baby don't hurt me

If you're side-bobbing your head, you already know what this post is about.

Various people in my life have been talking lately about "love," and what it is, and whether it's attainable. So naturally, because I have some intense ideas and opinions about the topic, I felt the need to chime in. [1]

why is love so complicated?

Honestly, in many ways, it's not. We love our families and our friends, and we don't usually question it, even when they make us crazy. Non-romantic love is something we accept, something we are willing to put effort into. And usually, we do it without really realizing how much.

From our family, ideally speaking of course, we learn a permanent love, the kind that exists regardless of the fights we have with siblings or parents etc. We even admit that we love, at least in some capacity, those relatives we might not necessarily like or connect with, or even someone who has wronged us. Family is family; they aren't going anywhere. So without the option of just "not being family anymore," we learn to adjust, and by adjusting, we establish a relationship. [2] From friends, we learn what it is to find people and love them for how they are. Unlike siblings, friends don't share the same genetics or upbringing, and therefore our friendships add dimensions to our perspectives as well as to our lives in general. Usually each relationship is unique unto itself, and as such we find different ways to interact with different friends. Because we are choosing to spend time together, we are also choosing to invest time and emotion in another person, and to some extent our friendships change and grow us.

So romantic love, as I see it, should fall somewhere in between: a combination of choosing to spend time with someone and working through differences instead of walking away from them. I have noticed, however, that most people try to make romantic love into something much more magical and complex. Some people come at it with a preconceived idea of what it's supposed to feel like, and are ready to run at the first sign that "the spark" might be gone. If we don't just automatically know about a person, it can't be right. Others (and I typically used to fall into this particular category), believe that it has to be love because it's convoluted and intensely emotional--a mix that tends to result in a good deal of fighting and even actual abuse. [3] An alarming amount of people idealize relationships that can be summed up as "people don't usually get us," as though these kinds of relationships are SO incredible that no one else could possibly understand. This is not to say that people haven't ever experienced "love at first sight" (at least some of those cute old people stories have to be true), or that there aren't successful relationships that don't make sense to the outsider. The problem I am trying to identify is really less to do with relationships themselves, and more about the expectations we bring into them.

It seems that most people fully support the concept of "being friends first" but then treat romantic relationships completely different from friendships. And yes, there is a lot more at stake in a romantic relationship than in a friendship, because you're looking to find someone to trust with all of your secrets and vulnerabilities. But if you choose to be friends with someone based on the way you interact and the things you have in common, why should the initial groundwork be any different for a boyfriend or girlfriend? And once you're in a relationship, and looking toward marriage--essentially, trying to establish a family of your own--wouldn't it make sense to treat it as though you will be working on it for the rest of your life?

Equally as complicating as our expectations going in to relationships, however, is the issue of sex. I here refer to it as a concept, which includes mackin' or even just cuddling. Once the physical element is involved, it is suddenly harder to approach the relationship from a friendship perspective. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not a "don't hold hands until you're married" kind of a person. But once you've crossed certain lines, they can't be un-crossed, and you've just invested a great deal more than you may have originally planned. I mean, who doesn't like sex, and doesn't want to continue having it after it's started up? Exactly. But barreling down this hill means that the other emotional/intellectual parts of you are still kind of waiting at the tops of their respective hills, and usually you're too busy rolling around in the grass to notice. Until suddenly you DO notice, and then you don't understand why the emotional and intellectual aspects of your relationship are so hard to work out. [4] The fact is, sex (and physical interaction in general) is connected to emotions, no matter which way you look at it. [5] The more you interact physically with someone, the harder it is to stay objective about your relationship. Not to suggest that subjectivity is a bad thing--in fact, it's not at all helpful to be completely objective--but without a certain element of reasonableness, relationships tend to spiral downward into a hot mess of heightened emotion and defense mechanisms.

okay, but what does it look like?

I'm gonna go here, you guys. It has to be done. I feel like a lot of people have heard this explanation so many times that they don't really think about what it means and how it is relevant. Which is too bad, because the Bible straight-up hands us a how-to guide on love:

• Love is patient and kind
• Love does not envy or boast
• Love is not arrogant or rude
• Love does not insist on its own way
• Love is not irritable or resentful
• Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. [6]

Kids, this is what love looks like. It is both far easier to break down than people want it to be, and a hell of a lot more work than people expect. It's not magic, it's not inexplicable sensation. It's being patient with someone when they drive you nuts, and not being petty or irritable. It's being kind and not rude or self-centered. And it's hard, because by nature we lose our patience, we are resentful of someone for something they do (or don't do!). I certainly don't like it when things don't go the way I want them, but there it is.

I should mention that this explanation of love is talking about love for everyone--your mom, your lab partner, your best friend, that obnoxious guy you work with, etc. Jesus instructs us to love one another, [7] so the list is really talking about an entire lifestyle. I know someone who actually gets annoyed that people use this in the context of romantic relationships, because it doesn't indicate anything about romance or marriage. And really, when you think about it, if you don't have a foundational perspective and definition of Love, how can you possibly expect a romantic relationship to survive? [8] In fact, without a foundation, "love" appears only in the form of emotions, which are fluid and temporary and therefore unreliable.

sometimes love just isn't enough

Two things:
a) that depends on how you are defining "love"
and b) enough for what?

Okay, I admit it: I do understand the sentiment behind this statement. But I'm me, and it's far too ambiguous for me to simply agree with it.

Love, as defined in the list above, and as exemplified in the perfect life, death, and resurrection of Christ, is absolutely enough. Enough to be happy, to live your life fully, and to establish healthy and enjoyable relationships with those around you. [9] It's even enough to bring us from this life into eternity: for God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [10] If we live our lives loving one another, and trying to imitate the love of Christ, that true love then becomes the foundation of our relationships and the underlying current that directs our emotions. This is especially true in romantic relationships: if you love someone with a love that is patient, and selfless, and rejoices in the truth (and if they have the same foundation, and are approaching it the same way you are), it's going to be much easier to work through the challenges you face.

But "love" in the mushy romantic sense is not enough of a reason to commit yourself to a relationship, let alone a marriage. Absolutely a true statement. There's a lot more to stable relationships than the way you feel about them, because those feelings may or may not be permanent. Relationships are hard work, and this kind of "love" won't always stick around through the fights and the difficulties. [11] I've been married almost two years now and I can tell you for sure that all the giddy romantic stuff is there much less than it used to be. [12] But I can also tell you that this isn't a bad thing. It's not that "the spark has gone out"--our relationship has simply changed. You grow out of that initial head-over-heels feeling and into a different kind of warm fuzzies. And no, it's not that incredible headrush of the first kiss, but it's a comfort and security that you can't possibly achieve right away.

then how do you know you're in love?

Honestly, I'm not sure how to answer this one. To some extent, I think it's kind of obvious: you'll feel it, you'll breathe it, you'll know it with every ounce of your body. But whether that means you're ~in love~ as in, THE love, the person you're going to marry? I think that has to be a different feeling for everybody. And it probably depends on your views about "The One."

My views, since you asked, are sort of in the middle of "there is One Person out there for you" and "you can theoretically marry and be happy with anyone." Before I met Aaron, most of the married people I asked about this told me "oh, you just know." And of course I didn't really believe them, because that sounded like a load of crap and I was far too practical for that. True love, after all, isn't magic and fleeting emotions. But as it turns out, I did "just know." I knew it so well that to this day I haven't questioned it, and I haven't needed to.

I believe that God is using my choices and circumstances to provide me with everything I need, and to bring me, ultimately, through life and into an eternity in heaven. [13] I believe it strongly enough to write about it, even more than once. So my beliefs regarding marriage and "soul mates" fall, naturally, within this structure: certain choices that I have made have led me toward the person I married, and I believe completely that God brought us together on purpose (which includes, I should add, the idea that God also used Aaron's decisions and circumstances to guide him toward me). But I think that if I had made different decisions somewhere along the line, or even that external forces had led me in another direction, I would have met someone else who was equally as perfect for me as I am for him. So in a way, I believe that I could have married any number of different people and have been just as happy as I am now, but it's no different than thinking about what would have happened if I had gone to a different college or decided on a different career path.

so what is love?

