Seventeen school years is enough to train a 23-year-old person to expect something different by the time June rolls around, and this is the first summer in my memory that has not included a significant change of pace (read: a different job). It's weird. I have no better way to say that.
The spring went by so quickly. It had just been Christmas by the time it was Ross's birthday (April 8) and there was scarcely enough time between his birthday and mine (May 19) to get anything done. Now, though, we're halfway into July and it feels like May was forever ago. The summer is just dragging on. Fortunately, I love summer, especially in Colorado, where yesterday I went to Lilith Fair in 98-degree heat and enough sun to give even my resilient skin a sunburn, and it wasn't even a problem because there is NO humidity here. Colorado is the best. In Kansas it would be 104 and 95% humidity.
Anyway, June and July have been full of events -- camping, friends visiting, our anniversary, two weddings in Kansas, farmers market on Saturdays, quilting class on Wednesdays, recreational kickball on Mondays, Lilith Fair... and yet my longing for newness in everyday life has kept all these events and commitments from feeling like a whirlwind.
I should be grateful that this favorite season of mine is taking its time to pass, yet I have been uneasy since the beginning of May. That expectant student whom I am used to being is still in the stressful May-time when days and weeks never seem to end and yet are never long enough, waiting for finals to be over, for a break from classes and juggling work and extracurricular activities, waiting to escape to a 9-to-5 workday for three precious months. Only now that the 9-to-5 workday is the everyday normal, I want to escape from it.
14 July 2010
09 June 2010
One year
Today is Ross's and my first anniversary. It's been a wonderful year.
I have heard that the first year of marriage is the hardest. If that's true, it bodes excellently for the rest of our marriage.
I have heard that the first year of marriage is the hardest. If that's true, it bodes excellently for the rest of our marriage.
03 June 2010
Tropical Dinner Party
Last weekend, my college roommate/sister-in-law Meredith stayed with us, so we had Ross's cousins over for dinner. I had been craving coconut shrimp for at least a month, so I knew I wanted to make that. From there, I decided that a tropical theme for the meal would be good. So here's what we had:
Coconut shrimp with dipping sauce (which was delicious, by the way)
Kebabs (pepper, onion, pineapple, and optional chicken)
Mixed greens salad with Annie's Organics Papaya and Poppyseed dressing
Basil rice
Colorful potatoes with peanut sauce
Unfortunately, I failed to take any pictures. I didn't even think about it until we were finished eating.
Coconut shrimp with dipping sauce (which was delicious, by the way)
Kebabs (pepper, onion, pineapple, and optional chicken)
Mixed greens salad with Annie's Organics Papaya and Poppyseed dressing
Basil rice
Colorful potatoes with peanut sauce
Unfortunately, I failed to take any pictures. I didn't even think about it until we were finished eating.
14 May 2010
Name Nerdery: Twilight
In my last post, I mentioned that Isabella and Jacob, the SSA's #1-ranked names for 2009, have gotten some press because they are both used in Stephanie Myers' Twilight series. I thought I'd expand this a little further.
A name can get all the pop-culture references you can shake a stick at, and unless it fits parents' collective naming taste -- a trend -- it won't rise in popularity. Take, for example, the show Friends. It was extremely popular, and aired from 1994-2004. During that time, the names used on Friends got a lot of exposure. Phoebe was the only name of a main character that rose in popularity. Chandler got an initial boost in popularity in 1995, and then along with all the rest of the main characters names, fell steadily during Friends' ten-year run.
In 2000, though, when Phoebe was the surrogate for her brother's triplets, one of which was a girl she named Chandler, the name Chandler made it onto the top 1000 for girls for the first time ever. But at the same time, traditionally male trade names for girls were gaining popularity: Taylor was popular throughout the '90s; Hunter peaked in 2000, Tyler gained popularity in the late 1990s, and Piper and Parker made it onto the charts in 1999 and have been rising ever since. Hearing Chandler used on a baby girl on Friends probably sounded fresh and unique to expectant parents who were drawn to girls' names like Taylor, Hunter, and Parker.
So how are the other characters' names faring in terms of popularity? Pretty well, it turns out.
Edward was in the Top 10 from the 1880s through 1930. It has slowly decreased in popularity since then (it was in the Top 100 until 1997), and there does not appear to be a Twilight-induced bump in popularity despite all the Edward fans.
