Yep. You guessed it. Doom is nigh!

For those interested (Wyclif), I've made the below Bible Cover available for download in .eps format. You can burn this to a CD and take it to your local printer if you wish. Careful though, the file is 4 MB in file size.

I didn't like the ESV book jacket so I like to make my own. Here is my current bible cover.

The Hahne Boys, ready for Space War! Check! (and yes, you are all quite doomed!)

At church on Sunday, we sang "I Stand in Shock and Awe of You" - always a crowd pleaser.

Okay, next. Some liberals trying to find some reason beyond the obvious (and loving a good conspiracy as much as their queer conservative compatriots), have surmised that the only reason we are in Iraq is for oil. Excuse me, what?

If our track record has proven anything, it's that we are woefully shy of being in it for the oil. Let's look back to 1991 for a little perspective. I'll set the stage. It's late winter. Hot. Sandy. Iraq has been spanked severly. There are surrendering soldiers to the left, right, and center of us. Ice Cube and George Clooney are looking for gold. Oil fields are aflame. And the big, bad army of America pulls out of the country. Celebration ensues and guess what is entirely neglected. Here's a hint. It's three letters long and starts with "oil."

That's right kiddies. The same accusations were leveled against Senior twelve years ago. And proved to be mere conspiratorial speculation then. And I see no reason to believe that those same speculations have chubbed up on a high-carb-and-lotsa-Must-See-TV-diet. We defeated Iraq and took no notable spoils of war. Unless I'm mistaken ("No, not you! Never you!" you say), we even helped put out their oil fires for them. And let them keep them.

Last I czeched, not taking oil is not the best way to get more oil. Heck, we didn't even give Iraqi wells over to Kuwait (who would have loved us eternally for it).

Okay, point the next. Iraq is building weapons of large-scale mayhem. And? This is a reason for war? Oh, yeah. And they don't like us. Okay, neat.

But honestly, we have weapons of mass destruction as well (and are continuing to build them) and have certainly proven beyond doubt that we are willing to be massively destructive (even a simple grasp on American history in the 20th Century alone will demonstrate this beyond doubt). And we don't like these uppity Arab nations. According to some opinions then, we should rightfully expect a just attack against us for these conditions are now sufficient for a "just" war.

Don't mistake me. If a country doesn't like us, is outfitting an army for deployment, and possesses unveiled plans to assault our nation and therefore infringe upon its sovereignty, then we have every right to open up a can of Shaka Bra on their sorry tails. But that's not what I'm talking about here.

Far too often, the rhetoric portrays the argument as one of motive and means, but one sorely lacking in action. Pre-emptive strike is only valid so long the threat of action moves from perceived to actual. An example. Being mobile and of fairly good level of intelligence, I have the means to steal a lot of money. I, being enslaved to both past debt and future bills, have plenty of motive. According to the argument, as presented, I should be arrested and punished to the fullest extent of the law despite the fact that I do not plan to steal this money. Now would that be very nice?

The fact is this: who cares if Iraq has both means and motive if they don't plan on acting on those. France has both means and motive, yet we haven't launch assault against them. Should we? Again, I'm fine with pre-emptive strike if all three contingents are met, but if you're willing to act on a mere two of those, then you suck. And you don't wanna suck do you?

Now for like treatment of an equally asinine statement common to many of the liberal protestors we've all seen in news photos and on rally coverage. How George Double-U came to be known as a 21st Century Hitler is beyond me, but do liberals realize the travesty of true horror they are making by the comparison. Sure, all good clean fun to put a little under-nose 'stache on the president or replace the S in his last name with , but to honestly believe that Bush is the modern equivalent (or even on his way there) of Hitler or Stalin lessens the villainy of those two by leaps and bounds.

Pity the Jews who have lost family to the Nazi genocide. Pity Americans who lost sons to the Nazi war machine. Pity these for these lives weren't lost in a megalomaniac's scheme to rule the world. Hitler was no genocidal maniac. All those Jews probably died accidentally. Hitler was just the leader of a nation like any other. Sure, he goes to war occasionally, but who doesn't really?

