Wedding Plans, aka 26 days

In case you were curious, planning a wedding is the most stressful thing a person can do in this life. Buying a home, graduating from college, finding a job... these events are all a walk in the park compared to the nightmare that is a wedding. There is nothing peaceful or blissful about this day to the people who plan it. It is all just the illusion of happiness. It is seeing the visible relief on the planners' faces that they will not have to do it ever again.

In the next 26 days, I need to ensure:

1. that my dress gets altered. Really all it needs is a bustle but the thought of going and getting it done is overwhelming. Especially when one realizes that the bra that sucks in the fat I never knew I had needs to go back on. That thing hurts.

2. Flowers get ordered. We picked them out but we never ordered them. I need to make sure that the check for damn near a thousand dollars gets to them.

3. that someone, I don't care who, but that someone throws me a bachelorette party. I want strippers, booze, and penis attire for me to wear. I want to act like a complete jackass. I need to blow off some steam and I need the bar tab to be at someone else's expense.

4. That groomsmen pick up their tuxes in a timely matter.

5. That a do not play list is drafted for the DJ. I don't care who thinks it is a good idea, the "chicken dance" will not be played at my wedding. Neither will the Macarena. I've already told the DJ, his job is to stand there, play music and look mildly attractive. Not so attractive that it pulls attention away from me but not so unattractive that people wonder why he was beaten with an ugly stick.

6. That I get all of the RSVP cards back. Seriously, how hard is it to check yes or no and then stick it in the mail. I already addressed and put postage on the damn things. The guests get the easy part of the job.

7. I still need to plan the pseudo honey moon....

8. That I get birth control packs before the wedding.

9. That the decorations get to the bakery this week without me nagging Brian about it.

10. That Brian learns he can be in charge of things other than "the love making".

11. That the flower girls baskets are made.

12. That I don't beat my mother in the head with her cell phone.

13. That Brian doesn't beat my mother in the head with her cell phone.

14... that i take a nap...

ugh. I just want it all to be over.

May 16 aka 31 days

Last night I watched my almost husband sleep on the floor in green pasley boxers that I bought for him at Christmas as I half read Anne Lamott and I half listened to a thunderstorm roll into the Levittown skies.

I call Brian my "almost husband" because any other term available to describe his roll in my life seems horribly inaccurate. "Fiance" reminds me too much of Seinfeld and "maybe the dingo ate your baby" and I really don't want to be thinking about Julia Louis Dreyfuss when I think about my mate. The term "boyfriend" seems to downplay Brian's roll in my life as if he was a leftover relic from my college days with no actual commitment on the horizon. Which he is not. Thank you very much. I cannot yet call Brian my husband because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and my mother object on the grounds that our legally binding promise has yet to be signed. They apparently do not agree with my belief that engagement is just as binding as marriage.

Almost Husband it is.

Another accurate way to describe Brian is to refer to him as my better half. I do not say that to degrade or berate myself but as our premarital counselor so nicely put it, I have "tendencies" towards "agressive, dominant" behavior and intolerance, and Brian, well, he does not.

She also tried to tell us that the personality test which supplied the information was only a snapshot in time but I would be lying to myself if I did not admit that the statement is accurate on a daily basis.

Clearly, my almost husband is better than your almost husband. Mainly because he puts up with me.

Brian continues to amaze me each day. He has a wonderful ability to see through my, ahem, shit in a way that no one else can. And I have a lot of shit that needs to be seen through. I don't like to think of myself as someone who fronts, but I do know that I tend to only show one aspect of myself at a time to people in the outside world. All of it is accurate, but I'm still not showing everything. Okay, so maybe I front. My front is so good that even I forget that I'm fronting. At times, my front is like a creeping ivy that has overtaken a house and only a certain almost husband seems to be able to see through that ivy to the potential that lies beneath it.

Brian keeps me nice. I don't mean that in a way that implies that he pays for everything (although he does pay for quite a bit more than I do). Brian is my personal editor through life. He edits my post it note directions for our family with "please" and "thank you" and "have a nice day" and ":)". He stops me from leaving post it notes that say "take out the g-ddamn trash" for the wonderful family members who live with us. He let me buy a big soft comfortable mattress even though he would rather sleep on a plank. Why? Because it made me happy. He humors me. He willingly goes to my alma mater to visit my college friends even though he thinks the college I went to was weird and the people I knew were even weirder. He looks for ways to make my life better.

I tend to freak out on him because the dinner table isn't set, I have at least three more load of laundry to do, and he's been home for three hours longer than I have and all I wanted to do was paint my nails.

Thank god he lets me.

Bridal Bliss

I am a crappy bride.

And I'm not presenting that in a "I moonlight as bridezilla causing terror in the hearts of bridesmaids everywhere" sort of way.

