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.

I can't imagine a time writing my own name was difficult. Yet at one point in my life I couldn't even write letters, much less put them together to form my name. Fortunately my family and teachers came together to instruct me in what now is a thoughtless task.

Also, after completing an engineering degree and tutoring physics, I am baffled that there used to be a time that I didn't even know what multiplication was. There used to be a time when I didn't know how to use the kinematics equations...[GASP]. Thankfully, the world of math and science were introduced to me.

Even the colors I now recognize used to be unknown to me. I was taught that a banana is yellow, a fire truck is red, and the sky is blue. Because of these teachings I received I wouldn't make a statement such as, "I just ate a yellow banana." Because I know, as well as most people over the age of three, that bananas are yellow.

Similarly, I would have difficulty making sense of an adult yelling at me "Bananas are Yellow" with a fierce anger and in a mode of debate. Am I supposed to give a rebuttal to that and should I expect to here a conclusion based on this statement?

I think this is comparable to boastful attacks made against the war that are driven by statements such as "People are dying." Is this statement made to be debated? Is the conclusion that follows valid (that this is an unjust war, etc)?

This statement cannot be debated. Unfortunately people are dying. Some of our American brothers and sisters are dying. It is an obvious fact. Undeniable because we are in the midst of a war.

This statement cannot be followed by a valid conclusion, other than the evident one that war is deadly.

There are some lessons that we should be taught when growing up.
War is deadly. A banana is yellow.

PS - Yes, I'm aware that the rotten bananas can be brown and that not-yet-ripe bananas are green. So there can be wars without deaths too. But these lessons are still a fact of life.

Lately I've been noticing a pattern when I think about things. And my responses to these things. You know, things. Such as the Horses' latest improv show, seeking forgiveness from a friend, the dogs eating half of my mom's blueberry muffins, receiving some recognition at work, or my dad's cancer. Things.

I've been evaluating my responses to these and other things. I'm wondering what outcome would cause me to be pleased and what would cause me to be dissatisfied. And I'm contemplating what situations require the same response no matter what the outcome may be.

For example, I would be upset if I couldn't share mom's muffins with some coworkers (and I was). But shouldn't I go into work with the same attitude whether I'm not receiving any recognition or I just received a huge raise?

Regarding my walk with God, it seems reasonable to predetermine how I'll respond to the ups and downs of life. Is my faith in God of any value if I start questioning Him when I face something unpleasant? Does the truth of who God is change if I'm thrown a life blow and I become agree? Since God is constant in His ways shouldn't I attempt the same for my reactions to both trials and triumphs?

I'm having much more thoughts on this subject than I'm able to articulate. But I'll leave with this - a passage from Psalm 13. The psalmist is asking several questions to the Lord, with none of them being answered here. Yet in the end he provides his response. I suspect that it is his response no matter what the outcome may be.

Psalm 13
How long, O Lord? Will You forget me forever?
How long will You hide Your face from me?
How long shall I take counsel in my soul,
Having sorrow in my heart daily?
How long will my enemy be exalted over me?
Consider and hear me, O Lord my God;
Enlighten my eyes, Lest I sleep the sleep of death;
Lest my enemy say, "I have prevailed against him";
Lest those who trouble me rejoice when I am moved.
But I have trusted in Your mercy;
My heart shall rejoice in Your salvation.
I will sing to the Lord, Because He has dealt bountifully with me.

The Mona Lisa Cover-Up... sounds like it should be a novel paralleling The Da Vinci Code. Well, sorry. It's just a title to catch your attention since this post is about art. But I will get to the Mona Lisa.

I know that comparing the Mona Lisa to the current "modern" art movement is just grossly unfair to today's "modern" artists. But I want to propose that even the greats like Leonardo (the creator of the Mona Lisa) was a strict critic to himself.

Recently I saw an art display consisting of four paintings. At least I think they were paintings, I'm not really sure the medium that was used. These paintings were a blend of dark red and black paint covering the entire surface. That's it. Nothing more. I don't remember the titles of the works, but they were obscure. But I do remember the price - $3000. Hhhmm...

I wondered if the artist of these pieces was truly pleased with their work? Did the pieces live up to any preconceived criteria or standards? Or was there any criteria to begin with? Did the artist think they could do better than this or was this the extent of their artistic capabilities? Maybe it's just some of this modern art that I don't understand. But how much did the artist critique their handiworks and conclude these pieces were successful works of art valued at $3000?

I once heard that art scholars believe another Leonardo painting exists underneath his infamous Mona Lisa. Possibly several paintings. The thoughts are, if a painting didn't sell or he wasn't fond of it, then he would cover it with a base color and begin a new piece. This leads me to believe that one of the greatest artist in history was a critic of himself. Maybe this is what defined him as one of the greats.

I imagine in today's art market he wouldn't have to put much effort in his work. There's no question though that he would not produce great works like the Mona Lisa. But thankfully Leo was tough on himself and realized that some things should be covered-up. And what better way to cover up something, than with the perplexing smile of Mona Lisa.

A few weeks ago, I noticed in my church bulletin that there would be Karate classes offered. I was as thrilled as a boy in elementary school just a few days away from summer break.

Why was I so excited? Well, being the youngest of three boys I think Karate would be of great use in sparring with the bros. But more importantly, my brothers have taught me many things. At 27, I'm still sorting through which of those things are true.But here is a true lesson I learned from my oldest brother: Fighting skills should not be stagnant. They need to be constantly evolving. Here's why...

