The Flights Of Icarus Goodman

Freedom Fighters Liberate Their German Hostage...Huh?

2005-12-26T16:43:00.000-05:00

Read the article here.

German archaeologist Susanne Osthoff, who was kidnapped by insurgents in Iraq in November, was released on December 18. Luckily for Ms. Osthoff, she was a Muslim woman, as the kidnappers are quoted as telling her to not be afraid. "We do not harm women or children and you are a Muslim." Ms. Osthoff reacted to this act of kindness by saying that she was "so happy to know that I had not fallen into the hands of criminals."

Don't panic. I already checked. The moon is not dripping blood. Cats and dogs still don't like each other. And the end days have not yet come upon us.

But I think we may have moved a few ticks closer to midnight. Don't stress yourself too hard, but try to wrap your head around the comments of this woman. Iraqi insurgents kidnap her and her driver. Hold her against her will. Demand money from Germany in the form of hospitals and aid. Refrain from killing her only because she is a Muslim woman. And yet, somehow, they have miraculously avoided committing any crimes.

People who would have cut her head off had she been a Hindu or a Deist or a Jew, people who kept her in captivity for almost a month, people who tried to extort money from the German people, no, they are not criminals. Apparently they are just misunderstood. In fact, maybe Ms. Osthoff thinks they are humanitarians. They could probably give Tookie some nice competition for a Nobel Peace prize.

After all, the only reason they kidnapped her, according to Ms. Osthoff, is because they could not enter the green zone to kidnap Americans, an act I assume she holds as completely justified and morally straight. They are the ones making all the trouble after all. Right? Maybe you can help explain the comments of this woman to me because frankly they don't make any logical sense in my mind.

I'd like to finish by congratulating Ms. Osthoff on being inducted into the Crazy Liberal Hall of Fame. A word to aspiring lefties though, room is quickly running out, so don't delay.

Fly higher,
Icarus Goodman

Crucifying Santa Claus

2005-12-11T18:01:00.000-05:00

Why do Christians teach their children about Santa Claus?

This is a question that has pestered me for some time and has only become more boggling since my departure from the Christian ranks. For all the talk about the secularization of Christmas, or the war against Christmas as it's being called this year, Christians themselves are largely to blame for the transformation of this religious holiday into a materialistic shopping spree that pays only peripheral homage to its religious foundation.

How many of the cherished Christmas traditions are actually a byproduct of the Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus? Very few. First, as most of you probably know, the date of Jesus' birth is unknown and the date of December 25th was simply taken to counteract pagan winter festivals.

Secondly, there is the Christmas tree. If one was to go fundamentalist for a second, you could see that as a form of idol worship. At the least though, it has zero connection with the birth of Christ, and if you think about it from an outsider's perspective, it's a bit silly (which makes me very fond of it.) Then there are smaller traditions like mistletoe, snowmen, and Charlie Brown, which are pure products of regional culture.

But the Grand Marshall of this secular parade is the red-velveted one himself, Santa Claus. Aside from being an even clearer example of idol worship, there are several reasons why Christians should want to turn their backs on this chubby challenger of Christmas cheer.

The most powerful reason to me, and the main reason why I won't teach my children about Santa Claus, is that *SPOILER ALERT* he simply isn't real. I cannot understand why parents continue to lie right to their children's faces when it comes to ole Saint Nick. I have no problem if you want to pretend he is real as long as the child knows he is simply a mythical figure like Harry Potter or Arthur the Aardvark. But to betray your child's trust in you by sincerely letting her believe Santa is real is a major parenting mistake.

Aside from the negative impacts of lying to your children, teaching your child about the Santa myth and the subsequent focus on wish lists and gift receiving creates a terrible diversion from the true meaning of the holiday. While most parents do take time out to teach their kids the real meaning of the Christmas, to a child, the real meaning is determined by their priorities. When 90% of the Christmas activities revolve around Santa and his reindeer, the 10% spent talking about Jesus is going to seem completely secondary. I don't see any Jewish families teaching their kids about Chanukah Harry, because doing so would do nothing but distract and cheapen the meaning of their holiday.

Another unintended consequence of Santa is the possible confusion that your child may feel. If Santa can see them when they are sleeping and see them when they are awake and he is making a list of who is naughty and who is nice, then what exactly is the difference between Santa and God? Getting your head around one invisible, omniscient divinity is hard enough, throwing in another that will surely be renounced before the age of ten can only lead to bafflement.

This does not only pertain to Christmas either...are you listening Easter Bunny? I know many feel these childish myths and rituals are harmless and only add to the fun of the holidays, and I agree, they are fun. But if you are religious, you should think twice about diluting your religious holiday's meaning by infusing doses of unrelated secular marketing into your holiday festivities.

Fly higher,
Icarus Goodman

A Woman's Right To Choose... Prostitution.

2005-12-04T20:25:00.000-05:00

I'm at a bit of a loss here. Why is it that the government, and most of the people of this nation, believe they have the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? Now, you might think I am reffering to abortion, but don't jump the gun. Contrary to popular view, an individual's right to their body isn't really the big issue with abortion.

Most abortion opponents concede that a woman should be able to do with her body what she wants. What they disagree on is the status of the fetus. They believe it is a living being, fully recognizable as a human being and therfore possessing full human rights. It is not a part of the monther's body but a seperate independent body that is temporarily connected to that of the woman. Abortion proponents, on the other hand, feel the fetus has not acieved the status of a full human being with its own rights, but is simply a part of the woman's body and therefore she should be able o do with it as she pleases.

Givin this, one would think that both abortion opponents and porponents, who hold to the arguments above, would support a woman's (or a man's for that matter) right to sell her body if she so pleases. If she has a right to her body then shouldn't she be able to sell it, to perform sexual favors for money or any other object of value? If not, then she really doesn't have a right to her body at all, she's simply been granted permission to do a particular act, that of abortion.

