46 thoughts on “Our Daily Thread 3-26-18

  1. Apinun all. It is only 5pm here and we don’t have to say Good Night until 6. That cat is in big trouble with all those breakables.
    Just got back from my run/walk. Today I did a 3 minute run then walk, then a 5 minute run, then walk, then another 3 minute run, then walk, then another minute to top it off. My best yet.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. So, what time is it for you all? I am trying to chat with Cricket to get a code to unlock my phone. They say they are available at 7am EST.. Are we close to that time??

    Like

  3. oh, I am still chatting with Cricket to try and unlock my phone so that I can use it here. So sleepy and the alarm is set for 5am

    Like

  4. My phone says it’s 9;:50 in Port marshy and 1:50 in Prague.
    So? Jo needs to get to sleep, Tychicus needs to take a coffee break and the rest of us need to start rolling out. Except Michelle and Donna. They can roll over for another nap.
    I don’t have Ajisuun’s time.

    Interesting setup with us spread all around the world.

    Like

  5. A calico in a china closet?

    The Duel
    Eugene Field
    The gingham dog and the calico cat
    Side by side on the table sat;
    ‘T was half-past twelve, and (what do you think!)
    Nor one nor t’ other had slept a wink!
    The old Dutch clock and the Chinese plate
    Appeared to know as sure as fate
    There was going to be a terrible spat.
    (I was n’t there; I simply state
    What was told to me by the Chinese plate!)

    The gingham dog went “Bow-wow-wow!”
    And the calico cat replied “Mee-ow!”
    The air was littered, an hour or so,
    With bits of gingham and calico,
    While the old Dutch clock in the chimney-place
    Up with its hands before its face,
    For it always dreaded a family row!
    (Now mind: I’m only telling you
    What the old Dutch clock declares is true!)

    The Chinese plate looked very blue,
    And wailed, “Oh, dear! what shall we do!”
    But the gingham dog and the calico cat
    Wallowed this way and tumbled that,
    Employing every tooth and claw
    In the awfullest way you ever saw—
    And, oh! how the gingham and calico flew!
    (Don’t fancy I exaggerate—
    I got my news from the Chinese plate!)

    Next morning, where the two had sat
    They found no trace of dog or cat;
    And some folks think unto this day
    That burglars stole that pair away!
    But the truth about the cat and pup
    Is this: they ate each other up!
    Now what do you really think of that!
    (The old Dutch clock it told me so,
    And that is how I came to know.)

    Liked by 3 people

  6. If I taught school I would make an activity out of that poem with paper plates, gingham and calico. The children would make a cat or dog out of the paper plate then decorate it with either gingham or calico.
    I teach adults now, which mean I have to spend time in class myself. Today will be a long one because I am not a master of my calendar.
    9-4 in class for Professionalism in Robertsdale
    4 Staff meeting in Pensacola– will have to Zoom in as I am driving to
    5:15 at listing appointment in Cantonment.
    I have team meeting Tuesday, and a class I really need to take at 1pm, but I have overbooked my schedule for Wednesday. (see above where I admit I am not a master of my calendar) I may have to pivot and show property Tuesday and Wednesday.
    Thursday I am in BOLD from 8:30 to 3:30 and will be every Thursday for the next 8 weeks.
    Friday, probably showing property again and hopefully writing an offer.
    Oh, and I listed a house yesterday so I have to take care of all of that. Sending the Hubs out to measure it today.
    Easter is coming and I am not prepared. I haven’t planned an event nor have I made reservations anywhere. We are awaiting the arrival of Miss Maddie Dee.

    Grandpa has strict orders to get this ordered today since I could not find one locally:
    https://www.amazon.com/Stephan-Baby-Keepsake-Handkerchief-Christening/dp/B0055PIU20/ref=sr_1_1_a_it?ie=UTF8&qid=1522067049&sr=8-1&keywords=handkerchief+baby+bonnet

    The tradition of a baby girl wearing a bonnet made from a handkerchief on her christening day is timeless. Stephan Baby’s keepsake handkerchief christening bonnet is fashioned from snowy white linen and cotton, exquisitely detailed with delicate cutwork embroidery and embellished with pretty satin ribbons and bows. The bonnet is beautifully presented in a window gift box and includes a lovely poem card that explains the tradition. And, when her future wedding day arrives, a snip of a few threads will transform the bonnet into a cherished trousseau handkerchief to be used on her wedding day.

