There is a joke about a husband and wife at a party. During a conversation with another couple the wife states that when she and her husband disagree and she gets her way it's a compromise. "What happens if I get my way?" asked the husband. She looks at him and says "It's a miracle."
Then we can reference The Office (American version) and talk about the Win-Win-Win. I don't know how Dunder Mifflin can really explain in their HR handbook about three wins, but it's in an episode. Now I feel like I should re-watch it.
Compromise does not actually mean that someone wins and someone loses. What it's supposed to mean is that both sides/parties give in a little bit and give up a little bit so they meet somewhere in the middle. For example: a couple wants to see a movie - the boy wants to see the latest shoot-em-up and the girl wants to see something romantic. How do they solve it? Well, if the boy convinces his date to see his movie, the compromise would be that she gets to choose the next movie they see together. The same goes if the girl convinces the boy to see the sappy movie, he gets the next choice. Another way to compromise is if they decide on a third movie that neither would mind seeing. What is NOT compromising is when one person always gets to choose to the detriment of the other.
We US citizens seem bent on stubbornness and pride and that it's "my way or the highway." I admit I'm stubborn, but I really don't like fighting. I like people and darn it, I want them to like me back. It doesn't always work out that way, but at least I try. There are many divisive issues out there. There's a reason why they say to avoid the following topics at parties: religion, politics, and ... I forget the third. I'll say the third is your health, because who wants to hear about that? I talk more about my health than I should, but I would avoid it at all costs at a party. It's a downer. And some people go into gross details. Also, don't talk about how fabulous your family/kids/job/whatever is soooooo much better than everyone else's. No one will like you anymore and good luck getting personal invitations in the future.
There are some hot-button items out there that are making people really mad. One is gun control. Many people are either for or against. And they can get loud about their passionate feelings on it. This is how I feel: passing more laws to limit guns will not affect criminals one bit. They're already breaking the law and you're just adding more laws they can ignore. We have plenty of laws about guns and we should follow/enforce them before adding more.
To me, controlling guns isn't the issue. The REAL issue is that we have more psycho- and sociopaths in our society than we used to. This is what happens when as a society we're so interested in our own pleasures that we don't care about others. So, goons with guns are a symptom of poor behavior and lack of caring for others. You could say the same for ignoring traffic lights, graffiti, shoplifting, embezzlement, prostitution, drug abuse, abuse in general, etc. Of those who break the law, how many of them have "good" intentions? Identity theft isn't done for "the greater good." It's purely for easy personal gain without the hard work. Funnily enough, if the people doing the sophisticated thieving would put their energy into being employed they wouldn't need to steal from other people--people they usually don't know...so why should they care that they're ruining someone else's life?
Because you should! You should always weigh your actions against how it could affect others. Your victims are family to someone. And as you're indirectly related to all humans, we're all your family. How would you like it if someone stole your grandmother's money? Well, if *you* stole your grandmother's money, then you're that sociopath I mentioned earlier.
Here's what I hope for my nation: that we can compromise. That both major parties in Congress and the Senate can work together on a solution that will satisfy some of the concerns for both, but neither side should get everything they want. They should meet in the middle!!!!! What I really hope is that they can work on getting guns out of criminals' hands and not out of the general population. It is really hard to limit something once it's out there, no matter how seemingly right or wrong. You know what would be even better: working on a way so less people in our country grow up to be career criminals. Why aren't we working on that? Wouldn't that benefit everyone and fix most of the issues? Hmmmmm.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
I'm a recovering hopeless romantic
I was born boy-crazy. I don't think you can *get* this boy crazy without a wicked head start somewhere, so I'm pretty sure that I was mad for boys BEFORE I was born. And when I was the tiniest child I knew that my chosen career was motherhood, when I wasn't dreaming of being a princess, that is. Everything I did, studied, behaved, etc., was to make me a good mother. I learned how to cook. Found out I could sew but didn't pursue it as other siblings were awesome at it (and you know I don't like to compete). I'm really good with children. I was a certified babysitter, even. I changed diapers and such, you would have loved me watching your kids. My motto was that if I wouldn't be able to tell my kids about it, I didn't want to do it.