Love is putting someone else before yourself. [14] Love is an active decision you make every moment of your life, and it's not always easy. But love isn't necessarily any different between friends or family or spouses. Our relationships and the ways we express our love are all different, but at the core, the foundation remains the same. And yes, loving people puts you at risk. It's actually a little bit terrifying to think how vulnerable you become when you are willing to truly love someone. But when you're looking for a husband or a wife, and when you both come at it with the same foundation and beliefs, you already have the answer for a lot of the problems that arise on the surface. And when you're both in it together, loving each other as God loves you, then you can't go wrong. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. And the best part is, love never ends. [15]

---
[1] For all of you skeptics out there, don't worry, I have already been informed by multiple people that anything I have to say on the matter is rendered invalid by the existence of my wedding ring, as it indicates that I am no longer capable of sympathy or empathy for the lovelorn. Because clearly that's how it works. </snark>
[2] Of course, I'm speaking in ideals here. Certainly, and unfortunately, I am aware that a lot of hurt and awfulness can occur within--and as a result, separate--families.
[3] Not to make light of abusive relationships, because those are a psychology chapter all to themselves.
[4] I mean, not like I have ever done this before.
[5] Even if that means you shut your emotions off, and pretend that your sexual experience has no bearing on the rest of your perspectives. But that's still a connection, and it's not a healthy one.
[6] 1 Corinthians 13:4-6
[7] John 15:12 -- This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
[8] Yep, you bet that I realize that I am presupposing a foundation of faith in order for any of this to work. I also realize and acknowledge that not everybody shares this foundation. To be honest, though, I don't think there is a better, all-encompassing explanation or approach than that list.
[9] 2 Corinthians 12:9a -- But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."
[10] John 3:16. Go team.
[11] If you're interested, I've even written a post about what I have learned to be important to a healthy relationship. Keep in mind that I do know everything.
[12] Not to say that we aren't sort of mushy and gross sometimes. Because ... we are. lol.
[13] Romans 8:28 -- And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
[14] John 15:13 -- Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
[15] 1 Corinthians 13:7-8a

why i've been going crazy for the last few months

I can't decide if posting this is cheating, since I didn't write it for my blog in particular, but I guess it's no worse than posting a link to someone else's blog? So here it is: my grad school application essay. It feels a teeny bit pretentious to show it off, but I'm kind of proud of it, so...whatever.

Oh, and while I'm being self-conscious, I thought about taking out the school-specific details at the bottom, but then I didn't.

Anyway, enjoy.

---
When I assign the first paper in my future English 101 class, it will be on a current and controversial topic sure to elicit strong opinions from my students. This will encourage them to share their perspectives while giving me a snapshot of their writing abilities. But my favorite part of this assignment will come at the end of the semester, when I ask them to write a second paper on the same topic—except this time, they have to write it from the opposite point of view.

I can’t wait for the uproar when they learn that this is their final.

This assignment epitomizes what I find so glorious about writing. On a practical level, it requires a structured outline, thorough research, and the ability to present information in a logical progression. But this assignment is about more than just composing The Perfectly-Written Essay. It forces students to build an argument from scratch, and to learn how to use language to support an idea—even an idea they disagree with. In committing to the writing instead of only to the position, students learn the value of each and every word used to present a perspective. In using their writing to communicate to the world, students learn the power those words have, and the importance of having reasonable support for their ideas.

There comes a time in our lives when we have to figure out what we love and what we stand for. We have to account for ourselves, but in order to do so, we first have to understand ourselves. In college—right when we need it the most—we learn a beautifully structured method for thinking through an idea and supporting an opinion: expository writing. The classic essay format provides a way to identify the questions we are asking, and gives us the medium with which to answer them. But most of all, the essay calls for order in the form of a thesis. And when students are inspired to create and deliver a personal opinion by means of that thesis, they not only learn to write effectively, but also they also come to a better understanding of their own beliefs.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that college writing assignments are often a wasted effort. Working in the Concordia Writing Center for four years revealed to me that even the most diligent of students do not take their English Composition classes seriously simply because they are boring. The essay is established only as an arbitrary format for future homework assignments, and students walk away uninspired. And what a shame that is, because learning to write is the perfect platform for learning how to think critically. English Composition must not become obsolete, and I intend to be a part of its regeneration.

To do so, my idealism needs to be met with the reality of experience and the structure of a strong education. My attraction to the English department at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee lies in the department’s dedication to writers, evident in its cross-cultural, interdisciplinary studies as well as in the active support and involvement of the writing center. I look forward to the guidance of scholars with such diverse backgrounds and research interests, particularly Alice Gillam and her course “Teaching Writing as Process,” and Dennis Lynch’s experience as Director of Composition. I am also eager for the opportunity to hold a teaching assistantship, which is the ideal method of a hands-on education for my intended career as a professor of English. I hope to use my experience at UWM to reshape the way we write, and consequently, the way we think, one thesis at a time.

Today, the essay. Tomorrow, the world.

the perils of a persuasive thesis

I'm good at selling myself.

Not like that. Shame on you.

As an English major, you practice over and over again picking an idea/conclusion and then finding ways to prove yourself right. That's the whole idea behind writing an essay: come up with a thesis, and use literature and/or various sources to support it. Demonstrate why you are arguing your point, and why other people should agree with you. Essentially, you're selling an idea. The more textual support your paper has, the better that idea sounds, and the more people will buy into it. You learn to see literature through certain lenses and to pick out quotes from other people in order to prove that you're not the only one with said idea.

And let's be realistic here: eventually, because this skill is practiced in terms of homework and grades, you learn to sell the idea long after you have stopped caring about it. I might have lost interest in Hamlet's hubris, but I have three more pages to write by tomorrow morning, so I'm going to keep at it. [1] There's a certain amount of shmoozing that goes on at this point, and you get really good at making broad connections and tying in loosely-relevant quotes. [2] It becomes part of what you do and how you think. I'm the kind of person now who hesitates to share an opinion without also giving at least two good reasons for having it, because I believe in writing strong and convincing theses. [3]

And sometimes I am really pleased about having this mentality. I am of the opinion that more people should have reasonable support for their perspectives, and that society would benefit from a little bit of research now and again. But the problem, I have found, is that I am too good at supporting an idea. So good, in fact, that I buy into my own arguments, simply because they are well-supported.

There's this recurring theme in my life: discovering a new and different job (that pays better, or has a "better" schedule). I pursue that thing by doing what I know, which is pitching myself as perfect for it because of XY&Z previous experiences or skills. [4] Resumes are more or less just a weird-looking works cited page. And while I'm trying to get there, I manage to convince myself that all the selling points about me are why I will love this job, and then one of two things happens:

1. I don't get the job, and I feel all the feelings of rejection, dejection, depression, existentialism, frustration, etc, OR
2. I do get the job, and I charge into it headlong, and at some point a few months down the road I realize that while I am completely capable of doing it, I don't love it like I thought I would. It doesn't change me or edify me in the ways that I had hoped. Plus, so far, these instances have involved work in addition to The Corporation, so while I (sometimes) make a little more money I also have less time to be Piera-y, which ends up making me crazier than ever.

Someone asked me the other day what I would do if time and money were no object. [5] First I panicked because I thought I didn't know. But as I opened my mouth to reply, [6] it occurred to me that I would write. Would I still teach English Comp to freshman? Yes, probably. And I would also read, and watch all manner of movies and TV shows--but most of all I would hole up and write.

And after all of this real-world adult nonsense, I'm asking myself the same question that keeps coming back to me: why aren't I doing this already?

I keep looking for ways to change my situation, and I keep trying to grab hold of options simply because they are there. I keep running away from what is right in front of me, because it's not "good enough." The conditions aren't perfect, and I have to make them perfect before I can go on. My mom calls this "if/then" thinking, and it's not really a productive way to live, because you spend your whole life waiting for something to work the way you think it should in order to do something that you want.

I don't love working for The Corporation. It's made me (more) cynical, if nothing else, and it's humbling to go to work every day and not have ways to express my intellect, my passion for thinking and relationships, my faith. And while it's not a terrible paycheck, it's not a good one, and we have bills to pay.

But for the present, it actually is offering me what I want: The freedom to come home and pursue my own goals. I have a flexible schedule, no homework, no problems to take home. My job even has benefits and vacation hours. So, I ask myself yet again, what's the problem? There's no glory, no intellectual high? Does there have to be? Is it not meaningful in the sense that I have a job at all? Am I in danger of wandering from my career path?

It's not that I can't pursue bigger or better options. But Real Jobs tend to want you for the semi-long term, and if I want to go to grad school, which starts in less than a year, the timing doesn't look so great. And until I know if/where I get accepted, I can't really make any plans. Once applications are submitted, I can stop stressing about grad school and start using my free time to--you guessed it--write more.

So new game plan? Keep on keepin' on. Reassess when I have an answer about school. Stop worrying and start making the most of what I actually have. And most of all, stop looking for answers in the wrong places, [7] starting with not buying in to my own sales pitch about me.

"I know he can get the job, Harry, but can he do the job?" [8]

And more importantly, should I?

--
[1] You also learn, eventually, to sell the idea by skimming the material for quotes instead of actually reading it. Not, of course, that I would ever have done this.
[2] I always wondered if professors just couldn't see through my bullshit, because I would get good grades on these papers. I'm beginning to think, however, that maybe they were grading my ability to bullshit in the first place.
[3] When it comes to serious stuff, anyway. In regular life I don't usually think about the things that come out of my mouth O_o
[4] I'm especially a fan of tying in stage management as great life experience for everything, which is ironic because I've never even done it in an actual professional capacity.
[5] Granted, the person asking was using a marketing tactic herself, but that's neither here nor there.
[6] See [3]
[7] If this were a different blog post, I would go on to explain that the answer is trust in God's design and knowing that I am loved and forgiven. And all of these things are true, but this wasn't the angle I was taking, because all of these things are already assumed and in place. At least,they are in my head.
[8] from Joe Versus the Volcano

is God telling me to ruin MY life?

I'm going to do it again: that thing where I link to another post because someone else said what I have said or have wanted to say. Only (naturally) they said it better, and more concisely. Because let's face it, I don't do concise.

Go ahead, ruin your life. I dare you.

... this post is everything I have been saying, to myself, to my husband, to my sister and brothers, to my friends.

