Ah, life.  How steady she bears on.  If you're good and read this whole post (or cheat and scroll to the bottom) you'll get a link to a video of a guy landing on his face. (Don't worry, he says he's OK afterwards.)

So, currently, work has slowed down a bit.  That's pleasant.  I still drive 50 miles each way, however, and that gets tiring at times.  It's a darn good thing the ol' Hyundai gets a lot of miles per grain of rice.

Emery, my boy, is doing just fine.  He poops more regularly (that was a problem for a while) and saliva flows from his fat mouth like an everlasting fountain.  It's truly incredible.  He doesn't sit up on his own yet, so he's got a ways to go before he's tearing up the football field.  Or dancefloor.  ...   Who am I kidding?  Calculator.

So, I'm playing bass weekly at the church Kelsey and I attend, and we recently got a new guy.  He's...  interesting.  The gal that used to lead is 20 years old, and she ruled.  This guy is a bit older and very thorough.  The time commitment has jumped significantly.  I'm hoping another bass player is going to volunteer so we can trade off.

Speaking of church, I joined the men's softball team.  I was told that the team wasn't all that good, so I wasn't too worried about my inclination towards more bookish endeavors (I have trouble catching, throwing, hitting).  Turns out they're all practically ringers.  I have to get a lot better really fast or I'll be toast.  Anyone want to play catch?

So, the immigration thing is hot right now.  On Monday, many illegal immigrants didn't work or shop to show what economical impact they have.  The only thing I have to say about this issue (at the moment) is that the state and federal governments should have suspended funding medicare, schools and prisons for the appropriate participants to show the true economical impact.  I don't have the figures in front of me, but my hunch is the U.S. actually gained on May first.

Poker is tonight.  I'm pumped.  I'm ready.  I think I'll favor Jacks and Sevens tonight.

So, I'm thinking the bird flu might hit big time.  And I'm thinking I might get to hang out at home and work from a remote computer in my pajamas.  I'll celebrate by buying pajamas.  Any suggestions?  Keep in mind you might be subjected to pictures.

So, did any of you know that some crazy dude bombed a school in Michagin a long time ago?  I read about it on Wikipedia this morning.  That site rules.  I love to just go and read about stuff.  It makes me feel all learned and junk.  Anyhow, have a look at the story of Andrew Kehoe if you're interested.  Interesting stuff.  Here are his last words:

I have some opinions on this sentiment, but I think I'll save them for the next post.  That's called a teaser, folks.

Oh, and here's a failed backflip resulting in "pool-side cement meets face".  Ha.

Well, it seems as though my blogs may come every 11 days (or so) for a while, but hopefully I'll get it into gear.  It's not that I pretend that everyone loves reading what I write, it's just that the writing is theraputic for me.  That and I completely rule.  In my defense, let me just say that I wrote a blog earlier this week that I somehow lost before I posted it.  So there.

Ok, so remember when I linked you to a video of a station wagon doing a wheely?  Well, I've found one of a school bus.  Spectacular.  I mean, come on.  How could that not rule?  Click!  Click!

Secondly, have a look at this:



Rick Monday, a player for the Chicago Cubs, saved the ol' Stars and Stripes from two flag-burning hippies on April 25th, 1976.  Take that!  Then take a bath, would ya?

So, the NFL Draft is tomorrow.  Everyone and their uncle has written a mock draft in which they predict every pick each team will make.  Invariably, they're all way off.  So, instead of trying to predict that which is beyond human comprehension, I'll just say this: hey Vikings, get a linebacker and a quarterback sometime tomorrow.  And pick the LB first, OK?  Geez.

I'll be listening to the draft on the radio as I make the long drive to Evergreen (my old stomping gournds) from Colorado Springs (my current, um, napping grounds).  The last of the original roommates from that fantastic bachelor pad is getting married May 7th and it's time to clean out the closet.  Shall I throw away the Jeep grille that killed a deer on I-25?  Probably.  Shall I keep the Nintendo 64?  Duh.  I'm gonna miss that place.  On the river, within walking distance of a BeauJo's AND a Baskin Robins, home of many cookouts and odd, nude activities.  Sigh.

So, the ever-hilarious Maddox is realeasing a book.  Go to the first link, read some articles, then go learn about his book.  I think I have to buy it.  The release date?

06/06/06

Accident?  I think not.

I get up early six days every week.  Last Saturday I was up early for some forgotten reason.  Probably wasn't worth it.  Tomorrow, I'll be up early again.  That's, like, (counts on fingers) 20 straight days of NOT sleeping in.  Lame.

