My type of book

This is a photo from Guyana.  I'm sure you're jumping wildly about with excitement thinking, "Hot dog!  She's going to tell a story from that trip she took where she didn't tell us any stories?  She's finally thought of one?  And she's going to share it and show us that she loves her blog readers just as much/more than she loves her facebook friends, even though she usually dislikes facebook and loves Google, thereby we infer that she should love her (Google-powered) blog readers extra-much and eschew her facebook friends?  This is that time?"

Uh, no.  You should probably stop over-thinking things.  I still don't have Guyana stories.  And why would you use the expression "hot dog"?  That seems a little outdated.  Not like I'm judging you, I'm just pointing that out.

Now that it's established that this story doesn't actually relate to Guyana (except to say: this picture was taken in Guyana), allow me to continue.

This is a photograph of my brother and I, reading.  Is this unusual?  Indeed, it is not.  We tend to read all the time.  Stop light?  Time to read!  Family gathering gone long?  Book!  Airport?  Bound and printed is how I like my material, thanks.

So anyhow, we read.  The whole family, really.  My younger sister has a love/hate relationship with reading (I know, WHAT?  I just stop at the love/ and pretend that the slash is part of the word.  Oh me?  I have a loveslash relationship with reading.  You?) but recently I got her hooked on The Mysterious Benedict Society books, and she's nearly done with the four books (three plus the prequel) and she only started the series on Friday.  It makes me so proud.

Anyhow, the book she was reading in Guyana was some book published by Reader's Digest a while ago about the human body.  Seemed like a book I'd probably not rather read, though my brother and I both read books of my choosing while in Guyana, and they weren't exactly a laugh a minute.  I thought her book seemed sort of boring, she thought my books were boring.  Figure that.  You can't really see in the photo (see?  the picture actually has a purpose) but we're both reading books that you may not have perused yet.  Mine is called Just My Type, and his is called The Elegant Universe.

I have to go on record as saying that Just My Type was a quicker read than The Elegant Universe.  Just My Type was a book about fonts, and it was very well written.  The author went through the history of fonts ever since Gutenberg made them popular, and it even has a section on the interrobang.  My favorite ever.  The Elegant Universe is about the string theory, which I find quite interesting, however... it gets a little long.

Confession time.  I'm still not finished reading The Elegant Universe.  I got it out from the library around Easter time, but didn't have time to read it, so I returned it and got it out again before Guyana.  Seeing as my brother didn't think to bring a book (WHAT?) on the trip, I lent him mine, and I read my other book--the font book--and he read the string theory one.  He didn't finish it either.  But I still intend to finish it.  It really is a good book.  Honestly.  I actually laughed out loud in one part.

I'm such a nerd.

But anyhow, that's sort of my whole point in this story.  I sometimes weird myself out.  Here's the thing:  I (sadly) fall prey to reading Karen Kingsbury/Beverly Lewis/pick a Christian author and I've probably read a book by him/her thing.  But I've been trying to read more informative books and less pointlessness recently.  Not that I think there's something wrong with Christian fiction (I'm... not one of those people.  I understand that Philippians 4:8 says "whatsoever things are true," but I still read fiction, even in light of that), but sometimes I take stock of my life and think, "Hm.  I don't have a lot of education, but I do read.  So I should educate myself via words.  That much I can do."  So I read things like The Elegant Universe.

But I don't always like reading books like The Elegant Universe.  I get halfway through and think, "Brian.  Oh, Brian.  WHY ARE YOU ONLY NOW GETTING TO THE PART ABOUT STRING THEORY!?"  (May I just interject that this would be a perfect place for an interrobang?  Do you see why I miss it so much?  Seriously, I cannot believe that it didn't take!  It sorrows me!)  Because seriously, the author (Brian, in case you somehow missed that, and thought I fondly gave the actual book a name) spends the whole first half of the book discussing either the theory of general relativity or quantum mechanics.  I understand why he had to lay so much groundwork, but after a while it got to the point where I just wished he'd, well, get to the point.  So anyhow, when I'm halfway through such books, and furrowing my brow and making solemn promises to myself that no child of mine will ever have the name Brian I think what am I doing?

