|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| A couple of months ago, I kicked off a topic, then kind of abandoned it due to real-life distractions cropping up. I promised I'd revisit it to finally complete the topic, so here we go! For those of you who need a refresher, Part One can be read here.
I started this topic, by the way, because of observations at the time. I have a lot of single friends, many of whom right now are only beginning to delve into the realm of relationships. Sadly, some of my friends have no clue what they're doing. Honest. So, as I was considering one such person's plights, my mind got cranking on this.
So is there really a The One, and if there is, how do you know he/she is The One when there appears to be so many The One false alarms? Well, in the last blog entry I suggested to you that the whole idea was a pile of crap contrived to make people think real life romances can be like fairy tale love lives. In today's blog, I'm going to balance that out a little bit with some admission: I do not entirely disbelieve in the concept; rather I think it's better to say the concept needs to be refined. So today, I'm going to suggest the following conclusion:
You choose who The One is.
I warn you not to take my premise as universal. I do believe there are exceptions, but I propose this as a general rule. So let's discuss:
Premise 1: More than one person can make a great partner.
I described a personal experience from my younger years in Part One in which my believing there was a a magic "The One" for me accidentally led me into a love triangle. i.e. I was being retarded.
In brief: One year shortly after I graduated college, I met a girl (who had just graduated high school) whom I fell head-over-heals for. Via a dramatic experience we shared together, I concluded she was The One. Was crazy about her. Within a month, she moved away to college and promptly dropped me for a local college guy, which is a pretty normal scenario for kids that age.
Within the next year or two, I meet another girl. Enough time had passed to get over The One #1, and I was a total sucker for this new girl's personality and charm. And -- you guess it -- we ended up sharing a very dramatic experience (this happened to me a lot back in the day). Moreover, she fulfilled an entire list of things I had decided would be characteristics of my One. And so I truly, deeply believed her to be The One. Catch 22 was it was a long distance relationship. And, in hindsight, she was too young for me to be honest. There was a hole myriad of obstacles we had to deal with -- and in the end, couldn't be dealt with in any truly plausible scenario.
To keep this rehashed story from drawing out further, I'll be brief: I lose a family member, and my emotions go wacky during my grief stages. The One #1 shows back up from afar to comfort me "as a friend". Unfortunately, The One #2 is long distance, and I have defnitely not forgotten how much I loved The One #1. So what's an idiot fresh-out-of-college kid to do? I had TWO The Ones right there! That's not supposed to happen! Needless to say, before all was said and done, I dumped #2, got back with #1, got dumped by #1 a short time later, and wound up with nobody at all. It was sad, but actually an appropriate outcome given what all unfolded.
So here's the thing: in all honesty, both girls were great, wonderful people. The later I pseudo-loathed during the obligatory "my ex-girlfriend is evil" phase of life, but once I grew up and looked back at events, I actually realized I had simply foolishly allowed myself to fall for two really great girls. (My term "pseudo-loath" means "didn't hate but really felt angsty toward".) Under different circumstances, it's entirely possible a relationship with either could have worked out just fine.
And thus introduces our problem: If The One is predetermined for you before you meet them, it is possible for you to mistake someone else for The One. If this occurs, it is assumed that you're then to dump that person in favor of the actual The One once they arrive, much like when Princess Vespa shoved Prince Valium to the side to make way for Lonestar.
Yep. I just used this guy again.
In reality, you stop thinking the grass is greener on the other side when you realize that there's a lot of green grass everywhere, actually. The fact you like one shade of green one day and another shade of green the next day doesn't make it ok to switch yards to accomodate your feng shui.
And so we're brought to the next premise.
Premise 2: You have to make a choice.
If there is only The One, then basic deduction suggests that there isn't much of a decision process required on your part. All you have to do is wait for The One to come, at which point "you'll just know". However, in the reality I'm describing, more than one person can potentially make the right partner for you. In other words, there are potentially multiple "Ones" out there. This introduces a very serious responsibility: You have a choice to make.
But be mindful of this universal truth.
Another way I'd like to put it: "Dance with the one who brought ya."
Now I'm not saying that the first person you fall in love with should be the person you marry -- far from it. What I am saying is that once you decide who you're going to spend the rest of your life with, you stick to your guns (extreme exceptions of abusive partners, etc. notwithstanding).
