I was just watching SNL tonight. I couldn't make it through the last 30 minutes. It was quite difficult to even watch the first hour. This behavior of mine is a far difference from the devotion I used to have when watching the show. I wouldn't miss a minute.

Sadly, SNL has become so politically driven in their sketches and drastically in the Weekend Update segment. Not surprisingly it is skewed toward the left wing, anti-Bush claptrap. Yes, the show has always poked fun at presidents. But the "jokes" aimed at Bush don’t generate a humorous response within me. This is not the case with the live audience at the show. They shout applauses to the punch lines that have the same rhetoric as leftist talk (containing little thought extending beyond a feel-good feeling).

SNL has a very talented cast for impersonations, which I find extremely humorous. Sure Bush talks a bit funny. And it's entertaining to see the imitations of the Nuc-u-lar pronunciations (check out the third definition at Webster's).

At one time it was a dream of mine to be on SNL. It's not so much a dream anymore. Although it would be a fun challenge (most likely) being the only conservative, republican, christian working on the show.

I would love to see the SNL return to focusing on comedic sketches and memorable characters. You all know the one's I'm talking about - Mr. Peepers, The Spartan Cheerleaders, Simon who does drawrings, The Church Lady, and so on.

Hhhmmm. So maybe I still should pursue being on SNL. I could be the one that steers them back to being funny. Alright then. I'll do it. So I'll start, rather resume practicing..."Live from NY it's Saturday Night!!!"

It's finally going to happen. Yes, it is here. In this blog I will reference something said by none other than Dennis Prager. Honestly, I can't believe I've went so long without mentioning him here. To me, he truly is a man to esteem. I could go on with the praises but I'll save it for another time.

I've been digesting a comment of his recently. Prager said (paraphrase), Judeo/Christian philosophy teaches us to address the problems within. Secularism focuses on being preoccupied with the problems without.

In other words... Finding problems, blame, and fault with the world and our surroundings is a mantra commonly acceptable in our society. It is an idea that is developed by the notion that we are not in need of change. Just think of a few recognizable quips... I am who I am. This is me, like it or leave it.

Contrarily, Judeo/Xian teachings (and probably some of other religions) encourage a philosophy to first examine one's self. This elemental practice places the responsibility on ourselves as opposed to all other options.

After pondering this for a few days, I realized how easy it is to begin condemning people and circumstances around me. THEY are irritating. THEY are failing. THEY are ignorant. THEY and the WORLD is the problem.

I finally realized last night that I had veered from the self critiquing practice when someone asked me, "What's your problem?"  I declined to answer, because I thought there were too many things to mention. But in fact, had I responded it would have answered, "What's everyone else's problem?" Instead the question ask directed to me was extremely appropriate, because it was exactly MY problem. The problem did lie within me and I had been desiring and striving to find the faults of others in every aspect of my life.

I'm sure I'll be unpacking these thoughts more in the days to come.

One in particular that concerns me is the difference of 'Left' and 'Right' thoughts on radical Islam terrorism. In this case, the Left seems to be preoccupied with pinpointing what America has done that is so bad to justify their hatred for us (looking within). The Right seems to not want to blame America. However, we have examined ourselves as Judaism and Xianity encourages. We've looked within to see where we are at fault, which we are not free of. But our response to defend our lives is appropriate nonetheless.

You can turn on the radio these days and hear several songs that have been performed by several artists. Some are older songs that are remade by a current artist (Roxette's Listen to Your Heart). And some are remade and catered to different genres (Country's Gary Allen's remake of Vertical Horizon's Best I Ever Had). While some are hitting the airwaves at the same time on different stations (I won't mention all the duplications by Christian artists).

There certainly are groups that have provided an abundance of tunes that are remade - U2, The Beatles, Elvis.

But I am convinced that no other group has provided more hits than the California Raisins. The California Raisins had more stellar songs on their few albums than most artist have in an entire career. In fact every song they had was a stellar hit.

Just look at all of these songs originally performed by the Raisins -
I Heard It Through the Grapevine, Tracks of My Tears, Lean on Me, Stand by Me,
You Can't Hurry Love, My Girl, Heartbreak Hotel, La Bamba, Respect,
When a Man Loves a Woman, Sweet, Delicious and Marvelous, & Mony Mony

Alright. For real... I truly am a fan of the California Raisins (never mind that I can't stand eating raisins, yuck). But, I do know that they are in the same category as Santa Cause, Snoopy, and Tony the Tiger.

That doesn’t change just how much I admire them. These character were great for me and many other children. It was fun collecting the figurines and listening to the music. If it had not been for these Raisins, I don't know if I would have been introduced to such great classics.

I think they should make a comeback and get more of the younger generation into Rhythm and Soul music. I know I'll be looking forward to seeing their Christmas Program (I've just got to find where to see it).

I'm the youngest of three boys. And I've got to admit that both my older brothers aren't wimpy little guys. No. They are both built on a heavier set, but they are in great physical condition. And they always have been. So growing up, I saw the size of my brothers and always thought that I was that same size.

Over time I've come to realize that I'm not big and brawny like my brothers. Instead, I'm actually quite puny. Wait a minute... I'm a tiny, scrawny, little fart.

I finally noticed that the reflection I see in the mirror was bigger and buffer than what I really was. Recently this hasn't been too bothersome to me because I've become more involved in running. And the scrawny frame goes great for runners.

Well, I'm really not completely content with my tiny arms. So after years of hardly lifting weights at all, I've decided to set myself a new goal - get ripped. Aaauuuugggghhhh!!!!

So, I found a workout plan from Men's Health magazine. This plan claims to increase my arm size by two inches in one month. Watch out sleeves! Yesterday morning I completed my first workout. It would have been my second, but after finishing some sets on Monday night I realized I was doing the wrong workout (it was a super toned down version for the super wimps - of which I am not).

Hopefully, I'll be able to soon say with sincerity - I need a band-aid. Because I'm CUT!!! (I know. The line is much funnier when I deliver it with tiny arms).

Here in Colorado Amendment 43 would define marriage between one man and one woman. I like this amendment and it's one most conservatives will back. For good reasons such as; keeping sacred what God created, not adding excessive burdens and cost to employers for benefits, and loving our country and values so much that you want it to continue for future generations. These are all good reasons I support 43.

Yet, I've seen a few signs around town that gives a completely absurd and deceiving reason to vote for Amendment 43. The sign says "Choose Life. Yes on 43."

CHOOSE LIFE???? This amendment has nothing to do with abortion. And this phrase is clearly a dominant one in the fight for the unborn. There is no connection between preserving marriage as a man and woman as defined within this amendment and the battle to giving life over abortion.

This is a horrible act to use pro-life rallying points in order to support something else on the ballot.

In spite of my disdain and disgust with this attempt to attract voters onto Amendment 43, I'm not going to oppose the amendment itself. If I did, then I would be committing a 'bad reason fallacy' or a 'fallacy fallacy,' which is a claim that 43 is wrong/bad because the argument is wrong/bad. Well 43 is not bad. And it has many good arguments to vote for it. This particular sign is not one of them.

Define marriage. Choose life. But don't deceive people to support what is good.