I 24 have been working for a family owned agency for about 3 years. Started at 17 an hour with a matched 401k. Off weekends as a csr. found interest in getting licensed. The benefits at the time out weighted so I dived in.
Over time I was I given additional tasks outside of my original duties of answering the phone and servicing clients. Just before passing my insurance exam I was taking care of all of the service work for all of the agents that work in our agency (3) as well as essentially being a personal assistant to our agency principal from scheduling meetings, over seeing his schedule, and even attending networking meetings in his place. as well as handling the surety bonds billing, filing, and notating.
After a year I received a dollar raise to 18. Shortly after I was officially licensed in P&C. I was then beginning to receive lists of quotes from our agency principal and expected to completely quote renewals with explanation on the coverages and why I chose certain endorsements for “ practice and experience” but no compensation for helping. On top of all of the additional day to day work.
Eventually I began building my personal book of business and this was becoming impossible to juggle.
This carried on for months until October of 23 when our principal finally decided to hire in for my position and move me to a full time producer roll. ( there was only me handling all things insurance and bond related for almost 2 years)
Now I am building my book of business while still running quotes for my supervisor with no additional percentage for helping.
They have me networking twice a week.
Tuesdays and Wednesdays I spend 3 hours straight driving around and stopping into spaces to get leads. They tried to convince me that it’s better to claim the mileage on my taxes at the end of the year than to receive a stipend for gas. I am not sure what the standard is so I didn’t say anything
This move changed me to a salary and commissioned producer. This is where my issues really begin. I am salary but making less due to the consideration of commission. I was at about 1200 every two weeks and now I am about 800. Which has been tough because my commission isn’t stable. Also After switching and because I am being paid differently I was kicked from the 401k program.
No 401k and no insurance. They have been “ trying” to get things set up but that was back in October. It’s now may and I haven’t accrued any additional retirement.
They are additionally making changes to our vacation and personal time in our handbook. Bringing my vacation time down to only 5 days a year. also removing pay from personal time and only 3 sick days for a whole calendar year!
To top it all off they have hired in two additional part timers that start soon with raises after 6 months, starting at 22 dollars an hour. The one girl monitors the agency principals application work for him and the other part-time marketing cultivation sending out letters and making calls.
I am looking for additional opinions on how I should self advocate regarding my pay, workload , and time off. I feel that it is long over due but because I struggle with ADHD and I am on the spectrum self advocating can be a huge challenge for me.
Outside of getting a percentage of commission for call ins. There doesn’t a seem to be many benefits staying with the agency.

Hello fellow potatoes! And to the potato queen herself, girl, you're amazing!!! I just found your channel a few months ago, but I'm a huge fan. I don't have a lot of time for videos, but when I do get to watch, I watch yours.
Have I got a boomemil story for you! Let's go on an adventure...warning...I tell stories with rabbit holes and tangents. This is probably gonna be too long. I'm sorry!!!
So, the characters are me (40f), boomer MIL (64f BM for short, like bowel movement bc she's caca), my oldest son, (17m), and my church "mom" (65f CM for short).
A little background: BM thinks she's an awesome mom and grandma even though she's not. She uses my kids as facebook props to show off how "wonderful" she is. The only reason she was around my kids so often was because we went to the same church. She lived 10 minutes down the road from us, but could never be bothered to come over or have anything to do with any of us is if we didn't initiate. She has always said that if we ever try to threaten to keep our kids away from her, like if we were having a disagreement, that she would not fight to see them. We've never threatened to keep our kids from her, she just wanted us to know that she didn't give a sh!t to see her gandkids. So, that tells you right there, that she's a grandma when it's convenient for her.
She's of the boomer mentality that mental health issues are made up and aren't real. "You have nothing to be depressed about." "Just snap out if it." "Just be happy." You get the point. I struggle with depression, I always have. She doesn't understand or even try to understand and is the least empathetic person I've ever met.
When I get overwhelmed, I get depressed, and I start shutting down. My plate is overflowing right now. Between the end of the school year and the possibility of us moving states, I've been overwhelmed. My oldest is a senior and the last month of senior year is crazy busy. I have another child (11m) in public school and this is his last year of elementary school, so this has been an extremely busy month for him. I have 3 more kids that do online public school/homeschool. So, they're home all day with online classes, but since they're a public school, they have mandatory state testing just like regular public school. I have had to take them to do state testing on 4 different days overyhe last few weeks and the meeting place was 45 minutes from home, at a conference room in a mall. I also babysit 3 kids (1m, 4m, 4f), so hanging out for 4 to 5 hours a day on 4 different days with a shitload of kids at the f#cking mall was not easy. Not to mention the positions and "jobs" that I hold at church. To say I'm busy is an understatement.
We've been planning on moving for the last few months because a position at my husband's work is coming open near where he grew up, which is in another state. His parents recently moved back to their hometown after my FIL retired, so one reason for the move would be to be closer to them. They are getting older, so I would be taking care of them once they needed it, so moving closer seemed like a great option. Also, it's a lower COL area than we live in now. Currently we live in the metro area of a capital city and we would be moving to a middle of nowhere po'dunk town.
Told you, rabbit holes, thanks for still being with me!!!
And this is just the straw that broke the camel's back, this is not the only reason for my decision.
So, to the actual story...
Last week, I got a mother's day card in the mail from BM. She's a dollar tree card fanatic. It was a very typical card that she sends me. Nothing handwritten except for "love, grandma and grandpa." This is what she writes in all my cards. (Another tangent...last year my mom passed a month before mother's day and that actual mother's day was her and my dad's anniversary. And I had a super complicated relationship with my momster. So, it was an exceptionally hard day for me. The card she got me said "Daughter" in huge letters on the front. I thought it was so incredibly passive aggressive and completely inappropriate for that year. If it would've been any other year, it would've been fine. Also, she never gets me cards that just say "daughter" so, to me, it was a low blow.) (Yet another tangent...she does passive aggressive crap all the time, for instance when she used to do fb birthday posts, she would always ask me to send her a pic to post. I'm picky about what pics are used and she knows that. Last year, I sent her a great pic of me and her son to use. So, she used one from about 12 years ago that looked like absolute poop. It was a surprise pic, so like not even posed, stupid look on my face. No matter what pic I send, and usually send like 3, she uses a completely different one that doesn't even look good.) I got the card last Tuesday. Hubby happened to be talking to her while driving home from work that day, so when he got home, I thanked her for the card and just wanted to give her a heads up that I hadn't gotten a chance to mail hers yet because of everything I had going on. I kinda broke down and was sharing how I felt and she basically just said, "suck it up, it'll be fine." She's always been dismissive of my feelings, always.
So, my CM is the sweetest lady you'll ever meet. She listens to me, lets me share my feelings without being dismissive, and actually shows she cares. I see her twice weekly at church, and text with her during the week. Since BM has moved 8 moths ago, she has called or texted "just to talk or check in on us" less than a handful of times. She only calls/texts when she needs something or on a special occasion. She called my husband to ask about something, not just to talk. I understand now why the oldest grandson, my nephew, didn't even bother to invite her to his and his girlfriend's baby shower where he proposed. She thinks she's an amazing grandma bc she sends birthday money in a card and posts their pics on Facebook. And, she even stopped posting the kids birthday messages on fb bc she said it was "too much trouble." So, she just sticks to her 30 daily inspirational Bible quotes posts. She's the type that was so pissed off that both of her kids went with courthouse marriages instead of going into debt for a wedding because she didn't get to walk down the aisle at her kids' weddings and post pics on fb. She's mentioned this several times, but definitely wasn't even willing to spend a dime towards a wedding that no one wanted except her. She was also unwilling to take a day off work to go to the courthouse with us. With both of her kids' marriages, the kids and partners were together for a while and had kids before getting married, so spending tons of money on a huge wedding for either of us couples wouldn't have been the best way to spend money.
On mother's day, I gave my CM a card with a few lines written in it about how amazing she is and how I'm so grateful for her. I'm way closer to her than BM. CM is my chosen family and to me, your chosen family is the one that means more because you chose them, you didn't just get stuck with them. My blood family is incredibly toxic, so I stick with my chosen family. CM made a fb post with all that she got for mother's day. It was gifts and cards from her own children, and of course my card as well. CM & BM are fb friends, so of course BM saw it. Also, BM has everyone convinced she's this sweet, little old church lady, but she is far from it.
So, this Tuesday she got her cards in the mail. I always give her one from hubby and myself, and a separate one from our boys. I wrote a nice little note in it. Not long, a line or 2, but it was more effort than she put into my card. She sent me and hubby the following in a group text...
Copy and pasted, only edited out names.
"Got my cards in the mail today. 😭. They were post marked Saturday. You could of kept them til I got there or next year. It's like yall bought them Saturday, wrote a few words and rushed to get them to post office. My heart 💔broken. I thought I deserved better. I wish I could send pictures of my card verses [CM] 😩 card. I couldnt tell which gift was yours. But least I have a year to try do better and be worthy of such wonderful words of love and praise that was written to her.
I don't mean to complain or seem ungrateful but I wished you hadn't mailed them.😭😭. I can't explain how crushed I am.😔 Anyway hopefully I will see yall on the 20th."
Note: my oldest son is graduating on the 20th. She was supposed to drive down and spend the night with us to attend the graduation. I honestly believe she picked this fight because she doesn't want to drive the 6 hours down here.
If you "don't mean to complain or seem ungrateful" then why tf did you send it? I asked my husband what was his initial reaction and he said, "Really?!? All she had to do was say thanks."
So, after I talked to my husband and oldest son (I wanted to make sure everyone was on board with what I was saying before I sent it) , I sent her this response:
"I mailed them on Friday, I bought them several weeks ago. I told you I hadn't mailed them yet because I've been in a deep depression and you dismissed my feelings like always. I have real, valid feelings and you always dismissed them as silly. And come after me because now you're feelings are hurt. Wow, ok. The absolute audacity. And it's not just with your cards that I'm slacking. It's with everything. Because I have depression. I'm overwhelmed on top of that and literally the only thing you care about is a card. I tried to express my feelings the other day on the phone and you dismissed them like you always do. I know things will be fine, but in this moment they are not and you don't get that. Because you don't understand how or why I feel the way I do, then my feelings are silly or invalid to you.
And I never gave [CM] a present. Don't know why you thought that.
Don't worry about coming down on the 20th."
She replies by trying to blackmail me;
"Well my am so sorry I said anything. I never realized you thought that about me. I never dismissed your depression but yes i never knew what to do for you. I am not going to go back and forth about this. I will text [son] and let him know you told me not to come."
She's not sorry to me for being dismissive, she's sorry because now she doesn't get her "Proud MeMe moment" and can't post pictures of her at his graduation on fb. And even if she didn't "know what to do" for me, all she had to do was ask. Or listen. Or give a damn hug. But, no, she just dismissed me bc to her depression isn't real. And she's not going back and forth bc she knows shes wrong! Little did she know that I had already cleared it with hubby and son before sending the text, so I think she thought it would make me look bad to my oldest son that I told her no to come. Oldest son said, "I'm neutral, I don't care if she comes or not. It's not like she's had anything to do with us since she moved, and barely had anything to do with us when she was here."
So, my last text to her said, "He knows. I asked him before I texted you, and he's good with it."
All she had to do was say thanks or not even say anything at all. But, no, she had to say something stupid. Even her own son said that she's lucky she even got a card bc if it was up to him, her actual son, she wouldn't have gotten anything. So, not only is she not invited to the graduation, she's never welcome in my home again. The great part is I don't have to share my holidays with her ever again!!! And please know that I'd never keep her grandchildren from her, but if she wants a relationship with them, she'll have to put some effort in. And we all know boomers hate effort.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading my rant. I appreciate you my friends!

(continuation of part 5)
Post-OG Cloud ruminates on what he could have done to save Aerith. Had he not been so lost in his own mind —distracted by Sephiroth and Jenova, consumed by his need to fulfill the emptiness at the core of his identity—, would he have paid more attention to Aerith’s sadness and anticipated her plan to go to the Forgotten Capital alone? Could she have survived if not for his obsession with what tormented him at the time? Could he have figured it out and kept her by his side? He’s angry with himself in retrospect, drowning in guilt, just like in Advent Children.
Here are the choruses, which usually contain the thesis main message of a song:

“Shine bright once more
Guide me to you
Smile bright once more
This time I will never let you go”

&

“Hear me once more
Show me your smile
This time for sure
I'll see the truth hidden inside your tears
But I, I know
That you're long gone
But I, I will
Go on, howling and hollow”

In these choruses, Cloud asserts that he will get it right this time (“this time” referring to the second chance that is the Remake trilogy). He will make sure he saves Aerith and never lets her go. He knows she’s gone, but he will fight against time to get her back. He longs for her smile and her light again, and he cannot bear the guilt: so he doesn’t. Post-OG Cloud embarks on a new adventure: ”I want to go to a place where everything is new,” said Cloud to Wol and Echo in Eclipse Contact before facing his past and being launched into Remake. “Hollow” makes far more sense now, doesn’t it? It’s a song not only about Cloud’s loss, but also about his determination to save Aerith this time. Given that it’s the theme song of Remake, the fact that “Hollow” fits with our theory perfectly is a very good sign: a theme song is meant to reflect the main plot of a story, indicating as our theory states that Remake is principally, albeit secretly, about Cloud saving Aerith. Because of this hope being set up, I’m confident that they will be together in the end, reunited for good. My dear Clerith friends, this is the hidden purpose of the Remake trilogy. Cloud and Aerith will be reunited.
VI. e) ii. “No Promises to Keep” Lyrics
This is quite obvious. Aerith is resigned to her fate, but still harbors hope that she will meet Cloud again in a permanent reunion:

“Till the day that we meet again
Where or when?
I wish I could say
But believe, know that you'll find me
[…]
Till the day that we meet again
On our street, I want to believe
[…]
Till the day that we meet again
At our place, just let me believe
In the chance that you'll come
Take my hand and never let me go
Take my hand
And believe
We can be
Together evermore
[…]
Still I hope someday you'll come and find me
Still I know someday you'll come and find me”.

VI. f) The Theme of Reunion Explained?
The last point I want to hit on is the concept of reunion. In OG, this theme was pretty much dominated by the Jenova Reunion. To an OG fan back in 1997, “reunion” meant “Sephiroth and Jenova’s evil plan”. However, in the Remake trilogy, the theme is expanded into something more. The first time Cloud meets Aerith in Remake, she gives him a flower and tells him something she didn’t in OG:

“Lovers used to give these when they were reunited...”

In addition, we’ve already talked about how part 5 of “Aerith’s Theme - The Cetra” from the Remake OST tells the story of Cloud and Aerith’s reunion (see section “V. b) ii. 2)”).
Many moments exclusive to the Remake trilogy serve the same purpose: linking the theme of reunion to Aerith. This expansion of the theme is highly significant. Our theory is that the Remake trilogy exists to reunite Cloud and Aerith, so the fact that the trilogy would implement so many Clerith-centric references to reunion is great support for our theory.
VI. g) i. The Leslie-Cloud Parallel
Let’s consider another instance involving the reunion flower in Remake, more precisely, the chapter 14 subplot surrounding Leslie’s lost lover. In case you need a refresher, Leslie is one of Corneo’s lackeys, although he secretly plans to betray him. He once had a fiancée and things were looking up until she was selected as one of Corneo’s brides. The day before she disappeared (presumably taken by Corneo), his fiancée broke up with him with no explanation. It was confusing and left Leslie perplex. As she broke up with him, she returned a necklace to him, one with a flower pendant. Of course, that flower is the very same reunion flower Aerith gives Cloud in chapter 2.
Evidently, Leslie and Cloud are going through parallel situations. At this point in time, Aerith was just kidnapped by Shinra, and Cloud is on his way to get her back. Both their loved ones have been taken by tyrant rulers, one being slumlord Corneo and the other being the Shinra government. In fact, even Leslie and Cloud’s attitudes share similar disillusioned, cold and stoic qualities. Leslie’s fiancée would evidently be paralleled by Aerith.
The most obvious proof of the Leslie-Cloud parallel is written plainly on the list of Remake’s chapter 14 main scenario objectives. Objective 7, called “For the Reunion”, consists of receiving the grappling guns needed to reach topside and save Aerith. The description of the objective reads as follows:

“Leslie gives them grappling guns, and they wish each other luck in reuniting with their respective loved ones. Leslie walks off, and the three prepare to climb the wall.”