I know the intent is to vilify the president through ad hominem attack, but the really success of the ploy is to put a diet on the weight totalitarian evil. Bush is a lightweight compared to Hitler, Stalin, Tse Tung, et cetera. He's really no better nor worse than your average leader of a nations out there. I know it. You know it. And really, they know it. Unfortunately, protest and picketing, while an animal of principle and goal, is more a beast of emotionalism and rhetoric.

Okay, since the liberal perspective is too easy a target (whom am I kidding? it's no easier than the conservative's), I'll speak to one argument of the conservatives. Reasons I've heard stated for our involvement in Iraq range from acceptable-given-certain-premises to asinine. One of the most asinine is this: in ending the dictatorship of the despotic Hussein, we're bringing liberty and democracy to the people of Iraq.

My question is twofold. Why do we believe it our responsibility to provide a particular political ideology for another nation? And corollary to that, shouldn't Iraq (and so, every other nation—and of course the dastardly U.N.) then necessarily (and righteously) believe it their moral responsibility to replace our government with one that matches their ideology?

Here again, I betray my preference for an international policy of military isolationism. In my mind, there is only one adequate reason for the use of a federally sponsored military endeavor—the protection of the national welfare. Anything that doesn't serve the direct interest or security of the nation is something in which we ought not involve ourselves. That women in Iraq suffer under a concrete ceiling sucks. That religious tolerance is a sound unheard is just rotten. That the people of Iraq don't have the liberty to do and think as they see best is tragic. But I fail to see how that is our business.

You know why we have a border? Because that tells us where our power and authority begins and ends. Anyone who is within our national borders is subject to our authority. Anyone outside our borders is without a doubt under the authority of someone else. Not ours. Someone else's. If we want to give someone the taste of life as it is within our borders, something has to move: either that someone or our borders.

I support two kinds of military actions on the part of our country: those that protect the nation and those that expand the nation to the nation's benefit. Defense and imperialism. Everything in between is just trouble. WWII? This was one we should have involved ourselves in 1) because Japan attacked us and posed a massive threat to our nation and 2) Hitler's empire was swallowing nations whole and would very likely turn its attention to our nation. Vietnam? Waste of time, money, and most tragically, lives. Desert Storm? Nope. Not somewhere we shoulda been. Bosnia? Nope. Support of Israel vs. Palestine? Uh-uh. Gulf War II? Perhaps, but I'll get into this in another post.

Okay, so since I haven't yet written anything about this here war (either since it began or in the year leading up to it), I figger now'd be as good a time as any to start. As always, I have an opinion. But neither being hawk (rabid and insatiable in my conquering thirst) nor dove (mindless and self-righteous in my need to live and let live), I've feared my thought might lack the necessary sensationalism that wartime readers so diligently nurse upon. The fact of the matter is that both liberals and conservatives who have lent their unequivocal support to one side or another are acting the parts of morons. They might not be morons in real life, but they sure deserve Oscars for Most Believable Performance.

And yes. I am a shining beacon of reasonable thought in the midst of a storm of mindless emotionalism. And as such, the next string of posts will deal with problems inherent in much of the mainstream view of Things As They Are.

Doom from on high. Hi.

(yes, I'm busy)

Doom. Revisited.

(so there!)

Because it was 1:oo in the morning and I was bored...

Sadly, the before picture doesn't do the best job showing off the mane. I'll try to find something more suitable.

Rather than change the name of something trivial and mildly likeable (e.g., French fries) in our quest to alienate France, I think we should rename dastardly things to reflect our displeasure. Some examples:

• Gluttony = Delicate French appetite
• Criminal negligence = French memory
• An awful date = an evening of French
• Cowardice = French bravery
• Criminal tax evasion = French thrift
• Rape = French chivalry
• Murder = C'est la vie!
• The ghetto = France
• Hateful intolerance = the French way of life

Pretty grand idea, no?

