The Final Word

The final word was spoken at my job today, and I am not even sure I know what it was. I know that I am not going back, however. I am now unemployed, and will likely remain so until the "next big thing". I dont really know what that is going to be, but I am just glad to have been put out of my misery of the uncertainty of my job.

So, now that my days are free....anyone wanna hang out?

In Reflection...

In reflection of Show Them No Mercy, I have thought through a couple of issues. It seems like two discussions predominate how one is to understand the issue of the Canaanite genocide. Like many things, the issue isnt the issue...it is what underlies the issue that needs discussion.

The first thing is Salvation theology, essentially Calvinism v. Arminianism. For those who dont know much about this debate, it has been going through the centuries since the Church was brand new. It is predestination (God picks who is saved) against free will (people choose whether or not they are saved). Those who believe in predestination point to some very explicit and difficult passages that seem to suggest predestination as the mode of salvation. Those who believe in free will point to a great body of more subtle passages that seem to imply free will, and to personal experience. This debate underlies the Canaanite genocide because what one believes about God's role in salvation (e.g. does he do the selection process or just the saving process?) will inform what one believes God might do in the situation of commanding genocide.

The second thing is dispensationalism or some sort of framework of theology. This topic has received far too little expressive debate, at least in my ears. People seem to believe what they believe and not have a lot of helpful discussion on the matter. This theology seems to be a little bit like the theological version of the theory of everything. It has to do with how one view's the difference or similarities between Israel and the Church, and God's relationship with each of them. It has to do with how God relates to people throughout time, and the consistencies and inconsistencies thereof. I dont know enough about all of this to provide an in-depth study, but I know that it has severe implications. If one views God's relationship to mankind basically continuous across the generations, it may suggest one way to interpret the Canaanite genocide, whereas if God's relationship to mankind is highly discontinuous (e.g. very different for the Israelites under different covenants, etc.) then it may suggest (or even allow) different interpretations of the genocide.

Perhaps more thought and consideration is needed on these fronts if we are to get to the bottom of it all. The difficulty in reconciling these big issues of theology is that they grow from every fundamental belief and doctrine in the faith. What one believes about how God saves people is much more than a survey of relevant passages, it is a study of the nature and character of God, the mission of Christ, the role of the church; it either informs or is informed by so many other theologies. So, in understanding some of these issues, it is like building a skyscraper from the ground up, when all people ever seem to talk about is the highest stories of the building.

Anyway...just thought i would mention all that stuff.

Spiritual Continuity

This was the final essay in the book; the last hope in the book for resolution.

The author suggests that the canaanite warfare is the first step in a symbol of God's warfare against sin and evil. That war continues to be waged in the New Testament in a spiritual fashion (e.g. 'our war is not with flesh and blood, but with spiritualities...') and is finalized in the End Times when God once again is a warrior and defeats his enemies once and for all.

That is the short version. The author seems to deal with seeming disparity of "the warrior God of the OT" and the "pacifist God in Jesus" by suggesting that the central theme of scripture is rather God's warrior conquest (he makes Jesus into Warrior Jesus rather than Meek Pacifist Jesus) than Christ's love, acceptance, forgiveness and mercy.

The author does not spend much time addressing the moral or ethical implications of having God condone (even mandate) the slaughter of men, women, and children...except to say that all people are wicked and they deserved it, even the children. He then employs a familiar switcheroo that I am beginning to really dislike. The argument is this: "the question should not be Why did God not save some (i.e. the Canaanites)? because all are wicked and sinful and deserving of death...but rather, the astonishment is that God has chosen to save any (i.e. the Israelites)." Truly we should marvel at God's passion and willingness to pursue salvation, but to reframe the question thus really dodges the issue at heart. My basic concern with this is not only the moral implication of choosing to save one person over another when there is the implicit ability to save both, but also the very stark issue that Jesus himself implies passionate intent and desire to save everyone! If Jesus wants us to love everyone, if he says that he "desires that none should perish", then why oh why would he neglect to save someone who he has the power and intent to save?

To me, it is to abandon the Bible to say either: 1. The OT was wrong when it said that God commanded genocide (as the first author suggests), or 2. The NT was wrong when Jesus said he wanted to save everyone. Is this an impossible contradiction? In the final two pages of this book, a reviewer of this final author stated that in the end it is impossible to know the reasons God does what he does. And to him, that is the best answer that the millenia of the people of God can produce.

