Monday, October 27, 2008

What a keyboard was made to do...

If I could find a new way to feel like my old self maybe then things would make sense. As I cannot seem to find a new solution to an old problem, I walk off in search of an old solution. I never had a solution. Would another's solution work just as well? Probably not. A strangers answer to my personal question would probably fit about as well as a square peg in a round hole. These things never work half as well as they should. I am not myself these days, and I wonder while I sleep if I ever was myself. I think too much in sleep and not enough in waking and it occurs to me that nights are not for these endeavors. If I never was myself, then who was I? I am a stranger in my own home most days, and home is nothing anymore. Then again, it has been suggested that a family might be no more than a group of people who all miss the same place. What if I miss the security of a person's arms? Does anyone else miss that same place? And if I am the only one, do I have no family. Not only would I not be myself, I would also be homeless and hopeless. The best I can hope for in such an event would be that the arms I miss so much during the day (and even more at night) belong to a person who missed my embrace just as much. That would not be beyond reason to hope for. I am not yet hopeless.

The words that fall from the busy tasks of my fingertips do not seem like my own, and I am certain my voice does not speak them. The voice that others hear fall from my lips is different from the one I hear in concert to the clicking of the keys. I wonder sometimes if the rest of the world even hears the words I intend them to. If my voice is different, why wouldn't my words be?

The other day my phone rang and I went to the door in the hopes that I would see your face on the other side. We've become so disconnected that we would rather phone across a wall rather than walk a few steps to see each other. Even with the people we are closest with we do this. Why?

Time and space seem to form around the life I am building, and I feel myself swinging through time in a way that i have only heard described by Vonnegut. I swung forward recently. The flash of the life was a sight to behold, that was for certain. I could remember everything that came in between and I feel sure that i will dream it tonight once you put me to sleep. As it stands, you sleep now under the crook of my arm and I swing back. Things that have come before this point in time flash in front of my eyes and my finger click on in the attempt to record it all in some inadequate shadow of what is happening. I swing back, and then forward again. The process repeats, and my pendulum will continue to do so. If I thought enough about this, this would frighten me beyond words. As my words continue are continuing to be born into this world, I can reasonably assume that I am not thinking too much on this. My swing forward was a sight to behold, and I think you would have liked it very much. You will see it with me someday, that I know.

Maybe this is what happens when things are working the way they should. What is time in relation to matters of love? Should we count time in centuries? Or rather do we cherish every nanosecond as though it is an hour? I am both here and years ahead all at once. In many ways I want to continue this path, but at the moment I want nothing more than to turn back the clock a few hours so that I can prolong this moment with you. I want to go forward, backward, and stay stationary with you. I want all of these things all at once. No wonder I am swinging through time in such a way. There is no other reasonable explanation.

The only thing that remains is to ask if you miss my embrace as I do yours. But, as usual, you give me an answer before I've asked the question.


Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Without Reflection

It's a dog eat dog world
Which is just fine for a bitch like her
Her heart put together from the shattered pieces she has taken from others
Love letters and sweet words that she gives you will be whittled in your skin
Blood drawn from the shards of your own heart
Scars for you to show to others
Proof that she loved you enough to do this to you
Once upon a time
When letters are sent with no postage attached they never reach their destination
A life is spent tiptoeing around the pieces of another's wreckage
They will cut into my skin the same as yours
I may not have the same scars to show but I have taken the time to put those pieces back together again
It wasn't my heart
The heart of another that never belonged to me that i pieced together
The heart she cared enough to break, but not enough to fix
The heart is still hers and it will never be mine
The organ was whole until her love acted as a hammer does on glass
The blood spilled in the task of reconstructing a life that will never again take its original form
Bandages cannot do what they should
The blood meant to keep me alive seeps from under the skin that was supposed to keep it in
Torn edges of paper that used to say more
Words carved into skin cannot be erased
Skin that used to belong to me
Skin that belongs to you, and so then it belongs to her
All you have belongs to her, and I am yours
These stories were not written for me
I did not write them
They are another's words on my lips and somehow I can breathe only blood
Teach me to unfurl the petals of the blossom yet to be
Cast a shadow of the life I desire so that i may see it once before this blood is gone
Before the words run out
How does one heal a wound that refuses to feel pain?
Why does the dawn come dark as night?
The sun refuses to shed light on this place and so we have no place to see
he speaks of her so reverently
Her portriat stands proud on his mantle like the Virgin Mother, looking over all that we do
There is no escaping her divine works now
What does that make me?
I have no right to cast the stone
She came before me, and will always be first in your mind
I built your love again and the image of her remains
For just today I will speak with you
In your own tongue and on your terms
Forget not that I am not of this place
I have no home here, and there is not one to be built for me
I can play the part you see
Walk her walk
Talk her lilt
Sing her songs
But you cannot be fooled
So I rebuild the vestiges of the heart she broke
There is one piece she took away with her
I give you a piece of mine so that yours might be whole
A child looks through the chink of my own heart
She sees only the image of you
Why must she have inherited your eyes?


