Black Gold

Remember in grade school when you learned about how the dinosaurs roamed the earth for millions of years, then for one reason or another they all died, and as their bodies decomposed petroleum was formed? Hence, petroleum is considered a fossil fuel. What if I told you that the premise that petroleum being formed from organic matter near the earth's crust was a falsehood and that a newer, more scientific theory exists that proves oil is not a fossil fuel at all but a natural bi-product of a natural process much deeper in the earth?

You would probably say, "Who cares?", but here is the relevance. This new theory, called the Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation, not only disproves the original "fossil fuel" theory, but it proves that petroleum is not a limited resource after all. This is pretty controversial considering the current assumption that we are "dangerously close" to running out of oil.

This theory was developed by Russian-Ukrainian scientists and has even been used to discover oil reserves in the former U.S.S.R. A few facts about the theory:

Organic material cannot survive depths of over 18,000 feet while oil has been discovered using the Abiotic Theory at over 36,000 feet.

It is NOT new, but was brought to light by Professor Nikolai Kudryavtsev in 1951 and has undergone extensive development and refinement since then.

It is not untested or based solely on speculation but in fact was severely challenged by geologists at the time that held to the more traditional fossil fuel theory. The Abiotic Theory has stood the test of intense debate and scrutiny, unlike the rococo (fossil fuel) theory.

The original theory that oil can be formed near the earth's crust by extreme pressure and heat violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Those are just a few facts, the full article where I got this data can be found here and a shorter synopsis of the basics of the theory is here.

What I am interested in regarding this new theory is why is it not generally known that the fossil fuel theory has been debunked? Isn't this the "good news" we have all been waiting for? In who's best interest (and the answer to this is painfully obvious) is it to continue to pass on the lie that we are running out of oil? Maybe the oil companies? What if I told you that not only have oil reserves not been steadily depleting, but they have increased? There is proof that oil reserves that were once dry have been revisited because the oil has been replenished. The basics of supply and demand tell us that if the demand for a resource is greater than the available supply, then it comes at a premium. If we suddenly discover that oil is in fact a renewable resource, then we are suddenly no longer at the mercy of the oil companies and they will be forced to lower the price per barrel. As long as this fear exists they can charge us whatever they want.

Interesting that, although everyone agrees that the U.S. needs to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, we don't seem to be doing much to accomplish that. Why are we not drilling in Alaska? Environmentalists say that we will ruin a national treasure but my understanding is that the area in ANWAR that is drillable compared to the whole is like putting a postage stamp on a football field so it would certainly not taint the landscape as much as some would have us believe.

The reality is that the oil companies have undergone a multi-million dollar campaign to make sure we all believe we are running out. Ironically, they have found an unexpected ally in their campaign of misinformation: environmentalist groups. Although they seem to be on opposite ends of the spectrum, it turns out they are fighting the same fight.


To get the discussion going, here are a few questions:

While we should be pursuing alternative fuels, like hydrogen, our dependence on oil isn't going away any time soon. Shouldn't we be using the Abiotic Theory to find oil here in the U.S. to lessen our dependence on Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia for oil?

Are the oil companies so powerful that even the government is helping to perpetrate the falsehood that we are running out of oil?

There is some debate about whether ANWAR will provide enough oil to help solve this problem of foreign oil dependency. Shouldn't we at least take a look and find out if the amount of oil there is worth the trouble?

Tisk, tisk

I haven't posted in a bit due to the fact I have been doing a little research for my next post, which will hopefully be published in a day or two.

I do feel compelled to take a moment to pimp slap a certain Mr. Ricki Williams for putting his career in peril behind smoking marijuana. Can you say bad career choice? I know he is some kinda Rasta and what not, but this is plain foolishness.

Emotionally he has always struck me as a little troubled, but I hope he can get it together, he has talent.

Relative Truth?