I also fell in love very, very easily. The guy didn't even have to love me back. Just a kind word every three months or so was enough to give me hope. Poor, poor, Dee. How I would love to travel back in time and tell my love-struck self: work on other things, it will happen when it happens, going all gooey over boys who aren't interested in you only drives them further and farther away. After failing to get men to love me numerous times, I finally figured out that I'd trained so hard at being a mom that I hadn't done anything on learning how to be a good girlfriend...which is usually a gateway to wife-hood, which is my preferred step to motherhood.
Part of the problem of being a hopeless romantic is that:
a) you hear stories about how others get together and you think it's going to happen the exact same way for you
b) you read romances and think that love happens the way it does on the pages
c) you believe Hollywood about soul mates and happily-ever-afters and finding "the one"
It's all bunk! Every single last bit! Your "love" story is not based on anyone else's experience. I had to stop reading romances so my expectations could come back down to normal levels. I have to be in the mood to watch romantic movies now because usually I just roll my eyes.
Here's my problem: the way I loved boys when I was 19 is not the way I love men 20-some-odd years later. When I was too young to know better (what, 12?) I worshipped "Somewhere In Time." It was sooooo romantic <cue the gushy happy sigh>. He went back in time for her after she'd found him. Okay, so when I hit my later teens I realized that the watch never existed as it never had a creation point. Perhaps if he'd made a replica and went back in time with it, it would have worked. But I digress. NOW, I can't stomach the story at all. She had a successful career and threw it all away for a guy she knew for a week WHO DISAPPEARED IN FRONT OF HER?!?!?! Well, she's crazy. Certifiable. She probably would have needed years of therapy. Why, after he disappeared, didn't she eventually pick herself up and, if not go back to the stage, find a nice man to settle down with? It's not as if she wasn't gorgeous. So the story doesn't work for this woman who is living on her own and is now older than Jane Seymour's character would have been.
And now for a tiny bit of criticism for "He's Just Not That Into You." I didn't read the book, so this opinion is purely based on the movie. I thought the ending was inauthentic to the message the movie portrayed throughout its entirety and they had to go pull out a happy ending from left field. Aren't they still allowing girls to think that every one of them is the exception to the "not being into you?" You gave them hope instead of proper instruction. What the hey? I was disappointed by that resolution. I wanted a little realism to sink into other hopeless romantics' brains to help them with their own recovery. Does the self-help book have a happy ending? Are there guaranteed ways to get a guy to like you? Because I finally decided that if a guy doesn't like me he's not worth my time. Where's *that* movie? The one where the girl has two horrible choices and walks away from both with her dignity intact? It doesn't exist? Pity.
Apparently, some people find it surprising that at my "advanced" age that I still hope to marry for love instead of just companionship. It's true. I'm not interested in marrying just anyone or I would have already done that. If I was so desperate for marriage instead of a proper match, I wouldn't have cared that the only guys that seem to be brave enough to approach me creep me out to no end. One of my sisters thinks I should give those guys a chance. I think if she met these guys she wouldn't want them as a relative. It's sad that my strengths seem to alienate eligible men of my faith. It's also sad that guys outside my faith don't care about my brain and only want something I'm not willing to give.
So, yes, I'm an old-fashioned girl in a modern world who refuses to live with her parents purely because she's unmarried. So if guys think my independence is an indication that I don't need a man, let me be clear: I would love to share my life with the right guy. I would give up my "career" in an instant if the opportunity of raising children became a possibility. Would it be healthy for me to stay helpless in hopes of a man who wouldn't be intimidated by my modicum of success of holding down a job in this economy? Get *that* guy a reality check. Also, I have slowly gained weight over the years and am not as slender as I used to be. I understand that this makes me less desirable even to guys who are also overweight.
Are there no men of faith who don't mind brainy chicks with geekish tendencies who happen to be really curvy?
If there aren't then my last romantic desire will be shattered and that will be that. Don't make me into a Pandora who lets all hope go. Even though I am not interested in manufactured fictional love, I do have a plaque in my apartment that states "It's never too late to live happily ever after." So, there's still some romance in me, it just no longer drives me to seek out men and chase them. But I *am* ready to be sought after....
I also fell in love very, very easily. The guy didn't even have to love me back. Just a kind word every three months or so was enough to give me hope. Poor, poor, Dee. How I would love to travel back in time and tell my love-struck self: work on other things, it will happen when it happens, going all gooey over boys who aren't interested in you only drives them further and farther away. After failing to get men to love me numerous times, I finally figured out that I'd trained so hard at being a mom that I hadn't done anything on learning how to be a good girlfriend...which is usually a gateway to wife-hood, which is my preferred step to motherhood.
