While I've been neglecting my blog here a little lately, I have actually been doing more writing over the past few days than I have in months. I actually wrote an entire chapter yesterday, which was about 7,000 words. I've turned a corner on my story, and it's finally caught up to where it began. (It's structured where it starts in the middle, flashes back, then moves forward - just like The Odyssey.) I'm about 2/3 of the way through Chapter IX right now, and I see the whole thing ending around Chapter 11 or 12. While walking, I had an idea for a rather bittersweet epilogue that I will either include in this or just have it be its own stand-alone short story. Gotta finish the big one first.
Anyway, here's a little video that I came across while browsing through one of the blogs of my "Raytractors" cyberspace pals. Something about it spoke to me.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Cool design!
Back when I was a believer, and I'd argue with people about the existence of God, one of the things that I would point to was the complexity of the world. I mean, look at something like a Cooper's hawk. (I had one land on the fence which is right outside the window of the room that I'm typing this in right now - an absolutely beautiful creature. It sat there for a good thirty seconds before it took off and flew away.) It's was "impossible" to look at that and not think that some higher power was at work. Something had clearly designed it.
Of course, that line of reasoning doesn't work so much for me anymore. Part of me has a little bit of respect for people who see things this way (so long as they don't call it "science"), but you know what? If you're going to give a higher power credit for creating the majestic hawk, then you have to give that higher power credit for designing EVERY living thing. So, not just animals and plants. Also, this designer made things like yeast. (Yay! You use that to make beer! God does exist!) And, of course, viruses and bacteria.
I think that the attached video does a good job of destroying the case for a "designer." At the very least, it destroys the case for a designer who loves us. I've heard people explain the "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?" question before, and it always goes back to how we have free will and we turned our backs on God, so it's all our fault. Well, if you see it that way, then I recommend that you go to a third world country and tell that to some little kid who's dying from malaria.
Anyway, the video really pushes the boundaries of good taste, but you know what? Sometimes that's necessary to wake people up. If you have no sense of irony or satire, I recommend that you skip it. You've been warned.
Of course, that line of reasoning doesn't work so much for me anymore. Part of me has a little bit of respect for people who see things this way (so long as they don't call it "science"), but you know what? If you're going to give a higher power credit for creating the majestic hawk, then you have to give that higher power credit for designing EVERY living thing. So, not just animals and plants. Also, this designer made things like yeast. (Yay! You use that to make beer! God does exist!) And, of course, viruses and bacteria.
I think that the attached video does a good job of destroying the case for a "designer." At the very least, it destroys the case for a designer who loves us. I've heard people explain the "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?" question before, and it always goes back to how we have free will and we turned our backs on God, so it's all our fault. Well, if you see it that way, then I recommend that you go to a third world country and tell that to some little kid who's dying from malaria.
Anyway, the video really pushes the boundaries of good taste, but you know what? Sometimes that's necessary to wake people up. If you have no sense of irony or satire, I recommend that you skip it. You've been warned.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Batman Movies - The Dark Knight, part II
I went and saw the film again yesterday, and I have a few additional thoughts (as I said I would in my initial review).
First of all - is it the greatest superhero movie ever? I hate making statements like this for two reasons.
1. If you work with teenagers, you know that they will declare whatever movie they last enjoyed to be the "greatest movie ever." (Not all of them do this, of course - save your hate mail.) If I were to believe them, The Punisher, Transformers, and 300 are all amongst the greatest movies ever made. (Note - I did like 300, enough to buy it even - but come on.) So, I don't want to declare a movie that has only been out for a couple weeks to be the "best" of anything.
2. Is it even fair to compare it to all the other superhero movies? Was it really trying to do the same thing as Iron Man? I mean, it's safe to say that it's better than the first four Batman movies. I don't know if I'm ready to say that I like it more than Batman Begins though. It's possible that I will be after a few more viewings, but I just don't want to rush into it. (I suddenly realize that this is what you'd get if Hamlet wrote movie reviews! Just make the call already, dammit!)
With that said though, it definitely is a contender. If you made a list of top ten superhero movies of all time, there's no question that it belongs in the upper part of that list. Shoot, if you made a list of top ten action movies, it belongs there as well.