I was having a discussion with Cynthia about the Muslim reaction to the cartoon depicting Mohammed in a negative light (see previous post) and she brought up a point that I think would be interesting to tackle.

There are some, and I am not prepared to give any specific percentage of the population but suffice it to say I have heard this philosophy a lot, that EVERYTHING is relative. I will agree that in alot of instances, this is true; relative to Bill Gates, I'm broke, but relative to someone living in poverty, I'm suddenly doing pretty well. This logic can be applied to alot of things; beauty (it IS in the eye of the beholder, right?), intelligence, physical fitness, etc. Notice these things are all comparative, this person is more intelligent than that, or that person is more beautiful than this one. All are very subjective and are determined largely by the experience and beliefs of the person observing. I think Donald Trump is loaded, while Bill Gates could buy and sell him.

When this no longer holds true for me is when you apply this same rule to things that are completely objective and not subject to interpretation. Let me give a basic analogy that I hope will make my point:

My friend and I are standing at the curb when a shiny red Ferrari pulls up. We are both equally impressed, but it just so happens that my friend is color blind, so to him the car is blue. Now, the actual color of the car is red and the truth of this fact is not subject to interpretation. It is objectively true that the Ferrari is red, although, subjectively (to my color blind friend) it is some other color.

I think it is dangerous to apply the philosophy of relativity to everything because suddenly we live in a world where nothing is right, wrong, true, or false, because our own thinking determines which way is correct. I believe that truth is one thing which cannot be left to interpretation.


Do you believe truth is relative?

Can you provide a real life example where this is true?

If it is determined that truth is indeed not relative, what does this say about morality?

Choose Your Battles

This blog by Boortz was brought to my attention by Grouchy Old Cripple and I think it summarizes nicely my thoughts on the Muslim communities over the top response to this issue. Does the phrase, "Choose your battles wisely" mean anything to them?

CD Mix Challenge

1) A favorite political track.
The song that jumps into my head whenever I think of politically charged music is Fight the Power - Public Enemy

2) One of those tracks that make you dance on the dancefloor no matter what.
Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough - Do I need to tell you?

3) The song you’d use to tell someone you love them.
Shining Star - The Manhattans; my wife and I consider this to be "our song".

4) A song that has made you sit down and analyze it’s lyrics.
This Woman's Work - Maxwell

5) A song that you like, that a two year old would like as well.
Shackles - Mary Mary

6) A song that gives you an energy boost.
Step Into A World (Rapture's Delight) - KRS One

7) A song that you and your grandparents (would probably) like.
Blue Train - John Coltrane

8) A song that you really liked when you were 14-16, and still really like now.
Telephone Man - New Edition, anything by them brings back fond memories of my teen years.

9) A sad song that would be in the soundtrack of the movie about your life.
Little Wing - Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble

10) A peppy song that would start the opening credits of the movie about your life.
The Glow of Love - Luther Vandross

11) A good song from a genre of music that no one would guess that you liked.
Sweet Home Alabama - Lynyrd Skynyrd

12) A song that you think should have been playing when you were born.
Fantasy - Earth Wind & Fire, one I could play over and over and never grow weary!

13) A favorite artist duo collaboration.
You're All I Need To Get By - Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrel; I thought Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell were fantastic together.

14) A favorite song that you completely disagree with (politically, morally,
commonsenically, religiously etc.)
Grand Verbalizer - X-Clan, Vanglorious! This is protected by the red, the black, and the green with a KEY! SISSYYY!

15) The song that you like despite the fact your IQ level drops several points
every time you listen to it.
Where I'm From (Don't Fight The Clean Mix II) - Passion

16) Your smooth song, for relaxing.
Lifetime - Maxwell

17) A song you would send to someone you hate or are mad at.
Ain't No Future in Yo' Frontin' - MC Breed

18) A favorite track from an outfit considered a “super-group.”
Brick House - The Commodores

19) A song that makes you reminsce about good times with a family member.
Dear Mama - Tupac, always makes me remember growing up with my moms (BTW, she was NEVER a crack fiend)

20) Your favorite song at this moment in time
Fast Lane - Bilal, I know, it's not brand new, but I never get tired of it.

