Hey Moe!

Carved it for my wee little birthday yeasterday. Yeah, I turned thirty. And so Brandon and Wendy gave me Hulk hands because you wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

I finished Chuck Palahnuik's Survivor on this morning's adventure in public transit. It was a good book with many helpful tips for everyday living. Chill bacon in the freezer for a few minutes before cooking to avoid curling. Turn pants inside-out, run a bar of soap along the crease, and iron nromally to hold a strong crease. Really, the book's conceit of counting down pages and chapters (the first page was 289 and the last was 1) turned out to be cooler than I expected as by the time I got to page 45, the countdown turned into a real tension-builder. All in all, I'll say I was satisfied (unlike how I felt after getting halfway through Hornby's How to Be Good). Strangely though, the back cover compared the tale to Vonnegut's Mother Night (which you'll recall is one of my favs). I can see a definite connection to the kind of madcap satire of Cat's Cradle, but the comparison to Mother Night really did escape me.

And yes, three years of blogging is now completed. 1035 posts. Tons of good advice (largely unheeded). Plenty of doodles. Many irrate ladies. A couple angry fellahs. Several laughs. Two rebukes from elders. One Dooce-like meeting. And what's that I hear being chanted? *listens*

A SLOW RUMBLE PEALS FROM THE CROWD GATHERED BELOW:

ASSEMBLED MULTITUDE:
Four more years! Four more years!

GIRL (TO GRANDFATHER):
Paw-Paw? Is this the end?

GRANDFATHER (SOFTLY):
No, Dear. No. I'm afraid it will go on.

And so it will!

Sunday, I heard about Diedrich Bonhoeffer and how he was martyred resisting the Nazi regime (he took part in a conspiracy to assasinate Hitler). The focus of his mention was to describe his Christian joy and his hope for the world beyond. This didn't, however, stop me from considering why it is that nobody ever seems to challenge his role as a terrorist.

No really, God had seen fit to place him under a wicked and tyrranical government. Like he did with Paul. The same Paul who penned, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." So why is it that we honour Bonhoeffer for sin by calling him a martyr? Sure, he died for a cause; but was it a cause of righteousness?

I think part of the problem is that we tend to look upon those who incur our favour with rose-coloured glasses and actively desire to gloss over their faults (especially faults that we ourselves might be prone to—I mean, c'mon, it would be difficult to resist the opportunity to rid the world of Hitler). This runs along the line of thought that Johnny spoke of on last Wednesday when he wondered why the Palestinian resistants are terrorists but the French resistants in WWII are heroes of the cultural mythos. No really, you cheered in The Great Escape when the resistance gunned down the cafe, didn't you?

Plus, I think we make the mistake of applying our government's stance against Hitler to the individuals subject to his rule. Though one nation has the right to make war against another, the citizens of the warred-against country do not bear the privilege to rise up against their leaders. It would be as if I took the opportunity of Iraq's war against us to, ahem, actively address my difficulties with the Bush regime. This would be wrong. I would be in sin. So how is it any different in Bonhoeffer's case•I mean, in light of the Pauline exhortation to remain faithfully in subject to the governing authority that God, himself, has placed one.

Since Ellen asked, here's a post on dating and love. In fact, here's some valuable advice: next time you hear someone talk about the biblical model for courtship, blow a rasberry and then stand up, point, and say with determination and volume (volume is important here), "Liar!" You can expand upon this single word however your demeanor and the circumstance mandate, but the most important thing here is that you make it known to everyone within earshot that whoever is speaking about any model for discovering and securing a spouse as being the biblical model is speaking naught but lies. Lies. You know. Fabrication. Fiction. Fantasy. Creative truth. That's right. Lies.

The fact is that we've been over this before, but Scripture gives great liberty to the believer in the means by which one obtains that special someone with whom to enter upon a marriage covenant. If you want to adhere to a courtship methodolgy based arbitrarily on a hypothetical 18th century model, then be my guest. But don't for even the briefest moment entertain the idea that such a concept is the biblical method. 'Cuz then I'll have to think poorly of you and your sad excuse for a thought process.