It definitely got even better a second time. I suppose that if I had anything to complain about, it's that I don't always like Christian Bale's "Batman voice." While he overall does the part better than any actor before him (much of this is due to the fact that he had better material to work with) I still think that Michael Keaton did the best job of changing his voice from Bruce Wayne to Batman. This is a very minor quibble though, and it's not every scene where it bothers me.
One thing that I appreciated even more this time was that the Joker gives conflicting stories as to how he got to look the way he does. That's right out of the comics. Even The Killing Joke, the story that supposedly tells his origin hints that it might not really be his origin, as his psyche is so fractured that even he doesn't remember what it is anymore. Also, the comic (later turned into an episode of the animated series) Mad Love had the Joker telling different variations on what his past was like to elicit sympathy from people so he could manipulate them into feeling sorry for him. (One of the stories involved an abusive father who "favored the grape".)
Also, every moment with the Joker is so incredibly tense. While Ledger's performance alone creates this, I noticed that the music works really well in adding to that tension in the scenes where he's talking about his past (and is brandishing a knife at somebody). This is really one of those performances where the hype is well deserved. It'll make you say, "Who the hell is Jack Nicholson?" (But you'll never forget Caesar Romero.)
One other thing that was great about this is that it was the first Batman movie to show how smart Batman really is. In the comics, when he's hanging out with the Justice League, that's the one big advantage that he has over all of them - he's always the smartest guy in the room. I could actually see this Batman pulling his own weight with Superman. With the other incarnations, not so much.
Okay, I could go on and on. The one thing that I just want to add is that for as great as this movie is, it didn't surprise me. I suppose that ten years ago I thought it was highly unlikely that they'd ever make a really good Batman movie (much less Spider-Man and Iron Man). The reason why is because I didn't think that there were enough people in Hollywood who respected the source material. I always knew that the material had the potential to make a great movie, if only they stayed true to the comics. Now, that's finally happening, and people are realizing the potential of these characters. I realized it when I was twelve - thanks for catching up, general public.
Revised Grade: Worst case - A. Best case - A+
First of all - is it the greatest superhero movie ever? I hate making statements like this for two reasons.
1. If you work with teenagers, you know that they will declare whatever movie they last enjoyed to be the "greatest movie ever." (Not all of them do this, of course - save your hate mail.) If I were to believe them, The Punisher, Transformers, and 300 are all amongst the greatest movies ever made. (Note - I did like 300, enough to buy it even - but come on.) So, I don't want to declare a movie that has only been out for a couple weeks to be the "best" of anything.
2. Is it even fair to compare it to all the other superhero movies? Was it really trying to do the same thing as Iron Man? I mean, it's safe to say that it's better than the first four Batman movies. I don't know if I'm ready to say that I like it more than Batman Begins though. It's possible that I will be after a few more viewings, but I just don't want to rush into it. (I suddenly realize that this is what you'd get if Hamlet wrote movie reviews! Just make the call already, dammit!)
With that said though, it definitely is a contender. If you made a list of top ten superhero movies of all time, there's no question that it belongs in the upper part of that list. Shoot, if you made a list of top ten action movies, it belongs there as well.
It definitely got even better a second time. I suppose that if I had anything to complain about, it's that I don't always like Christian Bale's "Batman voice." While he overall does the part better than any actor before him (much of this is due to the fact that he had better material to work with) I still think that Michael Keaton did the best job of changing his voice from Bruce Wayne to Batman. This is a very minor quibble though, and it's not every scene where it bothers me.
One thing that I appreciated even more this time was that the Joker gives conflicting stories as to how he got to look the way he does. That's right out of the comics. Even The Killing Joke, the story that supposedly tells his origin hints that it might not really be his origin, as his psyche is so fractured that even he doesn't remember what it is anymore. Also, the comic (later turned into an episode of the animated series) Mad Love had the Joker telling different variations on what his past was like to elicit sympathy from people so he could manipulate them into feeling sorry for him. (One of the stories involved an abusive father who "favored the grape".)
Also, every moment with the Joker is so incredibly tense. While Ledger's performance alone creates this, I noticed that the music works really well in adding to that tension in the scenes where he's talking about his past (and is brandishing a knife at somebody). This is really one of those performances where the hype is well deserved. It'll make you say, "Who the hell is Jack Nicholson?" (But you'll never forget Caesar Romero.)