So let's quickly go over the act of prostitution shall we? Two adult individuals freely consent to partake in a mutually beneficial sexual act. The John gets his rocks off and the prostitute gets her money. Now, honestly it is not the most respectable profession, but should it be outlawed? Should those caught in the act be put into prison?

Here's where I need your help. I'm at a loss. Not only can I not think of any good reason why such an act should be outlawed, I'm quite certain that a legitimate government has no right to enact such a law even if it wanted to. So I ask you, oh magnificient blogosphere, show me the light, show me the reasons, the arguments, show me the legitimacy of enacting such laws as we have today in these United States of America that turn non-violent individuals into criminals. I especially would like to hear from any liberal minded soul, who supports a woman's right to choose abortion but not a woman's right to choose prostitution. Explain yourself and humble me.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Happy Thanksgiving

2005-11-22T14:18:00.000-05:00

I wish everyone a Thanksgiving filled with good family, good food, and good football.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Separation Of School And State

2005-11-17T12:27:00.000-05:00

I encourage everyone to go check out this site The separation of School and State. Even if you have a soft spot for public education or just think that eradicating public schools would simply cause too much unfairness and hardships for lower income students, check it out, read some articles and get a little more informed about the issue.

One of the most impressive facts was that about the cost of subsidizing the poor. Our government today spends $316 billion, yes, that's billion, on public education. The average private school costs around $2,750 per year (amazingly lower than I ever thought.) 16 million children, roughly one third, would need financial aid to attend. As most scholarships today pay for about half of tuition, if we take those numbers we need only $24 billion to ensure every student can attend.

Given that private donors already supply $37.3 billion in scholarships for higher education, is it really far fetched to believe we could raise the $24 billion? Especially when the American people will have just received $316 billion in taxes back into their pockets, it doesn't seem far-fetched at all.

It's the hall mark of the market, better products at cheaper prices. Why, for all this time, have people believed that, while the market is the far better option for pretty much everything, from toothpaste to automobiles, the government was somehow the better option when it came to indoctrinating our children.

Some corollary benefits of an all private education system:

- No problems arising from teaching religion.
- No problems regarding segregation.
- No more one-size-fits-all education policy.
- Schools no longer political battle ground.
- No more unaccountable teachers.

If I can urge you to do anything, it would be to not be so attached to tradition. Just because public education is what we have all grown up with, what we are all so used to, doesn't mean it has to continue to be that way. Public education is a sad legacy from a prior generation. I don't want it to be a legacy of mine. Let's shape our world, not in the molds of the past, but in our own image of what we think good.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Laughable

2005-11-10T09:29:00.000-05:00

$22.4 Million... $23.8 million... disgusting.

Government Run Schools Send Jesus To The Back Of The Bus

2005-11-08T11:39:00.000-05:00

Our local news has recently been dominated by our local school board's decision to rid the school calendar of all religious holidays except Christmas. The decision has caused a relative fire storm around here and has even gained some national attention with a few county commissioners appearing on Bill O'Rielly's show. The commissioners, along with many local residents, are up in arms at this supposed attack on American values and culture.

The common plea that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values has been trumpeted in an effort to retain the religious holidays while being able to deny the same recognition to other religious sects.

I hate to harp on the same point again and again, but these types of controversies have to be expected when you have government run schools. Ooooh, was I the only one that got a shiver saying that? Government run schools. Sounds utterly ridiculous when you say it like that instead of public schools doesn't it?

When you have schools run by the government they inevitably have to make decisions that are going to upset one group or the other. In this case, if you give holidays for Christian observances then obviously Muslim students are going to feel discriminated against unless their religious holidays are recognized as well. You might say, well that's fine, let's just give recognize them. But, let's follow this thinking to its conclusion. If you recognize a religion's holy days by closing schools, you have no reasonable basis on which to deny ANY religion's holy days from being so recognized. Soon you will have days off for Atheist days and Buddhist days and Hindu days and Wiccan days. Eventually every day will be a holiday.

Now I generally don't like to give advice to the government, I'd much rather just see them vanish all together, as that's the only way to get rid of the problem in whole. But let's try to fix this problem for them shall we? First let's look at why schools close for religious holidays in the first place.

Any student can be excused from school due to a religious holiday. The school actually closes down on Christmas, for instance, not because it's the official religion of America, but because such a large percentage of the students, and teachers for that matter, will be absent because of the holiday that it would not be feasible to operate the school with so few students present. If 80% of the students within the school district are Christian and are going to miss school on Christmas, it ridiculous to try to operate the school that day when only 20% of the student body will be present. On the same point, it would be ridiculous to close down schools if say only 5% of the student body was Christian.

Now that we know why a school would close school for a religious holiday, the school can go about setting standards. The school must first know how many students are in it's jurisdiction and the different percentages of each religious sect. The school can then compare this data with the standard they have set. Let's demonstrate. Let's say the school sets a standard of 30%, meaning that if a single religious sect comprises 30% or more of the student population then the school will close on that religion's holy days, because a substantial enough number of students will be absent that day as to make operating the school on that day unfeasible. So, if in a specific jurisdiction, Muslims make up 40% of the student population, then schools will be closed on all major Muslim holidays. If in addition to the Muslims, Jews make up 35% of the populatoin, then all Jewish holidays will also be recognized by the closing schools. If Christians make up only 20% of the student body then schools will stay open during those holy days, even though Christian students would, of course, sill be excused from attending on those days.

Using this system, all accusations of discrimination are averted as the criteria for recognition is simple statistics and are based only on practical consideration. Also each school district would have a different outcome based on the makeup of that district. If a district is dominated by an 80% makeup of Wiccans, then no school on Wiccan holidays. If a district is very diverse with no one segment making up 30% or more, then no school closings for any religious holidays.

This is a common sense solution that, no doubt, government run schools will ignore. To a bunch of political opportunists this isn't a question of fairness, of efficiency, or quality education, this is a battle of American values versus the misguided values of immigrants who are trying to undermine "our" culture and turn us into a godless nation, and a chance for them to be on TV.

