It is interesting to note, that until 1948, "traditional marriage" in California excluded interracial marriage. Until then, it was generally accepted in much of American culture that God didn't approve of mixing races.

The California courts defined marriage as being "between a man and a woman" in 1977. Until then, it was thought to be natural that no one but people of opposite sexes would seek marriage; no need to write it down.

I understand that people have religious traditions regarding marriage, but once again, why try to impose those moral beliefs onto others by writing them into law? What is gained by forcing others to comply with your ethical standards, even when they don't believe in them?

In my opinion, the fear of legalizing gay marriage stems back to confusion about whether God will judge people as individuals, or as a society. Most modern-day Christians believe that God judges each person individually, but they are not quite sure. They still fear that there is a "point of no return," and that if a society deems homosexuality acceptable, then God will turn his back on the entire nation, or worse, destroy it.

The hardest part of fighting for what God wants is that no one really knows what that is.

I've mistaken an absence that I've been feeling in my life lately, what I'd previously designated a Lack of Passion, for what is really a Lack of Unhealthy Desparation. For the past year or so, I haven't had the same drive to do things that I once did. I've been worried that this was complacence, or laziness, or indifference, or the beginnings of depression -- but there is no negative emotion present as there would be in each of these scenarios. I've found that the things that are really missing, the gaps that I have been feeling, are a lack of guilt, desperation, restlessness, and fear.

Being comfortable with myself, accepting of myself, and content with my present situation in life are all very new things to me -- so foreign that I almost rejected them just because they are different.

I am happy to realize that my passions for life, art, and mental transformation are not gone -- they are just pure now; they are absent of a primal need to pursue them or face the consequences; they are absent of a fear of failure and hell.

What I am feeling, I think, is peace. It's a crazy thing to feel for the first time.

I bought a loaf of bread at the store a couple of days ago, and on the shelf next to it there was a coupon for a free head of lettuce if I bought the bread.  I'm more of a spinach man myself, but I thought, yeah, I'll have one of those.  Hey, free lettuce.  But being the leafy vegetable simpleton that I am, I picked up a head of cabbage instead.  They still gave it to me for free (we, the lettuce-naive, are many in number), but dude, I hate cabbage.  The only thing cabbage is good for is corned-beef-and-cabbage, which I hate (because of the cabbage), cabbage water (which isn't real), and egg rolls.

So yesterday I was at the store again, and I got the bright idea to buy some little wanton-dough-sheet thingies so that I could make some tasty eggrolls -- thus making the cabbage tasty by osmosis.  It actually worked quite well.  We stir-fried garlic, onion, mushrooms, and tofu in olive and vegetable oil, then added a mixture of shredded squash, carrots, and the cabbage before plopping the mixture in the belly of a wonton roll and frying it all up.

The result?  Delish.  But by the hammer of Thor, those things were HEAVY.  I mean, I ate two of them and that was like my whole dinner.  I'm not sure if Meagan finished one of them.  What's the deal?  Was it the olive oil?  Was it the fact that I sauteed too many of the ingredients in the oil (we even sauteed the vegetable mixture for about a minute)?  Global warming? Somebody help me out here.

Oh, and I thought about taking a picture of one of our greasy, two-day-old eggrolls and posting it, but then I remembered that Laurence Fishburne played Cowboy Curtis, and that's way better.

I heard an interview on NPR this morning with the authors of a new book called "Not On Our Watch," a book about the crisis in Darfur and the hundreds of thousands of people who are being killed.

I can't even conceive of hundreds of thousands of people being killed.  It makes me so sad...and helpless because being here in the U.S. I feel so far removed from the situation.  A couple of thousand people dying on the other side of the country in 2001 is as close as I can relate.  It's crazy.

It moved me to take at least a little bit of action, do what I can, I guess.  I signed an online petition to try to get the US government to make helping these people a higher priority, and I'm posting this blog; I guess that's a start.  Here are some links to click if you have the time...

