A Trip to the Met

Today we decided to risk the possible two-year-old-in-a-museum insanity and go to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Michael is generally not a fan of any activity that requires him to sit quietly in the stroller with nothing interesting to look at and no snacks, so we thought if we could get an hour in we would be happy. (It is easy to be satisfied by an hour in a museum when you can get in free thanks to your husband's company). Michael did surprisingly well, content to stay in his stroller as long as we were constantly moving (none of that stopping to read plaques business) and could sneak him a fruit snack away from the eagle eyes of a docent now and then.

I truly enjoy art museums, if nothing else for the self-esteem boost they provide. It is always nice to see sculptures that look more like my imperfect body and less like a Hollywood starlet in desperate need of a cheeseburger. And the Met has such a variety of collections that any person can be satisfied within its halls. There is something awesome about seeing a piece of Egyptian art that is 4000 years old and then turning the corner to find a Stradivarius violin and a Rodin sculpture. Armor, weapons, mummies, full rooms transplanted from palaces... I must admit, I had a rather Claudia Kincaid-ish urge to jump up on one of the many four poster beds and settle down for the night.

Once Michael was ready to abandon his stroller, we went down to the cafeteria for a small lunch at a large price, and then told him it was time for a nap. Having just downed a hot dog and french fries, his satisfied tummy didn't put up much of a fight, and within half an hour he was sound asleep. David and I were able to get an extra hour to peacefully peruse the artwork and artifacts while Michael snoozed.


Since he was obviously less than impressed by the Temple of Dendur (above), we decided to let him walk through Central Park on the way back to the subway station, which was much more fun for a little boy than a boring old museum. And with snow piles and puddles to jump in, it was practically heaven.


It's a good thing that when we go home at the end of this year, it will be to Washington, D.C., another city with world-class museums. We are simply too snobby now to settle for anything less.

Tick Tock

The American Fertility Association is launching an ad campaign to inform women that age plays a significant role in matters of fertility - the older you are, the harder it is to get pregnant.

As a veteran of fertility treatment myself, I think this is a good idea. I have seen more than one woman who has whittled away her fertile years thinking that Father Time will not adversely affect her chances to be come a mother. Just last night I was speaking with a friend about having children and found myself explaining how age can impact fertility. This woman is an intelligent, educated, professional who simply had no idea that waiting too long to have children might mean there would be no chance for children at all.

I'm all about women having the information that can help them make informed decisions. So I simply do not understand the negative reaction to this article. Some women are saying the focus on age-related infertility "smacks of paternalism and is unfair to women who are still in search of a partner" and "makes it look like doctors are on a mission to get women to have children". So, let me get this straight... we should keep women in the dark? We shouldn't tell them that if they want children they might want to make them more of a priority?

It appears so, at least from comments like this one from annieo8:

"Women - at least all the women I know - are *fully* aware of the ticking biological clock. We're already panicked about it - how on earth are we supposed to find time to establish a career so we can support a baby, find a partner with whom to have a baby, and have that baby - multiple babies, if we want more than one child - all before age 30? Forget finding personal fulfillment so we can be healthy mothers to those babies. Way to ramp up the pressure."

Forget finding personal fulfillment? Ah, selfishness rears its ugly head. I knew that had to be a factor in there somewhere.

From the other indignant comments I read, it appears none of the commenters have ever sat in a fertility clinic waiting room with a bunch of desperately sad women who have just found out that their ovaries have shut down permanently. I have, and it's a very sad thing. I have heard many times "I wish I hadn't waited so long. I didn't realize it would be so hard. I wish I could turn back the clock."

So while I can sympathize with annieo8 in her dislike of being confronted with information she doesn't want to hear, I firmly believe the rest of the female population should have access to this information. And what's with the delicate psyche routine, anyway? I thought women were supposed to be strong and powerful, not wilting like week-old flowers at the slightest mention of their aging egg supply. So why is it so politically incorrect to say that if a woman truly wants children, it may be better to put aside her personal aspirations for awhile so she can have them when nature intended? You can always go back to school or back to work, but you can't turn back the clock on your ovaries. I know this goes against the women-can-have-it-all mantra, but unfortunately we can't have it all. We must make choices, and sacrifices. That's just life.

I am not so insensitive that I can't understand how a woman whose life situation prevents her from having children might not want to be reminded by a trendy ad campaign, but for someone who truly does not know age is a factor, or is just putting aside children indefinitely to make Partner in her law firm, not realizing the consequences of waiting, it just might be helpful. And yet a bunch of professional, educated women are up in arms over being told some simple facts of life. It's too much pressure! Women will have children before they are ready! It's a male plot to turn women into baby machines!

I just don't get this propensity to hide the facts from people, as if they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves once they have all the information. Like the abortion crowd who do not want women knowing that their "clump of cells" actually has a beating heart and fingernails. Because then, horror of horrors, they might actually keep the baby or give the child up for adoption instead of aborting it!

As to those who argue that women need to have established careers and a college fund for little Johnny before he is conceived, if you wait until you have fulfilled all your professional goals and have the money to have children, you will never have children. Children are expensive and time consuming, but somehow things manage to work out, if you are willing to make a few sacrifices.