Eschatological Continuity

The third chapter in the book Show Them No Mercy presented a viewpoint called eschatological continuity. The 30-second synopsis: The author suggests that the canaanite genocide was the first in an event in a trajectory toward the future final genocide in the end of times. That genocide will be based upon wickedness and evilness and will be carried out entirely by God, whereas the canaanite genocide had more to do with occupation of land, wickedness, and was carried out through a collaboration between Israel and God.

The authors basic assertions were called into question by the responders insofar as they saw evidence to the contrary of supporting a sort of trajectory or development of end-times ideas in the canaanite genocide texts.

This essay didnt go too far to explain the moral or ethical implications inherent in genocide, although he did spend a lot of effort showing how Israel's actions were very similar to surrounding cultures, and that genocide as military conquest seemed similar between Israel and other nations.

I am left with my frustration about trying to weigh the balance between trusting the biblical text on the one hand, and understanding genocide on the other hand. When one attempts to look at the motivation between genocide of one people vs. salvation of another, it seems to devolve into the sort of Calvinistic ambiguity of apparently random choice of some to salvation and others to doom. (I hesitate writing this next sentence...) I dont know if I would want to be a Christian if I had to be a Calvinist...it just doesnt seem Christlike enough.

I do not have much hope for the next essay to clarify my qualms. He says that he has a lot in common with the present author. Everyone seems to be in severe disagreement with the first author, and I am torn because I feel like the first author was the only one to capture the heart of Jesus.

Moderate Discontinuity

If the interpretation in the previous essay was primarily driven by liberal ideals and soft fundamentals, the essay on Moderate Discontinuity was driven by the mode of biblical interpretation called Dispensationalism. In my limited experience, it seems that one's beliefs are more driven by their mode of biblical interpretation than any other thing, yet it seems to remain one of the least understood bits of theology. Dispensationalism expresses the stark differences between God's relationships with different groups of folks at different periods of time. So, what is true at one period of time (say, under the Mosaic law) is no longer true in the time of the church (and vice versa).

That is the discontinuity...each dispensation is discontinuous from the next or the previous. So, the fact that God directs the Israelites under his theocracy to genocide the Caananites is okay, because that holy war was a part of God's relationship to Israel at that time. The author of this essay claims that genocide is neither good or bad, but rather the context in which it exists determines its morality. Since God prescribed it, it must have been good. He gives a few reasons he thought God might have employed genocide, such as to protect the Israelites from idolatry (did it work?) and to show God's justice on evil and grace on the Israelites, almost as a mode of evangelism (is genocide good evangelism?)

One response to the essay, i think sums up generally my feelings: "If the indiscriminate slaughter of human beings for any reason can be called a "good" and "righteous" act, and if the sanctity of human life established in creation, reaffirmed after the flood, reinforced in the seventh commandment, reiterated by all the prophets, and incarnate in Jesus--if this can be set aside by a supposed divine "authorization of genocide"--then all moral and ethical absolutes are destroyed, all distinctions between good and evil are rendered meaningless, and all claims about God's love and compassion become cruel deceptions."

So, what to make of this. It seem as though, where in the previous essay the author gave up on the bible, this author seems to give up on any cohesive picture of God. "Thou Shalt Not Kill, Love your enemies, genocide is okay when I say so". I find myself asking whether I am so comitted to a belief and a frame of thought that I am willing to justify the slaughter of an entire group of people? I am not sure.

Some of the responses reaffirmed the fact that we all deserve death due to our sinfulness, and that the culture of the canaanites received what they deserved. But, so did the Israelites deserve such a response, and so do we all. So, why destroy one people and honor another? It seems strikingly similar to the sort of moral dishonesty and lack of compassion present in the Calvinist system of thought. Besides, is God's passion not the salvation of all? Was Jesus not preoccupied by humility rather than self-promotion? Wasn't God so passionate about salvation of people that he came to earth to suffer a humiliating death? And if he is all of those things, how is the prescription of genocide of a people reasonably justified? It seems too severe of a contradiction.

As the author of this essay said himself, under this system of thought, "the moral and ethical dilemma of Yahweh war must also remain without satisfying rational explanation."

Radical Discontinuity

The first essay in Show Them No Mercy was entitled "Radical Discontinuity", in which the author basically suggested that the loving New Testament Jesus reinterprets the violence of the Old Testament in a way to suggest the the OT authors had an incomplete understanding of the nature of God. Jesus was such a pivotal person, that his presence completely redefines and trumps previous ideas of God, including God as a prescriber of genocide.