Vanity Blog #3: The Art of Being Right

I believe that I am unequivocally right about everything. This sort of self-righteousness manifests itself from the logic and rationale that has been instilled into me from the young years of my life. Being raised in such an environment I came to question not only those positions that disagreed with my own, but also those that I subscribed to myself. I believe that this, more than anything, can explain my cynicism and bitterness regarding the world. Not only do I regard other people's opinions with extreme pessimism, but I regard my own statements and opinions with the same doubt. I hold myself to higher standards than I hold others to because I believe that I am better than that. This is my vanity at its best. I hold myself to a higher standard than the rest of the world because, quite simply, I do not want to be like the rest of the world. I get somewhat stubborn when convinced of my own righteousness in any given situation that I refuse to let go when I've sunk my teeth in. I will argue a point to exhaustion. I take defeat very personally, and so I have learned how not to lose.

My parents, damn their intellectual hearts, raised me to be intelligent, self-serving, and rational. I never understood why everyone else in the world did not subscribe to this same definition of intelligence. I firmly believe that everyone has it in them to be intelligent, but that many choose not to be. Why they would do so boggles my mind. So, logical being that I am, I came to the eventual understanding that intelligence and the effort required to manifest it were overrated and not truly valued in this world. Even as such, I go about trying to impart some kind of impression on people that will make them see basic reason, basic logic, ANYTHING! My inherent desire to make this world see reason and my intrinsic laziness now cohabit in an apartment far too small for them and the divorce proceedings are still in the works.

I am, as stated, cynical and sarcastic. But, really, I'm an optimist. I just like to throw in a good dose of reality into my paradigm. I believe that people on the whole have the ability to achieve greatness. Until the rest of the world sees this, I will do it myself in small ways. Someday, I hope, it may add up to something truly great. I have nothing to show for my quest yet, but the day of reckoning is yet to be had.

You may have come to the logical conclusion at this point that I am merely a bitchy, overrated, egoist, arrogant girl who is capable of huge delusions of grandeur. You would be right if you came to that conclusion. However, it would require you to follow a basic line of logic to understand that, and as most people cannot, I thought it prudent to simply supply all the idiots with the answer. It's easier that way.

There is no hope. Only reality. Reality is a sad sad reflection of what it could actually be if people took the time to think. Unfortunately, as coherent thought seems to be a thing of the past and a fad that has seen its day, I await a new dawn.

Prop 8

For those of you who have not been following my recent Facebook discussions, this post is in response to an ongoing conversation about Prop 8.

Nathan, Joseph, I post this here in that it is too long to post on Facebook.

I am now going to address what I believe the majority of your arguments seem to have been about, and in addition a few that have been brought up tangentially by Joseph's other posted links. The bolded part at the beginning of each entry is the argument that I am addressing.