One other thing that was great about this is that it was the first Batman movie to show how smart Batman really is. In the comics, when he's hanging out with the Justice League, that's the one big advantage that he has over all of them - he's always the smartest guy in the room. I could actually see this Batman pulling his own weight with Superman. With the other incarnations, not so much.
Okay, I could go on and on. The one thing that I just want to add is that for as great as this movie is, it didn't surprise me. I suppose that ten years ago I thought it was highly unlikely that they'd ever make a really good Batman movie (much less Spider-Man and Iron Man). The reason why is because I didn't think that there were enough people in Hollywood who respected the source material. I always knew that the material had the potential to make a great movie, if only they stayed true to the comics. Now, that's finally happening, and people are realizing the potential of these characters. I realized it when I was twelve - thanks for catching up, general public.
Revised Grade: Worst case - A. Best case - A+
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The price we pay
Usually, I'm a big believer in providing at least some evidence before making a bold proclamation. In this case though, can we all just take it as a given that Michael Savage is a total moron? Either that, or he's doing satire and he's just pretending to be a total moron. Either way, the character of "Michael Savage" is even dumber than the guy that Stephen Colbert pretends to be. I mean, there are "conservatives" who'll defend Ann Coulter but draw the line at that guy.
So, instead of giving countless examples, I'll just comment on his current blunder. According to him, autism is a "fraud" and a "racket". Not only that, but "99%" of the kids who are diagnosed with autism just needed their parents to tell them to stop "the act".
Yeesh. My wife, who works with many autistic kids, is understandably more outraged than I am. As for myself, I've worked with a few, and based on my experience, I can say that Michael Savage is 99% dipshit - the other 1% is a combination of nuts, stupid, poo-head, and outofhisfuckingmind.
Of course, he later backpedeled on his statement, saying that he was just trying to "alert parents" that oftentimes there are false diagnoses based on other conditions like "having a high I.Q." and "talking late in childhood." Are you still with me? Did your head just explode? Don't worry, I'm sure that Michael Savage has done extensive research on this issue and is basing it on a close dissection of the facts. I mean, it's not like "conservative" (forgive my quotes, but what the hell is conservative about people like this?) pundits ever just totally make stuff up or completely blow things out of proportion - is it? (Actually, yes, it is like that.)
I'll admit that I'm certainly not an expert, but I do have a bit of experience, and one thing that I do know about autism is that it covers a really wide range of behaviors and conditions. I suppose I could see how somebody might look at the wide variety of people with autism and think that perhaps too many people are being diagnosed. However, if you're going to make a statement like that, you'd better have some facts to back it up.
Something that was interesting to me though, was that when I watched the news story (see below) on YouTube about this incident, there's this one woman who rightfully calls what he said "hate speech." She then loses me though when she says that "We don't allow hate speech in this country."
Ummm...yeah we do. All speech is protected in this country. You can say whatever stupid thing you want. However, since this is a free country, we can combat it by protesting, boycotting, etc.
And that's the thing. I hate stupid cliches like "freedom isn't free" but there is some truth to that. If we're going to have a free country where people are allowed to speak, then we're bound to be offended every now and then. Unfortunately, you don't have the right to never be offended. Because after all, what is hate speech? Somebody could accuse this blog of promoting hate speech since I often criticize the religious (and I referred to a person as a "dipshit" - not exactly an act of love).
If we won't allow hate speech, who will decide what it is and what it isn't? I say, let the Michael Savages of the world announce their idiocy to the world. We all have the power to point out how stupid he is, so let's use that.
So, instead of giving countless examples, I'll just comment on his current blunder. According to him, autism is a "fraud" and a "racket". Not only that, but "99%" of the kids who are diagnosed with autism just needed their parents to tell them to stop "the act".
Yeesh. My wife, who works with many autistic kids, is understandably more outraged than I am. As for myself, I've worked with a few, and based on my experience, I can say that Michael Savage is 99% dipshit - the other 1% is a combination of nuts, stupid, poo-head, and outofhisfuckingmind.