As in many theological debates, the question remains of what to do about all the passages that gave us a headache in the first place? The OT often and commonly states that God told the Israelites to kill thus and so city, often including women and children, and even the animals. The author supporting "Radical Discontinuity" between the Old and New Testaments suggests that those biblical passages were written by humans, and that they showed the incompleteness of their view of God.

The problem with that viewpoint is clear. Can we really claim that much of the OT is unbiblical? Can we say that God as he is presented in the OT is not Christlike? I suppose we could, but to do so would essentially be to rid ourselves of any notion of God's inspiration of scripture, or even the trustworthiness of any of scripture (being as Jesus, Paul and others really seem to uphold the OT as valid, God-breathed scripture.)

It is a distressing problem. On the one hand, the loving Jesus is the person at the center of this whole thing and to uphold any divinity of Christ almost seems to juxtapose the loving Christ with the genocidal OT concept of God. On the other hand, that is what the Bible gives us, and if we are going to learn of our concept of Christ from the Bible, then some trust in the Bible is essential.

Some authors who critiqued this essay claim to have better solutions in their essays, so I will see if they offer any hope. This author jettisoned the bible for Jesus. While Jesus is a worthy cause, i dont know whether 86'ing scripture is helpful.

Show Them No Mercy

As my "Currently Reading" list has dwindled, I have been in search for new books to read. Not that I am in short supply of books to read, but it is a matter of selecting which book from my "to read" pile should be next. And I think I have selected one. It is an academic book that I have had for probably a year, but it adresses a question that goes back in my mind for many years, and in the collective mind of the world for generations.

I believe that I am going to reaed "Show Them No Mercy", edited by Stan Gundry. It is a counterpoint book on the Canaanite Genocide. Four authors share their takes on what was happening theologically when God commanded Joshua et. al. to "destroy [the canaanites] totally...and show them no mercy." I am sure you can see how this is a HUGE issue. Two reasons predominate my concern about this issue: 1. What is the difference between genocide back then and genocide today? (e.g. Rwanda, Darfur, Slobodan Milocivek) and 2. Isnt God the same Jesus who told us to love our enemies, and who displays that quality himself? Whats the difference?

Some might laugh at how anxious I am to read this book. Not at all anxious as in excited, more anxious as in terrified. What am I going to think after reading all of these author's point of views? It is dangerous because it has immense ramifications on how one views the character of God and/or the continuity of scripture. It speaks to issues as huge as the divinity of Christ. It calls into question everything on some level. That can be a pretty scary undertaking. In the introduction, the editor commented that this is often an issue that Christians kindly shove to the recesses of their mind so that they (hopefully) never have to think about it again. It has been that way for me to some extent, but I believe that if something is not allowed to be questioned, it is neither honest or true, and probably isnt worth holding on to.

So I guess, here we go. I hope I gain clarity more than despair in the process!!!

Freedom and Imprisonment

Paul often wrote about being a slave. He suggested that we are bound to be slaves in anything we do, whether it is slavery in sin or slavery to righteousness. The cartoon transformers illustrated that point to me today as I was leaving starbucks.

After finishing my iced coffee, I was walking to my car to return to work, a young guy in his mid 20's zipped into a parking space near mine in his red Mini Cooper. He got out of his car, wearing fashionable clothes, his sleeves rolled jauntily up to his elbows. On his car were artistically placed transformers logos intended to make some throwback fashion statement.

As I got into my car and headed out of the parking lot, I saw another young chap. He was probably early 20's, long hair, poorly placed truckers hat, and clothed in an oversized jacket sporting some childish cartoon or another. He sported a backpack with a similar cartoon character and genuinely appeared to be presenting these characters as if they were his favorite heroes.

Isnt it odd that, while one person is imprisoned in his stunted development, banished to continually support his favorite cartoon heroes, another person has risen so far above and beyond all of the childish cartoons that he can boldly and fashionably return to boast those same heroes? For one it seems to be a developmental delay, for another a statement of edgy self-expression.

Okay, maybe it isnt that dramatic. But it was interesting to observe nevertheless.

In what ways are we imprisoned to our own childish perspectives? To whom are we slaves that continually and faithfully do the bidding of our hidden masters? What would it be to break away from that and personally and consciously choose to follow a different course of action?

Hang On Tight...

Money makes the world go 'round.

Round and round like a merry-go-wheel, ever spinning faster, and we must all hang on tight to keep from being thrown to the wolves.

