Little things before bedtime

Someday you’ll marry me and make me the happiest girl. But until that happens I’ll just imagine what it will be like to fall asleep in your arms. It sounds so cliché, I know, because everyone and their mother dream about falling asleep in someone’s arms. Arms are apparently very attractive things to fall asleep in. But I think and know that there is truth in being in your arms, as if all the right stars and planets and cows and grasses aligned together to make life perfect while I cradle my head in the crook of your elbow. Someday when you’re asleep next to me with your velvet soft arms wrapped around me, your hand gently cupping my left breast, I’ll kiss the inside of your wrist. I’ll run my lips up and down in the hollow where your pulse goes and feel the tendon that moves your hand. Your bicep will rest under my head, the perfect pillow for my weariness. And I’ll press my hips against yours and we will lie there silently, breathing each other’s breath and holding on, holding on, holding on, as if letting go is death itself. In the dim light of a full moon I’ll drift towards sleepshores, your arms around me a lifejacket. Unity and oneness are the night.

I love this

So....I wrote this in May of 2009 and I completely forgot about it. And it cracks me up. I can't believe some of the things I write. It's so weird reading your own writing. It's like dreaming.

"Good ness. Could I feel any less artistic. I look at the goodness and greatness and beauty and VOICE of all these people, all these people I know who have talent dripping out of their fingers and flowing from their toes and pouring off of their tongues and leaking out of their ears. I wish I could rub them on a canvas or use their bones as ceramics tools and their hair for paintbrushes. Relics of art! I would be their worst nightmare. A serial killer who preys on the artistic, who jealously guards their every move and waits for the perfect time to strike and then use their abilities as my own. I’m not jealous so much as I would like to know who I am, what’s the damn reason I have all these strange feelings and visions for. Why do those blank walls stare at me like antagonists, reading my thoughts and mocking me. Wishing for frames and black sulpur pots wrapped in linen to disgrace their mothers. And whatever happened to the lady wolf who suckled her young and then thought of books and how she’d very much like to read someday. Just like a 18th century woman, all wrapped up in furs and minstrels and rabbits. And when I live I can’t help but think that I’ve been wasting my time doing nothing productive or useful or least of all what I want to do. Why do we have talent Jesus? Tell me why because I don’t understand why my hats never satisfy and why I justify art and creativity as if they were bad things.

Because they can make a mint. What good is it to gain the whole world and forfeit your soul? What good is it to gain the whole world and forfeit your imagination? Forfeit your artistry? Forfeit your dreams? Forfeit your life? The whole world is only broken and bruised and filled with lava the color chocolate and the smell of shit. And I wrap my hair around a pencil and my heart fills with strange desires because I am idealistic and young and riding the crest of the religious right wave of culture and fantasticality!

The more I think about it, the more I know that this book report isn’t going to get done. :P

Suck on that bear mountain clay."

50 Posts! Slow down, you're a blogging maniac!

I am smartest at night.

It’s not like I’ve always wanted it to be that way, it just happened to be that way.

I have no recollection of when I was a child under the age of four, but my parents tell me that at night I would often refuse to go to bed. I don’t know what I was thinking, but I’m pretty sure it’s the same as I think right now and it’s either one of two things:
1) If I go to sleep now I’ll miss all the excitement that is bound to happen.
2) There are too many things to look at/think about/read/talk about/learn/understand right now that didn’t seem quite as relevant during the day. I must look into these things or the thoughts will fade away from my brain like a shooting star when the sun comes up.
This might not make sense to any of you “early birds” out there in the world. But let me make one thing clear: My night owl-ry doesn’t mean that I can’t be a morning person. I find it much too simple for a person to either be a night owl or an early bird. Why the duality? Does it need to be this way? Can’t a person be both? Don’t we all know that it’s really the afternoon that can’t be trusted?
All joking aside, I can understand where our need for alertness duality comes from. The fact is, many people can function in the morning, but it doesn’t mean they are doing so happily. Others can function happily in the morning but not consistently. Monday might be a good morning; Tuesday might not. Others, such as my parents, wake up in the morning and brim with excitement and energy and jokes (which I never find acceptable until after 10 AM or otherwise under extremely special circumstances). I have been known to do this when I’ve gotten very little sleep the previous night. But most of the time, I simply don’t want anyone to talk to me for an hour or two while I take the time to decide whether this day is worth waking up for.
The afternoon isn’t much better. After 10 AM I start to wake up enough to make lunch and read the paper. But after eating, and especially after 1 PM, I’m just as tired as when I woke up that morning and a nap is in order. 15-30 minutes is a good pick-me-up nap that won’t necessarily keep you up late that night. Anything over that and you can rest assured that you will be full of enough energy to power your city the entire night long. Forget about sleeping, you’ve just turned into an insomniac (congratulations).
But the night, ah, well, there’s a time to be alive! The darker it gets the more my brain turns on. When I confront myself with literary theory I don’t turn into a shapeless pile of pudding; No! I can understand and comment on many subjects. I can prove just how smart I am. I can make connections and complete goals. I can be the best I can be.
The problem with all of this—and some might call it a benefit—is that no one is around to witness it. No one except your other night owl friends (and let’s face it, no one takes them seriously either).