Ever since I was in high school over a decade ago, I've been running into these people who wish to dictate How to Honourably and Biblically Find a Mate. Books and pamphlets bringing a host of new commands to the youthful believer. Old and wiser saints wishing to spare the young and single of their mistakes. Passion and Purity. I Kissed Dating Goodbye. So You Want to Court a Ship. How to Date the Covenant Way (Respecting a Lady's Pop in 23 Easy-to-Remember Steps). And the parade of lies went on and on.... Was there any truth to the advice offered in the self-righteous litany? Yes. There was lots. Little gems buried deep within the cavernous depths of Moria. I mean within the "biblical" dating/courtship books.

At first, I was enamoured with the idea. And who wouldn't be. A book that lays out in easy-to-digest steps exactly how God (who I long to please) wanted me to go about looking for love in all the right places? Lemme at it. I read one after another. I was always disappointed. I even tried to work out my own methodolgy (boy, was that embarrassing). The key is something that I didn't realize 'til several years later: each of these approaches was wrong for exactly the same reason—they presumed an interpretation upon Scripture. They knew what they wanted Scripture to say and so they said that Scripture did say what they knew—whether it did or not.

And truth be known, the Bible is not concerned with the method to the madness. Sure, it speaks plenty of holiness and abstaining from immorality and treating women with purity as if they were sisters and marrying only other believers and marrying to liberate one's passions from the threat of harmful influence. But never does it suggest any method for obtaining a wife or husband. Therefore, for anyone to maintain that Scripture does present a godly and approved methodology for this sort of thing is for that person to do one thing: lie.

And you know where liars go.

I saw Pirates of the Carribbean last night and thoroughly enjoyed having my swash buckled. One thing though: it got me thinking? When exactly was it that that the rape and pillagery of a community stopped being the privilege of the privateer and became solely a concession we grant to governments. I mean sure we see it on a very small scale with pro NFL teams and basketball players, but nothing so gratuitous as the glory days of Blackbeard or Morgan. Really, the private scalawag has mediated with society and now pretty much limits himself to mayhem-lite, occasional charges of battery, and sexual misconduct (I again refer the gentle reader to the NFL and NBA for these exploits). Really, it seems the only people who are anymore willing to take scourging land and sea seriously these days are full-fledged governments. This really disappoints me. I mean wheres the fun? The adventure? The rollicking good time? I mean, what if I wanna rescue some bonnie poppet from a dire fate of lashings and yard arms and keel-hauling and eye patches: I have to go up against a whole nation. And really who has time for that.

Hmm, I guess there are still privates out there willing to take a stand for personal enrichment and a general, reckless violence against society. The Lord's Resistance Army fits the bill to some degree, but danggitall—where's the glamour? Hanging out in the bush with AKs, waiting for schoolbuses to ambush is not anyway to get on any schoolgirl's fantasylist. And really, can you imagine Errol Flynn playing the rogue leader of the LRA, slaughtering men, women, and children?

Me neither.

Dilemma: If I can post stuff for three more days, it'll be three years of blogging; yet, I can't really think of anything to talk about that I haven't already talked about here or on someone else's site. I really don't wanna resort to something like a Friday Five thing or a 100 things about me post. I need something real. Something visceral. Something heartfelt.

Maybe I'll regale you with stories from my decade spent under the thumb of heroine addiction (that Wonder Woman was fine, wasn't she?)

Levens hits the mark again:

marriage requires maturity and true love at the highest level. It is an exercise in patience, virtue, love, integrity, honesty. People today do not understanding the level of commiment that is required in marriage. They let their hormones run and they decided to get married. Then, the firestorm and the tough times come. Then, they find they are truly not made for each other or too immature to be in relationship takes that kind of commiment. Then, they get divorced and hit the streets, and the man has pay a lifetime of alimony.

It's all about money in the end ;-P

24 Frames per Second almost always produces quality discussion of film and the ether-world of the cinema. Recently, they spoke intriguingly about the so-called director's cut and the ramifications these releases have on questions like: Which version is the definitive cut?

