Wow. For those of you I may have spoken to over the last few days, I apologize for anything strange I might've said. I spent the bulk of my weekend indulging in illness-induced hallucination. In fact, I spent all Friday believing I was being interrogated by Zionists. Spooky, huh? Why they wanted me I'll never know, but that's always the way with figments of the fever-addled mind, isn't it? They never seem to feel the need to explain their presence to us, no matter how extraordinary their words or actions.

Sunday evening was wonderful. Not only was I able to enjoy normal Christmas festivities, but boy was there great conversation to be had. As party events settled down, a few friends and I (and occasionally the nomadic Chris Levens) found a quiet corner and began to discuss our joy in the Gospel. We spoke with fire and exuberance of the Christian's one true hope - the Gospel! Of the Christian's one means to conquer that ever-looming shadow of flesh-bound failure - the Gospel! Of the Christian's only help to stave off that insensible dissatisfaction that plagues us all and drives us to forget that WE are seated at the right hand of God Himself - the Gospel! We spoke of human tragedy throughout history and my eyes burned: Hitler, Stalin, Khmer Rouge, and worse - the evil perpetrated by those claiming Sonship in Christ - the Spanish Inquisition, the Holy Crusades, the persecution of Arminians, and the modern evangelical hatred of the homosexual! And yet, we recognized the Hope of humanity: that Christ died so that the Father could bring him His sheep! And lo! That Gospel is insensible to the unredeemed ear! Who then does it benefit? Why the believer! The very son of God! For it is by the Gospel truth of salvation by faith alone (and not of works!) that the believer lives out his life of sanctification! I do not, ought not, and cannot discipline myself into true holiness and obedience - we've all tried and to no avail! No, it is by God's grace that He gives me the faith to set my sight upon Him! And with one's sight firmly fixed upon God, who could become dissatisfied? What conquering child of God could be lured into hate, fear, adultery whilst his heart is hidden in Christ? It is by faith that we find ourselves crucified in Him, joined in His suffering (and thereby joined in His victory!). Faith. And faith alone. Lest any should boast in anything save the grace of the Lord that bought him!

We spoke for hours and our hearts were filled to overflowing. Loathe was I to leave, but the night drew on and so we went our ways. And so we left our discussion at the joyous place we find ourselves: at the feet of the Father, at the ruling right hand of Christ, as the earthbound temple of God's own Spirit. Aye, we are truly favoured among the nations - we who are citizen's of Abraham's heavenly nation, no longer strangers or pilgrims, having found our home not in the doom of Mount Sinai but in comfort and everlasting riches of Mount Zion!!!!!!!!!!!

It was a good night.

I have realized that that my truest earthly joy is a simple one. Talking with God's people about their pleasure and liberty in the Gospel wells my heart up with the most sublime of ecstasies. I have been a believer for a looooong time, and still, nothing so thrills me the hope we have in Christ! The folly and futility of man's life under the sun is staggering - were it not for my salvation, I would necessarily despair for what hope would there be? Of what value the human condition? None and none. Thank God for Christ and God and meaning. Without meaning there could be no beauty or pleasure or glory or love or anything of any value at all. Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas.

So I went to Watch World on Monday to purchase a nice, new pocket watch for myself as a little Christmas bonus. Watch World. Uh huh. Upon entry, I was warmly greeted by the the kind employees who promptly showed me to the one pocket watch in the store. One. One watch. One. And it was ugly. Alas I left without my dream watch. And I'm going to write the storeowner suggesting he rename his establishment "Watch County." Or maybe even "Watch Villa." Or perhaps, "Watch Shantytown." Hmm, I like that.