Part of the problem of being a hopeless romantic is that:
a) you hear stories about how others get together and you think it's going to happen the exact same way for you
b) you read romances and think that love happens the way it does on the pages
c) you believe Hollywood about soul mates and happily-ever-afters and finding "the one"
It's all bunk! Every single last bit! Your "love" story is not based on anyone else's experience. I had to stop reading romances so my expectations could come back down to normal levels. I have to be in the mood to watch romantic movies now because usually I just roll my eyes.
Here's my problem: the way I loved boys when I was 19 is not the way I love men 20-some-odd years later. When I was too young to know better (what, 12?) I worshipped "Somewhere In Time." It was sooooo romantic <cue the gushy happy sigh>. He went back in time for her after she'd found him. Okay, so when I hit my later teens I realized that the watch never existed as it never had a creation point. Perhaps if he'd made a replica and went back in time with it, it would have worked. But I digress. NOW, I can't stomach the story at all. She had a successful career and threw it all away for a guy she knew for a week WHO DISAPPEARED IN FRONT OF HER?!?!?! Well, she's crazy. Certifiable. She probably would have needed years of therapy. Why, after he disappeared, didn't she eventually pick herself up and, if not go back to the stage, find a nice man to settle down with? It's not as if she wasn't gorgeous. So the story doesn't work for this woman who is living on her own and is now older than Jane Seymour's character would have been.
And now for a tiny bit of criticism for "He's Just Not That Into You." I didn't read the book, so this opinion is purely based on the movie. I thought the ending was inauthentic to the message the movie portrayed throughout its entirety and they had to go pull out a happy ending from left field. Aren't they still allowing girls to think that every one of them is the exception to the "not being into you?" You gave them hope instead of proper instruction. What the hey? I was disappointed by that resolution. I wanted a little realism to sink into other hopeless romantics' brains to help them with their own recovery. Does the self-help book have a happy ending? Are there guaranteed ways to get a guy to like you? Because I finally decided that if a guy doesn't like me he's not worth my time. Where's *that* movie? The one where the girl has two horrible choices and walks away from both with her dignity intact? It doesn't exist? Pity.
Apparently, some people find it surprising that at my "advanced" age that I still hope to marry for love instead of just companionship. It's true. I'm not interested in marrying just anyone or I would have already done that. If I was so desperate for marriage instead of a proper match, I wouldn't have cared that the only guys that seem to be brave enough to approach me creep me out to no end. One of my sisters thinks I should give those guys a chance. I think if she met these guys she wouldn't want them as a relative. It's sad that my strengths seem to alienate eligible men of my faith. It's also sad that guys outside my faith don't care about my brain and only want something I'm not willing to give.
So, yes, I'm an old-fashioned girl in a modern world who refuses to live with her parents purely because she's unmarried. So if guys think my independence is an indication that I don't need a man, let me be clear: I would love to share my life with the right guy. I would give up my "career" in an instant if the opportunity of raising children became a possibility. Would it be healthy for me to stay helpless in hopes of a man who wouldn't be intimidated by my modicum of success of holding down a job in this economy? Get *that* guy a reality check. Also, I have slowly gained weight over the years and am not as slender as I used to be. I understand that this makes me less desirable even to guys who are also overweight.
Are there no men of faith who don't mind brainy chicks with geekish tendencies who happen to be really curvy?
If there aren't then my last romantic desire will be shattered and that will be that. Don't make me into a Pandora who lets all hope go. Even though I am not interested in manufactured fictional love, I do have a plaque in my apartment that states "It's never too late to live happily ever after." So, there's still some romance in me, it just no longer drives me to seek out men and chase them. But I *am* ready to be sought after....
Saturday, February 9, 2013
War: The Ultimate Competition
Disclaimer: these opinions are my own. Perhaps you see life differently from me and that's okay. I believe that people can disagree with one another and still be friendly. And if you are my sibling and don't see yourself in my memory, that's okay, too. I was (usually) younger with a different viewpoint. It doesn't make me right, nor does it make me particularly wrong. If I ended up with the opinion, there was probably an incident that I need to let go of that you don't remember. Also, we've gotten older/wiser since then and I know that if you had the same issue that I had, you most likely have grown out of it. As for the rest of you, feel free to dislike my opinions if you wish. What I believe is right for me and me only. This is a forum where I feel free to express my thoughts and it is not meant to offend anyone. I promise that I am a rational person and I hope you will read my post with that in mind.