Inspired by Emily Dickinson

Emily Dickinson.
Not trapped,
But a secluded singing bird
Who sticks to the neighborhood.

Copies of copies travel the world.
Xeroxes roam the billion corners;
Taking their inspiration with them.

Copies had to start somewhere.
Their masters stay at home,
For the pot cannot simmer
Unless it’s left alone.

Who had you first?

I recently have been visiting a food blog entitled Pioneer Woman. I love her because she loves butter. People who love butter, even if they are creepy, unkempt, or murderers of 21 year old women, are a-okay in my book. At least until they pull out a weapon. One of the phrases this fine butter lady uses for exclamation and happiness is "ugh." I find this hilarious and super duper entertaining, because I usually associate "ugh" with frustration.

Ugh! So much new music lately. I'm pretty much on a musical overload right now. Blaine took it upon himself to be my musical educator. I, at one point in my life, thought I had pretty fantastic musical taste. But apparently I was wrong. Or actually, I wasn't wrong, I was just not as far along as some people would have hoped. Some people meaning Blaine. Punk. Blaine has dumped about a million new songs onto my computer. Every week or so we'll start talking about music this or band that or blah blah blah and he'll ask me a series of rapid-fire questions that go as follows:

Blaine: Have you listened to the Editors yet? Me: Not yet.
Blaine: Have you listened to Yeasayer yet? Me: I listened to a couple of songs but then got distracted.
Blaine: Have you listened to Kasabian yet? Me: No. Blaine: [disappointed face]
Blaine: Have you listened to MEW at all? Me: A little, the first few songs or so. Blaine: You have to listen to MEW. I want you to like them.

Thank you sir, but my brain can only handle so much in so little time. I have listened to so much of his music in fact, that I have forgotten that there is other music I used to listen to that I very much enjoyed. All those beautiful, fond-memory inducing songs are sitting in my iTunes library all dusty and sad. I don't know when I'll have time to listen to them again.

Not that all this new music is simply a horrible experience. It's not, there is actually a lot of it that I've fallen in love with. When I get tired of exposing my poor self to new music that doesn't make sense to me yet I will grab my iPod (Music Midget) glance around to make sure no one is looking, and scroll to the artist and songs that I really enjoy. These artists I have learned to enjoy. Sometimes their songs get stuck in my head.

The problem with new music is not that it is new. Sometimes new music isn't welcome simply because it is a change to the usual. There are days when change is acceptable and days when it is not. On No Change Days we just simply cannot listen to new music and feel good about ourselves (that's a royal we by the way). Some days scream sappy old country songs that bring back my childhood. Other days call for some of my sweet high school tunes. In those days I wasn't adventurous enough to actually delve into interesting music, but I did feel rebellious when I listened to non-Christian music (heaven forbid!). That rebellion, even if it shouldn't have, felt so good.

But on some days change is good, welcome even. Those days need new music. Maybe a new album from a beloved artist (although that may not sit well at first. New albums are almost like hearing completely different artists, because usually the sound is different. This always happens to me when I listen to new albums by Death Cab for Cutie. I hate the new music at first, then grow to adore it.). Perhaps a completely new artist. But it's usually on a small scale. And there's a reason for this--at least for me.