And then I get all guilty.  Am I reading nerdy books because I actually am tired of Karen Kingsbury and cohorts?  Or do I just like to read smart books because it's a nifty conversation starter?  Or do I just really like to learn things?  Am I being pretentious?  Does Brian Greene really have to go into so much detail?

Sorry.  That last question clearly isn't in relation to most books.

I just have to evaluate my motives every once in a while.  I've pretty much decided that I actually want to read the books, and I'm not just being pretentious.  Because I've tried having conversations about nerdy things, and it never works, and then I just feel awkward.  Actually, I take that back.  I have a cousin who actually understands the string theory.  I was talking to him about it, and I was like, "Sweet!  Give me the condensed version!  It'll save me from finishing the book I started!"  And... as it turns out, he doesn't have a condensed version.  It was rather lengthy, and just as we got to the actual string theory part (which is to say, he laid the groundwork, the part I've actually gotten through in the book I'm reading)... our conversation got cut off.

And he lives many hours away from me.

So now I have to finish my book.

Ugh.

Thing is, technically I could just read the wikipedia article about it and call it a day.  But... I'm obsessive.  I can't not finish a book I've started.  Actually, I've actually been able to not finish books in recent years, which I count as being a very grown-up thing to do, but it sort of hurts me.  And at this point I think I'll probably go crazy if I don't finish this book.  I've been working hard on it.

How did I start this topic?  Oh yes.  I saw the book on my dresser (conveniently under my stack of Bible, Kindle, and journal) and furrowed my eyebrows at it.  And figured that I would talk about it (a lot) in my blog, and maybe that would count as reading a few pages or something.

Doesn't usually work that way.  Sorrow.

In other news, I must disclaimer this message.  Thing is, these books are interesting.  I have learned a lot thus far in The Elegant Universe, and I learned a lot while reading Just My Type (the author is from England, so he talks a lot about the fonts they use on signs around London and stuff, and he would have photos of said signs in the book, and I would feel well-traveled because I'd seen those very signs.  Even though every person who's been to London or traveled even a few miles on the M1 has seen those signs, which technically makes it way less cool that I've seen them.  Though let's be honest.  It was cool that I'd seen those signs), but I must admit that neither author is a Christian.  The science book teaches evolution like it's a fact.  Scientists.  Pfft.  The font book casually references typographers traveling about with girlfriends.  Sinners.  Pfft.

Problems I didn't have with Karen Kingsbury, bless her heart.  (And I'm really not trying to pick on her.  She's just well known, thereby an easy reference point.)

Maybe the moral of the story is that I should finally buckle down and read Darby's synopsis.  My mother had read it by the time she was my age.  Virtuous woman.

Food for thought.

Suddenly I realize that I didn't have a point with this rather lengthy post.  So I'll make a point.

.

Haha, get it?  Periods are points.

I... need more sleep.

I've flown the coupe, or some other lame title

Sometimes I'm kind of a nerd.  I don't just mean that I like to safely eject my flash drive from the computer, or that I love making lists about any and everything, or my blind devotion to Google, but sometimes I like car-related things.  I don't think that's the correct definition of nerd, but it's one of those things where I don't remember what people who taking a passing interest in cars are called.

So anyhow, for reasons unknown, I've always really liked Nissan.  One year my brother gave me a birthday card with a picture of the 350Z because he knew how well I liked Nissan (haha, shows you how long ago that was!  They don't even make the 350Z any longer!)  Still have that card.  So anyhow, imagine my surprise when I saw the Altima Coupe and hardly even recognized the thing!  I was at my sister's and we were driving to, well, somewhere, I don't even recall where, and suddenly I saw a two-door Altima and was just confused.  I sort of blurted something unintelligible about what the Altima was doing with only two doors? and everybody potentially thought I was insane.  Not like I blame them.  But anyhow, isn't it pretty?  I think so.