I believe I may have mentioned that I'm a poor loser *and* a poor winner when it comes to games and such. When I was in high school I spoke to my mom about how uncomfortable I am with competition and she said it's because I'm TOO competitive. This does not compute. If I'm ultra competitive, wouldn't I love to compete? Our parents pitted us against one another (due to family tradition, which I only found out in the last few years) but didn't give us the proper skills to deal with gracious winning, losing, and good gamesmanship. Poor gamesmanship was our lot.
I've discovered that the only competition I truly enjoy is against myself. Can I do better than last time? Can I beat my last score? I tend to play a lot of single-person games. It's probably why I love computer games and single-person games on my PS3. Have I mentioned that I'm not allowed to play Halo anymore? Not after I bonked a friend on the head after he continuously killed me, even though I'd asked him nicely to stop. I was appalled that I let my temper get away from me. So, no, yet another thing that I stay away from--it's a self-imposed ban (I also don't like blood and gore and was initially playing it in the hopes of getting a date - which I was mistaken in being interested in guys who played Halo at every opportunity, even when they could have gone to the movies with the real live girls who lived next door). I'm proud of myself that the last time I played Monopoly with a group I did NOT, in fact, fling the board across the room when I was last (though I really, really wanted to). One of my friends was the banker and loaned me some money when she saw how much I wasn't enjoying myself. What she did wasn't in the rules, but it helped, and I love her for it.
It was eye-opening, though, to play a couple of games with a friend who loved competition WAY too much. He was a bad winner and a horrible loser, and more so than me. That was weird. I'd never met anyone worse than me (and [some of] my other siblings). In my family we like to win and are only happy when we win and we rub it in others' faces when we do. We hate to lose because we don't like it when others rub it in our faces. Oh, yes, we can dish it out and definitely not take it.
I'm going to assume that in a "healthy" competition, if there is such a thing, that winners are nice and those who do not win are happy for the person(s) who do(es). This is a rare thing or at least I'm completely unfamiliar with it. One girl at church was looking for someone to play tennis with. She asked if I played and I said, yes, but that I have the most fun when nobody keeps score and we're all happy if we can hit the ball over the net. She gave me a funny look and never asked me again. She loves to compete and didn't like the fact that I was suggesting to play different from the norm.
School rivalries mystify me. Who cares about who wins or loses this year? Why does it matter? Can't people get a good education at either school? Seriously! I prefer playing sports to watching them; however, I always get injured playing them. So you can take from that that I really don't prefer sports. I was good at Chinese Checkers, but never learned chess. There seemed to be too many parts/rules to keep track of.
So, war, what is it good for? ...I think you know the next line. Someone decided to invade or they're offended or just mean or (insert foolhardy reason to fight here). But it's not enough that they want to physically fight with someone, they have to rally others to fight, too. Usually those who get others into a frothy anger or conditioned hatred are the ones furthest from the field. There are times to fight: when it's in defense of your home, family, or freedom, but no other reason is just. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Etc.
When the USA had it's own "civil" war, there were impassioned feelings on both sides that they were right and God was with them and not with the other side. There were foreign countries camped in the territories north and south of us, some even contributing to the Southern cause in the hopes of swooping in and claiming (or reclaiming, in Great Britain's case) the States after the chaos that was sure to occur if the South won. So, it was good that the North won, not just because it aided in the abolition of slavery. And those in the South who are still impassioned about a loss over a hundred years ago, please stop caring that you "lost." If you'd won there wouldn't be a USA. And those who are of a violent vein living anywhere: please stop trying to secede. If you don't like the way the government is run, go out and vote, or campaign for someone/thing you believe in, or run for office yourself (on a logical platform, please), or find a new nation to live in. Shooting or bombing people who disagree with your opinion is not right.