Learn about what's happening in Darfur
Sign a petition to get more aid to the now homeless (over a million)
Listen to the NPR Interview and read an excerpt from the new book

From the interview:

"If U.S. citizens can make enough noise to press their government to do what's right, then we will have saved literally tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives in Darfur," Prendergast says.

Mucholove...-m@

[part 1]  [part 2]

So now let's tackle the word that I think causes the MOST confusion when it comes to this hot topic:  the Greek word "Gehenna."
In the King James Version of the Bible, the ancient Greek words "Hades" and "Gehenna" are both translated as 'Hell' about 10 times each.  I already mentioned that translating 'Hades' into 'Hell' is a little weird because Hades was not thought of as a place of "eternal punishment" and supposedly all humans -- bad and good -- went there when they died.  I think that 'Gehenna' is actually weirder though.  Why?  Because it was an actual place (see picture above).  It is an actual place.  By ''actual place," I mean a place that you can physically go to now, in this life.  You can go right now if you want, the place is still there -- south of ancient Jerusalem.



The Greek word 'Gehenna' is really just a borrowed word from Hebrew.  It comes from the words  "gay'," meaning "valley", and "Hinnom," meaning "lamentation."  This "Valley of Lamentation" was a literally a garbage dump south of the city that the Jews threw all variety of unwanted things into.  It was THE garbage dump, and not just a dump, but an incinerator as well.  The fires in the Valley of Hinnom were constantly kept burning; sulfur was added to them to achieve this.

About the burning of the Hebrews' "garbage":  Ancient Jews took their laws very seriously (they were given to them by God after all), and the worst criminals were stripped of all of their rights -- even the right to an honorable death and burial.  These "sinners" were instead treated just like the rest of the city's garbage; they were cast into the Valley of Hinnom to burn.

Any of this sounding familiar?  Fires that never go out?  Fires kept burning with brimstone (sulfur)?  A fiery place where sinners are "cast" when they die?

Yeah, that was Gehenna, and every Jew living at the time of Jesus knew what it meant when Jesus spoke about it: utter disgrace.  To be cast into Gehenna was probably the greatest fear of most Jews.  It meant that all your honor was gone, your family's honor was gone, and all memory of you was marked with shame.  It was a punishment that would linger even after you died.

But Gehenna was not a place of eternal, conscious torment.  Yes, the fires were "eternal."  Yes, the damned, the condemned, those who were judged as sinners, were thrown there.  But from the texts that we have, both in the Bible and from other documents of the same time period, there is nothing that even remotely points to a belief of ancient Jews and Greeks that they would be in physical pain forever.

So the next question is, if the Bible doesn't speak of a place like the "Hell" that we are so familiar with today, where did that concept come from? 

Tune in next time...

[to be continued]

According to the WBC (Westboro Baptist Church), God's latest way of punishing the United States for tolerating homosexuals is by killing the students at Virginia Tech.  Those students are now in Hell.  Members of the church plan to protest at the funerals of these students, making sure that all who attend know why they died.

From the Church's Press Release:  "God is
punishing America for her sodomite sins. The 33 massacred at Virginia
Tech died for America's sins against WBC (Westboro Baptist Church).
Just as U.S. soldiers dying in Iraq each day for America's sins against
WBC."

see the article in the Denver Post

(view Part 1 here)

It became clear to me then, that the concept of Hell was not a simple concept at all.  Apart from all the tough philosophical concepts to grasp (or not grasp) regarding a place of eternal torment, the actual written words referring to the place were confusing as well.

I knew by that time in my life that the Bible was not written in the English language, so it made me wonder:  what was the word for Hell in the original language that it was written?  And what was it about this word that would permit it to be translated as either Hell or Hades or Death interchangeably?  Who would possibly allow such an important concept to be translated in an ambiguous way??  This is my eternal soul we're talking about here, I want to know what's up!

The answers did come, but not for a while, and not until I had spent a decent amount of time studying Ancient Greek in college.  And it is far from anything that I expected.  And, yes, it has monolithic consequences to one's viewpoint on morality and on modern-day Christianity in general -- at least it did for me.  So here's the deal (you may want to get a beverage...).

