We’re all just drunks in this room.
By Nicole Kohut
I have never identified as a woman with great interest in electoral politics, but I am from Los Angeles. So, during the 2020 presidential primaries, when I learned of a candidate who was neither a fictitious patriot nor a Wall Street mogul, but instead a feminist author, human rights activist, and spiritual thought-leader, I was instantly intrigued. Marianne Williamson made herself known to me, as she did to most of America, through a series of snapshots on Instagram, YouTube, and, most significantly, Twitter. Amid the torrent of short-form political commentary in her feed—from Bernie Sanders retweets to polemics against antidepressants—one can nearly always expect to find a photograph of a rare bird, absent context.
Maybe the birds are a metaphor for how Williamson sees herself in this world. She is certainly rare—who else has been on the presidential debate stage and an episode of “RuPaul Drives…”? And she’s definitely got wings. From living in a geodesic dome in New Mexico to publishing a book on spirituality and self-actualization, from befriending (and even sometimes rooming with) every A-list celebrity in Hollywood to running for President of the United States, Williamson is truly a free bird—impossible to pin down but fascinating to watch fly.
Still, nearly all birds follow a flight path. Williamson’s points her toward a fervent belief that love always outshines the darkness of hate. I learned about this ethos of love during a period of pandemic-induced hardship: Some turned to The Bible, I turned to The Crystal Bible. As Williamson’s many videotaped avatars assured me, both my Bible and the real one serve the same purpose—to comfort, to heal, to spread love, and to imagine a life beyond what is already known. Perhaps it is this kind of manifestation that brought me and Williamson together over two years later.
While in Austin, Texas, for spring break, I invited myself to a friend’s South by Southwest panel dinner knowing that Williamson would be there. After a brief introduction, she asked me what I was studying in college. Then, for the next two hours of the three we spent dining together, not a word passed between us. I listened, though—hard. Seated at the opposite end of the table, I strained my neck to hear snippets of Williamson’s words—some on Ukraine, lots on Amazon, and, to my delight, a little bit on astrology. “You’re a Cancer, correct?” I shouted from my end of the table. Within moments, Williamson was delivering an in-depth reading of my astrological chart. To the woman who had spoken confidently about every topic thrown her way that evening, my chart gave pause. Suddenly, she was looking at me the way I had always looked at her—with confusion and intrigued.
Naturally, a follow-up was in order. In anticipation of her visit to campus on April 14 for a Columbia Political Union talk, Williamson and I hopped on a Zoom call to chat about life after college, feminism, the cells of the body, and, of course, a little bit of astrology. Below is a transcript of our conversation, edited and condensed for clarity.
The Blue and White: This isn’t the first time you’ve traveled to speak at a college campus. In fact, a major part of your political platform has been geared towards my generation. Is there a reason you find college students, in particular, to be a great source for connecting with young individuals?
Marianne Williamson: Just to make things clear … My entire career, prior to any kind of overt political involvement (although I was always a political activist in my private life), I would liken it more to an AA meeting where, whether somebody is rich or poor, old or young, Black or white—they’re just a drunk in this room. So when I think of the deeper audience to which I’ve spoken, I think in terms of a part of who we are that makes age irrelevant.
B&W: So college students are just part of the AA meeting?
MW: In terms of what I’m doing now and why I’m interested in talking to college students particularly, it’s because what we are experiencing in this country and on the planet are the results of causes which stem from 20th-century ideas, 20th-century behavior—in many ways, bad ideas and bad behavior in the 20th century. Many of you were not even born in the 20th century, and even if you were born there, you’re not of that century—you are 21st-century people. There is no reason for you to live your lives at the effect of bad ideas left over from the 20th century. The value of age is that you have institutional memory. The value of youth is that you don’t have institutional memory. Enough institutional memory makes you wise. No institutional memory makes you a dreamer.
Remember, this is not just a shift of generation. This is a shift from one century to another. The 21st-century mindset is different than the 20th-century mindset. As a consequence, young people—and I think this is true, to some extent, for every generation, but particularly now, given this shift in where the planet is—have a unique opportunity to reimagine the world. It’s not totally unlike what you go through with your parents when, usually in your 20s or so, you go to therapy and you take a good look at where you came from and you see the things that you think your parents did that were good and wise and strong and powerful, and you want to stand on their shoulders regarding those things and you want to pass those things on to your kids and do things even better. But for most of us, there are also things you see in the family you came from and you go, “We’re going to break that link in that chain right here, I’m not passing that on to my kids.” That’s how we should be as a generation.
