I frequent a few message boards, and discussion in one moved toward Atlanta, where I have some family. And by 'some' I mean like one cousin, but never mind. I had to respond (in bold) to the following message board quote, below:

A lot of residents of the Metro area go to some length to say they don't live "in" Atlanta and certainly not inside the perimeter. Many of them see the City of Atlanta proper as crime-infested and corrupt and generally not a place anyone with a choice would want to visit or live. Atlanta is a place you drive through with the doors locked and leave as quickly as possible.

These may not be actuality but these are the perceptions and comments I get from friends who live in Alpharetta, Buford, Fayetteville, Douglasville, Cornelia, and other outlaying areas, and even much closer towns like Hapeville. None of them want anything to do with Atlanta. They do not see it as their city. They are proud of not living in Atlanta.

"I believe an AJC feature from not that long ago told of [consumer advocate and radio host] Clark Howard addressing some folks at an event about his chances at running for Atlanta mayor. He asked how many actually lived in the city, and few hands were raised--"See, there's the problem," he said. He had just demonstrated a tremendous point.

Voting with your feet is an easy response, especially when you've got money and gas for commutes is [relatively] cheap. The growth of the suburbs your friends live in is proof of that, and they were well within their rights to leave. But standing your ground and trying to make a real difference is hard, which most well-meaning people in the ATL are trying to do. So while you and your friends are quick to criticize Atlanta citizens and its leaders, remember--they stayed, ya'll left.

If some of the apples peaches in Atlanta are bad, then others grew wings, a beak, and learned to cluck."

(A reminder that I don't live in Atlanta, obviously--but my sentiments and thoughts are largely based upon my experiences living in Birmingham, a city that I grew to love. And a city experiencing much of the same black majority, white flight issues along with some really odd-to-downright-crooked folks who are in charge. Peep the controversy from New Orleans' Mayor Ray Nagin's questionable 'Chocolate City' comments, and you had out of touch critics who had no clue to what he was even referring to. That shaped my attitudes on these issues too.)

You should know by now that I'm a political progressive, a liberal, if you will, who won't be rooting for Republicans to get back in power, even though I know they will someday. But I can't help but notice that this fight over who's the 'leader' of the GOP isn't doing a thing for attracting the young adults the Republican party desperately needs.

The folks that listen to Hush Limpballs are not young and just starting out in adulthood--they are more likely to be middle-to-mature aged traditionalists who already agree with what that fat dope says. These younger adults (even the ones who'd identify as conservative) are going to be more worldly--they didn't grow up in the unrest of the 1960s or Vietnam or any of have the conveniently nostalgic, generational worldviews of what some might call 'the good ol' days'.

Today's young adults will have learned in largely integrated schools with a more diverse student body. Even through the sheltering that private or home schooling might bring, they will have likely encountered a diverse student body. They will have been friends with or had first hand exposure to someone of a different race, culture, religion, or sexual orientation. They will be more tech savvy through computers, the Internet, and related wireless devices.

If you have doubts as to if any of that matters, then take a look at the young adults demos who voted for President Obama versus those who voted with Sen. McCain. One relished the use of internet technology, one didn't in as much of the effort. Who won? At the risk of oversimplifying, young people could relate to one way more than the other--and I'm not talking solely about age.

The future of the Republican party will be a conservatively minded one, but it will not, and probably cannot, be one of the old world hard right-wing that Limbaugh appeals to. The audience that pays attention to him (and Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and other conservative entertainers) are a little too old and too White to maintain their prominance for that much longer.

So while that crowd is certainly needed to get the 'conservative gospel' out, I can't help but wonder what would happen if new RNC chairperson Michael Steele and the other GOP politicos who initially decried Limbaugh's 'I want Obama to fail' meme had chosen to stick to their original guns, instead of kissing Rush's ass later. Does anyone dare defy the old, fat, and loud shock jock and energize the moderate conservatives who are a little more sophisticated than what passes for intellect on AM talk radio?

