Nathan, as previously noted in this space, has his own website. Your host here and over there hopes to update it regularly, maximizing baby love for family and friends (see also) while minimizing “David has posted photos to the Gallery!” emails and a probable invasion of treacly babycentric posts in this space.
In my idealistic little bubble of reality (the same one that thinks if I ask often enough I’ll get Amy to play Mario Kart Wii with me one more time and maybe she’ll start to like it just a little bit) I’m imagining a bit of a collaborative baby blog. By “a bit of” I mean “more often than never, Nate’s mom will battle through her disinterest in blogging and website learning curves and post something to the site.” One can dare to dream, no?
My first bright idea was to make Nathan’s website a tumblelog for its multimedia support, and to try out a new-to-me blog platform that seemed easy to operate for Amy. My first not-so-bright idea was to try and redirect nathanwertheimer.com to the Tumblr page (an include command would have been so easy…). When the IP shift didn’t take properly, Nate’s site spent two-plus days offline. Oops. (Side note: as of Tuesday morning, there are still DNS propagation errors, so if you can’t see the site, wait a few hours and try again.)
So hardened, I went to Plan B. I’ve used Movable Type on this page for the past year-plus, and adding a blog to the existing install is cake. But MT 3.2, my previous version, is pretty geeky; no way Amy would touch it. So a favor and a few tinkers later, I have a shiny new MT 4.1 install powering both sites, with a user-friendly interface that even an infant could love.
Next step: content. We have hundreds of photos and numerous videos to get online. I’m debating the pros and cons of my Flickr feed vs. straight posting to the blog. Either way, Nathan will never say, “View my pictures. Enjoy!” in friend spam. At least not without prompting.
Page 57 of 128
Some readers of this space may have heard that my son was being called Fritz for awhile there, and may be surprised to see that he wound up with a name a lot more—well, actually, less intriguing, and may be wondering why.
First, some background. Fritz Louis Jacob Wertheimer was born in Munich in 1912. A German, he was given an appropriately German name. (Actual conversation earlier this week: Amy: “If your great-grandma knew the names Jacob and Louie, why did she go and name your grandfather Fritz?” Me: “Have you considered that in Munich in 1912 Fritz was the hot name of its day?”) So much so that the one baby name book I read, which gave paragraph-long perspectives on interesting names, said of the name Fritz, in full, “Still firmly in its lederhosen.”
But poking fun of the name shortchanges the man. Fritz emigrated to the United States in 1936 on the cusp of World War II. Details on how much he brought with him are vague—two trunks of clothes; $200; some such—but he made his way first to northeastern Massachusetts, where he lived outside Cape Ann for a time, and where, 70 years later, his sons and grandsons (and soon, his great-grandson) still spend a long weekend every summer.
Fritz ultimately moved to New Jersey, met my grandmother, founded a construction company that my uncle and cousin still run, raised two sons who produced four grandsons, lived through three or four heart attacks, and willed himself to be the picture of health at my bar mitzvah in 1986 before dying 10 months later.
So it’s not farfetched to say that Fritz deserved the honor of my son’s name in some fashion. And indeed, Nathan’s Hebrew name, which is on a religious level equally important, is Peretz, the same as Fritz’s. But one doesn’t use one’s Hebrew name much in 21st-century America, so American Jews typically carry initials forward; for example, my middle name (Ian) is after my other grandfather (Irving).
But—and let’s be honest here—it’s nigh impossible to find a name that is
Jewish (or secular) in origin;
starting with an F;
appropriately trendy;
and not horrendous when paired with “Wertheimer.”
This is a 30-year-old fact, as evidenced by my late grandmother, Frieda, whose honorarium by my parents is my brother’s name… of Jeffrey. No offense to those reading this who have F names, but pretend your last name is Wertheimer, you’re newly born in 2008, and your parents could have named you, what? Fred? Frank? Felix? Seriously: Felix Wertheimer?
So we decided to bump Fritz to the middle name, and honor Amy’s late grandmother Nellie, whom Amy adored, with the first name. That was pretty easy. Nathan is a fine name indeed, strong and moderately popular and with all the right connotations. (I like that David means “beloved,” but Nathan is “gift from God,” which is just hot.) Plus Nate is a great nickname.
So: Nathan F____ Wertheimer. But. That would make his initials NFW. To which this text-messaging father to be said, nfw.
Less than 48 hours before his birth, my parents unearthed a gem: Fritz had not one but two middle names. (This in comparison to my father and uncle, who have no middle name at all, apparently thanks to my grandmother Dorothy’s not wholly inaccurate opinion that Wertheimer was enough of a burden as a name and her boys shouldn’t have to deal with any extras.) Epiphanies abounded! Little Nate could share Fritz’s middle name. No burden of having the initials NFW or, for that matter, going through life as Fritz.
And here we are, with Nathan Jacob sleeping in the other room, with a name that carries on the memory of good souls on both sides of his family. We’ve told everyone that we welcome Fritz as a nickname, but so far, he doesn’t look much like a Fritz. (Maybe in 60 years or so.) He’s a really cute Nate, though.