You see learning to love new music is like learning to sing a new song. The first step you take is to simply listen to the song. When I first listen to song I don't listen to the lyrics. I can only sit down and take the song in as a whole: singer's voice, instruments used, beat, etc. After this first listen--during which I usually judge the song by its cover--I have to hear it again. Usually the lyrics will pop out to me more this time around, although usually only in snippets. It takes me a while to memorize whole songs quickly. My old roommate Molly could do this and it used to drive me crazy. I don't understand how people memorize song lyrics so quickly. It takes me a while. When I was a kid I didn't understand much of anything I listened to because I never learned all the lyrics. There are a lot of songs that I listen to now that I'm older and I'm shocked at what they're about. (This happens to me with Disney movies too.) If I listen to a song enough times I can usually grow to appreciate it. I usually don't grow to love songs over long periods of time (although this has been known to happen). What usually happens is that during the "judge the song by its cover" stage I'll decide if I absolutely love a song or just think it's okay. If I love the song first off then I will adore it for a really long time. If it is only a like-r then it may take a while to sink in and become something I really like. Radiohead is a good example of a band that took me a while to like. I had to listen to OK Computer for weeks before I decided that I could listen to it on my own without being prompted by someone else. I haven't braved their other albums yet. I'm afraid of what I might find--and of how long it will take me to like what I find. On the other hand, the first time I listened to The Bird and the Bee I loved it immediately and wouldn't stop listening to it for at least a week.

Isn't this super in depth look into my musical taste fun?! Yeah!

One of the most interesting things to me about music is how two different people react to the same artist. And I'm not necessarily interested in the fact that one person likes this artist and the other person hates that artist. What's interesting is when two people like the same artist but gravitate toward different songs. This happened to me and my brother when I was little. He used to drive me around everwhere when I was younger. The bands we most often listened to were Five Iron Frenzy and the O.C. Supertones, my favorite and his favorite, respectively, although both bands were keepers. We'd listen to the Supertones and he'd say "I love this song" and I'd think "Can we fast forward through this one?" (We were at the tail-end of the cassette tape generation. That and his truck didn't have a CD player yet). After that another song would come on that I would adore and he would be apathetic about. I can never understand this. My musical taste was genius, why didn't he agree?

I've encountered this same conundrum with Blaine and I find it hilarious. I've grown to like most of what he has given me. His music isn't bad, a lot of it is amazingly good. I just don't LOVE all of it. There are a lot of keepers for me, but there are just as many albums, artists and songs that I say "eh......" to. Blaine always absolutely, 100% loves and endorses all this music. He knows that I like most of it, but I don't know yet if he's disappointed that I don't love more of it. I have a theory as to why we don't always see eye to eye on music and it involves my big confession. I love, love, love, LOVE poppy music. Always have and always will. I'm not a big fan of ambient music because it makes me fall asleep when I drive and when I drive is pretty much the only time I have to listen to music uninterrupted. So I've grown to be very fond to peppy, hook-y music that keeps me awake. I don't know if he's really figured this out yet. I've told him, but this hasn't narrowed his giving at all. I suppose my preferences don't really need to. Any new album or artist is a new experience after all. And, if I really think about it, I have come to really love some more ambient, mellow music. I just have to listen to it at home when I'm getting ready for bed.

There is another difference in our musical tastes that I also find amusing. Let me use a real-world analogy to make sense of it:

It is 1950. Blaine is the United States. I am Russia. Blaine's music is cutting edge and modern and fancy. My music is old-school, folky and traditional.

Now the analogy breaks down here because in my version of the story America goes to Russia and dumps all of its cutting edge music into the countryside. It's a revolution! But it's also too much at once. Russia can't listen to it all! Russia can't get that modern that quickly! It's too hard! Whine, whine, whine.

And that's what I do with Blaine. I whine. He dumps more music into my library. I whine. He asks me if I've listened to it all in a week. I whine. He plays something in his car that I really like. I ask him who it is. He tells me. I can't find the song on my iPod. I whine.

But despite all my whining and teasing of Blaine's exuberant giving, I'm actually enjoying myself. I feel so cultured and cutting edge. I'm on top of the musical game--sort of--and my horizons are so broad! Win.

Holy cow it's 12:41am. What am I doing? I have to work in the morning. Yikes. Goodnight.

The Way Out of a Comprimising Situation

Today I had the great fortune of completing a "virtual exploration" for my Sociology class. This class is about demographics, but the definition of demographics (which would usually render it a harmless subject as far as social issues goes) does not stop us from delving into an exploration that exposes us students to the finer details of social issues. This virtual exploration happened to be focused on the family institution and how the definition of the family has changed over the years. You can imagine that this was a fairly stimulation exploration into the minds of all sorts of different thinkers.

What I particularly like about these virtual explorations is that they present a variety of viewpoints on various subjects. This is all in the interest of being unbiased, which I have found, in my limited experience, to be easier said than done. For this assignment we had to explore the Partners Task Force website and read the "Legal Marriage Primer" (http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-prim.html) which is apparently what you should read if you never read anything else about legal marriage. Fair enough. If you have time read this primer, it's actually quite interesting.