Whew! That was hard work! It did take me down memory lane alot (good and bad memories), thanks to Nikki for bringing King's list to my attention!

The Punishment Should Fit the Crime

Here in California, there is alot of attention being directed at the issue of child exploitation; specifically, Jessica's Law which would make the laws in California more strict towards those who choose to abuse children sexually. Check out the Current Law vs. Jessica's Law Fact Sheet on the website above for a good synopsis of what the new law will do to change existing laws already in place.

What surprises me is that some legislators are opposed to tougher laws against child molesters for varying reasons, none of which I think are valid:

1. It would cost too much administratively
Can anyone put a price on keeping children safe from sex offenders, most of whom are repeat offenders with a high likelihood of striking again?

2. It would force sex offenders to move, this is deemed "unfair" by some.
If you weigh the potential "inconvenience" of relocating to a neighborhood farther from schools and parks to the lifetime of damage that is inflicted on children by these crimes, I think it is more than reasonable. In my opinion, these people are lucky to be free at all and should be willing to put up with a little hardship in light of what they have done.

3. Combined with California's current "3 strikes" law, would put more "lifers" away, costing California tax payers more over time.
And? I pay taxes for alot of things I do not agree with, so paying to keep these people behind bars wouldn't bother me in the least.

These are just a few of the "reasons" cited by law makers as to why they think stricter legislation is wrong for California.

California law makers have attempted to pass alot of bills that would have made it harder for sex offenders to re-offend; disappointingly, alot of the measures failed by partisan votes of California's Democrat heavy legislature. The fact that our children's safety is being treated as a partisan issue is inexcusable. Californians for stricter laws are scrambling to get enough signatures to put this measure on November's ballot because attempts to pass it legislatively have failed.

It boggles me that this is even a debate. If an adult, male or female, chooses to abuse a minor sexually, they should pay the price. The popular viewpoint is that sex offenders can never be cured, while there are experts that say recidivism among sex offenders is similar or less than that of other types of crimes.

If you ask me, either way makes no difference because this crime is like no other in that it is sexual in nature and involves a child. One California legislator, Mark Leno, has suggested that the possession of child pornography be treated the same as drug possession, only possessing a certain amount should be considered a felony and should otherwise be treated as a misdemeanor. Again, this flies in the face of logic as a child was not directly harmed in the creation of a drug like meth or crack cocaine. In order to produce child pornography a child is damaged so these are not synonymous.

James Manning over at Peace On That will rib me for using this format, but I am interested to know how you all would approach this issue:

1. If your state doesn't already have strict laws against sex offenses, would you use your vote to support stricter legislation, no matter what the cost?

2. Should we be sympathetic to those involved with these types of crimes because they are "sick" and have difficulty controlling their urges?

3. Do crimes involving sex and/or children deserve to be treated differently legislatively than other felonies, like drug possession or assault?

The End of an Era

Last week we lost one of the great ones, Wilson Pickett (March 18, 1941 – January 19, 2006), and not ONE blogger (at least the ones I read) mentioned it! I am among those who are moved by his raw vocal style and great songs. Try to find someone who HAS NOT heard "Mustang Sally" or "The Midnight Hour". Not to mention the musicians he has influenced to make more great music, or at least a good cover of one of his hits. He made music from 1959 to 1972 that lives on in the hearts and minds of many.

My personal favorite is "A Man and a Half". Any who own any of Mr. Wilson's cuts, may I suggest you play some of his stuff as a tribute.

Guess What Kind of Car I am!

I'm a Chevrolet Corvette!