Wow! It seems that people have begun posting on Patheon once again. And just after Poseiden was in the midst of renaming it after himself too! I think I'm gonna have to agree with Quetzalcoatl and Ishtar (I think I'm agreeing with her) that the outfits at CPK are amazing. In fact, the last time I was at the popular and ritzy pizza restaurant (wowie! was that really in October? it seems only about three weeks ago... time flies when you're a lazy butt), I recall clearly remarking to my compatriots in the dining experience, Adam and Stacey, that the girls sure did look smart in the uniform. I think it's great that attire neither revealing nor overtly sexual can get such a good response from men. Of course, along with Q, we've gotta wonder at the why and wherefore here. I seem to have heard similar sentiments expressed toward women appearing in military uniform as well (I can't claim this sentiment to be my own however, but I have heard it) and now I'm curious to know if they come from the same idea. Do men like to see women in masculine attire? Personally I can't say I'm particularly wowed by girls dressed in baggy jeans and orange t-shirts with skateboarding logos on the backs. And women in tuxedos or three piece suits don't ring my bell either. Come to think of it, I think the CPK uniforms are the only tradionally masculine outfit that I think positively affects a girl's aesthetic in my eyes. Oh yeah. And the In-N-Out girls. Can you say cute as a button?

A beautiful, orange-blossomed sky redeemed the day. Sunsets are indeed powerful.

Quote from Johnny after seeing LOTR (speaking of the cave troll): "I want to be one of those!"

Unable to properly focus on the movie as itself (being a movie) during my inital viewing of The Lord of the Rings (part one - other parts to follow), I was content to give the adaptation out of a possible — my distraction being of course bourne of those small inconsistencies and liberties necessary to any cinematic illustration of a literary work. Having now seen the grand project for a second time — not being distracted and better enabled to enjoy the film as an entity unto itself — I am quite willing to give The Lord of the Rings the full compliment of . Long has the realm of cinema lacked a suitable forray into fantasy (the previous best - and for my money, only - contender was George Lucas's Willow) and not only does this Hobbit-riddled tale provide, but it is certain to stand as the film by which all future adventures are measured. I think I only have one complaint.

Elrond, in a fit of ill-founded elocution, actually says something to the effect of "Send it back from whence it came!" From whence. From whence. I have a hard time believing that this grammatical atrocity was drawn from the pen of Tolkien himself. More like than not, such poor-skilled redundancy generated of some hack screenwriter who is likely using English as a marginal second language. Okay, okay. Well, while I know this impediment is hardly of mastadon proportion and is of that kind that those born into the English language commit almost as often as they use the word whence, it still irks me that someone who makes living from his use of the language couldn't get a thing so simple right. The proper thing for Elrond to have said would have been "Send it back whence it came!" or even better, "Send it whence it came!" Because whence means "from where," what Elrond says in the film essentially means this: "Send it back from from where it came!" A pretty dumb thing to say, no?

Hmm... I guess it's kinda sad that in a two-hour and fifty-eight-minute movie, this is what I choose to harp on.

I found this strange. Not the fact that I was browsing the music section of local Christian bookstore - though that was strange. But it was that which I found there that filled me with a deep awe (and partial confusion). What was this enigma? What brought me to such a state? Simply this: the soundtrack to one of my favorite movies of last year - O Brother Where Art Thou?

Interesting. Strange. Queer even. That secular songs of vague religious import should be sold in the Christian music section still confuses me, but I suppose a store should be able to sell what it wishes. I'm not against the store's right to make money as it wishes, but I am curious as to the motivation behind such a move. Sure the store has long sold Christian literature from the fringe of orthodoxy, but this is a new step into a direction with seemingly limitless possibility. Now that the gates are opened, a flood of secular material will surely wind its way into the store and soon, Left Behind's bookshelf neighbor will be Harry Potter, and Passion and Purity will no doubt be found next to Complete Idiot's Guide to the Kama Sutra! What a brave new world in which we dwell!

Inspired by an Uncommon Dawn, I too being one who enjoys various voices and dialects, I have decided to give back to the weblog community. Here, in a fabric woven deftly of a turgid unrealism, is the very thing you'll hear if calling my voicemail (949.494.2856).

Or order in .wav format now for the low-low price of 855 Kb.

Okay. I saw the new Spider-Man trailer and now I'm itchin' to see the movie! Why am I so intrigued by a movie that may or may not be any good? Is it because of Toby "Pleasantville" Maguire or Sam "Evil Dead" Raimi? It probably could or even should be, but it's not. It's what they show happen to Mary Jane Watson in the previews that has piqued my interest. The Green Goblin, perched a top the bridge, drops MJ to her ostensible doom in the same manner as Pete's original galpal (Gwen Stacy) met her demise! Why do I wanna see it? I wanna see if Raimi has the guts to kill off Mary Jane in the first episode of this new Spider-Man movie series. He probably won't, but here's hoping, eh?

