blumdude's Xanga

eloquently put

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:25:22 GMT

The way I feel about you is the way I feel about faith. Faith never lets me down. Faith gives me hope. Faith allows me to love. I want faith. I believe I need it. I've shunned faith. I've looked faith cynically. I know how faith works. I know how to go through the motions of faith. I want faith. I have yet to feel faith stir my inner most being, though. Faith doesn't feel right. And so, neither do you. Neither have you.

I don't mind...

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:19:44 GMT

Random thought of the day....

I don't mind not having a large amount of money, because I think being a man among boys is better.

Semantics and Syntax: Why California's Proposition 8 Failed

Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:04:40 GMT

If there is one thing I know about laws, all laws, is that their meaning can be interpreted (differently) based on the context and syntax used to create them. If there wasn't any room for interpretation of the law, then there wouldn't be a Supreme Court to decide what laws mean. If we accept this, than we can say that there is still hope for homosexuality in California (and everywhere else, for that matter). The solution is to tweak the words and propose a different law while changing existing laws to fit the situation at hand. But first, let's explore the current state of our society.

We have a situation where a massive amount of people are increasingly secular, relativist, and privatist. California, not surprisingly, is on the forefront of these philosophies, even if its citizens are discouraged by the results of Proposition 8. There is a general feeling of "do whatever you want to do, just don't tread on me to do it", not only in California, but in many states, particularly in the more urban areas. After all, this sort of freedom and respect is what our country was built on. We can do whatever we want, until we infringe on the rights of others, and we keep it to ourselves. Bedroom behavior? Who cares, just don't tell me about it. Type of car? No worries, do what you want to do as long as you don't mess with my right to be less (or more) environmentally conscious. So how come this doesn't translate to gay marriage? Well, it did, for a few months anyway. To understand one of the primary root causes, we must look at the words we have chosen to use and the demographic of the people we are addressing to decide on those words.

First, let's look at the words, or, for my purpose, one word, namely, marriage. We can go into the etymology of the word, the definition, and all the various roots, but I am going to focus more on the history of the act of two people coming together, in a union. The union of a man and woman in civilized human history, going back to Egyptians and Mesopotamians, though little is known about the exact language used to describe the events taking place, was seen as a contract, a promise, in words or writing, that provided the patriarchal societies with a means of legal inheritance and succession. The ancient Chinese view was similar. The act of marriage, as we call it today, was used to create a boy to pass on the surname and the family line. It is even more clear in Greek and roman societies that when a woman moved into a man's home, it was to bear him children. Sometimes this was done with a written contract, conventio manum in Latin, a handwritten contract. Sometimes it was just understood. This union was validated at the bearing of the first child. This act was still purely for offspring and inheritance/legal issues to be resolved. If we look at the Old Testament as a historical documentation of the Jewish culture and religion, before the Ten Commandments and the books of laws, marriage was also an act of inheritance and law. Bear sons to pass the name and fortune and goodwill of the name. Greek society was particularly ruthless when it came to the role of women. They would be usurped into the clan they were married into. They usually would never have contact with their old family, and if it there was, it was with good purpose.

Along the course of history, though, the act of a man taking a woman became more than a legal contract, but rather a mandate of the god of various religions. Pagans long worshiped gods of fertility, but they werent really into the sanctity and holiness of marriage. They just wanted kids, like everyone else, to settle legal claims to property and to pass on a family name. However, in Judaism, the Ten commandments, the books of law (what are they... deuteronomy, leviticus...one other?) and in various Old Testament scriptures, marriage is seen as holy. God wanted people to be married and never unmarried once so. Marriage was no longer this legal contract, but a spiritual contract to bring forth worship and honor to God together, between a man and a woman, and to bear children who would also be raised to worship and praise God. The New Testament extends this view further with more verses (I am not a Bible Scholar, and I cannot find all the instances I have seen...do your own research!). So, with Judeo-Christian religion we have perhaps not the first instance of the sanctity of marriage, but the first doctrine with historical, lasting significance. The union still had legal significance, but it was done on account of God's will and in God's eyes. This doctrine stuck and remains today what the Christian-influenced societies refer to as marriage. People sign a legal contract, a license, legally married in the eyes of government, but it is the church, the temple, the altar, the religious presider, and other factors that deem it a marriage in God's eyes.