In a world of many, many possibilities, it's up to you to choose which of those possibilities you'll claim for your own. You make that choice carefully, and you make it well-informed. You don't rush into it. Once you make that choice, you stick by it, knowing good and well the rest of those "other possibilities" don't suddenly cease to exist; rather, at this stage, you have chosen to forever disregard them. I believe this is key, and the strongest defense against the temptation of cheating on a soon-to-be or current spouse. Knowing the other possibilities continue to exist, you take the appropriate steps to defend yourself against the temptation of exploring them after having made your choice.
But in a fantasy world in which this all simply boils down to the predestined "The One", these considerations are out the window. The choice is not yours; it's fate's. The responsibility for choosing is relieved from your hands. Thus, my dear readers, is why this premise in particular is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this belief in "The One" being out there for you.
The consequences vary vastly between a scenario of "just knowing" and a scenario of having truly made a well-considered choice. Judgement made by feeling alone inevitably leads to disaster, and thus we naturally move onto the third premise.
Premise 3: Reason balances feeling.
The two above mentioned girlfriends of the past weren't the only would-be happily ever afters I threw myself at during those spry years of romantic cluelessness. With several of the girls I got mixed up with, there were a couple of factors that always remained true: I "felt so incredibly strongly" about them, and "just knew" something.
Yet one day a couple of years ago, I was at a Mexican restaurant in Midlothian, TX having a deep discussion with my mother about this new girl I had been dating. I remember her telling me that she could see in my eyes how in love I was, and I remember clearly what one part of my response was: not only did I feel she was the one for me, but marrying her made sense. I had said the first half of that sentence more than once in the past regarding lesser loves, but the second half of that sentence was a first. And sure enough, I'm now very happily married to this one.
Feeling strongly for someone is great. Falling in love is wonderful. But I'll tell you one thing with absolute certainty: If you and your star-crossed lover can't sit down and so much as balance a checkbook, you're going absolutely nowhere.
This is something you can't really, truly grasp during the puppy love stages of dating. The person you're madly, crazily, dramatically in love with on such a legendary level is someone who also goes home eventually after each date. In the process of dating, you're still single in that you're still running your own household while your lover runs their own, and you're managing your own finances. The great thing about single life is your kingdom is governed strictly by your rules and yours alone. Even once you're "going steady" (or whatever you want to call the more emotionally intimate, serious stages), you're still not under the same roof co-authoring your lifelong battle plan.
This is why the choices made by that infamous girl who always goes for the "bad boy" are absolutely laughable. He may have ingenious cutting wit, a six-pack of abs, and hair worthy of an art museum, but good luck with that whole "buying your first car together" thing, much less the "shopping for a house" and "planning for a baby" stages later on. I'm fairly certain James Dean has little interest in these concepts. Balancing the monthly budget does not fit well within the complex strategy of rebelling without a cause or stickin' it to the man or whatever it is bad boys do with their spare time nowadays.
Aaaaaay, my 401K is well diversified! Aaaay.
It is very, very important you choose a spouse whom you feel more strongly about than anyone else in the universe. However, feeling is not enough. And I regrettably suggest that love cannot "always find a way". Sometimes there are personality traits, situational circumstances, and differences in values and beliefs that are not passable, much less compatible. In such cases, love is not enough.
In a world of "The One", love is all you need, like any good song lyric. But in the real world, love must also be paired with compatibility. The good news is, in a world of many, many possibilities, and many possible loves, you can be thorough in your consideration of potential partners. The choice is yours.
The bottom line: It's one thing to be madly in love and feel strongly for someone. It's something even more special to be in love and have the comfort of knowing with sound reason that the person you love fits well. Not "fits" in that you feel right about them, but fits in a such a way that you share the same core values when it comes to ethics, religion, family, and managing a household.
My wife and I not only have a truly epic level of love for each other, but we make a darn good team. We're left with one last premise.
Premise 4: The One may exist.
All the way back into the early days chronicled in the book of Genesis, there are examples of destined love. Isaac, the son of Abraham (the patriarch of Judaism) was one lucky sucker. The boy never had to raise a finger in the process of choosing a wife. Knowing he was in the last years of his long life, Abraham sent a servant back to his hometown with the sole mission of finding the right wife for his son Isaac. The caveat is that the objective wasn't just to find a wife, it was to find the perfect wife for Isaac and bring her back.
To cut a long story short, the servant returns with Rebekah in tow, his mission accomplished. To top it all off, Rebekah was literally hand-picked by the Almighty Himself to be Isaac's wife. And so Isaac and Rebekah would carry on the lineage of Abraham -- the very line that later leads to the birth of Jesus.