Got Church?

2005-10-30T20:42:00.000-05:00

Occasionally I still find myself nudged and prodded to attend church on my precious Sunday mornings. The service usually gets out before the football pre-game shows are over so I oblige from time to time. Our church, Southern Baptist, recently opened a new 5,000 seat facility, so I was eager to get a look.

Despite my being ardently anti-religion and anti-faith, the institution of the church intrigues me. Our new church, or maybe complex is the better word, looks like a cross between the Jerusalem Temple and a Busch Gardens ride. It's quite impressive. It made me feel quite happy to tell you the truth, to see such a great structure brought about by nothing but the voluntary actions of like minded people, freedom at its best, in a way. It's the sitting in church that provides the real lessons though, not the structure.

As anyone who attends a church will readily tell you, the church isn't the building, it isn't the preacher, although those help. The church is ultimately the people. The church provides something crucial to people that, to my mind, nothing else provides. what it provides is community, in the real sense of the word. A support structure that spans all facets of life.

A school presents different methods of living. A church tells you which is good, and helps you live it. Work provides you with money and achievement. Church tells you what to do with it and what it's worth. Sports tells our kids how to win. Church teaches them why they play.

The church sets foundational principles that so many people seem to lack. It's upon those principles, the Bible in this case, that people rally around. They come together every Sunday to study those foundations. They sing. They put on plays and skits. They send their kids to Sunday school to supplement their deficient public school educations. They have sports teams, social clubs and festivals. Half of what the church does has little if anything to do with God. So why do church going folk do it? Why do they attend just to sing some songs or go on a hay ride?

People are social animals. Combine this with the fact that none of us are perfect and you see why the church is such a vital institution. The community that the church offers helps people. They help people better understand their beliefs. They help raise children. They help take care of the elderly members of the group. They help when individuals struggle. They help people socialize and enjoy life. Where else but church do so many people volunteer so many hours to participate in choirs and orchestras? What other institution has people volunteering to teach kids and teenagers and referee baseball games? What other institution has people volunteering ten percent of their income?

I abhor most of the foundational beliefs that church's rely upon and teach to their members. But, having said that, I do feel that the role the church plays in the lives of its members is a crucial one that most, if not all, individuals could benefit from. This is why it saddens me so much to see that their is no real equivalent of the church in the secular world.

If their is one great failing of secularism, and it may indeed be a great one, it is its failure to recognize the human need for a social community and the philosophical foundations that community must rest on. In their quest to disprove the existence of God, they have failed to build their own self-supporting community structures. This failure has left those who find no truth in religion to wander aimlessly in search of meaning and purpose, truth and stability, leaving them confused, susceptible to false claims such as religion or subjectivism, and often creating individuals that are detached and ultimately unhappy.

The need for fellowship exists, even among the non-religious. I don't think that a secular society will successfully come to fruition until this vital need is met. I hope I am there to see that day, and will do my best to make it come to pass.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

To The Victor Go The Spoils

2005-09-13T11:18:00.000-05:00

With the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the subsequent Senate confirmation hearings of John Roberts to replace him, many of my fellow citizens have been taking issue with George W. Bush and his current and future nominees. Over the past few weeks I have often heard that Bush should not nominate a conservative, such as John Roberts, but instead, should nominate a moderate that would "unite the country."

I have heard two basic rationales for this view. An editorial in my Campus paper claimed that the Supreme Court had been carefully crafted over the years so that it was now a balanced court. Adding straight-up conservatives to the court would upset this balance that they seemed to think was a mandatory condition of the court. The second line of thinking holds that because of the often bitter political landscape and the plethora of recent national tragedies and dire situations, such as the war in Iraq and the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, Bush should nominate a judge that everyone can agree on, pleasing both Democrats and Republicans.

I completely understand the sentiment behind these views. If a Democrat was in office I certainly would be very apprehensive about any nominee they sent up for confirmation. It's only natural. But if we take a closer look at these views, I think we can agree that they are both irrelevant to the realities of the nomination process.

Regarding the first view, it is true that the court has been performing a judicial high wire act in recent years. It seems as though every decision of recent memory has been decided by the narrowest of margins. But nowhere is it mandated that this balance must exist on the court. It does not say in the Constitution that thou shalt have 5 republicans and 4 democrats or vice versa. The recent balance of the court is only a reflection of the closely constested political landscape of the past few decades. The balance was not mandated, nor was it purposefully crafted.

The second argument makes good to point out the very divisive atmosphere of current American politics. Regardless of how effective a moderate Supreme Court judge would be at mitigating that divisiveness, it makes a nice sentiment. However, while one can hope, plead and wish the President would take this specific course, you cannot make him. Fact is, the role of nominating a Supreme Court Justice is soley up to the President and it is the responsibility of the Senate to confirm or deny. Bush was not elected on some secret platform, everyone knew where he stood and what kind of judge he would nominate if a vacancy occurred during his term. With that, he was elected, and then re-elected. He has a responsibility to stay true to the views that he held that got him elected. He has a responsibility to the people that voted for him to stay true to his word.

We have a two-time Republican President, a Republican majority in the House and a Republican majority in the Senate. Those majorities actually increased in the last election. It is fully in the provence of the President and the Senate to nominate and confirm a Judge that reflects their judicial philosophy. If the shoe was on the other foot, then democrats would have every right to nominate and confirm a judge that reflected their judicial philosophy, much to my displeasure. All of these hollow arguments being thrwon about seem to be nothing more than a sly move by the minority party to hoodwink the majority into setting up a judge to their liking by distracting us with false appeals to balance and unity. Not to be the distrustful type, but I don't think that balance and unity are really what these folks are after.

Is God Responsible For Katrina?