I just want to specify that I really know nothing about cars.  I just happened to see another Altima Coupe and remember afresh my shame at not having noticed this in the past four years since it came out.  How had I never seen one before?  What is wrong with me?

In other news, I was at a stoplight last week sitting behind the VW Eos, and... I sort of loved the tail lights.  Seriously, it's like the car had personality.  Loved.

Anyhow, I'm done talking about cars for like... a year.  Possibly two.  Thank you for your kind attention as I got all of this said.  Although, come to think of it, I do have quite a bit I could say about pickup trucks.  My dad has always said that he could see me driving a pickup, and while I agree, I rarely agree with his choices of pickups.  Anyhow, I don't even remember why I started talking about cars.  Oh, yeah.  Altima.  Two doors.  Shame.

I'm actually done this time.

Spring hath sprung!

For some people, spring means flowers and birds and other happy things.  That sounds good.  I mean, those are spring-like things.  There's this bird that has it out for me and chirps outside of my bedroom window starting at 3:30 am (my family argues that it could be different birds, but I know better.  It's one bird, and for some reason it hates me and wishes me great harm.  It accomplishes this great harm by chirping SO LOUDLY that not even a pillow over my ear blocks out the sound entirely.  True story), so trust me, I'm getting well acquainted with every aspect of spring, but to me spring is about other things.

For one, weather (which admittedly leads to things like flowers and such, but if it's still snowing, it doesn't matter if the 20th has come or not, it just doesn't feel like spring until the warmth arrives).  I love when the crocuses decide it's warm enough and pop up.  When I can finally sleep with the windows open again.  When I feel like I'm getting a sunburn just by sitting on the back porch.  In the spring we have supper outside nearly every evening, which is swell.  Also, on Saturday we have breakfasts outside.  And most lunches.  Anyhow, yeah, many meals outside.

So, besides the weather and all of the holidays (Dr. Seuss's birthday, Pi Day, St. Patrick's birthday, the Ides of March, first day of spring, etc.) there's one other thing that signals spring.  That is... Reuben Sandwiches.  I love Reubens.  Which is odd, because I think rye bread is gross.  Ditto Swiss cheese.  Also, most things on a Reuben.  But I LOVE Reubens and was so excited when we had our first Reubens of the year.  And when I say "first of the year," I mean that we have them about three times a spring.  Mmm.



Slightly burnt Reuben with a side of fresh tomato.  DELISH.



We had our Reubens on the first day of spring, actually, and I could pretend it was a happy spring celebration, but really, we just happened to eat them on Tuesday.  Spring just happened to start on that day.  After supper we were going to go to our local ice cream place, because they were giving away free ice cream in honor of the first day of spring, so after supper (and after my dad showed me how to charge up the car battery--it had died and my sister and I just sort of pushed it out of the way until my dad could come home to show me how to fix it next time) we piled in the car (the newly charged battery getting a chance to feel useful) and went down to the ice cream place, only to discover that about 100 people had thought of it before we did.  So... we came home.  And made our own crushed ice creations.  Basically we crushed up ice and put on random flavors (lemon, vanilla, cherry, lime, any other flavors we could find) and ate it.  We had some misses (the almond was gross) and some hits (lime.  mmm), and in general had an amusing time standing about in the kitchen flavoring cups of ice.

Our array of flavors.  Also, my family.

We were going to have leftover pie from Pi Day celebration times at eating meeting on Lord's Day, but we forgot.  Also, we were full of Reubens and... ice.

Oh, spring.  How do I love thee.  Thee minus that bird who hates me, but you know what I mean.

PS  I see, thanks to the Google Doodle of the day, that today is Juan Gris's birthday.  If you all recall, he was the one who made me realize that I was okay with Cubism after all.  So happy birthday, Juan.  Thank you for expanding my horizons.