Isaac found The One.
So I've gone through all this trouble to denounce the whole "One" concept only to get to the end and cite biblical evidence in favor of it eh? Not exactly. My point is that today, so many young Christians are absolutley convinced that The One is already hand-picked and waiting for them out there, just as was the case for our boy Isaac here.
But I don't think that's necessarily the case. My conclusion is that God is indeed wholly capable of predeterming who your One is; this is entirely true. But that doesn't mean He necessarily will, or that you can turn your brain off when evaluating people as a result. God doesn't always step in. Sometimes, I think the decision is entirely up to us. Does that make the resulting marriage any less romantic, passionate, or legendary for you? I don't think so. It just means it's up to you to ensure it goes that way.
My basis for this claim is simply from what I've read in Scripture and gleaned from various stories therein. It appears that pretty often God is "hands-off" in the affairs of man, but will step in and do some firsthand directing when He requires certain events to unfold in such a way that furthers His plan and thus brings Him glory. Also, He sometimes steps in when asked to. Outside of that, a lot of the time, God appears to leave man to his own judgments. For a direct example, crack open Genesis and read the chapters that chronicle the lives of Abraham on through to Jacob. Note when God stepped in, but also note when He didn't. Isaac got a hand-picked wife from God. Everyone else chronicled there seems to have done the choosing themselves.
That's not to say God won't help if you ask Him, mind you. But it's also not to say that God's going to do all the work for you.
Furthermore, I'm inclined to say that I have The One for me. Many say it's rare to find your soul mate; many marriages function great, but the pair may not necessarily be soul mates. In my situation, I found with much, much surprise that my wife compliments and matches me on a level far deeper and far beyond any of my past would-be romances. Which is saying a lot, because as I've said in my stories above and in Part One, I had some girlfriends I really felt were unmatchable...until she came along as the ultimate trump card. The level of closeness I have with her is not something I can put into words, but is definitely far beyond anything I've ever experienced. I'll suffice it to say it makes the two words "soul mate" make a bit more sense for me. It's one thing to have passionate love; quite another to connect on that kind of level. You can have the former without the latter.
Of course I'm biased, but I have friends that attest to this as well. My best friend still thinks I built my wife in a lab, as our match is so unusually right on the mark. So I think I'm one lucky sucker myself. I'll definitely tell you that after all the previous wacky crap I got myself into, this was a much appreciated relief!
Not to mention we had the most awesome wedding of all time.
In conclusion: If you're one of those starry-eyed youngsters who, with a euphoreous sigh, awaits the day your The One comes riding in on a white steed -- I suggest it's time to rethink your relationship strategy. Some are fortunate to have it easy enough to just bump into their destined love one day and live happily ever after; but for everybody else, it's a process of carefully evaluating people and prayerfully, thoughtfully stepping one's way through one very important process. It's deadly dangerous to just assume ahead of time your One is simply out there waiting for you.
Marriages are delicate things that require two people not only love each other, but also be able to live and cooperate with each other -- permanently.
Who The One turns out to be is entirely up to you.
| | |
| A short Saturday topic for today while I'm bustling about.
I read a blog yesterday while just wandering about Xanga that discussed the rather controversial Trinity concept. I have since forgotten who wrote it, so I apologize for not having a link here. If I can find it again, I'll edit this with it.
It's a touchy subject. You have those who believe in the concept of the Trinity, and then what I believe are called "unitarianists" (is that the right term?), which believe the Father alone is God, not Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Now today I'm not going to go into all the nitty-gritty details of this, because there are many, and this isn't my topic of expertise. But I'll give you a quick break-down of both sides:
Obviously, many -- if not most -- Christians, at least here in the West, believe in the Trinity. This concept basically means that God consists of three "persons": The Father (God), the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Each member of the Trinity serves a different role -- God is the main part, naturally; Jesus provides salvation and is an intermediary between us and God the Father; and the Holy Spirit is a force of guidance and inspiration, among other things. Each acts independently as a separate person, but at the same time all three make up one. Jesus is God in the flesh, the Spirit is God, and the Father is God. There's plenty of places in Scripture cited to support this, including events in which Jesus claimed seeing him meant you'v seen God (as one example). And of course, Jesus and the Spirit both act with very godly abilities throughout Scripture.
