This morning I found myself in my company kitchen with one of the few sane and seemingly normal people I work with. Having (sorta) recently been married himself, talk inevitably turned to wedding planning. We talked about the date, the location, and then the conversation turned to one of the most exciting and fun parts of any marriage; the honeymoon.
Planning for the honeymoon is like every other part of the wedding planning process. Depending on who you are it can either be a ton of fun and a great way for you to connect with your future spouse or it can be an absolute nightmare of contentious battles that lead you into planning a trip neither one of you really want to take. I'm lucky because both my fiancee and I are extremely adventurous and love to travel. It's hard for me to believe that there are a lot of people out there who really don't enjoy traveling. I'm not talking about going to Cancun or Toronto, or even the Caribbean; I'm talking about real-deal traveling. I'm talking about going places where very few people speak English and nobody accepts your US $. Fortunately for me I was raised in a family that embraced traveling. My mom really pushed me to go to France to study when I was just a sophomore in high school. For my high school graduation I spent 3 weeks traveling around the UK with some of my best friends. That trip is full of memories I'll never forget, many of which cannot be repeated here (ask me about the Irish Sea ferry trip or the London experience, I dare you). I was lucky enough to have a good friend who lived in Prague before it became the tourist boom-town it is now. I went and visited him for a couple weeks and really fell in love with the Czech culture. My fiancee has studied and lived in Italy, been all over Europe, and just a couple years ago did a 2 month trip through India and Thailand with just her friend as a guide/cohort. That trip was followed by a trip to Vietnam with her dad where they volunteered in a dental clinic in Hoi An for much of the time. The coolness factor of those trips still has me in awe of her today. Her spirit of adventure and love of travel is one of the major reasons I fell in love with her. We live in a great big, really interesting world; and there are a lot of parts of it I haven't seen. If money was no object and family stability wasn't important, I'd spend my life traveling the world with Page. But it is and it is, so I guess we'll just have to settle for a really cool honeymoon.
I know what you're going to say. "Aren't you getting married in Mexico? Why don't you just stay there for the honeymoon?" We definitely thought about it. But living in Southern California and having Mexico so close we really wanted to explore some different options. My fiancee also works for a VERY high end resort with locations in some of the most exotic locations in the world, so we really wanted to explore some options we normally wouldn't have the money or time to explore. So we sat down with the company website and started looking at possibilities.
We could do the Asia and the far east. Japan and China, even parts of Russia would be so interesting to explore. Just the sheer China-ness of China would be cool to experience. I've always wanted to go to Japan. And ever since I watched 8 hours of Wild Russia on DiscoveryHD I've been obsessed. However, I don't think camping out in a yurt in -30 temps would be Page's idea of a decent honeymoon. I'm sure the room service is super slow out there, and there's no way you could get a mint-basil body scrub with a hot mud wrap after hunting bison all day. Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, Laos and Thailand are all big "must-dos" on my list, but my fiancee has been there-done that (at least little bits, and the parts I would want to do on a honeymoon are precisely those bits) and we want the honeymoon to be a trip of discovery for both of us. I don't want her to feel like a travel guide the whole time.
We could do Europe, but we've both done Europe. I know, I know, Europe's a big place. Here's the rub with Europe. I'm a nerd. She's not. If we go anywhere where there's any type of historical backdrop (especially if it's architecturally historical), I will most definitely nerd out for days. I will take every historical walking tour of every city we visit. I will go to every museum I can possibly cram into one trip. I will study the history of each place until I can recite useless trivia facts to Page ad infinitum. It will be tons of fun for me, but not for her. And it definitely won't be relaxing. And isn't relaxing the main point of the honeymoon? Isn't the whole purpose of the trip to melt away all of the stresses built up from months and months of fighting over whether to invite this second cousin or that friend of a friend, which flowers to use in which place, and whether or not the groomsmen or bridesmaids toasts will take a slightly inappropriate and completely embarrassing turn? And that brings us to...
Bora Bora, the South Pacific, or the Caribbean. Ahhhhh, it calms me down just thinking about the turquoise waters, the swaying palm trees, the soft sand...so magical, but after a couple weeks, also so boring. I'm not a lay in the sand for hours getting tanned kind of guy. When I go to the beach I bring a book and a bunch of stuff to do. I like to have a soccer ball, football, frisbee, or something to keep me occupied. My fiancee, on the other hand, can lay around on the beach for hours at a time. She has it down to an art form. But even she can't do that for 10 or 12 days. So what are we to do?
We looked and looked and looked and decided that we would try to go to a couple different places, including Bali and Ko Samui. Neither of us have been to Bali, and the resorts we're looking at there are close geographically, but topographically they couldn't be farther apart. One is on the beach in a gentle bay, the other is on the banks of a river in the middle of the jungle. Both represent completely different parts of the Balinese culture, and both offer a completely different experience. Ko Samui is one of the most beautiful islands in Southern Thailand. And while my fiancee has been to other parts of Thailand, she's never been to Ko Samui. Thailand has always been at the top of my "must see" list, so I'm excited she's willing to do that part of the trip.
Now don't hate us or think we're spoiled. We're both working very hard to make this trip fit into our budgetary guidelines. And since she works for the company that owns the resorts we're staying at, the trip is much more financially reasonable than it may sound.
Honeymoon planning has given us a ton of good things. First of all, it's helped us create and stick to a savings plan. I know that I am picking a healthy financial partner, and while that may sound cold, it's reality. So many marriages break up because of finances, and it's important to know how you work as a financial team. Secondly, it's allowed us to talk openly and honestly about the adventures we want to have while we're still young enough and family-free enough to do it. All this honeymoon talk has really helped both of us open up an talk about what we enjoy about traveling, and since we plan on doing as much traveling as we can, this is crucial to both of us enjoying our travels together.