B&W: Especially going through four years of one particular type of institution, which is private education, the question that a lot of my peers and myself included come to ask is: Was this worth it? Was this necessary to be the kind of changemakers that we were told we need a college degree to be?
MW: First off, whether you’re young or you’re old, there’s a genuine democratic fervor for spreading our wings and self-actualization and creating the world that we want. But this is all more and more limited by the domination of institutional forces, particularly in the 20th century.
B&W: You personally did not get a college degree. You went to Pomona for two years before leaving in 1973 to pursue a singing career.
MW: I didn't do that. That’s not true, but I did leave.
B&W: Oh, you didn’t leave to have a singing career?
MW: The singing career is ridic—I mean, I sang at some nightclubs, like, Bill Clinton—
B&W: I also read that you left because you were having trouble finding your passion in college.
MW: Definitely that. I went and I lived in a geodesic dome in New Mexico. I did attend classes at University of New Mexico and at University of Texas. Don’t kid yourself—having that degree will be helpful to you. Not just because of the education you received there, because it is certainly possible to receive an education and to educate yourself whether or not you get a degree, but having those letters after your name—and I think, particularly, if you’re a woman, Nicole—will make it much harder for people to peripheralize you.
B&W: I really want to talk to you about that. You speak for all different types of people, but particularly on the power of women and how our roles in society are constantly shifting. You’ve also had a lot of powerful women supporting you, like Oprah Winfrey and Alanis Morissette, who wrote your theme song for your campaign to represent California’s 33rd congressional district. Personally, going through college and having a strong community of women around me has been invaluable. Do you think women have a strong role to play in shaping and supporting the trajectory of other women’s lives? Or would claiming that we have any kind of ‘role’ be further perpetuating a patriarchal system?
MW: I want to go back just a minute to when I said having that degree will make it harder for people to peripheralize you. The word I should have used is to dismiss you. I grew up during the second wave of feminism in the 1970s. It was understood that there was no going forward as women unless all of us went forward as women. The sisterhood element is extremely important. Because if feminism is nothing other than that you can get ahead and you can do whatever you want to do, then, to me, it lacks the core of the feminist vision. The feminist vision, to me, is bringing forth genuine feminine values, and genuine feminine values are not self-centered. Genuine feminine values have to do with taking care of the tribe, taking care of the children, taking care of the home, which is the Earth in which we live, taking care of each other and taking care of our sisters.
What I saw when I was growing up—even though my initial experience of feminism was what I just described—like everything else in this country that became so corrupted by an overtly and unfettered capitalist vision of things. Feminism itself became almost an excuse for doing whatever it takes for me to get ahead. Unfortunately, that kind of unbalanced feminine can exist in women as much as in men. What we might call the divine feminine is expressed in anyone. Unfortunately, what many women—and, unfortunately, particularly in our more elite educational institutions—are being taught are ways in which they will get ahead by perpetuating the patriarchal system.
B&W: Yes, there seems to be this fine line of disrupting the system by participating in it—but finding that balance seems nearly impossible. As we discussed in Austin, I’m going to law school a few years after graduation, and I know that other people on pre-professional paths are beginning to question their decisions to engage in academic institutions. For instance, watching the confirmation of Judge Jackson and seeing how even a woman with two degrees from Harvard can have her intelligence questioned makes it seem like changing the system is impossible—that even when women do earn the degrees to fight in classically male-dominated crowds, men are still desperately trying to etch us out of the picture. How can we maintain hope and motivation when we still have to fight to be in spaces where we belong?
MW: She herself said it best. In her hearings, she said that her being the nominee is in many ways a sign of progress that has been made. The fact that she’s there—I mean, that would not happen 50 years ago. History is a river. It doesn’t stop. Other generations struggled to get us to the point where she was even in that courtroom. Any understanding of history reflects back to us that for every step forward, there are often two steps back. Or, at the very least, every two steps forward, one step back. The Lindsey Grahams and the Josh Hawleys and the Ted Cruzes—they still exist. But this isn’t for one generation to take personally and say, therefore, there is no hope. This is for every generation to say, we’ve seen this shit before and we’ve pushed it back before. Something we shouldn’t forget about that hearing: Contrary to what those men would have wanted, it gave everyone an opportunity to see what barbaric dinosaurs they are and what an elegant powerhouse she is. Yeah, she won—even if, God forbid, they were able to stop her appointment, she won. I think that we have to not be so precious.
