The New America

I've been doing some research on globalism and have found alarming evidence that America, in particular the U.S., Canada, and Mexico are working together to create a "New North America", a borderless continent. I found one website, "The American Resistance" that did a great job of collecting the information.

Here are a few key passages:

In March 2005, President George W. Bush and the leaders of Mexico and Canada announced the establishment of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America." This represents the official public beginning of an ongoing series of agreements and implementations aimed at combining the economies, populations and cultures of the nations of North America into a borderless “North American Free Trade Zone”.

While most Americans expect to pass on to their children a nation of law, with defined, secured borders - and a common language, the Globalist elite who are actually making the decisions concerning our future have a far different America in mind.

There is a section in the article called, "Organizations and their agendas" that contains tons of links indicating that this is no hidden secret thing but a bold plan that is being revealed right under our noses, and without our votes.

In light of this information, the illegal immigration issue that so many Americans are passionate about, me included, is just a stepping stone to a global economy that those who represent us have no intention of really dealing with. I predict we will hear a lot of empty promises this coming election about how the borders need to be closed, with no action.

He has risen!

This Sunday we take time to celebrate the most significant event in world history which can be summed up in three words:

Mark 16:6
He has risen!
(from New International Version)

If this were not true, we would all surely be lost.

Please have a great Easter weekend!

Immigration "Reform"

I read this article at Breitbart.com and laughed out loud at my desk.

It looks like Congress is getting close to sealing a deal on the illegal immigration problem.

Here is the gist of the new proposed "rules" for illegals already living here:

While final details were not available, in general, the compromise would require illegal immigrants who have been in the United States between two years and five years to return to their home country briefly, then re-enter as temporary workers. They could then begin a process of seeking citizenship.

Laughable. So, in essence, what we are saying is, "Okay guys, we KNOW you came here by breaking the law, but now we want to put you on the honor system, whadaya say?".

Illegal immigrants here longer than five years would not be required to return home; those in the country less than two years would be required to leave without assurances of returning, and take their place in line with others seeking entry papers.

So if I am an illegal immigrant who has been living here for 2 weeks, I am telling the INS that I have been here 5 years, no make it 6 just so it doesn't seem like I am lying, and this way, I stay put. The whole premise is that these people of questionable scruples are suddenly going to "fess up" and not only tell us they are illegal, but exactly how long they have been here, whether it is to their advantage or not.

Standing before television cameras after an appearance Thursday in Charlotte, N.C., Bush said he was pleased that Republicans and Democrats were working together.

I am utterly disappointed in the President's treatment of this issue and it goes to show that no matter how many people in this Democracy cry out, in the end, money talks. The financial advantages of illegal immigration must outweigh our need for truly secure borders. How else would you explain this?

The Open Border Conspiracy

I heard an interesting piece on talk radio the other day about immigration that directly contradicts what the MSM is putting out there. As I mentioned, it was on the radio, so I have no sources to link you to. I have started some independent research but surprisingly, am unable to find any websites dealing with the issue in this way.

The host of The McGuire Fire, Paul McGuire, asserts that the debate about closing our borders, in particular the U.S./Mexico border, is futile. Why? Because for years the U.S. Government has planned to open the borders for socio-economic reasons. Paul explains that a cheap and disposable work force benefits our economy in such a way that our leadership does not intend to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S.

While I was surprised at hearing this, both because it never occurred to me, and it goes against what we keep hearing from the Left and the Right: that our open border is a major threat to our safety in light of the terrorists that can take advantage of how soft it is.

His perspective is consistent with the lack of real action from our government on this issue. We are told that the budget for the Border Patrol has increased and they have been provided with new officers, as well as new state of the art equipment and housing for detainees. But really, hasn't the number of illegals passing over our border continued to increased in spite of this?

Many are saying that the upcoming election will hinge on which party is tougher on immigration, but using this theory as a premise, I expect to hear alot of promises and no real action when it comes to really closing our borders.

I definitely want to look into this more closely, especially in light of the fact that so many on both sides of this issue are so passionate (including me). I have even emailed Mr. McGuire and asked for sources and plan to do a follow up post real soon.

Enough Said...

GreyGhost, in dealing with a Troll over at his Blog, managed to sum up my thoughts nicely on the current political climate. Check the comments on the article, "Liberals Still Pushing For Change To Electoral College".

Nice going Grey!

We Need to Get Back to Conservative Values

I read an interesting article about helping America return to more Conservative values. This guy is trying to sell a book, but he suggests a "blueprint" of values can be created by asking 6 questions about any government action or policy under consideration. I believe these questions can just as easily serve as a litmus test for how "involved" government is in our lives socially. Here they are:

1. Is it the government’s business?
2. Does it promote self-reliance?
3. Is it responsible?
4. Does it make America more prosperous?
5. Does it make us safer?
6. Does it unify us?