When the Bible was written, there was no "Hell".  Nothing like the Hell that myself and most Christian's today spend much of their lives trying to avoid anyway.  In the ancient languages, there is no word for "Hell" -- that's why any attempt at translating a word into the word Hell is difficult, controversial, and results in major differences between English translations.

In reality, there are four different ancient words in the Bible translated into English at various times as "Hell."  Three of those words are ancient Greek words, used in the various writings in the New Testament, and one is a Hebrew word, used in the "Old Testament."  The three Greek words are "Gehenna," "Hades," and "Tartarus," and the Hebrew word is "Sheol."

It is interesting that the only word of these four that really resembles the concept of Hell as it is commonly imagined today is Tartarus.  Tartarus, like Hades, is a concept from Greek mythology.  It is a place, supposedly below Hades, where the worst of the worst mortal "sinners" (against the Greek gods) and other immortals who were enemies of the gods would be sent for eternal punishment.

This sounds very much like the Hell that we are used to hearing about today.  The only problem is that this word is only in the Bible one time (2 Pet 2:4), and in this instance it is used to refer to a place that God sends his fallen angels to to wait for judgment day: the worst waiting room ever.  2 Peter mentions nothing about humans being sent there, and the angels who are sent there are not condemned there for eternity.

I find some significance in the fact there IS a greek word somewhat akin to our modern-day concept of Hell, and yet it is not used in the Bible to describe a punishment for human sin.  Instead, the words Gehenna and Hades are used; words whose meanings are very different from each other, and very different from the "Hell" that I was taught to believe in.

[to be continued]

I have recently been following the controversial ministry of the Westboro Baptist Church.  Their less-than-subtle stance on what the Christian Bible says about Hell and who is going there has led me to revisit a study on the topic that I did long ago -- one that eventually led me to an interest in Religious studies and my decision to major in the subject in college.  I had almost forgotten for a while how much this subject deeply affects people's lives, especially fundamentalist Christians.  It sure affected me.  As I go back through what I have learned about the subject, I thought I would post about it formally here -- maybe you'll see something you didn't think about before, or post a comment to help me think about something that I haven't.  It's going to be pretty long though, so I'm writing it in parts.

By the way, if you have some time there is a pretty intense documentary on the Westboro Baptist Church from BBC2 on YouTube right now (it is in 7 parts).

Part One:  A Little Background...
One of the major reasons that I went to school to study Religion, and
Christianity in particular, is because of a realization that I had
during my mid-teenage years.  Longing to be a devout Christian, I spent
a lot of time reading and contemplating various books in the Bible --
mostly the New Testament "Gospel" books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John.  As most Christians probably do when they spend a lot of time
studying a particular part of the Bible, I began to notice differences
between the various English translations.  Many of these differences
seemed trivial, but every once in a while I would come across a
difference that I thought was pretty significant.


Take verses that talk about Hell for example.  Such a huge part of
Christianity for many people, as indeed it was for me while growing up,
is the belief that there are two possible places of abode after death;
a place of eternal happiness, called Heaven, and a place of eternal
suffering, called Hell.  My actions in this life, or at least my faith
in God and Jesus, will determine where I will spend eternity after I
die.  Because of the severity of the consequences in this matter,
naturally I thought that getting a very grounded and circumspect
understanding of the Bible verses that talked about Hell was of extreme
importance.

So you can imagine my surprise when, after taking a verse that talked
about Hell, say, Matthew 16:18 for instance, and looking it up in
different versions of the Bible, I found that not every version
translated the word "Hell" as "Hell." 
       "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it." - King James Version

This verse conveyed a comforting thought for a Christian like me; that
members of Jesus' church are safe from eternal punishment.  I noticed
right away, though, that while several versions of the Bible like the
NKJ and the NIV use the word 'Hell' here, several other versions use
the word "Hades."  Hades?  Isn't that a somewhat different concept then
the concept of Hell?  Hades isn't a 'Christian' word or even a Hebrew
word for that matter.  It's from Greek mythology, referring either to
the god of the underworld or his dominion, where according to the
Greeks, everyone went when they died.  Isn't there a pretty important
difference between the church defending against eternal punishment and
the church defending against, well, physical death in general?  Then I
look at the Revised Standard Version of the Bible which says, "...and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."  Interesting.