Did you know that Brandon and The Dane share an officespace? It's true. While Brandon's desk faces the East (likely demonstrating his hope in things lying Eastward), The Dane's faces due North (seemingly pointing to the fact of his directional prowess). Both our heroes felt it would be to the average reader's benefit to experience as best as possible the working environment from which they spend so much of their existence. So without further ado: their desks. Oh yeah. Brandon's is the one on the right (demonstrating his need to feel that he is right) and his notes are made in blue (because he's sad). The Dane's is the one on the left (emphasizing his affinity for the Left Coast) and his notes are made in red (because lobsters are red).

Starflyer would probably have a much larger fan-base if reviews like this one found on Amazon got out with greater frequency. Since I've been grooving all week to the sounds of their "Leave Here a Stranger" and "Easy Come, Easy Go" (their 1994-2000 Retrospective album), I think I should give them just a little press.

Starlyer 59 is a hidden treasure! they play ultra dreamy, spacey ,atomic "in love" makeout music with occasional high distortion ... it is unique - and once you listen to it when your "in the mood" with a loved one , you will definaitly become a hardcore starflyer fan ! I recomend for the full affect the cd's "she's the queen","the Gold album",and "americana" ... the newer albums arent as good, but the three i mentioned are prime choices !

Wow! I can only assume this is some sort of homage! There is another Blogging a Dead Horse in our midst - I'm so proud! Hurrah hurrah hurrah (that was three cheers in case you were wondering). Am I mad? Heck no! Besides the fact that my copyright states that anyone can blatantly steal from my site without fear of reprisal, I really do think that Blogging a Dead Horse is such a good name that it shouldn't be hogged by a single person. In fact, I think all blogs should be renamed so!

note: special thanks to Rufus for the link! maybe as a reward he'll find a dead horse in his bed too!

Alright... I've finally gotten around to revamping and updating my links area. I've added some things and taken away some things. And now it sits in a handy li'l pop-up instead of a whole window. As a reminder... you can access my linklist by simply clicking on agents to contact. Ciao!

Oh yeah. A note to readers in more brisk climes: it was in the high 70s here today. Man, I hate Winter. Brrrr....

My Top 5 Cookies
(in no order beyond alphabetical):

1. Circus Animals
2. Ginger Snaps (the thinner, the better)
3. Milanos (Double Chocolate)
4. Nutter Butters
5. Oreos (regular of course!)

Well, because this seems to be the popular thing to do these days and I oh-so crave popularity:

Just in case any of you have forgotten — yeah right, huh? — I am an insensitive heel. To prove it? I was totally yukked out when I saw a fat girl neckin' with some guy across from me in In-N-Out. Now while it's unnerving enough to be faced directly (because of store architecture) at a decent-lookin' couple, it yukked me out to see the fat girl going to town. And when I say fat I mean fat. Oh yeah, and all you girls reading this who are offended and sad because you think you're fat? You aren't. So get over your selves already and toss that baggae in the harbor — it's not helping anyone, least of all yourself. So try as I might to avoid it, my eyes always seemed to return to the couple as they were directly in front of me. The kicker was when they would take brief breaks to devour more food. I sorta lost my appetite for a while. Isn't that shallow of me? I really s'pose that even the ugly have as much right to love as the rest of us. I guess I just don't want to see it.

New rule: no PDAs in front of me unless you request and receive my express written permission.

I love to colour! And thanks to Mena, I was given excuse to colour! Hooray for Mena! Hooray for colouring!!

Not really because I think you all need to hear more about Harry Potter, but just because I wrote it in comment on DYL and thought it too much work to allow the comment gods to destroy it upon their whim....

I think an important question to ask is "Are the things practiced in the Harry Potter books the same things the Bible speaks against?" Another valuable question is "Where do we draw the line when considering the morality of the fictional characters in our literature?"

When one actually looks at the feats and characterizations of the Harry Potter series, one will recognize a marked difference in what the series calls "witchcraft" and what real world witchcraft is. Harry's powers come not from some sort of spiritualism or sorcery, but rather solely from an innate talent that some of the characters within the series's mythology seem to possess.