Alice peaked in popularity in 1906. It has stayed in the Top 1000, but since 2005, when Twilight was released, it has increased 156 spots in the rankings, from 414 to 258. The number of babies named Alice since 2005 has gone from 751 to 1,251. It is worth noting another pop-culture reference to Alice -- comedian Tina Fey's daughter, born in September 2005.
Jasper peaked in the 1880s. It was on the Top 1000, but relatively obscure, throughout the 20th century. It started regaining popularity in 2000. Since 2005, it has moved from #537 to #337 -- 200 ranks in 5 years.
Esme has never been in the top 1000. (But on a personal note, I wish it would be! I think Esme is a lovely name that deserves to be used.)
Carlisle has never been in the top 1000, but the spelling Carlyle peaked in 1918. It hasn't been in the top 1000 since 1950.
Rosalie peaked in the 1930s and declined off the charts afterward. It popped back up in 2009 at #840.
Emmett peaked in 1895. It also stayed in the Top 1000. Since 1990, it has been coming out of obscurity (from 964 into the 500s), but Twilight probably gave it a boost -- between 2008 and 2009, Emmett jumped up 215 ranks, from #547 to #332.
The names from Twilight work the same way. Isabella and Jacob were popular before Stephanie Meyer wrote Twilight. In fact, the author has said that she used Bella's name because it was the name she had chosen for the daughter she never had. According to Wikipedia, Meyer's sons are named Gabe, Seth, and Eli -- like Jacob, biblical names that have been gaining popularity in recent years.
Names tend to be popular in cycles. Every generation has its own unique names, and some names are eternally popular (Elizabeth and John, for example) but as a whole, names fall in and out of popularity with time. Parents tend to think that names that were popular for their own, their parents, and their grandparents generations sound too dated. Names that were popular in their great-grandparents' generation, though, sound fresh -- because most people's lifespans don't overlap with their great grandparents'.
Cullen is a an exception. The name has been used as a first name on and off since 1880; consistently since 1978. In 2009, it hit a 129-year peak in popularity: #485, with 555 babies named Cullen in 2009. This is one name that is almost certainly attributable to Twilight. Cullen was declining steadily -- from a previous peak in 1997 (#505) down to #782 in 2008. There is really no force other than Twilight that would reverse that decline so sharply. Similar-sounding names Colin, Collin, and Calvin have been fairly stagnant in the past decade, and Cullen is not a recycled great-grandpa name -- it was obscure 100 years ago.
The vampires in Twilight are all just about 100 years old -- great-grandparent age. And in fact, their names are period-appropriate. For her protagonist vampires, Meyer presumably chose names that sounded old enough but also appealing to her. And since Meyer is in today's parent generation, is it any surprise that the 100-year-old names she chose are ones that appeal to other modern parents?
A name can get all the pop-culture references you can shake a stick at, and unless it fits parents' collective naming taste -- a trend -- it won't rise in popularity. Take, for example, the show Friends. It was extremely popular, and aired from 1994-2004. During that time, the names used on Friends got a lot of exposure. Phoebe was the only name of a main character that rose in popularity. Chandler got an initial boost in popularity in 1995, and then along with all the rest of the main characters names, fell steadily during Friends' ten-year run.
In 2000, though, when Phoebe was the surrogate for her brother's triplets, one of which was a girl she named Chandler, the name Chandler made it onto the top 1000 for girls for the first time ever. But at the same time, traditionally male trade names for girls were gaining popularity: Taylor was popular throughout the '90s; Hunter peaked in 2000, Tyler gained popularity in the late 1990s, and Piper and Parker made it onto the charts in 1999 and have been rising ever since. Hearing Chandler used on a baby girl on Friends probably sounded fresh and unique to expectant parents who were drawn to girls' names like Taylor, Hunter, and Parker.
So how are the other characters' names faring in terms of popularity? Pretty well, it turns out.
Edward was in the Top 10 from the 1880s through 1930. It has slowly decreased in popularity since then (it was in the Top 100 until 1997), and there does not appear to be a Twilight-induced bump in popularity despite all the Edward fans.
Alice peaked in popularity in 1906. It has stayed in the Top 1000, but since 2005, when Twilight was released, it has increased 156 spots in the rankings, from 414 to 258. The number of babies named Alice since 2005 has gone from 751 to 1,251. It is worth noting another pop-culture reference to Alice -- comedian Tina Fey's daughter, born in September 2005.