The bottom line is that the honeymoon is really much more important than simply choosing which beach to lay out on or which castle to see. It's about getting out of your comfort zone and exploring the world you don't see everyday. This can be downright terrifying for some people, which is why it's so important to be honest with your partner about what you want and expect when you travel. For those couple weeks it's the two of you against the world, and your partner can either be your best ally or your worst enemy. Anyone who's traveled with a less than compatible travel companion knows exactly what I mean. Personally, I can't wait to explore new places and cultures with Page.
And I know we'll end up somewhere with good room service. I'll need it after that mint-basil body scrub.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Dinner High
Last night we had the pleasure of going over to a friend's parent's house for dinner. Actually, his parents are more like friends than anything, so we'll just say friend's house. The husband is retired but his wife still works. They are avid golfers, extreme oenophiles (they love them some good wine) and they are both ridiculously good cooks. I think to call them cooks would be an insult. They are both chefs. Together they make some of the absolute best food I have ever had.
Tom is famous for his ribs (I think I ate about 15 last night, this is the same ribmaster that got me in trouble at the house warming party in my earlier post). Now remember, I'm from St. Louis, home of some of the best bbq on the planet. I've had sweet and spicy bbq pork ribs in St. Louis. I've had tangy and hot bbq spare ribs in Kansas City. I've had bbq beef ribs the size of a little league baseball bat in Austin. And Tom's are right up there with the best I've ever had. And at a party with a lot of people they go fast. Now you understand why I was so selfish before.
Anyway, Tom and Lorraine host dinner parties as gifts (best idea ever, especially since they let you kind of pick the menu direction) and last night's party was a celebration of my MBA graduation. On the menu for the night:
Apps:
-ribs, ribs, and more ribs with bbq sauce that I swear has crack in it it's so addictive
-tomato, mozzarella and basil skewers
-carrots, celery and olives with Lorraine's famous homemade blue cheese dressing (ridiculously good)
-killer good cheese and crackers
The Main Event:
-filets so perfectly cooked you could cut them with a butter knife
-dirty rice with tons of seafood (scallops, shrimp, crab) and some sort of tomato sauce that was just insanely good
-salad with above-mentioned blue cheese goodness
Desert:
-vanilla ice cream and strawberries (ain't nothin wrong with that)
OK, now that I'm drooling again you get the picture. Add a bunch of really good wines in the mix (Au Bon Climat Pinot Noir, Margerum M5, and a host of other insanely good bottles) and you couldn't help but have a good time.
Tom and Lorraine also let you pick a few friends to have over, so we invited a few friends to join us. It's cool because we've been to a bunch of these dinners now, and no matter whose event it is it always seems to be the same people invited to dinner. We're all great friends, but I think it also has to do with the fact that we all love great food, great wine, and we all get along so well.
Everyone at dinner is also coming to the wedding, so the discussion inevitably turned to wedding plans. Page (my fiancee) and I had just approved and ordered our wedding invitations earlier in the day, so we were on a kind of wedding high. It's funny, wedding planning is stressful in some ways, but not in the ways that I thought or expected it to be. Invitations are the perfect example. As I've said before, Page is _particular_ about things, and I thought that the invitations would be a huge hurdle that would end up with me somehow sleeping on the couch and her still getting her way. But nothing tragic happened with the invitations (I probably just jinxed myself). We went to a couple stores together, then Page went to 179 stores by herself (sometimes I thank the Lord we have different work schedules), then we looked on line and found great invitations for a really great price. Having a beach wedding has some great advantages, and since we didn't want anything too fancy, we ended up getting the perfect invitations and not having to sell off any organs (I'm saving my spleen for the honeymoon).
Now I'm sure that in the whole wedding planning process there is some sort of cosmic evening out, so I'm guessing there will be other parts that I expect to go smoothly that will turn out to be nightmarish, but oh well, that's just how it goes I guess.
Everyone kept ribbing us because we were so giddy and happy at dinner. But that's part of this whole process. You start with the engagement, then after the engagement high wears off there's this beast in front of you; a seemingly endless list of things to do, people to call, things to order, places to go, and on and on. It can be really daunting, and now I see why people hire wedding planners, but that's just not us. It's just not us because we can't afford it, but it's also not us because we want this wedding to reflect who we are, not the fact that we can pay someone to put together a perfect party. Ticking things off that endless list gives you a sense of satisfaction that you can't really compare to anything else. It's euphoric and sad at the same time. It's awesome to have one more thing moved to the "done" column, but in a way it's one more part of the process that you won't share again. Something like creating invitations may not seem like much, but sharing that creative process with the person you love creates a great high and just cements the bond you have together. I'm sure it can go the other way too and be a complete disaster, but I've been lucky I guess. Knowing that that part of the process is done is kind of sad, almost like the day after Christmas, except you can't play with all your cool stuff.
Sitting at dinner with such good friends and talking and laughing about wedding stuff really made me take stock of my life and my decision to get married. We have some friends who were recently married after a VERY short time. Whether or not that was the right decision for them, I don't know and I can't judge. I've seen some marriages that started picture perfect and ended in disaster, and I've seen some that sound like a Greek tragedy waiting to happen and are still going strong. All I know is that sitting at that table enjoying a phenomenal dinner, laughing with some of my favorite people in the world, and looking over at the woman of my dreams, I know I made the right decision.
And this time I made her a drink and offered her ribs.
Tom is famous for his ribs (I think I ate about 15 last night, this is the same ribmaster that got me in trouble at the house warming party in my earlier post). Now remember, I'm from St. Louis, home of some of the best bbq on the planet. I've had sweet and spicy bbq pork ribs in St. Louis. I've had tangy and hot bbq spare ribs in Kansas City. I've had bbq beef ribs the size of a little league baseball bat in Austin. And Tom's are right up there with the best I've ever had. And at a party with a lot of people they go fast. Now you understand why I was so selfish before.