2005-09-06T12:26:00.000-05:00

How do people of faith reconcile the recent tragic events of hurricane Katrina? How do they see the mass destruction brought upon the city of New Orleans and continue to see a merciful and benevolent God?

I recently watched a local news discussion show in which leaders of the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Islamic faiths got together to answer the question of how or why God would allow such a thing to happen. The answers were varied, but they all maintained their faith in God and his plan. Some said that the destruction was a wake-up call, presenting us with tangible events that demonstrate God's presence and give us an opportunity for the fallen to turn back to God. Others suggested it was some form of divine punishment, not for the people of New Orleans in particular, but for a nation that has lost its way. Still, others said it was a challenge, likened to Job's, and it was a chance for the faithful to show their true character in the face of extreme adversity.

The thing they were not able to answer is how a benevolent God could kill innocent people. Even if this disaster is used as a wake-up call or a demonstration or a challenge, it is only that for hose who are still alive. It is no wake-up call for the dead, it is no challenge for the dead, it is no demonstration for the dead. Must innocent children be drowned for God to make his points?

I marvel at the people most affected by this utter destruction who turn and pray to God or praise him for sparing their lives. Couldn't he just have spared everyone's life?! If there is any clear demonstration that a benevolent God does not exist and is not in control of world events it is the random destruction wrought by natural disasters. So I ask you people of faith, how do you reconcile events such as Katrina with your belief in God?

The Horse's Mouth

2005-08-30T22:00:00.000-05:00

I look back on it, and I am very, very, very grateful he did not meet with me, because we have sparked and galvanized the peace movement," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "If he'd met with me, then I would have gone home, and it would have ended there

I think these words from Ms. Sheehan clearly destroy all credibility from her "grieving mother" facade.

Playing The Race Card

2005-08-24T10:09:00.000-05:00

As time passes I become more and more sure that the majority of racial "problems" in this country are do to one's own preoccupation with that meaningless characteristic. You create your own world in a sense. The latest incident that has brought this to my attention is a little war of words between two teammates on the L.A. Dodgers.

To quickly review, Milton Bradley, a black baseball player, made several disparaging comments about Jeff Kent, a white teammate, and his leadership ability.

``The problem is, he doesn't know how to deal with African-American people,'' Bradley said. ``I think that's what's causing everything. It's a pattern of things that have been said -- things said off the cuff that I don't interpret as funny. It may be funny to him, but it's not funny to Milton Bradley. But I don't take offense to that because we all joke about race in here. Race is an issue with everything we do in here.

``Me being an African-American is the most important thing to me -- more important than baseball,'' said the 27-year-old center fielder, whose voice never went beyond his normal speaking level. ``White people never want to see race -- with anything. But there's race involved in baseball. That's why there's less than 9 percent African-American representation in the game. I'm one of the few African-Americans that starts here.''

I'd like to start by thanking Mr. Bradley for such a compliment. If only his statement that white people "never want to see race" were entirely true.

Where is the problem here though? If in Mr. Bradley's eyes, white people are color blind, then how is race an issue at all? I thought that was the whole goal was it not? Did not someone named Martin say something similar sometime back? When did being color blind turn into a shortcoming?

This is just one example of a mind set that is becoming ever more prevalent in recent years. Instead of fighting for a world where race is an irrelevant factor, many minorities are reversing course and holding race to be of the utmost importance. Listen to Mr. Bradley as he says that being an African-American is the most important thing to him! How absurd would that sound coming from a white man? Is being white the most important thing for him? Should it be? Of course not.

Hopefully one day people can stop trying to define themselves by the group they affiliate with and can start defining themselves by their individual qualities. But the racist is always looking for a way to avoid this. His lack of self-esteem leads him to cling to something larger than himself, thereby assimilating all the cumulative accomplishments of other members, where he himself has none to speak of.

Side Note-- Being that the black population is only around 12.5% of the total American population the fact that "only" 9% of baseball players are black is actually pretty close to representational. And I highly doubt that baseball owners or managers are trying to keep black baseball players, like Barry Bonds, Bernie Williams, Ken Griffey Jr, or Frank Thomas, from succeeding. The competitive nature of sport would help insure that those in charge play the best and those who are slaves to such infantile notions as racism will lose in the end as they fail to field the most competitive team they could.

Back In Action

2005-08-21T05:51:00.000-05:00

I apologize to everyone for my absence over the Summer. The lack of school combined with the departure of a few of my good friends turned my schedule into an incoherent nightmare. But now that Fall semester is just around the bend and I've finally got around to redesigning my blog, I will be resuming posting and debating and infuriating and all those other wonderful things that blogs make possible.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

The Cancer In The Constitution

2005-06-30T09:08:00.000-05:00

After doing some more thinking, I've come to the realization that the the Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo case was actually the right one. Now, now,let me explain. In the Constitution the provision for eminent domain is clearly stated. The government has a right to seize property (with just compensation) if it is for public use. So does the Kelo decision, that of taking property for the public benefit of higher tax revenues, logically follow? As always, we have to take a look at the underlying premise of eminent domain.

Now supposedly, every individual has a right to own his own property, as well as to own his own life. This means that the property is mine and mine alone. No one else has any say in the matter. If a neighbor has a legitimate right to tell me how to use my property, then I really don't own it, but we both do. So if I have a right to it, then I am king, and no person or orginization has any right to tell me how high I can build my house or how and when I must sell my land.

But the underlying premise of eminent domain says that the government does have such a right. As such, I don't really own my property, but at best it is a co-ownership between myself and the government, and since the government has the ability to make law and has a monoply on the use of force, it's not exactly a fair relationship. As I stated in my previous post, what I really have is a stewardship, looking over the property that the government owns, making the small day-to-day desicions, but when the king returns, he has the power.