By innate talent, I simply mean the sort of thing that we humans come to find we possess naturally. Like art. I was born with an innate gift as an artist. One day, without asking anyone how, I just began to create art. And as I grew and worked at it, my art became more and more what other people would consider art. Harry's magic is of the same sort. He just woke up one day (more or less) and found he could do fantastic things. Fantastic. That's a key to understanding the series. It's fantasy. And that, by definition, means that the world of the story does not have the same rules as our world - as reality.

None of the characters really do any of the sort of witchcraft as recorded in Scripture as evil. They are not calling upon any deities or spirits for their powers. In the Harry Potter world, some people are just born with the potential to do these amazing things. There is one character who does call on spirits and looks for omens, but she is roundly considered by all characters of repute to be a crackpot. There is another, the series's villain, who does great evil with his magic, but as he is the antagonist, we would expect him to do great evil. So, far from glorifying wicca, sorcery, idolatry, and other sinful forms of spirit-worship, the Harry Potter books, exist in a deitiless vacuum - not only are there no spirits to call upon, but there are no gods to worship.

Now to the second question. Where should we draw the line? Should we abstain from books whose characters sin? Well, maybe. But maybe not. Nearly the entire cast of nearly every piece of worthwhile literature is either godless or pagan. Therefore, their every action, whether one we like or no is fraught with sin. Their best deed is a mere counterfeit of true righteousness and so, the more sinful for it. So simply having sinful characters probably isn't the proper reason to exclude a book from one's reading list.

But then, what if a character actually and blatantly sins in the book? Should we discount the book then? If so, we would have to renounce Huckleberry Finn (since Huck and Jim are fugitives), Crime and Punishment (since Raskolnikov is a killer), Heart of Darkness (because the so-believed paragon of virtue, Kurtz, is gone mad with his own corruption), Of Mice and Men (since George euthanizes Lenny rather than allow him to face the justice of man), and hundreds and thousands of others. I, at least, am not yet prepared to accept that.

And what of the Bible? It's depictions can be lurid, gratuitous, sensual, and sorcerous. And those are the good guys. No, there is a line that we shouldn't cross, but I think we ought to choose that line for ourselves and allow others to do the same. Encourage your brother in the love of Christ, but do not weigh him down in legalism as would the Pharisees and Judaizers of old.

As for Harry Potter? Abstain if you wish. But allow your brother his Christian liberty to enjoy a pleasant fiction that is powerless against the love and joy of the Gospel of Christ.

On Sundays, John and Mike and I have been visiting a local Presbyterian church that happens to meet in a Seventh Day Adventist building (of course they're not using it on Sundays). Now I'm not certain if iconography is something familiar in the denomination as a whole or merely limited to the particular congregation of whose building we make use. In any case, the building of this congregation is filled with the stuff — no statuary, but lotsa paintings of Jesus sitting with the family around the fire and some paradisical scenes vaguely reminiscent of that mid-eighties, Kingdom Hallesque kind that adorned so many Jehovah's Witness tracts in my Junior High and High School days. And the capstone of this iconophilia: a ten-panneled stained-glass window standing just behind the pulpit. This will be my subject of discussion today, for it took us a few Sundays to figure out just what was occuring in the picture.



Presented here is the entirety of the window. Now keep in mind, as important to our interpretation today, the time period in which this particular church was built: due to architectural concerns and schemes of interior decor, we likely gauged it to be of mid-Eighties in construction. And now, to our analysis!

The pane tells a chronlogical story. From bottom to top: the story of the American 20th Century. Panes 1 and 2 are indicative of the early years of the 20th Century and portray a time when America laboured under both religious and social fundamentalism. We have in Pane 1 the out-moded concept of the two-tabled Law demonstrating both the rigorous moral überlegalism in American religiosity and the strict social liturgy that ruled tyrannically over the hearts and minds of the everday Joe. In Pane 2 we consider the burning fire that pictures either sacrifice (perhaps that kind of sacrifice of mind and soul spoken of in later years in plays like "Inherit the Wind") or outdoor barbeques. Both interpretations are equally frightening and serve to set stage for the glorious imageplay to follow.