And a day for Earth

This morning I realized that it was Earth Day. Not like that's too crazy, but I realized that Earth Day marks that I've been blogging for more than a year now. Last Earth Day I said pretty much all that needs to be said about this event, so I won't bore you with another round, but I did, of course, take the time to google Nancy Pelosi just to make sure she didn't happen to use another not-entirely-real verse from Isaiah. I honestly can't get over that.

Pardon.

Anyhow, It's funny how certain things can remind us that time glides ever onward. For instance, it's hard to reconcile myself with the idea that I've been blogging for a year. Not like I've done it entirely faithfully (summer=not even close), but it's been here. And I just realized the other day that I'm coming up on ten years as a faithful (mostly) journaler. I used to journal here and there when I was much younger, but it's only ("only" haha) been the last ten where I've written frequently.

But time is strange. I've been working at my current job for six months now (I've already surpassed the average time of how long most former employees worked here by a fair amount, which tells you something about the job, let me just tell you), and I realize "hey, six months flew, I bet it'll be a year before I know it!" Oh, if I lasted a year, by the way, there would only be three other employees amongst the 35-some employees who have worked at this job who will have worked longer than I have. Most are lucky to last for three months. The last lady lasted for four days. Correction, four mornings. She wasn't even working all day.

I have digressed.

I think the older you get, the less time means. Thirty Year Fixed Mortgage? No problem. My child will be finished school in just another 14 years? Sweet. You only have to be 55 to qualify for some senior discounts now? I'm nearly there!

Um, I personally am not nearly there, I'm just making a point.

But time means little once you realize how much has already passed you by. It brings to mind the fact that we can't change what has passed, but only live for Christ in the minutes and days to come. Everything will pass away (did you hear that, Earth? you too!) but it's what is done for Christ that remains.

Only one life, t'will soon be past, only what's done for Christ t'will last!

Asking about Acts - Part II

Let's talk for just a minute about Acts 27. Great chapter, truly it is, but there's one thing I always hear about it that sort of gets to me. Which is to say, Acts 27:29. "Then fearing lest we should have fallen upon rocks, they cast four anchors out of the stern, and wished for day."

The romantical side of me just likes to hear about a ship full of people wishing for day. Sounds cool (especially since you know they all survived at the end, phew), but it's the four anchors I hear a lot about. I'm not sure if any of the rest of you hear about these four anchors, but I highly recommend that if you're not familiar with a good sermon or two on the subject, that you head over to Google and, well, google it. "Acts 27 four anchors" is all it takes to come up with dozens of thoughts on these anchors.

I hear all sort of thoughts about them. Article number one on that Google search says that the four anchors are representative of Paul's steadiness in the storm. 1. He was in the presence of God, 2. He was God's possession, 3. He had a sense of purpose, and 4. He had a positive confession of his faith.

Well, these things are all good and right, but is that really what those four anchors represent?

Another article (also in the top ten Google listings under the search for "Acts 20 four anchors") says that the four anchors were that Paul 1. Prayed, 2. Had the Word of God, 3. Obeyed God, and 4. Had the hope of salvation. Once again, great things, but is that what those anchors mean?

I've heard other things. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, if you'll believe it, were once referred to as the four anchors. In Acts 2:42 mentions new Christians continuing steadfastly in 1. The apostle's doctrine, 2. fellowship, 3. Breaking of bread, and 4. prayers. That's pretty popular from what I've personally heard.

Anyhow, there are more, which doubtless I'll remember in the middle of the night tonight, but you get the idea.

Now, I'm not trying to be contrary (although I realize I come off as sort of contrary sometimes), but I'm trying to be practical, I guess. My hang-up with this whole situation is this: why are we comparing things to these anchors, anyhow? The anchors sure didn't help the ship, did they? This was a ship that, if we're trying to compare apples to apples, wouldn't even be qualified as a Christian ship (re-read the chapter, I'm sure it'll make sense in a moment!). So the illustration is already a little flimsy, in my opinion.