    Mimi’s Christening gown is hanging in the closet waiting on another baby. I am determined someone let me be a proper southern grandmother. 😉

    Liked by 2 people

  7. I don’t believe the last part of the poem, about the Dutch clock.
    But Kim is gone for the day.
    She will soon be rich, I hope, I believe that she knows that the real estate business has it’s downs as well as it’s ups.
    Be prepared.
    As this stat scout would say.

    I see where Melania (Or whatever Trump’s wife is named) is tired of the tornado of life in the White House. I can understand that. How would you feel if the only purpose you had in life was to look beautiful on the way out to the helicopter.

    Like

  8. I keep my fitbit batteries and the little oodie for removing the back of the fitbit in a crystal sugar bowl in the cabinet. That way they don’t get lost, and I always know where they are.

    I had to replace the battery so I opened the cabinet, got out the stuff and did what I had to. I then turned to put it back in the cabinet and noticed it had a new resident. So I did what any good cat owner would.

    I closed the door and grabbed my camera. 🙂

    The flash made the glass look frosted, but you get the idea.

    Plus she’s so cute, how could I be mad? 🙂

    Liked by 4 people

  9. I had to get up early to haul the 10 or so heavy bags out to the driveway for the Salvation Army pickup. More stuff gone that I don’t have to find places for.

    Last night I was reading my journal entries from a year ago and they were filled with angst — the house is in chaos, it will never look good again, the driveway job starts tomorrow, I hope it goes smoothly (haha, tears to come over that), the fence project has started, the broken bed was finally returned but the kitchen flooded so new washer and dryer now to shop for, new washer/dryer was delivered but the valve on the wall broke during installation and the kitchen flooded – again. The dogs got out when the workers came. “What a mess,” I ended one entry.

    Indeed it was.

    Things are a little more under control a year later today, but we still have to paint … I bought the little sample cans on Saturday so we’ll try those colors out on an inconspicuous spot in the back on the garage.

    Love the cat in the cabinet ! — and I love that cabinet, I have a couple antique pieces like that.

    Like

  10. I love that poem and quote it frequently – whenever I’m relating something told to me someone else and it’s met with surprise, I always say, “I wasn’t there; I simply state what was told to me by the Chinese plate.” Most people have no clue where it came from.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Yes, painting — I was going to get a new roof and paint the house, end of the project, it would all be good, that was the plan in summer 2016. It was a good plan. But here I am now, many tears, wailing and desperate days and nights later … Back to painting with barely enough energy left to carry on much longer.

    My goal is to have the house DONE by fall. (The house painter — the dog park worker — is cheap but slow so painting the exterior could take a while though he thinks he can do it in 2 weeks.) Some of the prep work is getting done now. I figure painting may start in May/June?

    Guy at Sherwin Williams suggested taking only 3 chips/sample shades of the color you’re interested in; any more and you’ll be hopelessly confused. Three is the magic number, he told me, pick your first shade then limit yourself to one lighter and one darker.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Roscuro, on the gun discussion yesterday, you asked me where the Bible gives the right to self-defense, and in a different post, you wrote, “elf sacrifice, not self defence, is the way of Christianity, for we too are to lay down our lives in the service of Christ.” I don’t think it is either/or, self-sacrifice or self-defense.

    First, I largely agree with the thought that the Bible speaks in terms of responsibilities rather than rights. But in some sense, “rights” are implied, and in at least one case they are explicitly stated (probably in others, too. Explicit: the man who preaches the gospel has the right to make his living by preaching. Implicit: parents are commanded to rear their children in such and such a way, and implicit in such a command is that parents have a right to rear their own children and also a right to have their children provide the benefits children provide. Laws against theft and laws about property also grant the right to one’s own land. And so forth.