Then you have those who reject the concept of the Trinity. Some claim it's a twisted form of polytheism masquerading as monotheism. This side's biggest argument is that the term "Trinity" was coined in, if memory serves correct, the 4th century by the Catholic church. As such, this term does not exist anywhere in the Bible. The conclusion is that it is a man-made concept, and thus not valid. (The counterpoint is the claim that it's a man-made term to describe an otherwise unnamed concept, but is a concept that nonetheless does exist and is discussed in Scripture.) Another claim is that one deity being three "persons" makes no sense; it's a nonsense description, more or less. The key concern here is that monotheistic Christianity has been corrupted by the adoption of man-made beliefs.
And that, in very brief, are the two sides. There are lots and lots of verses to cite and sources to reference for this, so if you want in-depth discussion and research, there are plenty of pieces written by far more intelligent people than I out there. For the purpose of today's entry, I just wanted to give a basic surface overview, then lead into my personal take on it. So, let's move on to that part now, shall we?
I think, first of all, it's not worth making a huge controversy over. It is worth debating, but needs to be kept in perspective. I don't think either side is "less Christian" than the other. There's no point in being angry at whatever side is opposed to yours on this topic. Why? Well, the big thing is that both sides still essentially believe the same fundamental, critical concepts:
(1) There is one God.
(2) Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
(3) Salvation is through Jesus.
Those three points are held by both sides. The argument is in the details. Whether Jesus is technically part of a "Trinity" or not doesn't really change his role. Jesus is still the key to salvation and still the Son of God regardless of which side of the Trinity debate you take. Honestly, the most dangerous part of being on the wrong side of this debate is in determining whether Jesus is God or not himself. Depending on what you believe, to lessen his role -- or exaggerate his role -- is potentially dangerous. But even then, I doubt anyone is going to be rejected at the gates of Heaven simply because they misunderstood that whole Trinity thing. Even if you don't fully 100% understand Jesus (and do any of us truly do?), accepting him as Son of God and savior is still the sure-fire way home.
I think God understands that some concepts are difficult for us to understand. I think He knows we try our best.
So what's my belief? I do accept the Trinity concept. I don't really use the term much, because it is true it's not a biblical term. I'm not saying it's wrong to use, just that I personally usually don't. I like to keep my talk as strictly-biblical as possible. I don't think the "three persons" is nonsense, but I do believe it's hard to understand. The argument could be made that God doesn't make things so impossible to grasp -- but really? Does everything have to be cut and dry? Surely not. God's big. God's complicated. We understand the basics, which are cut and dry, easy to understand, and get us through life with our souls intact. It's the additional details, like this, that are part of the beautiful mystery of God and as such are pretty difficult to understand, if we even are capable of ever fully getting it in this life.
One verse that occurred to me this morning was Mark 12:31: "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven." How can you blaspheme the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit is not God? Isn't blasphemy by definition something you can only do against God? I can't blaspheme my neighbor, last I checked, or even angels for that matter. Blasphemy is a serious sin that is a direct insult to God. Thus I think that verse says something about who the Holy Spirit is. (As an aside, I've always wondered why blaspheming the Holy Spirit is so grave as opposed to blaspheming God the Father or Jesus.)
I'd say it's also entirely possible that neither side really has a full grasp of the concept of what the God/Holy Spirit/Jesus relationship truly is. Maybe it's more complicated than either side realizes.
But we as humans can't stand fuzzy answers. We need black-and-white, clear-cut, direct answers. And unfortunately for us, the Bible doesn't always give those. My opinion is that in this regard, we need to get over ourselves. I myself accept my understanding of the Trinity concept, among various others, is limited at best, and it is entirely possible I misunderstand some of it. But that's ok. I'm saved through Jesus, and strive to walk in his steps, and I try more to understand all of these associated concepts every day.
So there you have it folks: my attempt today to make a big controversial concept a bit less controversial. What's your take on the concept of the Trinity? | | |
| Sorry folks for dropping the ball. I've been very distracted from blogging as of late (this happens often, as I've warned), and have instead been roaming about Xanga reading and commenting on others' blogs, but lazily ignoring my own. I promise I'll finish up Part Two of my previous topic soon. But first, I have a beaten-horse topic that's been begging to spill out of my mind for a while, so I'm finally gonna give in.
The Frickin' Health Care Debate.
So I feel the topic begs a small setup: I don't tend to blast one side in favor of another, so I hope that regardless of if you're liberal or conservative or...whatever else is out there to be, you'll find something worth your consideration in my take on this topic. I wish to open this can of worms up while accepting two facts:
(1) I am not anywhere near being an expert in how the medical system works.