So, like I say, we have a ship who'd been trying, on its own merit, to reach land, cast these four anchors into the sea, and, well, that didn't work either. The ship broke in pieces, much like Humpty Dumpty, I imagine, only with less yolk.

May I reiterate: why do we like this illustration so much? These four anchors gave those sea-sick people not one ounce of help, and I'd like to keep viewing prayer and obedience to God as something that'll help me, thanks for asking. I once decided that I was going to sermonize all on my own, and started telling people that I thought that the four anchors referred to Jacob's four wifely things. Moral of that story? Have just one wife. For some reason that doctrine never really caught on, funny... =)

This really solved nothing, I suppose, but it felt nice to spit it all out.

Christianity Today--November style

I believe I’ve mentioned before that I enjoy reading Christianity Today. It’s a good magazine, I would (usually) recommend it. But since I’m sort of poor, and frugal anyhow (though not a FCP, exactly—it’s in the urban dictionary, look it up), I get the subscription from the library, both to support the library, and also my money-saving habits.

Which means that by the time I’ve read the magazine, whatever it is saying is old news. Since it’s a magazine it’s technically sort of all old news, though, so I don’t feel too badly about it. Especially since most of the things in CT aren’t exactly time-sensitive anyhow. For instance, last month I finally read the November issue, and the cover story was on hunger, which is certainly a current issue (if you don’t believe me, read the article) but one that is just as current now as it was back in November.

Now, I usually really like to read this magazine. I usually go to the library on the second or third day of a month so that I can read last month’s issue once it has been shelved and is available. But for some reason, I could not STAND the November issue. I think I must have been having a bad day when I read it, or perhaps it was still too early in the morning (I’m not exactly a morning person), but whatever the cause, it was not a favorite of mine. A few reasons I disliked it follow.

1) Politics. Yes, okay, it was the November issue, elections were right around the corner (actually, elections pretty much were the corner that month) and it was historical and all that, but I was so tired of hearing about the elections, it wasn’t even funny. Not only that, but I’m one of those stodgy Earth-is-not-my-home Christians, and Christianity Today is decidedly not stodgy in that regard. In fact, they just ran an article about a year ago about how Heaven might be our home, but Earth is our stomping ground, and we should treat is as such, and do things like give it environmental makeovers and get into politics and the such. They were very convinced that Christians who didn’t join city council were in the wrong. Sorry, mister, I’m one of those ones.

2) Secondly (or maybe still firstly, because I’m still on a political kick here) they acted like they were all neutral in the elections, but they totally weren’t. You could see it all over the issue, that they were fervently hoping Obama would win. And I’m fine with that, because, well, I didn’t really care one way or the other. The Bible says that the basest of men are set up in government. Tru dat, Daniel. But really, if you’re going to have an opinion one way (which is what they had) then stop dancing around the bush. That’s what I say.

3) On that same subject, they reviewed a book called “Electing Not to Vote” and gave it a whopping one star. Just to give you a feel for how insane this is, I’ve seen them give morally inappropriate movies many more stars than that. Don’t quite remember how many stars (they base on a five-star system, so I don’t want to go too overboard with generalizations here) but whatever the case, they were not a fan of this book. I’ve never read the book in question, of course, but the author of the article says it’s the smuggest book he’s ever read. He compares the book’s ideology with that of a man being so against the government that he didn’t even get a driver’s license. Uh, last I checked, John Wilson, voting wasn’t a law. They do that in foreign countries, remember? They go so far as to “helpfully” fill out the ballot for the voters, so they still get to vote and the government still gets their person to win. That doesn’t sound very fun to me, sorry.

4) Two words. Ray Boltz. I almost threw up when I read that. What is the world coming to? And why do I expose myself to that sort of information? The magazine touches on that subject fairly often, but I just never learn. Honestly, I think that was what made me dislike the issue so much, now that I think of it.