And it appears that that is where my job is heading. Sacramento County decided that they could save County employee jobs by reducing their contracts with outside providers. I happen to be in one such position. We dont know for sure until September 10th, but it certainly seems likely that our services will kindly be no longer requested. Unemployed by October.

It is pretty much a bummer. It was a good job with good pay, good hours, and a good boss. What is next?

The Antichrist, et. al.

I ran across a quote today when reading "Three Musketeers" (Alexander Dumas, 1844) regarding the antichrist. It is always interesting, to me, to see through these windows into historical theology that we may not be aware of today. The quote is spoken by the Cardinal, where he is suggesting the use of religious fanatics for a plot against England (represented by Buckingham). First the quote, then my commentary:

"In all times and all countries, especially in those countries which are divided within by religious faith, there are always fanatics who would be well contented to be regarded as martyrs. And here, at this very moment, it occurs to me that the Puritans are furious against the Duke of Buckingham and that their preachers speak of him as the antichrist."

Many people in a large section of the evangelical Christian church regard the antichrist to be a specific person who gains power in the end times. This idea comes from a Christian system of belief called dispensationalism (which has a section or dispensation of End Times, and tends to read the Bible in terms of a very literal description of future events). The idea of the antichrist comes from the Bible in Thessalonians, 1 John, and Revelation (maybe other places too, but those are the places that stand out in my mind). One thing that dispensationalism seems to often do when discussing points of theology is to take seperate passages in the bible and decide that they are discussing the same theological issue. So, all of these references to the antichrist must reference the theological concept that they determine from the book of revelation. For a simplistic characterization (and sensationalization) of dispensational eschatology (end times theology) consider the series Left Behind.

Three things deter me from such ideas in Christianity, and they are, in turn, theological, hermeneutical, and historical. For one, in hearing the whole rationalization for their system of thought, it really isnt too convincing. They have everything tied up in a neat little bow, except that it isnt. There are several things that need to be swept under the rug, so to speak. For one, the Church is considered a thousands of years gap between Jesus and the end of times that is minimally explained in scripture, and kind of makes the salvation of the gentiles seem like an afterthought rather than like one of God's primary motivations. I think Paul considered the salvation of the Gentiles a very big idea in God's missional plan. Many of the dispensationalist's interpretations seem superimposed onto the text. Which brings me to my hermeneutical (biblical interpretation) concern. If you read 1 John where he talks about the antichrist, it seems to him that the antichrist already existed in his day, that there were many of them, and that the antichrist was anyone who opposed God. To me that seems a little more broad than identifying a single person at some point in the future who is involved in the end of time. Thirdly, and this is where the quote from the Three Musketeers comes in, it is interesting to me that throughout history preachers have been identifying End Times evidence in the world around them. Apparently, in his story, some preachers thought the Duke of Buckingham was the antichrist. Interesting. My history teacher in my first year of college suggested that the motivation for the funding of Columbo to voyage to the far east was to set up an alternate spice trade route because the mouslims had overtaken the route through the Black Sea, and if they were able to find an alternate route, they could amass great wealth to overcome the mouslims before Christ returned in the year 1500. Well. We all know how that turned out. If a slice of the Christian preachers in any time in history seem to think that theirs will be the last years known on earth, then one might assume that none of them are right (or, since none have been right so far, the safest bet is that none of them are right today). In my opinion, they are mistaking what i call personal eschatology (the end of our lives) with global eschatology (the end of the world). It is the Christian way to have an existential crisis without knowing it.

All of this, to me, adds a little discredit to the account of those who prefer to think that the end of times are upon us, and that they will begin with the political uprising of the antichrist. It just doesnt add up. Not in Christianity anyway.

Ever Want to Make A Paper Domo?

Who hasnt wanted to make a paper domo at some point in their life, honestly?

Now you can! Thanks to the discovery and subsequent gift of a coworker, here is how you do it:

And this is what the finished product looks like:

I Love Mexican Food

Through the graciousness of friends and family making us meals while we are busy with our little one, we have discovered another mexican dish to add to our repertoire. Tostadas.

Mexican food (at least the way I make it) is pretty much an excuse to use the same ingredients in as many ways as possible. And calling it different things enables you to suggest it for dinner more often. For example, if we ate tacos last night, and when the conversation about dinner comes around, and I say "Tacos!", it might not work out because we had them last night. But, if I say "howabout Tostadas!", we might get to have more mexican food, because at least it isnt the same thing we ate last night (except that it is).

I love tacos, burritos, nachos, taco salad, and now, tostadas. Delish.

