Came across this...
... on my daily bloglines round:
"They are having physical experiences far more intimate than mere hand-holding. Yet, they're attempting to program themselves to short-circuit their emotions so their sexual activity won't make them vulnerable to emotional connections.
That detachment is sold to young women and men as "freedom." To me, it sounds more like the Stepford Wives.*"
I've had this exact thought so many times... beginning in high school, when the pressure to "just do it" was a daily reality. The logic that cutting out your emotions is somehow empowering has always eluded me. Feminist, my a...Posted at 10:28 AM on August 13, 2007 | Comments (1)
Blablabla drama blabla...
It is time to bore you with something serious again, because spewing bitterness and judgement towards people I disagree with is just too much fun. Also, it would be nice to hear what you think, even though that might make you part of the group mentioned above. That's not a problem for me though. Ha ha!
This is today's topic: when you are an adult, is it still necessary and normal to "break up" with friends, high-school style? You know, heated verbal exchange deteriorates into pseudo-hidden insults, those turning into real insults, turning into demonstrative "cutting off": "I am done with you", "Never contact me again.", "If I receive one more letter like this, I will etc. etc." I am somewhat ashamed I had exchanges like this in my life, although more than that I'm just sad it happened the way it did. I'd like to believe it wasn't my "fault" or that at least my participation was minimal as far as the childish behavior goes, but of course, I can't say that for sure. I don't like to be insulted. I don't welcome it with particular gratitude and oftentimes it will inspire me to insult back. Yeah.
I haven't been "cut off" a whole lot in my life, I think the total count remains somewhere around 3 times or under and I myself remember doing it to someone else only once in my life, but even then it was more self defense than a spiteful decision. Still, I think about those broken relationships (none of them romantic) again and again, wondering if there was something that could've been done to prevent the eventual catastrophe. I've retraced my steps over and over and the only - very obvious - conclusion I repeatedly come to is, that I could have NOT said some things I did say and most likely I'd still be "friends" with those people today, only the friendship would be conditioned by the things that I still think and see and object to, just that I'd never bring them up. So the next question is always: Would I want that? Would I trade the break-up for a "lesser" friendship? I don't know. Most of the time I think I wouldn't, but then there's always the self-doubt, of course.
There are two things (well more, but I don't want to scare you off) I believe, when it comes to friendships or relationships in general. One is, that you have to be able to be honest and speak your mind, even if you know the other side might not "like" to hear it - obviously this goes the other way too, you have to be ready to hear things you don't like without immediately giving up and running away screaming. The other is, that you should be able to end a friendship on civil terms, or at least, SEEK to end the friendship on civil terms. So to answer my own question, I think high-school drama should stay in high-school. Ideally. I realize my opinions are based on the fact that I generally believe in honesty, I believe in love (as in caritas) and I believe that friendships that require major compromise on both are not friendships and ultimately not worth my time.
In a certain sense I was raised to avoid conflict at all cost, mostly my own cost - meaning I should rather cut back on my own expectations in a relationship than confront the person, because well, one, my expectations have a very high chance of being selfish and two, the person will get their feelings hurt and hurting people is bad, so again, I was probably being selfish. I really fell on my nose with that one when I was just entering adult life and realized through the years, that you do have to negotiate a relationship by maintaining your standards, because otherwise you will be walked all over like a doormat and if that's not enough of bad consequence, you will also be perpetually filled with resentment and bitterness that you won't be able to hide nor contain and all your stoic endurance of injustice will not get you the saint status but poison your ability for joy and self-respect.
So. Given these conclusions I have been honest with my friends when I felt some things they did or said or believed were seriously compromising the livelyhood of our relationship. To skip further euphemisms... for example if I feel I am being used more than I am being appreciated I will tell you. If I feel the "topic" of our friendship has changed rather suddenly (maybe we used to tell each other personal things very openly and all of a sudden it's just about the weather), I will say so. If I feel you are very obviously fooling yourself in a situation in your life, I will tell you - I will try to do everything I can to be gentle and to let you know that I am aware I most likely don't have the whole picture, but I WILL tell you. I will, because in those cases, NOT telling feels like lying and also, because I would expect the same from you. I don't need friends, who are always nice to me and never show me their true thoughts out of fear they would hurt my feelings. I have benefitted greatly from friends, family and even acquaintances, who have been honest with me, even though maybe at the time I was very hurt or even mad. Now I'm not saying you have to agree with everything I'm saying, not at all. It just has to be possible to talk about it, maybe work it out and reconcile or worst case, say goodbye in a (more or less) mature manner.