The grappling guns are “For the Reunion”, because evidently, the loved one Cloud wants to reunite with is Aerith.
All this is simple and apparent enough. Just the fact that the theme of reunion is linked to Clerith in this way is proof enough, but there’s another layer to the Leslie-Cloud parallel. Not only does Leslie’s situation reinforce the concept of a Clerith reunion, it also mirrors the specifics of our theory: namely that Cloud will save Aerith from specifically Sephiroth (represented in Leslie’s scenario by Corneo) and that Cloud will take the initiative to accomplish this reunion. These two specific aspects of our theory are reflected by Leslie’s circumstances, meaning the Leslie-Cloud parallel not only pushes the theme of reunion, but also supports our specific theory.
VI. g) i. 1) The Separators: Corneo and Sephiroth
I’ll first prove that Leslie’s scenario is not meant to echo Cloud’s separation from Aerith at the hands of Shinra —or at least not exclusively—, but rather Cloud’s separation from Aerith at the hands of Sephiroth. Corneo would therefore be paralleled by Sephiroth rather than the tyrannical Shinra government.
The first piece of proof for the Corneo-Seohiroth parallel lies within the way in which Leslie’s fiancée broke things off: by lying. Aerith also lies to Cloud to create distance between them, but not pertaining to her kidnapping— rather, pertaining to her fated death. Since Sephiroth is Aerith’s killer and not Shinra, Corneo’s role in the Leslie-Cloud parallel is analogous to Sephiroth’s rather than Shinra’s.
There are two pieces of evidence that the Corneo-Sephiroth comparison makes more sense than the Corneo-Shinra one. The first lies in the fact that Leslie’s breakup resembles Cloud’s resolution scene: the topic of Cloud’s resolution scene is Aerith’s fate at the hands of Sephiroth rather than her kidnapping by Shinra, meaning Corneo and Sephiroth are the antagonists of both heartbreaks.
Let’s examine Leslie’s breakup. Here is how his fiancée broke things off, taken from the English script of Remake’s chapter 14, with tone indicators added by me in bold:

“Fiancée: It was all just a dream, wasn't it[?]
Fiancée: (Hopefully) But one day…
(She trails off, then shakes her head and stops herself.)
Fiancée: (Sadly, hopelessly) — no. Time to wake up. And forget.
(She walks away.)”

Now, here is a more literal translation of this quote from the original Japanese (verified by me via DeepL), with tone indicators added by me in bold:

“Fiancée: It was only just a dream we had / We were only dreaming...
Fiancée: (Hopefully, as though as a hail Mary) In the language of the flowers...
(She trails off, then shakes her head and stops herself.)
Fiancée: (Sadly, hopelessly) — no. You should forget about me.
(She walks away.)”

Leslie’s fiancée is clearly breaking up with him to spare him the pain of blaming himself for not being able to protect her from Corneo, as she knows it’s too late for her to escape from the slumlord’s clutches. We know this because we understand that the pendant she gave back to him symbolizes a reunion (especially between lovers, as Aerith told Cloud in chapter 2). In fact, the Japanese version of the script reveals that the fiancée was about to reveal the meaning of the flower, perhaps in the hopes that they would find each other once more, but she lost her nerve at the last second. Notice that she tells Leslie two specific things. One: their love or their future together was only a dream, meaning that it wasn’t real. Two: he should forget about her, because the dream is over now and it’s time to wake up from it.
If you’re finding this familiar, then you might be ahead of me. Let’s take a look at what Aerith says to Cloud in his resolution scene, also in the English script of Remake’s chapter 14, with tone indicators added by me in bold:

“Aerith: […] you can’t fall in love with me. [It]’s not real […]. (With a sigh, as though from sadness or difficulty, but resolutely) It’s almost morning. Time to go.”

Now, here is a more literal translation of this quote from the original Japanese (verified by me via DeepL), with tone indicators added by me in bold:

“Aerith: You can’t let yourself fall in love with me. [It]’s only your imagination […]. (With a sigh, as though from sadness or difficulty, but resolutely) Looks like it’s already morning. Time for me to go.”

Just like Leslie’s fiancée, Aerith is rejecting or denying Cloud’s love for her in order to spare him from the pain of not having been able to be with her before her death, as she believes it is inevitable. Just like the fiancée, Aerith also tells Cloud two things. One: their love is imaginary or isn’t real. Two: it’s morning, and she has to go (she says this right before Cloud wakes from the pseudo-dream).
In both cases, the women know something about their fate that the men don’t and are hiding this impending tragedy from them. Just like Leslie’s fiancée, Aerith uses well-intentioned deception to protect her loved one from the pain that will come from her fate— the lie, of course, is that their love isn’t real. Both women are hopeless, and both men are initially clueless. Aerith’s resolution can’t be about her kidnapping, because Aerith thinks her rescue is anything but hopeless— she’s sure Cloud will come save her from Shinra. She says so herself in OG’s disk 1, chapter 8:

“Cloud: Aeris!? You safe?
Aeris: Yeah, I'm all right. I knew that [you] would come for me.”

What Aerith is so resigned about in Cloud’s resolution scene isn’t her kidnapping, but instead her fated death at the hands of Sephiroth. Nojima hints at this in FFVII Remake Ultimania:

“If you know Aerith’s fate, then this line would really pull at your heart strings […]” (section 08 “Secrets”, “Development Staff Interviews, Part 2: Tetsuya Nomura, Yoshinori Kitase, Yoshinori Kitase, Kazushige Nojima”, page 744).

Here is what codirector Toriyama had to say on Aerith’s words:

“[While] these words are intended for Cloud, I think Aerith is partly speaking them to herself. The contents of her request may be at odds with how she truly feels inside” (FFVII Remake Material Ultimania Plus, VA Script Notes, “A Dream Shown by Aerith”, “Scenario Staff Q&A - Answered by Motomu Toriyama”).

These two quotes by the devs show that Aerith is trying to protect Cloud from her death. Therefore, the Corneo-Sephiroth parallel is far more apt than the Corneo-Shinra parallel.
The second piece of evidence supporting my belief that Corneo mirrors Sephiroth and not Shinra in the Leslie-Cloud parallel is the inclusion of the theme of revenge that crops up in the following piece of dialogue:

“Tifa: Why did you wanna come down here?
Leslie: Revenge. I know I need to let go, but I can't. I need closure, 'cause without it... I'll never be able to move on” (Remake, chapter 14).

Leslie’s sentiment toward Corneo resembles Cloud’s feelings toward Sephiroth after Aerith’s death. Revenge links Cloud to Sephiroth, not to Shinra. Corneo and Sephiroth reflect each other in that, as a consequence of their actions toward a woman, the man who loves her desires revenge.
Additionally, it looks like Leslie’s obsession with revenge as a means to closure is the reason he didn’t bother trying to understand the message his fiancée left him with: he’s focused on his hate rather than his love, and it’s hindering him. He doesn’t succeed in killing Corneo either: his focus and energy are misplaced. Cloud’s desire for vengeance against Sephiroth is also depicted as an obstacle to accomplishing his goals (see how in section “III. c)” of my previous literary analysis). Once more, the Corneo-Sephiroth parallel fits far better than a Corneo-Shinra perspective.
VI. g) i. 2) The Reunion Seekers: Leslie and Cloud
The other aspect of the Leslie-Cloud parallel that supports our theory is that in both scenarios, they both take charge of the situation and decide to actively seek reunion with their respective lovers. The following dialogue excerpt, supplemented by the VA script notes, shows Leslie’s initiative:

“Tifa: [Your fiancée] could still be out there.
Barret: Can never be sure how much someone means to ya till they're gone. Don't give up on her yet.
Leslie: (Looks at the flower pendant, [recalling his lover’s words) A message in the language of flowers… I wonder what she meant by it.
[…]
Tifa: Reunion.
Leslie: Huh?
Tifa: In the language of flowers, it means ‘reunion.’
(Leslie shifts his gaze from Tifa to the pendant and stares at it for some time. At last he understands the words his lover left him. With that, as if his mind has been made up, he clutches the pendant and hangs it around his neck.)
Leslie: Then I guess I’ll just have to find her first” (FFVII Remake Material Ultimania Plus, VA Script Notes, “Other Notable Stage Directions - Chapters 14-16”).

Take note of Leslie’s final response and the determination with which he speaks: “Then I guess I’ll just have to find her first”. Remember that we’re searching for evidence that Cloud is going to be the one reaching out to Aerith in the Remake trilogy, and that it’s his turn to take his future into his hands. He must be more attentive, more active this time. And Leslie’s words of determination reflect this perfectly. Leslie must find his fiancée first, just like Cloud has to be the one to offer his hand to Aerith in the Remake trilogy and fight for her. This is exactly what our theory is all about.
VI. g) i. 3) Delayed Realizations
Interestingly, not only does Leslie’s determination mirror Cloud’s, but both men are depicted as realizing the truth too late. Just like Leslie only began searching for his fiancée six months after her disappearance, Cloud only realizes he loves Aerith in OG once she’s died. It took him this long to actually get somewhere in his mission to reunite with her— “somewhere” being the Remake trilogy.
Even Barret’s words highlight the lovers’ delay: “Can never be sure how much someone means to ya till they're gone”. Barret would know: he lost his wife Myrna, whom he loved dearly. The devs have Barret comment on the situation as a man whose lover died, mirroring Cloud’s situation in OG. Just as Barret says, Cloud only truly realized the strength of how he felt for Aerith in OG once she was gone. The gunman’s words apply to both Leslie and Cloud’s tardy initiatives. Regardless of this delay, both men are now determined to see their respective reunions through.
The degree to which the Leslie-Cloud parallel fits our theory is a great sign of its validity: even the details are lining up!
VI. g) ii. Reunion in the Theme Songs
Too easy: in our analysis of the lyrics of the theme songs, we covered how both texts include the theme of reunion. “No Promises to Keep” is especially relevant (see section “VI. e) ii.”), as the entire song is Aerith hoping against fate for a reunion with Cloud (even if you believe the song is about all her companions, that still includes Cloud).
On top of these reunion-themed lyrics, during Aerith’s in-game performance of “No Promises to Keep” at the Gold Saucer production of Loveless, her yellow blossoms signifying reunion bloom all around her as Cloud watches her, captivated.
Another great sign for our theory: the highly significant theme songs are on our side!
VI. g) iii. Waking Up Reunited
The thing I want to juxtapose to our theory is a small yet special moment in chapter 2 of Rebirth that stuck out to me like a sore thumb and got me really excited about sharing it with you. This moment occurs after the battle against the Midgardsormr. We’ll be comparing it to two other clips, describing all three in chronological order, and making deductions based on their similarities.
The first clip I want to address occurs in chapter 8 of Remake (1:32-2:12). There are a couple of things I want to point out in this scene. First, Aerith wakes Cloud from unconsciousness with a cute call of “Hello~?”. Second, despite pretending that he doesn’t, he immediately recognizes her. The VA script notes prove it:

“Aerith: Nice to meet you again.
Cloud actually remembers Aerith, but he pretends not to, perhaps wishing to make himself look cool.
Cloud: Again, huh?
Aerith: What? You don’t remember? How about…the flowers?
Cloud looks at the flowers at his feet and pretends as if he’s only just remembered.
Cloud: Oh, the flower seller” (FFVII Remake Material Ultimania Plus, VA script notes, “Reuniting with Aerith”).

So: she wakes him with a cute call, and he recognizes her. Also note that these two elements also apply to the OG church reunion scene.
Now onto the Rebirth chapter 2 scene that stuck out to me. After Cloud is saved from the Midgardsormr by Sephiroth, Cloud wakes from an unconsciousness spell with Aerith calling for him (7:20-7:34).
Once more, Aerith wakes him with a cute call (this time, it’s “Wakey, wakey!”), and Cloud recognizes her. In this Midgardsormr clip, unlike their reunion in the church, Cloud verbalizes that he remembers her. This time, there’s more: next, Aerith tells Cloud “おかえり, クラウド”, or “okaeri, Cloud”, which translates to “welcome back, Cloud”. “Okaeri” is what you say in Japanese when someone has returned home. In the third clip we will analyze, Aerith says “okaeri” to Cloud once more. But first, let’s break down this second clip.
I don’t know about you, but this cutscene felt extremely weird to me when I first encountered it. That is, it would have been, if not for the theory I’d begun formulating at that time.
You see, the devs could have chosen for Aerith to ask Cloud if he remembers his own name or where they are, if he’s okay, or check if he responds to his own name. In fact, asking someone who’s been hit on the head to say their own name is a much more common reaction to them finally waking up than asking them if they remember you. Even stranger is Cloud’s reaction: he could have answered “Yeah, you’re Aerith,” or “I remember everything, I’m fine”. Instead, he says her name with this airy and wonderstruck tone. He sounds like he’s opening his eyes to something mystic rather than his comrade leaning over him, like he’s seeing someone unexpectedly for the first time in a while… or rather like he’s waking from a trance of some kind— a trance in which he did not remember Aerith, and now he does. You may see where I’m going with this.
Let’s examine the third clip, wherein Aerith tells Cloud “okaeri” again. More specifically, in chapter 14, Aerith welcomes Cloud back when he snaps out of his zombified, Sephiroth-controlled state and runs toward her. Of course, it’s the sight of her and his memories of meeting her in chapter 2 of Remake that shake him awake (2:17:43-2:18:02).
For a third time, Aerith wakes Cloud. This time, she’s pulling him out of a trance and back to himself. And for a third time, Cloud remembers her. In fact, it’s remembering her that wakes him up. Cloud calls her name and Aerith says “okaeri” in both the post-Midgardsormr cutscene and this third clip. And in both scenes, not only does Cloud return to himself the way someone returns home (recall that “okaeri” is used to welcome someone back home), but he’s also returning to her, recognizing her as his home.
Now we’ve got three scenes lined up: the church reunion scene (both in OG and Remake), the Midgardsormr scene and the hand-reach scene. All three of these recognition scenes feature Cloud being woken up by Aerith and remembering who she is. The main difference is that, in the scenes among these three that are exclusive to Rebirth, Cloud’s return to Aerith is far more meaningful, as he already knows her name, and knows more about who she is to him. Evidently, in the OG church reunion scene, Cloud only remembers being sold a flower by this girl. In the Remake version, he remembers the same thing, plus the attack of the whispers. So there’s something much more weighty about the Rebirth recognition scenes: he remembers more, and he remembers deeper. These aren’t just recognition scenes, they’re also mini-reunions. Of course, as we’ve already analyzed pertaining to the hand-reaching scene, Cloud remembering Aerith is followed by him being the one to take action and run toward her, eager to save her, because she means the world to him. When you place the Midgardsormr scene between the church reunion scene and the hand-reach scene, an evolution of Cloud waking up and remembering Aerith is formed. Each mini-reunion scene adds a piece to the story: the church scene informs us that Cloud and Aerith are meeting again, the Midgardsormr scene tips us off that something mystic is going on from Cloud’s tone when he says Aerith’s name, and the hand reach scene tells us that as a consequence of remembering who Aerith is, Cloud saves her from falling to her death and saving her. “Meeting again”, “mystic”, and “saving Aerith”: these are the keywords of the mini-reunion scenes. They are also the keywords of our theory on Cloud’s mission to save Aerith. This time around Cloud knows more and is more conscious about how he feels for Aerith, just like he feels more when in the hand-reach scene in Rebirth compared to the church reunion scene in Remake. From the latter scene to the former, Cloud gradually wakes up and remembers his love for and loss of Aerith in the OG more and more. Each mini-reunion brings him closer to saving her when he blocks the masamune. This is why I am certain that in part 3, whether Cloud comes to his full senses or not, whether he remembers the events of OG or not, he will save Aerith this time. The Remake trilogy is centered around Aerith, after all. In fact, don’t take it from me, take it from Nojima:

“Aerith's the most important character in the remake so we paid special attention to her lines” (FFVII Remake Ultimania, section 08 “Secrets”, “Development Staff Interviews, Part 2: Tetsuya Nomura, Yoshinori Kitase, Kazushige Nojima”, page 744).

I have full confidence in this fact: one way or another, these two will have a happy ending. This is Cloud’s second chance, and as he swore in “Hollow”, he is not losing her again. That is why I don’t think you should fret, and that our Clerith hearts will be very happy to see these two together again for good in part 3.
VI. h) Zooming In
In fact, this zooming-in method of directing players’ attention to important narrative beats is far from new.
VI. h) i. Changing Fate
Let’s divert our attention to Nanaki’s Skywheel date (2:28-3:30). The dialogue goes like this: Nanaki brings us the Whispers and suggests the party might eventually forget about their existence, and Cloud says that frankly, if it’s impossible for them to change fate either way, then it would be better for them to forget to Whispers altogether.
This is a very clear message from the devs: “There would be no point in including the Whispers in the Remaketrilogy if we did not make use of their defeat”. They’re telling us through Cloud’s dialogue that they know it would be foul play and bad writing to introduce the theme of defying fate if it didn’t eventually pay off.
As if it weren’t clear enough what the devs are referring to, Nanaki brings up Aerith’s death directly after Cloud delivers the devs’ message to us. He actually makes Cloud promise to save her. This is pretty on the nose. By promising Nanaki he will protect Aerith, the devs are promising us the same. I’m certain that part 3 will deliver on this promise.
If you still aren’t sold, I’d like to direct your attention to the framing of the shot where Cloud says “If we can’t change [fate]” (2:49-2:51). There’s a zoom-in on his mouth, which is a visual cue that translates to “what this character is saying right now is important to the plot”. It’s very indiscreet in theory: the camera literally hones in on the invisible words as though the script has them highlighted, italicized triple-underlined and in bold.
VI. h) ii. Aerith’s Knowledge
We’ve seen the Remake trilogy use this camera framing at least twice so far. The first time occurs in Remake’s chapter 8, before it becomes clear that Aerith knows things from the OG game that she wouldn’t normally know if this were just a remastered version of the same 1997 plot. I’ll let Remake Ultimania‘s description of this moment speak for itself:

“When Cloud and Aerith return the rescued children to Oates, the man in the tattered black cloak shows up again at the hideout. The moment the man grasps Cloud’s arm, he’s overcome by another violent headache and sees a vision of Sephiroth. Cloud wonders if this man who supposedly died five years ago could possibly still be alive. When he says as much to Aerith, she gives him a vague reply” (FFVII Remake Ultimania, section 04: “Scenario”, “Chapter 8 Main Story Digest”, page 256).