(2) I do not exactly possess the wisdom of Solomon.
These two points prevent me from having the rather ego-driven, overbearing stance that I think many on both sides of this issue tend to flaunt about. In fact, in regard to (1), it's all a rather mystified thing for me. I have no idea how it works. So I'm going into this topic rather disadvantaged to start with. Now, to lay down a couple more establishing points:
(1) I'm a Christian (though probably not the garden-variety many of you are used to).
(2) I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but consider myself to be of some degree right.
In regard to (2), I think it's kind of hard to truly measure "how right" or "how left" one truly is, unless you're so far one way or the other that you're outright drinking the respective party's Kool-Aid. So I base my "rightness" on the premise of (a) I rather like the Constitution, and (b) more times than not I'd prefer the government to stay out of my business.
So in other words, I try to just have as much of an honest, thought-out opinion as possible. I accept my opinions as such are never perfect, and are thus ever-evolving as I learn. Finally, if you're one of those hoity-toity (sp?) know-it-alls who begin every long-winded comment with "obviously", "you retard," or "lol", be forewarned I'm probably going to instantly tune you out if not quietly laugh at you for having a stick up your rear. You guys kinda bug me. I'm sure there's lots for you to do over on YouTube. Thankfully, my blog is usually far too unseen to attract those guys' attention anyway.
I digress. So here's what I see:
Liberals want the "public option". You may call this "nationalized health care", "socialized health care", "Karl Marx risen from the grave", or any number of things. But the most basic idea is the government (and by extension, tax payers) flip the bill for some degree or another of heatlh care costs for everyone. To what degree is highlly debated. The intention of the liberal, for better or worse, is to ensure no one is denied health care, no matter what.
Conservatives want liberty. Good old, reliable, American liberty. Not to say the liberals do not, but on this topic, liberty is the overriding factor for the conservative. The conservative wants no public option, because a public option places some degree of medical decision power in the hands of the government, and the conservative believes any increase in government power is typically bad, as more power equals less liberty. Second, the conservative believes the presence of the government lessens if not entirely removes free market competition. They believe the competition necessetated by the free market, if truly adhered to without interference of regulation, will force health insurance companies to inevitably play fair. For the conservative, this strategy yields both increased liberty and fairness for all.
The common thread between the liberal and conservative here is a desire for fairness. The point of difference is the liberal is more focused on regulation while the conservative is more focused on a liberty-emphasis. In other words, it's a difference in means, essentially.
At least that's how I see it. Thus I give you my attempt at unbiased explanation. Tear it apart as you will.
But it gets much more complicated. Next, you have examples cited of other countries who have this "nationalized" health care already in place: namely Canada and the UK. Some people say it's a nightmare over there, with long lines and long waits for critical, life-saving treatments. Meanwhile, other people say private health care over here creates a nightmare of -- you guessed it -- long lines and long waits for critical, life-saving treatments. It's either caused by governmental red tape or insurance company processes of denial of coverage. Horror stories abound for both systems, and the horror stories tend to be oddly similar. I haven't been in the UK or Canada, so I don't know. I can say I have one friend over there who says it's kind of a give-and-take more or less. She had some cancer treatment that was very well treated by the UK system, but tells me that childbirth isn't quite so nicely handled as over here. Not really the cut-and-dry answer we're looking for, huh?
To make it more confusing, one side says that the current proposed bill will lower premiums and make insurance more affordable. The other side says the same bill will raise premiums and make insurance more costly. Both sides have lots of statistics and experts backing them up. Well, which is it? Unless you (a) have the knowledge/resources/expertise to determine the real facts yourself, or (b) you simply trust one side's claims over the other, you're kinda screwed in trying to figure out who's telling the true story (if either side is).
Then you have your sources of information. You can watch, for example, Fox News -- but WAIT! They're evil! Biased towards conservatives! Lies and spins! Ok, so then, you can watch MSNBC, because...ya know...they're not at all biased about anything. Yeah...so you can't win. Good look finding a news channel everyone can agree on and trust. What happened to the days of "Just the facts, ma'am"? We need to raise some of those old timey reporters from the grave so they can clear up the facts on this issue for us. Clark Kent, Peter Parker -- somebody get on this!
So for right now, I presently have no stance on this issue myself. I can't get enough straight information, and I honestly just don't trust people on either side. I will admit, much to the chagrin of liberals out there, I do watch some Fox News and listen to talk radio. Yeah, there's some bias there, but it's not so bad if you listen with your mental filter in place. And like I said, I am to some degree on the right. I think they make some solid points, though I don't agree with them all.