So I don't really own property, what's the big deal? The government can only invoke this ability if it is in the public interest right? Exactly, and that's where the problem lies. The Constitution is basically saying that an individual's rights can be violated if it serves the needs of the group. The individual can be sacrificed to the interets of the mob. This utilitarian concept is at the heart of Communism. It's not the individual that matters but the welfare of society. One may be sacrificed to benefit the other. If this concept is accepted in our founding document, then there is no room for cocepts such as individual rights as those are subject to the whims of the masses.

If at any time your life, liberty or property is the hands of society instead of your own, then those concepts we call individual rights do not exist. Instead they are nothing but a cruel masquerade, keeping the victim blind to his own shackles as the mob leads him toward the altar. If the good of society is the barometer we use to determine when rights can be violated, what atrocieties are we in for? Common and obvious violations abound already, whether it's in the form of zoning or income taxes. Obviously the Kelo decision easily follows from this mentality, as well as a military draft, and even forced labor.

It is the idea that the individual is inferior to and subject to the good of the group that has led to history's greatest injustices. The Kelo decision was simply keeping with this line of thinking and is the inevitable outcome of its progression. Until such a premise is expunged from our foundation and the concepts of individual rights as wholly inviolable to anyone or anything, regardless of circumstances, are enshrined and protected, can the individual be at ease. We should not stay our hand with the simple revision of eminent domain, a measure that will cure the symptom but hide the disease, we must push forward until all traces of individual sacrifice are extinguished.

Lament American

2005-06-26T12:11:00.000-05:00

I was in shock. I didn't know if I could trust my ears when I heard the news. The U.S. Supreme Court had just decided to drag the individual up to the summit of the communal temple, lay him down, and rip out his heart... for the good of the community. Could this be the same country I had read about in school books during elementary school? The one that believed in "unalineable rights"? The one that held the individual as supreme and asserted that government existed to serve him, not the reverse? The one that fought so vehemently against the "evil empire" of Soviet Russia and the blatantly evil ideas of Communism? The one that WON the Cold War?

Apparently we had all been mistaken. We thought we had won the Cold War because the Soviet Union crumbled apart, the state no longer existed. But we failed to kill the ideas that made that state possible. These ideas, the true menace, lingered, and in the absence of our vigilance they grew. We sat back and smiled at those "crazy commies" that argued in our lecture halls and classrooms. Didn't they realize they had lost? That Communism was dead? We watched idly as the battle lines continued to be moved further and further to the left, so that the ideas we once fought against suddenly and without our realization, became the accepted norm, not to be questioned for fear of being called, intolerant or cold-hearted.

Our loyalty to the rights of man eroded as the left cleverly expanded the term until it lost meaning. Now man had rights to all sorts of things, to health care, to a "living wage" to a smoke free workplace, to a home, to a playstation 3. We never stood up and proclaimed that a right poses no positive obligation on another. We never made clear the contradiction of a "right" that by necessity violates another's. And so, rights were diluted, now ready to be the plaything of those who knew the scheme that was underway.

More and more we compromised that old idea of individual rights, being hoodwinked by the appeal to the "greater good." Well, why not take a man's paycheck and give it to others, it's the decent thing to do, it's in the interest of "society" it's "social justice." From each according to his ability to each according to his need, what did that well-off man need this extra income for? A new boat? People are starving! People are unemployed! People don't have cable television! As time went by we became more and more numbed to the idea of the individual as a sacrificial animal, as long as he was sacrificed to the "good of society."

And now the Supreme Court has bluntly said to all Americans, "you have no right to property." At best you are a steward, to look after it in a game of pretend, a mocking adult version of playing house. Your property isn't yours, you have no say in the matter. How selfish of you, when the government can take your property and do more good for the community with your property. How selfish to whine and moan and try to keep it all for your greedy little self! Your sacrifice will aid the greater good, it will benefit the community.

We never seem to get that the "community" will always mean some other individual or group of individuals, but certainly not you. They will benefit, but not you. You are to be sacrificed and you should be happy about it!

And now here we are, with the same political ideas of savage nations who sacrificed virgins at altars in order to appease angry gods. We do it to appease society.

It was once the foundation of this nation that a man had the right to his Life his Liberty and his Property. All three are connected, you cannot have one without the other. If you take his Liberty he obviously cannot have the right to his life or to property. If you take his Property he cannot have liberty and he cannot have life.

Those Commies that we laughed at as they spouted their silly little ideas knew what they were doing. They have attacked the right that was protected the least, the most vulnerable to compromise and deterioration. They attacked the idea of property rights, until now at last they have succeeded in destroying it. It is only a matter of time before the other two are dragged down by the chains that bind them together.

It was a great country.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

The Inevitable Bias Of Big Bird

2005-06-23T12:51:00.000-05:00

Recently the fate and bias of PBS and NPR has been in the news. Some claim that PBS and NPR, which are of course, publicly funded media organizations, have a liberal bias in many of there news programs. This comes on the heels of people accusing the PBS kid's show "Arthur" of promoting a homosexual agenda and other such instances. Now come calls from republicans for federal funding to be revoked from these organizations while Democrats are cry foul.

The funny thing about all this is that it really misses the whole point. Does PBS have a liberal bias? I don't know, I haven't watched enough of it to really say, but it does not really matter. It is bound to have a bias one way or the other. This comes from the inherent contradiction of public property.

It is ridiculous to think that a news organization can present all news completely obejctivly without having its own slant or spin on the stories. It is equally ridiculous to think that children's programs meant to educate children can do so without holding any values. The problem rises with the fact that tax payers are forced to support these programs even though they inevitably will contradict someone's values or ideology. That such a conflict hasn't been brought into the public forum before is quite amazing.

Should public funding be pulled for PBS? Yes, of course it should. Not because it has a liberal bias, but because it is not a proper avenue or responsibility of government. People don't form governments and societies in order to have public television. The fact that a bias is inevitable, whether its a position on the Iraq war presented on Frontline or Big Bird saying that all races of children are beautiful, further shows the folly of this expidenture. For what of those that disagree with the Iraq position, and what of those who hold racist beliefs? Should they be forced to pay for an organization that propagates ideals contrary to their own?