Panes 4 and 6 were integral to coming upon our understand. Just who was this hippie clothed in white? And what was he doing washing this other man's feet? And then the revelation dawned upon us! It was Ken Kesey! And therefore, the man in blue could be none other than Jack Kerouac himself! What a beautiful picture: Ken Kesey, learning at the feet of his master — for was it not this same Kerouac who sired the Beat movement that began to lead America's lost sheep from out of its fundamentalist slumber? When Imperial Admiral Yamamoto claimed that Japan's attack on Pearl Habour had awakened a sleeping giant, he had not realized that America would not truly begin to awake for another 16 years.

So yes, Ken Kesey, father of the Hippie movement, sat and served under Jack Kerouac — and no doubt, in this heightened apocalyptic form, learned everything for which he would later stand. And obviously, those who watch on in Pane 6 must be the Merry Pranksters.

Then, in Panes 3 and 5, we see Kesey alone — the figure of revolution, the embodiment of change — looking forward to the hope that would soon come. Note the abnormally large feet and legs detailed in Pane 3; this well represents his position as the foundation for that which would come. But to what hope can he look? What fulfillment of his Hippie dream?

Pane 8 serves to solidify the balance of the Kerouac/Kesey alliance of ideals by placing Kerouac's On the Road side by side with what can only be one of Kesey's wacky dream pipes, both in full view of Kesey's vision of the future from Panes 3 and 5. Now it's Pane 7 that causes our interpreters some small degree of confusion. The dove. A symbol of peace brought out in the Beat/Hippie alliance? That seemed too weak a statement for a window bearing such scope as we were presently witnessing. Poultry products? True, chicken has always been at the center of revolution, but this seemed to speak of other things. Perhaps, it indicated the Jesus movement that spawned out of the Hippie generations as exemplified by the large and sometimes gratuitous Calvary Chapel movement (its ensign was that of a dove). Perhaps. But then these futurific visions are never seen clearly until much time has passed.

Now: the money shot. Panes 9 and 10. The fruitition of Kerouac and Kesey. Born in reaction against the stifiling fundamentals of American social religion and tempered by the drug-induced abandon of the Sixties and then bolstered by Seventies moral enlightenment, we arrive at the culmination of the 20th Century: the Yuppie Hope. This is the Eighties. The Cosby Decade. This is the Golden Era of Kenny G and white zinfindel. Pane 9 clearly shows long-haired men in feminine attire playing soprano saxophones (and if that doesn't say Kenny G and Luther Vandross, I don't know what does). Next we see in Pane 10 a crown, a sceptre, and a harp. But whose crown? At this point I think it beneficial to look at the over-arching scheme of Panes 9 and 10: the rainbow. For what other purpose could this exist but to point to the truest fulfillment of the Yuppie Hope — open and accepted homosexuality. Therefore, the crown is for the disco "queens" who rule (hence, the sceptre) the later 20th Century through the liberal and gay-friendly media. The harp can only mean Yanni, Enya, and other gay music. Oh yeah... and all the grapes point to white zin.

And now you know why I'm not a Seventh Day Adventist. Let the iconoclasm begin.

PS: Credit where credit due - Johnny T bears equal credit for the interpretation of these great signs as we worked diligently together to realize this dream (and I can't remember if Mike should get credit too, but if he should, I hereby grant him piles of kudos).

The Art Test
I'm equal parts The Scream and Birth of Venus. I don't know what that says about me, but...

If I were a work of art, I would be Sandro Botticelli's Birth of Venus. I am a beautiful and alluring composition, not afraid to show off a good deal of bare flesh. People surround me and gaze at me with the adulation due a goddess and friendly breezes gently push me along my path in life.

• OR •

If I were a work of art, I would be Edvard Münch's The Scream. I express the subconscious troubles and anxieties of the world. I hold my head and let loose the primal terror of my innermost fears, surrounded by a lurid landscape which reflects my feeble grasp on reality.

Heh. Somebody's a dirty li'l copycat and can't use php.

My Top 5 Hymns
(in no order beyond alphabetical):

1. Alleluia! Sing to Jesus
2. Be Thou My Vision
3. The Church's One Foundation
4. Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing
5. O Come, O Come, Emmanuel