Aerith’s “vague reply” is accentuated by a very deliberate zoom-in on her mouth (1:18:05-1:18:09), and therefore her words.
The framing of this shot indicates to us that what Aerith says provides an important hint as to the plot’s direction. Sure enough, with hindsight, it’s easy to see that’s true.
VI. h) iii. Tifa’s Question
Another time this framing is used is in chapter 1 of Rebirth, after Cloud recounts the Nibelheim incident. Tifa asks the group why Sephiroth is choosing to come back now, after five years (37:55-37:58).
Once more, we are being signaled that the reason Sephiroth chose to return at the moment he did is significant to the plot, but cannot be revealed explicitly yet. The reason why Sephiroth took five years to return is because that’s how long it took for Cloud to get back on his feet after the Nibelheim incident: Sephiroth wants and/or needs to manipulate Cloud in particular rather than all the other people with Jenova cells in them. It took five years for Cloud to not only go through Hojo’s experiments but also escape Shinra and make his way to Seventh Heaven, where Tifa nursed him back to health— therefore, it took five years until Sephiroth’s favorite pawn was available to be used. There are a few reasons why Cloud is the one Sephiroth wants to use, and all of them would be spoilers at this point in Rebirth to players who don’t know the OG plot. The devs can’t reveal any of them yet, but they do indicate via a close-up shot of Tifa’s mouth that her question is important.
VI. h) iv. The Takeaway
As you can see, this framing of characters’ mouths when they speak signals a plot-significant piece of dialogue. This means Cloud’s words on his gondola date with Nanaki can’t be brushed off as a red herring or an unimportant or throwaway line: it has narrative weight.

VII. The Devs

I think it’s important to remember the devs and their commitment to the world of FFVII. They know best for this story, and they’ve proven it to be true many times over. There are many things about the devs’ intentions that the fandom don’t seem to know that I think would give you confidence to find out.
VII. a) Shifting Themes
Good storytellers don’t introduce themes as a way to pull the rug from under audiences’ feet by later rendering them completely irrelevant to the plot.
In other words, the devs would not have introduced the notion of fate as an antagonistic force in Remake, nor allowed the players to defeat it in chapter 18, had they planned for these themes not to pay off at all. Think of how good FFVII OG and FF stories in general are, how strong the writing is from a narrative point of view. Nothing is included for no reason or for a cheap reaction— especially not a central theme of a story. Fate and defeating it is a huge point of Remake, and not for no reason.
I mean, think about a storyline all about defying fate ending with a shrug and a “Oh well, we tried.” It would be ridiculous! The devs are better than that.
VII. b) What the Devs Want
The devs are well aware that fans of FFVII have been begging for Aerith’s resurrection since 1997. All those petitions, all those myths of a revival hack… SE knows about them all too well. They were even referenced by FF’s 30th anniversary expo, which partly promoted Remake:

“No one expected [Aerith’s death] in the middle of the story. Rumors of a secret way to revive Aerith spread, and it was clear players were having a hard time saying goodbye to her too. Even now, twenty years later, it still feels like a shocking turn of events” (Final Fantasy 30th Anniversary Exposition Pamphlet, page 36).

Hamaguchi, codirector of the Remake project, commented on these rumors:

“Interviewer: Do you have a favorite fake rumor about the original FFVII?

Hamaguchi: I hear a lot about Aerith coming back to life and that's something that's very interesting to hear” (Hamaguchi interview: “129 Rapid-Fire Questions Answered About Final Fantasy VII Rebirth”, by Game Informer).

The devs are also aware of how beloved Clerith is to the FFVII fandom, especially in Japan— in fact, the only FFVII ship name that is an official iOS search term on the Japanese Apple Store is Clerith’s (“クラエア” or “kuraea” in Japanese). Aerith herself is a widely beloved character, particularly, once more, in Japan. For instance, Famitsu and NHK’s recent polls on the best FF heroine and on the best FF character in general both resulted in Aerith ranking number 3, beaten only in the latter poll by Cloud at number 1 and FFX’s Yuna at number 2.
The devs know how well-loved both Clerith and Aerith are. And in fact, they love Aerith at least as much as we do:

“Cloud's feelings [of guilt] cannot be resolved by anyone other than Aerith. I tried to convey [that Aerith is saying to Cloud] ‘I'm still here for you’” (FFVII Reunion Files, Nojima’s note on Aerith’s character file, page 58).

&

“When I saw the finished product of [Aerith’s face in] CG, I thought, "Oh, isn’t she so cute?” (FFVII Reunion Files, Nomura’s note on Aerith’s character file, page 58).

&

"The idea of having Aeris die during the story had a great impact on all the dev staff," Toriyama explained, "and personally I decided to dedicate my efforts to depicting Aeris in as appealing a way as possible, so that she would become an irreplaceable character to the player in preparation for that moment" (Toriyama interview “Final Fantasy anniversary interview: Toriyama speaks” by VG247).

The devs care about Aerith, and they’re fully aware we do too.
I think a lot of people have it in their heads that the devs don’t want anything to change from the OG story, but there’s a lot of evidence that says otherwise. Codirector Toriyama spoke on this, stating the following about the production process of Remake:

“[…] there were times the original version became a hindrance. Specifically, staff members with a strong attachment to Final Fantasy VII would often hold themselves back for fear of deviating too much from the original. When we created the original game, we obviously didn’t feel bound in that way. We were passionate about creating a brand new Final Fantasy title, and so we dove in and embraced whatever seemed most interesting to us. We wanted to take that approach this time as well, so we made a special effort to liberate ourselves whenever we held back, remembering that it was okay to do the things we wanted to do” (FFVII Remake Ultimania, section 08 “Secrets”, “Development Staff Interviews, Part 1: Motomu Toriyama, Naoki Hamaguchi, Teruki Endo”, page 737).

Codirector Nomura said the following:

“When I asked Nojima if he’d write the scenario, I was clear about my demands up front. I said, ‘If we're going to remake Final Fantasy VII, I want it to be done like this.’ At that point, I was intent on making something more than just a remake. [Similarly to how] the battle system this time incorporates elements of the original game’s ATB mechanics [while] also been reborn using a real-time approach […], I wanted to make a story that players would feel is fundamentally Final Fantasy VII but also something new” (FFVII Remake Ultimania, section 08 “Secrets”, “Development Staff Interviews, Part 2: Tetsuya Nomura, Yoshinori Kitase, Kazushige Nojima”, page 745).

Clearly, the devs don’t want to be bogged down by the OG, and are making efforts to do things the way they want to rather than the way they were previously done. The newer generation of developers such as codirector Hamaguchi is also involved in these story changes:

“Interviewer: There are also drastically more scenes with Sephiroth than there were in the original game.
Nojima: We weren't planning on having him appear so much at first— the idea was only to hint at his presence. But we changed our approach partway through and became more proactive with having him appear, after which the number of scenes he features in rapidly increased.
Nomura: Hamaguchi [codirector Naoki Hamaguchi] came up to me one day and said in a mysterious tone, ‘I'd like to talk to you about something.’ He asked me about having there be a battle with Sephiroth in Midgar. In the original game, Sephiroth’s true body is located elsewhere, so he didn’t think I'd give in to the idea so easily. I think he even prepared materials to persuade me. But in the end I agreed readily [laughs]” (FFVII Remake Ultimania, section 08 “Secrets”, “Development Staff Interviews, Part 2: Tetsuya Nomura, Yoshinori Kitase, Kazushige Nojima”, page 746).

Kitase, the producer of the Remake trilogy, even says that after working on this project for so long, and after spending almost 30 years on the FFVII project and getting to know the characters, he has realized that:

“The more [he works] on it, the more [he wants] to make all these characters happy. [He wants] to give them a happy ending. The rest of the team’s opinions [obviously] also have to be taken into consideration, so it won't be all happiness and rainbows. But [he] just [wants] to make [the characters of FFVII] happy” (Kitase and Hamaguchi’s interview “Final Fantasy VII Rebirth’s Producer Just Wants 'the Characters to End Up Happy'”, by Vandal, translated by me).

Kitase is indeed only one developer, but he’s the producer of this project: that’s the very top position. He oversees everything and nothing goes without his approval. That counts for something. Of course, Kitase is fair and values the input of all the devs, so of course it won’t be “all happiness and rainbows”— but I sincerely believe there’s a big chance that Cloud and Aerith are heading toward their happy ending. Even if this theory is completely bogus, I want to have faith that the devs would not sacrifice good storytelling for nostalgia and a conservative attitude toward preserving the OG story, as that would be cheap of them, and we have not known them to be cheap. This game truly matters to them, so I think they deserve our faith.
(conclusion in

Hi AusFinance, Hoping someone can help me as I'm in way over my head.
My mum was diagnosed with dementia a couple of years ago in her mid 60s. She worked as a teacher for ~25 years, and never took any leave/sick days. Due to this, she had so much LSL, personal and annual leave banked, that her former employer has essentially been paying her a salary since she retired. These payments will cease sometime in July.
She has 400k in super, $15k in debt, $0 in savings and a unit that she owns that is in serious need of repairs.
She would like to withdraw a lump sum from her super to fix some things with the house and to pay for an upcoming medical expense. I expect this to be in the realm of 60k but I'm still in the process of organising various quotes for her. Plus an additional 15k to pay off her debt.
Her super fund has emailed her offering an appointment to review her plan for her retirement at a cost of $300/hour. That seems high to me? Is this normal?
Once her payments stop from her employer I will take her into Centrelink to apply for the pension. However, I'm not fully understanding the Centrelink rules on income from super. Is it her total super balance that Centrelink uses to calculate her part pension? Or if she was to get say $700/fortnight as an income stream from her super, is that counted as income?
She usually does her own tax return, but I imagine I should organise an accountant to help her with that this year.
Is there anything else I should be considering?
I'm currently her primary carer, whilst also balancing my own FT job. I've organised an ACAT assessment but in the mean time I'm helping her with admin, chores and errands. Please forgive my financial illiteracy. It has only just occurred to me that I need to start thinking about her finances too.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks all!
ETA: I have enduring POA

Apologies for the clickbait title.
30M and 31F ready to get more serious with our finances - looking for ideas or ‘what would you do’ before we pay for any professional advice. My thinking of what to do in our position changes on a weekly basis so I’m looking for other points of view. We live in Sydney and plan to stay there long-ish term but are put off buying a PPOR here as prices are not good value for money IMO. We aren’t opposed to renting for the next few years. The end goal is to be able to semi-retire early if we want to and eventually have our own PPOR paid off - I’m aware this will be a while away. We’re willing to take calculated risks but at the same time don’t want to be leveraged up to our eye balls or go all in on meme stocks.

• HHI is approx $280k (part of my comp is variable). Will likely stay the same for the next few year as not overly motivated to climb the corporate ladder and sacrifice lifestyle.
• Both our Super balances are above average for our age but nothing special.
• We have $1m in cash/stocks - vast majority is currently sitting in high interest savings accounts with the remainder in vanilla ETFs. This came from a combination of saving, company RSUs and exiting a side business for those curious.
• We have no debt and expenses outside of rent aren’t crazy - we can save a good amount each year even after spending on hobbies/holidays.

At the moment we’re both considering buying an interstate investment property for around $600k each (will live there for 6 months) to take advantage of all the first home buyer incentives. Will put cash in an offset account with the aim to ‘break even’ from a cashflow perspective and pay down the principal quickly. From there take out equity for a deposit on the next place, rinse and repeat. Disclaimer: I have no clue if this is a bad idea or not. Alternatively we could also just DCA into ETFs but sacrificing leverage in doing this.

I started my first year of teaching this year. I was teaching 6th AND 7th grade math with a brand new curriculum for the entire district. The whole year was challenging to say the least. I tried everything admin recommended. Met with the district instructional coach. Observed multiple other math teachers. Received good observation scores. Had good relationships with my students. I did everything I needed to do. My principal is retiring this year. She called me in her office today and told me they would not be renewing my contract. I wish I knew the reason. I’m just not sure what to do next. I loved all of my students and coworkers. I enjoyed the job and what I could provide for my students but now I’m not sure I want to continue in education. It feels like I spent all my time (including outside of contract hours) working to make sure I was the best I could be and it still wasn’t enough. I’m hurt, sad, angry, but most of all disappointed. I don’t know what I’m going to do next so if anyone has any advice, it would be greatly appreciated.

Admitting we have a problem is the first step in solving it! Author is a Eugenean talking about her experience with rising crime in the city, never saw this story but hey, still relevant today. Found this little gem by random chance. Title is a hopefully relatable quote from the article. You can agree or disagree with the author, but it's actually pretty well written with sources included. (just including the whole article, for people who don't want to click links!)

I Caught Two Men Stealing From My Home. The Aftermath Was Absurd—and All Too Typical.

This experience crystallized Oregon’s deeper problems.