But I guess that's just it. We aren't willing to sacrifice anything nowadays. We are told to pursue our own happiness without any thought to the purpose of life or the importance of having children. And if children are nothing more than trophies meant to glowingly reflect the accomplishments of their narcissistic parents, then why not wait, or just not have children at all?

I worry about the women who are in a snit over this article. I mean, if you are afraid of the truth, an ad campaign is the least of your problems.

Oh, the Irony

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has started an online petition to express outrage over Rush Limbaugh's recent comments that he wants President Obama to "fail".

Oh for heaven's sake, people, get over yourselves. I'm sure you were not spending any time wringing your hands over the fact that the entire Democratic party wanted President Bush to fail. What's the difference now, except that a different man is in office?

And since when do you care what Rush Limbaugh says? Anyone who wants President Obama to fail is an idiot. And idiots are best ignored.

A Class Act

I will now stick my foot into a political cowpie and comment on the events of the week. This is, of course, simply a ruse to cause my irrational friends to reveal themselves in the comments. (It's a miracle I have any blog readers at all).

I watched the inaugural proceedings with unabated interest and a sense of excitement that always accompanies these types of events. I was very relieved to see Bush leave office - not because I think he's evil incarnate or anything (I truly believe he is a decent man who did what he thought was best for our country. Yes, he made mistakes, and I profoundly disagree with some of his policies, like any person who has held the office of president, but I don't believe for one second that he was the lying scoundrel so many have made him out to be) but because I was relieved for his sake. Here is a man who was roundly abused for every decision he made, called "stupid" and "incompetent" for eight long years, and was never given the least bit of recognition for things he did well. I can't imagine the level of exhaustion, discouragement and stress he endured. So I'm happy he can move on to better things, away from the unforgiving eye of the press corps.

But most of all, I was looking forward to an end of the petty sniping that has plagued the last eight years. I thought Tuesday would be the first of hopefully many days where we could put aside our differences and come together as Americans, grateful to live in a country where the magnitude of something as rare as the peaceful transfer of power overwhelmed any urge to throw rotten tomatoes at the departing president. Sadly, I was disappointed as many, including the exultant media, could not quench the childish impulse to kick President Bush on his way out the door. Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews... everyone had to take a shot. Including the crowd outside the Capitol, who gleefully sang "Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!" to President Bush.

Classy.

I'm not sure what it is that makes individuals think they have knowledge and information superior to the president, (Like George Burns said, "It's too bad all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxis and cutting hair.") but at least their behavior reveals them as being incapable of having a rational discussion of policy and politics. If you are unwilling to concede that the president just might be privy to some information that you do not have, or that his team of advisers might know a bit more about a given issue than your team of advisers, then a logical and reasonable discussion is simply impossible. No one knows the burdens that that are carried by the president, and they show it in their inability to appreciate his efforts in the slightest.

So now that the former president and his lovely wife are home in Texas, I am happy to take a deep breath, and with the reasonable members of the population, move on. And I was happy to see that both the departing president and the incoming president behaved with class and dignity befitting such a sober and important occasion.

There were many moments I enjoyed. I love ceremonial things - parades and military marches, the swearing in, the inaugural ball. But the moment that struck me most was not Obama's speech, Michelle Obama's gift to Laura Bush (very classy), or her beautiful ballgown, it was when a reporter took President Obama aside and tried to get him to say something derogatory about Chief Justice Roberts and his swearing-in flub earlier in the day. I immediately cringed and thought, "Give the guy a break, he's only human. You try getting up in front of millions of people, knowing you are participating in something historic that will be replayed on the airwaves for generations to come, and do it without making a mistake." But I was pleased and proud to hear Obama say that he and Justice Roberts had both made mistakes, and that Roberts had actually helped him at one point during the swearing in, so he was appreciative of Roberts's efforts. Very classy.

This was reiterated the next day when Vice President Biden could not resist his two-year old impulse to make a snide comment about Justice Roberts's memory. In the background you could see President Obama's face tighten, and a subtle shake of his head as he tried to prevent Biden from saying anything more. I think these two instances speak volumes about the man, and I hope it's a reflection of what we can look forward to for the next (probably) eight years.

God Bless President Bush for his service, and may God Bless President Obama as well.

Your Wish is My Command

For those of you who were curious, here is Annie's advice to "Broke Bride-to-Be":

Dear Bride: Oh, dear. You have confused "guest" with "customer." The wedding you choose to give, no matter the cost, is up to you. Your guests are not selecting the liquor, food and music. You are inviting them because you want their company at your celebration — not so they will reimburse you for your expenses. Those attending a wedding should give an appropriate gift of their choosing, and you should entertain them in a manner you can afford. Yes. Really.

Not as scathing as mine, of course, but good advice nonetheless.