Anyway, Tom and Lorraine host dinner parties as gifts (best idea ever, especially since they let you kind of pick the menu direction) and last night's party was a celebration of my MBA graduation. On the menu for the night:
Apps:
-ribs, ribs, and more ribs with bbq sauce that I swear has crack in it it's so addictive
-tomato, mozzarella and basil skewers
-carrots, celery and olives with Lorraine's famous homemade blue cheese dressing (ridiculously good)
-killer good cheese and crackers
The Main Event:
-filets so perfectly cooked you could cut them with a butter knife
-dirty rice with tons of seafood (scallops, shrimp, crab) and some sort of tomato sauce that was just insanely good
-salad with above-mentioned blue cheese goodness
Desert:
-vanilla ice cream and strawberries (ain't nothin wrong with that)
OK, now that I'm drooling again you get the picture. Add a bunch of really good wines in the mix (Au Bon Climat Pinot Noir, Margerum M5, and a host of other insanely good bottles) and you couldn't help but have a good time.
Tom and Lorraine also let you pick a few friends to have over, so we invited a few friends to join us. It's cool because we've been to a bunch of these dinners now, and no matter whose event it is it always seems to be the same people invited to dinner. We're all great friends, but I think it also has to do with the fact that we all love great food, great wine, and we all get along so well.
Everyone at dinner is also coming to the wedding, so the discussion inevitably turned to wedding plans. Page (my fiancee) and I had just approved and ordered our wedding invitations earlier in the day, so we were on a kind of wedding high. It's funny, wedding planning is stressful in some ways, but not in the ways that I thought or expected it to be. Invitations are the perfect example. As I've said before, Page is _particular_ about things, and I thought that the invitations would be a huge hurdle that would end up with me somehow sleeping on the couch and her still getting her way. But nothing tragic happened with the invitations (I probably just jinxed myself). We went to a couple stores together, then Page went to 179 stores by herself (sometimes I thank the Lord we have different work schedules), then we looked on line and found great invitations for a really great price. Having a beach wedding has some great advantages, and since we didn't want anything too fancy, we ended up getting the perfect invitations and not having to sell off any organs (I'm saving my spleen for the honeymoon).
Now I'm sure that in the whole wedding planning process there is some sort of cosmic evening out, so I'm guessing there will be other parts that I expect to go smoothly that will turn out to be nightmarish, but oh well, that's just how it goes I guess.
Everyone kept ribbing us because we were so giddy and happy at dinner. But that's part of this whole process. You start with the engagement, then after the engagement high wears off there's this beast in front of you; a seemingly endless list of things to do, people to call, things to order, places to go, and on and on. It can be really daunting, and now I see why people hire wedding planners, but that's just not us. It's just not us because we can't afford it, but it's also not us because we want this wedding to reflect who we are, not the fact that we can pay someone to put together a perfect party. Ticking things off that endless list gives you a sense of satisfaction that you can't really compare to anything else. It's euphoric and sad at the same time. It's awesome to have one more thing moved to the "done" column, but in a way it's one more part of the process that you won't share again. Something like creating invitations may not seem like much, but sharing that creative process with the person you love creates a great high and just cements the bond you have together. I'm sure it can go the other way too and be a complete disaster, but I've been lucky I guess. Knowing that that part of the process is done is kind of sad, almost like the day after Christmas, except you can't play with all your cool stuff.
Sitting at dinner with such good friends and talking and laughing about wedding stuff really made me take stock of my life and my decision to get married. We have some friends who were recently married after a VERY short time. Whether or not that was the right decision for them, I don't know and I can't judge. I've seen some marriages that started picture perfect and ended in disaster, and I've seen some that sound like a Greek tragedy waiting to happen and are still going strong. All I know is that sitting at that table enjoying a phenomenal dinner, laughing with some of my favorite people in the world, and looking over at the woman of my dreams, I know I made the right decision.
And this time I made her a drink and offered her ribs.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Friday Morning Thoughts
Before I get into anything related to my wedding issues, I just wanted to voice some opinions on some recent happenings in the news.
First of all, my thoughts go out to all those affected by the Ft. Hood shootings yesterday as well as the Orlando office shooting today. This brings up a couple things that I feel very strongly about, and I think the media reaction to these things is going to force me to really change my daily ritual. You see, I love news. Actually, I love information. My fiancee often makes fun of me for my nerdiness, but I can't stand not knowing things. I don't care if the information is important or not, if there's a topic that interests me, I'll go to great lengths to learn as much as I can about it; and then explain it to everyone I know in great and rambling detail (I think it's that last part that drives my fiancee crazy). I read at least one newspaper per day. I read news magazines at least once a month. I even love Snapple bottle caps; but who doesn't? How else would you know that a ball of glass will bounce higher than a ball of rubber? Or that porcupines float? Or that the average woman consumes 6 lbs of lipstick in her lifetime? My fiancee thinks these are ridiculous, but some of them are very useful. For example, Snapple taught me that chewing gum while peeling onions keeps your eyes from watering (it works). I now know that if I want to visit the town of Big Ugly I need to go to W. Virginia. And I know that if someone tells me they'll "be there in a jiffy" it actually means they'll be there in 1/100th of a second. Some Snapple facts will actually be useful to our wedding planning. For example, mosquitoes are attracted to people who have just eaten bananas, so no bananas at the wedding reception, which is outside on the beach. And if I need to drop a pound or two before the ceremony I know that chewing gum burns 20 calories an hour. Anyway, I could go on all day with Snapple facts, but I'll save that for another post. Two more of my information sources are the internet and CNN, and this is where my frustration lies.
Since the inception of the internet users have (or should have) understood that the information presented online was not always factual, correct, unbiased or timely. I have always viewed information online with a little hesitation because I know that. TV, however, has been held to higher standards of journalistic integrity; at least until lately. I remember watching the nightly news with my parents all the time when I was younger. It was a great source of information and was generally unbiased reporting of the days events. Then news expanded into the cable markets. CNN Headline News and FOX News reported the news 24 hours a day. Yes, there was some bias, but for the most part viewers (myself included) felt like they were getting a good amount of actual news that was factual, correct, somewhat unbiased and timely. Then the internet started to gain in popularity. With the surge in the number of people who now own PDA's and smartphones, news became available with the touch of a button. "Scooping" (getting a story out first to gain readers or viewers) has always been important in journalism because it leads to ratings, which lead to advertising dollars. When people started using the internet as their main source of information, cable news stations realized they had to do something to pull those viewers back.