You can't lose. You can't! There aren't "right decisions" in the freedom of the Gospel. We still commit sin, that's not what I mean--but if you think about it, nothing we do is untainted by our sinful human nature. Everything is affected by our self-serving attitudes. But when it comes to life decisions? When it comes to choosing a path, a career, a spouse... we spend so much time worrying about what is Right that we often end up not making decisions at all.

It's like Allison says:  "if I’m living in honest pursuit of Truth, I believe I’ll find it."

I'm ridiculously worked up right now, for two reasons. First, because someone else thinks how I think, and is passionate about the steadfast presence of God. Because my friends have heard me say it enough that they really just need to hear it from someone else too.

But also? Because I feel like she is talking to me. Because right now I'm feeling inspired to Write (oh, to BE a Writer), to find a way to pursue teaching English between now and whenever-I-get-into-grad-school, and to stop barista-ing in order to pursue it.

I mean, let's face it. That's what I want to hear. And there's a fine line between taking a leap of faith for a specific purpose, and doing something irresponsible because I want to. And there's two of us, and I have to consider how my theories and philosophies and passionate ideals will change our life.

But damn. Right now, I'm ready to jump.

teleios and the time vortex: how Doctor Who shaped my faith

Part One: The Time Vortex 

"People don't understand time. It's not what you think it is." --the Doctor

When I fell in love with this man, I didn't expect it to shape so much of the way that I thought about life, and certainly not the way I thought about God or His presence in my life.

When you start traveling with the Doctor, you spend a lot of time being thoroughly confused. You experience it episode by episode, and for a lot of it, you really aren't sure what is going on. Who is this guy, and what is that telephone box thing (and why does it say "police"?) and why is he telling that blonde girl to run!, or saying "I'm so so sorry" to those aliens? [1] And once you kind of get the premise, you then have to wrap your mind around the concept of Time Travel, and how you can be in the past-but-actually-the-present, and watch the world exploding in the very-distant-future but still call your mom in 2005, and the whole thing is more than a little complicated. But slowly, the more you watch and the less you try to understand, the easier it becomes not only to follow the story, but also to comprehend the concepts and theories behind it. Time travel--at least in Doctor Who lore--doesn't confuse me as much as it did, because I sat back, shut up, and let it happen. And surprisingly, my brain eventually caught up with the rest of me. [2]

I am sure you're wondering what any of this has to do with God. So let me put Doctor Who on hold and catch you up to where I am.

Growing up, I was taught that God, who is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing), has a plan for my life. He knows how many hairs I have on my head [3] and what I will be when I grow up (if that ever, you know, happens). Verses like Jeremiah 29:11 [4] are ingrained in my understanding of God: He has a plan for me, and that means He's taking care of me no matter what.

Alongside accepting that God Has A Plan, however, I also had the ingrained knowledge that we were given free will, and the ability to choose between good and evil. The fact that he gave us options [5] proves that we are allowed to think for ourselves. Being Lutheran meant that my salvation was not dependent on my choices [6], but mostly, in the practical sense, it just meant that that I had the freedom to make my own decisions.

But then high school happened, and the topic of free will vs predestination came into play. This was the first time I noticed the disparity between the two concepts: if God has a plan for me, does that mean I don't get a choice in what I do? Am I just following the script and having delusions of decision-making? But if I have free will, then how does it make sense that God has a plan for me? Unless God knows what I am going to decide (because omniscience) and then creates his plan around my decisions... but that would imply that it's not God's plan but rather my own. And most of all: if I do have free will, and God does have a plan, then what happens if I make the free-will decision to do something that's NOT in the plan? Won't that screw me over? Do I just keep muddling through, hoping that all my following decisions are the right ones, until I can get back on track? ...what happens if I don't ever get back on track?

It's all very confusing. And really stressful if you already have a hard time making decisions in the first place.

What college do I go to. What do I major in. Should I break up with my boyfriend. Should I go out with this other guy. What classes do I take next semester, and what classes do I give up in order to take them. The questions are endless, and it was through many lengthy discussions with my friend Kim that I (we) finally arrived at the conclusion/philosophy "you can't lose." It was based primarily on Romans 8:37-39 [7], and the idea that no matter what happens in life--which would logically include the decisions we make--God will still love us. We can't screw up past what He can fix. Obviously we shouldn't be going off and doing whatever we want, because that's dangerous and stupid, but in the end, even if we make mistakes, He's still got our back, and we still win (ie, have eternal salvation), no matter what.

How incredibly comforting. Trusting in this got me through most of college, because I was more than a conqueror, and God was looking out for me. The reassurance of God's unconditional love gave me a certain amount of peace--but it didn't answer my questions about His Plan. Even if my life happens according to God's will (which is good), I am still a puppet, and I don't want that. Even if I have the freedom to make my own decisions (which seems to be the case), I am at risk of screwing something up, and I don't want that either. Even if I am never going to "lose," none of this explains to me how it is possible. [8]

The thing is, predestination and free will have conflicting agendas. When one side says "you live your life according to God's will" and the other says "you have the freedom to make your own choices," there's basically no way for them to be resolved. In the timeline of our lives, there simply isn't room for both to be possible. We simultaneously want and reject both perspectives, but either way, we can't comprehend a way for the two theories to exist side by side. From where I am standing, I can only see the path of where I have been, and not the unknown of the future, and therefore, neither option seems plausible. Or even very desirable.

Enter the Doctor. [9] Specifically into the life of Sally Sparrow, who has no idea what's going on, and is thoroughly confused about how all the bizarre stuff that keeps happening to her is somehow connected. And while Sally is working out the complicated concept of Time Travel, Piera is flipping out because the Doctor just answered all of her questions in about 15 seconds.

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly... timey-wimey... stuff." [10]

We--people, humans, non Time Lords--can only see the "strict progression of cause to effect." But what if, for example, we could step outside of our timeline and look at everything as a whole: the past, the present, and the future? Rose Tyler looked into the time vortex, and saw all of time and space--she took the words "bad wolf" and put them along her own timeline, leading herself to the very moment in which she looked into the time vortex and saw all of time and space. In that moment, she sees "everything. All that is, all that was, all that ever could be." She even knows that "everything must come to dust." [11]

… this … sounds familiar. Like someone else has said it before, maybe, you know, in Genesis? [12] Or Revelation? [13]

The human thought process can't fully comprehend that freedom of will can exist alongside an intelligent, active design--but that's because we're not GOD. Rose looked into the time vortex, and it nearly killed her. But the Doctor sees everything, all the time. He can step into it, and He can see it from the outside. [14] Our freedom to make decisions can exist alongside God's Plan, because we are on the inside, making decisions for the here and now. Those decisions are based on only what we know, which is basically comprised of what we have experienced in the past and what we can attempt to predict of the near future. And because those decisions are still within our own timeline, and we are not in control of it. But we don't have to be, because God is. And God is outside of time.

Take a minute to actually think about that.

God

is outside

of time.

God can have a Plan because He exists outside of our comprehension of how The Plan should work out. We may be trapped within the "time vortex" of cause-to-effect, but he sees the entire journey, start to finish, from outside of it. He also has the power (because omnipotence, plus being its Creator) to add to it, to allow or prevent obstacles, to shape our paths in the direction He wants us to go. We can't change the past and we can't predict the future, so we just hold on to the right now and hope it will all work out.

And the thing is--it will. Because God has a Plan, remember? A Plan for our welfare and not for evil; a Plan for hope and a future. A Plan that comes out of creating us, knowing us, loving us. At some point (and somewhat reluctantly, I might add), I became the obnoxious friend who always tells you that "everything happens for a reason." And at some later point (probably after watching "Blink"), I realized that I completely believe that to be true. Everything, both the good and the bad, has a place in The Big Picture of Things, and somehow, whether we realize it or not, it's all connected. God has created it, and is actively involved in it. He took the time to scatter "bad wolf" here and there in my life, in order to lead me to where I am right now, and in order to direct me toward my future. And I am looking forward to that future, because I am positive that it will be fanTAStic. [15]

---
[1] ...and how does he manage to be so attractive while he does it??
[2] Proof, by the way, that I am actually capable of doing this. Just not so great at doing it naturally.
[3] Luke 12:7 -- Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.
[4] For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.
[5] Genesis 2:15-17 -- The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
[6] Ephesians 2:8-9 -- For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
[7] No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
[8] Does it really matter if I understand it? Okay, no. Not really. But I like having answers, and I don't like going along with a concept if I don't really get it. Hence, this entire post.
[9] And I am here issuing a massive spoiler alert -- although to be honest, if you haven't seen any of Doctor Who I'm not sure how much of this will make sense anyway.
[10] Doctor Who - "Blink" (series 3, episode 10) - btw that's also where the quote at the top is from. It just made for a better intro without the footnote ;)
[11] Doctor Who - "The Parting of the Ways" (series 1, episode 13)
[12] Genesis 3:19c -- ...for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.
[13] Revelation 1:8 -- "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
[14] For the record, I am NOT trying to paint the Doctor as a representation of the one true God. There are parallels in the time vortex aspect, but the entities themselves are absolutely not the same. Just so we're clear.
[15] It's a 9th-Doctor-ism, in case you didn't read it in a Christopher Eccleston voice.

here, have a lame non-post

...because it's really kind of silly to just repost someone else's blog, but seriously, this one, Men and Women are Not Equal, speaks to my soul. plus it's a lot more straightforward than what i probably would have done.