On Tuesday I'm hosting poker night.  I'm going to take those church guys for all they're worth.  Mwa ha ha!

Blogging fell off the list for a while but life has settled a bit and I hope to resume updating friends and spewing my political opinions to anyone who will listen.  Huzzah!  Anyhow, here is a general update on the things in my life in, as Bob Saget would say, no particular order.

Emery's doin' fine.  He'll be 4 months in a couple of days (April 19) and perhaps I'll try and get some pictures of him being bigger up here.

Kelsey and I had an enjoyable Easter with her parents.  She cooked.  It was phenominal.  I'm very impressed.

My uncle Bob died a week ago Sunday (that would be the 9th).  It was very sudden and unexpected.  He was only 59.  I've talked with him dozens of times in my life, but we weren't all that close.  It's an odd event that has made me look at the sky for a few seconds longer when I glance up by chance.

My job is rolling along just fine.  Sometimes I'm motivated by nothing but the fear of the loss of income.  Gotta pay the mortgage, you know.  Usually I enjoy work though, and that's a lot oftener than many people could honestly say.

Kelsey turned 21 and my sister Kendra turned 29.  Time marches on.

I'm playing poker tomorrow night.  Those church boys had better be prepared to be crushed by my cunning strategies.

I play bass in church and wonder where all of the other music in my life went.  I'd like to be more involved.

Slightly related to the above, I spend a lot of my freetime playing old Nintendo games and, recently, watching The Office.  Thanks, Nate.

I used to think that all videos of burnouts were lame teenagers showing off their stupid low-rider Hondas and such.  Turns out I was wrong.  There's one video of a guy in a raised CJ5 Jeep doing a burnout that isn't really that exciting, but a nice change of pace.  Also, there's fire.

Did you know that women play football?  Yeah.  Weird.  Here's their site.  Just discovered that today.

That's all I can think of at the moment.  Have a nice day.

The Muslim Cartoon post of a few days ago is still attracting some attention.  So that everyone may be aware of the current dialogue (feel free to jump in) here is a response first time commenter Dan left:

First, I appreciate an open forum and commend you for your willingness to express your opinions in this format. 

I think you need to examine very carefully how you are coming to your conclusions about Islam.  Is it from reading the Koran carefully and thoughtfully? Or may it have anything to do with how the media portrays this religion?  There are many people who have read the Koran and come away with a very different interpretation.  That's the thing about a book, it can be read and interpreted in many ways.  For example, the Shiites and Sunnis both live by this book, but have chosen very different interpretations.  In fact, not even Sunnis or Shiites can agree within their respective sects on how to interpret the Koran (i.e., hadith vs. hanbali – look it up).  In point of fact, it is dangerous to make sweeping statements about any religion. 

Now, back to my earlier questions.  It is safe to say that the media portrays Islam as a religion rooted in violence.  So, viewers such as you or I, are lead to believe that any bombing or cartoon riot must relate directly to the violent foundation of Islam.  Consider an alternative.  Would if those in the middle east are lead to believe that American Democracy is rooted in Christianity and that we forcing these values upon them??  Because they ARE lead to believe this, and given our current president I might even understand why.  Perhaps this is the source of their outrage and violence.  Any people with free will should fight against those who force a systems of values and beliefs on them (we certainly have in the past).  Don't kid yourself for a second, we are over there for our own financial interests and we are forcing a system of government and values on these people.  Even if you don't believe we are there for our own financial interests.  Let's say we are their for our own protection.  How do we know that instilling our Christian-rooted democracy is the way to reduce terrorism?  WE DON'T.  And the fact is, by forcing a way of life on them, we become the persecutors.  This in it of itself fosters violence.  Most Muslims strive for a peaceful way of life.  Who are we to decide how they get there?

As you may have noticed, I didn't quote any articles, news reports, books, or really any source at all.  This is because WE don't have access to the correct information.  We can attempt to be as informed as we can through the media and by reading primary sources (and I do attempt this).  Our opinions are only as good as the thinking we engaged to conceive them.  So if you do choose to quote any source, I implore you to think carefully about its merit.  Now, don't let me be hypocritical, my thinking is flawed as well.  I only offer another perspective. 

-Dan

 

I have heard from a source in the know that Dan will reply to my response below sometime this weekend.  Oh boy!  Everyone, really, feel free to jump in with any opinion or commentary.  My response:

Dan!  It's a pleasure to semi-meet you.  I want to first talk about the things I think you've done well here, and then move on to that with which I disagree.  Happily, the former is a longer list than the latter.