I say kill it, and please, don't stop there.

The Nature Of Liberalism: Evil

2005-06-07T06:36:00.000-05:00

While sitting in my leftist infested American Foreign Policy class, my professor, also a jaded communist, keeps pronouncing that human nature is evil. He says it so much that the rest of the class has now begun the practice of finishing his sentence for him. "Things are bad because human nature is...class? 'Evil!' That's right, evil, very good." It was after hearing this for the countless time that I dove deep into thought, very deep, right past the usual fare of "Mmmm a cheese steak sandwich sure would be good right now," and "I miss hockey, damnitt," to the point where I realized the very essence of liberalism itself! I had finally grasped the very root, the core that supports all their silly little corollaries, and I was disgusted and yet free from any sense of surprise.

Liberals are always advocating increases in governmental power, oversight, funding and influence on our lives. To them government is the solution, not "a" solution, but "the" solution to almost every problem that a human being or society faces in life. If people are poor, then the government should give them money, if people are rich they should take it, if people are sick, the government should make sure they get medicine, if there are charities, the government should make sure people give them money... and so on and so forth.

When someone offers a view with a conservative bent to it, liberals usually resort to either attacking the person making the argument, making accusations of ulterior and selfish motives, or they dismiss the idea as naive as conservatives obviously have no knowledge of people's suffering in the world. When they hear arguments for a free market, no minimum wage or social security, they scoff, not able to imagine that such a world could actually operate successfully.

Initially, I was always a bit baffled. How could they not see the beneficial effects of freedom, of individual rights and responsibility? Don't they see that all these government interventions are wrong, unnecessary and detrimental to the well-being of individuals? But there was my professor, standing right before me, professing the stripped down and ugly essence of liberal thought in such plain and truthful language. "Human nature is evil."

Most liberals, whether consciously or subconsciously believe that humans are by nature evil creatures who, if left to their own devices, would rip each other limb from limb. Conversely, most conservatives hold humans to be good by nature.

Let's examine the consequences of these positions. If humans are by nature good, then freedom is possible and recommended. With a small role for the government, that of ensuring peace (individual rights), people, for the most part, can be left to their own judgment as to how to live their lives. People will naturally look to what is in their best interest, which is coexisting peaceably with their neighbors and using the concept of trade to increase the quality of their own lives and the lives of others. Thus people who hold this position advocate smaller government and more freedom.

To the liberal this position seems absurd. Since he holds human nature to be evil, he cannot fathom why anyone would advocate the above positions, thus he always suspects some ulterior motive of the speaker or claims the positions to be naive and unworkable. If people are evil by nature then they cannot be given freedom. Freedom simply allows humans to indulge in their evilness. People will constantly be stabbing their neighbors in the back as they strive to crush their competitors under their heels in a struggle to gain power. They will look to enrich themselves by impoverishing others and generally get away with any dastardly deed they can manage. Freedom simply breeds chaos and misery.

To the liberal the answer lies in the government. It acts as the parent or benevolent god that keeps us evil children from pulling out each others hair on the playground of life. To create more prosperity and foster greater well-being, more government intervention in the lives of individuals is necessary. The only way to lessen poverty is to mandate solutions by force, since people, by their evil nature would never voluntarily help each other out. People can not be trusted to live their own lives and make their own decisions.

Conservatives look aghast at government actions that continually chip away at an individual's fundamental freedoms. They wonder how someone could advocate such encroachments onto freedom. What they don't realize is that the liberal doesn't hold freedom to be a good thing like he does. Freedom is evil, or more accurately, freedom allows the evil of humanity. Actions that curtail that freedom, curtail evil and are the only path to human prosperity.

Is it any wonder that Democrats always focus on the negative and a general cynicism and pessimism pervades everything they say? If only we would realize that they are our saviors from evil, our saviors from ourselves.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

5 Things I Don't Get

2005-05-31T06:16:00.000-05:00

A little while ago Stephen from Fearless Philosophy for Free Minds tagged me with a little topic where I am supposed to list five things I don't get but my family or friends do. As I have unwantingly taken a little break from blogging, due to continued computer troubles, I'll take this opportunity to get back into the swing of things.

1. Paris Hilton. Guys, I just don't get it. What is so appealing about this ditz? Is it the hope that "hey, here is a celebrity slutty enough even to sleep with me!" Besides being the saddest example of our disfigured celebrity worship, and accomplishing the impossible task of making Brittany Spears look intelligent, she isn't even very attractive. Sure, she's skinny, but her face is nothing to look at. If I want a ditzy, hot, blonde, I'll take Jessica Simpson.

2. Getting drunk. Now, personally I just don't much care for the taste of alcohol. I think most mixed drinks taste better without it. As far as beer goes, I don't know about you, but I can't stand the taste of liquefied burnt crackers, but that's just me. Getting drunk is the real baffling thing though. You drink this stuff in order to make yourself more dumb, on purpose? Just something about spending my night throwing up into a toilet and waking up next to disease infected women that just doesn't appeal to me. I like dealing with reality, not escaping from it. And if you get drunk, you shouldn't be against other drugs, the magnitude may be different but the principle is the same.

3. Horror movies. Come on, when was the last time you saw a horror movie that was actually scary? They have become so camp and predictable that they serve better as comedies nowadays. Aside from that fact, what is the big eniticement to be scared? Nightmares? Paranoia? I think I'll pass.

4. Pets. More specifically lots of pets. I can understand having A dog OR A cat but when you have three dogs, two cats, five birds, some fish and a turtle, you are taking it overboard. Some people have so many pets that they basically enslave themselves to their upkeep. What is the appeal of having so many dependent beings calling on your time? As if raising kids and living your own life wasn't a challenge enough.