Cable news stations started carrying dramatized shows and specialized programs that focused on glamorizing the stories behind current events. Instead of the news the focus turned to the personalities. Shows run by Nancy Grace, Jane Velazquez Mitchell, Wolf Blitzer, and Shepard Smith became increasingly popular. Now I'm not saying that these people aren't great at what they do; I'm just saying that they aren't reporting the news. They are personalities put in place to sex up current event stories to draw in viewers. The platforms for the cable news stations (FOX, CNN) changed from 24 hour news reporting to small segments of news reporting sandwiched in between these glamorized gossip talk shows hosted by vitriol-spewing talking heads. And the little reporting of the news they did do is gone. There is no recognizable journalistic reporting on any of these shows anymore. The priorities of the news should be that it is factual, correct, unbiased and timely. Cable news stations are so focused on competing to stay profitable that it's no longer important to actually report the facts of a story. The only thing that's important is to throw as much unsubstantiated information to the public so the network can claim "first."
Yesterday was my breaking point with this. As the tragedy at Ft. Hood unfolded I was in the break room at my office and CNN Headline News was on. They reported that 3 men of Islamic background had opened fire with automatic weapons, killing 15 and wounding 31, one shooter was dead, 2 others were in custody. Within minutes it was 12 dead, 31 wounded, just one shooter. Then another reporter called in to say that no, it was 2 shooters, and one was dead, one was in custody. Then hours after the news emerged that it was one shooter, who was still alive, 13 dead, 30 wounded.
As an aside, what's with random mass shootings? Why kill a bunch of innocent people who have nothing to do with your current situation. This is the most selfish, arrogant, evil act you can carry out as a human being, and I hope every one of these murderers rots in hell. If your life is so bad, fine; go kill yourself. Just don't take it out on innocent people. And if you're going on some sort of ideological rampage, don't be a pussy and kill yourself too. Take it like a man. If you believe in something so much that you have to kill a bunch of people to make your point, then stay alive so you can continue to make your point in court. And then you can make your point to your cell mate, who is your new husband. Of course you'll be the bitch because you'll fold without weapons, the element of surprise, and a bunch of unsuspecting targets. That's why these people all kill themselves; they're not strong enough to go to prison and they don't believe in what they're striking out for enough to want to live to defend their actions. Weak.
Anyway, back to the news. What happened to getting all of the facts before reporting anything? I understand that, in the interest of public safety, information about a mass shooting with casualties should be relayed to the public. My problem is that the facts about the case weren't even being checked as they were coming in. Information was being changed almost minute by minute. That's not representative of the story evolving; that's representative of a news team that's been told to provide information immediately, and check the validity of it later.
And my favorite part of the whole thing; the iReporter. Seriously, WTF. I get what networks are trying to do; get Average Joe's take on the story while showing images from the point of origin of the story. But c'mon; these are becoming a bigger and bigger part of the news report, which is absolutely ludicrous and completely insulting to anyone who wants to get actual news. We have news anchors and news staffs for a REASON. They are trained (most of them for many years at big expensive universities) to gather, check, and report the news. Last time I checked finding Waldo in every scene of the Where's Waldo book Aunt Nancy gave him for Christmas last year doesn't make one tooth Timmy from the end of the cul-de-sac a news reporter. Actually, maybe they're on to something. I think I might have to try this. If you want to work for an embedded software company, just email me. You can be an "iManager." You just basically come in to the office 3 days of the week, sit in my chair, log into all my programs, and basically just do what you think my job would be. If you get it wrong, don't worry, you're not a trained professional so it's OK! If you get it right, then my company will take all the credit. Win for us, fun for you! We don't have to stop there either. We could have iSurgeons, normal people who just jump into the middle of a surgery and start slicing and dicing with absolutely no medical training. Or how about iCops, just head down to the police station, grab a gun, hop in a car and go bust whomever you want! And when you get arrested for malpractice or carrying a weapon without a license, you can just hire an iLawyer, who has no formal training but has seen, "just like, every episode of Law & Order, especially SVU and Criminal Intent." Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Then why do we accept it from our news sources?!?!?!?
It has become more important to be first then to be correct, and for that reason, I am officially boycotting all cable news programs from this point on.
Unless there's a car chase on. Everyone loves a good car chase.
First of all, my thoughts go out to all those affected by the Ft. Hood shootings yesterday as well as the Orlando office shooting today. This brings up a couple things that I feel very strongly about, and I think the media reaction to these things is going to force me to really change my daily ritual. You see, I love news. Actually, I love information. My fiancee often makes fun of me for my nerdiness, but I can't stand not knowing things. I don't care if the information is important or not, if there's a topic that interests me, I'll go to great lengths to learn as much as I can about it; and then explain it to everyone I know in great and rambling detail (I think it's that last part that drives my fiancee crazy). I read at least one newspaper per day. I read news magazines at least once a month. I even love Snapple bottle caps; but who doesn't? How else would you know that a ball of glass will bounce higher than a ball of rubber? Or that porcupines float? Or that the average woman consumes 6 lbs of lipstick in her lifetime? My fiancee thinks these are ridiculous, but some of them are very useful. For example, Snapple taught me that chewing gum while peeling onions keeps your eyes from watering (it works). I now know that if I want to visit the town of Big Ugly I need to go to W. Virginia. And I know that if someone tells me they'll "be there in a jiffy" it actually means they'll be there in 1/100th of a second. Some Snapple facts will actually be useful to our wedding planning. For example, mosquitoes are attracted to people who have just eaten bananas, so no bananas at the wedding reception, which is outside on the beach. And if I need to drop a pound or two before the ceremony I know that chewing gum burns 20 calories an hour. Anyway, I could go on all day with Snapple facts, but I'll save that for another post. Two more of my information sources are the internet and CNN, and this is where my frustration lies.
