Re: Time to talk

I just happened to get up to get a drink of water, and I saw you out there. You and Mark.

But it didn’t work, obviously. Or we wouldn’t be making this trip to Castelfidardo, now, would we?

J

___________________________________________


To: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Fr: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Re: Time to talk


I didn’t get a chance to speak to Mark, due to the fact that the excessive amount of alcohol he put away at dinner rendered him comatose. Not, I would like to add, a good sign that he is looking forward to his impending nuptials with joy.

Cal

___________________________________________


To: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Fr: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Re: Time to talk

Oh, please.I could drink Mark under the table. He’s always been a lightweight. He was probably just trying to keep up with you. That doesn’t mean ANYTHING.

Besides, every guy has the right to let off a little steam before he gets married.

J

___________________________________________


To: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Fr: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Re: Time to talk


> every guy has the right to let off a little steam before he gets married.<

Proving my point that marriage is an unnatural and antiquated institution that ought to be abolished. The fact that it is traditional for men to get blind stinking drunk the night before their wedding just shows that it is a state into which they are entering against their better judgment.

WOMEN want marriage. Men do not. Mark’s behavior last evening proves deep down, he doesn’t want this. And you know it.

Cal

___________________________________________


To: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Fr: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Re: Time to talk


You’re so weird. Seriously. Are you this way about EVERYTHING? I mean, do you have to overthink every little thing? Don’t you ever just DO stuff, without thinking about it first?

Or is it BECAUSE you did something once, without weighing the consequences, and got burned, that you are so anti-marriage?

J

___________________________________________


To: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Fr: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Re: Time to talk


And I suppose you’re going to claim you haven’t been dreaming about your wedding day since you were seven? Dressing your Barbies up in bridal veils and walking them down the aisle with poor hapless Ken since you were nine? Sketching designs of your dream wedding gown since your teens, and viewing every male you met after the age of twenty as potential husband/father-of-your-children material, weighing his earning potential against his looks and assessing the chances of his remaining faithful to you?

Cal

___________________________________________


To: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Fr: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Re: Time to talk


You didn’t answer my question.

J

___________________________________________


To: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Fr: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Re: Time to talk


You didn’t answer mine.

Cal

___________________________________________


To: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Fr: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Re: Time to talk


Fine. Yes, I had Barbie weddings. Yes, I’ve sketched bridal gowns.

And, yes, I’ve sized up potential boyfriends, wondering whether or not they were going to be faithful to me.

But I’ve never cared about their EARNING potential. Truly. You can ask Holly.

And as for being good father material, how can I worry about who’s going to be the father of my children when I’m not even sure I WANT children? My career is just starting out. I want to see how that goes before I attempt to bring another life form into this world.

Besides which, I already have a cat. That is quite enough responsibility right now.

J

___________________________________________


To: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Fr: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Re: Time to talk


Are you seriously comparing owning a cat to raising a child?

Cal

___________________________________________


To: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Fr: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Re: Time to talk


Um, you haven’t met The Dude.

J

___________________________________________


To: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Fr: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Re: Time to talk


Who is The Dude?

Cal

___________________________________________


To: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Fr: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Re: Time to talk


My cat. And you still haven’t answered MY question.

J

___________________________________________


To: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Fr: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Re: Time to talk


I can’t remember what it was.

Cal

___________________________________________


To: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Fr: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Re: Time to talk


Isn’t it true that the only reason you’re so anti-love-and-marriage is because your own didn’t work out?

J

___________________________________________


To: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Fr: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Re: Time to talk


Absolutely not. The failure of my own marriage plays absolutely no part in my conviction that human beings are genetically incapable of monogamy. I believe we were meant to have seven or eight partners in a lifetime, not one. The idea that as a community we applaud those couples who manage to stay together forty or fifty years or longer is simply ridiculous. There’s something inherently wrong with celebrating couples like that. It simply isn’t natural to want to spend that much time with another human being.

Cal

___________________________________________


To: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Fr: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Re: Time to talk


My parents will be celebrating their fortieth wedding anniversary next year. Are you saying there’s something inherently wrong with them?

J

___________________________________________


To: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Fr: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Re: Time to talk


No offense to your parents, but basically, yes. Are you going to tell me that in all of those forty years, they’ve never fought or cheated on each other?

Cal

___________________________________________


To: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Fr: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Re: Time to talk


Sure they’ve fought. They’re HUMAN. But cheated on each other? No way.

J

PS You’re an ass.

___________________________________________


To: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Fr: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Re: Time to talk


I never said my theory was a very popular one. But it happens to be true.

Cal

PS Has anyone ever told you that you’re kind of cute when you’re mad?

___________________________________________


To: Cal Langdon <cal.langdon@thenyjournal.com>

Fr: Jane Harris <jane@wondercat.com>

Re: Time to talk


Are you FLIRTING with me?

It won’t work. I’m a little brighter than the women you’re so obviously used to.

Stop e-ing me, we’re here.


J

PS You’re still an ass.

___________________________________________


Marriage of an American Citizen in Italy

An American citizen planning to marry in Italy must obtain a declaration (called STATO LIBERO) sworn by four (4) witnesses before the Italian consulate, stating that according to the laws in which the citizen is subject in the United States there is no obstacle to his/her marriage. Therefore he/she must appear at this Consulate General with four unrelated friends not related to him/her nor to each other. Each of them has to bring a valid identification (Passport or Drivers License).

The citizen’s passport must also be presented and, if applicable, evidence of the termination of any previous marriage (final divorce decree or death certificate) translated into Italian and legalized by the competent Department of State with an “Apostille” (see page 2). The sworn statement has three months’ validity.