Jasper peaked in the 1880s. It was on the Top 1000, but relatively obscure, throughout the 20th century. It started regaining popularity in 2000. Since 2005, it has moved from #537 to #337 -- 200 ranks in 5 years.
Esme has never been in the top 1000. (But on a personal note, I wish it would be! I think Esme is a lovely name that deserves to be used.)
Carlisle has never been in the top 1000, but the spelling Carlyle peaked in 1918. It hasn't been in the top 1000 since 1950.
Rosalie peaked in the 1930s and declined off the charts afterward. It popped back up in 2009 at #840.
Emmett peaked in 1895. It also stayed in the Top 1000. Since 1990, it has been coming out of obscurity (from 964 into the 500s), but Twilight probably gave it a boost -- between 2008 and 2009, Emmett jumped up 215 ranks, from #547 to #332.
The names from Twilight work the same way. Isabella and Jacob were popular before Stephanie Meyer wrote Twilight. In fact, the author has said that she used Bella's name because it was the name she had chosen for the daughter she never had. According to Wikipedia, Meyer's sons are named Gabe, Seth, and Eli -- like Jacob, biblical names that have been gaining popularity in recent years.
Names tend to be popular in cycles. Every generation has its own unique names, and some names are eternally popular (Elizabeth and John, for example) but as a whole, names fall in and out of popularity with time. Parents tend to think that names that were popular for their own, their parents, and their grandparents generations sound too dated. Names that were popular in their great-grandparents' generation, though, sound fresh -- because most people's lifespans don't overlap with their great grandparents'.
Cullen is a an exception. The name has been used as a first name on and off since 1880; consistently since 1978. In 2009, it hit a 129-year peak in popularity: #485, with 555 babies named Cullen in 2009. This is one name that is almost certainly attributable to Twilight. Cullen was declining steadily -- from a previous peak in 1997 (#505) down to #782 in 2008. There is really no force other than Twilight that would reverse that decline so sharply. Similar-sounding names Colin, Collin, and Calvin have been fairly stagnant in the past decade, and Cullen is not a recycled great-grandpa name -- it was obscure 100 years ago.
The vampires in Twilight are all just about 100 years old -- great-grandparent age. And in fact, their names are period-appropriate. For her protagonist vampires, Meyer presumably chose names that sounded old enough but also appealing to her. And since Meyer is in today's parent generation, is it any surprise that the 100-year-old names she chose are ones that appeal to other modern parents?
Name Nerdery: Aiden Rhymers
Mother's Day weekend is always pretty exciting for me. My mom is awesome, but I am pretty equally excited about her all the time. No, the reason I get so excited about Mother's Day weekend is that the Social Security Administration releases the top 1000 most popular names for the previous year. Last Friday they released 2009's. I'll probably have at least a couple of posts about names. Readers, please let me know if there's anything you'd like me to analyze!
Clearly, the news broke into the regular media that Isabella is the new #1 girls' name, ending a 13-year run by Emily and Emma. But while the media is making a big deal that Isabella and Jacob -- names of main characters in the Twilight series -- are ranked #1, I don't think too much of that. Jacob has been #1 since 1999, and Isabella has been flying up the charts since 1990. When Twilight was released in 2005, both names were already super-popular. The name recognition from Twilight may have given Isabella a boost, but it was popular anyway.
What the SSA data doesn't tell, though, is some other big news: Jacob is actually the #3 most popular name for boys. You see, the SSA doesn't combine alternate spellings of names. It does, however, tell the number of babies named each name, which can then be combined and ranked. When you do that, as I have, you discover the two actual most popular names for boys born in 2009: Aiden and Jayden. On the SSA list, Aiden is ranked #12 and Jayden #8. The reason Aiden and Jayden don't show up as #1 and #2?
There were 15,846 baby boys named Aiden in 2009. But Aiden can also be spelled Aidan (#72), Ayden (#85), Aden (#253), Aaden (#271), Aydan (#622), Aydin (#646), Aidyn (#724), and Aedan (#838). And some boys named Adan (#293) certainly also will pronounce their names like Aiden, though others are the Spanish Adán (accents don't show up on the SSA list). Add those all together, and you get 30,518 little Aiden-variants (not even including the 1117 Adans, because who knows how their names are pronounced). That's DOUBLE the Aidens! On the other hand, the alternate spellings of Jacob on the list (Jakob and Jaycob) add only 1179 babies to the 20,878 Jacobs.