Of course, he later backpedeled on his statement, saying that he was just trying to "alert parents" that oftentimes there are false diagnoses based on other conditions like "having a high I.Q." and "talking late in childhood." Are you still with me? Did your head just explode? Don't worry, I'm sure that Michael Savage has done extensive research on this issue and is basing it on a close dissection of the facts. I mean, it's not like "conservative" (forgive my quotes, but what the hell is conservative about people like this?) pundits ever just totally make stuff up or completely blow things out of proportion - is it? (Actually, yes, it is like that.)
I'll admit that I'm certainly not an expert, but I do have a bit of experience, and one thing that I do know about autism is that it covers a really wide range of behaviors and conditions. I suppose I could see how somebody might look at the wide variety of people with autism and think that perhaps too many people are being diagnosed. However, if you're going to make a statement like that, you'd better have some facts to back it up.
Something that was interesting to me though, was that when I watched the news story (see below) on YouTube about this incident, there's this one woman who rightfully calls what he said "hate speech." She then loses me though when she says that "We don't allow hate speech in this country."
Ummm...yeah we do. All speech is protected in this country. You can say whatever stupid thing you want. However, since this is a free country, we can combat it by protesting, boycotting, etc.
And that's the thing. I hate stupid cliches like "freedom isn't free" but there is some truth to that. If we're going to have a free country where people are allowed to speak, then we're bound to be offended every now and then. Unfortunately, you don't have the right to never be offended. Because after all, what is hate speech? Somebody could accuse this blog of promoting hate speech since I often criticize the religious (and I referred to a person as a "dipshit" - not exactly an act of love).
If we won't allow hate speech, who will decide what it is and what it isn't? I say, let the Michael Savages of the world announce their idiocy to the world. We all have the power to point out how stupid he is, so let's use that.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
More writing goodness
I wrote my first short story when I was in the third grade. It was a superhero story about a superhero named "Super-Muscle". Pretty lame, I know, but give me a break - I was nine years old!
I continued to write stories (and even create a few comics) with him while I was a kid - even up through high school, although I eventually renamed him. I had a huge, epic story (before I even knew what an "epic" really entailed) in my head, and I knew that I just had to get it out one day. It involved pretty much everything that interested me, and while it was a fantasy/superhero story, I tried to get across my feelings on God, faith, etc. (Those were very different feelings back then from what they are now!) I remember telling myself that I'd finally have my epic written by the time I was 25.
Well, that didn't work out so well. That's okay though - I wasn't ready to write it then. I'm not entirely sure that I'm ready for it now. However, I think that I am good for a rough draft, and things are coming along. As of now, I'm nearly halfway done. Well, I'm nearly halfway done with a major part of it.
I already wrote a whole blog entry about Eagle-Man, and how that started from a high school newspaper strip to what I'm writing about today (many variations and permutations of that one). This story that I'm currently working on can be traced all the way back to that first story I wrote in the third grade. (It's a long and winding road to get from one point to the next, but it's there.)
I still haven't given much thought to publishing and all that. I figure that's a moot question if I haven't actually written it yet. As of now, I have a few friends who have been reading it and giving me some great feedback. Also, I've had a couple of folks who I've only met via "the Internets" who have checked it out as well. One thing that I do know though, is that when I finally finish this big story, I'm going to have to go back and write the earlier adventures of my character, as what I have here is probably the last adventure. After all - he fights God - where can you go from there?
So, here are some new chapters. Please keep in mind that these are VERY rough drafts, and you'll definitely find stuff in the later chapters that contradict the earlier ones. I'll get around to fixing that eventually. Also, the title is a working one - I'm still figuring out what I want to call it. On the stories themselves, it's called Unprophetic Armageddon. That sounds too heavy and pretentious for a story that uses the word "crap" as much as mine does. Right now, I'm mulling over Stop the End! or perhaps even Eagle-Man Versus The Apocalypse.
Book III
Book IV
Book V
And if you missed the earlier stuff:
Who Are You? - A stand-alone short story that introduces ideas that are followed up on in the epic story.
Book I
Book II
I continued to write stories (and even create a few comics) with him while I was a kid - even up through high school, although I eventually renamed him. I had a huge, epic story (before I even knew what an "epic" really entailed) in my head, and I knew that I just had to get it out one day. It involved pretty much everything that interested me, and while it was a fantasy/superhero story, I tried to get across my feelings on God, faith, etc. (Those were very different feelings back then from what they are now!) I remember telling myself that I'd finally have my epic written by the time I was 25.