BY REBECCA SCHUMANJUNE 21, 20225:40 AM
Typically, guys wearing power-company vests don’t leave the houses they’re working on laden down with backpacks—let alone power tools, a scooter, and a Nintendo Switch. But that was the scene I happened upon at 6:30 p.m. on a Tuesday in mid-April when I puttered into my driveway in Eugene, Oregon, my 7-year-old ensconced in the back seat.
For a second, my brain tried to normalize the incident: This is just my daughter’s dad stopping by—except there are two of him, and they’re dressed as electricians for some reason? Then, a second later, everything whooshed into place: Oh, wait, I’m being robbed. Or, rather, I was being burgled. I would get reminded of this distinction later, when I made the dubious choice to join the chorus of aggrieved buttinskies on Nextdoor, where my well-meaning post to warn the neighborhood would turn me into an accidental vigilante hero for a day.
Unfortunately, it’s true: My reaction to this burgle was the lived-out fantasy of many who have been on the business end of a property crime. As the two goons took off on foot down my street, I went into fight-or-flight mode—and I chose fight.
“Well,” I said to my confused child, “let’s go see if we can get our stuff back.”
I peeled my 2005 Subaru back onto the street and easily overtook my two targets, who then hurtled themselves into an alley, whereupon I cornered one by the driver’s side window as the other made haste across the adjacent parking lot.
“Just give it back, bro!” I yelled out my window. “Just give it back! I’m a single mom! Just give it back.”
I repeated this until either I reminded him too much of his meanest teacher or he realized he’d been caught in broad daylight. “Fine,” he said. “Just fucking take it.”
He shoved a backpack through my driver’s side window. Inside it was both my laptops and my daughter’s iPad from school. Back at home, I would discover these guys had used channel lock pliers to force open the back door, but that the general chaos of my home had prevented them from locating my passport, jewelry, or sole item of irreplaceable value: the Montblanc fountain pen that my father, who died in a bicycle accident two years ago, had gotten for his law school graduation. My cat was unfazed.
I can honestly tell you that this little caper of mine was thrilling and deeply satisfying. It was also the exact wrong thing to do. Even this fanatical open-carry gun website implores: “Don’t chase criminals.” What if these two dipsticks had been armed? As unlikely as that was—property crime in my town is often driven by addiction, and weapons are worth money, which can buy drugs—I put myself and my child in potential danger. And for what? Three grand worth of electronics. As any reputable expert will tell you, you’re never to give chase to a thief, because human life is not worth possessions. As much as I admit to enjoying being called a “badass” by everyone I told this story, plus the listeners of KLCC Oregon, I should not have done this.
I did call the police, on the nonemergency line, because the dudes were long gone and nobody was hurt. I declined the dispatcher’s offer to send two officers to fingerprint a bunch of stuff I’d already touched. At best, that would have just added two more sets of prints to my town’s burgeoning roster of perennially at-large property criminals.
There are larger issues here, issues much more important than my would-be cool story. First, it’s an example of how in Eugene, small-scale property crime is now de facto legal. It is largely nonviolent, so it’s rarely seen as worth police resources to track down the goods. At the same time, it is so prevalent that any time one vest-wearing bozo gets nabbed, three more spring up in his place. This was my house’s second break-in in six months, and my fourth property crime total in the three years I’ve lived here as an adult. Eugene is my hometown, so I can also add the four times my childhood house, where my mother still lives, has been burgled since the early 2000s. When I was little, we left our front door unlocked so regularly that I wasn’t aware front doors had locks on them until I was much older. By the time I turned 30, however, every door in my parents’ house had been pried open at least once. (“Time to finally get that alarm system!” said my dad for three straight decades.)
Still, it’s a mistake to treat this trend solely as a vexing crime problem. Eugene’s descent into its property crime epidemic has been concurrent, unsurprisingly, with two addiction epidemics: First, the methamphetamine nightmare of the 1990s—when pseudoephedrine pills were still unregulated—hit Oregon and other Western states particularly hard. That wave segued all too naturally into the opioid and fentanyl crisis of the present. Meanwhile, not only did meth never really leave, but its use in Oregon also surged with the pandemic, with three Oregonians per day currently dying a drug-related death.
Since our conversation was necessarily brief, I don’t know the housing or drug situation of the guys who broke into my place. But local statistics point to them as two more casualties of these plagues. (Granted, those statistics are from nearby Portland, and they are police-sourced, so take them how you wish.)
For all the ambivalent empathy that the opioid epidemic has engendered, the local property crime scourge has set off a fierce public backlash. My incident brought out an unsurprising chorus of bloodlust on Nextdoor and elsewhere, when I shared it because I wanted to give my immediate neighbors a heads-up: “You should have kicked their asses,” they wrote. “We need to rise up and defend our property.”
This town’s petty crime is often attributed, at least in the national conservative press, to our West Coast government’s decision to temporarily allow urban camping during the pandemic. (That policy has now officially ended, for what it’s worth.) Towns like mine have often been characterized in the popular imagination as unlivable crime-addled hellholes. I will be the first to admit that our tent cities are sometimes blatant open-air drug markets, but this is the case even as our property values inflate to absurd proportions—and our crime is actually on the decline. Still, Oregonians like me currently have about a 2.7 percent chance of being burgled, which, at almost 30 percent higher than the national average, is very high. I learned very efficiently how anecdotes like mine get around (I can’t help it if I’m a dynamic storyteller!) and attract the righteous indignation of other former victims, so many often feel, incorrectly, like we few honest vanguards are awash in a sea of riffraff.
This atmosphere, in turn, inspires my locality’s equally unreasonable political extremists to put forth and exacerbate their own untenable solutions. Even in a hyperpolarized American environment, Oregon is more polarized than most. For decades, our liberal enclaves have made Portlandia look understated, while our conservative areas make Texas’ look progressive.
For example, during the heyday of Eugene’s recently dismantled and infamous Washington Jefferson Park tent city, a larger break-in at a bicycle store was traced at least partially back to the encampment. The police swept the tents and made a flurry of arrests. Some of the bikes were found. This resulted in part in outrage over using resources to hassle the city’s most impoverished residents: “A stolen bike, yes, that sucks,” an advocate for the unhoused told a local news outlet. “But what are your priorities? And I’m sorry, but a stolen bike isn’t the priority.”
Well, trust me, in this town, it definitely isn’t. Recovering those bikes was an anomaly; in Eugene, most of these burglaries go unsolved. In fact, 87 percent of burglaries in the whole country do, too. The get-tough-on-property-crime proponents assert that statistically, this sends a message that stealing is fair game, and sure, that is a message I do not condone. But I also agree with a somewhat less rabid version of the opposing view: Property is replaceable, these crimes are nonviolent, and everyone currently rifling through houses and dealing drugs out of tents in my town is human. They deserve a chance to get their lives on track.
So, what should be the town’s priority? Fixing the addiction epidemics is a perilously long way away from happening, for reasons that are as polarizing as addiction’s consequences. In the sobering and excellent Dopesick, author Beth Macy goes into painfully exacting detail about opioids’ near-inescapable hold on the human brain. Macy argues that the true way out of this epidemic is “low-barrier treatment,” which includes supportive housing and medical interventions such as safe injection supplies, fentanyl testing strips, buprenorphine access, and supervised consumption sites. All of these options, however, are a tough sell even in a “progressive” town like Eugene, where supervised consumption sites are what NIMBY nightmares are made of, and low-barrier treatment can run up against deeply held moral stigma: Gas is $5 a gallon, and my taxes are going to some junkie?
In the meantime, while some admirably advocate and vote and wait for those breakthroughs, what should we do about the burglaries themselves? Should we pursue more law enforcement, or more compassion toward the burglars? More arrests that allegedly might deter this, or policies that might alleviate income inequality? Does—as approximately 83 percent of the suggestions from my Nextdoor thread contended—every house in town need a tripwire that handcuffs trespassers on sight? Or should all businesses be taxed at 500 percent, and the proceeds used to furnish every fentanyl dealer in town with a nice apartment and mad cash? The debate has degenerated such that these are the sorts of cartoonish positions each side believes they’re fighting—and, in fact, are the only available choices. Just check out Eugene’s Reddit section any day, but don’t say I didn’t warn you.
The actual blight on small American towns like mine isn’t property crime. It’s that any tenable solution to it has been swallowed up into a churning abyss of extremism and perceived counterextremism. No one seems to have a convincing answer to the most basic question: So what should we do? What should I do?
Burglaries don’t have to be largely unsolvable, and more property criminals could be apprehended. But while I don’t want those dudes or any of their buddies to come back to my house, I also don’t want them in an American prison, where their “rehabilitation” will consist largely of learning better ways to commit even bigger crimes when they get out, and their options for alternative forms of acquiring money will be even more limited than they are now. Lacking any meaningful restorative justice program for petty thieves in my town (which would, in turn, necessitate locating and apprehending them), I decided my own problems could be solved, for now, with a padlock on my back gate.
And then, not long after the break-in, a Nintendo Switch appeared on my town’s Craigslist. Its included components and color combination were identical to the set stolen from my house. I debated, briefly, bringing my vigilante justice alter ego Super Annoying out of retirement, answering the ad and showing up to shrill my wrongdoers into returning what was mine. But this time, I thought better of it. My life is not worth much, but it’s probably worth more than Mario Kart. I can only hope the console’s new owners enjoy it as much as my daughter did—at least until someone steals it again.

For thousands of years, and to this day, Christians of various kinds have tried to demonstrate the truth of Christianity by claiming that Jesus was prophesied about specifically in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is argued that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies about the Messiah in the OT and, therefore, is the promised one. Only Jesus could've fulfilled these Messianic prophecies, so they say. Additionally, Christian theology, building off the NT paradigm of quoting the OT, has claimed that the OT looks forward to the founding of Christianity and the formation of the Church.
What this post will argue is that this is anachronistic and that Christians are incorrect in their claims about the OT. The OT prophets do not look forward to a supposed Messiah figure who would arrive hundreds of years later in 1st century Roman Palestine or that this Messiah figure would crucified and raised from the dead. Nor do they prophesy the establishment of the Christian religion. Instead, the OT looks forward to an imminent, glorious, material restoration of ancient Israel meant to happen in their day, not centuries later when Christianity was founded. Nor is the OT looking forward to supposed events that have yet to happen, like the second coming of Jesus or a future restoration of the land of Israel. These were supposed to happen in ancient Israel but did not occur.
Before I begin, I would like to say that this is the consensus of biblical scholars and historians. This is not just my opinion or the opinion of secular skeptics. All critical scholars of the OT, including Jews, Christians, and non-religious ones, agree that OT needs to be understood in its ancient Israelite context. They agree that these texts and oracles are not about Jesus or the Church. If you want to read an excellent scholarly resource, I highly recommend John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 2018. He is a leading OT scholar at Yale and a Roman Catholic. The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible is also a beneficial resource, giving a critical scholarly introduction and notes to the Hebrew Bible.
For this post, I will look at some of the principal prophetic literature of the OT. I cannot analyze every single relevant passage.

Isaiah

The Book of Isaiah is among the most popular books in ancient Judaism and Christianity. I could be wrong, but I believe it is the most cited book in the NT after Psalms. This is relevant to this discussion because Christians cite many passages in Isaiah, believing them to be predictions about Jesus. This precedent is set in the NT, for example, in Matthew's or Luke's gospel. However, Jesus/Christianity is not prophesied in the book. Instead, Isaiah predicts the imminent restoration of the Kingdom of Israel and the gathering of the twelve tribes.
Let's examine Isaiah 7:14, a passage often misconstrued as a prophecy about Jesus. In reality, it's not a prophecy about the Messiah at all. The passage states, 'Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel.' This is not about a virgin giving a miraculous birth. The word used here is 'almah ', which simply means young woman. If Isaiah intended to convey that this woman was a virgin, there was a word for that, 'betulah '. Matthew's use of the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, which is a mistranslation of the Hebrew, as a prophecy about Jesus's virgin birth is a misinterpretation. The context of Isaiah 7 is an oracle of consolation given to King Ahaz, promising him a sign through the birth of a son that Jerusalem will be preserved from the Assyrian crisis.
'For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria. On that day the Lord will whistle for the fly that is at the sources of the streams of Egypt and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. And they will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the clefts of the rocks and on all the thornbushes and on all the watering holes. On that day the Lord will shave with a razor hired beyond the River—with the king of Assyria—the head and the hair of the feet, and it will take off the beard as well.'
So, Isaiah 7:14 refers to the Assyrian crisis in the 8th century BCE and the preservation of Jerusalem, not events that occurred hundreds of years later. Matthew's misquotation of the OT is a clear example of misinterpretation. It's quite ironic and even amusing that the most famous and well-known prophecy about Jesus's virgin birth, cited every year at Christmas, is quite literally not about that. This highlights the importance of understanding the historical context and the original intent of the texts.
There is a cluster of oracles in Isaiah 9-11 that Christians cite as a prophecy about Jesus. But when we look at the context of Isaiah 7-12, we see that these are about the restoration of Zion and the re-establishment of a Davidic king who would rule in the ancient Near East in Israel, not in 1st-century Judea.
Let's look at some of the famous passages.
'For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders, and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Great will be his authority, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom. He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time onward and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.' 9:6-7
This is not a prophecy about Jesus. The text presupposes that this son is already born and will fulfill this vision in Isaiah's day. Again, the passages surrounding this one set the historical context for fulfillment in the ANE. This Davidic King would preside over the physical restoration of a united Kingdom of Israel and the unification of the twelve tribes.
'On that day, the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no longer lean on the one who struck them but will lean on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. For though your people, O Israel, were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return.' 10:20-22
'On that day, the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples; the nations shall inquire of him, and his dwelling shall be glorious. On that day, the Lord will again raise his hand to recover the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea.' 11:10-11
The King, through Yahweh, on that day will also,
'raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the outcasts of Israel and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. ¹³ The jealousy of Ephraim shall depart; the hostility of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not be jealous of Judah, and Judah shall not be hostile toward Ephraim. ¹⁴ But they shall swoop down on the backs of the Philistines in the west; together, they shall plunder the people of the east. They shall put forth their hand against Edom and Moab, and the Ammonites shall obey them.'
So, it's clear what these oracles were intending to describe. Isaiah predicted that after the Assyrian crisis of the 8th century BCE, Yahweh would raise up a Davidic ruler who would preside over a literal Israelite Kingdom that would become the dominant power of the ANE. This was expected to happen in the ancient world, but it did not occur. The historical context of Jesus and the first-century Church is not the fulfillment of these oracles. These oracles are failed. Isaiah's vision of an eternal, glorious Israelite Kingdom did not come to pass.

Jeremiah

There are two passages in Jeremiah I would like to discuss.
Jeremiah 29:10 promises that after 70 years, the Jews will return from the Babylonian exile, and God will restore Israel to its former glory.
'For thus says the Lord: Only when Babylon’s seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope. Then, when you call upon me and come and pray to me, I will hear you. When you search for me, you will find me; if you seek me with all your heart, I will let you find me, says the Lord, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.'
This never happened historically. Yes, some of the Judeans in exile did return to Israel. Israel was rebuilt with the help of the Persians. But, this was not the glorious restoration predicted by the prophets. Israel would continue to be dominated by foreign powers until the establishment of the secular state of Israel in 1948, which, of course, has no relevance to this ancient oracle. Further, while some Judeans did return, this promise of a gathering of Jews from all the nations did not happen. After the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, Jews have remained permanently dispersed in the diaspora. This is another failed oracle. It cannot be interpreted exegetically as being fulfilled in the 1st century with Jesus and Christianity.
More famously, however, is Jeremiah's prediction of the establishment of a 'New Covenant.' (31:31) Christians see this New Covenant as being fulfilled in the Church, and indeed, the New Testament frequently refers to the New Covenant being fulfilled in the Christian community and Jesus's work. However, the historical context of this passage is surrounded by a cluster of oracles in chapters 30-31 that were meant to be a consolation to ancient Israel. The passage itself is clear that this is not talking about Christianity or events hundreds of years later, but is a word of consolation to Jews who experienced the Babylonian conquest:
'The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.' 31:31
What is the context?
'At that time, says the Lord, I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people.' 31:1
'The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when the city shall be rebuilt for the Lord from the tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. And the measuring line shall go out farther, straight to the hill Gareb, and shall then turn to Goah. The whole valley of the dead bodies and the ashes and all the fields as far as the Wadi Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be sacred to the Lord. It shall never again be uprooted or overthrown.' 31:38-40
'For the days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will restore the fortunes of my people, Israel and Judah, says the Lord, and I will bring them back to the land that I gave to their ancestors, and they shall take possession of it' 30:3
Then, it is clear what prophesy about the New Covenant means. It's about the imminent restoration of the ancient Kingdom of Israel and its ascent into power and glory. Again, these oracles remained unfulfilled and precisely falsified.

Micah

There is one famous passage in Micah 5, quoted in Matthew and frequently cited by Christians as "proof" that Jesus's birth location was prophesied about hundreds of years prior. The idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is, of course, historically dubious. Matthew and Luke's accounts are contradictory and rife with historical problems. Mark and John assume Jesus has always been a native of Nazareth (Mk 6:2-3, Jn 1:46, 7:42). It seems then that Matthew and Luke invented their passages about Jesus being born in Bethlehem to give him more Davidic status. But this is beside the point, even if Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It is not a fulfillment of this passage.
'But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who is one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.' 5:2
What is the historical context of this oracle? Again, the context of the chapter and the book is Israel's restoration and the Israelite kingdom's imminent establishment.
'Then, the remnant of Jacob, surrounded by many peoples, shall be like dew from the Lord, like showers on the grass, which do not depend upon people or wait for any mortal. ⁸ And among the nations the remnant of Jacob, surrounded by many peoples, shall be like a lion among the animals of the forest, like a young lion among the flocks of sheep, which, when it goes through, treads down and tears in pieces, with no one to deliver. ⁹ Your hand shall be lifted up over your adversaries, and all your enemies shall be cut off.'
On that day, says the Lord, I will cut off your horses from among you and will destroy your chariots; ¹¹ and I will cut off the cities of your land and destroy all your strongholds; ¹² and I will cut off sorceries from your hand, and you shall have no more soothsayers; ¹³ and I will cut off your images and your pillars from among you, and you shall bow down no more to the work of your hands; ¹⁴ and I will uproot your sacred poles^\)g^\) from among you and destroy your towns. ¹⁵ And in anger and wrath I will execute vengeance on the nations that did not obey.
What about this future King? Again, I find it amusing that Christians cite this text to show that Jesus fulfilled it. It shows they have not read and understood the historical context of the oracle. The text goes on to say that this King will conquer the land of Assyria, the land of Nimrod.
Micah 5:5–6
'When the Assyrians come into our land and tread upon our soil, we will raise against them seven shepherds and eight rulers. They shall rule the land of Assyria with the sword and the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword; he shall rescue us from the Assyrians if they come into our land or tread within our border.'

Conclusion

I've, of course, been very selective. There are many more examples of this that could've been pulled from. I hope you will see what I've briefly tried to show. The Prophets of the OT predicted that in their own time, they would see the salvation of Yahweh as their God. A Davidic King would be raised, and Israel would be restored to glory after the Assyrian crisis in the case of Isaiah or the Babylonian crisis in the case of Jeremiah and Micah. The same goes for the other prophets. My thesis, then, is that historically understood, not only did these oracles fail in their prediction, but they are demonstrably not about events in 1st century Roman Palestine or the wider Greco-Roman world. They're not about establishing the Church or a dying and rising messiah figure who brings spiritual salvation. Yes, the NT does interpret passages in the OT as being fulfilled in Jesus. But they are taken out of their historical context. The NT and early Christians were not novel in this practice. This was standard Jewish exegesis of the OT. Because Christians and Jews believed that the OT writings were sacred scripture that couldn't be wrong, they reinterpreted them in the light of their situations. The Essenes at Qumran, like the early Christians, also thought that their community and Teacher of Righteousness was the fulfillment of the bible prophecy, and the Rabbis in the Rabbinic literature frequently apply ancient scripture to their community.