I'm writing a book called "How to Make Enemies" ... let me know if you want an autographed copy

I'm on dangerous ground here. You may know that I like to stay away (far, far away) from today's social issues and politics, because there's too much emotion riding on everything and I have noticed that it is generally hard for people to see reason when they're on a soapbox.

But therein, kids, lies the problem. The pursuit of Justice and Equality is never actually a reasonable one. It's always skewed by someone's agenda, someone's pride, or someone's real or imagined (but mostly imagined) suffering. It's far nobler to fight for a cause than to just look out for ourselves, but when we fight for a generalized cause, we tend to lose sight of ... well, reason. Intelligent, semi-objective, philosophical thought. All of it, out the window, because it's the idea that counts (right?), and not the specifics. [1]

So what got me so riled up that I decided to step out of my cave and make some enemies? Two things that will always provoke in me some ~~feelings: Doctor Who and Feminism.

I've been sitting on this rant since I read this article. Today, I read this one. And I'm already mad at my boss, so it's easy to sort of channel that anger into an I-don't-care-I'm-gonna-say-it-anyway-this-is-my-gorram-blog kind of post. You have been warned. It's not too late to turn back.

[Also, I have issued a Spoiler Alert for the rest of the post.]

Ladies and gentlemen (have you ever noticed that this very common phrase begins with "ladies"? Interesting.), I find this whole "the Doctor should be a woman!" rant to be quite disheartening. Maybe if the arguments were, I don't know, solid, I could get behind them. But when the premise of the argument is made with unsupported claims, they effectively make the people arguing them (and thus, the cause as a whole) look idiotic. (please see [1] again because it applies here too)

Kissell and Helmuth are opposed to having "yet another white British dude" [*] playing the Doctor for, as far as I can tell, two reasons:
a) the Doctor has thus far always played by British white guys, and clearly that's the sexist choice to portray men superior to women, and
b) because the show/Moffat portrays women as "sad and broken." [**]

...wait, what? Sad and broken? Have you even watched the show before, Elizabeth Lopatto?! Let's examine her argument for just a minute: "I'm fine with the next Doctor being a dude, as long as we get more interesting women and a more emotionally competent writer." [**]

I see two glaring problems with this sentence alone. The first is "more interesting women," and the second is "a more emotionally competent writer."

Lady, do you realize that the reason this show is so popular is the overwhelming amount of emotional connection viewers have with the characters and the story? "The Girl in the Fireplace" was the reason many of us fell in love with the Doctor in the first place, because of how much he cared about Reinette and how devastated he was that she died before he came back for her, even though he barely knew her. "Silence in the Library" and "Forest of the Dead," once you understand why, have one of the more tragic plot elements I've ever seen, and the kicker is that you don't even realize how tragic until well into season 6 (I'm not telling you if you don't know). "Amy's Choice" presents the question everyone is asking--Rory or the Doctor?--in a way that makes you sit on the edge of your seat and wonder which Amy will choose, because you sure as hell can't decide for yourself. I don't think the problem is that he isn't "emotionally competent." If it's just that you don't like the way he plays with your emotion, then don't watch the show.

And then--more interesting women? Because Clara, who jumped into the Doctor's entire timeline and rescued him without him even realizing it, and Rose, who absorbed the time vortex to defeat the Daleks, and Martha, who traveled the world to save the Doctor, while being hunted by tiny childlike weapon-aliens, aren't interesting enough? And how could I forget "abuse victim River Song, whose lives are stolen from her by the man she loves, for whom she later goes to jail for a crime she didn't commit; although placeholder/perfume model Amy Pond should get special mention for blandness." Yep, that's right, abuse victim River Song, who is so wounded and broken, except for the part where she stares down a Dalek until it cries for mercy, and how she has the Doctor wrapped around her finger and he doesn't even realize it. Because Amy Pond is a bland placeholder--bland?! really?? you couldn't find any other word? What about Donna, who saved the Doctor and the world and created the Doctor-Donna, and can't even remember it? If that's not "interesting" then I can't help you, Elizabeth. And if you don't like your characters to be "sad and broken" then stick to picture books, because I can think of no great work of literature that doesn't feature someone who isn't sad or broken in some way.

Honestly, it's not the cry for a female Doctor that bothers me. In fact, I think that would be quite the road to go down. From a literary perspective, or a philosophical one, or even from a "hey let's just mix things up!" perspective, it would be very cool if the Doctor was a woman. I'm just honestly so offended at the weak and ridiculous arguments being made for it to happen. It's evident that Laura Helmuth [**] isn't overly familiar with the show, based on the fact that she slips up and says "an actor playing Doctor Who" instead of "an actor playing the Doctor."

Of course, she also refers to Tim Minchin as a "dreamboat." [**] Do you see how her credibility might be plummeting?

Ted B. Kissell [*] actually started to form an argument that might have made sense; one of the most compelling statements I've heard on the subject is his comment on "Moffat's handling of his female leads," which was that "River Song, Amy Pond, Clara Oswald--all of them were mysteries for the Doctor to solve, instead of simply people."

You know what, that's a fair point. [2] This one makes me think a little: does the Doctor just view his companions as mysteries to solve? I can see the argument about those three companions. But then, the Doctor also sort of treats everything as a mystery to solve--and what about Craig in "The Lodger"? He's a "dude" [3], plus, the only reason the Doctor moved in with him was the mystery on the second floor. So if we're arguing that the Doctor doesn't treat people as people, then we have to include...everyone. And that's an entirely different topic than the one at hand.

The other big point Kissell argues is the "structurally sexist" [4] element: "i.e., the power imbalance inherent in the relationship between the male Doctor and his usually female companion." Let us keep in mind that Ted Kissell is upset about the fact that "the insidious cultural marinade known as The Patriarchy has penetrated your brain," so no one let on to him that he's a part of it. [5] Seriously though--the superiority argument is confusing to me. The fact that the Doctor has companions doesn't really seem establish a hierarchy. The term "companion" is an accurate description, and I fail to see how it's insulting. [6] The "inherent" distinction is between Time Lords and humans, but that seems appropriate, doesn't it? Besides, the Doctor needs a companion. He goes a little crazy (and a little miserable) without one. And haven't we just gone over the part where various companions save the Doctor, the world, the universe, reality, etc? These are the kinds of arguments that strike me as really trying to create a problem. Companions are only "inferior" if you choose to perceive them as such, but I don't think that perception is necessarily supported by the actual plotlines, given the textual (episodial?) evidence that the companions are friends, traveling partners, and often heroes.

Then again, why would Moffat make it clear that there could be a woman Doctor if he wasn't going to create one? [7] And what if the Doctor WAS played by a woman? I mean, "having a woman as the smartest, bravest person in the universe, being able to fix any problem, save the world with her wits, a magical vehicle, and boundless courage--who wouldn't want to watch that show?" [*] Sure, I would love to watch that show. It would be awesome. [8] But both Kissell and Helmuth make the observation that Moffat would obviously screw up the female Doctor, since "during the regeneration of Mels into River Song, after all, we were treated to such Moffaty gems as her 'focusing on a dress size,' weighing herself, and going shopping." [*] Because women don't do that? Ever? Wouldn't you, if you weren't a member of the insidious Patriarchy [9] and you transformed into a different body? I think (surprisingly!) Helmuth actually gets closer with her observation that "if Moffat writes us a female Twelve, I imagine she'll be just as sad and broken as the other women he's written." [**] That I actually agree with. And then inevitably, someone would complain that the Doctor was under too much pressure, and she never got the thanks she deserved. Someone else would argue that she was portrayed as too giving, too self-sacrificing, and her goodwill was being abused. Her maternal instinct would be subject to question--why does the fact that she's female mean that she has to take care of everyone? Is that like her role, just because she's a woman? Yet another indignant viewer would be upset that the Doctor's hard decisions made her look like the badguy, and how come she can't be better at saving everyone? Unless the argument is that a female Doctor would find a way to save the world without any casualties. In which case, I don't want to watch that show, because part of the beauty of it is the raw, realistic (well, sorta) element of "you can't win all the battles all the time." The Doctor has to make the hard decisions, and I don't think that should ever change.

I just ... I can't figure out what you want, Feminist Cause. I think it's power for all women, and to ensure that women are not portrayed in pop culture as inferior to men, but it doesn't seem like you're actually evaluating the story, or the characters' relationships, or the philosophy of the Doctor himself. The arguments you are making are sort of trickling through to sound like "I want a woman Doctor because there aren't enough women who do badass things in this show" (false) "and how come it's always weird rando British guys that no one has actually heard of until they were Doctors?" [10] In fact, you're so busy being upset about the fact that the title character is a man, that you're completely missing all the fantastic stuff women in this show are doing. And yeah, the characters are broken. Yeah, people get hurt, and the Doctor is a little bit of an island. But the Doctor doesn't change, not at his core, and we're used to him. It's the women of the show who keep it running, keep it interesting. It sounds like you want someone incapable of being wounded, someone with no sense of fashion, someone who is fearless and flawless and independent and perfect. But I think you would hate her twice as much as you hate that Twelve is a male Doctor.

But then again, I'm on my soapbox. Maybe I'm just not seeing reason.