Open forums and freedom of expression and opinions is a beautiful thing.  Thank you for enjoying it with me.  You strike me as intelligent and have written articulately.  For the most part, you present your case rather well.  Kudos.

My conclusions about Islam come from a myriad of experiences.  The reason I brought up the fact that I have read the Q'uran is to let people know that I am not another under-educated and over-opinionated blowhard, who are all too common these days.  Reading the Q'uran (or Koran, it does not matter how we chose to spell it for the sake of this conversation) once through is certainly not enough to make me an expert, but it does serve to hint at an above-average knowledge of the religion of Islam.

Many different interpretations of every religious text abound, and since there is no way to simple know the correct interpretation, my response is to read the text itself, hear the arguments of those who have interpreted the text differently, sit and think (this is the most time consuming step) and finally come to a tentative position.  A brief look on how I came to my views of Islam follows.   

Or may it have anything to do with how the media portrays this religion?

But first, to waylay any doubt of my nerdiness, this sentence should read "...how the media portray this religion?" because the term "media" is, technically, the plural of "medium".  Moving on.

I do not form my opinions of Islam based on the media.  I have found television to be a poor source of unbiased information.  I decided this during the Clinton administration and have not watched the news since.  Your concern is certainly legitimate, and I'm glad you brought it up.  Many liberals have accused the media of taking a conservative slant to the news, and many conservatives have made the opposite accusation.  I think we would probably agree that ignoring the media is the best solution.

In addition to a lot of careful thought and consideration, introspection, reflection and prayer, I have taken classes on the Middle East (I found the topic fascinating and took everything my school offered relating to Islam).  One of the professors I had is a highly qualified individual, a liberal in many ways, and a man with a kind, loving disposition.  He is not quick to judge.  He lambasted Islam so severely while giving us a painstakingly thorough walk through the history of the religion (from the birth of Mohammed to the present day) that I simply could not take his position lightly.  He has motivated my research, and the more I learn, the more I agree with him.

I have also read several books on topics such as Muslim culture in the Middle East, Muslim culture in Europe and America, the history of Islam, and the tenants of the religion itself.  The best book I read is by a man who has taken the name Mark Gabriel.  The book is entitled Islam and Terrorism.  Gabriel is a former imam (Islamic pastor) and professor of Islamic history at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, a prestigious school.  The guy could recite the entire Q'uran from memory at the age of 12.  In short, he knows his stuff.  And one day he abandoned his religion because of its violent nature.  In the process, he left behind his job, his country, and his family, some of whom were trying to kill him in response to his infidelity.  He has an incredible story, and if you read one book critical of Islam, I overwhelmingly recommend this one.  Gabriel converts to Christianity, and there is some preaching in the book, but if you can overlook and ignore those parts (which I do NOT recommend, but it's up to you) the book is still an astonishing, honest account of Islam's dark truths.

An excellent review of the book can be found here.

I could go on and on about the sources that have influenced my opinions of the religion of Islam, but I'll stop.  Hopefully what I've said so far will be adequate to display a lack of ignorance.

Moving on.

Your last paragraph contains a lot of wisdom.  I agree that we should be highly critical of the merit of any sources we cite to support a position on ANY controversial issue. 

Our opinions are only as good as the thinking we engaged to conceive them.

Did someone else say this, or is an original creation?  It's a spectacular quote, and I completely agree.  Your solution, for the meantime, has been to omit citations from your argument.  It strengthens some of the points you made, especially those including works like "consider" and "perhaps".  One fine example is your hypothetical possibility that many Muslims are lead to believe that American democracy is rooted in Christianity and that we are forcing out values upon them.  However, not citing sources weakens your argument when you use alleged factual information to further your argument.  When you say things like "Don't kid yourself for a second, we are over there for our own financial interests" and "Most Muslims strive for a peaceful way of life" you need to at least admit that you base your opinions on information sources that you have to trust to be factual enough to use in an exchange like this one.

I admit that sources are flawed; I believe that every written thing has a bias, whether it is intentional or not.  Every author brings his or her life experience to the table when the sit down and write their opinions.  My best proposed solution is to read as much as possible from as many different opinions as possible.  In this way one can hope to at least be pretty darn sure about the "facts" most often repeated.

Alright, now I'd like to offer my response to some of the individual things you said, piece by piece.  I'll do my best to consider context and portray your statements as honestly as I can in my rebuttals.  If I have misinterpreted anything you've said, for goodness' sake, correct me.

First, I appreciate an open forum and commend you for your willingness to express your opinions in this format. 

Thank you, and thank you for contributing.  I enjoy the encouragement of those who share my views, but I especially appreciate the opportunity to defend my views to the nay-sayers.