  1. The passage of Prop 8 does not discriminate against the LGBT community. Prop 8 is simple and clear: it eliminates the rights for same sex couples to marry. It would write discrimination against one group of people--lesbian and gay people (incidentally a protected class in California)--into our state constitution.
  2. If Prop 8 does not pass, our children will be taught about homosexuality in schools. There is not even ONE word about education in Prop 8, and no child can be forced against the will of their parents to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Frawley has ruled that this claim is "false and misleading". Incidentally, one of the most conservative newspapers in the state, the Orange County Register, has also said that this claim is false. And lawyers for the Department of Education have also stated that this claim is false.
  3. A Massachusetts case about parents' objections to school curriculum will happen here. In contrast to Massachusetts, California parents and given the absolute right to remove their children from school and opt out of any curriculum regarding health and family instruction that they do not agree with. Why bring up a case that is irrelevant here due to laws that California has that Massachusetts does not?
  4. Four activist judges... "Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens." I quote this directly from as I believe I could not state it better myself.
  5. The definition of marriage. This discussion regards political issues, not religious. We are not a country that is centered on religion. While many citizens are religious, our policies are not determined by that. This is law. And by law in California sexuality is a protected class, and they cannot therefore be denied anything based on that difference. Even something so simple as that title of marriage. Because you say nothing is being denied but that title. The title is. By denying that we are writing discrimination into our state constitution.
  6. Plessy. Plessy v. Ferguson separated everything. Schools, restaurants, places of worship, marriage. Everything. Everything was kept separate because of an irrational fear and in some cases a religious argument that it was for the better. Brown was the case that overturned it. And yes, Brown did directly have to deal with education, but it overturned Plessy on the whole. I don't remember the last time I wrote down my place of worship or favorite restaurant on my resume.
  7. Churches might lose their tax exempt status. This derives from a flase connection to a case in New Jersey regarding a Methodist Church. Considering that is the case that occurred in a state that does not allow the gay right to marry, so it has nothing to do with Prop 8. The New Jersey case "the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), a Methodist organization, had taken advantage of a New Jersey law granting a state property tax exemption for a pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove that was dedicated for public use. Note that the case did not involve income tax exemptions and note that the purpose for giving the exemption in the first place was to reward organizations for opening their buildings and facilities for public use. The property in question was a boardwalk pavilion open to the public. 'Bands play there. Children skateboard through it. Tourists enjoy the shade. It's even been used for debates and Civil War re-enactments.' it was also available to be reserved for marriage ceremonies by people of any faith. Nevertheless, the OGCMA wanted to prohibit a gay commitment ceremony (not a marriage ceremony) from being held in the pavilion. The New Jersey real estate commission ruled that if OGCMA intended to claims a property tax exemption for a building open to the public, the could not discriminate. Seen in this light, it was a sensible ruling. Implicit in the ruling is that the group could discriminate if they ceased to claim a property tax exemption for a public facility. It is important to note that this ruling pertained to only the pavilion, which constituted a mere one percent of the property the OGCMA owned. The total amount of additional tax asserted was $200. The OGCMA continues to recieve a property exemption for the remaining 99% of its property. This case had nothing at all to do with any Mormon, Catholic or any other church's chapel or sanctuary that is used for religious purposes. It has nothing to do with any church's income tax exemption. To my knowledge, the Mormon Church has never sought to take advantage of a property tax exemption similar to the New jersey exemption and likely never would. The California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage cannot have any federal tax consequences, and the Court so noted explicitly in its decision. The Supreme Court also noted that its ruling would not require any priest, rabbi or minister to perform gay marriages, which should be self-evident because of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion." (quoted from
  8. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: “traditional marriage,” or “family values” because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is “hate speech.” Of course, anyone can be 'sued' for anything, but the fact remains that no minister has been convicted of a crime in Canada or the United States for preaching against same-sex marriages. Remember also that in the US we have far more liberal laws regarding freedom of speech and religion laws than in Canada. The description of a California case that I have heard brought up is again, irrelevant. Good News Employee Association v. Hicks was decided BEFORE the California Supreme Court decision, so it has nothing to do with Prop 8. Nathan, you yourself said that "The real problem occurs when you have a homosexual couple request a marriage ceremony in a church whose doctrine does not allow such a marriage to take place. The church obviously says no, and the couple who already knew what the answer would be, files a discrimination lawsuit." (quoted, Nathan) "If a minister can be sued for discrimination for refusing to marry a gay couple, then his right to worship is forfeit." (quoted, Joseph) California law prohibits this, so what is the problem?
  9. The choice to be a homosexual/heterosexual. Homosexuality is not only a choice. Where yes, a person technically has the choice of the person they choose to partner themselves with, they do not choose their basic instincts regarding who they are attracted to. As not all people subscribe to the same religious doctrine, it is not necessary or relevant to use one religious doctrine to define all people's actions or moral compass.
  10. Threat to marriage. As I see it, the biggest threat to marriage is divorce. With a 48% divorce rate I think we might have bigger things to worry about.