Three Things

1. My new favorite thing: Daddy—daughter tummy time. It melts my heart.

2. My new least favorite thing: 3am….almost anything. Anything at 3am is not fun.

3. The new most amazing thing: Projectile Poop. I had never seen anything like this, but for some reason our darling daughter loves to wait until she is bare naked to let it all out. The other day while changing her diaper, she decided to poop, pee, and poop again. While I was hustling around trying to mop up all the extras, she geared up and exploded with unprecedented force. The mustard feces came flying at me, as I dodged in slow motion. I was able to avoid a direct hit, but that stuff flew about four feet! Pretty amazing! It isn’t often in your life when you can accomplish something like that. It will be a record difficult to beat.

How a Newborn Affects You

S

(this was literally how far i got into a blog post about two days ago)

A Baby!

We all knew it was coming sooner or later! Monday July 20th at 1517, a human being emerged from my wife. Pretty cool.

You know, I spent most of the pregnancy in shock that there was a little thing growing inside Siri that was half made up of me and half of her. It really tripped me out thinking about it. And I thought that feeling would carry over through parenting, but while the feeling may return one day, it really hasnt felt like that since Lucy was born. It struck me very abruptly when she was born that here, right in front of me, all of a sudden, was this entirely different person. Someone completely other than me. She didnt just seem like half of me and half of Siri, but someone else entirely. And she is! She will grow up and be her own person, we were just the ones blessed to be her parents!

The adventure continues!

The Affair at the Chinese Busstop

As my mind was wandering today at work, i remembered back to an experience i had at a bus station in China....Beijing I believe. (As a side note, don't you just love how the word "Beijing" looks in print? All those dots above the Is and J form such a nice super-vocable elipsis of sorts...very pleasing). At any rate, my brother and I were trying to discern which bus would most delightfully take us to our intended destination (and there were so many to choose from!). Fortunately, my brother spoke Chinese (fluently, to my ears, though i he often denied it). One young girl, probably 16 or 17, we asked directions from (rather, my brother asked directions from), after ostensibly telling my brother where we would find our intended destination, proceded to attempt to engage me in conversation. Being wholly ignorant of any form of communication in Chinese, I responded with a blank stare and a deflection to my brother. My brother kindly explained that I dont speak Chinese (he said his exact translated words work out to be something like: "my brother is a dumb monkey, he doesnt understand" or something to that effect. He continues to assure me that this is just how the Chinese say "He doesn't speak your language" but I still have my doubts.) But this explanation didnt satisfy this persistent young lady, who fruitlessly attempted to continue to engage me in conversation. She eventually gestured for me to lend her my note pad, in which she wrote what my brother explained was likely her name and phone number. At that, we parted ways, and I, of no contribution of my own, ended up with some girls phone number. If you know me well, you will be firmly aware that at that time in life I was about as ignorant of talking to girls as I was of the Chinese language itself, which makes the whole experience doubly confounding. The thing that really puzzled me for some time after that was the hilariously outlandish notion that I would somehow be able to call this person on the telephone, and have a more successful conversation with her than I did at the bus station! I guess you cant blame her for trying to defy all odds, however unfortunately, she seriously picked the wrong la-whye (*aka, ignorant foreigner).

Two Things I Have Learned (with proof I am lazy)

I have learned at least two things in my life...(things that others probably already know, but i have certainly discovered them to be true!)

1. Lawns should be mowed when they are dry. Seriously. Don't water for like two days before

you mow, and it will go much, much easier. Once I mowed a wet lawn, and it clogged up like 5 times before i was done with just my back yard. Same yard when it is dry? Just have to empty the grass catcher once at the end.

2. Whenever I say that i can eat something unhealthy and use the reasoning that i will just eat healthy later, and today will just be my "splurge day", it is never like that. Ever. It just means that I will eat unhealthy today, and, probably tomorrow too if the mood strikes.

And, I think these two patently true truths I have learned have one thing in common: I am lazy. I get tired of clearing a clogged mower, and so when i learn that mowing a dry lawn is much simpler, I am more than happy to plan my mows around my watering habits. And regarding eating...there is no immediate inconvenience to eating unhealthy, so i just go for it, as often as I please. (Though i do suppose the pending obesity and coronary should suffice as a future inconvenience, somehow I am rarely deterred.)

No New Baby

Our baby was supposed to come today based on the predictions of our doctors early on in the process. Boy were they wrong. She TOtally isnt coming today. The difficulty is just in the waiting...minute by minute until *ding* we start having contractions.