So we see that today's concept of marriage is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian values. What has also evolved since the Roman empire, at least in the United States, is the special benefits that come with being seen as in union, legally and contractually, with someone. Besides the standard inheritance clauses, there are also tax breaks, medical considerations, and financial capabilities that married persons receive that non-married 'partners' do not receive. So what does all of this mean? Well, if you prevent certain people from getting married, you prevent them from sharing the rights that other people have. If you look at the US history of laws that restrict rights that are still in effect, they do mostly with proper age, proper testing, state of mind, and criminal status. If you are too young, mentally disabled, legally insane, or a felon you have far fewer rights than the majority of people who do not fit any of these groups. However, when we look to Proposition 8, defining marriage, and the rights that go with it, the homosexual community members that are not too young, mentally disabled, insane, or felons are having rights stripped from them that should be theres under the law of man. The law of God is a completely different story. The law of God is fairly explicit on what marriage is and it does not include homosexuality. So here we have conflicting governing bodies. We have the secular law and the spiritual law. It is no mystery as to why they are at odds.

The problem exists in the terminology. We have a phrase describing existing homosexual legal partnerships, and that is called a 'civil union'. One issue with civil unions is that they do not afford exactly the same rights as marriages, even if that marriage is performed by a judge in a court instead of a priest in a church. I think this is coined 'marriage apartheid'. Civil unions and marriages are separate but equal, or something like that. This makes no sense to me. The lawmakers and proponents and opponents of one side and the other... they are missing the point with their laws. The laws are set about to define civil unions and marriages within the context of gender and sex. The laws should be defined in the context of faith and religion, or more correctly, renamed. Bring up all the statutes and ordinances and amendments and legalese about what a married couple is in a word processor. Find marriage. Replace All with civil union. Problem solved. Make it the act of government to bestow upon any one person and another the right to be united and seen as one entity legally, able to receive tax benefits, medical benefits, inheritance benefits, and adoption rights. Let it also be the government's responsibility to dissolve the union if both parties agree to desolve it. It is a legal contract. That is what a legal union is to our government. Marriage is for the spiritual union of one person and another in the eyes of God and the faith's congregation. When you enter into a civil union and spiritual union, that is not only marriage of man and woman, but human and God. Neither act affords special benefits in our government, only one act keeps the sanctity of married life alive. If you do not unite with someone in the context of God, you are therefore not defiling that God which you do not believe in. It is up to the faithful to keep the faith.

I am not harping on religious, or homosexuals here. But homosexuals should not be married. That violates the rights of the religious who regard marriage as holy. At the same time, homosexuals should be allowed to enter into a legal contract of civil union. It would violate their rights not to allow them this legal action. The laws shoudl be changed to strike marriage and replace it with civil union. A person's gender, as a matter of secular law and equal rights, should not determine their right to unity with another person under the law. A person's gender, as a matter of theology and faith, could indeed determine their right to unity with another person under God's law. I am not a privatist in full, because I think people should declare their faith as they see fit. However, that faith is a fiercely personal revelation and state of being for an individual.

There is much more to discuss. Does this apply to other faiths, other faith rituals, where does the human law begin and detrimental faith law end....I cannot answer those questions. My non-religious, but complete leap-of-faith statement is that homosexual union does not promote degradation of society, or culture. If anything, it brings the homosexuality out of their community and into the mainstream, only being different from people not by the rights afforded to them, but by the personal choices they make with their sexuality. After all, we have a right to choose our president and not disenfranchise those who voted for the loser. Why can't everyone have the right to choose to unite with someone and not be disenfranchised because they chose the road less traveled? I think there is still hope. The amendment doesnt say anything about civil unions or the rights of civil unions. There is hope, but it may not be the fulfillment of the dreams that homosexuals currently have.

Double Yew

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:54:13 GMT

Last night I got invited by Julie to see a sneak preview of the movie "W." by Oliver Stone. I have to admit, I did not know what to expect. Some were saying satire, some were saying biographical, some were saying a fictionalization of his life, some said comedy, some said drama, some said a slightly better than mediocre attempt at a psychological case study of the human man...

Well I would say it was part everything mentioned above. I wouldn;t say it is a 'good' film. But it was enjoyable. I think it was an honest portrayal of Bushie's life, of course with all those unknown conversations going how we imagine them in our heads, with some accuracy, but not complete accuracy. Oil, lies, insecurity, security, withheld information, mistrust, retribution, should haves, would haves, etc etc. In some respect you almost want to pity Geo. Laced with actual quotes from Bush and recreated speeches, the movie actually has a shade of honesty that, if it was meant as satire failed miserably, and if it was meant as honest drama, also failed miserably. Something in between a dry satire and a biographical dramatic psychological exploration of man... who knows! But I did enjoy it.