That's the thing about a book, it can be read and interpreted in many ways.

True!  This is why I consider several interpretations before endorsing one as my own.  I discussed this earlier, so I'll move on.

(i.e., hadith vs. hanbali – look it up).

This is a pet-peeve of mine.  "Look it up" basically says "my vocabulary is bigger than yours, so I'll wait for you to catch up before I continue."  Since you probably didn't intend for this to be condescending, I'm not actually upset.  You did, however, assume that I would need to look up the difference between the hadith and the hanbali, which is not correct or fair.  I'm glad you know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites and I'm sure you're used to knowing more about Islam than most people you may converse with, but don't write me off as another opinionated ignoramus before you know who I am.  If I were unfamiliar with your terms, I'd look them up on my own without any prompting.

In point of fact, it is dangerous to make sweeping statements about any religion.

I could use a semantic argument against this statement or I could list reasons why it is dangerous to avoid sweeping statements (if, in fact, true) about something as powerful and influential as religion, but I won't.  I happen to agree with your statement.  However, I will say that it is a danger my convictions force me to risk.  The same could be said for you, in that you have inadvertently made a sweeping statement about the religion of Christianity.  You see, Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)  True Christianity, therefore, maintains that all other religions are false.  Since this is a "sweeping statement" you've just labeled Christianity dangerous.  One might call your statement "sweeping" as well.  That's fine by me though; I agree that Christianity is dangerous.

It is safe to say that the media portrays Islam as a religion rooted in violence.

I disagree.  Why do you believe this?  I think the media portray Islam as a religion of peace.  We can argue this point if you'd like, but I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie.  We're both critical enough of the media to ignore them, right?

Consider an alternative.  Would if those in the middle east are lead to believe that American Democracy is rooted in Christianity and that we forcing these values upon them??

Many values of this nation ARE rooted in Christianity.  Democracy "forces" values on us everyday when we punish and jail those who act in a way that we the people have deemed unjust, unfair, or immoral.  And when individuals fly planes into our buildings in the name of Allah, they are forcing their values on us.  This is an oversimplification, but isn't it better to sacrifice a murderous aspect of culture/religion than the lives of those who don't belong to said culture/religion?

Because they ARE lead to believe this, and given our current president I might even understand why.  Perhaps this is the source of their outrage and violence.

This is a common liberal talking point that is so blatantly misguided that I don't understand how such intelligent people can say it and mean it.  Outrage and violence have been prevalent in Islam for thousands of years longer than America has existed.  Their source of outrage and violence is the existence of non-Muslims, and especially the presence of non-Muslims in the Holy Land (Arabian Peninsula).  I could rant on this topic for a long time before losing good reasons to support my argument, but I won't.  Maybe another time.

Don't kid yourself for a second, we are over there for our own financial interests...

Another liberal talking point whose popularity is exceeded only by its inaccuracy.  $242 billion and rising has been spent, and oil continues to hover around $60 a barrel.  How do we stand to benefit financially by funding the building of schools and hospitals, the paving of roads, the implementation of phone service, etc. etc.?

...and we are forcing a system of government and values on these people.

So were the old leaders.  You don't believe that Saddam was elected with 100% of the vote, right?  We are forcing out those who previously oppressed these people.  A democracy like ours will allow these people to worship however they want and say and do whatever they please (so long as they do not break whatever laws the Iraqi people democratically legislate).  How does this limit the abilities of any peaceful people living in Iraq?  What it limits is the power of those who are not peaceful.

How do we know that instilling our Christian-rooted democracy is the way to reduce terrorism?  WE DON'T.

While this is true, I still think that this is the best idea out there.  We don't know that anything (short of killing everyone) will reduce terrorism, but that doesn't mean we should give up.  Do you have any good suggestions for reducing terrorism?  I'm not kidding; I really want to hear every viable option.  And if your suggestion is to live and let live, I highly suggest that you read this essay, which is a good example of the source-less critical thinking that you seem to appreciate.  There's some strong language.

Most Muslims strive for a peaceful way of life.

How many? 99.5%  In a religion of a billion people, that still leaves 5 million NOT striving for a peaceful way of life.  "Most" not reading "all" concerns me.  And, as I still contend, those Muslims striving for peace are not being good Muslims according to my understanding of Islam.

Now, don't let me be hypocritical, my thinking is flawed as well.  I only offer another perspective.

