Okay, bare with me. As I'm just free wheelin' on a theory. As we all know, there is 'right' and there is 'wrong'. Most of us aspire to be 'right' in education, employment, and moral standing. A few of us like to be 'wrong'. To get away with robbing a bank, a murder, a quick fix of feel good drugs and/or sexual deviance.So the question to you now is; where do you place 'hope' amongst those two? Beginning, middle, or end? I think it has to be in the middle, as hope is the swaying factor. We aspire to be 'right' and 'hope' our education, manners, and application will merit a good job, relations, and accommodations. If lacking education, manners, and aspiration to do good - we 'hope' that our 'wrongs' will salvage us. That we will elude the cops, the jury, the 16 year old parents. Since Moses brought down the 10 Commandments, we have lived with 'hope' in the middle. Right->Hope<-Wrong<-Hope' Now what do I mean by that? (to coin Soupy Sales famous line) That we are now convinced of the 'right' way of doing things. Good stock, good discipline, good education, and good application will merit a respectable and affluent outcome. Should that fail, be it distrust, disrespect, or a simple 'act of God' that changes everything. Desperation will ensue firstly, then followed by 'hope'. And the only 'hope' we believe in at that peril is to 'get to the right'. We're beyond foiling the cops, duping the jury, skirting the creditors. We're out to impress Simon Cowell, Judge Judy, Facebook Friends, and at worst - Daniel Tosh (Sorry Dan, but Tosh.O is the epitome of Chuck Barris' nightmares. That's right, I said it!) Through media, cyberspace, the judicial system, and religious beliefs worldwide - we now 'hope' to succeed from our lowest of lows. To do enough 'wrongs' to get to the 'right'. And hopefully stay there - if we're smart enough. Even if we're not, 3 words to say to that. Kelly Clarkson's career. Now where do you put 'hope' in the right and wrong of that? Maybe I'm wrong, and can only hope I'm making light of it it all. Then again, maybe Bill Moyers will see this and ask me on his show? I can only hope. An idiots redemption, Wasn't good enough to be a doctor.

Con-tra-cept-ual (kŏn'trə-sěp'shual) - n./adj. The preventing of total infiltration of mainstream influences, while maintaining artistic merit. To assist in heightened awareness, which may include drug use, sexual stimuli, and moral discourse. 1. Of or relating to concepts and art in a perverse manner. 'That freak got all contraceptual and made it confusing and indecent'. 2. To 'contraceptualize' 3. Of or relating to 'contraceptualjism' (J should be pronounced) IE; 'This wack smack is totally drenched in contraceptual-jism'

I've been getting more and more troubled by the fact that music and what we listen to today in 2010 has achieved a 50 year tolerance level. Now why I say 'troubled' is that in my youth, the quintessential period was 1980-81. Sex Pistols and The Tubes were past their prime, PiL and Depeche Mode and U2 were the bands of prominence. And if anyone suggested I listen to music 30 to 35 years old - that's like jazz swing crap and hillbillies with acoustic guitar stuff. No way man! But today many kids learn and like groups like Depeche Mode, The Sex Pistols, Led Zepplin, The Beatles, and have funnels attached to their ears for more it seems. And/or don't mind being in a club playing New Order and Enya, because the current hip hop music starts to many fights. In one way, I'm really happy to see the kids hip to the shit that rocked my world. But at the same time, I should feel more outdated than Bobby Goldsboro and Leif Garret (and how much should I bet SOMEONE'S going to Google those names?) When people like John Cougar are blown away by the fact there's more young people at his concerts today than older fans... That should be saying something, shouldn't it? Current music's crap. Old rock and roll is the best. Screw Glen Miller and that hippy nonsense. And regardless my age now, I should in turn tell John Cougar to go screw himself. But I can't, because I like John Cougar too at this moment. Some will say it preserves and encourages the appreciation of music, and thus Jack White and his blues records should be honoured highly. Yet, I still feel I should say 'Screw Jack White, geeky young has-been. Electronica forever!' But dammit, Jack's pretty good at electronica too. Yet, I think there's still a bit of shock when one mentions 'David Bowie and Bing Crosby' to this day. There's that brief moment of 'what?' And then, 'oh yeah, that christmas tune they did - Peace On Earth/Little Drummer Boy thing. Yeah, yeah.' But I think that 'what?' factor is important. It let's one know their age group, their moment in time, their peer groups, that tribal belonging. And quite possibly hip hop is the only genre left where that exists? To put on Public Enemy's Fear Of A Black Planet sounds more dated than Sgt. Peppers. Vanilla Ice is the hip hop equivilant of Shaun Cassidy (oops, another Google search I'm sure...) As bad as that may sound, I respect the hip hop realm - as they're trying to move on. New styles, new sounds. But even that is getting tainted by white supremacists like Nelly Furtado and Katie Perry. Timbaland is the Kunta Kinte of the 'pop machine'. There, suck that Sidney Poitier! And then, in time, on HBO, during Timbalands 'Freak House' show, the two of us will perform Ebony And Ivory... And will be quickly forgotten. Eminem's real name is now a trivia question. So maybe there's still hope? Then again, John Tesh may have a come back? And then what will we do? Hopefully you'll be as troubled as me come then.