I also wonder if our nation should rethink being the world's police? True change comes from within. I don't know if you've noticed how resentful some nations are that we're in their countries helping with their freedom in their own "civil" wars. What we've usually accomplished is getting them to stop fighting each other, with the losing side often fighting us. Is it worth our people dying? For their freedom from oppression to work, they have to work it out amongst themselves. As hard as it is for us to watch, a nation must save themselves from their own home-grown oppressors or they face one despotic ruler or regime after another. If those countries are invading our soil, I say have at it. But otherwise, we ought not to fight others' battles when we're not welcome, even when we answered a desperate cry for help in the beginning.
As for those who decide to leave their countries instead of fighting an oppressive or corrupt government: why *didn't* you stay and fight? I've noticed that some immigrants, whether legal or not, are trying hard to remake where they now live into a little piece of the place they loved (or hated), but left. If you moved in the hopes of a better life, why are you trying so hard to make the "better" place just like the last place that you no longer believed was good? I don't understand this at all. My ancestors came from several different countries and when they came to the US they joined the big ol' melting pot and though they held onto familial traditions, they forged bonds with their newly chosen nation. If you prefer the culture of where you lived, but left for more opportunity, please know that you have to live around others who aren't from your culture and may not understand why you try so hard to cling to your old ways. Also, know that just because your last culture did things that were considered socially acceptable there, they may be illegal in your new home. If you chose to leave, then you should also expect to adjust to where you land. These are things that I would probably consider if I chose to move to a different country. But I'm a big rule-follower and would do my best to learn the language of my new home as soon as possible. Hopefully, wherever I moved would (ideally) speak English or French as I would have an easier time with those, having grown up with one and briefly flirted with the other.
Again, I realize that I am stating a side and an opinion on which you may not find yourself or agree with. I do not believe that contention is healthy, whether on a personal level or a world-wide stage. For those that believe in almost any religion: compassion for others is a key element. If we all practiced the true tenets of our belief systems, the world would be a better place. Peace comes with a nation's attitude which is based on each individual. As long as the majority chooses peace, it has a chance of being upheld. But when the majority chooses selfishness, the nation falls. I fear for the United States. As a whole I see an increasing amount of selfishness amongst almost every group. United we stand, divided we fall. We must find common ground and love one another, despite our flaws and theirs, if we are to continue as a free nation. We are allowed to be nice to one another and I suggest we do so.
Hoping for less divisiveness in both politics and personal relationships,
Dee
PS: just because I believe something doesn't make me more right that someone who believes something else. It just makes us different. I could also be wrong and may need to time to gain different perspective.
I believe I may have mentioned that I'm a poor loser *and* a poor winner when it comes to games and such. When I was in high school I spoke to my mom about how uncomfortable I am with competition and she said it's because I'm TOO competitive. This does not compute. If I'm ultra competitive, wouldn't I love to compete? Our parents pitted us against one another (due to family tradition, which I only found out in the last few years) but didn't give us the proper skills to deal with gracious winning, losing, and good gamesmanship. Poor gamesmanship was our lot.
I've discovered that the only competition I truly enjoy is against myself. Can I do better than last time? Can I beat my last score? I tend to play a lot of single-person games. It's probably why I love computer games and single-person games on my PS3. Have I mentioned that I'm not allowed to play Halo anymore? Not after I bonked a friend on the head after he continuously killed me, even though I'd asked him nicely to stop. I was appalled that I let my temper get away from me. So, no, yet another thing that I stay away from--it's a self-imposed ban (I also don't like blood and gore and was initially playing it in the hopes of getting a date - which I was mistaken in being interested in guys who played Halo at every opportunity, even when they could have gone to the movies with the real live girls who lived next door). I'm proud of myself that the last time I played Monopoly with a group I did NOT, in fact, fling the board across the room when I was last (though I really, really wanted to). One of my friends was the banker and loaned me some money when she saw how much I wasn't enjoying myself. What she did wasn't in the rules, but it helped, and I love her for it.
It was eye-opening, though, to play a couple of games with a friend who loved competition WAY too much. He was a bad winner and a horrible loser, and more so than me. That was weird. I'd never met anyone worse than me (and [some of] my other siblings). In my family we like to win and are only happy when we win and we rub it in others' faces when we do. We hate to lose because we don't like it when others rub it in our faces. Oh, yes, we can dish it out and definitely not take it.