Let’s fall in love, get married, have a baby… we’ll call him Nate… if it’s a boy
—Prince, “Sign O’ the Times”
Tuesday night we went about our evening with determined normalcy: futz around the house, play with the dog, order in dinner, clean up a bit, stay up too late watching the ball game. (For the record, the Yankees lost to the Orioles in 11 rain-delayed innings.)
The difference, of course, was in the thoughtfully packed suitcase at the foot of the bed. Oh, and the car seat in the front hall, and the huge belly full of baby situated firmly between my wife and me. Between my wife and everything, really.
Wednesday was quite an Einsteinean relativity test for me: slow-motion until 10:56 a.m., hyperspeed after. Beforehand, we were weighted down by process, delay, impatience, and anticipation. Then, the better part of an hour in scrubs, plied with anesthetics (her) and splattered with placental fluid (me). And after, a brief moment of quiet excitement, then:
Fatherhood.
Followed very rapidly by recovery and transfer and shivering and ice chips and IV drips; several dozen phone calls, spanning the next 11 hours and including friends, relatives, mohels, and the like; many hours of abundant warmth with parents, siblings, niece and nephew; hugs, kisses, tears of joy, the shared revelry among three generations of two harmonious families; and lots and lots of holding, staring, and marveling. And eye contact. With him. Nathan, that is.
We are proud, elated, excited, overwhelmed, exhausted.
Parents.
Amazing.
So it has come to this: in our UX-obsessed moment, the new rock radio station in New York is WRXP, “The Rock Experience.” That can’t last.
Neither, I bet, can RXP’s playlist, because it’s so damn good.
For the first time in years, if not decades, New York’s overly segmented, overly conservative FM dial has a station that’s willing to mix it up. WRXP is the only commercial station I know that says, “Yeah, that rocks,” and puts on an artist regardless of subgenre or popularity.
It’s more or less a modern rock station, but to RXP, that doesn’t mean Nirvana and the Pixies, full stop. To quote the launch press release, the playlist is “not determined by era, but rather by the acoustic quality of each song, as determined directly by on-air personalities and staff.”
The results are nothing short of astounding (again, in New York radio terms). The artist roster I’ve heard this weekend ranged from Dave Matthews to the Jam (the Jam!) to ancient Aerosmith cuts to Death Cab for Cutie to the Alarm (the motherfucking Alarm!) to Sheryl Crow. All on one station.
Few radio stations exist that would play Sheryl Crow’s new single and the Velvet Underground in the same sequence, but somehow, miraculously, this station landed in New York.
In short: phenomenal.
This broad-minded rock fan hopes and prays that incoming morning man Matt Pinfield–who, I’m guessing, has also been hired as music director–keeps it interesting. Scott Muni would be proud.
-
What a wonderful obit, obviously written decades ago, and left alone. Priceless: phrases like “Living in Manhattan with her sister in a fourth-floor walkup hard by the Third Avenue El”
-
Jack is such a climber!
-
More love from the Times: “the wittiest, angriest, most exacting and most desolate work of fiction we’ve yet had about life in New York and London after the World Trade Center fell”
-
I want Joe O’Neill’s publicist
-
Joe O’Neill’s new novel: “masterly”
-
Joseph O’Neill’s ‘Netherland’: Post 9/11, a New York of Gatsby-Size Dreams and Loss – New York TimesCongrats to Joe on his “stunning” novel
America: land of the free, home of the myopic.
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban. This is tremendous, forward-thinking, constitutionally appropriate news. The United States is where people are supposed to be free from oppression, and this kind of decision is a thoughtful interpretation of that.
So what do gay marriage opponents want to do? Change the Constitution. I won’t go deeply into the pro argument and my views on the subject (now apparent); I am here instead to pass along this quote:
“The court was wrong from top to bottom on this one,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “The court brushed aside the entire history and meaning of marriage in our tradition.”
In our tradition. Whose tradition? Religious Christians? Fundamentalist California residents? Maggie Gallagher’s family?
That statement lays bare all that is wrong with the anti-gay-marriage argument. American law is not just about tradition; proper interpretations are not a this-is-how-we’ve-always-done-it discussion. No, the law is about, or should be about, what is fair and just and sensible and appropriate, as thoughtful, wise people would approach society, had they a clean slate to properly adjust society’s ways.
The gay marriage law isn’t about doing things “traditionally,” nor is it about making Maggie Gallagher and her peers comfortable with homosexuality, which is their own problem. No, the law is about doing right by individuals who have done no wrong. And someday, at least theoretically, a majority of Americans will view this subject as they do issues of race and religion, as a differentiator that by and large defines our society in a positive light.
Perhaps it is too much to ask, but one can hope.
I’ve got a lot to look forward to at the end of the month, but in the meantime, a little piece of me can die happy. (Fourth item.)
Note to regular readers: if the above item looks familiar, well, that’s because it is.