Now for you, the reader, I want to ask some questions. Maybe you can help me form a solid opinion? Well, take a whack at it if you dare.
First, to the conservatives: If somehow a nationalized system could be introduced that would actually be efficient, how would you feel? Let's say that if, with the funding of some taxpayer money, a system was put in place that would not only pay for every American's health care, but also stay on the front lines of cutting edge technology, and cover everyone in such a way that there wouldn't be long lines, long waits, and tons of red tape. Would you be for it then?
I would say that while such a system would increase some government power, it would also increase some liberty. A little higher taxes offset all that money you're now NOT spending on health care. Instead of dumping a grand on that major surgery you just had, you pay a bit higher taxes, bill's covered by the state, and now you can spend the rest on that new car you wanted. Everyone wins?
But, to be fair, we know that won't happen. If it could be proven to work that way, I would be for it. But we know it won't. The government is too run by politics, too full of corrupt, self-serving people, and too bulky and mismanaged to run such a system. So instead, we have to weigh something else: is a system run by an imperfect, often corrupted government better, or worse then a system run by imperfect, often corrupted businesses? Can I be given some better options to choose from please?
To the liberal: Why is a government option seemingly the only solution? You seem to tell us that we only have two choices: crap as-is, or the public option. C'mon guys, how about some thinking outside the box here? Aren't you guys supposed to be progressive in thought? There surely has to be a whole range of possibilities, and all of them should be on the table for analysis and consideration. What about instead of a public option, something that would ensure insurance companies can no longer play the "pre-existing condition" card?
To both sides: Loosen up. This issue can't possibly be as cut and dry as you think it is. For example, are all insurance companies evil? Or is the current system full of good-meaning and ill-meaning people alike? I can tell you that in my own personal experience, while using Pacificare, they seemingly fought every bill sent them because everything I had was magically a "pre-existing condition". I had to fight constantly to get them to pay for anything. Yet since switching over to my wife's Aetna plan, I'm amazed at how little I pay for anything. For me, it's working pretty darn well, and I've had a couple of surgeries along the way. My health care is pretty darn affordable (and I'm hoping I don't wind up eating these words later). So what's the big deal guys? How about give some props to whoever in the industry is doing it right instead of making a blanket statement about everybody?
I feel the biggest barrier is the Republicans and Democrats are too busy trying to one-up each other than actually fix anything. Are these guys really working toward an actcual solution, or just trying to beat "the other guy"? Given the lack of options on the table, I'm skeptical. It's always about either Party A or Party B, and rarely about the actual issue at hand -- the "issue" is just the convenient tool of the moment to use to win.
I think we can all agree on ONE thing: There's some messed up crap in the current system of paying for health care. At the same time, we do have a very successful health care system, despite the messed up crap. It's not that the whole system's crap -- It's we want to get rid of the crap that exists in an otherwise pretty decent system.
I say give me some means of being able to better pay for big-time medical costs. Medical costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy, right? So yes, something's broken. But don't fix it in such a way that you strip away my liberty. Let me choose my own doctor, and let me and my doctor decide what's best for me. Is that so much to ask? Can't we do one without removing the other?
The bottom line for me: If you can give me a system that is:
(1) affordable for all,
(2) continually cutting edge,
(3) timely and efficient,
then I'm on board. Otherwise, I'm somewhat inclined to continue with the current system -- At least it works for the most part. At least those who don't have health care are a minimal number. Don't give me a patch-up job on the system folks, much less something that fixes one thing while breaking another. Give me something that's a real solution.
That's the best I can give you, Xangans. Discuss! Give me some well thought out input!
| | |
| "WHAT?!" you may ask in panic, "What happened to Part Two?!" No worries, children, no worries. Part Two will be coming soon. But first, an intermission topic.
Everyone around the Xangaverse has been tackling the ages-old question of "Should we move to nationalized universal health care?" And of course, everyone has a strong, passionate opinion. So you inevitably ask, what does James think? Which side of this issue do I stand on? What do I think of Obamacare?
Well, I'll tell you what I think about nationalized health care.
I think zombies. I most definitely think zombies. | | |
| There are, on occasion special, life-altering, ground-breaking discoveries I make as I get older. These include but are not limited to:
(1) Santa Claus isn't real.
(2) Vegetables can actually be desirable.