Here's my theory. Since the dawn of our conscience being, we were installed with two instinctive and hereditary traits... Sex and comfort. Be it for procreation and nobility, recreation and functionality, or religious abstenence and the word of God. This is what established the majority of the world as basic 'humans' for thousands of years. Be they religions of Buddhist, Sikh, Catholic, et al. And for rich, or for poor. But the transition came (or was forced?) for us to be conditioned to think our instilled traits are 'fear and protection'. Psycholigists and anthropologists would like to take this back to the inception of the atomic bomb, and maybe even the black plague? But I say we easily overcame and moved on from those monumental acheivements and tragedies while keeping our integrity. I would place the fault squarely on communication and science fiction. And not to piss of the Trekkies and/or Trekers - but cite Gene Roddenberry as the prime instigator. Although Star Trek envisioned a utopian and convienient world of exploration, it also made many fear and protect that dream - beyond fanaticism. For whom it may have compelled to learn and aspire for NASA, this is the same person now in a difficult marriage being discussed over a cel phone while a Blackberry is vibrating on their side with a problem report that's going to cause yet more overtime. And not to place the blame solely on Gene and Star Trek, but journalism as well. The adage since the dawn of Druids or earlier is that 'news happens'. We can only carry it and deliver it to those that need it most. Our conscience and societies were accepting and mostly tolerant of that. But since the inception of CNN, the adage has become 'TV makes news happen. For everyone!'. Whereas a local newspaper may try to embody as much facts with a small trivial banner to attract. National cable news will have as much trivia with a small amount of facts meted out to exist on a 24/7 basis. And we've come to accept it, without question. And then 'the blog'. Unlike a library with renowned works by essential theorists, we can spew and pick whatever and whoever we like. I would like to think this 'blog' has substance and can raise not only a question of our combined integrity - but action as well. But like holding the equivilent of a Lotto Super Ball ticket and telling people what I would do with all that money... It's probably NOT going to happen. The best I can hope for is a 'free ticket'. And it's the 'free ticket' that keeps us subconciously clinging to the last vestige of 'sex and comfort'.

Now I don't want to get off on a rant here... Or be sued by Dennis Miller FTM. But what the heck is a 'blog' anyways? The first instance of 'blog promotion' IMO stems back to a Republican scandal involving Jeff Guckert (aka Jeff Gannon) supposedly planted in the press corps to ask G.W. Bush positive and enabling questions and slighting the Democrats in process. When CNN, CBS, MSNBC et al members questioned 'Who the heck is that guy?' They were furbished with the answer 'Oh, he runs a blog...' The press then had a field day investigating the merits of this new found communication device known as 'blogs', which was quickly blindsided that Guckert was actually a gay male porn star on a site called 'US Male Corps'. As with all Republican scandals, they're cleaned and pressed faster than Monika Lewinsky's dress. But with that buffoonery (or 'buggery' if you will?) aside; the question still remained. What IS a 'blog'? The mere power of the internet and Goggle to revisit and substantiate my above theory was as simple as typing 'Republican press plant', and seeing Jeff Guckert's name - and search with that. Myriads of articles and history. And yes... Some 'blogs' I'm sure. What was 'not talked about' is now 'highly focused'. What was deflected, now fully displayed. Musings, to cold hard facts - all ripe for the reading. Corporations and companies now are even starting to give employee courses as to 'What is a blog', to give better insight. Being privy to some of these myself, the general conclusion is 'it's an informative webpage'.... Well DUH!!! A picture of Binky the cat is informative if one never knew what a cat named Binky looked like! I would say the bigger question is "Is it challenging?" Otherwise, why not just call 'blogs' what they really are - 'Globs'. To me, a blog should consist of informative food for thought from a personal perspective... Hey! Just like THIS one! But what makes me fearful of blogs and this trend to exploit and use them ad nauseum is the mere fact they don't really invite ANY interaction. "The speaker has spoken, and the reader has read". Sure, you might talk about this at the water cooler at work and use my 'Jeff Guckert Created Blogs' theory to invoke debate out of friends and foes. But what do 'I' get out of it? I get to sit back and feel like a zealous Dennis Miller-esque demigod for having brought into question 'the 8th wonder of the world'. Braaahahahahahahah! (Supposed to be a evil laugh - still sounds like Dennis Miller.) But did you really want to read all this? Chances are 'no', and I don't blame you. Do I want people flying in with 'Let me just say...' and 'I just wanna tell you something...' (see Monty Pythons 'Meaning Of Life' for full voice effect) over this little 'ty-rant' of mine...? Only if they're hot and horny. It's how Jeff Guckert would've wanted it. See you at the forums, my fellow Romans.