My friend Julie cried a bit. I understand why, and her reason was valid. There is no idea what conversations and ideas were actually discussed, but the movie definitely assumes it is a sort of selling job that Bush has to do to get the common citizen to believe that the war in Iraq is just, even if it is preemptive. While I see the marketing job as wholly undesirable, I think if the general population wasn't so easily swayed, perhaps remained a bit more skeptical of the authority, that it wouldn't be so easy to market to them....us. Just look at grocery stores, or other corporations... advertise advertise advertise....and people will buy your product. Make claims that are hard to believe but hard not to believe...make it sound awesome...give it pomp and circumstance!! People eat it up. And we have always done so. And we will continue to do so. Unless we learn to look at the facts, and do our own personal investigation. Even if that investigation lands us in the majority, or a commonly defined group of similarly minded people...at least we did the right thing and made an informed decision!

That is all.

ease of use

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:46:38 GMT

I bet that if someone went on www.okcupid.com right now, created a profile with enough pictures and information, s/he could have at least one sex partner by the end of the night and not even have to lie. Just haveto be like, you;re cute, funny, lets go on a date and get jiggy. I probably should stay away, because the temptation of that, though unlikely that I would give in, is really horribly scary.

Storied Franchise

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 06:50:03 GMT

The last month has been a whirlwind of wonderment...

I am re-evaluating constantly everything in my life because, though I despise micromanagement, I know my working self isn't always focused on the small details. I focus on the big picture,the big plans, the big kahuna of ideas, and then I move on and make more big plans big ideas. I wish someone else would carry them out, someone more apt than I.
I have started taking classes. I am not sure what they will lead to.
I bought a guitar, and I strum almost every night. I was told to do scales and learn dexterity. Easier said than done.
I have created new friendships that confuse the hell out of me and my friends. I just don't GET the current dating scene. Carrie, she's fun and sarcastic and intelligent. Jenna, she's charming and caring. Sarah Q. is a doll and very logical. Christine, smart, sexy and testy. Megan L., smart, compassionate, talkative. All women. All good people. But I am just not into them like that. They know it, too. Not to say they like me in any special way, but it's hard to know these things about myself and balance them and get involved with anyone: that I crave and desire physical affection, that i want a woman not only to love, but to share life with and make my own life less hectic and pressuring, that i am in no way psychologically ready to proceed with attaining what i want, and that i need to focus on what I neeeeed and not what I want. I know a wife will not make me happy. I know physical affection will not satisfy me. I also know that I am loved by a few people. A few people who would be forever moved if I were to die this instant. That love is sometimes I think the only human affection I ever need to feel.
I need to meet guys, dangit. I joined two community groups through church. I have classes and obligations that keep me from going to one or the other every few weeks, so I dont want to miss a discussion. The all mens community group seems to be leaps and bounds above the mixed gender, mixed marital status group. For guys, we all seem to talk alot. The other group seems to have less insight, less well-formed 'big pictures' of their faith or other people's viewpoints. Maybe it's a more narrow group. Being the only non-Christian in both groups doesn't make me feel weird or bad. I am searching. I am studying. I am waiting to feel something in order to know my faith instead of just think it.
I have been losing my stamina at work. It's not very fun, but I do my job well. It just gets exasperating.
My newfound empathy is overwhelming. Somehow I turned from a self-interested "aww thats sad but life goes on" type of person into a more selfless, "i am attempting to understand and feel your pain, to help you and be what you need me to be for you" type of guy. I have done this nearly unconsciously, though I cannot deny the desire is there to be this newer expression of my self.
I registered to vote. I doubt I will actually vote. But I couldn't find a reasonable argument against the act of registering. After all, I do take interest in politics, even if I do not agree in totality with either majority candidate. I should give myself the option in case I ever see a reason to vote on something.
I have tonsillitis. Tuesday was a hospital day, bleeding from sores in my mouth. Not abcesses. That having been found out after xrays and CT scans. Thank God. Tonsillectomy would have been horrible.
Ashley and Brian are married. I am so happy for them. I love them together. I love them. Spent a Sunday together opening gifts and talking and crying and playing Rock Band. Great times.

