Oh yeah, wedding blogging

This is my millionth pathetic attempt to revive my blog. In the many, many months since last I posted (which didn't even count), oh so much has happened. The boy and I adjusted to cohabitation, bought a house (hello, suburbia) and got engaged. I'm hoping that by forcing myself to compose the occasional wedding-related post, I'll start writing for real (?) again.

I wrote a guest post for The Plunge Project, the wedding blog of a Knoxvillian, Nicole (who has ties to Jacksonville...tiny world), and it was fun to write and share and talk about all this bullshit like it really matters. Which it does. But no one takes you seriously when you are fretting about flowers. They just don't. But by god, I can put it in a blog and I will feel better.

That said, I need to bring up a very important issue: the Serious Face wedding portrait. A handful of my high school acquaintances have gotten married recently, and after seeing their pictures, it seems like this is the big trend.

I speak only for myself here, but really, I can’t say I’m a fan. I don’t want to offend anyone because everyone wants to remember their wedding in their own way, but I just can’t get behind the Serious Face. I’ve only seen a few shots where the people don’t look kind of angry or where they’re gunning to be Male Model of the year.

Weddings are fun and exciting; I can’t imagine not having a big ridiculous smile on my face in all my pictures. I want to look back and think how happy I was all day and now how I had to force myself into a Serious Face look — or, worse, that making a not-happy face was easy.

I think there is definitely a place for pictures in which everyone isn't all smiley, but it's about looking thoughtful, not like you're throwing eye daggers at your photographer. However, I wonder if the Serious Face is a trend that photogs are latching onto and encouraging of their subjects. We have fabulous photogs, and I've seen lots of their work, so I can't imagine them suggesting it, but I really doubt I'd be enthused to go along with it if they did.

Of course, it's your wedding blah blah blah, but I just don't understand why anyone would at any point just not want to look totally happy.

I got that boom boom boom (or not)

OK, if you know me, you know I am a consumer of mom blogs. I can't help it. I don't have a kid, nor do I want one for a long time, but I read them anyhow. To be prepared and stuff, right? Sure. Anyhow, I kind of love Girl's Gone Child, written by Rebecca Woolf, and she usually talks about things relevant to everyone but in the context of being a parent. Today her post was related to the most recent Momversation, which dealt with keeping/not keeping guns in the home when you have a kid.

Gun control is something I care a lot about, largely because I grew up in an area where guns were the norm and people didn't think twice about using them, whether for sport or fun or whatever, but also because you can hardly go a day without seeing something in the news about gun-related violence or accidental shootings or "how could this happen?" stories.

I wasn't really raised with a STAY AWAY FROM GUNS attitude; I remember shooting a rifle for the first time when I was 8 years old, and my brother and I stayed with our dad for a couple days. We shot some cans off a log in the woods, though; we didn't target any animals and we knew enough not to point the thing at each other. Then in middle school, instead of PE for a semester, we had hunter's safety (hunting was big, y'all), and we learned not only how to be safe while hunting but also how to be safe around firearms. At the end of the course, we (a bunch of seventh-graders...in hindsight I CANNOT BELIEVE this actually happened, but welcome to Sevier County, Tenn.) went to the shooting range and shot clay pigeons. Sure, it was fun to take a field trip to shoot guns, but I do think it was smart to apply all the things we learned.

That said, do I think it's a good idea to keep guns in the home? Unless you are a serious hunter, absolutely not. And if you are a serious hunter, I'm only (marginally) OK with it if the guns are kept locked up in a location inaccessible by anyone other than one single person they are licensed to and the bullets are kept in an entirely different location (also under lock and key). Otherwise, what business do you have owning a gun? What good does it do?