Americans' propensity to play with spelling creates a lot of false data like this. Names like Aiden and Jayden that follow a certain pattern are immensely popular (on the girls' side, Hailey and Kaylee are the highest ranking names for this pattern). Parents can pretty much create a name using this formula:
[K, C, J, H, Br, R, Z, Sh] + [long A] + [L or D] + [-en, -ee, -a]
And then change the spelling to suit one's fancy.
The possibilities are finite, of course, but they seem endless: Braylen, Jayla, Hayleigh, Shaylee, Braedon, Raelyn, Cailyn, Zaiden, Shayla, Jaelyn, Raiden... all of those are in the top 1000.
Clearly, the news broke into the regular media that Isabella is the new #1 girls' name, ending a 13-year run by Emily and Emma. But while the media is making a big deal that Isabella and Jacob -- names of main characters in the Twilight series -- are ranked #1, I don't think too much of that. Jacob has been #1 since 1999, and Isabella has been flying up the charts since 1990. When Twilight was released in 2005, both names were already super-popular. The name recognition from Twilight may have given Isabella a boost, but it was popular anyway.
What the SSA data doesn't tell, though, is some other big news: Jacob is actually the #3 most popular name for boys. You see, the SSA doesn't combine alternate spellings of names. It does, however, tell the number of babies named each name, which can then be combined and ranked. When you do that, as I have, you discover the two actual most popular names for boys born in 2009: Aiden and Jayden. On the SSA list, Aiden is ranked #12 and Jayden #8. The reason Aiden and Jayden don't show up as #1 and #2?
There were 15,846 baby boys named Aiden in 2009. But Aiden can also be spelled Aidan (#72), Ayden (#85), Aden (#253), Aaden (#271), Aydan (#622), Aydin (#646), Aidyn (#724), and Aedan (#838). And some boys named Adan (#293) certainly also will pronounce their names like Aiden, though others are the Spanish Adán (accents don't show up on the SSA list). Add those all together, and you get 30,518 little Aiden-variants (not even including the 1117 Adans, because who knows how their names are pronounced). That's DOUBLE the Aidens! On the other hand, the alternate spellings of Jacob on the list (Jakob and Jaycob) add only 1179 babies to the 20,878 Jacobs.
Americans' propensity to play with spelling creates a lot of false data like this. Names like Aiden and Jayden that follow a certain pattern are immensely popular (on the girls' side, Hailey and Kaylee are the highest ranking names for this pattern). Parents can pretty much create a name using this formula:
[K, C, J, H, Br, R, Z, Sh] + [long A] + [L or D] + [-en, -ee, -a]
And then change the spelling to suit one's fancy.
The possibilities are finite, of course, but they seem endless: Braylen, Jayla, Hayleigh, Shaylee, Braedon, Raelyn, Cailyn, Zaiden, Shayla, Jaelyn, Raiden... all of those are in the top 1000.
13 April 2010
A brief rant
I deal with ignorance a lot at work. Not bigotry, just lack of awareness about things. And I really don't blame people for it too much. But today I encountered a pretty ridiculous example, and I would like to share it with you.
A patient is having trouble getting her insurance to cover a couple of routine screenings and another test. She called about it today. Apparently the insurance company is saying they have the wrong diagnosis codes for the procedures she had done. So I called her insurance company to see if I could help her figure things out. Here is how the call went.
[Holds for 10 minutes.]
Customer Service Rep: Blue Shield of California, my name is [name]. This call is being recorded. How can I help you?
Me: I'm calling from a doctor's office, and I have a patient who is having trouble getting you to cover some tests we ordered. Can you please tell me what information you have on file for [date of service]?
Rep: Do you know how much the claim is for?
Me: Around $2000? I don't know exactly, I don't have the patient's bill in front of me.
Rep: It must be this claim for $2210. I show that the services were not covered benefits. Oh wait! It looks like we covered $220.
Me: And what was that for?
Rep: Diagnosis code V76.12 and procedure code 00403.
