if the state wasn't there to support these people, then they'd have to start working harder? Surely, if we weren't so soft on crime people would stop murdering and thieving and defrauding"
Well, would they? Would they?
Let's have a look at the evidence. And I don't mean someone on benefits splattered over the front page of a trashy tabloid, which proclaims (while lasciviously listing the intimate details of that person's sex life, you know, to show how depraved they are) that they are poor, and ill-educated, and just a bad sort because, because there is a state that supports them.
I mean the long-term evidence about what life is like in this country. Because without that, we can't possibly know whether "things are worse now", can we?
And who knows, perhaps I'll find that mythical Golden Age, and then we can all petition our MPs to return to EXACTLY the same laws, social circumstances, and voting rights that we had then, because obviously, it doesn't matter if child mortality rates have fallen, racism and sexism and homophobia are no longer tolerated by law, more children are educated now and to a better rate than they ever were. It doesn't matter if we now have a minimum wage, or universal suffrage, or a system which supports people who are unable to work through disability, and who would once have had to turn to begging or prostitution.
None of that matters. Do you know why? Because none of that sells papers.
What sells papers is a man with 15 children, who has threesomes with his neighbours and concocts a stupid scheme that kills 6 of his children.
But that doesn't mean the system is wrong. Just because one family didn't work doesn't mean the whole system doesn't work. But that doesn't sell papers.
What sells papers is a blistering attack on the welfare state, which directly equates welfare to why this man killed his own children. Because that's easier than confronting reality.
Which is this: those parents were failing. They received money from the state which they failed to turn into nutritious food, warm clothes, and a rich and loving environment for their children.
And so what do we do?
Choice 1: Take away state money from every other family who needs it. From every other family who is poor and struggling, but who takes that state money and turns it it into food, and clothes, and an environment filled with positive experiences. Take that away, just in case a minority of people abuse it. Knowingly consign children into poverty because of a moral outrage whipped up by the gutter press?
Choice 2: Keep the welfare state. Support families who need support. Don't consign children into poverty and crime, simply because the right-wing media wants more money for the millionaires.
Let's take Choice 2. Choice 1 looks like the rest of human history. It sees the elderly dying of cold, parents choosing to let their children eat rather than them, children bought and sold by people desperate to make money. It sees people choosing between food and medical bills, in a competitive system that is supposed to make it "better for consumers". The ability to make Choice 2 was bought for us by the solidarity of our ancestors, who refused to accept anything less from the ruling elite.
Don't let their sacrifices be for nothing. Don't let the richest in our society fool you into thinking that you will gain from the loss of the welfare state. Don't believe their lies.
Friday, 29 March 2013
Today I Am...
Do you ever do that thing when you watch a TV programme, and then become convinced that you have whatever it's portraying?
It works hypochondriacally, intellectually, and physically. It's like TV magic.
Last night, I watched a show about taste, because the trailer for it suggested they'd found some magic way of making things sweet. And with a diabetic husband, I am all about the magic, healthy sweetness.
Anyway, they introduced the concept of a super taster, who taste things much more than ordinary people on account of the extra taste buds.
I have, obviously, now decided that I am one of these. It explains everything. I have told Andrew this at every opportunity since.
Me: You know how I don't like wine?
Andrew: Yes...
Me: I think it's because I'm a super taster.
Andrew: Really? Maybe you just don't like wine.
Me: Yes, and that explains why I don't like coffee too, because the lady said that super tasters don't like bitter things.
Andrew: Really? You love lemons.
Me: Ah...but they're not bitter, they're sour. See, you'd know the difference if you were a super taster, like me.
Some hours later, in Mimi's Bakehouse (mmmmm):
Me: And I've never like fizzy juice, because it hurts my tongue. I must have so many taste buds that they're just too sensitive. See. I am a super taster.
Andrew: -----
So, what do you think? Are you a super taster? Or do you just taste in pastel?
It works hypochondriacally, intellectually, and physically. It's like TV magic.
Last night, I watched a show about taste, because the trailer for it suggested they'd found some magic way of making things sweet. And with a diabetic husband, I am all about the magic, healthy sweetness.
Anyway, they introduced the concept of a super taster, who taste things much more than ordinary people on account of the extra taste buds.
I have, obviously, now decided that I am one of these. It explains everything. I have told Andrew this at every opportunity since.
Me: You know how I don't like wine?
Andrew: Yes...
Me: I think it's because I'm a super taster.
Andrew: Really? Maybe you just don't like wine.
Me: Yes, and that explains why I don't like coffee too, because the lady said that super tasters don't like bitter things.
Andrew: Really? You love lemons.
Me: Ah...but they're not bitter, they're sour. See, you'd know the difference if you were a super taster, like me.
Some hours later, in Mimi's Bakehouse (mmmmm):
Me: And I've never like fizzy juice, because it hurts my tongue. I must have so many taste buds that they're just too sensitive. See. I am a super taster.
Andrew: -----
So, what do you think? Are you a super taster? Or do you just taste in pastel?
Monday, 25 March 2013
Things I Will Be Doing On My Easter Holidays
I love holidays, especially two week long ones. I will be doing a lot, but not too much, over the next few weeks:
1.Some Spring cleaning, despite the stubborn refusal of Spring to actually arrive in these wintry, Scottish climes.
2. Taking The Tiger in the Snow back to the library, because he is very late.
3. Finally unpacking my Christmas present from Lori, a slow cooker, and making two recipes:
1.Some Spring cleaning, despite the stubborn refusal of Spring to actually arrive in these wintry, Scottish climes.
2. Taking The Tiger in the Snow back to the library, because he is very late.
3. Finally unpacking my Christmas present from Lori, a slow cooker, and making two recipes:
- Pork Paprikash
- New England Pot Roast
Watch this space for photos and results!
4. Not getting carpets fitted tomorrow.
5. Working with the girls to do some more on our scrapbooks.
6. Probably some other stuff that I haven't figured out yet!
Thursday, 21 March 2013
Turn around...
In my previous post, I mentioned that I tend to break into song whenever anyone says the words, "Have you ever?", even if that's only in my head (like, if someone says it at work, for example).
This morning, when I was brushing Lori's hair, I told her to "Turn around", and immediately followed it with "...bright eyes".
It struck me that I do this a lot, so I started thinking about other phrases that prompt songs:
If someone tells me "I really need you to-" the chances are that I will interject with "-tonight, forever's gonna start tonight."
If someone says, "Once upon a time", nine times out of ten I will respond, "I was falling in love."
And then I realised. Those are ALL FROM THE SAME SONG. I only appear to remember Bonnie Tyler lyrics. I wracked my brain for more, different songs, not linked to ageing Welsh power balladeers.
And then I thought, why bother? Bonnie Tyler will do for me. But I need new lyrics. Hence this, and a cat, obviously. Because this is the internet.
This morning, when I was brushing Lori's hair, I told her to "Turn around", and immediately followed it with "...bright eyes".
It struck me that I do this a lot, so I started thinking about other phrases that prompt songs:
If someone tells me "I really need you to-" the chances are that I will interject with "-tonight, forever's gonna start tonight."
If someone says, "Once upon a time", nine times out of ten I will respond, "I was falling in love."
And then I realised. Those are ALL FROM THE SAME SONG. I only appear to remember Bonnie Tyler lyrics. I wracked my brain for more, different songs, not linked to ageing Welsh power balladeers.
And then I thought, why bother? Bonnie Tyler will do for me. But I need new lyrics. Hence this, and a cat, obviously. Because this is the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)