In 1999, Republicans got the banking and insurance deregulation they wanted, signed into law, no less, by President Clinton, who was allegedly a super-liberal nut job (according to talk radio dweebs). Savings and investment banks were allowed to mate with insurance companies, despite warnings that there was inherent risk in doing away with this time-tried, 60-year-old rule from barring such marriages.

Later, the GOP and big business would enjoy years of the Bush tax cuts for individuals and for corporations, aided by a then-Republican controlled Congress. Insurance companies played the credit default swaps game, which was unregulated. Savings and investment banks played the collateral debt obligation game, also unregulated--which led to the big push for subprime mortgages.

Mix it all together, bake it for about nine years, and you have the financial craptitude that the country is facing right now. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Countrywide...all of the former big names you can think of, now reduced to nothing. Conservatives can STFU about people on the left not knowing anything about economics--they've proven their own incompetence through 30 years of failed Reaganomic policies, and have perfected that failure within last few seasons.

People that you like aren't above saying some utter bullshit:

On the topic of race and ethnicity, McGruder said that to him, Obama is not black because he is not a descendant of a slave.

"The person who is one of us in the White House is Michelle Obama and her momma," McGruder said.

Let me first say that I love The Boondocks, both the strip and the animated show. Both have been entertaining, and more than often, brilliant.

But, I had suspected Aaron McGruder might have overestimated his gangsta with hot mess like the videos found on Boondocksbootleg.com. I won't tell you to watch the "Black Jesus" videos other than to imagine every ignorant stereotype about black men and apply it to the adventures of one with long hair and a beard.

But McGruder's assessment of Obama's blackness is particularly ignorant, and stupid. Not even you gets to make that kind of call, Aaron. It's one thing to be skeptical of Obama's politics and all politicians, but to hold some narrow standard of what constitutes African-American ethnicity is no less dangerous (IMO) than other's outmoded ideas of racial purity--of which none exists.

And now I have easy reasoning to hold lowered expectations of your new Boondocks episodes and comics (the latter for which I don't think you've actually the time for). After all, entertainment producers are influenced by money and fame just as politicians are, if not more so.

Let's say you're an FBS/Division I-A college football player, and you make a few starts as the quarterback. Let's also say that something goes down that changes the relationship between you and the head coach that recruited you. It's so bad that ultimately, you decide to transfer. You already know you're going to have to sit out a year if you go to another FBS school, and there may be a few restrictions on what schools you can go to. But what if the coach in question really seems to want to put the screws to you and enforce even greater restrictions?

Let's just also throw out there that your dad has prostate cancer and you'd like to transfer somewhere close to home and family, to be with them just in case. No can do--one of those nifty new restrictions that Coach Meanie has insisted upon includes a ban on schools in the entire state you happen to be from. Sound fair? Well, this is precisely what University of Miami coach Randy Shannon attempted to inflict upon QB Robert Marve, and Yahoo! Sports columnist Dan Wetzel justly calls him out for it.

There is no practical reason from barring Marve from playing football at UCF, Florida International, Florida Atlantic, or any other FBS school in the state--only a we don't want you beat us in the future reason. Wetzel is right that standardized regulations at the conference level should be adopted. A reasonable standard might include disallowing transfers to in-conference schools and any non-conference opponent on contract/on schedule for the next two or three seasons. A full ban on all in-state schools is way too harsh, especially if you live in a state with several college football programs. What if University of Texas coach Mack Brown decided to ban transfers to any Texas college not in Austin?

Coaches already have enough power by choosing to renew scholarships year to year. (That's right, scholarships are not guaranteed--they are renewed for the duration of a player's eligibility at the discretion of the head coach.) If the player himself decides to leave, no coach should have the absolute say on where he transfers. Randy Shannon and his staff went way too far, and my like of the man has been lessened.

A lot of talk about the domestic auto industry lately. One side wants to use this opportunity to bury organized labor, the other wants to save union jobs and the related jobs supported by the domestic automotive industry. Two guesses on which side I'm on, and one of them doesn't count.