While I'm sure pro-gun people are tired of hearing us "pacifists" talk about Freudian complexes (tried to link to a comment on Rebecca's post but couldn't...ugh Blogger!) and how tighter gun laws prevent gun-related violence, I'm pretty tired of the guns-as-a-form-of-self-defense and freer access reduces crime arguments. The only way a gun is going to truly be of use for self-defense is if a) you have a concealed carry permit and are carrying the gun when/if you're attacked or b) you keep a gun/guns stashed around your home for easy access, in which case they are EASILY ACCESSIBLE BY ANYONE (including children, other adults and/or potential attackers who might know where to look). Also, if someone is hell-bent on hurting you, they're going to hurt you. I'm not saying you should just take it, by all means, everyone is entitled to fight back some way somehow, but is shooting (and possibly killing) someone going to fix it? What if there's a next time?

When I moved to Florida and lived by myself for the first time, I was capital-P Paranoid. I'm anxious by nature, but every little noise would have me questioning where it was coming from. My apartment was pretty secure, and my neighborhood was pretty safe, but there's always a big what if factor, especially for a single woman living alone. Did I wonder how I'd defend myself if someone ever broke in or jumped me while I walked from my car to the house? Sure I did, and I concluded that I would have to rely on smarts and/or physical strength because I didn't (and don't) have anything remotely weapon-like, with the exception of my kitchen knives and well, they're in the kitchen, not my bedside table. And what if a potential attacker had a gun or other weapon? I chose not to entertain the possibility.

I absolutely think that everyone has the right, nay, the responsibility to protect themselves and their family/friends. But isn't prevention a big part of that? I understand that not everyone has the luxury of living in a secure home with outdoor lights or a security system or a dog that's going to bark and alert you to something that might be wrong, but doesn't carrying a gun make you vulnerable too? Aren't people's weapons turned on them?

Gun control laws exist for a reason. People should have to go through an extensive background check and take exams or something in order to own a gun and then they should have to jump through a million tiny little hoops to keep the gun. There should be no gun shows. There should be small dealers, with limited inventory who specialize in certain firearms. However, I am not so naive to think that this will eradicate the illegal use of firearms, but I'd like to think it would make it more difficult to obtain them. If someone wants to get a gun and they don't do it through legal channels, they're still going to find a way to get that gun. I just want to figure out how to make it as difficult as possible.

That said, I think it is totally necessary to educate people about guns and how to use them properly. If ever you're in a situation where you have to use a gun, you don't want to be wondering about how it works. While I never plan on going hunting or owning a gun, and despite my hillbilly school system, I'm glad I learned at an early age how to handle a gun and, more importantly, how to get out of the way of a gun. When I have kids, I plan to educate them about the importance of self-defense (preferably with their fists), but I also plan to teach them about both the power and the danger that come with guns. Yeah, I'll probably let them learn to shoot when they're old enough, simply because I see that as a key part of firearm education. And I'll be the first to admit that shooting a gun is a pretty powerful feeling, but only when you're shooting at little clay discs or a piece of paper, not people or animals.

So am I scared of guns? Hell yes. Do I think they have their place in society? Yes. Do I think kids should be sheltered from them? No. Kids (and adults, for that matter) should be thoroughly educated about guns, but I'd rather teach my kids to be peaceful, to break down and avoid conflict and solve problems with their minds and their words rather than with violence of any sort.

But I promise you that my honor student will totally be able to kick your slacker kid's ass if the situation calls for it.

Back with 7.5 percent more nonsense!

I should do a correlation study of my blog and see if my threory proves true that I blog more in happier times. I think I would be right. But being right is no fun if there's not a prize. Anyway, the sadness is mostly coming from work these days. Well, OK, it's only coming from work these days.

As everyone knows, newspapers are tanking (hard), and we're no exception here. Actually, we are. We make tons of money. Alas, our parent company has huge debts, and we don't make quite enough money to pay that off. I think the company would be in better shape if they cut the dead weight (book publishing, oodles of free publications, the Georgia edition...), but alas those are Traditions and Important Things to the family and must only pried out of the family's cold, dead hands.

But I digress. As part of the company's money-saving efforts, everyone had to take a pay cut. They were done on a "sliding" scale (that didn't so much slide as it bumped along and stopped hard enough that the people who make the real money won't be hurt), so it could be worse, but I'm losing 7.5 percent of my already not-enough salary. That's a lot of money right now. I already don't make enough to cover the bills, but losing that much more is going to require some sort of magic fix. Fortunately, I am good at being poor.