I Now Pronounce You Idiot and Idiot

Bridezilla is alive and well, and in today's "Dear Annie":

Dear Annie: Is there a rule about how much to give a couple as a monetary gift at their wedding? I'm getting married soon and I understand attendees shouldn't be expected to give more than they can afford. But as couples are getting married later in life, they are also cleaning out their own savings in order to have a nice celebration. Times are tough for us, too. Parents don't always foot the bill, and even with the best budgeting bride a nice reception easily runs at $50 per plate.

I was recently at a wedding where two guests gave the couple $25 each. This seems like an insult rather than a gift. The couple must have spent a lot more than that per plate. With good food, liquor and dancing, why would anyone think it's OK to give such a small gift? — Broke Bride-to-Be

This letter is so pathetic, I almost don't know where to begin. Oh wait, yes I do:

Dear Whiny, Selfish, Spoiled Brat,

Congratulations on your upcoming nuptials! I am simply amazed that someone as revolting as you could snatch up a groom (poor fellow). But since you managed to ensnare a husband, let's dissect your letter one piece at a time.

Is there a rule about how much to give a couple as a monetary gift at their wedding? Do you mean, should there be a cover charge for your wedding? Heavens, no. How tacky to suggest such a thing.

I'm getting married soon and I understand attendees shouldn't be expected to give more than they can afford. But as couples are getting married later in life, they are also cleaning out their own savings in order to have a nice celebration. What, as opposed to the young couples who are rolling around in dough? And since when is something as ridiculous as cleaning out one's savings account to host a party considered wise, prudent, or even socially acceptable?

Times are tough for us too. If times are that tough, don't spend all your money on a party.

Parents don't always foot the bill, and even with the best budgeting bride a nice reception easily runs at $50 per plate. Why should your parents foot the bill when you are both established professionals? And since when is a "nice reception" only doable at $50 a plate?

I was recently at a wedding where two guests gave the couple $25 each. The horror! How dare they share their hard-earned money with the bride and groom, out of the goodness of their hearts?

This seems like an insult rather than a gift. Since when is a gift only acceptable if it is within certain parameters? Apparently you have confused "gift" for "entitlement". Guests should not be fined for coming to a wedding.

The couple must have spent a lot more than that per plate. And this is the guest's problem because...? The last time I checked there were no government mandates requiring lobster and caviar to be served at all wedding receptions.

With good food, liquor and dancing, why would anyone think it's OK to give such a small gift? A gift is not a reimbursement for your stupidity. (If it were, the box would need to be a lot bigger). It is generally thought that a couple invites wedding guests based on friendship and a wish to share an important event with them, not out of a desire to pick their pockets.

Sheesh. I give this marriage one year, max. I just can't understand why people feel the need to spend such ridiculous amounts of money on one day. If you are willing to spend all your savings or go into huge amounts of debt for a wedding (or the hand bauble - I'm quite sure she probably hounded her fiancee into mortgaging the farm for her engagement ring as well) then you are too immature to get married.

But what do I know? When I got engaged I told David I wanted a cubic zirconium and a washer and dryer, and I spent a grand total of $75 on my wedding dress. There is obviously something wrong with me. And with my marriage. Here I am nearly eight years later and still deliriously happy and in love.

What's up with that?

Trains!

I just pulled up a new page, ready to compose, when I glanced in the corner and saw that I was logged in under David's account. Good thing I noticed! I wouldn't want him to get credit for contributing to the blog without actually writing anything. Whew! (Post anytime, David. After all, this is "our" blog).

Okay, now that I've embarrassed my husband (love you, honey!) I'll move on to chronicling our latest adventure. It has been so cold the last week that we have been staying indoors a lot. By Saturday David and I were both itching to get out, so we decided to go to the Transit Museum in Brooklyn. Only we weren't smart enough to double check the hours it was open, so we arrived a half hour before we could get in. Since it was nearly lunchtime and there was a pizza place nearby that we wanted to try, we thought we'd get lunch first. We were too cheap to spring for a cab so we walked a mile in the frigid temperatures and nearly froze to death. (Well, David and I nearly froze. Michael was nice and comfy in his stroller muff and weather shield). And we got to the restaurant to find that it hadn't opened yet, either! Of all the luck. So we stood out in the cold for 15 minutes until they finally decided to open the doors. By then my gloved hands were so frozen I wasn't sure I would ever be able to use them again.

And for all that, the pizza wasn't that great. (Patsy's is still winning the pizza race).

But back to the Transit Museum. It was actually really fun. They had taken an old Subway station that was no longer in use and turned it into a museum. I'm not sure why I think this is so cute, but I do. We enjoyed reading about the building of the Subway system. It turns out that, for the most part, they did not tunnel under the city. Most of the system was built using the "cut and cover" method, meaning they dug huge trenches for the subway tracks and stations and then rebuilt the roads over the tops of them. Fascinating. We also learned that the busiest station is Times Square, which is used by 33 million people every year. And NYC transit brought in $2.7 billion in subway fares in 2006. I love little useless facts like that.

The best part of the museum was a collection of old subway cars that you could explore. Michael was in heaven running from one train car to the next. And he got to "drive" a bus, which was so fun for him. We bought him a subway car that is compatible with his train track at home, so now he has his very own "1" train.

Watch out, pedestrians!