  11. Marriage as a religious ceremony. As I have stated, marriage was not, historically speaking, originally a religious ceremony. Even among Christian cultures it was not required for a religious official to oversee the union until 1545 and the Council of Trent. Until that point marriage was purely, a personal matter. If we are going to the origins of marriage, should we not go back to that? Also, marriage exists both as a religious ceremony and as a legal document. It is not always both. Where one might be recognized by the church and not by the state, it might also happen in the reverse. What Prop 8 is choosing to redefine is a legal definition of marriage, not a religious one. But it is choosing to use a religious point to view to try and define a legal contract.
  12. "When it comes to religious freedom vs anti-discrimination, religious freedom looses. THAT is wrong. That is taking our rights away." (quote, Joseph October 21 @ 9:13pm). You claim the religious freedom is more important, even if it infringes the right of others. I think not. Your right to worship as you please should not interfere with an individual's right to live as they please. It's that simple.
  13. "The definition of marriage among judeo-christian religions has existed LONG before that same society to which you referred, so how far afield do you want to go?" (quoted, Nathan October 22, 6:34am). You claimed that the roots of marriage were religious. They are not. If you choose to go onlyu far enough back to prove your point you leave out the real origins of the institution of marriage."The definition of marriage among judeo-christian religions has existed LONG before that same society to which you referred, so how far afield do you want to go?" (quoted, Nathan October 22, 6:34am). You claimed that the roots of marriage were religious. They are not. If you choose to go only far enough back to prove your point you leave out the real origins of the institution of marriage. As Sean has provided for me there is mention of marriage both outside of and predating the Christian institution. "Epic of Gilgamesh: tablet 2: Enkidu and Shamhat leave the wilderness for Uruk to attend a wedding."
  14. "I do claim inconsitency because there are currently other people in the USA that ask for their "rights" to marriage to be recognized. Why should your redefinition be accepted and theirs rejected?" (quoted, Nathan October 22, 9:46am) I claim that the reasoning of these four California Supreme Court Judges was sound, and not made in haste nor was it a rash decision, take a look at the reasonings they gave.
    • "The flaw in characterizing the constitutional right at issue as the right to same-sex marriage rather than the right to marry goes beyond mere semantics." p. 53, from In Re Marriage Cases.
    • "Because the right to marry refers to the right of an individual to enter into a consensual relationship with another person, we find it appropriate and useful to refer to the right to marry as a right possessed both by each individual member of the couple and by the couple as a whole." FN34, p. 53
    • "In undertaking this inquiry, we put to the side for the moment the question whether the substantive rights embodied within the constitutional right to marry include the right to have the couple’s official relationship designated by the name “marriage” rather than by some other term, such as “domestic partnership.”" (p.54)
    • There the high court, in describing the scope of the “liberty” protected by the due process clause of the federal Constitution, stated that “ ‘[w]ithout doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’ ” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714, italics added [“to marry” italicized by Perez], quoting Meyer, supra, 262 U.S. 390, 399.) The Perez decision continued: “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714, italics added.)
    • "As plaintiffs maintain, these high court decisions demonstrate that even when the state grants ostensibly equal benefits to a previously excluded class through the creation of a new institution, the intangible symbolic differences that remain often are constitutionally significant."
    • "Second, particularly in light of the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay persons, there is a very significant risk that retaining a distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships whereby the term “marriage” is denied only to same-sex couples inevitably will cause the new parallel institution that has been made available to those couples to be viewed as of a lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of secondclass citizenship."
    • "Under these circumstances, we conclude that the distinction drawn by the current California statutes between the designation of the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the designation available to same-sex couples impinges upon the fundamental interest of same-sex couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples."
  • You asked for a outlining of the fallacious arguments you have used, and so I will give them.
    • The first is called "An Appeal to Belief": something is not true simply because you believe it to be so. A religious doctrine is one such basis when used as an outline for a legal discussion. And the fact that a majority of people may agree with you does not make that claim necessarily true. Also here I will add "Appeal to Common Practice", the fact that something is done and is commonly done does not make it right on the basis of that. This has also been called "Appeal to Tradition".
    • "Begging the Question" you imply that the fact that it has been done this way means that it is inherently right. It's a circular argument, saying that it's wrong because it has been prohibited, and it has been prohibited because it is wrong.
    • "Division". The qualities and attributes of the whole should not be be attributed to each part. In this case you say that because civil unions and marriage have the same legal rights that they are the same. While yes, they are both a part of something known as partnership recognized by legal status and they may be in most ways equivalent, that fact does not make them equal.
    • "Questionable Cause". However many cases you bring of how you think this will harm our families, children, religious institutions, or rights (though as I have laid out, many of them happen to be not relatable anyway), they are not necessarily logically linked. Simply because these events may be commonly associated with gay marriage and the right to do so does not mean that one caused the other.
    • Slippery Slope". You say yourself, if we consider this redefinition why should we not reconsider them all. This "what would be next" line of thinking is a fallacy.