5) This isn’t a dislike but an amused like. I have several friends who like Dave Ramsey, and I was amused to see him in the magazine. But I loved his point about living on less than you make. Amen, brother!

6) Oh, and Google finally let religious folk advertise stuff about abortion. I knew they were liberal, but I always pretend they secretly aren’t that liberal. Ah, the fake world I construct in my head.

7) I tried to figure out where Christianity Today stood on all that egalitarian stuff, but I can’t figure it out. Personally, I refer to Paul. Women should keep silence in the churches? Okey-dokey. Do women have an integral part in the body of Christ? Uh, yeah. Sounds fairly clear cut to me, fellows.

8) By this point in the magazine I skipped through a bunch of stuff. I skimmed the stuff about the KKK and Timothy McVeigh being Christian, pausing only to wonder if perhaps anyone had stopped to realize that it takes a personal relationship with Christ to qualify as “Christian.” It seems to make sense intuitively that to be a Christian you have to actually be a “Christ One” but I guess if you’re Timothy McVeigh and you say you’re a Christian, then you’re in the club. Sadly, I’m sure there were members of the KKK who were legitimately Christian, but delusional. Which should be a lesson to us: just because we claim we do things in the name of Christ doesn’t mean we can’t be simultaneously delusional.

9) I am so sick of Christianity Today’s movie and book reviews. I’ve already touched on their review of the Election book, but it’s a constant battle for me to not take a black marker to their reviews. They review movies based on talent and such, which is very important (and yes, they love art above all in their movie-reviewing cubicles) but the magazine is called Christianity Today, for crying out loud! Can’t we at least have thoughts on the moral content and the social implications of the movie? And I fall short: I watch some movies with questionable content, but in general, I’d prefer to stick to family-friendly Disney and Hallmark movies and let the Oscars keep their R-rated movies.

10) I like Switchfoot, I really do. I don’t know all their music, but what I have heard, I enjoy. But when Mark Moring (who wrote an article on Switchfoot, though he usually does movie reviews, I’m not a fan of his reviews, but I’m sure he’s a very nice person) referenced “JPMs” I very nearly hit the roof. Although Mark Moring didn’t straight-out say that having lots of “Jesuses Per Minute” was a bad thing, exactly, he did imply such. It made me feel like an inferior person for enjoying music that has a lot of JPMs. The truth of the matter is, as long as the music is clean (and I am insistent on this point, as my friends can attest to) I’m usually fine with it. But I enjoy decidedly Christian music, because, well, I am a Christian. It’s like shampoo. I’m a female, and there’s no rule about me needing to use “special girl shampoo” as opposed the regular stuff, but it smells good, is better for my hair, and since the shampoo is specially formulated for the health of my hair, and I have scads of hair, why not use the special kind? Well I’m a Christian the same way I am a female. Christian music talks about (sings about?) the things I want to be hearing, and it’s better for me than listening to Brad Paisley or Rihanna or whomever else there might be out there. Is there a moral problem with their music? Well, I have no idea, since I don’t really listen to them (though I have heard Brad Paisley songs I am not fond of, and I think I’ve heard a Rihanna song—something about umbrellas?), but providing there isn’t a moral dilemma, I’m sure there’s nothing innately wrong with listening to their music. But I’d just prefer to listen to the Christian stuff, since it usually helps lift up rather than maintain the same status or sink lower. Honestly, it’s like math: it’s not that complicated.

11) And finally, a word to Philip Yancey. He wrote the “Back Page” article in the issue, and discussed some church hopping he and his wife recently did. That’s fine, I mean, it sure did work for the characters in Ray Blackston’s Flabbergasted books, but I have just one question for him. In one of the most liberal churches he went to (complete with a PC Lord’s Prayer, as if the Lord’s goal was really to be PC) he found the most “energy.” I understand that you were looking for aliveness and all that, but if you had wanted to just find energy, try a rock concert, Mr. Yancey. Or maybe just a Switchfoot concert. I hear they have lots of energy, and almost no JPMs. Maybe that’s what you’re looking for.