(3) Girls are not as all that mysterious as I once thought.
(4) The original Transformers cartoon actually kept going after Season 3 in Japan.
(5) That whole "The One" thing is kind of a bag of crap.
And yes, I'm talking about that "The One" -- That ever-so-sacred The One that I'm supposed to never deny exists, because every human being with a pulse supposedly has their own The One, which sounds pretty warm happy fuzzy until you stop and actually invest a degree of bona fide thought into it. And yes, if you're still not following me here, I'm referring to The One YOU are destined to fall in love with and live happily ever after.
Now, don't run off on me just yet. As horrible as this intro sounds, what I'm about to propose to you is not as gloom-and-doom as you might be expecting. In fact, I will be boastful enough as to suggest that the conclusion I am soon enough going to lead you to is, in fact, a much better outcome with a lot more promise. So bear with me, please.
So let's lay the groundwork. First off, I'm going to just come right out and say this is typically a concept perpetuated by honest, good-meaning Christians, especially young ones. God sets out a The One for each of us to find, and when we stay the course and finally meet, a love unlike any other you can fathom blossoms, and a life-long union is born. If you keep your eye out, listen to God's guidance, and keep yourself pure, that The One for you is on his/her way soon enough.
This concept of The One thus establishes that people are paired together very specifically. There is one and only one person out there perfect for you. Any other you settle for is a sub par love, so stay the course and keep your standards high. Examples of various The Ones may include your grandparents, who kept their romance burning to their very last days. There are plenty of examples of The Ones to choose from, all of whom appear to have truly legendary real-life romances. Holding on dear to this concept of The One, you know that God has someone special out there for you. This indeed sounds pretty awesome.
Until you try and, ya know, apply it. Let's take a look at some common Q & A's that I'm sure all of you have asked/heard:
Q: How do I know when I find The One? A: You'll just know. You'll feel it in your heart, and it'll be undeniable! Be patient, and you'll know when it's time.
Then a Jedi, will you be. Q: What about the guy/girl I love now that supposedly isn't The One? A: This may be a strong love, but even though you can't fathom it now, your love with The One will be all the stronger. Sure, you may love this one, but The One will have better fashion sense. Q: What if there isn't a One for me??!  A: There is someone for everyone. Yes, even if you're a robot. Especially a cute robot. So it's a pretty wholesome, hopeful concept, sure. And while my intention here is not to make a complete mockery of a concept so many hold dear, I think it's absolutely critical to point out some serious -- and moreover, dangerous -- qualities to this idea. So why am I harping on this? 1. Life's gonna suck when you pick the wrong The One. I have always been a hopeless romantic. Seriously, I'm a sucker for this stuff. I used to be the guy intent on rescuing the girl, acting as Prince Charming, being the Knight in Shining Armor, saving the princess, and...well, oftentimes as a result, a very odd memory came back to surface to prove to be ironically true: Dude! But I just totally collapsed a bridge underneath the fire-breathing demon-turtle-thing! And, sorry about the bridge. When you're a guy with a romantic streak, it's easy -- ooooh so so so easy -- to convey feelings of happy fuzzness to having found The One. The right batting of eyelashes, the right cute little twinkle in the eye, and of course, the right little plight of always needing saving because she grew up with Daddy issues and systematically dates emotionally detached losers only to suddenly find a guy like you, and it's done. Sealed. Here's the ring, baby! This has gotta be The One! So that's pretty much what happened to me all the time. Like, 90% at least. The thing is, when you're a nerdy, sometimes socially awry, bashful young lad who is not accustomed to actually winning the girl, it's very easy to be overwhelmed with intense feelings of affection fast. And when you're told, "When you find The One, you'll just know", you conclude that you now "just know", judging by the warm fuzzy inside, so -- Hooray! The search is over! And no amount of logical reasoning anyone can offer you to the contrary will make any difference, because you know what you feel. There can't be another. That's...That's just... That's impossible! 2. Finding The One means you can go on and get married now! This "you just know" idea begins a crazy slippery slope of just knowing that leads to all sorts of spur-of-the-moment, life-changing decisions. How many high school lovebirds have you seen get married nearly as soon as they grabbed their diploma? It probably depends on what region you grew up, but the answer from where I came from = A LOT. Now, sure, on rare blessed occassion, this works -- and when it does, it's quite an awesome thing. But on other occassions, it results in very chaotic, dysfunctional, soon-to-be-divorced-in-five-years marriages, since because we knew what we felt to be true regarding The One, we just skipped right on past all that silly stuff like, ya know...premarital counseling, getting to know each other, getting acquainted with each other's families, establishing what quirks we don't like about the other, which of the other's habits are infuriating, daring to consider differences in personal philosophies, knowing how each other runs a household -- Ya know, all that silly stuff you don't need to have down when you know. No, no, it's OK. She digs my G.I.Joes. I know she's the one! Now let's venture into the more dangerous territory... 