---
[*] from "The Depressing, Disappointing Maleness of Doctor Who's New Time Lord" (The Atlantic)
[**] from "The Next Doctor Should Be a Woman. You Should Care Even if You Don't Watch Doctor Who" (Slate.com)

[1] This applies to everything, including, mind you, a lot of Christian theology, which will sacrifice actual doctrine in order to support a cause like "evangelism" or "youth ministry." This is an entirely different rant but it was worth noting.
[2] Never mind that basically every woman I know wants to be a mystery ...
[3] Why do both of these authors refer to men as "dudes"? Are they trying to be insensitive to men in order to dole out some justice? Or something?
[4] He took that quote from some other blog, but if you read the article you can find it for yourself. This ain't no research paper, deal with it.
[5] Or that his "favorite doctor, Tennant," is also "another white guy." Just sayin.
[6] Merriam-Webster's first definition is "one that accompanies another: comrade, associate; also: one that keeps company with another."
[7] Maybe because it's an interesting fact for the Doctor Who trivia bank, like the fact that he has children. Or maybe because Moffat is going to change the Doctor into a woman or something, and wouldn't that cause an uproar (and make a lot of people feel really stupid).
[8] Arguably, I watch it every time I sit down to watch Doctor Who. But I think I must be watching a different show than everyone else ...
[9] That's HIS capitalization, by the way, and he didn't capitalize any of the terms he uses to refer to women. Someone explain this to me.
[10] Really, I just wanted to use the word "rando" because it makes me giggle.

get a grip

I am, for the most part, of the opinion that people grow in little spurts, which occur as a result of an external cause (which is usually a "bad" experience, but I find that I learn the most through these in particular). I myself can look back and identify large changes and how they correlate to my chronological life: parents' divorce, starting college, breakup, breakup, etc. To be honest, while I usually dislike the event itself, in periods of stasis I find myself looking forward to these occurrences. That's why I enjoy school so much -- I am constantly finding things to think about, and these thoughts act as little catalysts for development. And I crave this development. Only when I am actively learning, academically or otherwise, do I feel that I am exercising the truest and best parts of my brain and my personality. The thrill of processing new ideas and information carries me through until I get the next hit, and I can sail through life high on inspiration and creativity.

Which is why, ultimately, I was so very upset about not getting into grad school. My reaction probably came across as pretty overdramatic, since it's not unusual not to be accepted the first time you apply places, and it's not like I can't apply again. But for me, it was more than just a delay in reaching my career. Grad school was going to give me another few years of intellectual high, and probably/hopefully give me that one last boost into "adulthood" that I've been waiting for. I couldn't tell you what it is that I'm going to learn or do that will make that happen, but I was (am?) pretty positive that a step or two remains between current Piera and useful-member-of-society-Piera. And grad school felt like my opportunity to reach that change, because it was moving on from barista-ing. I enjoy my job, but once the new-job thrill died down, Starbucks was just ... Starbucks. In some ways I'm jealous of the people who have found their calling in, as we say, "the industry." There's something to be said for contributing in tasty little ways to people's lives, and going home at the end of the day feeling fulfilled. But what I know is that it isn't MY calling, and it'll always make me restless and hungry for something more. Working there has given me plenty of time to observe society, but no way to respond to it. I have learned a lot of useful skills, but now I am just ... re-using those skills, and I don't know where or how to find new ones. I even put off getting promoted because I was positive that I would be moving on, and I didn't want to waste anyone's time by training me.

Anyway, as we all know, God usually has something in mind that is very different from what we expect. This time around, it was not going to grad school in the fall of 2013. And I could not for the life of me figure out WHY--what else was there to learn about this job? How else can I change, besides becoming a shift supervisor (which will only provide a quick intellectual buzz and then fade back into the status quo)? How am I supposed to go to this job every damn day and not worry that this is all I am good for?

Gradually, I figured it out. It took getting a second job, working on two shows (in two capacities), and going basically nonstop with barely enough time to sleep and/or shower for a couple of months before I did, but here I am. Realizing (again.) that some of the stuff my mom used to tell me is actually, in fact, great wisdom.

In high school, and when I was home from college, I would have this problem where I would over-commit. I had friends in different circles, and I hated to tell someone I couldn't do anything because I already had plans with someone else, because it felt like I was picking a favorite. So I would agree to all of it, and drive all over everywhere so I could make it work. [1] And every so often, it would really get to me, and I would be sick of everyone and just want some time for myself--which of course I realized too late, since I was supposed to be going somewhere and I didn't want to let anyone down by backing out. In these moments, my mom would tell me that I needed to stop letting everyone else dictate the course of my life. I, of course, would be furious that she thought I was such a pushover.

Well kids, here I am, nearly 25 years old and realizing how much of a pushover I am. Less so by people, I guess, although I still cave pretty quickly (especially depending on who it is). Mostly, however, it's like Deirdre also used to say: I am so good at adapting to my surroundings that I forget to be myself.

I've spent ...well, at the very least, the last 12 years or so letting life have its way with me. Occasionally I would put my foot down and Make A Change, but pretty much only for the glaringly-big things. In daily life, in the course of weeks and months and (apparently) the last year and a half, I just kind of go along with things, because that's how it goes and I can deal.

But the thing is, I can't deal. I've been going crazy and I have been waiting and waiting for something to change so I will be happy and -- just ... what?

It occurred to me--during tech week, I think, or shortly after--that it's my goram life, and maybe there are things I can't change right now, but there are definitely things that I can. I can't just sit around and wait for conditions to be perfect. [2] If I want things to be different, I need to change them. I got lucky--I got so lucky [3]--that I spent the last several years being literally presented with problems to deal with, and ideas to work on, and people to interact with. I got so comfortable with it that I never really learned how to ... well, self-motivate, I guess, although that phrase seems sort of trite and cliche. I was always jealous of the friends who just Get Shit Done because I never seem to have the time or the inclination to Do those things. And what I realized is ... why not? When people say "you have to make the time" I always respond with "I literally don't have any."

...but Piera. Why not.

Because I spend all of my energy waiting for something to cause me to move. And when nothing does, I find the closest most appealing activity that I can get my hands on, because clearly the magic of discovering a new thing signifies that it will change me. Obviously, this isn't working for me. I have so many things to write, so many books to read. I have let my intellect sort of wither and fade, because nothing external is pushing me to use it. And then I had the audacity to complain that I was losing myself -- because I kept looking for external forces to give me a reason to use them. I was bored, and I forgot to use the one resource I have always had: my own mind. [4]

I will not just be carried downstream anymore; I'm building a raft and I'm learning to steer. This is why I didn't get accepted to grad school: because I can't keep waiting for life to flow in the direction I want it to go. Some parts are necessary and unchangeable--I have a good job, and full-time hours, and I don't love it all the time but it's what I have and that's how it goes right now. But that job doesn't define me. But that job won't define me unless I let it. And I am very done letting it.

So this is my plan. I quit my second job. I turned down a stage managing offer. I claimed the desk in the new apartment and I will assign myself Office Hours, and I will Get Shit Done. Grad school apps, round two. Blogging. Reading. Catching up on my Greek. I even completed day one of my couch-to-5k program this afternoon. [5]

Sometimes, we have no control over life. I believe firmly that we are incapable of controlling it as a whole, because we are broken and human. We are, however, able to control how we react to it, learn from it, change because of it. It's easy for me to look at Big Scary Life Events and say well, we can't control what happens, we just have to learn how to deal. I'm good at that. But what I learned recently is that we also have no control over the fact that sometimes life is mundane. The Big Stuff, I accept as a challenge. I welcome challenge. The little stuff, however, I let take over. And I'm going to... stop letting it. It's going to take more self-discipline than I am used to exercising, because let's face it, the only reason I was so motivated in college was because grades were involved. Real life doesn't have grades. It just has me, being supremely disappointed in myself, which honestly has never been enough of a reason for change. [6] And I have a sneaking suspicion that starting to change this part of my life will create the groundwork for my alleged final level-up into "adulthood" (if not shove me into it altogether, but let's not get too excited).

So this is my plan, because it never gets easier. Hell, it never gets anywhere if you don't start trying.

---
[1] Well technically, I would make my mom drive me everywhere. Which is probably why she started telling me to cut it the hell out.
[2] My last post, but the body is weak, talks a lot about this already, but with less ... I don't know, revelation. That post was a recognition of the situation; this one is ... A Plan Of Sorts.
[3] Except I don't believe in luck, I believe in design, but it sounds sort of poetic here so I'll stick with it
[4] I get bonus points for saying Very Dramatic Things, right?
[5] It was pathetic. Just sayin.
[6] As aside here about stewardship, and how not using my talents for the glory of God is like burying them to "keep them safe," and I'm feeling very passionate in this post so it's coming out from a "I have to be good enough for myself" perspective when there's a whole lot of Jesus and grace and things actually involved. I'm just stating for the record that all of this falls under the category of "Already Assuming XY and Z"

but the body is weak

"oh my god, have you listened to me lately? lately i've been going crazy ... " (some nights (intro) / fun)

It's true. Lately, I've been ... well, overworked, and burnt out, but that's a result of the show I'm doing and won't be the case after next weekend. But aside from that? Lately I've been unhappy, and restless, and even more anxious than usual. Lately I've been ... hurting, and aside from a few specific-but-not-comprehensive reasons, I haven't been able to figure out why. I always try to pinpoint the heart of my problems so that I can "fix" them, and so far, it hasn't helped.