    As to whether self-defense is permissible, first, there is a vast range of what is included in self-defense. A lock on the door is self-defense, and killing the intruder with a gun is also self-defense. I don’t think anyone would argue against self-defense that does not hurt the one who is attacking, for instance such things as keeping him from entering your property in the first place, but also overpowering the weaker, unarmed belligerent. If the 90-pound weakling won’t stop slugging you, and follows you when you try to move away from him, at some point you push him against the wall and hold him there until he agrees to desist or until the teacher comes along or the policeman–even the most pacifist of folks would probably agree with that level of self-defense. Likewise, if someone attempts to rape you, it is permissible to do everything you can to fight him off. I suspect most people would at least include the “right” to cause him physical pain if one can do so (whether or not they would consider it advisable); whether it is permissible in self-defense to cause him actual injury, or defend oneself lethally, is the debatable one. (Personally I would say yes, one can defend oneself to the death if one has that ability.)

    Bringing Scripture into it: clearly a nation and a community have a right to self-defense (we see armies and watchmen as acceptable), and a man has a right to defend his property, even if that defense results in death of the thief under some circumstances (the Mosaic law mentions someone breaking in during the night and being killed, and the householder being exonerated). There is even limited right to retribution, or a man who accidentally killed another would not have to flee to the city of refuge to avoid the “avenger of blood” (because the avenger of blood would be considered a murderer if he had no “right” to kill the man if he found him). Jesus even had at least one parable about the strong man who successfully defends his home from invasion; granted, the point was not material possessions, but spiritual, but the analogy itself cannot be improper or it doesn’t work.

    Anyway, to the question of “Does one have the right of self-defense?” if we are talking non-lethal self-defense to a threat of bodily injury or death, I don’t think there is much controversy from anyone. As to lethal force, it is clear that the right of retribution or revenge is limited: God holds it, the state holds it (the death penalty), and under Mosaic law in some cases even a member of the family (the “avenger of blood”) held it in a limited fashion, but there was an orderly process involved to all of it and not such things as tribal warfare, honor killings, or gang warfare. But stopping a murder from happening in the first place is a different question: One is not required to submit to a criminal’s designs against life or property, and the would-be thief is seen as taking his life into his hands. Biblically, the murderer deserves to die, and it is just that he be killed. If one knows that he is intent on murder, and the only way to stop him is to injure or kill him, that is clearly not murder. The Ten Commandments forbid murder; self-defense is not murder. If a man enters your home with a gun and you say, “I have you covered; I have a gun and I know how to use it. Drop yours or I will shoot you,” and he doesn’t drop his gun, then clearly his life is forfeit. You have not murdered him, but have kept him from murder, potentially from many murders. I think that to call such protection wrong, against all evidence from Scripture that a man is protector of his household, the burden is on the person who would say that the invader willing to use lethal force must not be met with lethal force. (And if he kills one person of the household, or injures that person in an attempt to kill him, may he then be stopped by lethal force?) If you can stop him by some means short of lethal force, and you choose to kill him anyway (e.g., you already have him tied up and you shoot him), then you would be tried for his death. But there is nothing in Scripture that says a person who wishes to steal (and is himself armed with the ability to kill), maim, rape or kill must be allowed to do so if the only way to stop him is by lethal force.

    Also, as someone on the old World blog pointed out, if it is legitimate for a police officer to use force to defend your life or property (and it is), then it must also be legitimate for you yourself to do so, since we cannot righteously “hire out” what it would be illegitimate to do ourselves. (That is different from saying the government has authority that we do not have, which is also true. But if we can hire a security guard to defend our home or our business, then clearly we can also do the security ourselves.)

    I think Scripture assumes the right to self-defense, and community life also assumes it, and the burden of proof is on the one who would say it is wrong to prove that from Scripture. I know others have made the case more cogently, but basically a criminal’s ability to use force does not give him the freedom to do what he wants against others who have their hands tied by (moral) inability to use force. God doesn’t give the law-abiding that sort of (moral) disadvantage.

    Liked by 4 people

  13. Chas, the first lady really has a lot of power and opportunity in the role of first lady. Much of what they do is not in the news, but it certainly can be effective. To think their only role is to be beautiful woefully underestimates the job.

    I do not want to eat off any of the dishes near that cat.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. Morning…and an oh so cute kittie…but in this case I am most certain “curiosity did not kill the cat”….kitty did get shot…with a camera!! 🐱
    Pleasant day here and then the snow moves in this evening…I am already looking forward to waking up tomorrow morning!! ⛄️

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Re: the verse about offering the other cheek.