Well, that didn't work out so well. That's okay though - I wasn't ready to write it then. I'm not entirely sure that I'm ready for it now. However, I think that I am good for a rough draft, and things are coming along. As of now, I'm nearly halfway done. Well, I'm nearly halfway done with a major part of it.
I already wrote a whole blog entry about Eagle-Man, and how that started from a high school newspaper strip to what I'm writing about today (many variations and permutations of that one). This story that I'm currently working on can be traced all the way back to that first story I wrote in the third grade. (It's a long and winding road to get from one point to the next, but it's there.)
I still haven't given much thought to publishing and all that. I figure that's a moot question if I haven't actually written it yet. As of now, I have a few friends who have been reading it and giving me some great feedback. Also, I've had a couple of folks who I've only met via "the Internets" who have checked it out as well. One thing that I do know though, is that when I finally finish this big story, I'm going to have to go back and write the earlier adventures of my character, as what I have here is probably the last adventure. After all - he fights God - where can you go from there?
So, here are some new chapters. Please keep in mind that these are VERY rough drafts, and you'll definitely find stuff in the later chapters that contradict the earlier ones. I'll get around to fixing that eventually. Also, the title is a working one - I'm still figuring out what I want to call it. On the stories themselves, it's called Unprophetic Armageddon. That sounds too heavy and pretentious for a story that uses the word "crap" as much as mine does. Right now, I'm mulling over Stop the End! or perhaps even Eagle-Man Versus The Apocalypse.
Book III
Book IV
Book V
And if you missed the earlier stuff:
Who Are You? - A stand-alone short story that introduces ideas that are followed up on in the epic story.
Book I
Book II
Monday, July 21, 2008
You just can't make this up...
As I've written before, I've never really been interested in sports. Along with that, I've never really been able to get into Professional Wrestling. Oh, there was a time when I was a kid when I watched Hulk Hogan's Rock and Wrestling.
I also watched a little bit of actual "professional" wrestling too. I seem to recall one where Hulk Hogan's friend, who I seem to remember was Mr. Wonderful, was supposed to be "wrestling" alongside him in a tag-team match, but he turned on Hogan and the two became enemies. (A quick Wikipedia search confirms my memory.)
I don't remember watching it too much after that. I think it was the kind of thing that I'd watch when it was on, but I never went out of my way to watch it. For the most part, I think that I lost interest because it's pretty much the same thing over and over again. Unless dudes in tight briefs throwing each other around is your thing, I don't see what the appeal could possibly be. Even though I've had friends who have liked it for its kitsch factor, I've always assumed that the average fan is some sort of yokel who probably doesn't know how to read.
If you're thinking, "I'd like it if only it had some mention of Jesus," then boy, are you in for a treat! Presenting: The Christian Wrestling Foundation! I shit you not. Check out "The Italian Stallion" versus "Chris Idol"!
I also watched a little bit of actual "professional" wrestling too. I seem to recall one where Hulk Hogan's friend, who I seem to remember was Mr. Wonderful, was supposed to be "wrestling" alongside him in a tag-team match, but he turned on Hogan and the two became enemies. (A quick Wikipedia search confirms my memory.)
I don't remember watching it too much after that. I think it was the kind of thing that I'd watch when it was on, but I never went out of my way to watch it. For the most part, I think that I lost interest because it's pretty much the same thing over and over again. Unless dudes in tight briefs throwing each other around is your thing, I don't see what the appeal could possibly be. Even though I've had friends who have liked it for its kitsch factor, I've always assumed that the average fan is some sort of yokel who probably doesn't know how to read.
If you're thinking, "I'd like it if only it had some mention of Jesus," then boy, are you in for a treat! Presenting: The Christian Wrestling Foundation! I shit you not. Check out "The Italian Stallion" versus "Chris Idol"!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder, shit like this exists. Oh sweet Flying Spaghetti Monster preserve us!
Here's the thing - how do I even begin making fun of this? It just kinda makes fun of itself, doesn't it? I mean, the fact that exists is enough to make my head spin. Okay, I'm done.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
One chance - make it count!
I was reading an article in the paper today about the love lives of senior citizens. Apparently, a lot of widows and widowers are finding romance - which is a really nice thing to see.