I believe Liberals and Conservatives alike can agree that these questions are good ones to ask before we give the Fed the right to make policy.

I will comment this blog and list existing policies which I believe should get a resounding "NO!" to these questions.

Historicity of the New Testament

Everything I believe about Jesus I have read in the Bible. This for many begs the question, “Why is the Bible a reliable source of information about this person?” My answer is that the Bible is not only a good source of information about Christ and world history at that time, but it is the best documentation we possess regarding the events of Jesus and his contemporaries.

This is quite a claim. Please continue reading and find out why I am convinced of this.

As the New Testament contains the genealogy, birth, life, subsequent death and resurrection of Christ I will focus on the NT and not the Old Testament when dealing with historicity. It should also be said that I intend to use sources of information that use historiography to establish a documents historicity. A scientific method would be inappropriate as none of the events depicted in any historical document can be proven empirically, as those events can not be recreated in a controlled environment. In my readings, I have seen those who claim that the existence of Christ is "un-scientific" which is why I made this stipulation. If you are looking for scientific proof of history, you will find none.

There are 3 basic tests for historicity:

Bibliographical: seeks to determine how many manuscript copies we have of the document and how far removed they are in time from the originals (see table here). This I believe to be the most compelling evidence proving the Bible to be accurate and reliable. A comparison to Homer's Iliad shows that the manuscript reliability of the Bible is unmatched:

Homer's Iliad

Date Written: 900 B.C.

Earliest Copy: 400 B.C.

Approximate Time Between Original and Copy: 500 years

Number of Copies: 643

Accuracy of Copies: 95% (very good)

The Bible (Specifically the New Testament)

Date Written: 50-100 A.D. Initially the time between the oral and written records was thought to be 3 times this long, but later findings proved the actual amount of time to be within the 1st century A.D.

Earliest Copy: c. 130 A.D.

Approximate Time Between Original and Copy: Less than 100 years

Number of Copies: 5,600 (19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages, for a total of > 24,000 copies.)

Accuracy: 99.5% (unheard of)

Let me take a moment to explain the statistics I have covered above:

The reason we compare the date written with the earliest copy of the manuscript is that oral record, although fairly reliable during this time as there were no printing presses so it was the only method available, has been deemed by critics to be susceptible to exaggeration and rumor over the course of a few hundred years. The fact that the time span between oral and written record of the NT is less than 100 years (some believe ~80 years) is significant in that most historians believe this to be more than adequate to dismiss claims of exaggeration by the writer. This is also significant because had the writer taken liberties with the facts, he would have more than likely been met with opposition and corrected by his contemporaries.

As stated above, the manuscript evidence (MSS) of the Bible far outweighs any other document we consider to be reliable. For comparison, your average history book used in public schools has about 2 dozen manuscripts.

Internal: asks whether the document itself claims to be actual history written by eyewitnesses. The Bible makes this claim in many places; just to name a few: Luke 1:2, Acts 4:20, Acts 10:39, 2 Peter 1:16, Heb 2:3, 1John 1:1

External: asks whether material external to the document confirms the reliability of the document. The Bible makes dozens of references that can be used as "checkpoints" to validate it's historicity. References to significant events of the day and externally documented events such as the Roman census are examples of checkpoints. More examples of these found in the Bible can be found here

What has been your overall impression of the Bible as a historical document?

How did you come to this conclusion? I ask this because a majority of people I have come across make claims of Bible inerrancy and contradiction but have never actually picked up a Bible and read it, but are simply repeating what they have heard.

If the Bible must be accepted as historically accurate, what implications are there for world religions that differ in their treatment of the person of Jesus Christ?

What implications would this hold for you personally?

Who is Jesus?

This is the first post of many that will deal specifically with the person of Jesus Christ. He came into the world about 2000 years ago, a minority born into a poor family in one of the smallest cities in the world (Nazareth). He only lived 33 years, 3 of which he actually spent in active ministry, and yet made a huge impact on the world that still creates controversy. Every religion deals with the person of Jesus in it's own way, some say he was a very moral and wise teacher, others say he was a prophet or a reincarnation. Some believe Jesus never existed at all. With all these differing opinions, someone HAS to be correct, so who is it?

Let's start the discussion with a few basic questions:

Who do you believe Jesus to be?

How did you come to this conclusion?

Based on the impact Jesus had not only on his contemporaries, but still has today, would you agree that his life and ministry are worthy of reflection?

Why is every person and religion so divided about who this person is?

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.