I think as a person I need to keep up the good work, and keep doing what I do, and keep analyzing every move I make. This is a chess match...or maybe I am a baseball team, and I need to manage it. There will be some down years, and some up years, and when it comes time to be forced out of the league, to quit the game, I'll leave behind quite the storied franchise.

Daydream Catcher

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:46:32 GMT

You ever stop to think about...what you just thought? Do you then realize how amazingly hard it is to go back to thinking about that which you just thought without knowing you are thinking about it? Right. See? Well as I was sitting at dinner tonight, solo, I decided to let my brain go. I decided to let my stream of consciousness, my daydreams, take over. However, I wrote down everything I could remember. It was about an hour's worth of thoughts and happenings. The only context is that it is a Mexican restaurant.

What exactly is gout, other than crystallized uric acid? What exactly is TexMex food? Is this TexMex? Nah, this is real Mexican. Or is it? A conspiracy, no doubt. This live music is entertaining. I think I should paint my basement faux brick. I could get the guy from that one TV show show does realistic flames on cars and see if he does brick. That hole looks like lips. Maybe I could paint the basement ceiling as the Milky Way like in the picture I just saw yesterday online. Maybe with skulls. The neighbors would think I'm a Satanist. This soup is awesome. If I owned a sign company, I would make them new Happy Hour Specials signs. I'd hope they'd use 'em. I wonder if I asked for more limes and ADD sugar to my water if I could make a wicked limeade. That little girl is so cute, it looks like it's a special day. They are waiting for one more, the guy on the phone. NO! Come back live music!! Sweet he brought me more limes. I'm not gonna do something weird. Oh they are back...oh it's her birthday!! Hellllllo ladies...girls night? She looks like a 30-year old version of Maryanne Gerbin. I should have swam tonight, I feel fat & full, but that soup is soooooo good. Man these musicians are nice. soft. mellow. more ladies, hello! Oh they are done again, I bet someone says...yup there he goes, not a very strong accent! Who is this? Navy. Army?...Navy. Air Force? Navy. Oh how cute, it's a bag of gifts for her! I wonder who he is...step-dad? She is so excited. This lime is tasty, omg. Uncle, he is acting like I would. Uncle. Air Force. Where else is there a base nearby? Man I hope Nat is feeling OK. Maybe biological father? She's rubbing his head now. A coloring book...Barbie? Wonder if these people are wondering why I am staring at them writing in this fancy looking pad. Health Inspector Blum. The music is playing more distantly now. It's nice! I wish I could play even this. I am just waiting for these girls to talk to me. I should go. What route will I take home? I wonder if the musicians take tips. I'm gonna go and see if they have a jar. If not, I'll just thank them.

The musicians did have a tip jar, for which we all are grateful.

So Sick

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:13:28 GMT

I have done some research. Natalie would be proud, because now I don't have to ask her what a derivative is anymore. So here is my research. Thanks wikipedia.

The downfall of the American Financial System and Wall Street (afsaws), as I understand it, (read as: oversimplified) is this: Lots of institutions in afsaws focused on credit default swaps (cds) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap). Let's break this down: a swap is an agreement that two parties will exchange future cash flows...usually calculated on a variable such as interest rates...it's also done with notional amounts, that is, no money is actually exchanging hands...ok. So in an interest rate swap, party a pays a variable interest to party b, and party b pays a set interest to party a. [I suppose sometimes one is higher than the other...] So essentially the companies borrow money in a market where they have an advantage to make sure they have the best rate. [I think...this is confusing...so I am going very simple...never studied finance.]

So, a swap is a derivative. Derivatives...derive...their values from changes in underlying variables. This reduces risk [somehow]. It is not an actual asset. However, if the value of an asset dips, so does the value of the derivative. And vice versa. It is or can be used as a form of insurance against any underlying volatility. Derivatives are based on a large notional value, again, money that never actually changes hands, so one can lose or gain alot based on that notional value. In effect, you are buying and selling risk.

So a CDS is a swap based on the credit risk of a financial asset (not the actual asset). The credit risk is NOT one of the counterparties. [It's like betting on the credit risk of someone the counterpaties have no control over... hey, let's bet joe consumer, or package of joe consumers, will maintain their credit risk!....or something?] I got lost here...