Humility is immensely important to learning, and I commend yours.  I feel like this is one of my weak points.  Since you were so blatant, however, I must admit that my thinking is surely also flawed, and I really do appreciate perspectives that are not my own.  They help me to see a more rounded picture, and if the answer is out there, it will take ALL perspectives to realize which one is correct.

I hope I didn't get too feisty.  Nothing above was meant to be personal, attacking or malicious.  Maybe this will breed a long and edifying dialogue, or maybe it will just be an interesting blip on the radar.  In any event, I enjoyed this.

Riddle:

What do you get when you cross really cool with totally cool?

Me!

Do any of you know some good riddles?  If so, why don't you share them with us?

Hello readers.  Here is part two of the morality reflections of my friend Fly: morailty and economics.  Part one can be found here.  It is on morailty and the law.

I found it to be an excellent read, and I've inserted my own response below.  Enjoy.

Every decision, whether an issue of ethics and morality or not, comes with consequences. Every choice we make, be it moral/ethical or trivial, carries with it both apparent and unforeseen consequences. In fact, there are many cases in which important moral decisions become difficult because of the severe consequences carried by each available option. An excellent example of this comes from the way that human beings wield power. That's right, folks: economics. Examples can be cited on both the microeconomic and macroeconomic levels. We'll start with microeconomics, as it's a bit more tangible.

In order to understand economics, one must first understand what money is, exactly. For the most part, human beings, particularly those in developed nations, see money as inherently valuable. Allow me to paraphrase a conversation that I might have had with F3 at some point.

The Fly: "Why is that gold so valuable to you?"
F3: "Because it's shiny, you moron! *smack* And I want it!"

But why is gold valuable? Why are little bits of metal with the faces of dead men stamped on them "valuable"? What about scraps of printed paper? Well, one could say, with a moderate degree of honesty, that those bits of metal and printed scraps of paper represent real gold (kind of) in the Federal Reserve, but even this is skirting the issue because that gold has no inherent value; it has uses, but its value is completely arbitrary.

So, given that various commodities possess value through purely arbitrary reasoning, what is the real meaning of money? It's simple, and summed up into an old adage: money is power. Money represents the power to secure the ownership, use, or receipt of goods and services. The more money you have, the more capacity you have for controlling items and people. Power and responsibility are inexorably linked: a small child has a responsibility to retain a penny. The responsibility may be small, but power and responsibility increase with each other: no power requires no responsibility, while ultimate power requires ultimate responsibility.

We have a responsibility, a moral choice, about how to spend our money. When the 2004 Tsunami hit, people felt a moral responsibility to sacrifice a portion of their power so that that power could be used to rebuild the devastated areas. After Hurricane Katrina, even your eponymous six-legged superhero felt an obligation to sacrifice a part of his possessed power in order to help those whose lives were effected; though, for the record, I had them designate my money to go to Mississippi, not New Orleans (my charity is tempered by a desire to avoid rewarding personal irresponsibility). Many people do this frequently on a small scale, sacrificing the capacity to buy a movie, or to dine out on a particular evening, and giving the money saved to a charity of their choice, be it a literacy program, a women's shelter, or a fund for diabetes research; still others make the wrong choice, to spend their power on a prostitute in New Amsterdam or Las Vegas, or to buy a weapon for the purpose of harming another human being. These are examples of money, which is really power, being used for particular purposes based on the moral code of particular individuals. These choices have consequences.

Of course, these issues of microeconomics having been established and briefly discussed, the bigger picture comes to light. No one is an island, and we have become habitual traders of power on a much larger scale. Humans form groups, groups form communities, communities form governments, and eventually nations emerge; and nations must establish economic systems in order to retain some control not only over power, but over the orderly exchange of power. Governments, based on the will of either the people or powerful individuals, establish these systems based on various priorities and values.

As much as we'd like to believe that perfect choices exist, the obvious truth is that every choice, including the expenditure of monetary power, requires a sacrifice. In this case, power is like energy, of which there are two kinds: potential energy and kinetic energy. A hundred dollar bill is potential power: it has the potential to be used for various things, and when you make a choice as to what it's going to be used for, you are making a value judgment: "I conclude that it is the right choice to expend power on this option." Each transaction that is carried out is a transaction of sacrifice: to gain requires that we sacrifice the power to make a different gain. Our economic systems exist in the same way, and I will discuss two: communism and capitalism.

Communism is a system designed by Karl Marx. It involves collective (commune) ownership of all commodities, property, et cetera. It stresses economic fairness and equality, and controlled, orderly economic operations. The drawbacks and sacrifices in this system are personal freedom and opportunity: in order to enforce fairness, the lives of the people must be monitored closely, and their choices must be limited. Opportunities to excel and exceed normal acquisition must be stifled; opportunities to expand markets and innovate are nearly non-existent. In order to implement this version of a fair and equitable system, the government must exercise ultimate control over people and markets; personal freedoms and opportunities are sacrificed accordingly; in addition, history has shown that a communist system encourages corruption.