In the market-researched, dollar-driven world of modern filmmaking, the theatrical releases of films rarely reflect the absolute intentions of their directors. Constraints of time, technology and money, feedback from test screenings and focus groups, the pressures of political correctness, and the interference of tyrannical censors and megalomaniacal studios all have a bearing on the versions that finally reach our cinema screens. This raises intriguing questions about what constitutes the definitve "text" of a film. Fiction, plays, poems, and paintings exist in relatively fixed forms, rarely alterable after their first release. Films, on the other hand, seem to exist in a much more fluid and precarious state than other art forms, editable, updateable, only as good as their most recent edition, and directors seem to have discovered a power over their work and its legacy which no other artists are afforded. When the re-edited version of a film is authorised and overseen by its director - for better or worse - does it supersede or exist alongside its predecessor? Which becomes the "real" film?

Alas, the article offers no hard, fast answers to this dilema. By offering case studies forged of Blade Runner, Star Wars, E.T. the Extra Terrestrial, Apocalypse Now: Redux, Brazil, Touch of Evil, and The Fellowship of the Ring, 24fps more demonstrates that there can be no fixed answer in this regard. While Ridley Scott's hands-on approach to Blade Runnerseems entirely justifiable and it also seems clear that such is the preferable version, revamps such as those wrought by Lucas often operate as a disappointment to fans (e.g., Greedo's lousy first shot in the cantina - what the?!). Relaeses such as Criterion's Gilliam-approved version of Brazil, complete with the lamentably "happy" U.S. release (for comparison purposes), go a long way to showing why "director's cuts" are needed, but go no further in answering the question of which was the real cut in cases like: LOTR Lite! or LOTR Extendo!.

And more importantly, which version of Empire Records should I cherish more?

Ah, 1985 in all its glory. *sigh* Those were the good ol' days.

Because it's been such a long time since I last coloured a pitcher (for Mena's Christmas 2001 colouring contest), I figgered I was about due. So I took a page from Katie and Mike Mignola's wonderful short story, "The Magician and the Snake," and tried my hand at colouring it using three things: my handy Wacom tablet, my handy Photoshop 7.0, and my innate skilz. So, whaddayu think? I always get very nervous when working with colour, as black and white is a medium I spend ninety-eight percent of my time working in. But regardless, don'tchu think that colouring comic books and graphic novels for a job would just be the coolest thing this side of heaven?

The Black and White Original

My Coloured Version

p.s. The full story is part of Dark Horse's anthology, Happy Endings and was written by Mike Mignola's seven-year-old daughter, Katie (who is nominated for an Eisner Award for Best Short Story).

There is a hummingbird that has babies in my garden walk. The hummingbird gets mad whenever anyone walks by and flies around waving its spooky needlenose. Also, anytime it takes off, it let's off a jetstream of urine. Isn't nature wonderful? In any case, here's it's chidlens. You know, in case they get lost, I can post signs around the neighborhood.

Interesting article, but the author's conclusion is a curiosity. Really, the problem with the modern perspective regarding marriage is not that now homosexuals wish to form such couples and reap the benefits. No, no - the problem is that marriage has anything to do with the state at all. The entire difficulty regarding believers being up in arms over homosexual unions being made legal (and garnering the benefits that were given strictly to heterogenous couples previously) would vanish overnight if only the state would say "It's not our concern. And therefore, there are no legal benefits to being married." In truth, marriage stands as covenant between man, woman, and God. It is a religious declaration of unity reflecting and proclaiming Christ's unity with the entire body of believers. Therefore, as it is a covenant of religious (and specifically Christian) import, when unbelievers perform the same ceremony, they are merely aping the true form. They produce an counterfeit just as does the unbeliever who takes of the Lord's supper or partakes communion.

Since I very much didn't take any pictures of myself on my recent vacation (well, excepting my squirrel-atomizing feets), I thought I would reward you with one taken by another:

Okay, this one goes out to all the anal, grammar-nazis out there. I got a small amount of flak for using "in equal" in the following sentence:

Popular Bible commentators, while not near in equal to the weight of Scripture, often offer insights into the text that can open up a passage to be understood as never before.

Now does that make sense and is it proper? Or have I been taking crazy pills, again? :-D