B&W: As in, we should cut our losses?
MW: You know how traumatizing it is—how much anxiety, how much hopelessness. I think that it would have been traumatizing to be on the bridge in Selma, far more traumatizing than just watching her being condescended to. It’s been worse. It’s been at the point where there were dogs and hoses and bullets. It gives us an opportunity to see what we’re dealing with. In anything in life, whether it’s personal or political, the question is not, “What just happened?”, the question is, “Who do I choose to be in the space of what just happened not to me?” You want to go with hopelessness and cynicism. To me, cynicism is just an excuse for not helping. To me, that just made it very clear: must help replace Ted Cruz in the Senate. Check. Must help replace Marsha Blackburn in the Senate. Check. This is what has to be done. You don’t even have time to indulge the lower energies, which would do nothing other than serve the oppressor.
B&W: When you talked about cynicism at SXSW, I thought, OK, maybe I should try to be more optimistic. But at the same time, I do think that trauma can’t necessarily be ignored. Within this relationship you’ve illustrated between emotion and motivation, is there a space for healing?
MW: How many hours in a day?
MW: There are 24 hours in a day. You cry, and then you get up. You’re honest with your emotions. You hold the sacred chambers of real friends, allies, therapists, and you meditate. You take care of your vessel through meditation, yoga, eating, etc., because you need a healthy vessel. A lot of everything you’re talking about, it’s an assault on the very nervous system—particularly, I think, for women, because there’s this added deep sensitivity.
B&W: Sensitivity, meaning—?
MW: It’s not like this stuff isn’t happening. The issue is, What is my responsibility to process what’s happening in such a way that it makes me stronger? At what point does my healthy processing become self-indulgence? At what point does my getting it out and expressing my frustration become spewing? That’s why within political as well as personal growth, you create a just and emotionally disciplined sacred chamber. Where is it safe to say how I really feel and to whom is it safe? What are the safe repositories for the emotion that I feel, the frustration, the anger, and so forth? But you have to decide, in life, about any circumstance,—am I going to live at the effect of this? Or am I going to be a conscious transformer of this? If I want to live the effect of this, it’s going to be terrible but you can get plenty of people to join you. But that’s not, I don’t believe, the zeitgeist of this moment. I don’t believe that’s the way we live to honor our ancestors. A white person graduating from Columbia—this is the pinnacle of privilege.
MW: So the question of privilege is “Given that I have this, what do I do with this?” And you, in choosing responsibly to use your privilege, you develop emotional strength and psychological discipline as part of your routine. Just like when you go to the gym and you work on your physical muscles, you work on your attitudinal muscles, you work on your emotional and psychological energy. You must. Your inner self is a very, very important driver of what you can accomplish in the world.
B&W: Yes. It’s all about how we use our privilege and, unfortunately, as we briefly discussed at dinner, we see a lot of people graduating—particularly white people graduating from elite institutions with no debt—going into consulting and tech jobs.
MW: Yes, I’ve noticed.
B&W: Why do you think so many people are choosing to do this? And what is the danger?
MW: They’re getting sucked in! It has been heartbreaking for me to see in certain elite educational institutions that I visited. The system of unfettered capitalism and perpetuation of an economic order in which the primacy of property rights is exalted at the expense of democracy itself is a system that very much rewards a few of us. Now, it doesn’t want to keep everyone down; it wants to give a few people the best education possible in order to perpetuate the system. That is what it wants to use these elite institutions for. I want to tell you a story. I was in New Hampshire during my presidential campaign.
B&W: I’m all ears.
MW: I was speaking, and there was a young man. He’s a friend of mine now. He was in the audience and I didn’t know him, but I talked about this: “The system will just try to take the best and the brightest of our young people, and it will try to suck you in and it will give you the best education and it will give you the privilege, it will give you the opportunity, and you might even enter thinking you want to be a disruptor, but they will phase that out of you. They will dissolve that! Don’t let them do it to you!” He came up to me after and he said, “I just graduated magna cum laude from Yale! Could I be on your campaign? You were talking to me!” I’ve seen it. When I was in college, we didn’t call it disruptors then, but it was certainly part of a counterculture, revolutionary spirit. You have to figure out what the game is and recognize the point at which, if you’re not careful, the propaganda will get you. You have to recognize it.