Whatever I had said in the different cases, was met with complete disbelief (that I would dare saying something), total denial and then rage. Maybe I'm just full of myself, but really, it is not very convincing in showing me that indeed I am way off. If you can't give me one or two simple and sensible reasons why I am wrong, but instead you gasp and tell me I am ugly and my feet stink, then, uh, maybe I might have a point somewhere. And this is where it shows whether we really can be friends, I suppose. It is perfectly reasonable, when confronted, one would not want to talk about something they are going through or something that's painful or they're ashamed of, but I feel you gotta be able to say that. If the friendship is worth something, you have to be able to just say: "This is hurtful." or "I don't have the strenght to discuss it" or something of that sort without blaming. Otherwise I can't shake the feeling that at the end of the day, the former friends were actually thankful I gave them the opportunity to break it all off and make me look like the asshole.
Ok, so I am upset about being cut off. I am just trying to figure out if it has to be that way or if there is something I have to change or could have done. I don't like knowing there are people out there I cannot talk to again, even if I don't necessarily want to, but I don't like that I can't. It feels silly. And childish. And unnecessary.
"Oh, now you'll have one of each!"
This post has been in the making for several months, but a conversation with my awesome (childless!) midwife and a long read about young fathers has given me the final push to attempt some kind of personal statement on the quantity of children one (=me) should/would have. The decision to have children as well as how many of them is exclusively personal so nothing I say is meant to be a general rule, although I do reserve the right to have an opinion, which qualifies things one way or the other, whether you agree or not.
We are expecting a second child now and inevitably the question "why?" comes up... several times a day, especially when my back hurts or the thought of spending another minute with a toddler seems scarier than watching "The English Patient" back to back. I am still a little puzzled by my own confident answer, because frankly, I don't like SO MANY things that have to do with raising children. Not that I don't find them cute or amazing or interesting, but ... come on! Child-related tasks are so repetitive, no amount of cuteness in the world can really hold your wonder that long.
It took me a while to understand why I felt a certain disconnect to some mothers in my MOMS Club until I realized the main difference between us. They had been wanting to be mothers and everything that that entails for years before they had children and the actual child just made their world finally right, whereas me, I wanted the children and motherhood kinda came along and so did all the other things, like bassinets and blankies and socks etc. I can't say I didn't find it cute, but the amount of it all was overwhelming and really I never quite got into it... to the fullest. So having another child for me certainly has little to do with continuing to revel in baby shoes and poopy diapers. I feel misunderstood a lot when people ask me about having children, just because what I really think is never quite asked and I suppose can't really be discussed in small talk.
At the end of the day I still feel like I did before I had Veronika... I wanted children for the people that they are/will be. It was a natural consequence of what marriage meant to me, what loving my husband meant. I always pictured my family to be a group of people, who belong together, who are there because of each other. I realized when these "people" started showing up that there is much more involved for me than the philosophical notion of loving reproduction and while the philosophy of it I always see clearly, the practical part is a mess. I know what has to be done on a daily basis, but the lofty feelings elude me... strange, no? Motherhood is a hard job, not that I need to repeat that, but there is still some sort of unwritten rule that when you mention it, somehow you also have to follow it up with "I love my kids," otherwise... who are you, a monster? The longer I have kids though, the more I really don't understand how those two things are supposed to be at odds. Why does the love for my child have to be displayed in equal devotion to pushing a stroller, buying diapers and lugging around 27lbs up and down the stairs all day? Those are two separate things and blessed are the women who love both the same because their life is so much easier than mine!
Apart from those, who love the baby gear and baby smell there seems to be also another group of people, who maybe never particularly felt called to parenthood, but decided to go ahead, among other reasons, in order to "have the experience." You know what I mean. Those people will have one or two children usually and while their parental love doesn't differ much from anyone else's, the whole childbearing thing is only ok in their eyes if they don't succumb to the boring "having-kids-is-awesome/I-have-totally-given-up-on-me"-type of parenthood. Instead they will go through the same motions, but with a more analytical and intellectual approach. Their child is somewhat of a project and they have a new experience of themselves in the process, which seems to be in the foreground. For that you really don't need a lot more than two children (well, one is enough, really), because with #1 you've been there and done that and having more is just more of the same and why would you want to do that to yourself? There is so much more left to experience in the world (like having diarrhea in India!*). More children? It smells of breeding. They often feel another child would also distract from the incredibly new and exciting relationship they have with the first child and again, why would you want to disrupt that and... devalue it by repeating? I guess I'm sounding cynical and harsh, and yes, it is somewhat of an exaggeration that I'm presenting, but how else would you get my point, huh? Huh?