Anyhow, after writing this entire list of things, I have to sit back and think: why do I read this magazine? I feel like with this issue, especially, I found a bevy of things I disliked, and not so many things I did. For now, I think I’ll continue to read the magazine (yeah, I’m a slow learner), but keep an eye out for further craziness. They don’t say anything overtly wrong (…) but the truth of the matter is, they say a lot of things I could do without.

Google gets shiny

How did I not know about this? Google Chrome? I just saw it the other night and downloaded it (obviously) and I'm so proud of them. I knew they were going to come out with their own internet type thing any minute now. But I'm just surprised that it was now and I hadn't heard about it.

Actually, I haven't been reading my Google Friends newsletters recently, because I've been busy and lazy (not to mention my general apathy towards technology) so I suppose it makes sense that I missed it. And apparently it's been out since September? Have I been asleep these long months? Long rant short, I was able to download it on Friday, and so now our computer has Google Chrome.

I haven't decided yet how I feel about it. It has a lot of good features (like the homepage having the most frequented sites and all, that's cool) but I don't like their history deleting system (can't selectively delete like in Firefox) and the fact that I had to change my options to have a little home button was a little weird. I use the home button all the time, because my homepage is Google, and, well, I use Google all the time. But in general, I'm proud of Google.

Oh! I seriously love the thing where the web address bar doubles as a Google search bar. I guess that's why I didn't really need my "home" button after all!

Of course, now we have three internet options on our computer, Microsoft, Firefox, and Chrome. So one of these days I foresee somebody in my family getting tired of it all and deleting two of them. So long as Firefox doesn't go. And Chrome. So IE can go.

Sorry, Mr. Gates.

Sleep says hi

I decided to just up and do it. Start a blog.

And I know, it’s not like I’ll follow through (do I have any motivation to follow through with this? Really?) but I keep on wishing I had a blog, so I figured, hey, why not?

And it’s named, for those who wonder about such things, Hopeful Rambles because, well, as everyone knows, the best sort of rambles are not aimless wanderings but instead “To speak or write at length and with many digressions,” which I foresee a large amount of in the future of this here blog. As for the hope? Well, I’m a Christian, and as such, my life is a hopeful one. Also, the title “rambles” was already claimed as a blog name. But I do still live life hopefully, honestly I do!

I know this is my first post and I’m supposed to write something clever and witty that will make my friends want to stay and read on, but I’ll let you in on a little secret only like three of my friends will ever hear about this blog from my lips so I pretty much have nothing to be worried about. Praise the Lord.

So I should be thinking of things to say to introduce my yet-blasé blog, but it’s like 2:00 AM and I’m not very clever at such an hour. Apparently I’m wide awake (second night in a row where I just can’t seem to sleep, I’m beginning to think my years of sleep-full childhood are catching up with me just to remind me that being an adult is a terrible thing) but wide-awake is no indication of a sound mind.

Chances are, this will mostly be me talking about how wonderful Google is (how sad it makes me that they’re so crazy liberal) and random things I find in my Bible reading I feel like sharing with someone but don’t know with whom to share them. Or maybe I’ll pull a Nancy Pelosi and just make up verses to talk about at random. How does that go? “Taking care of creation is an act of worship. Something something something something.” That’s what I hear when Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth. I’m sure if she ever said anything worth noting I’d be told about it in short order, so I’m not too worried.

Seriously? I just spent valuable hook time talking politics? A sign of the times, my friend (I say singular because I doubt more than one person will ever frequent this place of such promising brilliance) that such a politically-unsavvy soul such as I should be talking politically-related items at 2:00 in the morning.

That’s it. I’m going to bed. If this never pans out into a more-than-once kind of blog, I’ll consider telling my friends, but until I post something of more substance, I shall lay this crazy place to rest.