I'm going to assume that in a "healthy" competition, if there is such a thing, that winners are nice and those who do not win are happy for the person(s) who do(es). This is a rare thing or at least I'm completely unfamiliar with it. One girl at church was looking for someone to play tennis with. She asked if I played and I said, yes, but that I have the most fun when nobody keeps score and we're all happy if we can hit the ball over the net. She gave me a funny look and never asked me again. She loves to compete and didn't like the fact that I was suggesting to play different from the norm.
School rivalries mystify me. Who cares about who wins or loses this year? Why does it matter? Can't people get a good education at either school? Seriously! I prefer playing sports to watching them; however, I always get injured playing them. So you can take from that that I really don't prefer sports. I was good at Chinese Checkers, but never learned chess. There seemed to be too many parts/rules to keep track of.
So, war, what is it good for? ...I think you know the next line. Someone decided to invade or they're offended or just mean or (insert foolhardy reason to fight here). But it's not enough that they want to physically fight with someone, they have to rally others to fight, too. Usually those who get others into a frothy anger or conditioned hatred are the ones furthest from the field. There are times to fight: when it's in defense of your home, family, or freedom, but no other reason is just. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Etc.
When the USA had it's own "civil" war, there were impassioned feelings on both sides that they were right and God was with them and not with the other side. There were foreign countries camped in the territories north and south of us, some even contributing to the Southern cause in the hopes of swooping in and claiming (or reclaiming, in Great Britain's case) the States after the chaos that was sure to occur if the South won. So, it was good that the North won, not just because it aided in the abolition of slavery. And those in the South who are still impassioned about a loss over a hundred years ago, please stop caring that you "lost." If you'd won there wouldn't be a USA. And those who are of a violent vein living anywhere: please stop trying to secede. If you don't like the way the government is run, go out and vote, or campaign for someone/thing you believe in, or run for office yourself (on a logical platform, please), or find a new nation to live in. Shooting or bombing people who disagree with your opinion is not right.
I also wonder if our nation should rethink being the world's police? True change comes from within. I don't know if you've noticed how resentful some nations are that we're in their countries helping with their freedom in their own "civil" wars. What we've usually accomplished is getting them to stop fighting each other, with the losing side often fighting us. Is it worth our people dying? For their freedom from oppression to work, they have to work it out amongst themselves. As hard as it is for us to watch, a nation must save themselves from their own home-grown oppressors or they face one despotic ruler or regime after another. If those countries are invading our soil, I say have at it. But otherwise, we ought not to fight others' battles when we're not welcome, even when we answered a desperate cry for help in the beginning.
As for those who decide to leave their countries instead of fighting an oppressive or corrupt government: why *didn't* you stay and fight? I've noticed that some immigrants, whether legal or not, are trying hard to remake where they now live into a little piece of the place they loved (or hated), but left. If you moved in the hopes of a better life, why are you trying so hard to make the "better" place just like the last place that you no longer believed was good? I don't understand this at all. My ancestors came from several different countries and when they came to the US they joined the big ol' melting pot and though they held onto familial traditions, they forged bonds with their newly chosen nation. If you prefer the culture of where you lived, but left for more opportunity, please know that you have to live around others who aren't from your culture and may not understand why you try so hard to cling to your old ways. Also, know that just because your last culture did things that were considered socially acceptable there, they may be illegal in your new home. If you chose to leave, then you should also expect to adjust to where you land. These are things that I would probably consider if I chose to move to a different country. But I'm a big rule-follower and would do my best to learn the language of my new home as soon as possible. Hopefully, wherever I moved would (ideally) speak English or French as I would have an easier time with those, having grown up with one and briefly flirted with the other.
Again, I realize that I am stating a side and an opinion on which you may not find yourself or agree with. I do not believe that contention is healthy, whether on a personal level or a world-wide stage. For those that believe in almost any religion: compassion for others is a key element. If we all practiced the true tenets of our belief systems, the world would be a better place. Peace comes with a nation's attitude which is based on each individual. As long as the majority chooses peace, it has a chance of being upheld. But when the majority chooses selfishness, the nation falls. I fear for the United States. As a whole I see an increasing amount of selfishness amongst almost every group. United we stand, divided we fall. We must find common ground and love one another, despite our flaws and theirs, if we are to continue as a free nation. We are allowed to be nice to one another and I suggest we do so.
Hoping for less divisiveness in both politics and personal relationships,
Dee
PS: just because I believe something doesn't make me more right that someone who believes something else. It just makes us different. I could also be wrong and may need to time to gain different perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)