Capitalism is a system designed by Adam Smith. It involves minimal government control over markets, emphasizing personal responsibility, freedom, opportunity and innovation. The sacrifice required under a capitalist system is personal security: in order for capitalism to work, people must be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits. Generally speaking, a worker who is willing to put in a full day's work, even at an unskilled job, is able to survive and, in many cases, flourish. Those with talents, ideas, or strong work ethics are more likely to succeed. However, under a strict capitalist system no safety net exists, and this can lead to systems of social Darwinism. In order for people to have personal freedoms and the opportunity for amazing success, they must run the risk of complete and total failure. This can be construed as unfair, and with some merit.

So, which system is preferable? That all depends upon the will of the people; or at least, it should. The point, though, is that even this is a moral choice, and an imperfect one. Both communism and capitalism have their potential benefits and their drawbacks. Just as any transaction involves a sacrifice, any economic system involves sacrifices.

Thus, we see that economic decisions are moral decisions, just like most of the other decisions we make; the smallest decision, getting a cup of tea from the local coffee house, involves making a value judgment regarding how best to wield power. The choice of an economic system is no different, save for the scope of the sacrifices and gains.

Whew!  That was quite a read.  Congrats to those still with us.

The question of communism vs. capitalism is one that I've struggled with before. On paper, and with honest working citizens, communism is a great idea. Like you said, however, it encourages corruption (at the leader level). I would add that it attracts the lazy to gain citizenship, and it also de-motivates those who would otherwise have a strong work ethic or produce innovative ideas. In short, the imperfection of man makes communism a poor option. That aside, it would be a nice solution to the downfalls of capitalism. If the leaders were integrous and the citizens were all working hard, those who, for whatever reason, were unable to make money for a period of time in a capitalist model would be carried by those whose work produces more fruit. In a sense, communism is at work in very small communities (such as a family). In a family, the children ought to do chores, and if one parent is able to supply enough funds through their occupation, the other could be a stay-at-home parent tending to the house and kids. In this sense, everyone is putting in a fair and proportionate amount of work, and while only one is actually paid, all benefit. Communism succeeds here, and certainly could succeed in small, secluded communities such as the one featured in the film "The Village".

Strict capitalism certainly has its weaknesses that makes it an unfair system. I noticed that you used the adjective "strict" to describe an imperfect and unfair captalist system, and you were right to do so. Those who have good ideas or work hard (or both) deserve to succeed, and the lazy deserve to fail. If it were a perfect world, this is how things would work. Unfortunately, sometimes capitalism lets hard workers slip through the cracks to poverty and failure, and it sometimes rewards the lazy who gain money through corrupt methods. This is why America's capitalism has been improved from "strict" capitalism.

The ability to file bankruptcy is a good idea, even if it is a somewhat flawed process. Rent and utility assistance programs, welfare, shelters, etc. are all great ideas, even if the conservative in me thinks they're bloated and inefficient. The complicated tax system right rewards people for purchasing homes, owning small businesses, etc. and gives breaks to workers who have members of their family dependant upon them. These are just a few examples of how America's capitalism deviates from strict capitalism in a beneficial way; there are many more.

I guess my point is that the system we currently participate in is the best I've seen. Improvements can be made, but a whole new system, in my opinion, would be a step back.

Thoughts?

My good friend "Fly" had the following to say about morality and the law over at his place.  It's a good read.  There's a part two coming.

It seems to me that many people have it wrong when they make various statements about morality. For the purpose of this discussion, I am going to use abortion as my example. One of the most common slogans that I've seen by the pro-abortion campaigners is "You Can't Legislate Morality" or "Keep Your Laws Off My Body", which basically amount to roughly the same thing. The implication is that the moral values of one group can't be imposed on another group that rejects those moral values. Whether it's pro-abortion groups or any other group that opposes so-called "morality legislation", their argument is commonly that it is both unfair and impractical to impose the moral will of one group on another group that is dead set on opposing it.

Now, I think it's totally cliche to bring out a dictionary definition and use in a debate or discussion, but that's what I'm going to do right now.  Morality:

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

The point that I want you folks to take away from the definitions is that morality is, at its core, a choice of one course of action over another on the basis of quality. In other words, if I have the choice between one course of action and another, then the moral choice is the better of the two. There are, of course, some choices that aren't moral choices, as illustrated in this following exchange from The Simpsons...