Over the past two days I read, in its entirety, Steve Martin's shopgirl. At 130 pages, it wasn't that difficult to do. I was pleasantly surprised. To be sure, there wasn't any great depth of idea to the tale, but I don't require that from my fiction. I'm no story-snob. There were occasional spots that seemed like halting fumbles for words that wouldn't come, but on the whole Martin surprised me with his ability as a writer. The tale he crafts works itself out as an almost Austenian romance of comedy and manners—but decidely darker as he reveals more accurately the disturbing psychosis inherent to the human frame. I actually think that it's this omniscient adherence to the skewed thought lives of his four principles that keeps Martin from straying into the land of bodice-rippin' potboilers. I was initially surprised by Martin's blantant and frequent use of vulgarities, but as they did seem to fit well within the LaLaLanded milieu he crafts, I soon relegated them to be necessary parts to a story of the darkness of human nature and the queer exhaustion of love.

I'm that kind of sick right now that makes every thought pass through a thick broth of enflamed weariness before it comes to any form expressible by human ability. I'm doing editing right now and the work is slow going. I wish I had some graphic stuff on my plate as that's far more mindless and I wouldn't be staring at the same paragraph for hours on end while wondering what a prepostion is. But I don't.

So has everyone else noticed that I tend to post more pictures and doodles when I'm too busy to post anything of substance?

The Dynamic Sanctifunktified Duo:

[p.s. chest hair drawn in honour of Kelle]

God's way?! Does this mean God is a woman? What a coup for feminist theologians.

[p.s. thank Brandon for the link]

In honor of a tea culpa co-worker, a Friday morning doodle:

Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! No, it's a plane! No, it's... it's... oh. It's the sky a couple nights ago.

It's always weird to answer questions about masturbation. Well, I guess it's weirder that people ask. I s'pose it's easier to ask someone on a website a world away about something like that than to ask your local elders. Today at work, I got and email from someone from India and she was asking about... eh, nevermind.

As I showered this morning, my thoughts, as per usual, meandered down numerous paths. As I stood sleepily under the hot bath of steam and water, I came to a certain though. This is it.

Isn't it a promotion of rebellion against the Third Commandment to support the government placing "In God we trust" on our currency? The suggestion implied in those words is that Americans (who we will all recognize are not those who bear the name of Christ) trust in God. Yeah, if legalized abortion, the Clinton presidency, gay pride, evolutionary education, and false religion are part and parcel to the American identity (which they are), then I can hardly see how suggesting that Americans "trust" God is not treating God carelessly.

Taking God for granted is to treat His name vainly. I, for one, am not a huge fan of endorsing something that would promote the blaspheme of God's holy name. And the fact that so many Christians get quite fired up over the misuse of God's name in cinema leads me to believe that they should be with me on this one. So I don't wanna hear any whining when a measure comes up to take "God" off the coinage.

Here are the levels of humour to the best of my evaluation (and note that humour often crosses over one ore more boundaries depending upon its context).

Level Zed: The Pun.
This is the cheapest form of humour. Anyone can do it. Some puns are admittedly more difficult and sophisticated than others. I laugh at puns sometimes, but as they are really a dime a dozen, the pun should be used sparingly for greatest effect. The sub-hierarchy of puns is as follows: low pun, innuendo, cultural pun, parody, and juxtaposition (with low pun being the lowest of the lowest form of humour). P.S. knock-knock jokes are disguised puns—this is why they're not so funny.

Level One: Humour of the Taboo
This is the humourous result inherent to any mention of taboo activities (esp. biological functions). A good, loud fart is intrinsically funny because of the manner in which American society views such things. Comments about urination, defecation, ejaculation, masturbation, and all sorts of other ations will always get a chuckle from the common man. Often times, even those of high-bred tastes and refinements (when it comes to senses of the humourous) will be chuckling on the inside—despite a disapproving demeanor. There are two kinds of taboo humour: taboo and dirty (where taboo sticks to the simplicities of bodily function, dirty generally refers to sexual humour and adds a moral dimension to the jocularity).