    It has been pointed out that most people are right handed, therefore a slap to the right cheek is a backhanded slap, which is more of a personal offense than a physical attack. Therefore, according to that theory, Jesus was talking, in that particular verse, about not striking back when offended. I don’t know how accurate that is, but it seems plausible.

    Back to last night’s discussion following one of my comments. I just want to clarify that my views are not so much in the gun rights camp per se, but in what is effective. From the reading I have done, and I’ve done a lot of it on this issue, I think that tighter gun control is not going to solve the problem of these mass shootings. That is why I described the marchers as believing a false narrative. They seem to be putting all their eggs in the gun control basket.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Cheryl, the argument that rights are in Scripture by implication is open to dangerously imbalanced interpretations. Take your example that the commands to children to honour their parents mean that parents have the right to benefit from their children and apply the same logic to the commands to husband and wife in Ephesians 5 and you will see what I mean. Does a command to the wife to submit imply that the husband has a right to the submission of his wife? The answer from Pastor A, as from many other Scripture teachers who are sound and orthodox, is a resounding, “No”. A command to the wife to submit does not mean a husband can demand that submission as a right. The presence of a command in Scripture does not signal the presence of a right.

    Rights are a construction of the Enlightenment, which was led by men such as John Locke, who denied that man in his natural state was sinful. As such, rights are inherently based in the idea that granting human rights is always right, and the more unlimited the grant of a right is, the more right it will be. Yet, in real life, the granting of a right such as the pursuit of happiness must necessarily be limited, as in the case of a serial killer who pursues happiness by killing other people. That is because humans are inherently sinful, and even their good deeds are like filthy rags. Human rights are all too easily perverted and twisted.

    I increasingly am aware that the rights that are demanded by certain communities, are indeed within the scope of human rights, because the idea of human rights is inherently flawed. Take the case that has recently been effectively argued in courts across the Western world, that humans have the right to die when life is no longer endurable. The argument is essentially made from both the right to liberty, in deciding for oneself when to die, and the right to the pursuit of one’s happiness, in determining to end one’s unhappiness. From the perspective of human rights, it is almost impossible to counter the argument. I know, I have tried. Using human rights to make the argument for assisted dying has made the idea of assisted dying seem humane and right. I have witnessed this growing conviction of the rightness of assisted dying for myself, even among Christians.

    But what if assisted dying had been argued for as the responsibility of the healthcare profession to end the lives of those they failed to heal? All of a sudden the idea becomes sinister. The idea of physicians have the responsibility to kill, as if they were executioners, is inherently repulsive. As I was saying to my mother when we were discussing the difference between a right and a responsibility, rights are focused on what is due to oneself, responsibilities are focused on the needs of others. Such a focus is what Christians are called to have:

    “Do nothing out of rivalry or conceit, but in humility consider others as more important than yourselves. Everyone should look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.” (Philippians 2:3-4).

    What we do in life is not to be about what is due to us, but what we owe to others. It is a continual source of regret to me that the debates over marriage were framed as religious rights versus human rights, of us vs. them. There were much better alternatives – to begin with, why didn’t Christians actively engage the growing counter culture in the 60s and 70s, as Christ once engaged the publicans and sinner, instead of preachers railing against the social evils around them? The fact that arguments against gay marriage focused on not forcing preachers to marry couples against their conscience only served to further close up opportunities to preach the Gospel to that community. When Christians use their human rights to defend themselves, they may actually impede the spread of the Gospel.

    As for the examples of self defense from the Old Testament law, the Old Testament must always be interpreted in light of the New Testament. Old Testament history is not prescriptive, but descriptive. As for the law, it is clear from the New Testament that the law is limited in its application. We cannot argue, for example, that because the law allowed for an avenger of blood, therefore, humans have the right to seek vengeance. The New Testament utterly contradicts that by commanding us not to seek vengeance (Romans 12:19). If vengeance was a human right, then Christians should be able to practice it, but we are forbidden to do so. The law does not exist to build stronger societies and establish human rights. The law exists to convict people of sin. It cannot make thing better. To make things better is the work of Christ (Galatians 3). The only place where righteousness is accomplished for humanity is in Jesus Christ.