Me: Okay, V76.12 is "need for screening mammography." What is 00403?
Rep: It's the procedure code.
Me: What type? It's not a CPT code [standard procedure code]. It must be unique to your system. What does it mean?
Rep: Uhh... let me check.
[Puts me on hold for 2 minutes.]
Rep: Hemo- hemoglobin.
Me: Hemoglobin is not a procedure. There is no way that's right. The only procedure code that should go with the diagnosis code "need for screening mammography" is a procedure code for a mammogram.
Rep: Uh... hold on.
[Puts me on hold.]
[Disconnected.]
SERIOUSLY. WTF. This guy works in the health insurance industry and he doesn't know what hemoglobin is. It's the protein on red blood cells that transports oxygen. It is NOT a procedure. It's like saying "eyeball" or "toenail" or "skin cell" is a procedure. What a dumbass. I would like to say I can't believe insurance companies hire people who don't know anything about medicine or medical terminology, but I can. This guy was clearly not familiar with the word "hemoglobin" and he definitely didn't even realize the idiocy of what he was saying to me.
A patient is having trouble getting her insurance to cover a couple of routine screenings and another test. She called about it today. Apparently the insurance company is saying they have the wrong diagnosis codes for the procedures she had done. So I called her insurance company to see if I could help her figure things out. Here is how the call went.
[Holds for 10 minutes.]
Customer Service Rep: Blue Shield of California, my name is [name]. This call is being recorded. How can I help you?
Me: I'm calling from a doctor's office, and I have a patient who is having trouble getting you to cover some tests we ordered. Can you please tell me what information you have on file for [date of service]?
Rep: Do you know how much the claim is for?
Me: Around $2000? I don't know exactly, I don't have the patient's bill in front of me.
Rep: It must be this claim for $2210. I show that the services were not covered benefits. Oh wait! It looks like we covered $220.
Me: And what was that for?
Rep: Diagnosis code V76.12 and procedure code 00403.
Me: Okay, V76.12 is "need for screening mammography." What is 00403?
Rep: It's the procedure code.
Me: What type? It's not a CPT code [standard procedure code]. It must be unique to your system. What does it mean?
Rep: Uhh... let me check.
[Puts me on hold for 2 minutes.]
Rep: Hemo- hemoglobin.
Me: Hemoglobin is not a procedure. There is no way that's right. The only procedure code that should go with the diagnosis code "need for screening mammography" is a procedure code for a mammogram.
Rep: Uh... hold on.
[Puts me on hold.]
[Disconnected.]
SERIOUSLY. WTF. This guy works in the health insurance industry and he doesn't know what hemoglobin is. It's the protein on red blood cells that transports oxygen. It is NOT a procedure. It's like saying "eyeball" or "toenail" or "skin cell" is a procedure. What a dumbass. I would like to say I can't believe insurance companies hire people who don't know anything about medicine or medical terminology, but I can. This guy was clearly not familiar with the word "hemoglobin" and he definitely didn't even realize the idiocy of what he was saying to me.
04 April 2010
O nata lux
I struggle with Easter. It is the pinnacle of the Christian liturgical calendar, the highest of holy days. And yet, it has not resonated with me.
The coming of spring and new life is part of my life experience and is welcome. Easter is happily aligned with the vernal equinox thanks to pagan influence. There is, as Christians say, new life in Christ. I've even had to remind myself that the Latin phrase-concept nata lux, "birth of light" refers to Christmas, not Easter. Yet Easter could be described as a birth of light -- as the days get longer, the stone is rolled away from the tomb. Jesus, light of the world, is reborn through resurrection.
But as we celebrate it, Easter is about the resurrection's implications for salvation, the defeat of death. "Up from the grave he arose, with a mighty triumph o'er his foes!"; "Christ is arisen and we shall not die!" the hymns go. But my faith is not one of Christus victor theology, not one that emphasizes salvation, and certainly not personal salvation. And to me, what comes after death is less important than what comes before. The gospels, which come between Christmas and Easter, which are elevated above the rest of the Bible in Mennonite theology, are the heart and soul of my faith.