This got me to thinking - Kirsti was filling out one of those silly surveys on MySpace the other day, and one of the questions was along the lines of, "Do you believe that you only get one true love in your lifetime?" Kirsti answered in the negative. Why? Because she doesn't love me.
No, seriously, that's the way I would have answered it too. The thing is, the idea that there's only one person who's out there for you is one of those notions that seems nice. If I scoff at the idea, I'm accused of not being a romantic. (And I AM a romantic, dammit! As I wrote in a previous blog, I get choked up every time I get to the end of Cyrano de Bergerac with my freshmen classes!)
I've had more than one person tell me that Kirsti and I were "meant to be" together. Nuts to that, I say. And again, I'm sure that there are folks who would accuse me of not being romantic for saying that.
The thing is, I don't find anything the least bit romantic about either one of those ideas. One person - and I'm fated to be with her? So, no matter what, she's the one I'd end up with? Where's the romance in that?
Let me put it this way. I wanted to live with Kirsti because I love her. I wanted to marry her because I love her. The reason why I didn't leave the house and call things off with her yesterday is because I love her. The reason why I didn't do that today is because I love her. As for tomorrow, nothing is guaranteed, but I think it's safe to say that if the sun comes up like it usually does (astronomy nerds, be quiet, please) then I'm going to love her then as well.
She puts up with my weird habits. She understands me when I don't feel like socializing with people. She doesn't tell me that I need to stop reading comic books. I can do a stupid little dance in the living room, and she'll always smile and laugh at it - and then she'll smile even more when I tell her that the only reason she's laughing is because she's jealous of what a good dancer I am. She challenges me to think things through a bit more than I do sometimes. She's fun to talk to. It's relaxing and never awkward to just sit and be quiet with her. I love watching her snuggle with the cat, despite her insistence that she's not a "cat-person."
I'm with her because I love her, and she's with me because she loves me. Why do we need some greater, mysterious power like fate to give it meaning?
And I hope that if I go before her, she is able to be happy with the rest of her life - even if that means finding somebody else. I know that she wishes the same for me.
So in the meantime, I'm going to let "because we love each other" be all the reason we need for being together. And dammit, that's romantic.
This got me to thinking - Kirsti was filling out one of those silly surveys on MySpace the other day, and one of the questions was along the lines of, "Do you believe that you only get one true love in your lifetime?" Kirsti answered in the negative. Why? Because she doesn't love me.
No, seriously, that's the way I would have answered it too. The thing is, the idea that there's only one person who's out there for you is one of those notions that seems nice. If I scoff at the idea, I'm accused of not being a romantic. (And I AM a romantic, dammit! As I wrote in a previous blog, I get choked up every time I get to the end of Cyrano de Bergerac with my freshmen classes!)
I've had more than one person tell me that Kirsti and I were "meant to be" together. Nuts to that, I say. And again, I'm sure that there are folks who would accuse me of not being romantic for saying that.
The thing is, I don't find anything the least bit romantic about either one of those ideas. One person - and I'm fated to be with her? So, no matter what, she's the one I'd end up with? Where's the romance in that?
Let me put it this way. I wanted to live with Kirsti because I love her. I wanted to marry her because I love her. The reason why I didn't leave the house and call things off with her yesterday is because I love her. The reason why I didn't do that today is because I love her. As for tomorrow, nothing is guaranteed, but I think it's safe to say that if the sun comes up like it usually does (astronomy nerds, be quiet, please) then I'm going to love her then as well.
She puts up with my weird habits. She understands me when I don't feel like socializing with people. She doesn't tell me that I need to stop reading comic books. I can do a stupid little dance in the living room, and she'll always smile and laugh at it - and then she'll smile even more when I tell her that the only reason she's laughing is because she's jealous of what a good dancer I am. She challenges me to think things through a bit more than I do sometimes. She's fun to talk to. It's relaxing and never awkward to just sit and be quiet with her. I love watching her snuggle with the cat, despite her insistence that she's not a "cat-person."
I'm with her because I love her, and she's with me because she loves me. Why do we need some greater, mysterious power like fate to give it meaning?
And I hope that if I go before her, she is able to be happy with the rest of her life - even if that means finding somebody else. I know that she wishes the same for me.
So in the meantime, I'm going to let "because we love each other" be all the reason we need for being together. And dammit, that's romantic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)