Are death and Hell the same thing then?  And what is Jesus, a
Yahweh-fearing Jew, even acknowledging a Greek god for?  Aren't good
Christians supposed to reject all concepts of multiple gods or other
extra-biblical mythological traditions?

You can see where this began to get confusing for me.  But this was only the beginning...
[to be continued...]

Humans are somewhere in the middle really.  It seems obvious to me that there are things in the cosmos both "greater" and "lesser" than I am -- in size, complexity, mental capacity...all that stuff.  And even within my own body, there are multiple "beings."  I am not my breath; I am not my heartbeat.  There are millions of processes within my body happening every second that I know nothing about.  Still, I have a certain amount of control, a certain realm of dominion.  And with that dominion -- responsibility.

Yeah, on occasion I've tried to move things with my mind.  I'll admit it.  You have too, admit it.  Funny thing is, I can.  My hand, for instance.  I just think it...and it moves.  Sometimes I think we get so caught up seeking greater power that we forget about the power we already have.  Being able to control my hand may seem trivial to me at times...but it's not!  Think of those poor ants who work all day carrying one grain of sand at a time.  I bet they wish they had my hand.  That would make their job nice and cosy, wouldn't it?  They'd be done in a second and have the rest of the day to...oh, I don't know, make tasty ant microbrews or something.  And then drink them.

POINT IS, my realm of responsibility is significant.  There are certain things that I can control, and certain things that I can't.  When I think about the things that "I" have been given control of, it seems to me that most of them have to do with the interaction between my body and the outside world.  I control what I eat, what I look at, what I say, where I go.  I'm like an ambassador between the inside world of my body and the outside world of...the world.

And if I want to excel at the responsibilities that I have been given, well then, I should take care of myself.  I should protect my body from harm, and nurture its growth.  My body has no problem telling me sometimes when I am doing something "wrong;" pain often ensues.  It also seems to inform me when things are going well in various ways.

Though I retain many more abstract social goals in life, many times it is good for me to step back and be contented with happily fulling the responsibilities that were naturally entrusted to me at birth (or, at least, when I became old enough to take care of myself).  After all, my body is already a society of many living things, and it seems to me that I have already been appointed to a leadership role in that realm.

And I still believe that those who are responsible with "little" things will find themselves responsible for "bigger" ones.

-m@

hundredhandedmonster

Yet another gift bestowed upon me this holiday season: "Fine Waters, A Connoisseur's Guide." This book attempts to turn water into wine, illuminating the trace characteristics that make each water distinct, and attempting to turn the everyday activity of being scammed into buying $3.00 bottles of water into a snobby game for the elite.

Along with my book, I received a wonderful "starter kit" of about five fine bottles of water from around the world. I will make sure to document my journey to aqua-affluence here, so that you will start to think of me as your h20 go-to guy.

This week's water? Hildon. Straight from England's Hampshire, this well-siphoned refreshment is presented in a stately looking glass bottle, complete with once-meaningful coat of arms. It purports to be "delightfully still," which until now I thought was only descriptive of the British Parliament. "Still", for anyone using the Pound Sterling or the Euro, means "not soda-water."

The assessment? This stuff is tap water man, it's a sham. It's classified as a "hard water," which in this case translates as "hard to drink unless you're super thirsty." Seriously, it tastes almost identical to the water coming out of my kitchen sink right now, which is why each week I go to one of those little windmills on the side of the road and fill up old jugs with drinking water whilst* pretending that no one is staring at me.

A disappointing beginning to my career as a water connoisseur. Hopefully next week, something "delightfully tasty?"