Anyway, this conversation has predictably devolved down into a sub-conversation about how good American-made cars are versus that of foreign brands, many of which are now made in America (but with un-organized labor and profits going overseas). Hilarity ensues when talking with some folks, as you've got a lot of people with some serious beefs with GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

It's been my observation, accurate or not, that so many members of the He-Man Big 3 Haters Club have one or more the same basic traits or symptoms: They're male, politically right-leaning, and they typically post to sites like Autoblog, The Truth About Cars, and Jalopnik; They believe Jeremy Clarkson should be knighted. They've ultimately been jilted by the worst example of a 1970s/1980s American made autofunk--think a Pinto, Citation, or a Zephyr--and needlessly apply this hatred to any and every vehicle built this millenium. This crowd ultimately thinks every car should be RWD (not 'wrong wheel drive' as most contemporary cars), have Mustang-like power, Corvette beauty, Lexus-level interior sophistication, BMW handling, and a Hyundai price--and any shortcomings amongst more than one area makes the vehicle in question a failure.

They're politely called 'enthusiasts', and when talking about the automotive needs for the masses, I ignore them--as should most of you.

My characterization is probably gross, but there's a point to doing so. I intentionally contrasted the needs of the enthusiasts versus that of the masses; I believe that, sans a few notable exceptions, that most domestically branded cars could meet the needs of the driving public just fine.

We could sit here and gripe about legroom, interior plastics, road noise, and stuff like that, but c'mon, really. Is there anything a new Toyota Camry can do that a new Ford Fusion or Chevy Malibu or Saturn Aura can't? Maybe there's plenty amongst the tastes of others, but not in my eyes. Depreciation and resale value? Pfft. If its a good car, I'm not getting rid of it. And any repair work would STILL be cheaper than another note. And even Consumer Reports is noting that those trips to the domestic dealer repair shop are getting fewer.

To each his or her own, but do your own diligent research, and don't rely simply on impractical biases.

Well, it's only been about nineteen months (or in the style of the brilliant-but-canceled Pushing Daisies, one year, six months, and 25 days) since the last time I posted anything to this blog. I suppose I could start out with "Deal with it" in the semi-catch-phraseable manner that I have during other posts, but it's simply been too long--and seriously.

But perhaps that's because as I said on another message board/Black political blog that I've started to frequent, I became obliged to post/write something instead of being inspired to write/post something. I really did want to become a regular blogger but I really didn't have much to say. Or so I thought. Commenting on the news of the day seemed so copycattish, but it turns out that even the most minor of happenings can inspire a good rant worth pecking out on a keyboard and uploading to the anonymous online.

But will I keep doing so here? Honestly, I don't know if I want to keep writing as 'ebonyblazer', one of my original of the too many usernames that I have while tooling around the internets. This name is the one I decided when I was a regular member of BlackVoices. I still visit from time to time, but BV is no longer the must visit site it once was for me. That, and I've developed a bit of a rep from the new political blog that I frequent--where someone actually asked me, "Why don't you start a blog?"

I wonder if I should start fresh--with the new name that I post under there, the same name I planned on using for my fail...um...unfulfilled broadcasting career. (Look at it this way: Since I was never hired, I couldn't get fired like everyone now.) Anyway, if I started anew I could use a FreeServers address that I had forgotten I had, or I could buy a web address and hook it to WordPress--to really do the blog thing right. Or, I could simply remember the login information that I have for THIS blog and keep ranting here. One concern I have is anonymity online--I'd like to keep it for the most part so that I can post absolutely uncensored without holding back.

Maybe I've already made my decision by simply logging on this dusty relic of a blog and pecking out a post. Perhaps. There's a lot that I haven't blogged about in nineteen months...so it's not like I don't have subject matter. There's stuff on my chest alright, about the world, about my community, about my family, about my semi-pathetic existance (see, told you I had issues). Yeah, I think we'll try it here again and see how things go.