B&W: So you do think that there is a way to go into the institution in order to disrupt it from within.
MW: It’s not the institution itself, now. I’m not at your college, so I don’t know about the university itself. But yes! The point of getting an elite education, the point of getting a good education, the point of learning anything is in order to beat an unjust system. Do you see your education as a way to perpetuate the system? Or am I going to use what I’m gaining in this education to disrupt the system? It’s the same tools. Audre Lorde said you cannot use the master’s tools to tear down the master’s house. So you learn the master’s tools but you bring with them—in fact, my father was an immigration lawyer who used to say, “Law is a weapon.” You can become a corporate lawyer who just helps huge corporate forces dominate the American economy. Or you can be a lawyer who serves real justice. It’s the same education. It’s the purpose to which it is applied and that’s a decision that only you as an individual can make.
B&W: I was going to say this sounds like this is a decision that is only able to occur on the individual level.
MW: It is. But, I have seen what you said. I have been in colleges where I got that … the tenor of the place—I couldn’t even believe I was talking to young people. I’m not going to say which college it was. I was in California—
B&W: I can take a guess because I’m from L.A.
MW: Well, it was around L.A., you’re right.
B&W: I feel like I already know.
MW: These kids were already flag-wavers for unfettered capitalism. Their trust funds were written all over their faces.
B&W: What I see at Columbia and these more liberally branded institutions is that you go through four years acting as a radical, as a revolutionary, someone who’s going to go against the propaganda, and then all of a sudden you’re signing your consulting contract.
MW: I’ve seen it.
B&W: It’s that switch that is so difficult to understand, but also makes the small percentage of students who aren’t doing that go, “Am I doing the wrong thing?”
MW: No, you’re not doing the wrong thing. The psychological conversion comes from the question, “am I serving myself or am I serving the ages?” And that’s that. Yes, there has been a development of this propagandistic illusion that if you don’t make it all about you, you’ll be poor. But that’s only because the system has been rigged. That’s why unrigging the system is so important. Somebody shouldn’t have to live their lives feeding the monster to have an abundant life.
B&W: There’s also so much pressure when you leave college—you’re 21 or 22 and you’re supposed to start your job. You are an excellent example of someone who really got experiences from different places and engaged with different communities instead of feeding into a linear system. But there is something about finding yourself through helping others that sometimes feels inaccessible or unjustifiable.
MW: It’s really true. But I want to talk about why that was possible for me. First of all, when I was your age, you didn’t have to have a lot of money to be able to kind of hang out and do OK … in your 20s. I was talking to one group of young people. I said, “What’s wrong with you is you need more sex, drugs and rock and roll.” You’re going from, like you said, college to acting like you’re 55. And it’s like, hang out, listen to music, get stoned, be in love! What are you doing? These are the years before you have children, before you have family, before you have those kinds of responsibilities. But I also realize that when I was growing up in the ’70s, the average American worker had decent benefits, could afford a house, could afford a car, could afford a yearly vacation and could afford to send their kids to college. It was before the economy became so squeezed. I see so many things that I did, even to start my career, where I wouldn’t be able to do it today.
B&W: How do we handle that, though?
MW: It’s why I feel so strongly about politics. There certainly has not been, in my lifetime, the political agendas that thwarted the dreams of our young the way you are thwarted today.
If you and I were in an avalanche and we were waiting to be rescued, what happens when you freeze to death? Really, you just fall asleep. If we were in an avalanche and I saw you fall asleep, I would start yelling, “Wake up! Wake up!” That goes back to what you were saying before about hopelessness—we can’t afford it!
But I also want to say one other thing: It is very important that you get your education. I definitely understand that the fact has allowed me to be dismissed by people in certain quarters in ways that they would not feel that they had the permission to do had I finished my degree. Having said that, it gave me, at a certain time in my life, an experience of the outsider, which has been very important in my life. It was during those years when I dropped out of school and I was scooping soup. I saw these men in business suits come in. I’d known one of them from high school, and we were at the same level of academic achievement and socioeconomic status. He wasn’t rude to me. But I saw the pity in his eyes, all his embarrassment, and I was embarrassed. It was a visceral understanding of something that I might not have otherwise had.