Primarily I blame my job/life situation. It's all I can freaking talk about these days, apparently. I am sick of waking up before the sun. I am sick of feeling anxiety about staying up past 10 pm. I am sick of not stretching my brain or learning things, sick of not getting any closer to grad school or a career, sick of pandering to the entitled narcissism of our society. So I have started The Job Hunt, because clearly the problem is that I need a new job, and once I have one, I will be happy again.

But ... that doesn't fix it. It's not about creating a new scenario in which conditions are perfect [1]. Because how will getting a new job push me to start working out? Or start blogging more? Or start reading all the articles and links people send me, which gives me more thinking and blogging material? Not to mention the books I want to read, or the writing I want to do. New job =/= free time, inspiration, and/or motivation. I've been saying that not using my intellect at work makes it easier not to use it at home, but the truth of the matter is that using my intellect at work will just make me want to not use it at home (and also, probably, give me a 'better' excuse for not doing it).

I was talking to a friend today about timing and about plans. And I basically paraphrased my mom, who always used to tell me that life doesn't work on an "if/then" basis. You can't wait to start something until you do something else, because then your entire life is contingent on you doing that one thing. If you want to do something, you have to make yourself DO it, regardless of the timing. This is stuff I've known forever, and applied in weird places [2]. Apparently it's also stuff I believe in enough to tell other people--but not to take to heart. Because the presence of Starbucks in my life isn't the problem. It might be a problem, but not the underlying one. And neither is not getting into grad school, or feeling out of touch with my friends who don't live around here.

You guys, I have a confession. I haven't been to church in ... a really long time. I didn't even go on Easter Sunday because of a ridiculous scheduling error (I don't want to talk about it) and recently, I can tell. I can almost physically feel how badly I want need to start going on a regular basis. I've known for a while, I even took Sundays off, and I always have the intent to get up in the morning and go. But I haven't, because it's the first day that I don't have to be somewhere. Or because Aaron didn't get home until 6am and I don't want to go without him. Or because (just like in college) I'm just tired, and my instinctive reflex is to shut off my alarm and worry about it later. At least in college I had communion services on Wednesday. The church in town we've managed to go to (twice) only does communion every other Sunday, and guess which Sundays we actually attended. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't the communion Sundays.

And I've known that this is the problem for ... a while. I've been feeling it creep up on me. It's not that I don't think church is important, because I totally do. [3] I guess I've just never been this aware of how much I needed that forgiveness and sanctification in my life [4]. It's never really been this bad before. And it's weird because was never an intentional thing, it's just sort of how it happened. But now this is routine, and I need to break out of it, because I am convinced that re-establishing a norm for myself IS going to fix the problem, especially if that norm is a foundation of faith and hope.

So I'm going to make the effort to go to church more. And to actually bust out the Treasury of Daily Prayer that Keaton and Rebekah got us, and to spend more time focusing on Scripture and less on the daily drama I can't do anything about anyway.

And I'm scared. Because that right there is a lot of law, and I know I'm not going to stick with it. So a huge part of me wants to shrug it off--why bother starting, if you're just going to flake out anyway? But that brings me back to the idea of plans, and timing, and getting stuff done. And I know for a fact that I need to work on reconstructing the way I look at time as a whole. I already know that I can't create for myself a weekly schedule, because my life is never that easy to coordinate. So I just need to take one day at a time, and let it be what it is. Will I be productive at all this coming week? For goodness sake, no. It's tech week. Who am I kidding. What I can do is let it be tech week, and not expect anything to get done, and worry about the future ... in the future. Because conditions will NOT be perfect, ever, and sometimes you just have to make do without the business socks [5].

And at the very least, I'll go to church on Sunday. But pray for me, brothers and sisters. Because the spirit is willing, but ... my bed is just so comfy ...

---
[1] every time I use that phrase, I am actually quoting the Flight of the Conchords song "Business Time" in my head
[2] like breakups, for which there is never a good time, or in my personal philosophy regarding design and "predestination"
[3] please see this link (sent to me by my mom) for the quickest/best explanation for why we should go to church on a regular basis
[4] my use of the term "sanctification" is totally a result of watching a Rev Fisk video - click here for the link and go to approx. 4:50 for the definition if you don't want to watch the entire thing
[5] see [1]. and this video.

marriage - i think we're doing it wrong.

Yesterday we celebrated our one year anniversary. Which is really weird, because I kind of feel like I just got married. But ... I also feel like I've been married for years. Aaron and I joke that now that we've made it a whole year, we're going to have to stop enjoying our relationship, since according to the media and social commentary, this is supposed to be a battle. Men are lazy and selfish and only want sex, and women are underappreciated but the only reason anything gets done. Of course there's also the opposite side, where men are the breadwinners and women are supposed to be subservient and housewifey, but that this makes men into workaholics who don't care about their families, and it makes women into drones and nags. Either way, it's obvious to me that we're doing something wrong, because none of these sound anything like our relationship.

I know it's only been a year, and color me pretentious for already having some commentary on marriage. Trust me when I say I definitely do not believe I know everything about how this works, and that I am counting on many more years of lessons (both the fun and the hard). But what I have learned, aside from the (many) little quirks of Aaron, are (I think) relatively universal insights into how relationships work, and how they can be improved. It should come as no surprise that the underlying key is communication--which, I discovered, is not exactly what I thought it would be.

So, in no particular order, allow me to share some thoughts I've had about my relationship.
Like, for example,

patience.

This is one of those concepts that I always knew was important, but never realized how much. I always used to think that being patient meant being able to wait in a chronological sense, like for your mom when she's talking or to open your Christmas presents. But patience, as it turns out, is also about waiting to lose your temper, waiting to react, waiting to become offended. This is chronological too, technically, but has more to do with self-control. Patience, essentially, is a form of expressing your love for someone by putting them before yourself.

Typically, we Christians like to explain love with 1 Corinthians 13. Love is patient, love is kind, etc [1]... it's just one of those automatic definitions we use. It certainly isn't all-encompassing--it doesn't deal with forgiveness or selflessness or commitment, all of which are universally-accepted (maybe?) aspects of love. If you think about it, this verse doesn't even define love as much as it gives us a list of instructions on how to love. So most commonly we just file all these attributes in the folder marked "love, etc" and let it be. But I think it's very worth noting that the first thing Paul says about love is that it is patient.

Here's the thing, and maybe you knew this: I'm a nerd. so I went and looked up the original Greek text of 1 Cor 13:4. The Bible uses the phrase Ἡ ἀγάπη μακροθυμεῖ, which breaks down like so:
Ἡ ἀγάπη (agape) = the love (noun)
μακροθυμεῖ (makrothumei) = it is patient (verb)

The word makrothumeo (I am patient) is a compound verb, formed from the words makros--meaning "distant/long"--and thumos, which translates most easily into the word "passion," but (depending on prefixes and forms and such) can imply anything from desire to rage to lust. Uncle Robbie calls it "the fire in your belly." The verb makrothumeo literally means "I suffer long." Patience isn't just about waiting for things or biting back the snappy remarks. It's about being willing to suffer, and not just temporarily, but for a long period of time. It takes conscious effort, and (because we only suffer the things we don't like) it's not often rewarded. And, as previously mentioned, that's the very first thing Paul says about love: love is long-suffering.

Hold the phone, I'm not suggesting that it's only love if you are suffering. Because that's not the case either--see the actual Scripture at footnote [1] down below. And it doesn't necessarily mean that the person you love hurts you, because the perfect love from Christ does not cause us to suffer. Existing in the sinful world, however, does involve suffering, and sometimes suffering at the hands of other people because of that perfect love.

The fact is, people are flawed. It doesn't matter how much you care about each other--you're neither of you perfect, and your imperfections are, at some point, going to hurt the other person. It's easy to say that loving someone means treating them well, but we often forget that it also means being understanding when the other person makes a mistake. And being patient is very closely connected to

compromise,

which is what I really meant when I said "communication" up at the top of this post. Like so many of my little discoveries, this too turned out to be not as simple as I thought it was before I was married. When you're growing up, you learn to compromise as a means of conflict resolution. You both give up a little bit and then reach a conclusion that can make both sides happy. Important life skill? Definitely. But compromise isn't just about resolving issues--it's about preventing them. Compromising between spouses is an active, ongoing decision, and it requires the willingness to communicate.

I am of the opinion that everyone has their own language. Not as in English or Spanish, but as in a form of communication, a way of perceiving the world that you use when you express your thoughts. For example, Aaron thinks in clear cut words and ideas, and expresses them concisely and directly. He says exactly what he means, and no more and no less (usually...lol). But I, on the other hand, think in concepts and spiderwebs, with everything connected and under the lens of whatever emotion I am feeling the most at that time. Needless to say, this difference has been more than a little bit of a problem when it comes to working things out. At the root of most of our arguments is the fact that we are speaking to each other in different languages and we don't always remember to bridge the gap.