I suppose my biggest gripe about the cuts (other than the cuts themselves) is that people who make $50,000+ lose 10 percent. That's a lot, yeah, but I feel like that barely touches the corporate people who make a large six figures. Ten percent of $250,000? Ouch, but OK. Seven and a half percent to $30,000? How am I supposed to live? Just sayin'.

So in an effort to cut costs where necessary, I've canceled my cable. TV and Internet. I would feel worse about it but a) Comcast is teh suck and b) I like paying the rent more than I like Grey's and ANTM. Sort of. There are bright sides though. The Boy and I are moving in together when my lease is up here in May, so TV and Internets will return then. And when I need Internet, I'll go back to Starbucks or some other coffee-serving place with wireless and sit and blog and make fun of peoplecheck my e-mail. So my blog will be funny again, even if the effort is not sustained. Rejoice!

Office space

While working at a newspaper has its low points, it certainly has its share of high ones. Among the perks is pretty much total freedom to put whatever we want on the walls around us (at least at my paper; I can't really vouch for others). From what I understand, in most "creative" professions, there's quite a bit of flexibility in cubicle decor.

Examples: We have a "plant lady" at work who has a veritable jungle (I am not even kidding. She has a tree.) in and around her cube. My friend Diana had an impressive collection of toys. One guy has the biggest collection of comic book action figures I have ever seen, and an inflatable alien lives on the Sports desk. And (bless their hearts) many reporters have papers, file folders and dirty coffee mugs strewn about their cubes.

So when I read this article about the strict rules of cube decor at Martha Stewart, I was a little shocked. Employees can't have office supplies beyond the list of "approved" utensils, and the offices are kept...sterile. Not just clean. Sterile. They can't even have coffee mugs. WHICH MEANS LESS COFFEE. WHO WORKS IN JOURNALISM WITHOUT COFFEE?

For one thing, my dream has long been to work for either Vogue or National Geographic or Martha Stewart Living. While I'm sure I would love getting to copy edit stories about living room paint colors, I don't know if I could like very much to do it in a bare, boring cube. You'd also think Martha would encourage some level of decorating creativity, even if it would probably be in her style (Pink granite driveways!).

For another thing, how can people work well if they can't look at the things they enjoy? I have a collection of little notes, pictures, cartoons and calendars that make my days much better. Some of them remind me to keep going when I'd rather just crawl under my desk for a quick nap, and others give me laugh when I need it. And some things are just there...because I put them there and now don't want to take them down.

What really gets me, I think, is the rule on approved writing utensils. I have a black pen (one, single black pen) and the rest are colored. I use a pink or green highlighter (Yellow? Ew.), and red pens remind me of Mr. Watson (Ask any student of Wearwood Elementary, and they will tell you he is/was the worst teacher that ever lived.) and thus make me want to jump off a high building.

The most important thing, I think, about being able to put up whatever we want in our cubes/offices is that those little things remind us that there is life beyond Outlook and InDesign and bloody DT. Most newsroom employees stare at a computer screen for 8+ hours a day, and we don't really have windows from which to see the outside, so all those little things we keep around are basically sanity savers. They are for me, anyway.

On my interview, I noticed a handful of people with fun-looking cubes and offices. And then my boss drew a picture with a purple pen. And I knew I would be OK here.

Oh, and when I'm hugely successful (ha!) and have my own business, I think I'll use Pottery Barn Teen for inspiration. Who doesn't love pink furniture?

I'm poor

Or maybe these Super Bowl tickets are just a teensy bit overpriced.

OK, so I find it unlikely that someone's going to go to the Super Bowl alone, so you'd probably need at least two of these suckers. Stub Hub is totally holding out on us with these deals!

Too bad I don't care about either of the teams in the game. I just felt it necessary to point out that you could buy about 10 Toyota Corollas for that price.