I'm on vacation this week, so in lieu of thought-provoking discussions, I urge you to be a radical in people's lives. Buy a candy bar for your cube mate. Do the unexpected for people. Most people are nice. But, try loving people that you don't even like. And report the results. See you on Monday.

So, I read this story about this guy who lost his legs, and now competes in the Special Olympics with state-of-the art bionic legs. He not only obliterates his Special Olympics competition, but can actually compete on the professional level with those who have no disability. People have titanium knees. No big deal. Lasik vision helps them see better. No big deal. But, what if someone gets robotic arms that can make them swing 40% faster than any other person on Earth? Will professional sports associations have to draw a line? Or are sports destined to become a battle not won by sweat, but by technology?

(paraphrased from Last Comic Standing last night) "If someone's truly afraid of the dark, you don't call him a bigot. You don't shove him into a dark cupboard to help him get over it. But, with homophobia, there's an entirely different stigma. What if the person literally had a traumatic experience growing up? Like, a homosexual jumped out of the closet and sat on them or something? Give them time to heal."

A new study from the American Journal of Public Health states that lesbians are twice as likely as heterosexual women to be overweight or obese. What conclusion do you jump to after seeing that statistic? The conclusion the article jumps to is that "lesbian women must have a better body image than heterosexual women." Was that yours?

#1: Many Christians are against abortion, because an innocent life is executed through no fault of their own. #2: One of the main goals of many Christians is for as many people to go to heaven one day as possible. #3: Many Christians believe that aborted babies go to heaven. So, if the odds of an aborted baby going to heaven are 100% and the odds of that child growing up and trusting in Christ as their savior and redeemer are LESS than 100%, then why the massive outcry about stopping this injustice if the ends are satisfying enough? UPDATE: So, I knew this was going to be a question that received a lot of flack (that's the point of this site, right), so I also put this question on yahoo answers. you can check out the posts there as well.

Nail polish. It is now officially summertime. And in business-casual settings all across the country, women are now slipping open-toed shoes into their clothing cycle. When I see a women wear open-toed shoes without nail polish on their toes, I am quickly reminded of a male foot, a ghastly eye-sore of the human body. My public service announcement for the day: Ladies, please paint those little piggies before you bust out those slip-ons. Just the slightest coat of pink nail polish can turn a gag reflex into a fine work of art.

Does the pleasure obtained by sexual intercourse at least HINT at the fact that we have been given a physical incentive to multiply by an intelligent designer?

So, there's a problem with economic inequality in this country. And it's time for a "would you rather?" question. Should our goal be to increase the TOTAL amount of money earned in this country, and then work to encourage and create better opportunities for everyone to get the biggest piece of the pie that they can? Or, should we slightly lower the total amount of money earned in this country, and through redistribution, try to balance the economic status of the populace as much as possible? In short... Should our goal be to create the greatest MEAN prosperity in this country or the greatest MEDIAN prosperity?

"Don't eat garden salads at expensive restaurants. It's a waste of stomach space."

(Read yesterday's post as a preamble to this one.) There are many politicians today who reside in a very high tax bracket, and are public about their plans to raise taxes for this bracket so the rich in this country can give an extra portion back to the country that has been so good to them. The claim made is that this is a moral thing to do. Yet, if you look at the personal charitable donation records of these very politicians, the amount they give to charity is often less than 1-2%, even lower than the AVERAGE American's meager giving rate of 2.2% of their total income. So, if these politicians think that the moral thing to do is to force the rich to give back more of their money in order to help the less fortunate in this country, then why aren't they currently doing that themselves?