You're a classic - powerful, athletic, and competitive. You're all about winning the race and getting the job done. While you have a practical everyday side, you get wild when anyone pushes your pedal. You hate to lose, but you hardly ever do.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

Cowboys and Girls

Our first child is a girl, Ninah, and she is almost one year old. I have to admit when we found out she was coming I was a little dissappointed; I think every man wants a "little man" around the house that he can teach to play baseball, play army men, etc. Before Ninah was born, a good friend who has a daughter himself told me, "Having a girl will make a man of you." I wasn't sure what he meant, but he is rarely wrong.

The day she came into our world, I think it hit me why a little girl will make you a better man. What us guys are missing, which is also why we love women so much, are traits that are inherent in females. They love with their hearts, not their minds; are more sensitive towards others; tender-hearted and so many other things that I lack. Being raised by a single mother helped me understand women a bit. Getting married and being with my woman 24/7 (we didn't move in together until after marriage, old school style baby!) certainly helped me be more sensitive, but having a little woman to take care of takes the cake!

Every thing I do must be done gently so that she grows up to be a little lady. I am quicker with words to correct her and slower to anger. It has made me softer, more gentle and I think Ninah's little brother who is coming soon will benefit from Daddy having a girl first. I will never know of course, but I think it would be less likely that I would learn these things from a little baby boy. We males have a tendency to assume that making their boys "tough" means being harsh, more rough. What I have discovered through my little baby girl is that the key to raising a child who is ready for the world (remember that group? "Oh Sheila...") is one thing: Confidence. They have to be confident in themselves. Trying to make them "not sissies" by being rough and discouraging behaviors we may think are not manly, like hugging and kissing and being emotional only causes them to miss out on the love and affection they are hard wired to crave from their parents, daddy included.

When kids enter the world missing the affection and love of their fathers they do their darndest to replace that love with sex, drugs, food, and any other thing that gratifies, if only temporarily. Most fathers would not see themselves as nurturers, and indeed it does not come as easily to us as women, but we must try.

So my little boy is getting lots of love and hugs and kisses from me, followed by toy trucks, plastic guns, and little army men.

Hip Pop

This is a rant I have had stored up in my mind for a long time and now I have the perfect forum to let it out!

I can not stand the direction that rap music has taken over the last decade. Way back when, it was all about who was the better MC, who had the best flow. Now, anybody can get a record deal! I would be suprised if 20% of today's most popular MCs could could even hold their own in a freestyle contest!

There was a period of time when rap music was gaining popularity and going from underground to the top 10 and my reaction was, "Good, it's about time people started paying attention!". Little did I know that mainstreaming this music genre would ultimately destroy it.

Way back, rap lyrics were about social issues, politics, and MC battles; now it's all about platinum this, 24" that, big mansion over there, this kind of car... what doesn't make sense to me is even the first-timers who are new to the game are talking this mess; how did you get so rich if you JUST GOT STARTED? I guess I could wager a guess, but that's beside the point.

You could not survive in the 80's and early 90's by acting just like the next guy and having no talent, you would get eaten alive, no one would respect you or buy your album!

I stick to the rap I know and love: Rakim (best MC ever), KRS One, Kurtis Blow, Whoudini (oh, I will blast "Haunted House of Rap" out of my car window), Big Daddy Kane, Tribe Called Quest... you know, REAL MCs who could write lyrics that make you nod your head.

Alot of genres of music have survived the ages and managed not to look stupid in the process: Rock, Jazz, Country, so why do I have to go BACK to listening to underground rap music to be moved?

Tragically Hip

Picture this: A 31 year old white male driving through the neighborhood with rap music blasting from his vehicle. What comes to mind? Apparently what comes to some people's minds is that the situation is comical because I actually get laughed at sometimes just trying to enjoy my music of choice in the privacy of my car.

Mostly it is high school age kids who are more hip to current trends in music, fashion, etc, who think I am some aging white dude holding on to his youth for dear life. Maybe a mid-life crisis?