3. You meet The One while already in a relationship with one you thought was The One, but isn't The One, because this one's The One instead! Happens all the frickin' time. The funny thing about "just knowing" is you quickly learn there are multiple, increasingly intense levels of "just knowing". For example, the first time you fall in love, you just know you're in love. The second time you fall in love, you just know that this love is so much more awesome than that childish first love. The third time you fall in love, you just know that this love is so awesome, it's a love beyond what you ever fathomed, even beyond the previous two loves! And then there's the fourth -- Well, you get the idea. (FYI: If you've fallen in love only once, and are married to that person now -- You are awesome. Stop reading.) The problem is, when we're teenagers and very young adults, there are lots of crazy intense emotions at play that just kick right on into overdrive when around someone we admire and adore -- and yes, truly love. It's crazily easy to associate these feelings with "just knowing", because let's face it -- You DO just know how you feel! There's some truth to it! But, there are consequences. What I speak of here, I unfortunately speak from both the perspective of the victimized and the victimizer, as I had my fair share of love triangles in younger years. In one case, a girl I concluded I was madly in love with, whom I was sure was The One, agreed that I was The One for her as well...until she went off to college, gained some distance from me, and met a guy on campus. A couple of years later, I fell head-over-heels again, and I concluded that this time it was actually The One! So a fiery, epic romance began...until the previous The One popped back into my life, and I realized that no, the first The One that I thought wasn't actually The One was The One, so the second The One that I had just concluded was definitely The One instead of the previous The One wasn't The One after all and...oh crap. What was I saying? That...was easily the low point of my life. I had a lot of screwed up things going on at the time, both inside and outside my head. As a result, I broke a heart, and in the end, I wound up heartbroken myself, and managed to lose both the supposed The Ones. So, you'll just know, right? Yes, but only if you live in Utah. 4. You completely, totally FAIL at finding The One. It's the unspoken clause. Maybe you're not willing to admit it, but every one of us who have held on to this concept of "The One" and "there's somebody for everybody" has stopped to think of this dark, hopeless possibility. If God has put someone out there for you, how can you be sure to find them? How will you know? What if you miss the chance? What if you're already dating someone when The One shows up, so you consequently obliviously miss them? What if The One is someone you know RIGHT NOW and you're totally blowing it without realizing it??? What if you die before finding The One in time? Well don't worry! All us find our The One, because God has made someone just for you. Honest. Take, for example, these blessed people who found their true loves. Let's start with -- The Apostle Paul, who wrote most of the books of the New Testament! Yeah! You know, the same Paul who...preached...the merits of living single, and...um...died...alone. Ok, ok, isolated incident! How about -- Thomas Jefferson! The third President of the United States who's First Lady...er...had been dead for 19 years by the time he was elected. Well...Hey! At least he had been married, right? Right?? Legendary heroine, Joan of Arc! Why, she, after all...um...was executed...single. 5. But GOD has made someone especially for you! You can choose to live single, but if you're meant for love, God has set someone special aside just for you! Man, I can't tell you how many times I heard that from peers growing up. God knows you, and He knows who's best for you, so He's set one special, just-right-kinda-fit person for you aside for you to find one day. So, where's that in the Bible? Well, let's take a look and see...Hmm...Oh! Here we go! It's in...um...ya know...that one book...in that particular chapter...with that one verse talking about...er...Well, it happens in every Disney movie! And Disney is all about God, right? I mean, they make movies about Bible stuff, right? So, OK, I know what you're thinking at this point -- I've dashed and destroyed your hopes and dreams of finding that one special Prince Charming for you, and I've supposedly murdered that romantic fantasy right in front of your eyes. Well, no, not exactly. In fact, I think there's a happier ending to this than the one that's usually presented. And as a very happily married man, I have no problem believing in romance and true love, nor do I have any issue with the concept of a soulmate. So how in the world can I make something good of this depressing revelation? Well folks, you'll just have to stay tuned for the next blog. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! | | |
|
Premium