Compromise, however, is what I mean when you try to understand where the other person is coming from. It means taking the time to meta-communicate (psych term!) about your relationship, to understand why the other person says what they say, or why they get upset with you for just saying what you say. Aaron's directness can really put me off until I remember that he just cuts through the fluff and gets to the point. On the other hand, my emotional thought-train tends to frustrate Aaron, until he remembers that it's all a network of ideas and ~feelings that build up to my actual point. Compromise happens in two ways: both when you try to express your ideas in the other person's language, and when you try interpret what the other person is saying using the rules of their language. And both Aaron and I have had to learn to be patient (vocabulary word!) with each other, to hold back the reactions caused by our personal language in order to understand the language of the other person.

Moving on to other useful tidbits of advice, such as

keep your mouth shut.

Ha, ha.
No, but really.

Last year, at my friend Paul's wedding, they did the couples dance where at certain points you have to sit down if you've only been married for X amount of years. The last couple dancing had been married for ... 60? years or something, and the DJ asked them what their secret was. The man, who was totally beaming at his wife the entire time, just said, "keep your mouth shut."

Of course everyone cracked up about this. Because isn't that what society jokes about when it comes to husbands--just shut up and let your wife have her way? Personally, I got a little riled. But the more I thought about it, the more it began to make sense. It's not about not speaking your mind, or about one person having a "better" opinion. It's about being aware, and about picking your battles (even if it doesn't seem like a battle at the time).

Before I was married, I was convinced that the key was sharing everything, the good and the bad, the every-moment thoughts, the things about my husband that bothered me. Because this was "good" communication; it meant that we were open and honest with each other. But what I have discovered is that all things, including sharing, need a little bit of moderation. I definitely advocate being honest and open, and I believe that keeping secrets is the first step to closing yourself off to someone. But I also think that people tend to swing too far to the other side, and share everything, all the time, without regard for the situation or what is going on with the other person (and by "people" I mean "piera"). The trick is timing. If it's a problem that needs to be addressed, usually it's better to wait until you've both wound down from your day, and that neither of you are distracted or already upset about something else. More importantly, if you're in the middle of a fight, it's never helpful to make all the snappy comebacks that you want to, because all it does is make the problem worse. Keeping your mouth shut is a hard trick to learn (and I definitely haven't mastered it). Learning when and how to share is also difficult, but creates less conflict in the long run.

take each other seriously

This kind of seems obvious to me, because if you respect and love someone, it would follow that you respect their opinions and perspectives. I have learned, however, that that is not necessarily the case. I know for a fact that there are some things that bother Aaron that don't bother me, and vice versa. And more than a few arguments have occurred as a result of one of us going "well that's a dumb thing to be upset about." Because the fact of the matter is, it's important to one of us, for whatever reason, and even if it's objectively mundane and petty, it's still something that we are affected by. Certainly we could both learn to let it go, and to be less bothered by it, but that is an ongoing life improvement issue and can't be fixed in one instance. Even if the circumstance calls for a "honey, I think you're overreacting" (which it probably does), it's important to remember that the other person's opinion is still valid simply because it is his/her opinion.

...but not TOO seriously,

because sometimes you both just have to let it go. Especially about each other. It's so easy to pick out little things and let them get to you, but these little things are a part of that person as a whole, and they are unlikely to change. This is related to the concept of patience above, but I am applying it here in a broader, less-important sense. You could spend your whole life fighting about stuff, or you could just shrug most of it off and accept that this is the way it is for that person. Of course--this doesn't necessarily apply to actual sinful behavior, nor does it mean that you shouldn't talk about problems you have. But some things aren't going to change, and there's no point in letting them make you miserable for your whole life.

pride!

(huh! what is it good for! absolutely nothing)

Obviously, being overly proud is a bad thing. I bring it up, however, because I never realized until I was married just how much of it I have. It comes out mostly in arguments, at the moment that I realize I'm fighting a losing battle. This is when I stop making reasonable arguments and start saying whatever I feel like saying, because I don't want to be wrong, goram it.

But although this is where I can see it flaring up, I think I recognize it most in the moments when I fight against it. It seems that human nature values its dignity and pride above most other things, and making the choice to not put it first is ... well, scary. Without my pride as a defense I am suddenly a lot more vulnerable than I want to be, which means I have to remember to trust Aaron even though we're both mad at each other. It takes actual effort to decide which route to take, and that moment of decision has a tendency to add a little perspective to the situation. Which is also a bonus.

putting each other first

is at the heart of all of this, and I feel like it sort of goes without saying, but ... then again, maybe it doesn't. It's one thing to die for someone, but it's another thing entirely to live for them. [2] If you love someone, you put them before yourself--not in a worshippy sort of way, but in the sense that you look out for their best interests. This means that you exercise patience in arguments, in order to find out what the other person is trying to say. It means you think about how your comments and actions will affect them. It means trusting each other, and allowing yourself to become vulnerable to someone--because if you're both taking care of the other person, you don't need to take care of yourself. What it means, and what a lot of people don't want to believe, is that you allow yourself to be changed in order to better care for the other person. This doesn't mean that you should bend over backwards to be whatever they want, because that isn't "caring" for them in the overall sense (plus, it's destructive for both of you). In fact, it's good to stand your ground, and let the other person learn from you. I need to work on thinking in concise, clear-cut terms, and my relationship with Aaron has helped me with that a great deal. And sometimes it's good for Aaron to let go of the little things that I let go, and I think he is learning from that as well. But at the heart of it all, if you're going to commit to spending the rest of your lives together, you have to give up part of yourself for that person. You have to be willing to change, or you will spend the rest of your life in a standoff, and nothing will ever be accomplished. Plus you'll both be miserable.

Sometimes it's hard. Sometimes I want things to go MY way, and sometimes I just want Aaron to meet me where I am. But all of the time, everything works out for the best if we both try to meet each other on the other person's level. Nothing in my life has ever been this much work, or--sometimes--this hard. But nothing has ever been this awesome, either. Because when we stop trying to fight each other, and remember that all we want is for the other person to be happy, everyone wins.

---
[1] 1Cor 13:4-8a, 13 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. ... So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
[2] This is a loose quote from ... someone. Aaron maybe? please let me know which of you lovely people said this, because it's golden and I can't take credit for it.
[3] I am really painfully aware of how much colloquial mismatched person is happening in this post ... all the "their" when I just mean "he/she" and don't want to do the work. But you know what, it's my on goram blog and I'll misuse grammatical rules however I want to, and you just need to meet me on my level. Ha.

rainsong

I found this gem posted in my facebook "notes" of all places (does anyone even use those anymore?!). I'm posting it because...well, because why not, but also because this is the only poem I have ever written that I don't loathe. Oh, and also because I want summer.


raw beauty

painted across the weeping sky

sunset: red and gold and orange
pretty standard.

but tonight—
tonight the rain sang her quiet selfless song
as the sky yawned pale yellow and distant dreams behind the trees and telephone lines
until the glowing cavern of fire and light splashed through the clouds
the air ablaze with radiance

and the sky poured out her soul on my feet and my face and my heart.

the breeze is in my hair
and every breath is summer showers
and every footprint fades
and even the perfect unreachable unnameable sky
cries herself back to the comfort of evening blues and greys
back to where she belongs
back to how she is remembered

but even though this night is now no different than any other

the quiet rainsong lingers

her melody remembered in the grass under my feet
and the breeze brushing my face in a gentle passing caress

and my heart is still beating—
still glowing with an unfading image

a brilliant raw passion
an unfathomable tenderness
filling all the spaces of my heart
all laughter and sorrow and hope

and painted fiercely across the weeping sky

lately.

This isn't quite as cool as my idea of a Tim-Burtony-pop-up-storybook-werewolf video, but since it's actually by the band, I guess it's okay.

Anyway, I'm hoping to return from my accidental hiatus sooner vs later.

---

Edit: I guess you can't really have a hiatus, accidental or otherwise, if you don't really post on a regular basis. I guess what I mean is that I actually have some things I want to blog about and I keep putting those things off.

pretty awesome.

here's another commentary-less link for y'all! Just some ideas to think on.

crazy concept of the day ...

It's not even that I'm too lazy to add anything to this article ... it's just that it says everything that needs to be said. Except for the fact that you could swap the genders and replace the term "husband" with the word "wife," and the article would still be entirely true.

Thanks to Keaton for posting it on the Book of Faces.

wanting, wishing, and peaches

This filibuster of a post is something of a response/continued discussion of (or at the very least, inspired by) the article/presentation "Grammar, Identity, and the Dark Side of the Subjunctive" by Phuc Tran at a TEDx conference. Thanks to Jasmine for sharing it with me on The Facebook (...a long time ago. whoops).

wanting

I love that this guy's dad just straight up told him, "don’t study something you don’t like. What do you like? Study that." Because ... yes. Just freakin yes. Life is too short to get caught up in "but what if" or "should I." We have purpose here, and we crave meaning and fulfillment for our lives. Too often we do things (or don't do things) because we feel that we must, or that we are stuck in the a holding pattern and it's too risky to break out of it. And in doing this, we aren't living meaningful lives. We're just accepting the circumstances we fell into, and giving in to the pressures that got us there, and (essentially) we aren't living the life that we were meant to live. [1]

The key is figuring out what it is you want and pursuing that thing. There's no equation to calculate which decisions will add up to a perfect life, plus, you have zero control over the future. Over your actions and your reactions, yes. But there is no way to know what the future will bring, or who you will meet, or what you might have to go through. There is an infinite amount of possibilities in the unknown, and if you spend all of your time trying to only make the "right" choices (or not making any choices, for fear of the wrong ones), you never really get anywhere, or pursue your own goals. Decision-making, for all its stress and drama (and believe me, I would know), really IS as simple as "what do you want?" Because if you aren't pursuing your goals or your dreams, what are you living for?