5. Popping your collar. Do you enjoy walking around with a sign around your neck that says "I'm a conformist asshole"? I just don't get how people can be so overtly unoriginal. I always thought being a sheep was a bad thing.

Now I'm supposed to pass this on to a few bloggers that haven't yet received it. So I'll challenge Jollybeggar and Matthew.

The Minimum Wage Strikes Back

2005-05-16T20:21:00.000-05:00

I went to go see "The hitchhiker Guide To The Galaxy" the other week. As I was purchasing my ticket the girl in the ticket booth politely said "$6.25 please." Being used to only paying $6.00 (the student discount rate) I inquired when this unfortunate change had occurred. The girl promptly replied that the increase had just taken effect. Without provocation she added that they were forced to increase prices in response to the raise in minimum wage which was passed through a citizen initiative last November.

I couldn't have asked for a better example of the true effects of the minimum wage. It's really quite simple. If you are an employer you have two options in the face of a minimum wage increase. 1. You can raise prices in order to compensate for the increase in wages. 2. You can offset the increase in wages by reducing the number of hours worked by the employees. So what are the results of these choices for a person making minimum wage? Either he has to pay more for goods and services which simply negates the effect of the wage increase or he loses his job.

Can someone please give me some good reasons to support the minimum wage. As far as I have heard nothing justifies the abrogation of a person's right to voluntarily enter into contracts.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

A Letter To Christians

2005-04-23T00:43:00.000-05:00

Dear Christian,

I have recently heard you talking about some "God" who created the universe and a guy named Jesus who loves me and who can grant me everlasting life in paradise. As I am always interested in ways to live forever in eternal bliss, I am very interested in learning more about your religion. However, I've also heard many other people talking about other ideas concerning "God" and life after death. I certainly don't want to follow teachings that are not correct and live my entire life following false notions. So, before I ascribe to your religious views of existence, I have a few simple questions that need to be answered. Please indulge me.

Now from some preliminary research I have conducted, I learned that your knowledge of "God" and his ways comes from a collection of books called the Bible. This Bible you claim to be the word of god, as it was revealed to men who then wrote it down for the rest of us. Please answer me this, Why do you believe this? Why do you believe the Bible to be the word of God?

Now, you might say "because it says it is." But this is obviously not sufficient. As I have learned in my research, there are other books that claim to be the word of god. For instance, there is this religion called Islam, and the core of its teachings come from a book called the Quran. Now these Muslims, as they are called, believe the Quran to be the word of God, as it was revealed to a prophet named Muhammad, who then had it written down.

Now see, here is the funny thing. After doing some brief examinations of the two texts, it turns out they say very different things about God, what he is, and what he wants from us. Now it seems obvious that, since they say contradictory things, they can not both be the word of god. We really have three options: Option 1-- the Bible is true and the Quran is false, Option 2-- The Quran is true and the Bible is false, or option 3-- the are both false. Now obviously, you hold on to option 1, believing the bible to be true and the Quran false. My question is why? What criteria did you use to determine the authenticity of the Bible and the falsehood of the Quran? Such information would be greatly helpful.

But maybe I should pose the question a bit differently, a bit more hypothetical. Since both books contain a lot of historical events and earthly happenings that might detract from our dialogue and I don't want to get side-tracked into irrelevant arguments, lets create a parallel hypothetical argument to pose our question.

Imagine that I am a nomadic wanderer living six thousand years ago. One day, while going to a well to retrieve some water, two strange men come up to me. They introduce themselves and strangely enough, they both claim to be prophets who have received divine revelations from god, and they are charged with spreading the word to all the people. We'll call them "Prophet A" and "prophet B."

Always wanting to know the truth, I implored each man to tell me what god had said to them. After listening to each man in turn, it became apparent that what each man said was the complete opposite of the other. If one said god was a cat, the other would say he was a dog. If one said that we must love each other, the other said we must hate. Seeing that what they claimed god said to them was completely contradictory, I knew that both could not be telling me the truth. One of three options had to be true. Option 1--Prophet A was telling the truth and Prophet B was lying, Option 2--Prophet B was telling the truth and Prophet A was lying, or Option 3--both prophets were lying.

Here is where I ran into my problem. I did not know how to determine which one was being truthful, if either. What criteria should I use to determine which one was a true messenger from god? What criteria would you use?

PS.

On a nother note, It seems that there might be some flaws in believing such a book as the Bible to be the word of god. Here is another hypothetical.

One day your roommate locks himself in his room. He does not come out for forty days. When he finally does emerge, all shaggy haired and wide-eyed, he has with him a big stake of paper. He then tells you that for the last forty days God had been talking to him, laying down a new covenant with man. Apparently God had changed his mind on the whole "Jesus thing" and had new rules for us to follow. Your roommate had been typing everything God said on MS word and he just got done printing it out. Now let me ask you this. Would you believe him?

It seems that the majority of people, would say absolutely not. Most would laugh and think him to be crazy. Yet if we think about it, one would have more reason to believe the roommate then the Bible. With the Bible, many of the books are anonymous, or we are unsure about their authorship, while you know for sure that your roommate has written this new covenant. Secondly, you don't know anything about the people who wrote the bible. Even if we assume that the books were written by those that they are claimed to have been written by, we know nothing of these people. None of us lived in the times when the bible was being written. None of us personally knew any of these authors. How do we know their character? How do we know if they are to be trusted? How do we know that those who wrote the Bible were not' a bunch of very seedy and opportunistic con men? In comparison, you would know your roommate. He is your friend. You would know something of his character and thus would be able to judge whether or not he was a trustworthy person or not. This information could help you decide whether or not you give credence to his claims of talking with God.

Since it appears that we would have more reason to believe the roommate, yet most of us would not, it seems odd that one would believe in the Bible, which you have less reason to.

PSS.