Cited sources include: Responses from California Supreme Court Judges,, and Also used, as you have noted was the wikipedia article on marriage. This was used as an outline of the historical background of marriage. If you would like me to cite other sources on this matter, I can if you so desire or require. I did not feel it necessary to cite the entire article, just the portions I was using.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Vanity Blog #2

I believe that a life left without scrutiny is a life not worth living at all. Oddly enough, I have also found that my life examined has left me with a big headache and a lot of heartache. I believe that this is a dilemma worth examining, even with the headache that it might cause. I believe that progress for people is gained at times of extraordinary difficulty. I believe that those times when peoples' egos and vanities are completely shattered and torn are when they grow the most. Unfortunately, all of this was wasted on me, because it required me to spend months and years afterward building up a new ego and new façade that was stronger and more resilient than the one that shattered before it. I believe that we so desperately seek connection with other people that we give them the ability to break us. We wait not for them to break us, which I believe many of them will eventually do, but rather we wait for the one who we give that ability to who does not choose to take that opportunity. I believe that this kind of fear of total breakage and pain is what we expose ourselves to when we fall in love. I believe that love is the highest form of torment that we can subject ourselves to. For in what other endeavor do we open ourselves to such opportunity to complete destruction? After each and every knock down that I've gotten has actually been a step up for me, and I believe that every step has been in the effort to create a stronger, better version of myself. I believe that the daughter, friend, sister, girlfriend, writer, artist, nerd, damaged-girl, gamer, coffee-drinker, sarcasm, history-nerd, snob, egoist, brat, success and failures in me have all been steps on the way to the ways in which I am now. While each of these steps have been false versions of myself because they were no more than passing fancies that were little more shadows on the wall or the light creating the shadow itself. None of them were…are the actual Siobhán. So where does this leave me? I believe it might leave me right where I started, without ego? I wish. No, I am as much of an egoist as ever. But it makes me wonder, is that enough?

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Vanity Blog #1

This will be the first of a series of blogs that will occur at random, according to my whim. They are modeled after Chuck Lorre's Vanity Cards which would appear at the end of his TV shows for a brief interim and were usually loaded with a copious amount of text. These are based purely on my beliefs and thoughts as they occur to me and will generally cater to my own sense or pride, vanity, and superior self-worth. Sometimes they will stay on one topic, sometimes they will not. Occasionally they will be deep and meaningful, and sometimes they will be shallow. Deal with it, this is my shameless attempt to share my views with people.


I believe that most people in this world think that they are better than everyone else around them. This is not true. It simply isn't. At the very least, for one simple fact. I AM BETTER THAN EVERYONE. At the very least, I am better than most. It is true, and I know it to be so. But, I believe that I would not be so amazing were others not so un-amazing. It is, after all, a matter of comparison. I believe that most people know this, but simply refuse to admit to it. But, seriously now, I also believe that a person's sense of superiority lies in the fact that they are better than another person. I believe that there is always someone better and some one worse than you out there which gives rise to Buttercup's line, "Only compared to some."