    Like

  17. On a different note. . .

    The other night at dinner, The Boy said (I forget why or what preceded it) that girls cannot marry girls and boys cannot marry boys. Nightingale replied that they can now. Boy, was he perplexed by that. He doesn’t even know about sex yet, but he knows that a person of one sex shouldn’t marry a person of the same sex. Sadly, the world will try to drum that piece of common sense wisdom out of him.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Sorry to hear that, DJ.

    Since Nightingale will be working on Easter Sunday, we will be having an “Easter brunch” on the following Saturday. She has planned quite a menu!

    Coffee and tea
    Virgin Mimosas
    Spinach, Mushroom, and Goat Cheese Quiche
    Ham and Cheddar Quiche
    Bacon-Wrapped Asparagus Bundles
    Smoked Salmon Crostini
    Baked Hash Browns
    Carrot Cake Muffins
    Lavender and Lemon Scones
    Apple Rose Tarts

    She has invited two families she is close with to join us, and I am friendly with both families. One family has one child (a daughter a couple years younger than The Boy), and the other has four (two boys and two girls, with another girl on the way).

    The latter family used to come to my church (they changed churches shortly after we got a new pastor), and I am pretty friendly with the mom. The boys are The Boy’s best friends, one a bit younger than he, the other a bit older.

    So next week, I will be doing a lot of extra cleaning. I guess it’s about time I did more than the usual. I don’t know if Chickadee will join us, but I have invited her.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. She tried out the Apple Rose Tart recipe today. So pretty! She cut the apples into thin slices, then layered them along strips of puff pastry. Those are then rolled up and put in muffin tins. The effect looks like a rose! They came out great.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Kathleena,

    Relax. The eating on china is in the cabinet underneath. This is just for show.

    Plus, I always wash it before use anyway, because it’s been in cabinets for years between uses. 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  21. Roscuro, I agree that the argument from “rights” is generally flawed. Did you notice, though, that I pointed out that the apostle Paul did use the “rights” argument once (if only to waive the right), so it isn’t necessarily always without warrant?

    I agree that the “avenger of blood” is not for today (I’ll come back to that), and that was actually my point, that even where “vengeance” was allowed, it was very strictly limited, and usually left to God or to government as His agent. However, the concept is generally allowing what is called in or law (or used to be), “crimes of passion.” That is, if you catch someone in the act of harming your wife or child (or presumably someone else under your care, such as your widowed mom, your sister, or your student) and you kill that person, the law will basically figure the jerk had it coming. I think, for instance, of a case just four or five years ago, when a man went out into his yard to find an employee raping his preschool daughter, and he attacked the man and I think choked him, not really trying to kill him, but just reacting in rage. The man died, and law enforcement basically looked the other way–he had it coming. If you “think it out” and commit such an action, it is a crime, but if you are defending someone you love in the heat of the moment, both the law of man and the law of God say you are justified and it is no crime.

    But if you would say we have no “right” to self-defense, what would you say instead? Would you say that we “may” defend ourselves, but you have problem calling it a right, or would you say it is impermissible to defend ourselves? If so, on what grounds, and what limits? Would you say, for instance, that a woman may or may not give a hard kick to a man attempting to rape her, if she has such an opportunity? I think that self-defense is built into us as something authorized by God (though He may forbid it in some circumstances, as I would argue that He has actually done where government is concerned), but I’d be interested to see the argument against it.

    Like

  22. Cheryl, I said when I first asked where in Scripture self defense was a right that I did not think that Scripture necessarily forbid self defense. I am not a pacifist. But I regard defending oneself against a murderous attack or rape as part of one’s responsibilities to stand against evil, to protect others, and to protect the gift of human life. As is so often pointed out in regards to reproving people for certain popular sins, allowing someone to continue in sin without warning or stopping them is not loving toward them, so letting a murder or molester get away with it is not loving to them. A murderer or molester usually does not stop at just one victim, so stopping them from hurting you is also protecting others. Finally, each of us are created in the image of God, and our lives are a gift. We are responsible to God to not wantonly throw that gift away. We lay down our lives in service to others, but as the other two responsibilities I mentioned show, letting a murderer kill us or a rapist molest us is a service to no one.

