What Happens... Part 2

There are a lot of philosophies dealing with death.

Some believe in Heaven and Hell and that in order to choose which place you go to, you must make the right choices in life, be a "good person". In this case, Heaven and Hell can take on a variety of definitions but sufficed to say, one is meant to reward, while the other is designed to punish.

Others believe we live multiple lives, taking on different forms depending, once again, on our performance and treatment of our fellow man.

One I always found interesting is the belief that we are just annihilated at death, nothing lives on beyond that.

As most philosophies and religions teach that death is indeed not really the end, let us leave the "annihilated at death" argument and assume that while our bodies are mortal, some part of us lives on after our flesh has expired.

For the sake of the discussion, I will refer to this part of humankind as "essence" (any Emeril fans out there?).

Presumably, the essence is eternal. And specifically I mean that it lives on forever, but not necessarily that it had no beginning. The question is did it have a beginning? At conception, did we "inherit" this essence from our mother? Or did our father pass it on to us? Assuming this essence had no real beginning but has always been there, where did it come from? Did it emanate from another being, or did all of our individual "essences" co-exist together before they lived in us?

All of these questions, if we took them seriously, would profoundly affect our lives.

If we just disappear and no part of us lives on, then we really aren't obligated to be "good" to ourselves or one another except for the purely selfish motive that we want to live well while we are here. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

On the other hand, if there is a Heaven and Hell where we are either punished or rewarded based on our performance, suddenly we have incentive to act right, or as right as we know how.

What is it within man that motivates him to be kind, generous, careful, thoughtful, and all the others qualities that make us human? Is there really a "basic goodness" that we all posses?

Either we are accountable to the giver of this life, we by nature "respect" the essence of others, or we are just being good for the sake of our own enjoyment.

Do you believe in a literal heaven and hell, or reincarnation? Or maybe annihilation?

If you believe in the eternal part of humankind, where did it come from?

Are we accountable to the source of this life?

What Happens to Us When We Die?

This may sound like a childish question to some, but eventually, everyone ponders this thought. Human mortality is a fact of life, but do any of us really take it seriously unless it is our time to go?

This is something I never gave a second thought when I was younger. What pre-teen or teenager wants to think about dying, much less the hereafter? Part of youth is that feeling of being invincible, nothing can touch you!

For me, getting married and then having children helped to make me aware that I will not always be around. It's funny how being depended upon by others accomplishes this. I take better care of myself in a lot of different ways solely because I want to be there for the people who need me for as long as possible.

Another life event that forces you to ponder death is when you lose loved ones. For me it was grandparents, an uncle, I lost my first wife who was only 35 at the time. The relative age of those you lose affects your reaction to it. When my grandmother and grandfather both died at 84 years of age, it was very sad for those of us that could not see them again in this life, but definitely not a surprise. When someone dies at an age that is considered "too young" it is a tragedy and everyone is shocked. No one sees that coming. My uncle died after years of drug use, and it seemed like a waste that he didn't clean himself up at some point before he left us.

So the condition of the person dying and our perception of how useful their lives were all help to form our reaction to death.

How often have you pondered the question of your own mortality?

What specific events brought this to your mind?

Have you come to any specific conclusions about death, such as what happens after?

Rant from a Disenfranchised Conservative

This is the most telling statement made by our President recently:

"The objective is, on the one hand, protect our borders, and on the other hand, never lose sight of the thing that makes America unique, which is we're a land of immigrants. ... We're not going to discriminate against people," Bush said.

Sounds to me like some fine fence-riding. On one hand, we got to get tough and protect our borders, while still rewarding those who have broken our laws to come here. NOT rewarding them and punishing them and those that hire them is apparently discrimination.

The premise that, "they are already here, so we may as well give them temporary work status" doesn't play with me. I liken it to giving 13 year olds condoms because, "well, they are curious and will probably have intercourse anyway, so they may as well do it in a safe manner."

Any reasonable person would agree that statement 2 is just a result of bad parenting, so what does that say for the angle President Bush is taking?

This is a bit of a rant, and for that I apologize. I am just frustrated because I voted for George Bush both terms and overall I am not satisfied with his track record.

Here's an interesting statement I found on Yahoo from El Presidente Vicente on the matter. Naturally, he was "concerned" that Bush was militarizing the border, as if that is in no way reasonable.

Bush also assured Fox that any military support would be administrative and logistical and would come from the National Guard and not the Army, according to a news release from Fox's office.

So we are going to have, no offense to those in our National Guard, a bunch of pencil pushers sent to the border to help stem the tide of illegal immigrants? Pardon me if I am not thrilled, but insulted at this obvious political gesture.

I have also been hearing a lot of comments around the blogosphere about Conservatives that are "deserting" President Bush over just this issue and the implication is that this is somehow disloyal. Let me make myself perfectly clear in this matter: I am not blindly loyal to ANY MAN, including our President. I voted for George W. Bush because I thought HE was conservative, but I was wrong. Big time.

I am calling out anyone who would like to show me ONE piece of legislation or spending initiative put forth by our President that shows he is a conservative at heart.

Those who would like to see this whole situation in its reality, you need a Biblical world view. Not a liberal, conservative, or independent one. If you understand the Bible prophesy about Global Governance and One World Government, suddenly all of what is happening begins to make perfect sense.

Battleground God

I was over at Cynthia's and took the Battleground God questionnaire. It was amusing at best due to the fact that it is based on "The god of Philosophy" (who doesn't exist). I didn't fair too well, due to the fact that my beliefs were not in line with the philosphical viewpoints that provide the premise for the test.

Below are some analysis of areas where I took some hits:

Analysis of your Direct Hits

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

****************

Obviously, I was a little biased here as I have never seen evidence of the Monster of Loch Ness, but can see evidence of God by looking out a window and observing nature.

Rom 1:18-20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
(from New International Version)

Direct Hit 2

You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 17.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!

****************

Analysis of your Bitten Bullets

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "False" to questions 6 and 7.

These answers generated the following response:

You're under fire! You don't think that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy. So you've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say. (b) Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

You chose to bite the bullet.

****************

I chose to bite the bullet rather than agree with humanist scientists grasping at evolutionary straws!

Bitten Bullet 2

You answered "True" to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

****************

Ok, the test got me here. The whole debate about what God can't do, like sin, or violate human free will; or as the question suggests, make 1 + 1 = 72, is still a little beyond me.

Legal Drugs in Mexico

According to this article on CNN's website. Mexico is a signature away from de-criminalizing several dangerous substances.

"No charges will be brought against ... addicts or consumers who are found in possession of any narcotic for personal use," according to the Senate bill, which also lays out allowable quantities for an array of other drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and amphetamines.

What is ironic is the penalties for selling these substances will remain.

It also stiffens penalties for trafficking and possession of drugs -- even small quantities -- by government employees or near schools, and maintains criminal penalties for drug sales.

Those who understand just how corrupt the Mexican government is will not be suprised by this news, while all others should pay careful attention because this is one of the countries we are planning on "joining" to become "The New America" where all of their inherent problems become ours!

Imagine how much money this new "law" will generate for Mexico as countless American college students and drug users flood the border towns looking for a fix.

The fact that we are in bed with this country in alot of ways should alarm you.

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.