And on Easter, when the gospels come to an end, perhaps it is natural to feel a little lost. It's like finishing a captivating novel -- I'm never satisfied with the ending, and I wish to be back in the throes of the narrative. On Easter morning, I'm with the disciples. I want to be with Jesus again as he heals and multiplies food and drink and speaks in parables and teaches what is dangerous, exciting, new, even revolutionary. I want to come along with this Messiah as he brings in the Kingdom of God. I am not comfortable with Easter morning reality. I do not want this empty tomb, this figure who is unrecognizable even as he speaks to Mary in the garden and the disciples on the road to Emmaus, whom Thomas must touch to believe.
And then, one by one, the disciples recognize Jesus. They come to terms with the new, impossible reality that their belief was not in vain. This miraculous reappearance cements their certainty that this Messiah was for real, although this new reality was unexpected and maybe even a little disappointing for some of them who were expecting a significantly different manifestation of God's kingdom. But here among them was the impossible. This experience would be the push that gave the early church momentum. Rather than return, defeated, to their hometowns, they would "make disciples of all nations."
As we observe Holy Week, we know what's coming. Part of our yearly cycle, it lacks the despair it held for the disciples; it is preparation for the celebration of Easter, not the end of everything we hold dear. Easter is not a surprise for us. And there is a lot of theology between us and those who experienced the resurrection in the gospel stories. Easter means both more and less. This - this separation - is where Easter loses meaning for me.
With the disciples, we have learned from Jesus how to build God's kingdom. And today, Jesus, our teacher, the prophet, is born anew from the grave. The birth of light, which the darkness has not overcome. As we, with the disciples but in a different way, suspend reality to experience the risen Christ, we come to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the anointed one, God's son, love embodied, the light of the world. In Jesus' resurrection, our journey is validated. The end of the gospel story is satisfying.
The coming of spring and new life is part of my life experience and is welcome. Easter is happily aligned with the vernal equinox thanks to pagan influence. There is, as Christians say, new life in Christ. I've even had to remind myself that the Latin phrase-concept nata lux, "birth of light" refers to Christmas, not Easter. Yet Easter could be described as a birth of light -- as the days get longer, the stone is rolled away from the tomb. Jesus, light of the world, is reborn through resurrection.
But as we celebrate it, Easter is about the resurrection's implications for salvation, the defeat of death. "Up from the grave he arose, with a mighty triumph o'er his foes!"; "Christ is arisen and we shall not die!" the hymns go. But my faith is not one of Christus victor theology, not one that emphasizes salvation, and certainly not personal salvation. And to me, what comes after death is less important than what comes before. The gospels, which come between Christmas and Easter, which are elevated above the rest of the Bible in Mennonite theology, are the heart and soul of my faith.
And on Easter, when the gospels come to an end, perhaps it is natural to feel a little lost. It's like finishing a captivating novel -- I'm never satisfied with the ending, and I wish to be back in the throes of the narrative. On Easter morning, I'm with the disciples. I want to be with Jesus again as he heals and multiplies food and drink and speaks in parables and teaches what is dangerous, exciting, new, even revolutionary. I want to come along with this Messiah as he brings in the Kingdom of God. I am not comfortable with Easter morning reality. I do not want this empty tomb, this figure who is unrecognizable even as he speaks to Mary in the garden and the disciples on the road to Emmaus, whom Thomas must touch to believe.
And then, one by one, the disciples recognize Jesus. They come to terms with the new, impossible reality that their belief was not in vain. This miraculous reappearance cements their certainty that this Messiah was for real, although this new reality was unexpected and maybe even a little disappointing for some of them who were expecting a significantly different manifestation of God's kingdom. But here among them was the impossible. This experience would be the push that gave the early church momentum. Rather than return, defeated, to their hometowns, they would "make disciples of all nations."
As we observe Holy Week, we know what's coming. Part of our yearly cycle, it lacks the despair it held for the disciples; it is preparation for the celebration of Easter, not the end of everything we hold dear. Easter is not a surprise for us. And there is a lot of theology between us and those who experienced the resurrection in the gospel stories. Easter means both more and less. This - this separation - is where Easter loses meaning for me.
With the disciples, we have learned from Jesus how to build God's kingdom. And today, Jesus, our teacher, the prophet, is born anew from the grave. The birth of light, which the darkness has not overcome. As we, with the disciples but in a different way, suspend reality to experience the risen Christ, we come to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the anointed one, God's son, love embodied, the light of the world. In Jesus' resurrection, our journey is validated. The end of the gospel story is satisfying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)