SO.... some CDS are based on mortgages? And AIG and the like took on the credit risk. But the credit risk was tied to mortgages. People begin to default on their mortgages. No problem, right? Sell the property. However, property values were overinflated. So now you have a mortgage work 100K, property value of 80K, 'the bank' owns the property, which isn't selling, and is sold for 70K. So now 'the bank' lost 30K. Multiply this by a few million defaults, and that's easily 100 billion dollars worth of debt that needs to be written down. So it's not bad that mortgages were defaulted, necessarily, but that the resulting default coincided with a steep downturn in housing markets. Alright. SO. Sooooo..... Someone is out 30K. Is it the bank? Well, yes, unless they sold their mortgage asset to someone else. But what if they didn't sell the mortgage, but the risk of that mortgage defaulting? Maybe I am misunderstanding... but a bank says "hey bigger bank, lets swap our cash flows on certain things here... we've got a mortgage...you've got money. you give us money, and you get the mortgage value...but not in reality, just a derived sort of imaginary money based on that. So if the mortgage is defaulted, we still have the cash you gave us, and you are stuck. So, other company says... SURE! I'll take a whole bunch of those off your hands, these peopel won't default and i will get all the money from the payment of the mortgage for a paltry sum which i just gave you. Sure that means we're in debt, but that will be repaid... well i guess too much of that went on. too many swaps. right? all of a sudden, a whole bunch of mortgages defaulted (man, that was quick...), and owners of that risk were reeling. usually this is ok, but the owners of that risk owned a WHOLE BUNCH of the risk...weird how you own the debt of someone. or something. like...that.....

Now my own little take on this is.... federally speaking.... ok, fine, lets bail out AIG to prevent a catastrophic recession. Let's get a few more regulations, maybe, right? So lots of taxpayer money, right? Now, I am torn... I dont wanna have to pay for the shortsightedness of rich wealthy greedy CEOs...and their management....nor do I wnatto have to pay for the lack of responsibility of the general american population. But crap, i think we're stuck paying for our own greediness as a collective. I'm not happy about it though, because I took out a loan I could pay for. I took out two loans I could pay for. I have in fact taken out THREE loans, all of which I can PAY FOR. Pay...for. What an amazing concept. Of course, I have always been one to save save save and then pay for it in near-full. So it ticks me off that stupid americans got greedy, or are just plain stupid...and stupid CEOs and management got greedy, or are just plain stupid. Not to mention that it is all based on theoretical values that are not actually physically trading hands. I dont think I can blame anyone for this. I dont think it would be right. It took a very long period of time with many very stupid, ignorant, and greedy people to make all of it happen. And no one pulled the plug. If you let a nuclear reactor go without someone watching, it is bound to meltdown at some point. When it ceases to provide it's energy, and causes diseases for following generations, you'll take better note next time to make sure you're watching.

My two cents. *clink clink*

Oh. Em. Gee.

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:20:51 GMT

I just remember my story of how blood pumped through my body so fast and my legs carried me as fast as they could possibly carry me. I was running from something. A more alive version of this:

Now at first I didn't know what the heck I was running from. I was mowing the lawn and moving around on the side yard when I heard a buzz that was more like an electric current that got short circuited. A kind of a snapping buzz. Like a stick was broken then reverberated into a metal sheet. I look over and before my eyes even get close to a direct line of sight, something big and black moves in the corner of my eye and I...bolt.

huff
puff
huff

I'm in the middle of the street now, trying to locate whatever it was I just startled. I instantly thought, man, a cicada? On the ground? Weird. I was no longer scared. I went back to pruning my roses, which actually have fruitfully provided me buds in an amazingly short amount of time. I thank the wonderful sun and water and cooler but still tolerable (from a Rose bush's point of view) temperatures...but I digress...

Shortly after, I am moving around again, and I hear a more muted snap and prolonged buzz. Ole super-duper-flying-thing is moving again too. This time I can see him. And I just watch. He flies...low to the ground, from spot to spot, seeming to disappear into the ground, and then coming back out. Then I knew...a cicada killer wasp.

I had always seen these things in pictures and on websites. I did a project on cicadas a while back and most of the information stuck and I also love them because of my project. I have the same affinity for catalpa trees (catawba), you know, the ones with heart shaped flowers and beanpods in the summer? No? I digress yet again...So this thing was exciting for me, and I believe I called someone and exclaimed that I finally saw one. In real life. IRL NFW!!! I can't remember who I called...at any rate, I watched this guy for a minute before he zoomed off tos omeplace, having lost him in a dark green background of unremarkable bushes across the street.

