"We are habitual creatures who hate all of our habits."

After the Sputnik scare, the United States realized that they were falling way behind in math and science, and decided to cultivate the bright young minds of the future. So, what did they do? Increase the federal funding of education for every student? No. They plucked only the very smartest kids out of all the classes, and put them in smaller advanced classes where their unique gifts could be capitalized upon. When I heard that, I thought, What? That's not fair! They should make those opportunities available to every kid! The country eventually agreed. And today, we are again significantly behind in math and science. So, what are our options for the future Einsteins who are in 2nd grade right now if they can't afford private school. Should we reconsider our first idea? After all, it got us to the moon first.

Why are we still arguing about supply-side economics? It's an economic question with enough history behind it to have come up with an answer by now. So why are there still two sides? Are we actually arguing about the results now, or are we just debating on the "righteousness" of the approach? It's like arguing that the Patriots won the SuperBowl because you think they're a better team and SHOULD have won. But, that doesn't change the score.

So, in high school, I was intimidated by girls that I thought were comparatively more attractive than myself, "out of my league" if you will. By merely thinking that, I gave them a certain amount of symbolic power over myself. Power was aesthetic. So today, when a woman is in charge of me at the workplace, it confuses me if she is not comparatively more attractive than me. Reverting back to my youth, I naturally feel that I should have the power based on aesthetics alone. Depending on how many men share this natural prejudice, if Hilary were better looking, she'd have a better chance to win. Because the woman in power would make sense, after all, she'd be out of our league.

Let's say you fly down to South America with a group from your community to go and build a couple of houses for an impoverished city. That's a very cool thing, no? But, for the same amount of money, could you be helping these people more? It costs a lot to fly down a group of people from the States, provide transportation, housing and food for a week. So, what if you took that same amount of money to hire un- or under-employed locals to build the houses themselves. The houses get built, local citizens get paid, and there's more of a local pride in what was just done. Plus, without the airfare, you're probably getting the same job done for half of what it's costing you. So, why aren't we rethinking these mission expeditions? Maybe we should. On the other hand, the value in seeing that kind of poverty up close is hard to calculate.

For those who say "it is time we reach across the aisle and unite on a common purpose", I say, what is our common purpose? To my like-minded representatives, I do not want you to reach across the aisle so that others will like you. I want you to walk across the aisle and persuade the others that they are mistaken. After all, what does a compromise look like when we believe in opposite things? I'm pro-war. I'm anti-war. Ok, how 'bout we only have small wars? Done. I'm big government. I'm small government. Ok, how 'bout we have a medium-size government? Done. It's silly. I'm not asking you to consider the opposition your enemy. They are not. I'm asking you to treat the opposition's ideas for what they are, the antithesis of what you claim to believe is truth. And in the arena of ideas, I do believe that "the truth will outring what is loud", even it takes some time. So, keep your ideas as ideals. The rest of us will catch up. Or you will.

What if instead of a $42,000 salary, you got $40,000. But every day, your employer would hide cash all around the office. And at the end of the year, you find $1,000 through it. Your total salary of $41,000 is still less than the alternative $42,000, but I bet you'd enjoy your job a lot more. Employers, let the Easter Money Hunt begin!

Every once in a while, you see stories on the news that an image of Mary, virgin mother of Jesus, appeared on the side of an overpass, in a rain puddle, on a grilled cheese sandwich. Here's my question? Why do any of these people think they know what Mary actually looked like? Do they think that the image looks like an artist's representation they've seen of Mary? Or do they just go, "Woman: check. Headscarf: Check." Case closed. It's the mother of God. My guess it's because a grilled cheese image of "Little Red Hiding Rood" wouldn't go for 2 million bucks on eBay.

Is there any nice way to suggest to someone that they "lower their standards"? Perhaps that phrase is supposed to BE the politically-correct way to go about it, but isn't it pretty obvious that what you really mean is... "Doesn't the fact that you're constantly getting rejected subtly hint at the fact that your opinion of yourself may not be universally agreed upon by the opposite sex, and that if you don't want to die alone, you better recognize what league you're in and learn to love a pugly?"

When establishing our current system of government, John Adams, our second President, was outspoken about creating a clear separation of powers through the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. Many of his contemporaries thought this was unnecessarily complex, but Adams was adamant that a particular party should not have control over all of the branches at once, legislating their will freely over the American people. His idea meant that for any piece of legislation to pass, it would have to be legislation that both parties could agree upon. And if they couldn't, then the legislation didn't deserve to pass. Oh how far we have come, when we hear people crying out for either party to take full control over the system so we can at least "get stuff done" and make some "progress." My question is, to where are we "progressing"?