I'm that bride that cares tremendously about the way this day looks and at the same time, I don't give a rat's ass.

I am a crappy bride.

When Brian and I first started to plan our wedding, I really tried, with all of my heart, to engage in a less is more strategy. A wedding is only one day. It does not make a marriage. A marriage will not be better or worse based on the number of guests who attend, how plentiful the flowers were, or whether or not the bridesmaids are perfectly matched. None of those things reflect a level of committment to making a marriage work. They instead reflect a committment to material things.

From the beginning, I wanted this to be simple. I did not have much of a desire for flowers. I wanted this to be a "clean line" wedding. I wanted classic and timeless and less fuss. I wanted more people and minimal fluff. I wanted great pictures of the people I love, not great pictures of flowers and reception sites.

Our wedding is going to take place in our little warehouse church called The Well. (Check out our website at www.thewellpa.com) It is fitting there. Brian and I met because of The Well. It is a place where we belong and where we are supported.

But then...

There is the nightmare that is the reception.

My mother has decided that the reception shall take place at the Middletown Country Club, where she and my father had their reception sixteen years ago. Very over the top, a lavish display of money, and nothing that resembles the clean, classic wedding that Brian and I desire.

I know I should be happy that my parents want to provide this wedding for me, but at the same time, it is not the wedding I want. It is not the wedding that Brian wants. It is the wedding that my mother wishes she had years ago. I feel so ungrateful for all of it.

And I don't want to feel that way.

I know it will be an enjoyable day for our guests. I know everyone will have a good time and I will have a good time. I know I will be amazed when I see Brian's face waiting for me. I know I'll probably cry like a baby at some point.

I'm still kinda sad that it won't be the wedding that I want.

And I worry that someday I'll plan the wedding that I dreamed of for my children instead of the wedding that they want.

I have this idea in my head that I should be happy as a bride, but instead, I feel like I just need to survive my wedding.

It's the Boob Tube for a reason

I was never much of a TV watcher as a kid. I was born in '82 but my mother did not purchase a color TV until around 1988. We didn't have a VCR until 1990. The only time I encountered cable TV was at my grandparents' house and while I would find that entertaining for a little while, I had a tendency to quickly bore and move onto other things. Starring into a box for extended periods of time had little interest for me. I didn't realize that the Brady Bunch was reruns until the third grade. It never clicked in my head that there were such a thing as reruns.

I was browsing yahoo news yesterday afternoon when I stumbled across this article. The article is italics, my commentary is not.

About 90 percent of U.S. children under age 2 and as many as 40 percent of infants under three months are regular watchers of television, DVDs and videos, researchers said on Monday. How is regular watcher of television defined? Does that include time trying to obtain the attention of their parents who happen to be watching television? Or does it mean that the children are purposely placed in front of the television? And what about the kids who are not watching TV?

They said the number of young kids watching TV is much greater than expected.
"We don't know from the study whether it is good or bad. What we know is that it is big," said Frederick Zimmerman of the University of Washington, whose research appears in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. How do they not know if this is good or bad? Of course it is bad!! How can children develop an imagination if everything is provided for them? How do they learn survival skills or common sense? How do they learn how to interact with their peers in a healthy way? And what happens to the kids that aren't watching the same volume of TV?

A second study suggested excessive TV viewing can lead to attention and learning problems down the road. As someone who struggled for years with attention and learning problems despite not watching TV, I can't imagine doing something that would add to the struggle. If everything on TV wraps up in a nice, neat 30 minute package, won't these children be surprised when real life does not work out that way?

The American Academy of Pediatrics estimates that children in the United States watch about four hours of television every day. They recommend that children under age 2 should not watch any and older children should watch no more than 2 hours a day of quality programming. But 29 percent of parents surveyed by Zimmerman and colleagues believe baby-oriented TV and DVD programs offer educational benefits. I don't even watch four hours of TV a day!! I max out on about an hour of TV a day!! And nine times out of ten, I recorded it the night before so I could fast forward through the commercials when I watch it. I can't even imagine being able to watch two hours of television! Why are these kids watching four hours? And I seriously doubt as to the quality of the programing. I'm also perplexed on the educational benefits. Babies and small children learn from touch, from exploring, from interacting. They learn from experiences. Last time I checked, TV was not an experience.

"Parents are getting the message loud and clear from marketers of TV and videos that this is good for their kids. That it will help their brain development ... None of this stuff has ever been proven," Zimmerman said in a telephone interview. Well, clearly, these parents are not the swiftest horses in the race. Otherwise they may have waited until they were able to pay attention to their offspring before reproducing.

For their study, Zimmerman's team conducted random telephone surveys of more than 1,000 families with young children in Minnesota and Washington.

They found 90 percent of children under age 2 and 40 percent of infants under three months watched TV regularly. I can't even begin to wrap my mind around that statement.