The biggest argument the Legal Marriage Primer makes is that marriage can be separated into two categories: legal marriage and religious marriage. The federal government requires married couples to sign a marriage license, but they don't necessarily have to have a member of the clergy present to do this, and they certainly don't have to have a religious ceremony to seal the deal. The marriage license is a purely legal document that allows married couples access to certain benefits that non-married couples do not have (see the website for a list). Proponents of same-sex marriage want more than just domestic partnerships, which they say does not give them the full benefits that a legal marriage does. They want legal marriages. Not religious marriages. Legal marriages. (At least, the creators and supporters of this particular website only want legal marriages. Others may want both).

The part of me that has studied the Constitution and knows a ridiculous amount of political theory says why not? Why shouldn't legal benefits be granted to same-sex couples? The Primer makes a compelling argument for legal marriages of same-sex couples. Part of me agrees that denying a couple marriage rights based purely on religious definitions of marriage is against the idea of equal rights for all--even if you don't personally agree.

And you may disagree with me. You may say "Oh silly Alise, the current definition of marriage being only between a man and a woman is not purely religious." Is it? Honestly, I don't know all the history behind this so you could possibly be right. But if we were to discuss this issue only within the realms of current American law, the definition of marriage cannot be defined by a religious institution. Why not? Because the 1st Amendment bans this possibility. No religious institution can determine the definition of any legal process in this country according to the Constitution. I'm not saying that this hasn't been done in the past. What I'm saying is that if an argument to keep marriage between a man and a woman were to go the Supreme Court today, it would probably be denied based on the fact that the Constitution disallows any legal process or institution to be based on purely religious definitions. This is for the protection of both the secular state and the various religious institutions in the country.

Same-sex marriage is hotly contested, and for good reason. The United States has large numbers of religious people who desperately want to protect the religious definition of marriage as well as large numbers of people who think that this definition is outdated and should be expanded to deferentiate between religious and legal marriages--allowing legal marriages to exist even if a religious organization would not condone that particular marriage.

I don't know what to do or think about this.

And part of my dilemma is that I don't know if it is possible for me to compromise on this situation.

What does it mean to compromise anyway? Being a very astute English major, when faced with this question I pulled out my trusty OED (Oxford English Dictionary for all you non-wordphiles out there) and looked up the word compromise. The first three definitions all center around settling a disbute with an arbitrator or by mutual concession. The fourth definition gives us our more modern understanding of the word:

The finding of an intermediate way between conflicting requirements, courses of action, etc., by modification of each; a thing that results from or embodies such an arragement.

And the fifth definition is different:

A putting in peril; an exposure to risk. (This is referring to something like "a compromising situation, or having been compromised)

So....my question, which will use both the fourth and fifth definitions of compromise, is this: Is it possible to compromise on this same-sex marriage issue without compromising what I believe as a follower of Christ?

In a Christian theocratic state, where laws are based on the doctrines of the Bible, compromise would not even be an issue. If we were staying true to the words of the Bible, same-sex marriages would simply not be permitted.

In a purely secular state that does not allow ANY religious influence, in a state that oppresses faith-based organizations, again, compromise would not even be an issue. Legal marriages would be simply that: legal. There would be no need for a religious definition for marriage. Marrige could be whatever the state wanted it to be.

We live in a combination of both those states. Our government is secular. I'm sorry guys, that's just the way it is. America is not a theocracy, nor will it ever be (and to be honest, a human-run Christian theocracy scares me to no end). Our government has been influenced, and is being influenced, by religious ideas and definitions, but if push came to shove, the government would in no way be obligated to form policy and laws around the framework of any kind of religious ideal. That's just not how our Constitution works. It's a good thing too, theocratic countries are not terribly stable places to live. However, even though our government is secular, there are still huge amounts of Americans who live according to morals and ideas that stem from many different religions, primarily Christianity. Because America is a semi-democracy, our senators and representatives are supposed to take our belief systems into account when they make laws (this is, of course, highly idealized). Then, and this is key, but seems to be forgotten, majority rules. At least, the majority is supposed to rule. But, obviously, when the majority does rule, the minority gets oppressed. Which isn't fair. Wah. (:D Sorry, I couldn't repress my sarcasm there) So in order to make things better for everyone, the majority can be nice and offer to compromise a little with the minority. And the minority, since they are the minority, should probably accept the compromise and quite whining a bit. The fact is, life isn't fair, and our governments certainly do not have the tools, talents, or abilities to make life fair. We do the best we can, and that's all we can really ask for.