III. Changing Modes of Making It: From Horatio Alger to the Happy Hooker
…
From “Self-Culture” to Self-Promotion through “Winning Images”
In the nineteenth century, the ideal of self-improvement degenerated into a cult of compulsive industry. P.T. Barnum, who made a fortune in a calling the very nature of which the Puritans would have condemned (“Every calling, whereby God will be Dishonored; every Calling whereby none but the Lusts of men are Nourished: …every such Calling is to be Rejected”), delivered many times a lecture frankly entitled “The Art of Money-Getting,” which epitomized the nineteenth-century conception of worldly success. Barnum quoted freely from Franklin but without Franklin’s concern for the attainment of wisdom or the promotion of useful knowledge. “Information” interested Barnum merely as a means of mastering the market. Thus he condemned the “false economy” of the farm wife who douses her candle at dusk rather than lighting another for reading, not realizing that the “information” gained through reading is worth far more than the price of the candles. “Always take a trustworthy newspaper,” Barnum advised young men on the make, “and thus keep thoroughly posted in regard to the transactions of the world. He who is without a newspaper is cut off from his species.”
Barnum valued the good opinion of others not as a sign of one’s usefulness but as a means of getting credit. “Uncompromising integrity of character is invaluable.” The nineteenth century attempted to express all values in monetary terms. Everything had its price. Charity was a moral duty because “the liberal man will command patronage, which the sordid, uncharitable miser will be avoided.” The sin of pride was not that it offended God but that it led to extravagant expenditures. “A spirit of pride and vanity, when permitted to have full sway, is the undying cankerworm which gnaws the very vitals of a man’s worldly possessions.”
The eighteenth century made a virtue of temperance but did not condemn moderate indulgence in the service of sociability. “Rational conversation,” on the contrary, appeared to Franklin and his contemporaries to represent an important value in its own right. The nineteenth century condemned sociability itself, on the grounds that it might interfere with business. “How many good opportunities have passed, never to return, while a man was sipping a ‘social glass’ with his friends!” Preachments on self-help now breathed the spirit of compulsive enterprise. Henry Ward Beecher defined “the beau ideal of happiness” as a state of mind in which “a man [is] so busy that he does not know whether he is or is not happy.” Russell Sage remarked that “work has been the chied, and you might say, the only source of pleasure in my life.”
Even at the height of the Gilded Age, however, the Protestant ethic did not completely lose its original meaning. In the success manuals, the McGuffey readers, the Peter Parley Books, and the hortatory writings of the great capitalists themselves, the Protestant virtues - industry, thrift, temperance - still appeared not merely as stepping-stones to success but as their own reward.
The spirit of self-improvement lived on, in debased form, in the cult of “self-culture” - proper care and training of mind and body, nurture of the mind through “great books,” development of “character.” The social contribution of individual accumulation still survived as an undercurrent in the celebration of success, and the social conditions of early industrial capitalism, in which the pursuit of wealth undeniably increased the supply of useful objects, gave some substance to the claim that “accumulated capital means progress.” In condemning speculation and extravagance, in upholding the importance of patient industry, in urging young men to start at the bottom and submit to “the discipline of daily life,” even the most unabashed exponents of self-enrichment clung to the notion that wealth derives its value from its contribution to the general good and to the happiness of future generations.
The nineteenth-century cult of success placed surprisingly little emphasis on competition. It measured achievement not against the achievements of others but against an abstract ideal of discipline and self-denial. At the turn of the century, however, preachments on success began to stress the will to win. The bureaucratization of the corporate career changed the conditions of self-advancement; ambitious young men now had to compete with their peers for the attention and approval of their superiors. The struggle to surpass the previous generation and to provide for the next gave way to a form of sibling rivalry, in which men of approximately equal abilities jostled against each other in competition for a limited number of places. Advancement now depended on “will-power, self-confidence, energy, and initiative” - the qualities celebrated in such exemplary writings as George Lorimer’s Letters from a Self-Made Merchant to His Son. ” By the end of the nineteenth century,” writes John Cawelti in his study of the success myth, “self-help books were dominated by the ethos of sales-manship and boosterism. Personal magnetism, a quality which supposedly enabled a man to influence and dominate others, became one of the major keys to success.” In 1907, both Lorimer’s Saturday Evening Post and Orison Swett Marden’s Success magazine inaugurated departments of instruction in the “art of conversation,” fashion, and “culture.” The management of interpersonal relations came to be seen as the essence of self-advancement. The captain of industry gave way to the confidence man, the master of impressions. Young men were told that they had to sell themselves in order to succeed.
At first, self-testing through competition remained almost in-distinguishable from moral self-discipline and self-culture, but the difference became unmistakable when Dale Carnegie and then Norman Vincent Peale restated and transformed the tradition of Mather, Franklin, Barnum, and Lorimer. As a formula for success, winning friends and influencing people had little in common with industry and thrift. The prophets of positive thinking disparaged “the old adage that hard work alone is the magic key that will unlock the door to our desires.” They praised the love of money, officially condemned even by the crudest of Gilded Age materialists, as a useful incentive. “You can never have riches in great quantities,” wrote Napoleon Hill in this Think and Grow Rich,” unless you can work yourself into a white heat of desire for money.” The pursuit of wealth lost the few shreds of moral meaning that still clung to it. Formerly the Protestant virtues appeared to have an independent value of their own. Even when they became purely instrumental, in the second half of the nineteenth century, success itself retained moral and social overtones, by virtue of its contribution to the sum of human comfort and progress. Now success appeared as an end in its own right, the victory over your competitors that alone retained the capacity to instill a sense of self-approval. The latest success manuals differ from earlier ones - even surpassing the cynicism of Dale Carnegie and Peale - in their frank acceptance of the need to exploit and intimidate others, in their lack of interest in the substance of success, and in the candor with which they insist that appearances - “winning images - count for more than performance, ascription for more than achievement. One author seems to imply that the self consists of little more than its “image” reflected in others’ eyes. “Although I’m not being original when I say it, I’m sure you’ll agree that the way you see yourself will reflect the image you portray to others.” Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
<The American Religion by Harold Bloom (California Orphism)>
The Apotheosis of Individualism
The fear that haunted the social critics and theorists of the fifties - that rugged individualism had succumbed to conformity and “love-pressure sociability” - appears in retrospect to have been premature. In 1960, David Riesman complained that young people no longer had much social “presence,” their education having provided them not with “a polished personality but [with] an affable, casual, adaptable one, suitable to the losing organizations of an affluent society.” It is true that “a present-oriented hedonism,” as Riseman went on the argue, has replaced the work ethic “among the very classes which in the earlier stages of industrialization were oriented toward the future, toward distant goals and delayed gratification.” But this hedonism is a fraud; the pursuit of pleasure disguises a struggle for power. Americans have not really become more sociable and cooperative, as the theorists of other-direction and conformity would like us to believe; they have merely become more adept at exploiting the conventions of interpersonal relations for their own benefit. Activities ostensibly undertaken purely for enjoyment often have the real object of doing others in. It is symptomatic of the underlying tenor of American life that vulgar terms for sexual intercourse also convey the sense of getting the better of someone, working him over, taking him in, imposing your will through guile, deception, or superior force. Verbs associated with sexual pleasure have acquired more than the usual overtones of violence and psychic exploitation. In the violent world of the ghetto, the language of which now pervades American society as a whole, the violence associated with sexual intercourse is directed with special intensity by men against women, specifically against their mothers. The language of ritualized aggression and abuse reminds those who use it that exploitation is the general rule and some form of dependence the common fate, that “the individual,” in Lee Rainwater’s words, “is not strong enough or adult enough to achieve his goal in a legitimate way, but is rather like a child, dependent on others who tolerate his childish maneuvers”; accordingly males, even adult males, often depend on women for support and nurture. Many of them have to pimp for a living, ingratiating themselves with a woman in order to pry money from her; sexual relations thus become manipulative and predatory. Satisfaction depends on taking what you want instead of waiting for what is rightfully yours to receive. All this enters everyday speech in language that connects sex with aggression and sexual aggression with highly ambivalent feelings about mothers.
In some ways middle-class society has become a pale copy of the black ghetto, as the appropriation of its language would lead us to believe. We do not need to minimize the poverty of the ghetto or the suffering inflicted by whites on blacks in order to see that the increasingly dangerous and unpredictable conditions of middle-class life have given rise to similar strategies for survival. Indeed the attraction of black culture for disaffected whites suggests that black culture now speaks to a general condition, the most important feature of which is a widespread loss of confidence in the future. The poor have always had to live for the present, but now a desperate concern for personal survival, sometimes disguised as hedonism, engulfs the middle class as well. Today almost everyone lives in a dangerous world from which there is little escape. International terrorism and blackmail, bombings, and hijackings arbitrarily affect the rich and poor alike. Crime, violence, and gang wars make cities unsafe and threaten to spread to the suburbs. Racial violence on the streets and in the schools creates an atmosphere of chronic tension and threatens to erupt at any time into full-scale racial conflict. Unemployment spreads from the poor the white-collar class, while inflation eats away the savings of those who hoped to retire in comfort. Much of what is euphemistically known as the middle class, merely because it dresses up to go to work, is now reduced to proletarian conditions of existence. Many white-collar jobs require no more skill and pay even less than blue-collar jobs, conferring little status or security. The propaganda of death and destruction, emanating ceaselessly from the mass media, adds to the prevailing atmosphere of insecurity. Far-flung famines, earthquakes in remote regions, distant wars and uprisings attract the same attention as events closer to home. The impression of arbitrariness in the reporting of disaster reinforces the arbitrary quality of experience itself, and the absence of continuity in the coverage of events, as today’s crisis yields to a new and unrelated crisis tomorrow, adds to the sense of historical discontinuity - the sense of living in a world in which the past holds out no guidance to the present and the future has become completely unpredictable.
Older conceptions of success presupposed a world in rapid motion, in which fortunes were rapidly won and lost and new opportunities unfolded every day. Yet they also presupposed a certain stability, a future that bore some recognizable resemblance to the present and the past. The growth of bureaucracy, the cult of consumption with its immediate gratifications, but above all the severance of the sense of historical continuity have transformed the Protestant ethic while carrying the underlying principles of capitalist society to their logical conclusion . The pursuit of self-interest, formerly identified with the rational pursuit of gain and the accumulation of wealth, has become a search for pleasure and psychic survival. Social conditions now approximate the vision of republican society conceived by the Marquis de Sade at the very outset of the republican epoch. In many ways the most farsighted and certainly the most disturbing of the prophets of revolutionary individualism, Sade defended unlimited self-indulgence as the logical culmination of the revolution in property relations - the only way to attain revolutionary brotherhood in its purest form. By regressing in his writings to the most primitive level of fantasy, Sade uncannily glimpsed the whole subsequent development of personal life under capitalism, ending not in revolutionary brotherhood but in a society of siblings that has outlived and repudiated its revolutionary origins.
Sade imagined a sexual utopia in which everyone has the right to everyone else, where human beings, reduced to their sexual organs, become absolutely anonymous and interchangeable. His ideal society thus reaffirmed the capitalist principle that human beings are ultimately reducible to interchangeable objects. It also incorporated and carried to a surprising new conclusion Hobbes’s discovery that the destruction of paternalism and the subordination of all social relations to the market had stripped away the remaining restraints and the mitigating illusions from the war of all against all. In the resulting state of organized anarchy, as Sade was the first to realize, pleasure becomes life’s only business - pleasure, however, that is indistinguishable from rape, murder, unbridled aggression. In a society that has reduced reason to mere calculation, reason can impose no limits on the pursuit of pleasure - on the immediate gratification of every desire no matter how perverse, insane, criminal, or merely immoral. For the standards that would condemn crime or cruelty derive from religion, compassion, or the kind of reason that rejects purely instrumental applications; and none of these outmoded forms of thought or feeling has any logical place in a society based on commodity production. In his misogyny, Sade perceived that bourgeois enlightenment, carried to its logical conclusions, condemned even the sentimental cult of womanhood and the family, which the bourgeoisie itself had carried to unprecedented extremes.
At the same time, he saw that condemnation of “woman-worship” had to go hand in hand with a defense of woman’s sexual rights - their right to dispose of their own bodies, as feminists would put it today. If the exercise of that right in Sade’s utopia boils down to the duty to become an instrument of someone else’s pleasure, it was not so much because Sade hated women as because he hated humanity. He perceived, more clearly than the feminists, that all freedoms under capitalism come in the end to the same thing, the same universal obligation to enjoy and be enjoyed. In the same breath, and without violating his own logic, Sade demanded for women the right “fully to satisfy all their desires” and “all parts of their bodies” and categorically stated that “all women must submit to our pleasure.” Pure individualism thus issued in the most radical repudiation of individuality. “All men, all women resemble each other,” according to Sade; and to those of his countrymen who would become republicans he adds this ominous warning: “Do not think you can make good republicans so long as you isolated in their families the children who should belong to the republic alone.” The bourgeois defense of privacy culminates - not just in Sade’s thought but in the history to come, so accurately foreshadowed in the very excess, madness, infantilism of his ideas - in the most thoroughgoing attack on privacy; the glorification of the individual, in his annihilation.
<…>
Standing-Reserve.
Note a lack of the “Greek” in Lasch.
Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927-1939 by Georges Bataille, Edited by A. Stoekl, Translated by A. Stoekl, C.R. Lovitt, and D.M. Leslie Jr.
<…>

My family owns a machining/welding shop employing about 48 people. It’s been in the family for over 40 years. My grandfather started it but passed away 20 years ago. My father just turned 60 and due to an unexpected health issue has been forced to retire early. He expected to be able to transition me into his role slowly, but it’s been more of a sudden transition. I’m now running the show. I worked on the shop floor since I was 14, but I’m struggling with feeing guilty being “the boss”. I have the utmost respect for our guys. It’s HARD work. It’s hot, sweaty, dirty manual labor. I get to wear clean clothes and sit in an office the majority of the day taking phone calls, quoting jobs, interacting with customers, etc. When I walk out onto the shop floor, I see the guys busting their butts and I can’t help but feel like I’m too young to be in the position that I’m in. Some of the guys are in their 60s. I get along with all of them, but I don’t really feel like the boss. I feel like an imposter, like I’m still a kid at times. I feel like some of the guys don’t take me seriously, but I know deep down that’s just my insecurity. I feel like I have a tremendous weight on my shoulders to succeed and it’s really starting to get to me. I feel like I’m never doing “enough”. When I’m in the office working I feel like I should be out talking to the guys. I’m struggling to find balance. Does anyone have any words of advice?

31m 200k gross income between myself and spouse.
Specifically, I am looking to do this for 2 reasons:
1) to have more flexibility in investment options 2) I’m thinking (hoping?) that the principal portion of the Roth 401k would then become available for withdrawal as an extra safety buffer, similar to how principal originally invested into a Roth IRA can be withdrawn. The Roth IRA is over 5 years old.
I know people talk about Roth ladders and backdoor IRAs and stuff, but I won’t be retiring for a while and with our mortgage and income, won’t be able to save enough to need backdoor IRAs anyway.
Is my reason #2 above actually how it would work or am I mistaken?
Thanks!

I would encourage everyone reading the headline to perform the following before commenting:

1. Figure out roughly the amount you have contributed to Social Security by estimating your total lifetime earnings and multiplying that figure by 13 percent (6.5% of every dollar you earned was taken out of your paycheck, and another 6.5% was contributed by your employer).
   
2. Go to an online investment calculator and plug that number in to an as a starting principal.
   
3. Take 13% of your current earnings, divide that by 12 and put it into the investment calculator as an additional monthly contribution.
   
4. Perform the calculatuon using the number of years until you reach retirement age. Play around with interest rates and see what the calculator gives you. The historical growth rate of the S&P 500 is about 10%, but I used 7% for mine
   

This will give you a rough, back-of-the-envelope calculation of what your return would be if you invested that sum instead. It actually gives a conservative estimate, all other things considered, because it doesn't account for the growth your past contributions would have experienced, and it doesn't account for future earnings increases.

1. Take that figure that you got from the calculator and multiply by 4% to get a safe withdrawal rate. This is the salary you would have to live off in retirement. Any remaining unused funds could be passed down to your surviving family.

I am not opposed to a payroll tax for saving for retirement, but in my opinion, Social Security is a bad deal for almost everybody that works for a living. A far better idea in my opinion, would be to have the same 13% payroll tax, but allow people to put their money into an index fund that automatically adjusts risk as the individual reaches retirement age.
In retirement, the individual can withdraw funds up to a maximum of 4-5% per year. When the individual dies, the remainder is taxed at a flat rate, say 10%, and the rest is distributed to the selected beneficiaries to do with as they wish. The 10% that was taxed could go to a general fund that is similarly invested and is used to provide social welfare for those that didn't work their whole life.
Social Security robs normal people of the opportunity to build generational wealth for their families. When I performed the calculation estimate for my father, I got a figure of about $4.5 million. He drew on Social Security for one year before he kicked the bucket.
Just for fun, I performed the calculation using someone who earned $12/hr accross a 45 year working career without ever receiving a raise. That person would be a millionaire at retirement age.