At 3 months, children watched less than an hour per day, but by 24 months, they watched more than 1.5 hours per day. How is a child under three months of age watching TV? They can barely see a few feet in front of their faces! And what aren't the children at 24 months doing that they should be? Perhaps exercising? Napping? Playing? Something!

About half of the shows watched were in the educational category, with the remainder split evenly among noneducational children's content, baby DVDs/videos and adult TV. Adult TV? Is that like the Soprano's? Or is that more like the complete Girls Gone Wild DVD collection?

TV IN THE BEDROOM

In a separate survey of 1,051 parents published in the journal Pediatrics, 75 percent of children aged 0 to 6 were found to watch TV every day, often in their own bedrooms.
"We don't know that it is bad but we don't know that it is harmless," Zimmerman said. The first time I ever had a TV in my bedroom was in February. And after we got the television, we didn't have sex for a week. If a TV could have a negative impact on adults, wouldn't it also follow that the same TV would also have a negative impact on small, impressionable minds?

A second study in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine found that teens who watch three to four hours of television a day are more likely to have attention or learning problems and are less likely to get a college degree. Having gone to both an elite private liberal arts college and a local community college, I will whole heartedly agree with that statement.

"Even watching more than an hour of TV per day had some adverse consequences, but three hours was much worse than one hour, and two was worse than one," Jeffrey Johnson of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and the New York State Psychiatric Institute said in a telephone interview.

Johnson and colleagues studied 678 families in New York state over more than 20 years.
"Kids who watched less than one hour of TV per day were twice as likely to go to college as those who watched three or more hours per day," he said. Can anyone say that they are truly surprised by this statement?

Just 12 percent of the parents whose children watched less than an hour of television a day said their child "hardly ever does homework," compared to 21 percent of those who watched one to three hours a day and 27 percent of those who watched more than three hours a day. I always did homework. I wasn't allowed anywhere near a television until I did all of my homework. TV was a treat, not a priviledge.

Parents said 22 percent of teens who watched less than an hour a day were often bored at school, compared to 35 percent of the moderate watchers and 42 percent of those who watched three hours or more. I think they could have left this part out. I think most teens would say school is boring.

The result was the same regardless of socioeconomic status. I think most of us would like to think that if we make more money, our children will be better off and that our children will not face the same challenges in life as the "poor kids". Just a reminder that at the end of the day, none of it matters if your kid watches too much of the boob tube.

Johnson said he believes TV may be shortening teens' attention spans. "Over time, it could really dumb down society," he said. While I think it is wonderful this guy did this study, statements like that completely take away from all of his work. Of course it is going to dumb down society! It already has! If you need further proof, look at Paris Hilton and all of the attention is getting from what I used to consider legitimate news sources!

I want this job....

I don't know where I would find a job opportunity like this but sign me up!

SAO PAULO, Brazil - A Brazilian court has ordered local brewer Ambev to pay 100,000 reals (US$49,400; euro36,400) to an alcoholic beer taster who drank about a liter and a half (3.2 pints) of beer each day.

The unidentified employee alleged that the company did not provide the health measures needed to keep him from developing alcoholism, a labor court in the Rio Grande do Sul state said in a statement Friday.

The employee said in his lawsuit that for more than a decade, he drank between 16 and 25 small glasses of beer during his eight-hour shifts at the company. The employee said he also received a bottle of beer after each shift.

An initial ruling had favored Ambev, or Companhia de Bebidas das Americas, which can still appeal the decision. The company alleged the employee already was an alcoholic before becoming a beer taster.

Judge Jose Felipe Ledur said the company still was negligent because an alcoholic should never have been made a beer taster. Ledur also said the employee's alcohol dependency had worsened in recent years and that even on vacation, the employee felt like drinking the same amount of beer he drank at work.

I think my favorite part about this is that all he wanted was 50k. I'm sure in the US, the company would have been forced to pay millions of dollars which would go to some sort of luxary rehab, similar to the one Britany Spears went to, where the alcoholic employee wouldn't recover but would at least have the making for a fabulous lifetime movie.

I also can't imagine that in the course of ten years, none of this man's friends or family pointed out he was becoming an alcoholic.

Finally, wouldn't this job be much like a wine tasting where you aren't supposed to actually drink any of the wines but swish and spit?

The Flying Rodent Hotel

">Link

One of the nice things about getting married is the combined economic power. My income alone isn't all that impressive. Brian income is not either. I work as a clerical assistant for a small pharmaceutical contract manufacturer. Brian is a carpenter and while is good at what he does, it is early in his career still. We aren't struggling, but we are a long way off from the trust fund kids.