*It's like saying "while" and patting yourself on the back at the same time. It's your standard 16oz Jamba-while, but with a free ego-boost.

---
pics and blog hundredhandedmonster.typepad.com

So the hydroponic herb garden that Meagan's parents got us for Christmas is now six weeks old. Our Italian basil, purple basil, and cilantro are growing out of control, while our dill, chives, and parsley are struggling. I had to do a full-on harvest tonight (cutting about 1/3 of each of the bigger plants) because they were blocking the light for the little guys; some of the leaves were even hitting the grow bulbs.

So now I have a ziplock back full of herbs in the fridge and no real way to use them all. In desperation, I grabbed pinches of all the herbs except cilantro, crushed them up, and made a cup of herbal tea with them in this sweet new teacup that Meagan got me. And I'll be , it was tasty. And I could feel some troublemaker-future-would-be cancer cells cowering in fear. I think I just might do this more often.

And yeah, I felt like Mr. Miyagi. Which is weird, because I'm not sure that he ever tended to herbs -- or even banzai trees for that matter. He did have banzai trees, right? Am I thinking that just because he was Japanese? He was Japanese, right? Someone help me out, IMDB only says "Asian-American." Okay, I'm tabbing over to NetFlix now

Pics and Blog at http://hundredhandedmonster.typepad.com

The Great Holiday Battle of Sea-Tac
or Religious Decorations:  Does it Have to be All or None?

The annual war of holy-day decorations and terminology is on once again.  The latest battle?  Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky noticed that Seattle's Sea-Tac airport had some beautiful and prominent Christmas tree displays, but nothing to represent the Jewish holy-days of Chanukah that begin this Friday.  An airport being public space, Bogomilsky felt that other Religions should be represented as well during the holiday season, and requested about two weeks ago that a giant Menorah grace the halls alongside the Christian foliage.  Eventually, Bogomilsky got a lawyer to represent his take on the matter, threatening to sue if something wasn't done.

The airport staff and their lawyers, determining that putting up the Menorah might create a "snowball effect" requiring them to put up many decorations for many different religions, decided that it would be best to just remove the Christmas trees, and then review their decorating policies after the first of the year.

Rabbi Bogomilsky was "appalled" by the decision, saddened by the fact that the halls of the airport would have light taken away from them, rather than added.

Why is it that many people still seem to have an "all or none" mindset when it comes to the idea of representing multiple religions during this time of year?  Yes, in public spaces people should try to acknowledge the fact that this country is made  up of a colorful variety of people with all different faiths and holy-day symbols, but that doesn't mean that they have to become paranoid and not put up any of them for fear of upsetting someone.  Common sense should tell people to cover Christianity and Judaism this time of year, and then, if other people "complain" about not being represented, put something up for them.  Take it one at a time.  Removing everything isn't going to solve the problem; this is exactly what most people who perceive a "war on Christmas" are most fearful of.

Worst of all regarding the Sea-Tac incident, it will most likely be reported carelessly portraying Rabbi Bogomilsky as a Christmas-hater who is glad that the trees were taken out.

We should feel incredibly thankful that we live in a country that grants each of us religious freedom, and in public spaces, we should be happy (and not fearful) to try to represent the people who want to have their voices heard.  As we work hard to replace the idea in our minds that public holy-day celebrations have to be "one or the other" in regards to people's faiths, we need to also realize that "all or none" is not the only other option. 

Source and Pictures from:
http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_121006WABairporttreesSW.1663eccf.html

One of my friends from Pepperdine, Brian, is one of the three finalists to be the official Big Lots "spokes elf".  Brian was in the Pepperdine Improv Troupe and is a seriously comedic dude; check out his video here, and if you find him worthy, vote for him!  He is up against some tough competition (a 12 year old girl and a "little person"), so he needs support!  You can vote for him once a day if you are really motivated =)</p>

Happy almost Thanksgiving everyone!  My friend Joey Trimmer in Seattle sent me a link to this website, the Sugar Bakery in Seattle, WA.  A friend of Joey's, who has testicular cancer, runs the bakery with his wife, and they are having sort of a bake-sale to raise money for his upcoming cancer surgery.  If you are able to budget it in, please consider making a donation or ordering a pie to help him out!  The bakery says that they don't ship the pies, but Joey said that he would ship them to people if they are interested.  They look tasty!