Thought this might be a fun story for those who had bad teachers as a young one.
So, I guess for one I am a Canadian in Ontario and we have elementary school from kindergarten to grade five (ages 5-10, essentially. I am born in September the starting month of school so it’s much easier to remember). I am currently a 35F but this discussion came up over Mother’s Day.
I was always bullied in Middle School and High School but my only bully in elementary was my God damn teacher. I won’t say her name and I am not even sure if she still lives. We will call her Mrs.R. So! I was and still am always a Tom Boy and I’ve always talked with my hands (probably from both biological parents, dad being French Canadian and mom being born of an English immigrant father).
This woman used the fact I would “fight” with boys as a way to try and suspend me or give me detention. We were wrestling, completely mutual and they were never the ones to get in trouble, just me.
Next, the way she taught long division was impossible for me to understand. The year prior I was taught the exact same thing but in a very simplistic manner, she added zeros where it confused me. Finally, after almost a year of failing math tests and with help from not only my own parents but my best friends (who also had to deal with her), I just said “fuck it” and did the math the way I understood. I nailed the test. She accuses me of cheating and called in my mom. My mom fought and won once she made Mrs.R give me a problem to solve on the spot, and I did, in my own way.
Number three! And honestly the most traumatic to me, was when she had asked me a question and I answered with my hands and arms giving emphasis, as I still do today. She took this moment to stand in front of THE ENTIRE CLASSROOM and blatantly mock me. Saying “Oh! Look at me! I’m Valkyrie and this is how I talk!” Literally prancing around the black board. I remember the one closet friend who sat beside me (and was one who I apparently “attacked”) rubbing my back as I cried in silence.
So, because of number three I came home very upset and mom noticed it. I tried to lie but that woman has inhuman abilities. I told the truth. Now, my mother is ride or die for me, I am an only child and, in her words, she can “go from mother hen to mother bear in a nonosecond”. And so fucking true over the years. Next thing I know, I’m in that classroom with her, Mrs.R and my stepfather (who is a big dude but doesn’t DARE step between my mother and me) and my mother is LOOSING it on her, hands flailing far more than mine were. She was temporarily suspended once my mom escalated it to the principal.
Soooooo, here is where the Karma comes into play. My mom was also one of those moms whom always volunteered for class trips as a “guide” and she was damn well good at it, all my peers loved her. Well, we went to the R.O.M (Royal Ontario Museum) and this bitch, Mrs.R, clearly shoves a child’s head into the stucco walls of a fake bat cave (with loud automatic sounds of bats flying around) because this kid was clearly scared and screaming. My mom witnessed it. This kid wasn’t even from our school. Two weeks or so pass and my mom gets a phone call… from Mrs.R. She is being sued. Asks my mom TO FUCKING DEFEND HER. My laughed at her, hung up, got the necessary info and did the exact opposite… she left on “retirement” not too long after.
My mom, to this day, thinks she was going through hard menopause but at the same time does not excuse the behaviour. She said on this Mothers Day “Bitch needed some extra estrogen in her system”. And always thinks she should have quit before all of this came about.
Anywho! That’s my story, let me know if you want to her about my Ma knocking out my first boyfriend with one (well deserved) shot to the face.

Recovering for 10 months from my hemorrhagic stroke and a constant factor in my rehabilitation, is that I am by far the youngest patient, with 39 years.
This had a big impact on the self-help groups and my inability to connect to anybody there, the level of rehabilitation that's offered as I find it severely lacking and the "climate" in any rehab facility.
In the self-help group that is near me nearly everyone simply retired after their stroke and no one could connect to the time pressure that I experience, trying to get fit enough to work asap.
Another example - when I got out of immediate rehab after 3 months all Physio, Ergo and Logotherapy were reluctant to offer me an appointment on the same day as my other appointments, quoting severe exhaustion in their patients as reason. It took me weeks of convincing or straight up lieing to get those appointments.
Anyone who had any similar experiences? I honestly feel pretty alone with this. .
Edit: starting my second stationary rehab in 3 weeks, that's probably why I'm thinking a lot about it again

For thousands of years, and to this day, Christians of various kinds have tried to demonstrate the truth of Christianity by claiming that Jesus was prophesied about specifically in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is argued that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies about the Messiah in the OT and, therefore, is the promised one. Only Jesus could've fulfilled these Messianic prophecies, so they say. Additionally, Christian theology, building off the NT paradigm of quoting the OT, has claimed that the OT looks forward to the founding of Christianity and the formation of the Church.
What this post will argue is that this is anachronistic and that Christians are incorrect in their claims about the OT. The OT prophets do not look forward to a supposed Messiah figure who would arrive hundreds of years later in 1st century Roman Palestine or that this Messiah figure would crucified and raised from the dead. Nor do they prophesy the establishment of the Christian religion. Instead, the OT looks forward to an imminent, glorious, material restoration of ancient Israel meant to happen in their day, not centuries later when Christianity was founded. Nor is the OT looking forward to supposed events that have yet to happen, like the second coming of Jesus or a future restoration of the land of Israel. These were supposed to happen in ancient Israel but did not occur.
Before I begin, I would like to say that this is the consensus of biblical scholars and historians. This is not just my opinion or the opinion of secular skeptics. All critical scholars of the OT, including Jews, Christians, and non-religious ones, agree that OT needs to be understood in its ancient Israelite context. They agree that these texts and oracles are not about Jesus or the Church. If you want to read an excellent scholarly resource, I highly recommend John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 2018. He is a leading OT scholar at Yale and a Roman Catholic. The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible is also a beneficial resource, giving a critical scholarly introduction and notes to the Hebrew Bible.
For this post, I will look at some of the principal prophetic literature of the OT. I cannot analyze every single relevant passage.

Isaiah

The Book of Isaiah is among the most popular books in ancient Judaism and Christianity. I could be wrong, but I believe it is the most cited book in the NT after Psalms. This is relevant to this discussion because Christians cite many passages in Isaiah, believing them to be predictions about Jesus. This precedent is set in the NT, for example, in Matthew's or Luke's gospel. However, Jesus/Christianity is not prophesied in the book. Instead, Isaiah predicts the imminent restoration of the Kingdom of Israel and the gathering of the twelve tribes.
Let's examine Isaiah 7:14, a passage often misconstrued as a prophecy about Jesus. In reality, it's not a prophecy about the Messiah at all. The passage states, 'Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel.' This is not about a virgin giving a miraculous birth. The word used here is 'almah ', which simply means young woman. If Isaiah intended to convey that this woman was a virgin, there was a word for that, 'betulah '. Matthew's use of the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, which is a mistranslation of the Hebrew, as a prophecy about Jesus's virgin birth is a misinterpretation. The context of Isaiah 7 is an oracle of consolation given to King Ahaz, promising him a sign through the birth of a son that Jerusalem will be preserved from the Assyrian crisis.
'For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria. On that day the Lord will whistle for the fly that is at the sources of the streams of Egypt and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. And they will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the clefts of the rocks and on all the thornbushes and on all the watering holes. On that day the Lord will shave with a razor hired beyond the River—with the king of Assyria—the head and the hair of the feet, and it will take off the beard as well.'
So, Isaiah 7:14 refers to the Assyrian crisis in the 8th century BCE and the preservation of Jerusalem, not events that occurred hundreds of years later. Matthew's misquotation of the OT is a clear example of misinterpretation. It's quite ironic and even amusing that the most famous and well-known prophecy about Jesus's virgin birth, cited every year at Christmas, is quite literally not about that. This highlights the importance of understanding the historical context and the original intent of the texts.
There is a cluster of oracles in Isaiah 9-11 that Christians cite as a prophecy about Jesus. But when we look at the context of Isaiah 7-12, we see that these are about the restoration of Zion and the re-establishment of a Davidic king who would rule in the ancient Near East in Israel, not in 1st-century Judea.
Let's look at some of the famous passages.
'For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders, and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Great will be his authority, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom. He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time onward and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.' 9:6-7
This is not a prophecy about Jesus. The text presupposes that this son is already born and will fulfill this vision in Isaiah's day. Again, the passages surrounding this one set the historical context for fulfillment in the ANE. This Davidic King would preside over the physical restoration of a united Kingdom of Israel and the unification of the twelve tribes.
'On that day, the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no longer lean on the one who struck them but will lean on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. For though your people, O Israel, were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return.' 10:20-22
'On that day, the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples; the nations shall inquire of him, and his dwelling shall be glorious. On that day, the Lord will again raise his hand to recover the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea.' 11:10-11
The King, through Yahweh, on that day will also,
'raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the outcasts of Israel and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. ¹³ The jealousy of Ephraim shall depart; the hostility of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not be jealous of Judah, and Judah shall not be hostile toward Ephraim. ¹⁴ But they shall swoop down on the backs of the Philistines in the west; together, they shall plunder the people of the east. They shall put forth their hand against Edom and Moab, and the Ammonites shall obey them.'
So, it's clear what these oracles were intending to describe. Isaiah predicted that after the Assyrian crisis of the 8th century BCE, Yahweh would raise up a Davidic ruler who would preside over a literal Israelite Kingdom that would become the dominant power of the ANE. This was expected to happen in the ancient world, but it did not occur. The historical context of Jesus and the first-century Church is not the fulfillment of these oracles. These oracles are failed. Isaiah's vision of an eternal, glorious Israelite Kingdom did not come to pass.

Jeremiah

There are two passages in Jeremiah I would like to discuss.
Jeremiah 29:10 promises that after 70 years, the Jews will return from the Babylonian exile, and God will restore Israel to its former glory.
'For thus says the Lord: Only when Babylon’s seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope. Then, when you call upon me and come and pray to me, I will hear you. When you search for me, you will find me; if you seek me with all your heart, I will let you find me, says the Lord, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.'
This never happened historically. Yes, some of the Judeans in exile did return to Israel. Israel was rebuilt with the help of the Persians. But, this was not the glorious restoration predicted by the prophets. Israel would continue to be dominated by foreign powers until the establishment of the secular state of Israel in 1948, which, of course, has no relevance to this ancient oracle. Further, while some Judeans did return, this promise of a gathering of Jews from all the nations did not happen. After the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, Jews have remained permanently dispersed in the diaspora. This is another failed oracle. It cannot be interpreted exegetically as being fulfilled in the 1st century with Jesus and Christianity.
More famously, however, is Jeremiah's prediction of the establishment of a 'New Covenant.' (31:31) Christians see this New Covenant as being fulfilled in the Church, and indeed, the New Testament frequently refers to the New Covenant being fulfilled in the Christian community and Jesus's work. However, the historical context of this passage is surrounded by a cluster of oracles in chapters 30-31 that were meant to be a consolation to ancient Israel. The passage itself is clear that this is not talking about Christianity or events hundreds of years later, but is a word of consolation to Jews who experienced the Babylonian conquest:
'The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.' 31:31
What is the context?
'At that time, says the Lord, I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people.' 31:1
'The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when the city shall be rebuilt for the Lord from the tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. And the measuring line shall go out farther, straight to the hill Gareb, and shall then turn to Goah. The whole valley of the dead bodies and the ashes and all the fields as far as the Wadi Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be sacred to the Lord. It shall never again be uprooted or overthrown.' 31:38-40
'For the days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will restore the fortunes of my people, Israel and Judah, says the Lord, and I will bring them back to the land that I gave to their ancestors, and they shall take possession of it' 30:3
Then, it is clear what prophesy about the New Covenant means. It's about the imminent restoration of the ancient Kingdom of Israel and its ascent into power and glory. Again, these oracles remained unfulfilled and precisely falsified.

Micah

There is one famous passage in Micah 5, quoted in Matthew and frequently cited by Christians as "proof" that Jesus's birth location was prophesied about hundreds of years prior. The idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is, of course, historically dubious. Matthew and Luke's accounts are contradictory and rife with historical problems. Mark and John assume Jesus has always been a native of Nazareth (Mk 6:2-3, Jn 1:46, 7:42). It seems then that Matthew and Luke invented their passages about Jesus being born in Bethlehem to give him more Davidic status. But this is beside the point, even if Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It is not a fulfillment of this passage.
'But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who is one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.' 5:2
What is the historical context of this oracle? Again, the context of the chapter and the book is Israel's restoration and the Israelite kingdom's imminent establishment.
'Then, the remnant of Jacob, surrounded by many peoples, shall be like dew from the Lord, like showers on the grass, which do not depend upon people or wait for any mortal. ⁸ And among the nations the remnant of Jacob, surrounded by many peoples, shall be like a lion among the animals of the forest, like a young lion among the flocks of sheep, which, when it goes through, treads down and tears in pieces, with no one to deliver. ⁹ Your hand shall be lifted up over your adversaries, and all your enemies shall be cut off.'
On that day, says the Lord, I will cut off your horses from among you and will destroy your chariots; ¹¹ and I will cut off the cities of your land and destroy all your strongholds; ¹² and I will cut off sorceries from your hand, and you shall have no more soothsayers; ¹³ and I will cut off your images and your pillars from among you, and you shall bow down no more to the work of your hands; ¹⁴ and I will uproot your sacred poles^\)^g\) from among you and destroy your towns. ¹⁵ And in anger and wrath I will execute vengeance on the nations that did not obey.
What about this future King? Again, I find it amusing that Christians cite this text to show that Jesus fulfilled it. It shows they have not read and understood the historical context of the oracle. The text goes on to say that this King will conquer the land of Assyria, the land of Nimrod.
Micah 5:5–6
'When the Assyrians come into our land and tread upon our soil, we will raise against them seven shepherds and eight rulers. They shall rule the land of Assyria with the sword and the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword; he shall rescue us from the Assyrians if they come into our land or tread within our border.'

Conclusion

I've, of course, been very selective. There are many more examples of this that could've been pulled from. I hope you will see what I've briefly tried to show. The Prophets of the OT predicted that in their own time, they would see the salvation of Yahweh as their God. A Davidic King would be raised, and Israel would be restored to glory after the Assyrian crisis in the case of Isaiah or the Babylonian crisis in the case of Jeremiah and Micah. The same goes for the other prophets. My thesis, then, is that historically understood, not only did these oracles fail in their prediction, but they are demonstrably not about events in 1st century Roman Palestine or the wider Greco-Roman world. They're not about establishing the Church or a dying and rising messiah figure who brings spiritual salvation. Yes, the NT does interpret passages in the OT as being fulfilled in Jesus. But they are taken out of their historical context. The NT and early Christians were not novel in this practice. This was standard Jewish exegesis of the OT. Because Christians and Jews believed that the OT writings were sacred scripture that couldn't be wrong, they reinterpreted them in the light of their situations. The Essenes at Qumran, like the early Christians, also thought that their community and Teacher of Righteousness was the fulfillment of the bible prophecy, and the Rabbis in the Rabbinic literature frequently apply ancient scripture to their community.

A friend of mine just finished ATLA and LoK and wondered why exactly platinum of all things could not be bent to the shape and will of an Earthbender. After bouncing around ideas, this is what we came up with:
Though Toph herself said that Platinum cannot be bent due to lack of earth particulates, it is curious to note that for some reason, the mercury-like metallic poison that Korra ingested could be bent out of her body. If it were the case that metals can only be bent because they contort the earth particulates embedded within it, then realistically they would only be able to rip out the earth particulates within the ore. The fact that Toph was able to bend out that metallic poison using the super-fine earth sediments that mixed with the toxin and stayed within Korra's body indicates two possibilities:
1) That the prerequisite to metal bending being the ability to sense earth within the metal is untrue
or
2) That earth particulates are needed, but the ability to sense them all requires leaps and advances in material sciences and earth bending spirituality that just haven't happened yet even during Korra's time
It's more likely that option 2 is the answer, as subtle hints dropped throughout the expanded ATLA universe point towards the idea that the more spiritual an earth bender is, the stronger they can sense the earth's spiritual energy around them and the smaller the particulates they can manipulate.
This is backed by two pieces of evidence

1. First, only Toph was able to sense and help flush out the remaining earth particulates that were mixed with the poison that Zaheer poisoned Korra with. These earth particulates were so small that no one was able to sense them: Not her direct descendents, not Korra, and surprisingly not even Katara. And out of all the people in the world, Katara would be the only other person who would have a shot at detecting it, as she is the waterbending master by Korra's time, and she out of anyone would be able to detect the trace toxins via the earth and metal particulates obstructing blood flow. The fact that Katara couldn't means that while all 4 bendable elements are just different applications of spirit bending, sensing microscopic earth particulates is something only an expert Earth bender can do, and that no other elemental bender can match an earth bender in this regard. So how did Toph get so good at earth bending? By learning it through instinct by observing and interacting with the Badger moles. Because badger moles are animals, they don't understand human language nor do they care about a human's want to learn earthbending from them. So when Toph started out her early days as an earthbender, she had to have relied heavily on instinct in order to understand not only what the badger moles are doing, but also to sense the flow of spiritual energy coursing through the very soil she feels. Due to her background, Toph is one of the few earthbenders within the "modern" era whose bending style is the most similar to that used by ancient Earthbenders, and is thus one of the most spiritual earth benders we know of in the modern era. To conclude, Toph's uniquely spiritual bending style gave her a near unprecedented edge in sensing earth particulate on a scale that few earthbenders across the expanded universe can replicate.
2. In agreement with point 1, the well-known quote that Lao Ge told Kiyoshi in her youth goes like this:

"Divide your body in two, then divide it again, and then again, and again. Put the pieces back, and put them back again, and again, and again one more time, and you're whole once more.” - Tieguai The Immortal

The philosophy behind this is that Tieguai claims that ageing is the product of the body deteriorating on the smallest, most invisible level. And this quote was given for how one can prevent this very deterioration. In context of the first piece of evidence, this means that Tieguai, hundreds of years before Korra, essentially discovered that earth benders can achieve immortality by manipulating the very earth grains within them to bend their bodies to a pre-established state/age. And him referring to ageing as "invisible deterioration" may have less to do with the fact that his method of immortality has less to do with energy bending, but that it is manipulating the finest, microscopic pieces of silt and dirt trapped within the human body to control one's very biology.
In combination with the top two quotes, this means that the more spiritual an earth bender, the finer and more precise their bending can become. Correlating this finer control with human ingenuity, new earth bending techniques can originate by combining knowledge of the natural world with a heightened sense of spirituality. This would be how things like crystal bending, paint bending (via Yun), sand/dust bending (via the sand nomads and the earth bending masters in Kiyoshi's time), and even metal bending originated.