Krusty flashes back to his youth.

Man 1: Should I finish college?
Rabbi Krustofsky: Yes. No one is poor except he who lacks knowledge.
Woman: [babe in arms] Rabbi, should I have another child?
Rabbi Krustofsky: Yes. Another child would be a blessing on your house.
Man 2: Rabbi, should I buy a Chrysler?
Rabbi Krustofsky: Eh, couldn't you rephrase that as a, as an ethical question?
Man 2: Um... Is it right to buy a Chrysler?
Rabbi Krustofsky: Oh, yes! [chuckles] For great is the car with power steering and dynaflow suspension!

Of course, if he's reading this, Shiitake might point out that some automobile purchasing choices include ethical or moral decisions; for example, if one's moral code includes an extreme dedication to strict environmental preservation, a moral or ethical issue would be which is better, to buy a Hummer or a Prius. However, this is a tangental issue; the point is that while many of the decisions we make in our personal lives are not decisions of great moral consequence, many are; and many of the decisions we make as a society or nation are of great moral consequence.

Whether it's the issue of euthenasia, abortion, legalization of cannabis, or any number of other issues, many rally around the claim that you can't legislate morality. Personally, I think this argument is a farce, and using it degenerates the dialogue we should be having. Why do I say this?

Take the chosen issue of abortion. For the record, I am against abortion, though I believe that exceptions should be made for cases of rape and incest; even then, I think that bringing the child to term and giving it up for adoption is a better alternative, but in cases of rape and incest I don't have a strong objection to leaving room in the law for abortion. That having been established, when pro-abortion activists make imperative statements like "Keep your morals off my body!" or "You can't legislate morality!", the base of their claims is a mistaken belief that the beliefs of the majority as to what is the best choice should not be binding to those who disagree. On the surface, it's not an unreasonable statement; for example, our Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

One of the unalienable human rights affirmed in the Bill of Rights is the right to freedom of religion; and in fact, this has been used frequently throughout our nation's history to defend members of religious minorities. Unlike Communist and Islamic nations, which have an overwhelming tendency to deny the rights of the minority in such matters as religion and speech, Western culture affirms the rights of both minority and majority parties, insofar as the exercise of those freedoms does not infringe upon the rights, freedoms, and safety of others. Frankly stated: in at least some cases, the will of the majority should not be imposed on a dissenting minority.

The problem with the statement "you can't legislate morality", though, is this: all legislation is morality. All legislation is a legal statement that one course of action is preferable to another. Well, that should be qualified; not all legislation is moral legislation. For example, there's legislation (or at least, ordinances; some of it's legislation) regarding the posted speed limit in various areas; if this is legalized morality, it's "morality" that's very loosely, arbitrarily, and subjectively defined; or morality that exists in shades of grey. There are laws about property zoning that aren't specifically morality. However, most law is a choice of one policy or another in an attempt to make the nation/world a better place. We have, for example, laws that provide for national defense, because our nation's majority moral belief is that it is a superior situation for our citizens to be safe than it is for them to be unprotected. We have laws against murder, because a near-universal belief exists that murder is inherently evil and immoral; in fact, we even have laws regarding homicide, negligent homicide, and manslaughter, because our collective morality states that life is so precious, that extra care should be taken to avoid ending it accidentally. These are legislations of morality.

In fact, our very system of government, whether strict democracy in the Athenian sense or representative democracy in the Roman sense, is arranged and established in such a way that the morals, or values regarding the best courses of action for given situations, are decided based upon the opinions, beliefs, and values of the majority of the population. Sometimes referred to as the "tyranny of the majority", the very purpose of our form of government is to enforce the collective will of as many citizens as possible. For this reason, in theory at least, we elect those representative leaders who best fit our own mindset, and based upon their views and their stated objectives, they vote accordingly. Thus, our entire system of government is based on the supposition that yes, you can and should legislate morality.

Of course, every decision, whether an issue of ethics and morality or not, comes with consequences; for example, the decision of successive Roman emperors to take an indecisive position on the enforcement of the Empire's borders eventually led to economic, cultural, and political death at the hands of German barbarians. To offer a non-moral example, if one chooses not to brush their teeth on a particular day, they risk lousy breath that could offend those they come into contact with. Basically, every choice we make, be it moral/ethical or trivial, carries with it both apparent and unforeseen consequences. In fact, there are many cases in which important moral decisions become difficult because of the severe consequences carried by each available option, and I will discuss this in my concluding post.