B&W: How do we get involved?
MW: I believe that each person has an internal guidance system. Just like every cell in the body.
B&W: Yes, tell me more. You talked about the cells of the body at SXSW and I’m still trying to figure it out.
MW: Every cell has a natural intelligence. Every cell is told “You, pancreas. You, lungs. You, abdomen. You, brain.” And then, following that natural intelligence, those cells are led to collaborate with other cells. That's happening inside our bodies right now in amazing ways—we’re able to see each other, we’re able to hear each other, we’re able to speak, we’re able to process information, we continue to breathe while this is happening, our heart continues to beat. So much is going on! Because the body is an ecosystem and it works. When a cell disconnects from that collaborative function and goes off on its own, that’s a malignancy, and it gathers other cells around it that are similarly perverted. That’s a tumor, and it’s a parasite on the system. That disconnection from collaborative function is a malignancy not only in the body, but in consciousness, and that is what has happened to the human race.
I’ve heard so many people who work at these colleges talk about how many of the students are on antidepressants. That’s because there’s a disconnection from any sense that the world has meaning and that your life within it has meaning. This casts us into a realm of anxiety and suffering that is inevitable. It posits a random universe and you have to just go out there and get yours. [But] even if you do get yours, it will never be enough.
Instead, there is a great hunger and yearning, these days, for a reconnection with that natural intelligence. Some people use religious terms. Some people use secular terms. That part doesn’t matter. But the idea is that there is some higher intelligence going on here, some higher ecosystems, some higher power, and you say, in your case, OK, I went to Columbia, I have a Columbia degree, I’m really smart, I come from privilege, I’m pretty—where do you want me to go? What do you want me to do? If you live from that place and ground yourself in that every morning, then your life is going to take off in a way that I promise you right now you cannot even imagine.
B&W: I’m happy to hear you talk about how religion or spirituality contribute to inner peace. I don't hold religious beliefs, but—and maybe some people find this embarrassing to admit, but since we talked about it in Austin—I use astrology to feel a sense of peace sometimes.
MW: Yes. The core issue there for me is that astrology posits that it is not a random universe. And so, you know, there’s meaning there. That was my first portal when I was fourteen years old.
B&W: What was?
MW: When I saw my first astrology book. It was my first exposure to issues of the higher mind. It doesn’t matter if it’s Buddhism or Hinduism or astrology or I-Ching or Taoism or Tarot—whatever. It’s just something that opens up the mind to the idea that something so much bigger is going on here.
B&W: You read my astrological chart.
MW: And that I just looked up on the ephemeris. It’s not, to me, the bottom line, but it is for things above the bottom line. I think it was a psychological system—a rather profound, insightful psychological system before there was psychology. It’s important to face the fact that modern psychotherapeutic tradition has been a spectacular failure.
MW: James Hillman’s last essay before he died was called We’ve Had A Hundred Years of Psychotherapy … and, essentially, “we’re more fucked up than ever.”
B&W: But earlier you said that it’s good to have our close friends around us and you included therapists in that.
MW: Well, there is a great change going on within therapy. The traditional psychotherapeutic model is such a failure because it has actually fostered the overindulgence of self-reference, which only increases suffering. You don’t get rid of darkness by analyzing the darkness. You get rid of darkness by turning on the light.
B&W: I was watching your video with RuPaul from 2013, when you rode in his car, and you said, “love is to fear like light is to darkness—in the presence of one the other disappears. So the only thing stronger than a politics of fear is a politics of love.” Is that something that you still hold to be true and think that that is something that we can practice? Especially since there’s buzz about you running in 2024?
MW: I haven’t made a decision. At this point, the question isn’t who, but what. What matters is some radical truth-telling about how American democracy and American capitalism have swerved like a car that has careened off the road for the last 40 years: the massive transfer of wealth into the hands of one percent; the profound damage that it has done to our democracy, to our economy, to millions of people and to our culture itself. The Republican Party represents such obeisance to a corporatist mentality that genuine conservatism isn’t even at home there anymore. The Democratic Party … progressives are being systematically pushed aside by the corporatist leadership in the Democratic Party, the way genuine, high-minded conservatives have been pushed aside by the almost alt-right, corporatist forces in the Republican Party.