Since the inception of the internet users have (or should have) understood that the information presented online was not always factual, correct, unbiased or timely. I have always viewed information online with a little hesitation because I know that. TV, however, has been held to higher standards of journalistic integrity; at least until lately. I remember watching the nightly news with my parents all the time when I was younger. It was a great source of information and was generally unbiased reporting of the days events. Then news expanded into the cable markets. CNN Headline News and FOX News reported the news 24 hours a day. Yes, there was some bias, but for the most part viewers (myself included) felt like they were getting a good amount of actual news that was factual, correct, somewhat unbiased and timely. Then the internet started to gain in popularity. With the surge in the number of people who now own PDA's and smartphones, news became available with the touch of a button. "Scooping" (getting a story out first to gain readers or viewers) has always been important in journalism because it leads to ratings, which lead to advertising dollars. When people started using the internet as their main source of information, cable news stations realized they had to do something to pull those viewers back.
Cable news stations started carrying dramatized shows and specialized programs that focused on glamorizing the stories behind current events. Instead of the news the focus turned to the personalities. Shows run by Nancy Grace, Jane Velazquez Mitchell, Wolf Blitzer, and Shepard Smith became increasingly popular. Now I'm not saying that these people aren't great at what they do; I'm just saying that they aren't reporting the news. They are personalities put in place to sex up current event stories to draw in viewers. The platforms for the cable news stations (FOX, CNN) changed from 24 hour news reporting to small segments of news reporting sandwiched in between these glamorized gossip talk shows hosted by vitriol-spewing talking heads. And the little reporting of the news they did do is gone. There is no recognizable journalistic reporting on any of these shows anymore. The priorities of the news should be that it is factual, correct, unbiased and timely. Cable news stations are so focused on competing to stay profitable that it's no longer important to actually report the facts of a story. The only thing that's important is to throw as much unsubstantiated information to the public so the network can claim "first."
Yesterday was my breaking point with this. As the tragedy at Ft. Hood unfolded I was in the break room at my office and CNN Headline News was on. They reported that 3 men of Islamic background had opened fire with automatic weapons, killing 15 and wounding 31, one shooter was dead, 2 others were in custody. Within minutes it was 12 dead, 31 wounded, just one shooter. Then another reporter called in to say that no, it was 2 shooters, and one was dead, one was in custody. Then hours after the news emerged that it was one shooter, who was still alive, 13 dead, 30 wounded.
As an aside, what's with random mass shootings? Why kill a bunch of innocent people who have nothing to do with your current situation. This is the most selfish, arrogant, evil act you can carry out as a human being, and I hope every one of these murderers rots in hell. If your life is so bad, fine; go kill yourself. Just don't take it out on innocent people. And if you're going on some sort of ideological rampage, don't be a pussy and kill yourself too. Take it like a man. If you believe in something so much that you have to kill a bunch of people to make your point, then stay alive so you can continue to make your point in court. And then you can make your point to your cell mate, who is your new husband. Of course you'll be the bitch because you'll fold without weapons, the element of surprise, and a bunch of unsuspecting targets. That's why these people all kill themselves; they're not strong enough to go to prison and they don't believe in what they're striking out for enough to want to live to defend their actions. Weak.
Anyway, back to the news. What happened to getting all of the facts before reporting anything? I understand that, in the interest of public safety, information about a mass shooting with casualties should be relayed to the public. My problem is that the facts about the case weren't even being checked as they were coming in. Information was being changed almost minute by minute. That's not representative of the story evolving; that's representative of a news team that's been told to provide information immediately, and check the validity of it later.
And my favorite part of the whole thing; the iReporter. Seriously, WTF. I get what networks are trying to do; get Average Joe's take on the story while showing images from the point of origin of the story. But c'mon; these are becoming a bigger and bigger part of the news report, which is absolutely ludicrous and completely insulting to anyone who wants to get actual news. We have news anchors and news staffs for a REASON. They are trained (most of them for many years at big expensive universities) to gather, check, and report the news. Last time I checked finding Waldo in every scene of the Where's Waldo book Aunt Nancy gave him for Christmas last year doesn't make one tooth Timmy from the end of the cul-de-sac a news reporter. Actually, maybe they're on to something. I think I might have to try this. If you want to work for an embedded software company, just email me. You can be an "iManager." You just basically come in to the office 3 days of the week, sit in my chair, log into all my programs, and basically just do what you think my job would be. If you get it wrong, don't worry, you're not a trained professional so it's OK! If you get it right, then my company will take all the credit. Win for us, fun for you! We don't have to stop there either. We could have iSurgeons, normal people who just jump into the middle of a surgery and start slicing and dicing with absolutely no medical training. Or how about iCops, just head down to the police station, grab a gun, hop in a car and go bust whomever you want! And when you get arrested for malpractice or carrying a weapon without a license, you can just hire an iLawyer, who has no formal training but has seen, "just like, every episode of Law & Order, especially SVU and Criminal Intent." Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Then why do we accept it from our news sources?!?!?!?
It has become more important to be first then to be correct, and for that reason, I am officially boycotting all cable news programs from this point on.
Unless there's a car chase on. Everyone loves a good car chase.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Marriage and Divorce
One of the perks of my job is that, for a couple hours in the morning, I can listen to the radio. Usually I just like to have it tuned to KCLU, which is the station that hosts NPR. It's nice because for the most part the discussions provide nice white noise as I sort through countless emails, banging endlessly on my computer keyboard but making sure my BlackBerry doesn't feel left out. During this time there is a show on called "On Point." It's a two hour long discussion show that covers a wide range of topics, from politics and the wars in the Middle East to unemployment and the financial crisis. Sometimes the topics covered are sociological; such as the discussion on Amelia Earhart. Most of the time I tune the discussion out, picking up a few good sound bytes in between emails. However, sometimes the topics are really interesting to me and I try to listen more closely. Today's topic was especially interesting to my current situation. It was about the state of marriage, and more in-depth the state of divorce in an ever-changing economy. The discussion centered on how the rising wages of women and the current economic crisis have changed the face of divorce. It got me thinking about divorce in general and our generation's take on marriage and divorce.