So....i guess at this point we just keep waiting and waiting. I really hope i dont have to go back to work for another week. But we will see. Prayers for labor to begin are officially solicited, so feel free.

Regarding Hell

One of the things that inspired me to start writing were the thoughts that were generated by reading some books recently. I am nearly through Brian McLaren's trilogy, A New Kind of Christian. The final book is on Hell. This is something that I havent given much thought, especially considering that McLaren thought it was worth the subject of 1/3 of his trilogy.

The Problem: Doesnt it seem odd that a God who is portrayed as passionately loving humans throughout the bible also seems to send people to a place of eternal torment? Are those two things inconsistent?

The basic answers (and there may be many more): 1. God predestined some for hell so that his mercy on the saved looks really nice. 2. God's sense of justice requires that he sends all those who do not confess faith in Him to eternal conscious torment...because that is what sin deserves. 3. God will save a bunch of people, not just those who are "christians", but Hell is still for bad people. 4. God will save everyone in the end through his grace. 5. Hell doesnt really exist, people just go away when they die. 6. Jesus talked about hell to scare people...it doesnt really exist.

Those are basically the options that we are given, unless we can come up with something different. The book seems to begin suggesting a different approach...but i havent fully understood it yet. It has something to do with suggesting that the theological categories we use arent sufficient, and really arent what the bible is talking about (otherwise the bible would have been written like a theology textbook). Rather, we need to focus on what the bible focusses on, like mercy, justice, compassion, joyfulness, selflessness, kindness, healthiness and that sort of thing. Which I agree with, but, that doesnt mean that i dont quest to understand the meaning of all those passages that seem to reference Hell in the bible. It is something to figure out, anyway.

Shameful Memories

Ever have one of those embarassing moments? Ever hold on to it for the next 20 years, even though it probably didnt survive the onlookers short-term memory?

When i was really quite young, probably 9 or 10, I had one such incident. And no matter how old i get it creeps back into my awareness on occassion. We were at church camp, as we were many summers of my childhood, and i was engaging in some sort of playful games with Seth (and maybe some other friends). Seths parents saw us running around and asked, ever so sweetly and kindly, "Matthew, do you know where your parents are?" And the response heard 'round the world, er, campsite, was: "I don't know and I don't care." So definitive, so careless. As I skipped off into the dusty distance, little did I know that that twinge of "that was a little rude..." would stick with me the rest of my life.

Funny how that happens.

SPAM: a love--hate relationship

Sometimes, when checking my email, I have a love--hate relationship to my spam.

Love: I really love it when I am checking my gmail spam, and the little adwords on the sidebar are trying to sell me recipes for spam cake, spam guitars, and spam salad. It makes me giggle a little. One reason is the obvious mixup in words. But I also like the idea out there that advertisers are paying money hoping you will click on their advert for spam cake. Really? It just seems like one may be able to find a better market out there!

Hate: Well, a baffled annoyance, really. Why can gmail filter out most spam, but then deliver some crazy email written in russian to my inbox? Really? That isnt even close! Also, can span not just delete messages for online pharmacies et. al.?

second rate

Can I still grow potatoes? probably not this year. They say March or April...like when you are supposed to plant everything. But those months go by so fast. Who wouldnt want to grow potatoes. Probably red ones. I love the idea of picking something outside and eating it. How great is that. Siri made some green beans that i grew a while back...they were pretty good. These days my veggie garden promises only a few more things this year...actually just tomatoes and one lonely pumpkin amongst a gigantic pumpkin plant. Sad really...veggies are nice, they grow quickly. I guess i still have the oranges to look forward to. Winter will be great for that.

Siri bought a wonderful book for me called Landscaping With Fruit. I am so going to landscape with fruit one of these days. Actually i guess i should add that to my currently reading list.

The First Word of the Tenth Word

So, the blog title is meaningless. But at least it is a blog title, which is much more than it had a few minutes ago. Really, I just wanted somewhere to write out my thoughts. It is, i guess, a selfish endeavor to process my thinking and post it online. But its all good. I have asked Siri on numerous occasions to start a blog, but i dont really think it is something that sounds like much fun to her, so i took the reigns and am going for it.

Everything that is going on in my life right now is reading books and waiting for a baby. I have developed the potentially awful habit of writing before coffee a.m., and that is never a good thing. So, sorry if it is all unintelligible. I promise to go make coffee right now.

And in the fashion of Jon Stewart, as I leave you, here is your moment of zen:

Dance Domo, Dance!