What I'm trying to say is that when I ask myself, why have more children from the perspective of an outsider, I get a little reluctant, because (I am so special and so are my thoughts! Swoon.) I can hear the preconceived ideas buried in the questions and I know I can't really subscribe to any of them fully... which obviously brings me back to that "reasons to have (several) children are personal", but also reminds me that I'm having a hard time identifying with my surroundings. What adds to the situation is certainly my belief that having another child is not entirely in my hands... ever, which is a very weird thing to say in the age of (seemingly) absolute human control.
The secular world seems to think you have lots of children, because you are either crazy/ignorant or just plain loooove kids (= here meaning every single stereotype describing "child," not kid as in "developing adult") and the religious world sort of implies that you have lots of children for the "glory of God" (I don't really know what that means) or because your selflessness knows no limits or something like that. Both leave me cold. The truth is a mystery lying somewhere in the conscious or unconscious collaboration between people and God and has a lot of practical reasons to it as well as completely divine interventions. I suppose all I'm asking is to be able to feel about it one way or the other without being classified.
Just because I'm (supposedly) having a boy now...
... doesn't mean I must be ecstatic to have "one of each" (Each what? Each species? Each human collectibles? Cereal box give-aways?) without having to reproduce 13 more times!
... doesn't mean I must be "done" now, because my family is "perfect."
... doesn't mean "your husband must be overjoyed" (Yeah, he was really bummed about that girl, you should've seen the tears of despair....)!
Just because I'm having a second child...
... doesn't mean I must have enjoyed every single moment of pregnancy and motherhood so far.
... doesn't mean I will have more and more children indefinitely.
... doesn't mean I don't know how to prevent "that".
Just because I'm occasionally having a hard time being a full-time mother...
... doesn't mean I don't like being one in general.
... doesn't mean I regret anything.
... doesn't mean I won't have more than two children.
* My apologies to India... I only mentioned it because these days India seems the place everyone goes to in order to "find themselves."Posted at 12:49 PM on January 15, 2006 | Comments (3)
No work, just play!
Inspiration is a weird thing. Sometimes I sit down at the computer full of determination to write but my mind goes blank and my mood goes "noooo!" like Veronika when she yells at Digby. And other times I barely manage to open up the laptop, but before I even finish thinking "I could write" I feel this urge to start. That's the thing... you can't make it come to you but you also can't just sit and wait. It must be a combination of resolve and moment. I don't know. Now that I got this nonsense out of the way, I can proceed with my initial idea.
Writing on this website has taught me that things you do out of enjoyment are often serious business. I think I grew up thinking that there is always work and responsibility on one side and then fun and irresponsibility on the other. Not in that strict of a setup, but something like it. Things you enjoyed are pastimes, irrelevant to the daily grind. It doesn't matter whether you enjoy your work or not, you focus on getting it done. After that you can dedicate yourself to having fun, which, though necessary, is always inferior and unimportant. I was never of rebellious nature, so I followed this thinking, at times unhappily, until I had the opportunity a few years ago to look for a job I would enjoy. That was the only requirement basically, that I enjoyed it. I got pregnant soon after, so I never actually got to pick that job, but what happened was that I realized I didn't know how to find out what I liked. I had several ideas but every time I was honest with myself I had to admit that all of them were based more on practical and responsible thinking than on my true preference. I learned that I was sort of taking refuge in being rationsl so I wouldn't have to face this insecurity of having to examine my likes. It felt wrong, it felt so selfish! Ha! Just do what you want! Right. Who can do what they want? Good people do what's right, not what they want. The problem was though, that I had done what was right before and although it was a good decision at the time, I was miserable for not finding meaning in the work I was doing. I did find meaning in the situation because I was making money for a good cause (like rent, or food) or I was using a talent, but the work itself was just a task. Work- and schoolwise I had spent too many years fulfilling duties that didn't bring me much joy, that I actually was not capable of envisioning joyful work for me. I'm not saying one has to have happy feelings at work all the time, but I do think that it makes a big difference in your performance whether what you're doing is "your thing" or just something you do because it makes sense in your life situation. I'm still not sure at this point in my life whether one needs to do the most meaningful work in one's job necessarily but I do think that it's almost essential to find that thing that drives you, the kind of work you'd want to do even if nobody paid you. And that's where that fun part comes in. It seems that the spark for enjoyable work lots of times comes from aimless fun.