So how does this justify why Platinum is impossible to bend?

To our current understanding, metallurgy is an art that remained stagnant for hundreds of years before Fire Nation triggered a global era of industrialization that saw an explosion of metallurgy techniques and applications. Prior to the fire nation invasion, metal was a fare rarer material to come across, and its unique difficulty to manipulate would've discouraged prior earthbenders from experimental with metal further than "manipulating the dust around a piece of iron ore" rather than manipulating the earth embedded within the iron. Only when iron became far more common place was Toph's ability to bend metals a far more useful skill to have.
Given this historical context, its far more likely that Platinum bending never became a thing because the material sciences in the ATLA universe havent advanced far enough by LoK for them to have discovered and used advanced metallurgy techniques of today. And because sufficient advancements in the physical understanding of metals have not happened, there just wasn't a right moment, at least during Toph's life, where scientists and spiritualists got together to brainstorm new ways to bend Platinum.
And even if Toph was able to sense the earth particulates trapped within platinum, another reason why she wrote off as impossible may be due to three reasons:

1. First, that as a member of the Avatar's entourage, she become incredibly busy, as her time and energy became increasingly diverted by her metal bending academy, her parental duties, her political duties as chief of police, and fighting criminals. This would give few opportunities in her adult life as a more proficient earth bender to really sit down and crack the code. But second, even if she did, she might not have worked out how to manipulate the metal without a proper understanding of how the earth particulates interact with the lattice structure of the metal.
2. LoK makes it clear that the industrial revolution has occured in the avatar universe, but what isn't cleaexpanded upon is how metal benders interact with alloys such as Brass or Bronze. Prior to advance late in the industrial revolution in our world, Platinum alloys were much harder to work with due to the innability to separate natural platinum ore into continuent metals like Rhodium, Palladium, Iridium, Osmium, as well as other nonmetallic impurities such as Phosphorous, Silica, and Sulfur deposits. Only until more did more modern electrochemical techniques such as the Wohwill process and electric arc furnaces increase the purity of platinum ores significantly. As LoK seems to be set in something roughly like the late 1800s early 1900s, analogous techniques like the electric arc furnaces may not have been invented. So maybe another difficulty of bending platinum is that the platinum used involves alloys from too many metals
3. Alternatively, it could be that the prevalence of electricity benders have naturally accelerated the development of making pure platinum ore. In that case, the higher purity of Platinum ore may result in fewer earth particulates in the metal to manipulate the ore
   1. As a subpoint, Platinum on average has a greater density, melting point, and malleability than Iron, indicating that its crystalline lattice is more robust and sturdier than that found in iron. If the principle behind metal bending is to force the comparatively few earthen particulates within the ore to distort the metallic lattice that iron atoms are trapped in, thena combination of fewer earthen particles, plus a more robust lattice within the platinum ore, may have been the main culprits that prevented platinum to be bent
      1. So, to bend platinum, one would need spiritual advances to somehow make use of fewer earthen particulates in a platinum ore to distort a much more structurally robust ore to move according to a bender's well. And its also more likely that neither issue was fully investgated by a team of sages and scientists throughout Aang's lifetime.

And even if Toph spent the rest of her life delving into how to tackle the Platinum issue, the lack of easily identifiable platinum, and her general lax attitude post-retirement, would probably have discouraged her from trying out new techniques
In conclusion, the lack of adequate scientific advancements, and the lack of sufficiently spiritual metal bending sages, would have prevented the potential for platinum bending from expanding during Toph's time

What this means for the future of Avatar

With the increased globalization, and the paradoxical increase in spiritual energies within the world following LoK, an explosion of scientific and spiritual advancement would synergized and rigorously developed a wide assortment of techniques that would've otherwise been considered one-off, generational talents in prior eras. And probably crucial to the physical/spiritual advancements in earth bending would be to temporarily infuse metal ores with earth particulates, or to come up with entirely new ways to amplify one's will through the comparatively scarce amounts of earthen particulates to distort multiple types of metallic ore beyond just metal.
As current thought is that the next earth avatar would live in a world either 30-40 or even 100 years after Korra's time, there would have been ample time for the world to have come up with a ton of nuanced applications of metal bending beyond what we've seen in Korra's time
Some examples include
1) Manipulation of all types of ores. This would include Platinum, but maybe other types of rarer metals
2) Magnetism bending: By bending metals into their own bodies, an earth bender may be able to generate ferromagnetism by will
3) Oxygen doping: By manipulating the trace metals in the body or absorbing metals in the body. Earth benders can artificially increase the amount of heme within their bodies, thus taking up larger amounts of metal.
4) Bone Bending: By manipulating the flow of earthen particulates and metals within the body, one can induce bone formation, potentially allowing earth benders to be able to be like wolverine and bend bone extensions straight from their body. Or maybe, they can just excrete bone deposits from their bodies and form tools made out of their own bone by will.

I am in a team of a total of four people, working at an elementary school cafeteria where I am constantly communicating with everyone. I am what you call the "head" person in the cafeteria. I collaborate with all teachers, students, principal etc. I'm basically the person everyone comes to for things. When my old coworker had to leave, I was part of the interview process for finding a new coworker. We interviewed several people and I had no concerns with any of the other candidates. But they decided to hire the ONE person I said was going to be hard to communicate with because they speak broken English. I had already voiced my concern heavily about this before they hired them because this job is very fast paced and I wanted someone who could communicate with the kids. Admin said they'd check her references to make sure she'll be okay, well..... I've been working with her and it's not okay.
You're constantly having to talk to people all the time, dealing with kid's issues, talking to the teachers, counselors, parents etc. Don't get me wrong, this person is very sweet and I have nothing against them, but it's making my job (and my other two coworker's job) stressful and she's refusing to do certain things and will let things slide because she, and I quote, "doesn't understand." Everyday it's always "I don't understand you deal with this. I didn't understand them. I don't know what they are saying," and she will come get me to do the job for her, or ask the same question three times because she doesn't understand.
I've been in my job for four years now and I hate to leave, but I don't know how to go about bringing this up with anyone. I'm at a loss on what to do, because part of me knows she can't help it, but on the other hand... she can't do the job correctly because she doesn't understand, even if it's explained several times. I worked with someone last year who could speak two languages, but their English was wonderful. I've never been in a situation like this where I can't communicate with a coworker because they don't know enough English.

I am so tired of my job and it's taken every ounce of self-control to not just resign without any other job lined up. I just feel so disrespected and undervalued as an attorney.
The following are some of my biggest gripes with my firm:

• I am required to work in person everyday of the week despite the fact that the principal attorney teleworks everyday from 6 states over. We only do transactional work so there's no need to be in person... like... ever. All of our clients live in various states across the country. My boss says that this is because he pays good money for our office in [large legal market city] and wants it to be put to good use.
• My boss is constantly cutting my billable hours because he says "they're too much" for certain clients despite constantly complaining that we need to get billables up.
• I was baited and switched regarding my salary from the getgo. During my interviews, I was told one salary and now I'm being paid $5,000 less than originally quoted. (I'm not the only one this happened to, our secretary had to get a second job because he was told he would get a substantial raise, which he relied upon, and then now barely has enough to pay his rent. This also happened to the other attorneys in the office)
• My boss gave me less than one week notice to write a legal journal article to submit for consideration for a legal symposium, forgot to submit it on time, and then never acknowledged my work. Once we got a submission extension, the article got first place prize (along with some prize money) at the symposium and will be getting published in the symposium's journal. Still... not a word of praise and I will certainly not be seeing a dime of the prize money. My name was also excluded from the article despite the fact that I wrote the entire thing myself. My boss just slapped his and the firm's name on it and ran with it.
• My coworkers are incredibly cliquey. I somehow think they think I'm too dumb to notice the complete tone switch that occurs when they talk to each other versus when I talk to them. It's as if I'm some kind of annoying idiot, so they only tolerate me. I dread the thought that they talk behind my back when I'm not there.
• I NEVER get feedback on any of the projects I work on. I have no idea whether it's garbage or good. So... definitely little to no professional development happening here. Regarding the legal symposium paper, I had to ask whether it was utter garbage because I never heard anything back regarding it, only to be told that it was never submitted.
• I never get to interact with clients, I'm left out of client meetings, and any work I do goes to a senior attorney. Makes me feel like I'm a law clerk all over again, except for the fact that I was given way more responsibility in talking with clients as a law clerk at other firms.
• My boss never calls or emails me, only delegates tasks to another attorney to give to me. It makes me feel like I'm completely useless garbage, not even worthy of acknowledgement.

All of this has started taking a toll on my mental health, making me feel like trash. Like I'm a completely dispensable, useless law clerk, who's only here to help net some extra billable hours for the firm. Worse yet, I've vented to one of my attorney friends who said "it sounds like you're not even a real attorney." It hurts a lot to spend so much time and money getting a degree, time and money studying for the bar, only to be treated like an underpaid, underappreciated law clerk.
And to answer the inevitable question: Yes. I'm aggressively looking for other positions.