    You use the example of a man accidentally killing a perpetrator while attempting to hurt his daughter. To protect one’s child from being abused is not based on the right of self defense; one’s child is a completely distinct person from oneself. It has been pointed out that one’s children are also one’s neighbours (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/your-child-is-your-neighbor/), so we have the same responsibility toward them as toward our neighbour. Parents are in the best position to protect a child, but others have the same responsibility to protect the vulnerable (Psalm 82:3). In my profession, I have a obligation to report abuse or threatened harm to children, the elderly, and if the abuser is a healthcare professional, when I become aware of it. In other words, I have an responsibility to put a stop to the evil of abuse in order to protect the vulnerable. The responsibility is spelled out for healthcare professionals, because we are uniquely positioned to see signs of abuse that others may not see, such as bruising on parts of the body that are normally covered by clothing. Likewise counselors and clergy are obligated to report because they will receive confidences that others may not, but that named responsibility does not absolve those who are not of those professions of their inherent responsibility. As Christ said, all the law and prophets may be combined into two commandments, “Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your hear, soul, and strength, and thou shalt love your neighbour as yourself.” Those are not rights, they are responsibilities.

    Like

  23. As to the apostle Paul’s statement I Corinthians 9 about having the power to take material benefits from his flock, he quotes the law, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads the corn” in support of his point. He is speaking of just wages for work done, not of an inherent, unearned right.

    Like

  24. Vet visit went well, cheapest one in a while — $37 for 2 rabies shots. They had some drama earlier in the day in the waiting room when a man began punching his pit bull in the head (for barking at a another dog) prompting another guy to get up and assault the owner who pulled his dog up by the leash until the dog passed out resulting in a police call from someone. When I was there late in the day the county animal control were taking the dog (seemed friendly, and OK) away, the guy now faces felony charges. So crazy.

    Question: Is there a way patients in a rehab can get their government checks cashed there or through some service? Carol needs 10 more days of IV antibiotics but has no cell service (as she failed to pay her March phone bill). I told her a year ago I’d never pay her bill again and I haven’t — but now she probably does need a phone as she will be laid up in strange places for a while. I’m trying to figure out how I can get the money up front from her as I don’t trust her to pay me back (she never does). But all she’ll have is a check that should arrive at her Hollywood residence on Friday.

    Like

  25. DJ, can she authorize you to pick up the check (and could you do that) and then sign it over to you, and you give her what cash is left?

    Like

  26. Dj does the rehab not have phones in patient rooms? It wouldn’t make sense to me if they didn’t have phone service for patients….and to that end, she just may need to use the “public” phone instead of the luxury of her own private cell. If that doesn’t pan out, I would think someone at her regular address could take her check to her, have her sign it over to them for a deposit to her acct only. Whatever you do, I would not be fronting her money for her phone…just dipping my oar in…now taking it out! 😊

    Like

  27. It sounds like they needed a reporter in that waiting room. The guy who choked his own dog faces felony charges, but not the guy who attacked him (and might have prompted him to hold his dog on a super-tight lead lest he defend his owner)? If so, that sounds a little odd. Not that choking one’s dog is OK, but I don’t see how it’s a felony and punching a guy isn’t even arrestable. Or maybe I missed something.

    Like

  28. Yes, I’ve decided she’ll have to live with no personal phone

    Cheryl, my vet was saying the guy with the pit bull (this was the first dog he’d ever had) had just lost his mom last week and so there might have simply been some education required. The other guy assaulted him but it was brief and the fight was broken up — it was all caught on surveillance tape apparently. All very chaotic — and the dog passing out due to choking simply is a felony under the law. I got the feeling my vet wished things cold have been worked out without engaging the authorities, but someone called police and that was that.

    And maybe the guy who was beating on his dog has other abuse issues. My vet’s a tall string-bean type guy so he was trying to use is BIGGEST voice to tell them all to stop, but apparently both men were big and walking into the middle of that might have been worse. Someone broke it up before the person-on-person thing became too serious, sounds like it was mostly yelling and shoving.

    Like

  29. (And my vet did say the guy pulling his dog up was acting instinctively, not intending the choke the dog, and that it was probably a correct instinct under the circumstances, but turned out bad — at least the dog came to, he looked friendly as he was walked out to the animal control officers when i was there in the aftermath. Drama.)

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.