I believe that nobody is that fantastic. If they were, I believe that they might just spontaneously explode. I believe it would be so. I believe that my point of view is generally best. Whether it actually is or not is sort of a moot point right now.

I also believe that the very belief in something both manifests itself in our life and causes us to fear it. We cannot fear something that does not exist, and so as soon as we believe it into existence, we have created something both capable of inspiring awe, respect, or fear. Or, possibly, any other number of feelings in us. I also believe that our feelings are shaped by our experiences and are subject to our whim. This means that we are both capable of and responsible for managing our emotions, feelings, actions, and thoughts. I believe that no one (short of holding a gun to your head, vicious blackmail, brute strength, or a really cute pout) can make you do something against your will. Your will and body is your own to do with what you will and I believe that no one can make you feel guilty about that unless you already feel guilty about it yourself.

I believe that a person has only themselves to answer to at the end of the day, and if they are not happy with that, then they should change something about their life until they are. I believe that change is good and acceptance is even better. I also (for some God-forsaken reason) believe that there is good in this world if people would only care to take the time to look.

You are amazing and compassionate people, even if you do not yet know it.

Thank you.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

not like me...

Have been feeling somewhat...under the weather lately. I am not sure if something is in the air or if there is something more philosophical at work. Either way I have been unable to feel like myself in the hectic pace of my life lately. I am having issues finding my grounding, and very few things feel like home anymore. It's like I explained to somebody today. Sacramento has never been home. This is not where I belong. Not really. The place and people are not one that I wish to continue with as the years go along.

But if the place I live is not home...then what is? I'm not at home in the home of my parents, that much has been glaringly obvious, for that has become more symbolic to me over the years than anything else. And if my apartment here isn't...Well, where am I to go?

This is not all there is
What we see and what we know is nothing
Experiences are limited to the size of our perceptions
We see nothing
We are blind and must make judgments in the dark
I can't do that
That's just not like me
I could ask for more, but what would I get?
To answer to a vengeful God who wishes to strike guilt and terror in my heart is just not like me
Are you happy with that?
Or do you also say you cannot, like me?
I do not need that justification to stand on
I am good and kind of my own accord
I have beauty and compassion in a world that has shown me none
So, why do they not like me?
There is no promised land
Too many people are hurting to call it that
With nothing to call my own I walk on in a world that lost sight of me years ago
I am not lost, even though I do not know where I am going
To lose my way is not like me
Even the sky is too terrified to show itself to the world these days
Another hour is spent raining the tears I cannot cry for the crimes of men who have no one to answer to but their own conscience
Who polices that?
It is not in me to cry for those men, even those who have broken and killed me
That's not like me
Are you saddened by the state of the world?
Do you walk on doing nothing about its wrongs?
Or do you endeavor, in your own small way, to make it a better place?
Maybe, instead, you paint on a smile and go on whether you like it or not, like me
Why does the world take the beauty of innocence and ruin it?
What was there to be gained?
All it gave me was a quest
A jaded thirst for answers with no questions
Even when there is no method to madness, the chaos makes sense
That could be my answer
I could accept its simplicity, but that's just not like me
The tears of my eyes are not my own
The salty tracks they use as roads numb my sight
The day is so still that it feels like death
I keep waiting for even an ounce of kindness to be shown to me
Why do they not like me?
This is my kingdom and in it, I am perfect
The fire is dying and I light a cigarette with its last breath
All my answers are smoke
I am too good for the lives I have lived
I never asked for any of this
My broken lungs breathe air that hates them
My perfect beauty was crafted by hands that never knew what creature would be born from their wreckage
Flowers bloom from the tears of this world
Absolute beauty comes from perfect pain
So too am I
A perfect girl with a hole in my heart and I wonder, can it too be watered by tears?
I know I've cried enough
Will flowers grow in to fill the space?
I only want to know one thing
With my beauty and my perfection
Why do I not like me?