I'm in the house, and I'm overwhelmed. My to-do list is short, but I don't have a clear understanding of what will be acceptable. Can I just do what seems best to me?

I'm not sure.

Furthermore, I haven't taken a break this week, except while writing these blogs. I haven't taken a break, but I have very much sat inactive (frozen, without thought) at work for an unaccounted period of time.

Right now, my eyes are so dry as to feel as if they are on fire, but not for dehydration.

The plumbing seems to work fine, but the toilet in the master bathroom flushes less forcefully than the one in the guest bathroom by a significant margin. It's flushing, but it's also driving me crazy, because I don't know whether this apparent lack of force is because of the age of the toilet, the quality of the work, or the quantity of toilet paper I used last time I pooped. Was it like this before my last poop? Did I accidentally flush a wet wipe? Can one wet wipe cause this? If so, how long will it last there?  Maybe I'm just paranoid. At least I know it's not the drain as a whole, because the other toilet is draining fine, and I know they all share a pipe.

Five years ago, I wouldn't have noticed at all. It flushes. Who cares with what force? But no, it's neither the criminal nor the crime that makes me anxious; it's the judge.

The warranty company is giving me a really hard time. Every few days they ask me another random question about the break -- I think my plumber has answered "cause of loss" like 5 times asked by different claims representatives... I guess they reeeaaly don't want to help me with these repairs. This warranty company: zero stars for service... There is a clause in the warranty saying, "the coverage under this policy shall come after any and all other warranties in place." Well, we had another warranty which contributed a tiny amount to the bill (about 4% of the total cost); now this warranty company is saying that they won't contribute anything but the $70 deductible from my other warranty. Well, in spite of their apparently capricious interpretations of their own documents, the statement in their coverage description is a positive one: "The coverage under this policy shall come after...". It seems to me that if they didn't want to cover things after other warranties, then they should have written, "The coverage under this policy shall not come after..." (except that this is even less clear. They really should have said something like, "this policy excludes coverage to repairs which have been covered by any other warranties"). Anyway, "coming after" in this context can only mean either "being temporally later", or "filling in the gap not covered by the other policy", right? So, it makes sense to me that they should say about a 5$ claim, which was previously covered 3$, "we will only contribute 2$ of the 4$ that you would otherwise gotten from us if you weren't already covered". Only, I don't know how much power I have to argue the semantics of their coverage documents with them. This is the kind of stupid warranty/insurance language that stresses me out every day.

Honestly it makes me wonder if my skills in language have become very far removed from common English. I'm frequently arguing Biblical grammar with atheists. One recently told me that when Jesus commanded his disciples, "receive the Holy Spirit", it meant that they did indeed receive it at that moment; and he would not hear me making distinctions between declarative and imperative statements. (His argument was that the disciples are said to have received the Holy Spirit twice, because of John 20:19-23 and Acts 2:1-4, and he thought that was a contradiction. He also said that Jesus breathing on them means they received the Holy Spirit, and supported that by citing Genesis where God breathes life into people, not tolerating that the words "life" and "Holy Spirit" do not have the same literal meanings. I made the argument that John 20 doesn't actually say they received the Holy Spirit. In retrospect I think it would have been equally valid, and maybe more effective, to point out that people can receive and/or be filled with the Holy Spirit multiple times without violating any stated Biblical rules.) His argument was dumb, but Googling it reveals that he's not the only one making this argument.... or again, maybe I just don't have as firm a grasp on the English language as I like to imagine.

But anyway, I'm in the house. It's livable.

The kitchen cabinets are too gross for Chowon. I'm hoping to remedy that before Chowon moves in, but I don't know the best way to do it yet. Tomorrow I'm going to spend the day hunting for cabinet advice around town, and I hope I will begin to execute a plan in the evening. It's too bad we have so many salesmen and so few craftsmen. What a waste.

God, give me peace, and help me to finish all the work I need to do in a timely manner, and provide for all our daily needs.

"The republic cannot be governed without injustice."