Another thing before you go. Doesn't it seem odd that God, if he exists as you say, being all powerful and whatnot, would use the method of revealed religion in order to communicate his message? For one thing, we know humans lie. Therefore, how am I supposed to know whether or not someone is telling the truth when he claims to be speaking for god? Surely if God reveals himself to a man, it is a truly wonderful thing to behold. But, when that man then goes and tells another man of his revelation, it is no revelation to that man. It is simply the word of a fellow man, who he knows to be fallible and often deceitful. It is no revelation to him. He seems justified in being extremely guarded against such messages.

Also why use such an imperfect means of communication as language. So much meaning can be lost or misinterpreted through human language. And when the word is translated into other languages, even more can be lost. Also, a large segment of humanity cannot read, or cannot read the language of the bible, or maybe live in remote regions of the earth where knowledge of the bible might not exist. If god had a message that was so important for humanity, seeing that one's adherence to it or failure to adhere to it decides his fate between eternal bliss and eternal damnation, with a message so important, why would he chose to communicate it in such an imperfect way? Why not just reveal himself simultaneously to all of mankind instead of a select few?

PSSS.

These are just some philosophical problems I have with the idea of revealed religion that I need to have answered adequately before I even begin to examine the actual contents of the Bible. If you can please answer these questions for me, then we can move on to the questions I have about the actual contents and merits of what the book says.

It's Official, Catholics Are Crazy

2005-04-21T00:54:00.000-05:00

Why is it that every round shaped stain is Mary? Why not Moby or the guy in Munch's "The Scream"? The whole seeing Mary in stains and cinnamon rolls is a big basket of silliness.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

See the mother of God here!

An Open Invitation

2005-04-09T23:57:00.000-05:00

Anyone who reads this blog will probably know that I have a keen interest in religion. Religion has such a profound impact on world affairs, and on a smaller scale the personal affairs of people. In an effort on my part to understand religion and those who follow it, I want to make an open invitation to anyone, of any faith, to leave a comment that explains their faith, and more importantly, why and how they came to believe in it.

I know people come to religion in a myriad of ways but I'd just like to know how it was you came to your current beliefs and also how it has affected your life. What do you get out of it? I've read many blogs detailing a person's faith, but most fail to shed light on how that person came to the decision to follow their faith. So, just in an effort to understand the perspective of those influenced by faith, I'm hoping anyone out there will be kind enough to share their experiences and their views.

Lower Wages, Everyday?

2005-04-04T22:17:00.000-05:00

The other day in my Public relations class, my professor went on a rant about the biggest threat to humanity to date....Wal-Mart. Most of the students, or at least the outspoken ones, agreed with the stereotypical liberal professor, as is par for the course, as he derided the bastion of evil for its unfair treatment of its employees. That, of course, is not the only reason why Liberals hate Wal-Mart. My classmates failed to bring up Wal-Marts detrimental environmental impacts and their mass slaughtering of baby seals (trust me, they'll connect the two somehow.)

Is Wal-Mart really that bad?

Personally, I'm not too fond of Wal-Mart. This is probably in part due to the fact that my Wal-Mart is located smack dab in the middle of the ghetto. Ghetto-Mart, as my friends and I call it, has got to be the worst run business I've seen and the customer service makes a McDonalds seem like a Ritz-Carlton. It's messy, noisy, and I always have to wait in long lines, even at 2 in the morning. But still, I shop there. Why?

It's cheap and it's convenient.

If I want better customer service or a nicer atmosphere, I'll go to Target, where the employees speak English and I never have to wait in line. But if I need something on the cheap, or at 2 in the morning, Wal-Mart is there for me.

But what of Wal-Mart's employee treatment?

I cannot, for the life of me, comprehend how anyone could think that Wal-Mart employees are being stiffed when it comes to pay. If these people make minimum wage then they are being grossly over-compensated. Liberals seem to think that if you do a job, any job, for 40 hours a week then you should earn what is called a "living wage." Of course what constitutes a living wage is highly debatable as many people below the poverty line still have cable TV subscriptions but that's another topic. Just because you work full time doesn't mean that that work is worth a "living wage."

If I folded pieces of paper in half for 40 hours a week, should I make 30 grand a year? I fail to see how such could be so. The same is true for Wal-Mart employees. Frankly the level of competence and ability I see demonstrated by the average Wal-Mart employee is barely better than a half-baked pre-teen. For as well as they do their jobs and the skills required to do it, they probably don't even deserve what the government forces Wal-Mart to pay them. But Wal-Mart could choose to raise their wages. Would that be a good idea?

Again, Wal-Mart's unique selling position is price and convenience not service. It could raise wages for it's front-end employees and would thereby increase it's level of customer service, but that would compromise prices which is Wal-Mart's big selling point. Also, one should note that if they did increase wages, odds are, those jobs would be taken by more qualified employees and many of those who currently hold those positions would be out of a job because frankly, they just don't have the job skills necessary to compete.

Let's put it this way, if Wal-Mart wasn't present in a neighborhood, all those employees who are, supposedly being stiffed, wouldn't have a job at all. But maybe you think they would, but Wal-Mart drives out small businesses. Maybe it does, but it only does so by the voluntary actions of those in the neighborhood. It drives them out because it offers lower prices. So maybe Wal-Mart jobs pay less, but it also makes available cheaper goods, which results in a sort of deflation of currency, lower wages, but lower prices, all's the same in the end.

If you don't think Wal-Mart pays enough, then don't work there. If you think Wal-Mart is evil, don't shop there, and by all means try to convince everyone else to do the same. But please, don't try to impose your beliefs by paying off some thug, i.e. the government, to force them onto others.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Minimum Waste

2005-03-27T00:35:00.000-05:00

Read The Article Here

You can always count on the Mithrandir of Economics, Walter Williams, to shed that oh so uncommon light of reason onto subjects that seem permanently mired in the PC rhetoric of our sound bite media culture. It amazes me that so many people, even conservatives, believe in the mockery that is the minimum wage. If you believe in freedom, and justice based on merit, then you must see the folly of such a worthless idea.