Bravo to anyone still reading.  It's not that the above is a difficult read, more that the attention span of the average internet browser with enough time to check my lousy blog is too short to tackle an article of any substantial content.  So there it is.  Congrats to you.

Thoughts?

What's one sure fire way to cure hiccups, hands down, every time?  Shoot the person in the neck.

A Colombian man accidentally shot his nephew to death while trying to cure his hiccups by pointing a revolver at him to scare him, police in the Caribbean port city of Barranquilla said on Tuesday.

After shooting 21-year-old university student David Galvan in the neck, his uncle, Rafael Vargas, 35, was so distraught he turned the gun on himself and committed suicide, police said.

Note to readers: pointing a gun at someone is a good way to rid one of life, not hiccups.  Try drinking a glass of water from the far side of the glass next time.

Saddam goes on hunger strike.

Guess what, jerk?  No reasonable person cares.  Go ahead and starve yourself.  Save us the cost of a lethal injection.

First: I am not anti-Muslim.  I think many Muslims (mistakenly) believe their religion to be one of peace, and are generally good people.  Even the "bad" ones ought to have a shot at redemption and forgiveness like everyone else.  And they do.  That said, I AM anti-Islam and anti-Mohammed.  That should become abundantly clear as you read on.

Second: I've included a link to a station wagon doing a freakin' wheely at the end of this post, so feel free to skip to the fun if you'd like.  Alright.  Let's get to it.

So you've likely heard something about a Danish caricature that is offending the Islam masses.  Have you?  Either way, here's a look at something so shockingly controversial, you may want to set down your drink before looking.

...  go on, set it down....

Holy crap!  I just dropped my 72 virgins! 

So there it is.  Everyone's got their panties in a bunch over this thing.  Let's have a closer look, shall we?

On MSNBC's site, the slide show is adorned with this caption:

Muslims across the world stage protests over Danish caricatures that they say insult Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.

Hey, Muslims, you insult Islam.  Actually, if you claim you're a peaceful people, Islam insults you.  It is a religion of violence.  And the "prophet"?  Mohammed insulted himself.  More on that later.  What do the Muslim leaders have to say?

Defending the prophet should continue worldwide, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, told the crowd. Let (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice, (President) Bush and all the tyrants shut up: We are a nation that cant forgive, be silent or ease up when they insult our prophet and our sacred values.

Oh, we should shut up?  Shut up, should we?  Thanks, third grade.  Hey, Hassan Nasra-whatever, here's something you ought not forget: we are capable of annihilating you.  Seriously, if we wanted to, we could nuke your nation, pave the land, and park it full of sparking Hummers (and not that H2 crap, I'm talking the real thing).  Nuke, pave, park.  72 hours.  Don't forget. [/satire]

We won't, of course, but we could.  Show some respect.

Maybe the regular, down to earth Muslims aren't so worked up.  Wait, no, nevermind.

Hezbollah supporters chant "death to America, death to Israel" during a religious rally in Beirut, Lebanon, Thursday that focused on the caricature controversy. Several hundred thousand people attended the rally. (emphasis mine)

They're all nuts.

Ok, well, wait.  Maybe there are some regular-joe kind of Muslims here in the good ol' U.S. of A. that will speak up and instill some confidence that not every Muslim is crazy.  They are few and far between, but maybe some more will crop up soon.  I sure hope so.

Alright, back to Mohammed .  He was murderous.  He was pedophilic.  He was not a beacon of wisdom.  Read about him at wikipedia, folks.  In fact, read about him in the Q'uran.  Has anyone reading this read the whole thing?  Please consider your answer to that question if you're considering commenting.  Everyone's welcome to comment, just don't spout ignorance and call me unlearned.  I've read the Q'uran, and it reveals plenty of good reasons to reject Mohammed and Islam.  Simply read some unbiased accounts of the religion and its leader, and it is easy to see that the whole thing is based on conquering land and bloodshed, slavery and execution, killing bystanders and f-ing virgins.

Hey, Muslims, if you don't want to see a picture of a murdering bastard wearing a turban-bomb, maybe you should pick a different retard ahem, person to worship.  Maybe you should cease strapping bombs to yourselves and blowing up pizza parlors.  Or, if you don't do that, actively separate yourselves from those that do.

Seriously, don't complain about slanderous cartoons when you hijack planes and fly them into buildings full of civilians. 

That's all the more worked up I should get at this time of day.  Rant below, if you'd like.

And, as promised, here's a station wagon doing a wheely.

UPDATE

If only they would have left it alone, their prophet might not have been mocked further.  (Turn your sound on)