Please note this is the original submission I sent Refinery29. In the current post,they have given me a second credit card with a 100$ balance, as well as generational trauma from World War II and cut context for other things. I am trying to get that fixed.
Per previous discussion in comments here: The espresso machine is a Bezzera, which ranges from 2-5K. We got ours on sale for 1.7K, it’s a work house and we use it everyday, still hurts that we spent that money on a coffee maker.
I do understand mortgage is debt but when you compare it to rent to a lesser value condo in Vancouver it feels like not debt at all, which is how I tend to think of it. Yes I owe my mortgage but also I get my house instead of renting-which may not have become clear.
Please see in full the diary, below (edit for formatting via mobile)
Occupation: Sr Business Analyst
Industry: Tech
Age: 30
Location: Vancouver Island, BC
Salary: 92,000$ (Spouse makes 60,000$ for a combined income of 152,000$ before tax)
Net Worth: ~ 1.2 Million ( house is valued at 989,000$ currently, we have a combined 150,000 in pension, and ~60,000 in various company stocks, and GICs)
Debt: 3,000$ in a zero interest credit card for a 10 month period. We balanced transferred and pay 400$/month. Debt was acquired in Q4 2023 when we had to buy Snow Tires, and do a full break replacement as well as Christmas. 480,000$ in a mortgage, we refinanced in September 2023 for five years fixed rate at accelerated biweekly, however I don’t consider our mortgage debt due to the equity we are gaining, and that our mortgage for a five bedroom, 3 bath single family home is less than rent for a two bedroom condo in Vancouver
Paycheck Amount (Every 2 Weeks): 2,555$ after taxes. (Just mine). Spouse makes 2,308$ after taxes. Our pay periods are alternating.
Pronouns: She/her
Monthly Expenses Mortgage: 1450$ biweekly (100$ extra to the principal).
Utilities: ~200$ (includes water [paid quarterly], hydro [paid bimonthly], gas, sewetrash [paid quarterly] phone [highly discounted due to work plans for spouse and myself] and car gas) Loan Payments: 400$/Credit Card
Car Insurance: 84$
Life Insurance: 167$ combined (67$ me, 100$ spouse)
Health & Dental Insurance: 60$ deducted from pay (coverage for myself and spouse from my employer. Spouse also has coverage for both of us deducted from pay)
Retirement Contribution: 400$ (Employee matches me), (Spouse has a defined pension through work and contributes ~200$ month)
Union fees: 70$ Spouse
Subscriptions: Crave 22$/month (Recent splurge for Binge watching the Rookie), Playstation Plus 100$ (annual bought on Black Friday Deal), Amazon Prime 80$ (Annual), BCAA 120$ (annual) Gym 30$/month (we both have one so 15$/pp)
Note: My spouse and I have completely commingled finances. I will be tracking both as it’s essentially I spent whatever they spent
Was there an expectation for you to attend higher education? Did you participate in any form of higher education? If yes, how did you pay for it?
There was always the expectation. My father was very clear, we were very smart. There was no way we’d be wasting our potential. He wanted me to be a lawyer, but unlike other immigrant parents, I got to choose my major and went into social sciences and got my masters in history. I deferred my PhD too much so I got dropped by the program.
I chose my university by where I got a full first year scholarship and then after that took about 15k in student loans for my undergraduate. My parents paid my rent and I got a part time job for food.
For my masters, I had a student line of credit and 5 k student loans otherwise it was all my savings and scholarships. With the line of credit, I had a total of 30K in student loans and paid it off in about four years.
Growing up, what kind of conversations did you have about money? Did your parent(s)/guardian(s) educate you about finances?
Save. We talked about how you get a dollar allowance and half of it goes into long term saving with 25% in short term and 25% in spend.
Investing came after I was eighteen. Family would like us to invest in property, however I don’t really want to be a landlord, but also we wouldn’t get to really enjoy profit of owning a rental property due to other family circumstances.
What was your first job and why did you get it?
Ice cream parlour I was twelve and my parents made me get it for responsibility. I lasted three weeks because I hated it.
Did you worry about money growing up?
I grew up thinking we were not rich, because we didn’t get big plane vacations (I didn’t count flying from Toronto to Vancouver every summer as a vacation since we were just seeing family but staying in a house my parents owned) and I had only been to Disney twice.
But we had a big new build house in the rich end of town, my mom stayed home to raise all of us. We had to work for things (like going to see a movie opening night or a new CD) but we always had money and got what we wanted. In retrospect, my family was/is fairly well off.
Both my parents grew up poor, with parents working multiple jobs and different shifts to make ends meet, the strive/drive to not have that childhood, and for my father to be able to retire his parents really impacted mine and my siblings and cousins lives. My father showed me the apartment he grew up in Chinatown a few years back. It’s light years away from the house my grandparents owned when I was a kid and how I grew up.
Do you worry about money now?
Of course. Inflation is real and we are actively planning a wedding for the next year, as well as a baby in the next few years. We also need to buy a second car, so we’re saving for that.
At what age did you become financially responsible for yourself and do you have a financial safety net?
Fully financially responsible? Twenty five. I lived in a family property where I didn’t pay rent in one of the most expensive cities in Canada, so even though I paid all my bills (food and phone), I didn’t have to pay rent. I in fact made money, as I rented rooms out and used the income for house utilities, and paying my student loans down faster. When I moved in with my spouse, I just paid condo fees until we bought our house two years ago which gave me plenty of time to save.
Our financial safety net is family, and our savings. I know my family would bail us out. My spouse’s father would as well. Conversely, we are my spouse’s mother's safety net and we have to keep all our plans in mind that we will be subsidising her.
Do you or have you ever received passive or inherited income? If yes, please explain. Yes, I received 50K from my parents once they sold my childhood home, as did both of my siblings. I have also received 10K from one set of grandparents which paid off my car and part of my student loans when I was 21. I will be receiving another inheritance when probate is done for around ~100K. My spouse also has received inheritance which allowed them to buy their first condo in their early twenties when the market was much better. That condo, 50k, and the subsequent upgrading helped us afford our house.
Day 1
10 AM: I drive to the pharmacy to pick up a prescription. Not how I want to start my Sunday morning but y’know. Normally I’d walk since it’s about 20 minutes but I have a UTI. I’m “lucky” that despite not having a dr because of the health care shortage, my work pays for the Maple app so I could get a dr to write the prescription and order the lab work at 1 am. I’ll do the lab work later this week when I can get an appointment but will take the relief now. Insurance makes the antibiotics free, but I also buy hydrogen peroxide because we’re out and we have a dog that thinks everything is meant to be in her mouth. We’ll buy a bigger one at Costco later. I also bought some oral wound mouthwash because we were out. I come home and my spouse made us breakfast.
Total: 15.90$ paid with debit.
1-2:30 PM: We do our taxes. I have a mini meltdown when I realize the part time bakery job I had for a few months didn’t take off income tax last year, so I owe 800$. Luckily, my partner is getting a refund so we net out positive 400$. The bakery took off income tax in 2022, so unsure why they didn’t in 2023. I made us lunch.
3-6:30 PM: We walk the dog, and watch the Rookie. Some time during that time period, a venue emails us back and is surprisingly affordable at 3k. I also get told that the tattoo artist I want to book with, has not chosen me.
6:30-7:30 PM: I explain what lazy girl dinner is to my spouse and make a lazy girl dinner. After not really grocery shopping since Feb for things besides fresh veg, we need to do a big pantry shop and neither of us want that. We debate about buying a food saver and if we should wait for a sale. My spouse is more frugal than me and has determined we should.
8-9:30 PM: We start season 3 of The Rookie, and then after two episodes we go to bed
Day One Total: 15.90$
Day Two
5:45-8 AM: Wake up and start work. I get up to date with what’s happened on the weekend and check that my automated reports. Sometime before 6:30, I get the kettle on for my spouse’s pour over before I go back to my meetings. There’s a twenty minute gap where I get changed and do my skin care and brush my teeth. I’d love to be a skin care person but honestly I’ve spent too much money on product that I don’t use and that just goes bad. Washing my face and using sun screen is a win.
I also make sure that Spouse’s lunch is in his bag and I get our travel mugs ready. Before, we used to go to Starbucks every day. Starbucks used to do free refills on coffee and tea if you were a rewards member if you bought a coffee or tea so it would cost us $5/day (2.5/pp), and we could get refills all day. While that’s 20$/week, 80$/a month and yes, we could have saved it but back then, that 80$ wasn’t turning the dial anywhere significantly for us—a privileged view.
But now, after COVID where I stopped drinking tea after one day working from home having like 10 cups and thinking I was dying, and Spouse has bought a good grinder and we recently splurged on a stupidly expensive espresso machine we call his Engagement Espresso since it costs the same price as my stupidly expensive ring, we bring our coffees.
8-8:30 AM: We drive to work. Prior to buying our house, we were both work from home and lived in a city with amazing transit. We only needed the one car. Since buying the house and moving to a city where public transit is a joke (the one bus goes past our house every 1.5h), Spouse changed jobs and is in office every day and I have to go in 3 days a week. We need a second car or the e-bike rebate to come through. We debate this in the car, since I’m done at 1 pm, and Spouse works normal hours, I either have to take the bus home, or go to the gym for three hours. Today though, I drop Spouse off. I will pick him up later as he has a half day because of the dentist
8:30-12:30 AM/PM: Work. I find a tech manager and ask them to get me more triple a batteries. Work won’t provide or let me expense batteries for my mouse, despite them replacing my usb mouse with a battery one. The poor admin had to tell me the decision is that we’ll all supply our own batteries. Luckily the tech managers have to have batteries on hand and give them out freely.
I ask my boss how the work from home tax forms work, and he is going to find out.
I run more meetings and work on a request for a dashboard and a business case for a new feature that I have to convince leadership to spend money on.
12:30-1 PM: I drive back to my Spouse because he has a dentist appointment.
While I wait for a spouse, I am incredibly hungry. I’m usually not hungry/don’t eat a proper meal until around 1 in the afternoon and my two granola bars I already ate at the office. I go to the bakery by Spouse’s work and buy a cheese bun for me (3.65$), and an apple pie scone (2.55$) for Spouse as a snack. Spouse points out he won’t be able to eat until after his appointment.
Total: 6.20$ debit
1-1:30 PM: I drop Spouse off, and the car stops working. The engine won’t catch. I try multiple times and then run into the dentist to dramatically announce to Spouse and the receptionists that the car won’t start. Spouse asks me what he wants me to do about this, since he’s about to go into an appointment. A very kind receptionist tells me it might be the alternator. I don’t know what that is.
I go back to the car to Facetime my father. He also asks what I think he can do to help since he lives 3000 km away. Weirdly, and sexistly, I thought a man who grew up at race tracks, in a racing family, or the man who has collected and worked on sports cars for forty years might be able to help.
Spouse texts me to remind me we have BCAA while my father also tells me that. I finally get the engine to catch and drive the very long way home, going the speed limit and getting stuck in traffic, construction and a bus. It takes me 20 minutes to get home instead of 10.
1:30-2:30 PM: I walk the dog, mail a (late) birthday card and then start researching what an alternator is. The car is over a decade old and until the house, the most expensive thing I ever bought at 12K back in 2015. We have the funds for the cost, but it’s my first car and the fact it might be the end of its life is scary.
Alternators can cost between 400-800$ repair with labour, so that’s fun.
My dad calls me back and apologises for asking me what he could do away. He advises me that there’s probably a bald spot on the alternator and advises me to go to the mechanic to check or replace it, if the car doesn’t start again.
I call the mechanic to book an appointment, and to also get the snow tires off and to buy new rims for the snow tires. The mechanic lets me know that the alternator part is 500$, and an hour of labour so with taxes we’re looking at around 700$
That future appointment next week (we’re going down a highway this weekend which requires snow tires) will cost ~1.5K, assuming we replace the alternator.
I make lunch and sigh.
2:30 PM: The car starts thankfully. I drive incredibly slow. I pick up Spouse by idling the car. We get an email back from a venue saying they cost 75,000$ minimum. The timing is hysterical.
Due to the nature of the dentist, Spouse owes 618$, as they haven’t flipped it under my insurance. They split it in half, as he has a follow up in two weeks. After the next appointment they will flip the whole amount under me and we’ll get reimbursed for the whole amount.
Total 309$/credit card.
3-10 PM: We walk the dog, make dinner (Spouse makes white sauce pasta, with chicken and peas) and watch The Rookie. There are thirteen episodes in season three, and we will be busy every night this week besides Friday and Sunday, and I would like to finish season three so we can start season 4 next Monday. I don’t want to pay for more than one month of Crave. We have five episodes left
Day Two Total: 315.2$
Day Three
1 AM: 100$ is automatically transferred from our account to the credit card debit. We have an auto transfer of 100$/every Tuesday to a Visa where we balance transferred both our cards. We have an offer for 0 interest for 10 months, so we did that for some of the bigger expenses (snow tires, break replacement and general Christmas) and are on track to pay it back within the next 6 months. That visa is our emergency card that we just have in the back end and utilise for promos like this. It allows us to keep our two cards balances manageable and lets us pay in an easier way than taking big chunks out of our various savings.
Total: 100$/direct deposit
5:45-9 AM: Work. Meetings, reports, trying to convince a colleague that the process does include them and refusal to follow it means that their requests won’t be done. Spouse has another half day so I can go into the office at my leisure—if the car starts
9-9:20 AM: The car starts, I get into the office and refresh a data flow before a meeting with a new stake holder. It takes longer to drive into work today because the tourists are starting to come and their van builds or campers are not exactly highway speed and with a two lane highway, if you don’t merge over fast enough you’re stuck.
10:05-10:20 AM: Meeting done, car starts again and I drive home for more meetings. The least amount of time in the office is preferable for me.
10:30-11AM : Meeting with my manager where we discuss future salary and promotion. I am due for a promotion in the start of Q2, which would push me to six figures. I’ll believe it when I see it but, I’m really excited at that possibility for my family.
11:15 AM: Spouse leaves for work, we discuss what groceries are needed, as well if he’ll go to Home Depot tonight to buy more clover seeds for the yard, as we need to reseed before it starts raining. I eat a muffin and my dog and cat decide to try and eat each other.
11:15-1:30 PM: Work runs late. There’s some issues with the data and we can’t figure it out. We call it a night, and I’ll record the video presentations tomorrow, once we fix the data.
1:30-4 PM: Nap time! It’s bad for me, but honestly I don’t sleep well during the night so naps are what keep me alive.
4-6 PM I prep dinner (smash burgers and fries), and get chores done and walk the dog.
6-7:30 PM: Spouse comes home, we eat dinner. Groceries come to 96.83 for two 7 pound pork loins, two packs of bacon, chicken nuggets, coffee, pop, 8 pack of peppers, milk, tomato, pickles, rice, avocado, mushrooms, sour cream and lettuce.
Not too bad, we average about 300$/month in groceries because we can buy bulk and have a second freezer.
For the month of March we are currently at 123.61$ for groceries and there is twelve days left. We went on a small weekend away, so we ate out a fair bit but even then our current food budget is 272.27$ today.
Total: 96.83/ debit
7:30-10 PM: Spouse makes a coffee and plays video games with his friends. They do it every week. I have a shower, fold and put away laundry and read in bed.
Day Three Total: 196.83
Day Four
1AM: Our biweekly accelerated mortgage payment comes out of 1450$. I’m tracking it here to be honest on our spending but I tend not to think of it as money spent because in my head it’s already money gone. To pay for a house equivalent in Vancouver, the mortgage would be over 6k. Renting a two bedroom condo would be 3K. It feels like the mortgage is just cheaper rent, even though each time I own more of my house.
5:45-9 AM: Work. I find out the limits of how many people I can invite to a Teams Meeting as well as that the Thursday before Good Friday is a catholic holiday when a few people ask me to reschedule a training forum for over a thousand people. Sometime in there I make us coffee, make sure Spouse has lunch packed (leftovers). Spouse has walked the dog and has the recycling and compost out for pick up. I drop Spouse off at work.
10-11:45 AM: I leave the office for home and more meetings. I walk the dog and go record training videos. I get an email that Amazon is doing their big spring sale. I send a link to a robot mop and vaccum that’s on a big discount to Spouse. We want one, but I’m not in charge of the research on it. I send links to play grounds to my friends with toddlers
11:45-12:30 PM : I shove lunch in my mouth, last night’s left overs. I’m running late, and decide to get myself later by collecting all the random dishes and mugs that just show up places and start the dishwasher. I get to the lab ten minutes early but need to buy gas on the way home.
I tell my team I’ll be MIA for a bit and leave the work phone in the car.
I buy 15.6L of gas for 30$ at 1.879/l it sucks. I don’t fill up because we’re going to my in laws this weekend and there’s a Costco Gas Bar there.
Total: 30$/credit card
12:30-1:30 PM: Work goes long again.
1:30-2:30 PM: Nap!
2:30-4:30 PM: Walk the dog and drive to the gym. I usually go three times a week but with last week’s weekend away and this week’s weird half days from Spouse, today’s the only day. I make it up by doing both upper and lower body and a 30 minute circuit.
4:30-7:30 PM: I pick up Spouse and we go to Costco. We pick up nachos, ham, cheese buns and some other items. We debate buying our friend’s kid a toddler set of clothes and decide no. We end up buying work pants for Spouse, and a garden hose. It comes out to 116.90
I order our Costco dinner of hot dogs and fries for a grand total date night of 6.41$
Total: 123.31/ credit card
8-9 PM: Dance class! We bought a series of six lessons of introduction to ballroom back in December for a new date night idea. We paid 60$/pp and this is the fifth lesson tonight.
9 pm: We’re home, we let the dog out. Spouse spends an undetermined amount of time watching ballroom videos while I sleep.
Day Four Total: 1603.31$ or 153.31 excluding the mortgage payment.
Day Five
5:45-9 AM: Work. All the meetings. Thursday is the meeting day. I debate with a friend what’s the earliest call we’ve had. 4:30 am still wins. I pack lunch for Spouse and his coffee and he leaves. I end up cleaning up cat puke as the cat decides to drink milk from Spouse’s cereal and vomit it up on camera in a meeting.
9-9:30 AM: I make myself a matcha and walk the dog.
9:30-1 PM: Work and I treat myself to a lunch of a cheese bun and ham sandwhich. We used to eat it every Sunday while growing up but the cost of ham has been outrageous. The deal at Costco yesterday was 1.5$/100 g which is really good.
1-1:30 PM: I seal the wooden deer Christmas decoration we bought last year. It sits outside our front door and needs to be weather proofed, and I’ve been putting it off for five months. But the weather is good and we have newspapers. We have left over wood sealer after the sign we bought a year ago so I use that. The dog and the cat both don’t like my wooden deer.
1:30-4 PM: Nap!
4-5 PM: I basically just watch youtube and drink a root beer. I have no energy.
5-6:30 PM: Spouse comes home, we walk the dog and I make dinner (Kraft Dinner and nuggets–I swear we eat veggies but today is not that day). We discuss the possibility of our dog at our wedding as a flower girl, and if she’ll be in a tutu or a cheongsam like me. I am now researching if they make dog cheongsams and if she can match us. The cat, despite all my heart wanting it, won’t physically be there because he will have an anxiety attack and probably die.
6:30-10:30 PM: Board game night! We go to a friend’s to repeat the same scenario we’ve lost two weeks in a row.
10:30-11 PM: I pack Spouse’s breakfast (oatmeal and frozen berries), lunch (spicy tuna and mayo) since he’s trying to go to the gym before work, and feed the animals before we go to bed.
Day Five Total: 0$
Day Six Friday
5:45-9 AM: Work. I have a deep focus block which means I can get the script for the training I have to run. Public speaking is not my strong suit and it’s a group of a thousand people so I’m not looking forward to it. Spouse almost makes it to the gym. I get an email that my new work phone has shipped. I’m surprised because they wouldn’t order us any for the past four years, but I guess my new iPhone will show up next week. I might give my old work phone to my mother in law, since she smashed the camera on the phone we bought her last year.
9-9:30 AM: I walk the dog, make a matcha and make a todo list for what we have to get done before we leave to my in laws tomorrow. I text my mother in law happy birthday, and hope that she got the card in time. She did.
9:30-11:30 AM: My last meeting for the week ends and I’m debating calling it a day so I can nap. Instead I make lunch (cheese bun and ham), text my other mother in law our plan for Saturday, and unload and reload the dishwasher and go back to work for at least another hour.
12:30-1 PM: I shower and do skin care
1-3 PM: Nap! Somewhere in this time FedEx comes and since I’m sleeping, we have to pick up on Monday. I’m not too sure what it is, I assume it’s our custom address stamp from Etsy because that’s the only thing I’ve bought recently but not too sure. I just realized in retrospect, this might be my new work phone.
3-5 PM: I prep dinner (nachos), unload the dishwasher, pack my overnight bag and confirm all our venue tours by email. I start a load of laundry and do a quick clean. I feel like this is not the best image of our diet. I swear we generally eat healthy but we both have been feeling really blah over the past two weeks so have been going for quick and easy over healthy and balanced. I do have three whole peppers and two whole avocados in the nachos though.
5-7 PM: Spouse comes home, we walk the dog, have dinner, and plan out next week. We have a big Wednesday next week (mechanic, I have a nails appointment, dance class), and we are having our friends over for Easter so we need to prep for that. We pack the car so tomorrow is a very easy start.
Spouse also gets paid today. We’re lucky that we’re on alternating pay periods, we used to be on the same and it always felt stressful. Spouse also lets me know his union has secured a 3% cost of living raise to start in Q3. I really like his union for negotiating a base 2% year of cost of living raise, with potential addition raises depending on inflation. It’s a bit away but that’s still good news.
7:30-10:30 PM: We finish The Rookie Season 3 and head to bed. Crave reminds me that I have 10 days until I’m charged again. Sadly, I think we’ll have to pay for 2 months.
Day Six Total: 0
Day Seven Saturday
8:30-9:30 AM: Wake up. No one (except the dog) slept well so we’re not in a morning mood. Spouse makes coffee and walks the dog, while I finish packing the car and give the cat a lot of attention. Our first venue tour is at 11 and the one that is the most expensive (8-10K), but also the one we probably want the most. We live about an hour away but the highway is two lanes and one accident can back everything up for hours.
10:40-1 PM: We visit our dream venue. We stay way longer than expected. Basically if the quote is under 10K, we’ll get it. Just waiting now.
1-2 PM: We get to our in-laws and have a lunch of egg salad sandwhichs. We need to buy gas. My in laws drive us to a pottery painting store.
2-4 PM: We paint pottery. My mother in law only wanted to do this for her birthday. They’ll pick it up in a week after it’s been thrown. I paint a vase (28$), Spouse paints an Easter egg (18$), father in law paints a mug (30$), and mother in law paints a plate (50$)
Total:143.36/credit card
4-5 Pm: We see another venue. It’s an instant no. My in laws decide they want to try Korean fried chicken. We call ahead for take out to get two fries and 16 pieces of half and half. It comes to 50.83$ that my in laws pay for.
5-10 PM: We come back and see that our dog has pooped in their house and also has gotten into their pantry and eaten an entire bag of dog food. It is not a fun night.
We spend the night drinking wine and discussing the wedding and watching TV.
10PM: We go to bed. That’s the end of this week, but tomorrow we will be buying gas and probably lunch for my other mother in law as we will be touring another venue.
Day Seven Total: 143.36$