I started writing this website just to keep friends and family far away up-to-date on my life but then it turned to be writing just for the sake of it. I started to enjoy it and it was wonderfully freeing to be productive without a boss looking over your shoulder or someone telling you which ideas were good and which ones were bad. I had never been in the situation to be ambitious about something that had no practical use, so to speak. It wasn't responsible or necessary but I noticed that I would give it all commitment to make it better if it came down to it. I wasn't used to associate ambitious feelings with fun and creative stuff.
I remember all the time I spent in school trying to succeed (more or less) in all subjects according to the theory of "it doesn't matter whether you like it or not, just do it" and I think a lot of that time was wasted. It was time I could've spent on focusing on the things I liked and develop a real proficiency in them, or time I could've spent on hobbies and discover new talents... or simply discover earlier in life that work does not always have to be dull and hard, that you can actually be inspired to work by the work itself and not just because it serves a purpose. Obviously I am not advocating work without purpose, I am also not suggesting, one should only do things one enjoys. It's impossible, unrealistic and harmful. But. It is also harmful to not give preference in life to things that are enjoyable and take them seriously because it seems to me that's where creativity is born.
It's hard and a little bit ridiculous at this point in parenthood to make major resolutions about what one is going to do in 5 or 10 years down the road. After all I don't want someone quoting me and pointing at my inconsistencies. I do want to keep all this in mind when Veronika is growing up though. I want to remember to take her "fun" seriously. The driving to and from some sort of sport practice or music lessons or kite-making-classes will be tedious, but it is no less worth than driving to school. There are only a few things in life that are as satisfying as getting lost in perfecting a project you have thought up yourself, knowing that you are good at it and that you have given it your all. And this brings me to the subject of confidence, which I don't have time for now, but fits neatly into this series of "Things I say I will teach my kids, but really have no clue about myself."Posted at 12:10 PM on January 25, 2005
Also, was ich noch sagen wollte...
Ich habe das Thema Politik und Wahlen absichtlich gemieden, weil die Gefuehle auf beiden Seiten des Spektrum so hochgelaufen sind, dass ich mir sicher war ich wuerde wen beleidigen und eventuell eine Diskussion in den Kommentaren starten und das wollte ich nicht. Die allgemeine Stimmung vor den Wahlen war nur davon gepraegt: das gegenseitige Niedermachen und Durch-den-Kakao-ziehen, es war wirklich kaum ertraeglich. Trotzdem hat es mich einige Ueberwindung gekostet, nichts zu schreiben, weil ueberraschenderweise hatte ich auch eine Meinung und die musste ich doch jemandem aufdraengen.
Es soll auf Deutsch sein... weil ich mich trotz erfolgreicher Akklimatisierung immer noch als Europaeerin sehe und vor allem bei diesen Wahlen gemerkt habe, dass ich den Amerikanischen Zugang zu Politik und nationaler Identitaet ueberhaupt nicht verstehe. Gut, vielleicht verstehe ich ihn, aber das Nachvollziehen ist unmoeglich. (Dies ist kein objektiver Artikel, sondern nur meine Meinung.)
Ich bin vom Wahlergebnis enttaeuscht. Nicht so sehr weil ich Kerry sehr kompetent oder aufrichtig fand, sondern weil ich weiss, welche Ansichten Bush zur Wiederwahl verholfen haben. Ich habe 4 Jahre lang in einer Kleinstadt in Indiana gelebt, die fast zur Gaenze Republikanisch ist. Vereinfacht gesagt: fast 70% sind regelmaessige Kirchenbesucher (hauptsaechlich Protestantisch), konservativ in ihren Ansichten, besonders was die Hautfarbe betrifft, entschieden gegen Steuern und gegen staatliches "Einmischen" - besonders was Soziales betrifft, Befuerworter der Todesstrafe und vor allem grosse Patrioten. (Natuerlich ist das eine schlampige Vereinfachung, aber ich habe auch nicht vor, einen Diskurs ueber die politischen Parteien der USA zu fuehren. All das ist nachlesbar.)