The discussion today centered more around the nuts and bolts of spousal support after a divorce. Typically the woman has collected alimony from the man based on his level of income and how much investment and earning power the woman may have lost by raising a family. Obviously this is becoming a very antiquated view of marriage. Gone are the days when all marriages are as black and white as the man going to the office all day, making all the family's money, and the wife staying home and raising kids. While this still may be very much the norm in certain places, more and more women are continuing to work while also raising a family, and many men are taking time off to either help raise the kids or be the stay-at-home parent. Roles are blurring and often reversing, which makes the whole question of alimony very tricky. However, the part of the discussion that really caught my attention centered around the argument that the current generation of 20 and 30 somethings has a much different view of marriage and divorce than older generations.
Being 31, many of my friends are either married or are getting married within the next year. Some of my friends even have kids now, which is frightening considering some of the images that are burned into my mind from high school and college. I've seen all kinds of engagements; long ones, short ones, fun ones and weird ones. And I've seen a few marriages; long ones, short ones, fun ones and weird ones. I have a very happily married friend with a baby boy who's already breaking hearts. I have a friend who's marriage is in a state of limbo right now, and I have a friend who has already dealt with a not-so-nice divorce. So you could say that I've had a little experience with marriages in all different states. That got me wondering if our generation looks at marriage a whole lot different than our parents did.
The argument on NPR this morning was that members of our generation (mid 20's-mid 30's) are more apt to approach marriage more casually because we are much more familiar with divorce than our parents were. We enter into marriages with less thought and pragmatism. We approach marriage with the idea that if things go wrong, there's always divorce. We always have in the back of our minds that there is a way out.
I tend to agree with this. While statistics show that we have grown up with more divorces than our parents, many members of our parent's generation had to deal with unhealthy and often abusive marriages. Divorce wasn't an much of an option (if it was an option at all) for my grandparent's generation. But with my parent's generation people started to realize that sometimes those vows really can't last forever. Sometimes in good times and in bad really means only in good times. And unfortunately sometimes til death do us part really means until death do us part. It almost did for my mom, on numerous occasions. If it wasn't for divorce, I have no doubt that we would have both been killed at the hands of my biological father. Divorce can be good, and sometimes it can be necessary. However, once it became more socially acceptable, it does seem like people started to get married with less focus on the consequences of that union. We only need to look at the brisk business the Vegas wedding chapels do to see that some of these marriages are headed for divorce before the vows are even uttered. Granted, Vegas weddings are sometimes booze and drug-fueled, but how quick would those same people be to pull the trigger if divorce and annulment weren't such accepted options to a poorly thought out decision?
I think that my generation has cheapened marriage a little bit, but I'm hoping that we can reverse that trend. The marriages that I've seen fail haven't failed because the people got married on a whim or didn't love each other; they failed because sometimes things just aren't meant to be. I know that everyone says they only want to get married once and it starts to sound cliche, but that's a really good goal to have. When you enter into something as serious as a marriage you shouldn't be counting on the fact that you can bail when the first signs of trouble appear. Marriage should be looked at as a lifelong commitment. Sometimes things don't work out, but you have to be willing to fight like hell before it gets to the point of no return. So many couples aren't willing to put in the hard work and effort that it sometimes takes to get through the hard stuff; but in the end it's getting through the hard stuff with your spouse that makes you realize why you're partners in the first place. Sometimes divorce is the easy way out and it doesn't give you the opportunity to really learn how you and your spouse handle adversity as a couple.
The beginning of a relationship is always filled with good stuff. You just GET each other. You laugh at each others jokes. The way she always snorts when she laughs is hilarious. You love how she always wants to try your food. You let her hold the remote. Sex is so amazing it's like rainbow-colored unicorns are shooting pure awesomeness into your veins. But things change. Sometimes you have no idea what the hell she's saying. Your jokes are stupid. You wonder why she has to snort so loud when she laughs. You wish she would have just ordered what you ordered so she could eat her own damn food. No way she's touching the remote. And sometimes you work too hard and too long and the only rainbow-colored awesomeness you're interested in is the kind that comes with hard-core REM sleep.
Getting a new partner is easy. Remembering why you love somebody so much you'd promise to spend the rest of your life with them sometimes isn't. But that's what makes it so damn special.
The discussion today centered more around the nuts and bolts of spousal support after a divorce. Typically the woman has collected alimony from the man based on his level of income and how much investment and earning power the woman may have lost by raising a family. Obviously this is becoming a very antiquated view of marriage. Gone are the days when all marriages are as black and white as the man going to the office all day, making all the family's money, and the wife staying home and raising kids. While this still may be very much the norm in certain places, more and more women are continuing to work while also raising a family, and many men are taking time off to either help raise the kids or be the stay-at-home parent. Roles are blurring and often reversing, which makes the whole question of alimony very tricky. However, the part of the discussion that really caught my attention centered around the argument that the current generation of 20 and 30 somethings has a much different view of marriage and divorce than older generations.
Being 31, many of my friends are either married or are getting married within the next year. Some of my friends even have kids now, which is frightening considering some of the images that are burned into my mind from high school and college. I've seen all kinds of engagements; long ones, short ones, fun ones and weird ones. And I've seen a few marriages; long ones, short ones, fun ones and weird ones. I have a very happily married friend with a baby boy who's already breaking hearts. I have a friend who's marriage is in a state of limbo right now, and I have a friend who has already dealt with a not-so-nice divorce. So you could say that I've had a little experience with marriages in all different states. That got me wondering if our generation looks at marriage a whole lot different than our parents did.