Level Two: Physical Humour
Physical humour takes two forms. One can either be funny by action or funny by physical appearance. People with a strange or even slightly off look about them are often funnier because of it. Owen Wilson's nose is a good example of this. While not uncanny enough to stray into the realm of horrifying, it certainly is kinda silly. Terry Gilliam excels in using this branch of the physicality humours to create strange and delightful characters in his movies (Time Bandits and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen are two examples of this).

Comedy of action is the staple of Vaudevillian humour and so was integral to older shows such as The Little Rascals and The Three Stooges. Physical comedy is enduring and finds its release in every generation. Mr. Bean and America's Funniest Home Videos both relied heavily upon physical humour.

Level Three: Straight Humour
Straight humour is just your run of the mill stuff. Blond jokes. Pollack jokes. Catholic jokes. Space shuttle jokes. Clinton jokes. Pee Wee Herman jokes. These are funny and everyone laughs, but they ultimately have little lasting value. I mean, really, is "No no, I meant Bud Light!!" still a funny Christa McAuliffe punchline? Is there really any memorable worth from ANY "Why did the chicken cross the road?" joke? These are momentarily funny. They serve their purpose and lift our spirits momentarily (as is their intent).

Level Four: Satire
Satire is not to be confused with parody, though parody often masquerades as satire. To be sure, the two are similar. Satire has an edge. Satire has bite. And satire cause one to consider the motive beyond simple laughs. Satire is the thinking man's... hmm, you know what? Forget it. Making a great distinction between parody and satire is just intellectual snobbery (and we all know that snobbery sucks). So I'm revising my list: Pun (0), Taboo (1), Physical (2), Satire/Parody (3), Straight (4). Satire is and pretty much everybody gets it (and it has the added bonus of making people think they're smart for "getting it"). Saturday Night Live, Simpsons and Rich all emply this type of humour. And it mostly works and makes us laugh.

Also note that sarcasm is a form of satire. This is much harder to pull off properly because it both is caustic (which angers people) and maintains some degree of ambiguity. Almost everyone tries sarcasm, but the vast majority of people fail, not understanding the subtleties of communication required for the task. This ends up frustrating both the sarcast and his audience for he believes that everybody should have "got" the joke and his audience just thinks he's mean.

Level Five: Esoteric Humour
This is that kind of humour that not everybody gets. It's different. It's strange. And it's really some of the funniest stuff out there. We can divide esoteric humour thusly: dry humour, dark humour, quirky humour, and properly esoteric humour. Dry humour is frequently described as being "British" humour. Though shows like Monty Python's Flying Circus are steeped in this brand, dry humour truly does cross cultural boundaries and finds expression worldwide. Dark humour would be depressing if it weren't so funny. Typically cynical and often revolving about death and inevitibility, dark humour finds the lighter side of issues typically seen as sombering (Jeunet and Caro's Delicatessan is a fabulous example of this). Quirky humour and properly esoteric humour are the most similar—although quirky humour is definitely more accessisible to the masses, it is still beyond the grasp of a large number. The Royal Tennenbaums is steeped in quirky humour. Esoteric is the stuff that is truly difficult for the masses to "get" but remains endlessly funny for those who do. Brazil and City of Lost Children are both fraught with esoteric humour (and not a little dark humour to boot). I also believe that "Confuse a Cat" could justifiably be considered esoteric and not just quirky.

Level Six: Ontological Humour
Well, I've already mentioned what this is.

I am in the midst of working out a theory that will define the elusive "sixth level" of humour. I speculate that there is such a thing as ontological humour. I further speculate that I have it. Basically, it works out like this: I am. Therefore I am funny. I think Johnny is another master of this level of humour.

I haven't figured out if pun humour is at level one or level zed yet.

Because I know you ALL are dying to see how it's change in the last year and a bit: my desk (interactive with point and click tecnology!)