A few months after my brother left for college and I had just started the 8th grade, be came home for a weekend. Of course we began a wrestling match, but this one was different than all the other ones. Up to this point our 'matches' would consist of running into each other, swing out punches (never to the face though), tackling to the floor, and then endless pinning attempts to get me to "give" while exchanging punches (I never gave in).

But after a few months in college my brother was pulling out some moves I had never come across before. Half way through this I exclaimed "What are you doing?" for he had be able to get me into a compromising position that truly was uncomfortable (something that rarely happen). With a fair amount of cockiness in his voice he said, "How do you like that bad dog? I had a friend teach me some official wrestling moves." I wasn't paying much attention anymore, but he went on about his new college friend going to Nationals or something like that.

It took me a long while to get over the feeling that this wasn't fair. I didn't wrestle him much more after that, because he wasn't playing by the rules we always had. But in fact, we never had 'rules' established. Later I realized that he was just the older brother that was tired of struggling against his little brother. He wasn't winning so he learned a new technique; a new tactic. And it worked. He could finally hold his own against his brother 5 years younger.

My oldest brother has been taking karate lessons since early this year. He's still adapting his fighting and skills. But this time I'll be right behind him. I just wonder if I should let him know or keep it to myself??? But I lament. For Karate is an art of defense. So to honor this ancient fighting art, I won't be able to attack my brother with what I've learned. But with these lovingly brotherly fights that we often have, most of the time it really is hard to tell who started it.

Look at those Razorbacks!!!!

The Razorbacks had an incredible game on Saturday by upsetting #2 Auburn 27-10. Arkansas is now ranked #17 in the AP pole (#23 in the USA Today pole).

I don't think they will be moving up anymore for a while. Their schedule is weak until they get to Tennessee and LSU.

Another good move in the poles this week was that of the OU Sooners. After losing to Texas they plummeted from #14 to #23. Can't wait to see them out of the top 25. Yeah, I know my Cowboys (OSU) aren't doing so hot, but I'm happy to see the Sooners lose any time.

Yesterday, Hillary spoke to the Senate against the "Military Commissions Act" which ensures  terrorists can be prosecuted for their crimes in full and fair trials. She said...

"By allowing this Administration to further stretch the definition of what is and is not torture, we lower our moral standards to those whom we despise, undermine the values of our flag wherever it flies, put our troops in danger, and jeopardize our moral strength in a conflict that cannot be won simply with military might."

First, I don't think sleep deprivation (or other "torture," I prefer to break a few bones) lowers us to the moral standard of killing innocent people. Are these the same moral equivalence to Hillary? Helping provide bombs to people in order for them to blow themselves up in marketplaces packed with civilians, and inflicting pain upon one of these people in order to stop the killing of the innocent. Those are equal?!?!?!? Torture in no way lowers "moral strength" to the depth of the extreme killing fanatics.

Second, she believes we are in a "conflict." I was in a conflict the other day. Only the other party in this conflict didn't want to invade my culture and world, destroy my home,  and kill me and my family. I wonder how Hillary would define a war. I suspect that she would acknowledge there is a war against "this administration." Dum Dum Duuuummm.

Third, I'm not sure where Hillary stands on the wire tapping issue, but I wish her and her Dem friends would embrace her thoughts that we are "in a conflict that cannot be won simply with military might." Isn't that what Bush has been saying all along. Yes, we need intelligence to fight this war. So why are the Dems stopping that from happening?

Third and a half, forgive me but I was listening to Air America today. And the program was playing multipe Dems who wanted to put more troops in Afghanistan. Apparently that would fix everything. Hillary should tell them that it cannot be won simply with military might.

I just began reading Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's book Character is the Issue. I have to admit, since I'm a native of Arkansas I might be have a predisposition to support him . But the more I'm learning about him the more I truly do like him, even esteem him. Yes, I think he'd be a great candidate for 2008. He has strong conservative Christian values. He used to be a minister. And best of all he's a runner!!! Woo Pig Sooie! 

The following is a line form a speech he gave back in July of 1996 in a historic day in Arkansas. The speech was delivered to the state when Huckabee was expected to be governor, but out going Gov. Jim Guy Tucker had suddenly announced he would not be resigning despite the criminal convictions against him regarding the Whitewater trial. Addressing the entire state, Huckabee had just announced that an impeachment process had begun, and said...

"If there are court challenges, let them come. We're more than ready to face them. If there are challenges from those who write columns or make opinions, let them come. We have not been elected to take a poll or check with opinion writers, or even to be threatened with legal action. He have been elected to serve you and represent you."

I like his attitude toward the polls. He didn't care what the numbers would say. He wanted to do what was right. And what was best for the state of Arkansas. I definitely think this man has the stuff to follow in Bush's steps. He's got my vote.

Yesterday, I hiked Mt Shavano with a buddy of mine. Just wanted to pass along to all of you Coloradans that it's not too late to get a hike in...SUMMERS NOT OVER YET!!
It's fading, I know. But I'm in partial denial. That is until I start boarding in a few months. Sweet.

Any how, for those that want to know more about the hike and to see some pictures, go the 14ers site.

It was a beautiful day. I feel bad for all of you who don't get to see the wonderful Rocky Mountains everyday. But you probably get to see another great aspect of our majestic country. Enjoy wherever you are. Right? ...something that's easy to do when living in America.

If you're interested in joining the fight on cancer, here are a few places to get started -

www.cancer.org

www.livestrong.org

www.teamintraining.org