As always I can't find enough time to properly research most political issues, however I'm trying to tackle a couple of them if I can. Here's my take so far on California's Proposition 87:
--------------------------

Proposition 87: New taxes on oil companies that drill within California to create revenue to study and implement clean energy methods.

This proposition was the first one that I looked into because the issue interested me the most.  There are passionate arguments for and against this proposition, however after looking into each one it seems to me that the arguments against 87 are designed to try to trick voters into believing things that aren't factual, while the arguments for 87 are genuine; even if there are still some unknowns. 

The major arguments against 87 are as follows: 1) It will raise taxes by $4 billion dollars, 2) It will raise the price of gasoline at the pump, 3) It will take money away from education, and 4) it will create a new "bureaucracy" that can spend the new tax dollars any way it wants without accountability.

Proposition 87 would create $4 billion dollars in taxes, however this tax is a direct tax on the pumping of oil, paid by oil companies.  There is no new tax or tax increase for consumers, and it is illegal for the oil companies to pass the tax on to consumers at the pump.  The only way that 87 could make gas prices go up would be due to an increase in foreign oil imports because of decreased drilling in California due to the tax (importing foreign oil is more expensive).  This is a possibility, however it is most likely that gas prices would remain the same because California's dependence on oil would decrease due to the initiative, and less gas needed means less gas imported.

The thought that prop 87 will take money away from schools is completely misleading.  The argument goes as follows:  If taxes for oil companies increase, they may sell some of their drills and land.  If they sell some of their land, they will no longer be paying property taxes on the land.  If they no longer pay property taxes on the land, then schools will no longer receive a portion of that tax money.  So really, the argument is simply that property tax revenue will decrease.  I'm not exactly sure how that would work, though, because if the companies were selling the land, they would have to be selling it to someone else, and that someone else would then have to pay the property tax.  More so, $1.8 billion of the money collected from the new tax will go directly to schools, as shown in this breakdown.

The "bureaucracy" part of the bill is the hardest for me to understand, but I think I get the just of it.  Prop 87 will appoint 50 new people to a committee charged with deciding how to spend the new funds.  There is no requirement that these new funds be spent in any particular way, so long as they further the cause of clean energy use within California (I'm generalizing, of course).  Opponents of the proposition are worried that this committee may decide to spend this money outside of California, or even the United States, and that none of the money is required to be spent on education.

The interesting thing here is that we are talking about new money, new revenue for the state of California that  is not currently in the economy.  Even if this committee, which is made of these people did decide to spend the money outside the US or give none of it to education, they aren't taking away anything from the current system.  Plus, in the current plan, almost half of the new revenue will go directly to education.  And if money needs to be spent in foreign markets to promote energy saving, money saving technologies here, then that is probably a good investment.  Remember, it is money from the oil companies that will be spent, not money from California citizens.

Arguments for Prop 87
I won't go in to all of the pro-arguments for prop 87 in detail.  They include short-term benefits such as the creation of many new jobs and more money to schools, and long term benefits such as decreased reliance on fossil fuels, less pollution, and money savings.  You can a list of benefits here. 

I would be excited if something like prop 87 passed because it would greatly accelerate the transition to clean energy without a high direct cost to the average California citizen.  California is one of the few states that doesn't already impose a drilling tax, so doing so is not something experimental.  Many states already do this, so the method is tried and true (it is also interesting to note that gas prices in these other states remain lower than in California).  The profit margins of the oil companies are already insanely high, and they can afford to pay it here just like they do in other states.