So. Compromise between conservatives who are afraid of the changing in the definition of marriage and others who just want to be legally married. Is it possible?

Why not? Would it really be terribly compromising (fifth definition) to allow same-sex couples legal marriages?

As Christians, I think we would have fair amount of room to cry foul if same-sex couples were trying to obtain religious marriages along with legal marriages. Certainly we should not allow any happenings to go on in our places of worship that go against our faith. But as far as legal marriages are concerned--I would controversially say that we have no right to put our hands into that process. There is a reason the church and the state are separated, and it if for issues like this.

We have no right to demand that every person, believer or unbeliever, should conform the to the Biblical definition of marriage. Same-sex couples have no right to demand that they be allowed religious marriages when their lifestyle so clearly is against Biblical teaching. Legal marriages, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter.

I think that this is a situation that would allow for compromise without compromising what I believe.

Okay! Now it's time to discuss all of this! Go!

The Coin Flip Tournament

When I was at CBU I took at a New Testament survey class. My professor really opened my eyes to, well, God. This sounds very ridiculous considering my pastor's kid upbringing and the various pride-filled stunts that I pulled at church the show everyone just how spiritual I was. I was a liar for most of my childhood and adolescence, but that's hardly worth talking about right now. One of things that I learned in my New Testament survey class (besides all the life-changing Biblical connections that were made that I had never before seen) was that casting lots can actually be a way of discerning what God's will is for you. The first time my professor talked about this I thought he was absolutely crazy. But really, the thought just terrified me. What if you knew exactly what God wanted you to do? Some people might think that would be the most awesome occurance ever, but I beg to differ. Why? Because I know that if God explicitly reveals His will for me, I HAVE to do it. I have no choice. There's no wiggling out of it by making excuses or pretending that I didn't get the message straight. I'm obligated. Obligation makes me nervous.

But more than making me nervous (and despite making me nervous), casting lots to decide God's will really excited me. And since then I have always wanted to try it.

-------------

Last week I came to my senses and realized that my heart had been dull, dead, and numb for more than a few months. And since God has graciously given me the kind of friends who will kick my butt into shape--free of charge might I add--I felt super motivated to do something about my spiritual lameness. So I buckled down, went to a Christian bookstore and stood nervously in front of the "Bible Study" section. What to choose, what to choose. They all looked so good. Actually, that's not true. Some of them looked good, others looked fairly interesting, while a few looked truly terrifying and difficult.

I have to be honest here. I usually judge books by their covers. I confess to it, but I don't repent. The book that I ended up with was actually on the bottom of my "to choose" list because it had an exceptionally boring and ugly cover. And the title made me a little nervous. More on that later...

Anyway, I looked at all the books and read their back covers. Then I prayed, a little half-heartedly, that God would show me the book He wanted me to use, the study that would guide me through His scriptures because I have such trouble doing it on my own. As soon as I prayed this I thought, "I might as well just flip a coin" and as soon as I thought this I got super nervous and giddy.

So I did.

I lined up all the books on the floor and eliminated potential studies tournament style. Heads was the keeper and would go on to the next round. Finally I got to the last two. One was on being seduced into sin and the other was about spiritual gifts. I was rooting for spiritual gifts as it seemed safe--a fun read or something along those lines. I flipped the coin and it landed on top of the seduction book. Tails! Spiritual gifts it is-----

And then the coin fell off the book and onto the ground heads side up.

Seduction and sin.

I thought to myself, "What do I do now? Was that a fluke? Which one should I go with?"

So like an idiot, of course, I decided that I would flip the coin again. Here's where you think it's going to land on heads and I'm proved wrong, it wasn't a fluke, I should go with the seduction book, etc. But you'd be wrong, it landed on tails and I was thoroughly confused. But instead of trying again and freaking myself out, I decided that God is powerful enough and smart enough to know what's good for me the first time He makes a decision and I went with the scary seduction and sin book. It's called When Godly People Do Ungodly Things. It's about how Satan seduces godly people into sin through deception and seduction.

Which, it turns out, is freaky stuff--and I'm only four days into it. (As if we didn't know this already)

But it's exactly what I needed to hear and has pointed me to the most wonderful and instructive verses. As if God didn't know that already.

So, hopefully, there will be more to come about Satan and his wiles. My eyes have already been blasted wide open with just four short days, I can't imagine how much more God is going to teach me about our enemy who is ridiculously good at deceiving us....so good that we forget he's there. Oooh that makes me shiver. Let's all thank and praise God that He is way more power and in control than Satan ever will be!