The argument on NPR this morning was that members of our generation (mid 20's-mid 30's) are more apt to approach marriage more casually because we are much more familiar with divorce than our parents were. We enter into marriages with less thought and pragmatism. We approach marriage with the idea that if things go wrong, there's always divorce. We always have in the back of our minds that there is a way out.
I tend to agree with this. While statistics show that we have grown up with more divorces than our parents, many members of our parent's generation had to deal with unhealthy and often abusive marriages. Divorce wasn't an much of an option (if it was an option at all) for my grandparent's generation. But with my parent's generation people started to realize that sometimes those vows really can't last forever. Sometimes in good times and in bad really means only in good times. And unfortunately sometimes til death do us part really means until death do us part. It almost did for my mom, on numerous occasions. If it wasn't for divorce, I have no doubt that we would have both been killed at the hands of my biological father. Divorce can be good, and sometimes it can be necessary. However, once it became more socially acceptable, it does seem like people started to get married with less focus on the consequences of that union. We only need to look at the brisk business the Vegas wedding chapels do to see that some of these marriages are headed for divorce before the vows are even uttered. Granted, Vegas weddings are sometimes booze and drug-fueled, but how quick would those same people be to pull the trigger if divorce and annulment weren't such accepted options to a poorly thought out decision?
I think that my generation has cheapened marriage a little bit, but I'm hoping that we can reverse that trend. The marriages that I've seen fail haven't failed because the people got married on a whim or didn't love each other; they failed because sometimes things just aren't meant to be. I know that everyone says they only want to get married once and it starts to sound cliche, but that's a really good goal to have. When you enter into something as serious as a marriage you shouldn't be counting on the fact that you can bail when the first signs of trouble appear. Marriage should be looked at as a lifelong commitment. Sometimes things don't work out, but you have to be willing to fight like hell before it gets to the point of no return. So many couples aren't willing to put in the hard work and effort that it sometimes takes to get through the hard stuff; but in the end it's getting through the hard stuff with your spouse that makes you realize why you're partners in the first place. Sometimes divorce is the easy way out and it doesn't give you the opportunity to really learn how you and your spouse handle adversity as a couple.
The beginning of a relationship is always filled with good stuff. You just GET each other. You laugh at each others jokes. The way she always snorts when she laughs is hilarious. You love how she always wants to try your food. You let her hold the remote. Sex is so amazing it's like rainbow-colored unicorns are shooting pure awesomeness into your veins. But things change. Sometimes you have no idea what the hell she's saying. Your jokes are stupid. You wonder why she has to snort so loud when she laughs. You wish she would have just ordered what you ordered so she could eat her own damn food. No way she's touching the remote. And sometimes you work too hard and too long and the only rainbow-colored awesomeness you're interested in is the kind that comes with hard-core REM sleep.
Getting a new partner is easy. Remembering why you love somebody so much you'd promise to spend the rest of your life with them sometimes isn't. But that's what makes it so damn special.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Planning Lulls
When I first started thinking about proposing to my fiancee, I thought about all the things that would come with the whole process. I thought about the ring, the proposal, the wedding, the honeymoon, the first house, the kids, and of course, the inevitable downward spiral into senility and the comfort that comes with knowing I'll be sharing those wonderful moments with someone who's beared witness to my ridiculousness for all those years.
Let me start by describing my fiancee a little. As you may have read in some of my previous posts, she's very "particular." And by that I mean that she builds an image of what she wants in her mind, and then expects that image to be immediately and exactly provided to her as soon as she demands it to be so. It's extremely difficult to do things for her (like doing dishes, cleaning, buying groceries) because she will always end up doing them over herself because they weren't done quite to her impossibly high and sometimes completely irrational standards. This is a serious pain in the ass in a lot of situations, but it inspires confidence in other situations. She's a ball buster, and that's one of the things I love the most about her. She wants what she wants, and she knows what she wants; that's just plain hot in a woman if you ask me. There's nothing worse than a waffler.
This being the case, I figured that the wedding planning could become a bit of a nightmare, but I also assumed that I would probably play a very minimal role. To my surprise, neither has been true so far. Since we are planning a destination wedding and we're not quite settled in our personal or professional lives, we wanted to have a long engagement (a year and a half). We knew that this would allow me to finish my MBA (I did) and allow us to give our guests enough time to budget and save money (so we thought). We also knew that planning a wedding in a location we couldn't easily visit often would be a challenge, so we wanted to allow some extra time. In retrospect this decision has been a godsend. It's allowed us to space out the financial obligations we have needed to take care of (deposits, deposits, and more deposits) and it's also allowed our guests some extra time to save and budget. However, there is one negative to having such a long engagement; the downtime.
Once the ball begins to roll on planning a wedding, it seems like it should snowball pretty fast. With a long engagement sometimes that's just not the case. I may be different from some guys, but I am really happy to be a part of the planning process with my fiancee. There are so many guys out there who simply write the checks and let the ladies do all the planning. While this may eliminate a lot of bickering and uncomfortable conversations, this totally defeats the purpose of the day in my eyes. Your wedding day is supposed to represent the first day of the rest of your life with another person. If all of the planning for that beginning is done by one person, what does that really say about the rest of the union? I'm not saying that couples that do it that way are bound to fail, I'm just saying that it's not for me. In my mind the marriage begins much earlier in the relationship. To me it starts with the first time your partner needs you. I remember the first time I was really hurting and really needed someone to step up. My fiancee was that person; and from that moment I knew that she _could_ be the person I was looking for. I'd like to think there was a moment or two early on that I was there for her too. To me that's one of the most powerful moments in a relationship because it's the first time that you realize the other person can be more than a drinking buddy, a good dinner date, a fun weekend, a casual dating partner or a fun distraction. It all really starts when you realize that person could actually be a PARTNER; and the marriage starts when you and your partner decide that you want it to be forever, not when you say the vows. So many guys take the easy way out in the wedding planning process, but I just don't think I could ever be comfortable having my fiancee do all the work while I sat back and waited for the day. It should represent both of you, not just the one with the sensible decorating style and knack for selecting the best finger foods. The wedding should be representative of both of you, individually and as a couple. That can't happen if only one person has any input. I know that our wedding will be a special event because we're both invested into making it special, as are our families and friends, who are helping us put personal touches on everything from gift baskets to invitations. The importance of family in the whole process is something I'll address in a later post, but since I'm already sooooo ridiculously off topic already, I'll try to get back (there's the rambling again).