I walked around trying to find more, hoping to disturb them while they hunt. No such luck. But I did locate hundreds of holes that were once cicada burrows. I thoroughly believe that pine trees attract cicadas like water does elephants. Though I do not remember having ever read this in any respectable information source.

I have noticed less of a cicadic drone at night the last few weeks. I'd like to think my friendly nieghborhood (nearly non-stinging, non-harmful) cicada killer was at work. But I know it also has to do with the changing seasons and the waning of the cicada's prominence.

When Love Fails

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:49:35 GMT

My friend Angela just got dumped. Out of the blue. No warning. Like a meteor striking a clear blue placid ocean and disrupting the entire ecosystem that lay beneath the waters, causing waves that touch distant shores. Now, Angela and I aren't what you would say the best of friends, though we never have fought, we just have never had the fullness of time to interact as friends very well. What I mean is, I think we both detect something great about each other, but we are just not focused on it and stretched thin with other obligations and tighter connections. This isn't a bad thing, but it really makes the times we speak all that much more poignant and emotion-packed.

So Angela and I spoke briefly on the subject. She was losing faith in love. I don't know exactly where she stands on God, and I don't know exactly where I stand on God either, so I left the spiritual side alone, however, I did attack that idea of having faith in love. Love is so easy to see, I tried to communicate to her. There is love all around. when you make it personal, you have a love to have and to hold and cherish. She loved her boyfriend. I do not doubt her emotions. But I doubt that love failed her. The problem with love is that it is a human interaction. Love is perfect. Humans are tasked with the acceptance and display of it. something human happened here. He broke up with her abruptly, with only the excuse of "I want to be single." Other fishy circumstances aside, this is a fairly disconcerting excuse.

Shall we lose our selfish desires of sexual gratification, personal satisfaction, privacy...shall we lose our feelings of jealousy and envy, anger, and hatred...then we shall love. I do not doubt that Angela and her boyfriend (I didn't bother asking his name) loved each other. I do not doubt they fought personal battles and mutual battles together against everything that combated their love on a daily basis. But it has fallen apart. It has diminished. It led to the finality of "I want...". No discussion. No personal talk. No period of time waiting to see if he could accept her love and shoe her his love again.

In my own experience, all too vivid in my own recent memory, this is the way it goes. I was the horrible saboteur of love or rather, I was the one who allowed it to be sabotaged. It does not mean love did not exist. It does not mean love does not exist elsewhere. Love involves humans. The equation is complicated, but it involves you, and it involves me. You + Me + lots of emotions and intangibles = Love. This to me is a sign that something in me needed to be fixed. Love to me is something real, and it is the best feeling ever felt. It is better than all the pleasures I have tried to find elsewhere, some would say addictions, others habits, others still call it something else. But there has never been a time I have felt happier, more content, than when I meditate on the love I have shared with people. So how could I let the sabotage of my deepest love happen? What Did I Do? What Did I Not Do? What Did She Do? What Did She Not Do? Was I missing something? Could I have just misjudged her?

I will never be perfect. I will not be the perfect bastion of affection, or champion of chivalry... but I must never stop trying. Some people say that true love is finding the person who thinks you are perfect... and I only say that those people are disillusioned. Love works. But it works because it takes work. It takes alot of sacrifice. And in hindsight, I may not have been willing to sacrifice. It takes communication, and I may not have been the best communicator, with the gentlest or clearest words.

I analyzed deeper and realized my love paradigm was inherently flawed at the heart, and I am working towards resolving that. But how do I avoid being Angela? I certainly learned from my mistakes, my own shortcomings, my own misdeeds and mistrusts and vices. How then do I love the best I can, the most I can, and then deal with Angela's position? How do I not become bitter or afraid? When I didn't fail myself or love, how do I make it look like love didn't either and still not blame the other human involved? I guess I'd have to have faith in love. It's not that hard. It is actually tangible to some degree. I get a sensation much like needles and pins that takes hole of my head when I have held the hand of a woman I loved. Biology aside, this sensation isn;t feltby everyone and it doesn't get me thinking about babies and sex, rather, sharing emotions and stories and life. I wouldn't say that's love, but a tangible effect. I know it's there. I have felt it. I get hints of it from time to time from friends, too. Laughter so hard it causes me to cry, and I end up with a calmness and I instantly know "I love these people". So What do you do when love fails? I dunno, that's never happened in the history of the universe. The real question is what do you do when you fail love?

I grow. I'm growing. And I'll never stop.