Somebody needs to present to the American people, in my opinion, a view of what has happened. A view of how much damage this has done. Given the fact that we are now where so much of the economic and other opportunities of this country belong in the hands of a very few; the fact that you have 44, 46 million people shackled by Covid loan debts; the fact that you have one in four people in America [who] cannot even fulfill their prescriptions; the fact that half a million people are homeless, the fact that our that our planet itself is at such a dire risk; the fact that our foreign policy is so dominated by short-term profit maximization for the defense industry and our energy policies are so dominated by short-term profit maximization for fossil fuel extraction; the fact that millions of Americans don’t have medical care, are sick and in some cases dying so that more money can be made by insurance companies and big pharmaceutical companies; the fact that we have so many toxins in our food, in our water, and in our air because of chemical companies and agricultural companies … somebody needs to stand for an agenda that rights those wrongs and present to the American people the opportunity to restore real democracy and economic and criminal and racial justice in this country. Whether I would be that person or should be that person to carry that banner, I don’t think there is a fixed answer to that yet, but I know that the issue itself is of the larger injustices at the current core of our system.
B&W: When you say fighting fear with a politics of love and using that as a version of revolution, what does that look like on a smaller level? How can we use love to create change on the not-so-strictly political level—on the level of the college student?
MW: You’re a voting citizen, right?
B&W: Yes, I’m 21.
MW: Okay, hello! It’s the same.
B&W: But what if we don’t get that candidate? Or, what if we do and that candidate doesn’t win? I guess what I’m asking is if there is a way to create change without politics.
MW: Everything we do in life, every interaction we have in life, every moment, the question is, Are you showing up fully? Are you showing up for the bigger task at hand rather than just yourself? Are you doing something meaningful and significant or are you wasting your time and other people’s time? Are you showing up in your strength, or are you showing up in your weakness? You and I could be talking about bullshit. We could just be negativizing. But we’re both here trying to have a meaningful conversation. A meaningful conversation in an age of such delusion is a revolutionary act.
B&W: OK, yeah, I agree with that. I do.
MW: Also, I think you are young—and everybody feels this when they get older—relax. If I’d only known to relax. If I had only known how good I looked. If I had only known how lucky I was to be able to be in college. So, just take it all in—you're learning on this beautiful campus. I promise you, there will be so much for you to do. But I know that being young, you feel like you’re a horse up at the gate and you want someone to open it.
B&W: Would you say that you’re a believer, in fact, that everything happens for a reason?
MW: Well, everything happens for a reason. But be careful with that one because sometimes it’s a bad reason. Yeah, the Holocaust happened for a reason: Adolf Hitler. So to say everything happens for a reason can be a cop out. The Iraq War happened because of George Bush, and that happened because of the way the Supreme Court basically gave him the presidency. The fact that it happened for a reason doesn't mean it happened for good reason.
My conception of the universe is the more old-fashioned concept that there is no spot where God is not. That there’s nothing that the universe cannot use for ultimate good if your heart is open. If your heart is open, God’s going to use you. If your heart is open, God’s going to use you, even if you didn’t graduate from Columbia.
B&W: But does that work even if you don’t believe in God?
MW: Absolutely. There are many that conspire with him who do not yet believe in him. In A Course in Miracles, it says a universal theology is neither possible nor necessary. A universal experience is what’s needed, and that’s an experience of love. And it’s a sense of purpose that we are here to extend that love.
B&W: That goes back to what we were talking about, about how to make the change. In the span of talking about how to lead with love we’ve gone from the individual to the communal, to the vastly social. There’s a thread of love that is uniting them all, and maybe we just need to try harder to find that.
MW: It's very practical. There are 12,000 children who still starve a day on this planet, and it’s completely unnecessary.
B&W: Completely. Hopefully—
MW: Not hopefully!
MW: You and I, as American women, now commit ourselves and ask that in whatever way we might be of service to the healing of the world and the eradication of unnecessary human suffering, may it be so.
B&W: Are there any last words of wisdom you want to give to seniors?
MW: Be careful of certain statements. One of the statements that drives me nuts these days is how people say, “Well, we shall see.” No. What’s going to happen is what we make happen. Yes? Alright, I’ll see you in New York. Have a beautiful day.