So, in a fictitious country, we have 99 people who make $20,000 annually, and 1 person who makes $100,000. Technology then breeds efficiency, and a greater net total of value is created. Now, 99 people make $30,000 annually, and 1 person makes $1,000,000. Is this better than before? Yes. But, there is actually a greater amount of economic inequality than before. The point is, that there is nothing innately wrong with 'economic inequality'. There is something wrong with poverty, but one does not necessarily beget the other. Are we on the same page?

(continuation) #3. Thomas Jefferson During the Napoleonic Wars, both Britain and France regularly seized American ships bound for the other's ports in hopes of hindering the other's economic success. So, in December of 1807, Jefferson signed The Embargo Act. This act banned foreign trade of any kind in hopes that Britain and France would be so utterly wounded by this trade loss, that they would have to accept U.S. neutrality on the seas. This did not happen, and forced to rely only on domestic goods, U.S. prices skyrocketed, crippling the economy, all without restoring trade neutrality. Shortly before the end of his term, Jefferson repealed this act, and limited this trade ban to only Britain and France.

"Snow is a perfect reminder of how beautiful something can be until humans touch it."

So, I was at the health club this morning, and "La Bamba" pops out over the loudspeakers. I forgot how fantastic that song is. In fact, I think there's a good argument for that song being the greatest song of all time. You know why? I don't speak Spanish, and yet can sing every word. What other completely Spanish song has become as popular in the US? There's a kickin' guitar solo, and it's just amazingly catchy. This is what I call a 'sticky' song.

My friend recently went to New York on a business trip and was approached by a prostitute (higher-end) in a bar at a hotel he was staying at. He was telling me this story and I could tell that I wasn't giving him the reaction he was expecting, but I couldn't figure out what he was looking for. Then I realized, he wanted me to be impressed. The moral of his story was, "I was approached by a woman who wanted to have sex with me." Well done sir.

So, a lot of people my age are getting married. That can make a lot of my single friends depressed. When kids younger than me get record deals, that can make me depressed. When someone who's dumber than me has a better job than me, that can make me depressed. The problem is that we're comparing ourselves to the wrong people. For instance, whenever I hear a story about a friend whose car broke down, I always get cheered up a little, because my car's fine. There needs to be a television show that only shows biographies of the disabled or something, so instead of saying, "dang't, i wish i was taller, you could say man, i'm glad I'm not that guy who still wears a diaper."

So, I tried arguing against lust yesterday to a 20-something male. That's a tough one. I think he thinks I'm out of my mind. Since this person is an agnostic, I tried a secular argument, instead of just saying, "God said so." Because I don't think that's why God gives rules...just because. The more I learn, the more I understand how much God's directives make sense. Therefore... A) If these "divine rules" truly make sense, then shouldn't we be able to come up with strong, strictly secular arguments for biblical morality? B) Is this back door approach to Godly behavior a good thing to strive for?

Since I was 5 years old, chocolate long-johns from Dunkin Donuts have been a staple in my diet. To my shock recently, I noticed that at my local Dunkin, the name "Chocolate Long John" has been replaced with "Chocolate Stick". I guess this name aesthetically makes sense. But why the switch? So, I started to think about it. "John" is sometimes a name used to refer to something "male." Could my precious donut actually have been named with a phallic reference in mind? Was there an outcry against this? Then when I started thinking about the possible symbolism of a chocolate eclair, I gave up donuts for a week.

So, let's say someone in your office approaches you and says they're running a 5K for charity and are looking for financial donations. You ask what the charity is. "It's a charity that funds abortions for mothers who don't want the child." Even if you don't think abortions should be illegal, paying for them yourself seems a little bit weird. And yet, Barack Obama recently said that he wants abortions to be federally funded with tax-payer dollars. On the other side, if you think the current war in Iraq is abhorrent, is it moral for our current President to make you fund it?

So, there is this television pundit who lives in Texas. And he espouses increased security of our Mexican border. When they covered this on the news the other night, the reporter said, "and the hypocrisy behind this whole thing is that this man is married to a Mexican woman." Why is this a hypocrisy? The story went on further to say, "And that's not the only contradiction in his life. He is pro-choice but AGAINST gun control." Why is this a contradiction? Why do I either have to be a racist or be for completely open immigration laws? Why do I have to be pro teachers unions or against our children? Why do I have to be against the war or be willing to enlist? Why do I have to be against helping the Earth or give up flying in planes?