Fuer mich hat sich die Republikanische Sicht der Dinge sehr schnell als komplett fremd herausgestellt. Die Ansicht, dass die beste Organisation der Wirtschaft auf der simplen Ideologie "Der Staerkste gewinnt" beruhen soll mit dem ziemlich unversteckten Selbstverstaendnis, dass auf die Weise sowieso nur faule Nichtsnuetzer aussortiert werden, war fuer mich eher ein Schock. Ich bin ja aus Oesterreich, wo "Beihilfe" zum normalen Wortschatz dazugehoert. Bush ist nicht einmal moderat in dieser Hinsicht. Er hat Steuern gesenkt im Sinne der "Trickle-down-economics" (- Den Reichen helfen heisst den Armen helfen) und Sozialleistungen gekuerzt - damit die Armen endlich auf Jobsuche gehen! Angeblich wird so der "American Dream" gewahrt, weil dann jeder die Chance hat, sich aus dem Nichts in einen Millionaer zu verwandeln. Offensichtlich muss es dann in jedermanns Interesse sein, so nahe wie moeglich dem Nichts zu bleiben...
Was mich aber an der (ueberwiegend) Republikanischen Haltung am meisten stoert ist ... natuerlich der Patriotismus. Es ist ein Vergleich mit anderen Laendern oft schwer moeglich, dadurch dass "Amerika" fuer viele eine Idee repraesentiert und nicht nur eine gemeinsame Geschichte. Das ist natuerlich ein gutes Argument und ich kann bis zu einem gewissen Grad diesen Enthusiasmus verstehen - solange er im Kontext der rechtlosen Immigranten aufkommt, - denen die Amerikanischen Idee das Leben gerettet hat. Leider ist das aber meistens gar nicht der Fall. Es schreien immer die am meisten nach "American freedom", die nie etwas anderes gekannt haben. Es ist nicht ueberraschend, dass Schwarze meistens nicht Republikanisch waehlen... Fuer mich ist das Ganze irrsinnig heuchlerisch. In Amerika existiert die fatale Mischung von kompletter Unwissenheit* und perfekter Propaganda. Wann immer ein grobes Problem im Land aufgezeigt wird, findet sich wer der dann sofort kontert mit so etwas wie: "Wir muessen aber bedenken, dass trotz allem Amerika das beste Land der Welt ist. Wir sind alle sehr froh und stolz Amerikaner zu sein. So viele Menschen aus aller Welt waeren gerne Amerikaner!" Und! Das wird als ein wichtiger, wenn nicht DER wichtigste Beitrag zur Diskussion angesehen. Es ist unglaublich wie leicht es geht, ganze Menschenmengen damit von der eigentlichen Sache abzulenken. Bush hat diese Methode perfektioniert, vor allem in den Pressekonferenzen. Jede Antwort (vor allem zu unangenehmen Fragen ueber Irak) wird aus einer eleganten Kombination aus den Worten "freedom", "american people" und "rights" gebildet und falls von den Journalisten weitergebohrt wird, dann wird mit ein bisschen Umschweife erklaert, dass man dem Praesidenten vertrauen muss.