Where was I? Oh yeah, having such a long engagment means that there will inevitably be lulls in the wedding planning action. I naturally assumed that it would be a flurry of activity from the day of the proposal up until the big day, but I was wrong. Instead of being a huge tornado, with everything flying at you all at once, it's been more like a hurricane, with a huge flurry of activity at the beginning (finding a location, negotiating rates, developing a website) and the end (final preparations, choosing flowers, table settings, the actual wedding). And right now, we're in the eye. We've got everything set up, and since our wedding is in Mexico, we can't move forward on the final preparations for another couple months. That leaves us in a kind of limbo. We're so excited to get to the big final push, but we have nothing else to do for right now (although I know my fiancee will kill me because she probably has a huge list of crap; I know, I know, we have to order invitations this week). You get so excited about the final event that it's hard to maintain focus on executing all of the other little things that go into the event.
So while I'm sure there are other things (many, many other things) that need to be and could be done now, I'll take these few weeks to soak in all that we have accomplished so far with this wedding planning process. It may be the last weeks of peace I have until May of next year.
And besides, I still need to pick out some of the food. Maybe we'll have ribs.
Let me start by describing my fiancee a little. As you may have read in some of my previous posts, she's very "particular." And by that I mean that she builds an image of what she wants in her mind, and then expects that image to be immediately and exactly provided to her as soon as she demands it to be so. It's extremely difficult to do things for her (like doing dishes, cleaning, buying groceries) because she will always end up doing them over herself because they weren't done quite to her impossibly high and sometimes completely irrational standards. This is a serious pain in the ass in a lot of situations, but it inspires confidence in other situations. She's a ball buster, and that's one of the things I love the most about her. She wants what she wants, and she knows what she wants; that's just plain hot in a woman if you ask me. There's nothing worse than a waffler.
This being the case, I figured that the wedding planning could become a bit of a nightmare, but I also assumed that I would probably play a very minimal role. To my surprise, neither has been true so far. Since we are planning a destination wedding and we're not quite settled in our personal or professional lives, we wanted to have a long engagement (a year and a half). We knew that this would allow me to finish my MBA (I did) and allow us to give our guests enough time to budget and save money (so we thought). We also knew that planning a wedding in a location we couldn't easily visit often would be a challenge, so we wanted to allow some extra time. In retrospect this decision has been a godsend. It's allowed us to space out the financial obligations we have needed to take care of (deposits, deposits, and more deposits) and it's also allowed our guests some extra time to save and budget. However, there is one negative to having such a long engagement; the downtime.
Once the ball begins to roll on planning a wedding, it seems like it should snowball pretty fast. With a long engagement sometimes that's just not the case. I may be different from some guys, but I am really happy to be a part of the planning process with my fiancee. There are so many guys out there who simply write the checks and let the ladies do all the planning. While this may eliminate a lot of bickering and uncomfortable conversations, this totally defeats the purpose of the day in my eyes. Your wedding day is supposed to represent the first day of the rest of your life with another person. If all of the planning for that beginning is done by one person, what does that really say about the rest of the union? I'm not saying that couples that do it that way are bound to fail, I'm just saying that it's not for me. In my mind the marriage begins much earlier in the relationship. To me it starts with the first time your partner needs you. I remember the first time I was really hurting and really needed someone to step up. My fiancee was that person; and from that moment I knew that she _could_ be the person I was looking for. I'd like to think there was a moment or two early on that I was there for her too. To me that's one of the most powerful moments in a relationship because it's the first time that you realize the other person can be more than a drinking buddy, a good dinner date, a fun weekend, a casual dating partner or a fun distraction. It all really starts when you realize that person could actually be a PARTNER; and the marriage starts when you and your partner decide that you want it to be forever, not when you say the vows. So many guys take the easy way out in the wedding planning process, but I just don't think I could ever be comfortable having my fiancee do all the work while I sat back and waited for the day. It should represent both of you, not just the one with the sensible decorating style and knack for selecting the best finger foods. The wedding should be representative of both of you, individually and as a couple. That can't happen if only one person has any input. I know that our wedding will be a special event because we're both invested into making it special, as are our families and friends, who are helping us put personal touches on everything from gift baskets to invitations. The importance of family in the whole process is something I'll address in a later post, but since I'm already sooooo ridiculously off topic already, I'll try to get back (there's the rambling again).
Where was I? Oh yeah, having such a long engagment means that there will inevitably be lulls in the wedding planning action. I naturally assumed that it would be a flurry of activity from the day of the proposal up until the big day, but I was wrong. Instead of being a huge tornado, with everything flying at you all at once, it's been more like a hurricane, with a huge flurry of activity at the beginning (finding a location, negotiating rates, developing a website) and the end (final preparations, choosing flowers, table settings, the actual wedding). And right now, we're in the eye. We've got everything set up, and since our wedding is in Mexico, we can't move forward on the final preparations for another couple months. That leaves us in a kind of limbo. We're so excited to get to the big final push, but we have nothing else to do for right now (although I know my fiancee will kill me because she probably has a huge list of crap; I know, I know, we have to order invitations this week). You get so excited about the final event that it's hard to maintain focus on executing all of the other little things that go into the event.
So while I'm sure there are other things (many, many other things) that need to be and could be done now, I'll take these few weeks to soak in all that we have accomplished so far with this wedding planning process. It may be the last weeks of peace I have until May of next year.
And besides, I still need to pick out some of the food. Maybe we'll have ribs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