It is a little embarassing but not enough to make me change what I am listening to, after all, I like it and am not trying to make an impression.

In the early 80's, when rap music was beginning to gain popularity but was still far from mainstream, is when I was indoctrinated into the genre. I grew up in a racially diverse neighborhood so I was exposed to alot of rap like, RUN-DMC, The Fat Boys, LL Cool J, The Sugar Hill Gang (you know the cut), which I played over and over again until I had the words committed to memory. In my circle of friends, these were the songs it was "cool" to know.

Most of what you will hear coming out of my car stereo is rap music of the 80's and 90's because as far as I am concerned, rap music has died, save a few exceptions of real MC's that are staying connected and not just trying to buy more stuff so they can rap about it.

I guess it is just my burden to bear that folks will think I am pitiful for listening to what I do. I have also been jabbed for being an "aging hipster" because I wear jeans and sneakers more often than not. Is there some unwritten rule that as you age you HAVE to listen to classical music (maybe country?) and wear Khakis, dress shoes, and polo shirts? This just would not be me.

What the BLOG?

I am definitely new to the whole blog thing and am mainly interested in it because I have little opportunity to just sit with friends and discuss/debate real issues relating to religion and politics both because I have less time than I would like and most people don't relish the idea of getting together with their friends and really hashing out the issues, especially in a debate format as most people have a hard time differentiating between a debate and just fighting because you disagree. I happen to love debating, not that I am necessarily very good at it, but because I like to challenge my opinions and beliefs; I think if we feel passionate about anything, it serves us well to challenge ourselves to figure out what we believe and more importantly, why.

Some of what we believe is based on misinformation or just a lack of good facts as a foundation, so our opinions and beliefs are less than objective. To me, this is where a good debate can be useful as two (or more) people share facts, opinions, and beliefs about a particular subject, each involved is able to glean from the experience of others, and all are edified.

My limited experience in the "blogosphere" has so far been dissappointing to some degree, mostly because it has been less a constructive sharing of ideas, and more headhunting to see who you can prove is wrong, or at least more wrong than you. Arrogance, condescension, and exclusivism abound as each blogger, or group of bloggers loyal to one another, tries to prove themselves intellectually and informationally superior to the next.

Is this really the point? Each time a present my side of an issue I am immediately pounced upon by ravenous bloggers who do not agree with me and therefore I am labeled "idiot" or "moron" or I am just generally condescended to as someone "less enlightened".

Also interesting is when an obviously intelligent individual, well versed on current events, presents their argument somewhat intelligently but, in my opinion, ruins there point because they feel compelled to use foul language and personal insults to communicate their argument. To me this is a shame because I have always associated the use of slang and foul language with an inability to effectively communicate.

Maybe I am just being WAY too idealistic, but hey, I am new to this so that could change. At any rate, I plan to continue perusing the seemingly endless blog sites searching for knowledge and ideally leave those who I come into contact with better than when I found them. Hopefully, any who care to return here in the next few months will find me battle-weary but still positive.

I guess only time will tell.

Government: Social Cure-All?

Why is it that, after seeing what a terrible job Federal and State gov has done with things like education, Social Security and Medicare, some think we should now also give them the job of running healthcare? It boggles me that every time there is a societal need that we are of the mindset that it is the Governments job to take care of it.

A little history. The U.S. government was established to do two things:

1. Protect our freedom from oppression by those more powerful than us, such as what is happening in the Middles East where people are forced, under penalty, to follow some leader, religion, or culture.
(Incidentally, for those of you who hate guns, this can ONLY be accomplished through force, not aggressive force, but by being strong enough militarily so that no one tries to attack us and if they do to punish them for it.)

2. Preserve justice.

At some point, the Fed became our "Mother" and the cure for all social ills. It just so happens that every time they try to do something outside of those two things listed above, they do a terrible job. This is because the government is trying to do things it was never designed to do.
What happened?