Fuer mich repraesentiert Bush den selbstgerechten "Christen", fuer den die Dinge einfach liegen und wenns nicht anders geht, einfach gemacht werden muessen. Die Guten duerfen sich vor dem Boesen schuetzen, weil die Boesen kommen in die Hoelle, insofern ist die Todestrafe und der Krieg immer gerechtfertigt (da hilft man ja Gott mit der Aufraeumarbeit). Er sieht sich als einer von den Guten und die einzelnen Buerger muessen die Details nicht wissen, sondern sollen ihm vertrauen, weil er ja der Gute ist. Ich weiss nicht ob ich diese Einstellung nicht fast schlimmer finde als den falschen und hinterfotzigen "Katholizismus" des John Kerry. Fuer die meisten Katholiken war Bush der klare Kandidat - weil er gegen die Abtreibung ist. Die Bischoefe haben sich sogar indirekt fuer die Republikanische Seite ausgesprochen. Es ist verstaendlich einerseits und ich weiss nicht, wie ich gewaehlt haette, aber ich stimme ihrem Argument, dass der Krieg seine Wurzeln in der Abtreibung hat, nicht ganz zu. Fuer mich hat die relativ schnelle Bereitschaft zum Krieg in den USA eher mit der Todesstrafe was zu tun. Die Boesen werden leicht identifiziert, von da an muss man nur mehr den Revolver ziehen. Es war schrecklich frustrierend fuer mich, so viele Katholiken in absoluter Verliebtheit von Bush zu schwaermen. Ich finde nichts, aber auch gar nichts Christliches an der Philosophie der Republikanischen Partei. Es mag zwar stimmen, das vielleicht Bush mehr gegen Abtreibung tun wird als Kerry, aber er ueberzeugt mich nicht als ein Kaempfer fuer die Schwachen. Ich haette verstanden, wenn man als Katholik Bush als kleineres Uebel sieht - aber immer noch als UEBEL -, aber enthusiastische Unterstuetzung? Man glaubt irgendwie, man wird unter Katholiken Gleichgesinnte finden, weil die Weltsicht doch aehnlich sein muesste - und dann findet man heraus, dass die nationale Zugehoerigkeit doch Vorrang hat.
Kerry hatte wohl nie eine Chance. Persoenlichkeitsmaessig war er immer schwaecher, aber seine Bereitschaft, Farbe zu wechseln um sich beliebt zu machen hat die Niederlage zementiert. Ich stimme mit Kerry in meisten Dingen nicht ueberein, aber als Europeaerin ist fuer mich in der Republikanischen Welt ueberhaupt kein Platz. Ich habe mir einiges anhoeren muessen, wie ich nicht mitreden kann, weil ich ja nicht von hier bin und weil mir ja offensichtlich das Amerikanische Volk ueberhaupt nicht am Herzen liegt. und ueberhaupt bin ich ein iloyaler Pazifist (!). Es ist fuer mich immer wieder, sogar nach fast fuenf Jahren, unbegreiflich was fuer eine Froschperspektive viele Amerikaner haben, was den Rest der Welt betrifft. Ich wuenschte es waere wirklich nur ein Klischee, aber es ist leider wahr. Es gibt natuerlich genug Amerikaner, die nicht so sind, aber bei so vielen Millionen von Menschen ist auch 55% sehr sehr viel. Einerseits habe ich eingesehen, dass man als Europaeer die Amerikanische Situation schwer verstehen kann, weil Amerika einfach SO GROSS ist und das einen entscheidenden Einfluss auf die Dynamik des Landes und der Politik hat. Wenn man Oesterreichs Einwohnerschaft hundert mal vergroessert aber genau die gleichen Proportionen von Einkommen und Bildungstufen beibehaelt, wuerden sich sicher aehnliche Probleme entwickeln - auch wenn das sicher niemand zugeben wuerde. Andererseits habe ich doch nur beschraenkt Verstaendnis fuer Engstirnigkeit, weil ich finde, wenn man so viel Macht hat, MUSS man einfach informiert sein.
Ich habe leider zu viele Menschen persoenlich kennengelernt, denen Bush aus der Seele spricht. Fuer sie gilt: "Amerikanische Interessen sind an erster Stelle" - und die Tatsache, dass die Welt viel komplizierter ist und dass man mit dieser Einstellung sich selber das sichere Grab schafft, ist fuer sie "liberale" und "unamerican" (die groesste Suende!) Propaganda.
Wir haben vor kurzem diesen (ausgezeichneten) Film angeschaut, ueber Robert McNamara, dem U.S. Aussenminister waehrend des Vietnamkrieges. In der Dokumentation legt er elf Lehren dar, die er aus seiner politischen Erfahrung gezogen hat, vor allem im Kriegfuehren. Fast alle (ALLE!) stehen im genauen Gegensatz zu den politischen Entscheidungen von G.W. Leider werden sich den Film nicht viele anschauen, wie immer. Leute wie Michael Moore haben eine besere Publicitymaschine... aber ehrliche Berichterstattung ist ja eh fad.
Posted at 12:35 PM on November 08, 2004
| Comments (2)
*Kurz vor Veronika's Geburt fragt mich die Krankenschwester, woher ich komme. "Vienna" sag ich. Und sie:"Oh, is that the one with the boats?"