Don't get me wrong. It isn't wrong to have a somewhat subjunctive view of the world. It's always wise to consider the possibilities, to weigh the options, to be forward-thinking and responsible. And you can't just live your life by making rash, spur-of-the-moment decisions because you feel like you want something at that moment. Because most of the time I want to sit on my butt and watch tv and eat ice cream. And I never, ever, want to get out of bed to go to work in the morning. But that's not the kind of want I mean. I'm talking about the goals you have at your core, the things that come from your faith and your dreams and your imagination. I want to live in a heated apartment, eat decent food, and drive a safe car. I have neither an inheritance nor a rich husband, therefore, the logical conclusion is that I go to work to help pay for that stuff. I want to go to grad school and become a professor, so I took the damn GRE even thought I hated every second of it. We make sacrifices and compromises in order to meet an end goal, an ultimate desire.

Of course, if the focus is only on getting what we want, then we become self-involved and obnoxious. Enter stage left SIN, and the danger of choosing to live in a way that makes us ~~happy. This entire argument does not exist without the caveat of "sin does tend to make us 'happy' but that doesn't make it okay, or good for us." And when we're dealing with such a precarious concept as "wants," it's extra easy to let our sinful nature rule our actions. For example--I want to not lose face or dignity when I fight with Aaron. Regardless of what the fight is about, I want to be Right, and I want to Win. And if I give in to that desire, and fight for my pride (rather than try to actually resolve a disagreement), then I am, in fact, being self-involved and obnoxious. The argument is also twice as long and three times as awful. If, however, at the core of my desires, I want to maintain a loving, understanding relationship with Aaron, I have to forego my pride and maybe (gasp!) admit defeat. It's the difference between momentary, physical pleasure, and long-term overall happiness. "Usually, the right thing to desire is what makes you the happiest in the long run." [2]

wishing

Of course (if you're me) you then have crises about what is going to make you happiest, and whether you're wanting the Right Things, or if pursuing your desires is making you selfish because you aren't aware of the people around you. And here's where the "subjunctive" (as Phuc Tran would use it) gets in the way. We have a tendency to look back and think "man, if only I had ____" or "I wish I could be more like ____." This thinking is, in short, both pointless and harmful. The fact is that you didn't do that one thing, and you are not like said person. It accomplishes nothing to spend your whole life looking over your shoulder and wishing things had gone differently. I will be the first to admit that I struggle every day with doing this. I worry all the time about whether I screwed up and what people are thinking about me. For the most part I am pursuing my goals (with, at present, an agonizingly lengthy waiting period), and living the way that I feel I am called to be living. As mentioned in footnote [1], I also believe this is exactly where I am supposed to be right now. But that doesn't stop me from feeling guilty that I could not do more, or from being afraid that I have made or will make the wrong decisions.

Lately I have been having a lot of self-conscious anxiety, primarily because I have a tendency to stick my nose into other people's (relationship-related) business. With good intent, mind you, and because I love and worry about my friends, but still in a proactive, confrontational kind of way. [3] And because I care deeply about my friends and their wellbeing, I have a tendency to get vocal about the things that concern me. I have definitely learned that all relationships are different, and that they must be carried out in their own way, and I have also learned that all people need to learn in their own way, and that means usually you have to let them figure it out for themselves. But I have also heard too many times "why didn't anybody say anything," and there have been a couple of times that I could have said something and chose not to, and therefore I am determined to... well, say something. The only problem is that this kind of thing only occurs at those times when the friend in question doesn't really want to hear it, and then I begin to second-guess myself, because who am I to make any sort of comment on another person's choices.

When I expressed some of this self-conscious angst to Caitlin, she responded with resounding encouragement. She commented that we get extremely focused on not messing up, which, in her opinion, is backwards. "We should be focused on proactively doing the right thing," she told me, and it's better to go overboard with good intent than to not say what you felt. She added that because I am "the only one who feels [my] particular feelings," it is up to me to be the one to share them. "There's only one of you, and you were made that way on purpose. Just be it to the full. Care about people exactly the way you care about them, not in a more 'acceptable' way." [4]

This conversation effectively ties together both the indicative wanting and subjunctive wishing. I want to be there for my friends, because I want them to be happy in the overall sense. This means that I choose to do something that I don't really enjoy (such as telling them what they don't want to hear, and probably upsetting them, and possibly even ruining our friendship), in order to accomplish an ultimate goal. Because even if I'm wrong, saying what I said gives them cause to prove me wrong, which then in turn helps to solidify their feelings and opinions. So there is no point in wishing that I had done it differently, because it's already done, and now all I can do is trust that God will use their choices and my actions to help them find meaning and fulfillment in their lives. (see [1] in regards to "meant to be")

another catchy header

Believe it or not, this post was originally in relation to Phuc Tran's article/presentation. And I have one more speculation to make in regards to his discussion of grammar and identity; naturally it is in regards to his use of Star Wars to emphasize his point.

In the Star Wars saga, the Sith Lords speak in opaque subjunctives. Darth Vader says to Luke, "If you only knew the power of the Dark Side." Vader obviously knows how enticing the use of a present contrafactual optative sounded. And Yoda? He speaks with the bare bludgeon of the imperative and indicative. "Do or do not. There is no try." Yoda knows how hard and uncompromising the indicative is. It takes courage to embrace the indicative--it takes real courage. And even though what Yoda says is true, Luke doesn't stay with Yoda in the swamp because he has his own path to weave in between Yoda's indicative truth and Vader's seductive subjunctive. [5]

I'm going to top that nerdiness and add some good old Lutheran theology to the mix, just to see what happens. Obviously, the Sith are the badguys (or, you know, sin); the subjunctive is about guilt and shame and making up for the past or the missed opportunities. The indicative, as portrayed by Yoda, represents the Right Way To Do Things (in other words, the Law, which is of course good, but also impossible). And Luke, human dude that he is, can't stay in the Swamp of Righteousness because, requote, "he has his own path to weave."

And so do we, thanks to our sinful human natures. We are commanded to follow the indicative path of what is right, and yet we are completely unable to do so. We are tempted by the subjunctive of guilt and possibilities, and this causes us to pursue our physical desires, while feeling ashamed of the things we know we've done wrong or that we think we could have done differently. So while we try to live like the Jedi, we will never be as awesome as Yoda, and this failure makes the Dark Side seem more and more inviting, and the truth seem more and more unattainable.

But we have what Star Wars does not: we have grace. Our path is woven out of the fact that we are redeemed, and our salvation comes from outside of ourselves, outside of the confusion of our desires and the regretfulness of wishing. [6] This grace gives us the freedom to live the way we were made, and to pursue our desires: "there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live." [7] We will spend the rest of our lives wishing we had acted differently, or that we ourselves are different, because as long as we are on this earth we will be plagued by our sinful nature. But even when we do look over our shoulders and wish it could have been different, we have the reassurance that "for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." [8]

"And this way of seeing the world? It has real force." [9]

the asides

[1] I will digress to comment (briefly, I hope) on the idea of "meant to be." Because I don't like to use this phrase lightly, and it could theoretically be argued that whatever situation we are in is the one that we are meant to be in. And by "theoretically" I mean that I can and do argue that point. I believe that simultaneously we are where we are meant to be, but also that we need to actively pursue the things that we are meant to do. Those things might change depending on the choices we have made, but then again we are designed in such a way that we are best suited for certain roles, which, if we are pursuing those roles, will place us in situations that allow us to use our talents and personalities to their highest potential. But even if we are not reaching our full potential, we are still exactly where we are meant to be, and in being there we are acquiring the necessary experience in order for us to carry on that pursuit. So it's all "meant to be" but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be ... trying to be what we are meant to be.
It's all sort of wibbly-wobbly.
[2] This is a quote from my favorite older brother, Keaton. Who may or may not remember saying it.
[3] I will abstain from a digression into my feelings and/or passionate opinions about relationships, but rest assured I have a lot of them.
[4] Dear Aussie, please excuse my paraphrase; it was for the good of the narrative. I hope I have done you justice and feel free to send me hate letters if I have not. Just do it in free verse poetry, please.
[5] Yeah yeah, I know I'm an English major and everything, but guess what, I am still too lazy to look up how to correctly cite a quote that some guy said and someone else wrote down so you could read instead of watching the video. I didn't make up that stuff in the quote block or that following phrase in quote marks (which look like this: " "), and you can hear/read it in the original text if you click the link at the top of this post. That Vietnamese guy is the one who thought it in those words first. I'm just using his argument to support my own. Happy? Good. That's all you're getting from me.
[6] "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
[7] Ecclesiastes 3:12
[8] Romans 8:28
[9] Another direct quote from Mr Tran. See [5]. Please note that I intentionally used his quote to mean something else entirely, and that's probably wrong and stuff. All credit and respect to Mr Tran and his article and original intent. And stuff.
[10] I didn't know what to entitle this post, and I was all out of clever and witty things to say, and Minte told me to call it peaches. So I did.