I also think we should be very wary of ads that try to trick and deceive voters.  If you go to the No on 87 Website, you will notice that the first thing you see is "No on the $4 Billion Oil Tax."  Most of the ads that I have seen opposing the proposition are leaving out the fact that this tax is not on citizens, but on oil drillers.  They are trying to get uninformed voters to mistakenly think that this is a tax that will be imposed upon them directly.

I am also wary of the opposition because of the funding.  Almost all of the funding for the campaign against the proposition is comping from the oil companies themselves:  Over 98 million so far.  This website from the Secretary of State shows who is making the contributions.  Be sure to notice the cleverly misleading headline at the top of the page =)

So anyway, that's my take on the issue so far.  Best of luck to everyone trying to weed their way through this stuff -- it is dense, of course.  I want to especially encourage anyone voting on this proposition not take any of the ads at face value.  Also, if you are a conservative voter, don't feel like you have to vote no on something like this just because it involves the environment and has Bill Clinton as a spokesperson =)  Issues regarding fuel and energy involve everyone and it is okay to be a Conservative, a Republican, and a Christian and still be concerned about God's Creation!

Please leave comments about this stuff too and point out any mistakes that I have made =)

Here are some links to help:
http://www.votecircle.com/proposition.php?id=87
http://www.yeson87.org/
http://www.nooiltax.com/

After the longest drive of my life from Manteca->LA->Weslaco (2000+ Miles), I am settling in here in the heart of Texas's Rio Grande Valley. Like any time of transition and moving, I am busy, but also happy to be "unpacked" for a while. My buddy Jeremy road-tripped out here with me and is sprinting forward in his studies to be a stand-up comedian. Meagan devotes 85% of her time to teaching, but still has time to make super-tasty fruit salads and join me watching Battlestar Galactica every once in a while. I am substitute teaching about 3 days per week, and starting tomorrow, Jeremy will be subbing as well. I am also reconstructing and renovating a make-shift studio for video and music production; I hope to start some documentary and comedy projects soon. As A Man Thinketh by James Allen is my current read, and I am just getting started using the incredible free health resources that I discovered at SparkPeople.com. Check it out if you get a chance, it takes the grunt work out of tracking eating, exercise, and other habits so that you can easily see what you need to do to improve.

Off to bed! 9:00-10:00pm, that's my bed time now =)

A few days ago I took Rex and his best friend Christos to a music video shoot for the band Silversun Pickups. Christos has an agent and does some modeling, so he gets a call every once in a while for stuff like this. It was a low-key shoot, so I was able to blend in with the crew and use my camcorder, pretending like I was doing something important.

View some clips here.

So here's a big announcement: Meagan and I are engaged. Yup! We've been throwing around the idea for a while now and, well, it is time to make it official.

It started when I arrived at the airport here in South Texas and she was standing with a group of friends holding a sign that said "Matt Hannon," like she was my cab driver or something. Then she flipped over the sign and it said "Marry Me." Cute! I said "sure I will," and much hugging and kissing ensued.

My turn came on her birthday this last weekend when I gave her a present containing three items: The first was a yellow legal pad that said "Marry me? __Yes __No. Incidentally, she checked "yes." The second was an Irish Claddagh ring that I've been picking out for forever. It's a traditional style of ring with an Irish connemara stone. The third was a neat little book I made telling the history of the ring and such. I made her open it at her birthday party (a joint party with our friend Abby) in front of a bunch of people to get back at her for the whole airport thing. She was a little embarrassed, but happy ultimately.

So no date set yet or anything like that. In all likelihood we'll just elope at some point as neither of us are fond of big weddings. That doesn't mean that we'll leave everyone out of the loop though; we love to party and will definitely be hosting some sweet celebratory events when the time comes.

Meag and I have known each other for about 2 1/2 years and have been "dating" for about two. Our relationship is something really special, and we keep loving each other more every day; it is great to be able to take things to the next level!

Thanks to everyone who continues to love and support us. And to those who haven't even met Meagan yet because we've been running all over the place, I hope you will have the pleasure soon!

http://hundredhandedmonster.typepad.com