I feel better about my income when I combine it with Brian's in my head. By myself, I could not afford rent on an apartment (we live in the Philadelphia suburbs) but together, we can afford the mortgage on a fixer upper. Together, we have buying power. Together, the dream of owning a home is a bit closer to today. Hooray for combined economic power!

Part of realizing that home ownership is in the near future is realizing that you don't know jack about owning a home. I'm twenty four years old. What do I know about home repair? About find a real estate agent? About looking at property values in a good school district so that the kids we don't even have yet can have a good education? I don't know squat. The extent of my home ownership knowledge is either "ooh that looks pretty, I want it" or "ew, who in the hell would want to do that to the place where they live".

In my efforts to become a better educated potential home buyer, I spend quite a bit of time researching as much as I can. I read about annual home repair costs, property values in different townships of the county, and how large of an impact one percentage point will have on the mortgage. I read about the do's, the don't's, and the you-will-never-believe's.

Today, this lovely gem crossed my screen. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_fe_st/bat_droppings_home;_ylt=AmFQEI2NOo.S0CWW12HLFcbtiBIF

There are many places I can begin on this disaster.

1. "An upstate New York couple didn't think a few bats in the attic were much of a problem when they were buying a house last summer. "

A few bats are not a problem? Since when? I have several questions about this one. Where are the bats getting in from? What are the bats eating? Where are the bats relieving themselves? What diseases are they harboring? What other animals could be getting in as a result? Is this impacting my heating bill? And is water getting in when it rains? The list could go on and on.

2. "Nick LaBoda and Jenna Caputo say a home inspector informed them about the bats. They called an exterminator, who told them to wait a while before removing the bats because the babies were too young to fly."

Ok so the home inspector informed you about the bats. I interpret that to mean that the home inspector found this to be something worth noting. Something that should probably be dealt with prior to moving in. Essentially, the couple possessed this knowledge prior to an exchange of property, namely their money for the prior home owner's home.

At least they followed up with an exterminator. But why would an exterminator tell them to wait? Surely a reputable exterminator would recommend an initial course of action with follow up in the months to follow. And what is this about the babies being too young to fly? Isn't that a good thing? These creatures are flying rodents inside one's house. Wouldn't it be easier to round them up when they are flying in the air? Personally, I wouldn't want to wait until an age when the babies could fly. Get rid of them now!

3. "Then they forgot about the bats until they smelled a foul odor in January. When they checked the attic, they found dead bats and piles of guano."

So let's give the couple the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they were guilable and believed their shady exterminator. Maybe the exterminator came on the tale end of summer. Maybe they decided to wait a bit as recommended. But then they forgot? I know their lives were probably very busy but I can't imagine forgetting that there were FLYING RODENTS living in my house. I need to make a note that I do respect the fact that they did not need to use the additional storage that their house provided but at the same time, they were the proud owners of a FLYING RODENT HOTEL!

At least their first instinct was to check the attic....

4. "An exterminator says hundreds of bats had been living in the attic, leaving behind 3,500 pounds of droppings."

Was this the same exterminator as the first visit? Because if it was, why did he not do a follow up call in September or October? Why did he wait until after the house started to smell? Who does that? And furthermore, how do you not notice that your house contains over a ton and a half of FLYING RODENT SHIT?? Surely, it should have been smelled long before then. I can't imagine bat droppings smell like cinnamon rolls and coffee....

5. "It cost $25,000 to clean up the mess, and the couple's insurance company wouldn't cover it."

Good. I'm glad it cost them 25k to correct the problem. That will teach them to not be so stupid next time. And I'm even happier that the insurance company did not cover it. They knew when they bought the house that they also bought the FLYING RODENT HOTEL. Unless they purchased a second policy to cover their little bat hotel, why should the insurance company pay for it? That just makes premiums go up for the rest of us who aren't stupid or at least know that we need to maintain our very expensive purchases. And that takes money away from people who really do need it. For example, people whose homes have been devastated by floods, earthquakes or other natural disasters. Your own stupidity or forgetfulness does not qualify as a natural disaster.

6. "They're fighting it out in court."

I hope they lose.

Fresh Start

I am getting married in 42 days. Forty two incredibly long yet quickly moving days. I am getting married. Soon I leave the life of the single gal and I will enter life from the other side of the ring. I'm not scared. I know what I'm doing.

There is something about the idea of such a commitment that makes me want to overhaul everything. Rooms have been changing. Clothing styles are becoming slightly more mature. I don't go out too much on the weekends now. My life is focused on preparing for a commitment that begins forty two days from today.

I'm overhauling the blog too.

There comes a time in every girl's life when it is time to say goodbye. I've been over at diaryland since 2002. I think it might be in best interest to move on. It was great for my single days, my college days, my life on my own but now I'm going to try to leave the past just where it is.

Welcome to my head. I hope you enjoy your stay.