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.

The End Of Terri Shiavo

2005-03-25T22:59:00.000-05:00

This is it. This is my last post on the Terri Shiavo case. I don't acre if Jesus comes down and raises her from the dead, I'm tired of talking about this woman. But here is my one last gasp.

The first thing I want to comment on is the fact that, according to this article from the Washington Post, Terri's medicine is paid for by Medicaid and Woodside Hospice provides her care for free. Medicaid pays for her medicine. To put it in lay terms, you and I pay for her medicine. Now I don't want to write a whole article explaining why you and I shouldn't have to pay for anyone's medicine, although I might write one later, let's just stick to Terri. If the parents get their wish, we the American Taxpayer will be paying for medicine to help keep this body alive. This woman is missing most of her brain. She is nothing more than a body, there is no Terri in there. If you want to help pay for medicine to keep a shell alive go ahead, but don't force me to pay for it.

I've done some more reading about the history of the case and I must say that Michael Shiavo really seems to be getting shafted. From what I've read, and you can read it here, Michael seemed to have been a very loving and devoted husband. Aggressively seeking treatment for his wife in the face of many doctors who told him that he situation was hopeless. It was only after years of unsuccessful treatment that Michael finally was able to accept the sad fact that his wife was gone and she was never coming back.

Frankly, I have some doubt as to the legitimacy of Michael's claim that Terri told him she would not have wanted to live that way. Instead, she probably didn't tell him. But having finally accepted her situation, he came to the decision that it was better to end her life than to keep her in this world by the thin thread that kept her from God. Because her parents never came to the same realization that Michael had, he came up with the "she told me" stance to fight off the legal fights the parents would raise.

Michael is her legal guardian and he feels that the best action is to end her so called life. The courts, time and time again, have found no reason to reject guardianship from Michael, and even after every legal trick has been tried by the Schindler family, they still found no credible evidence contrary to Michael's position.

On a side note, as the document linked to above states, apparently the Schindler family encouraged Michael to move on and start a new life after his wife fell into her current condition. So any attack referencing the fact that Michael has, what amounts to a common law wife, and two kids is really a moot point.

Also, for anyone who actually reads down the article this far, I'm just wondering what your wish would be if you found yourself in Terri's medical condition. I, for one, would be horrified if I was to be kept alive for the majority of my life in such a state.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Whom Do You Serve? God Or Yourself?

2005-03-22T22:48:00.000-05:00

Tonight On Scarborough Country, The author of "The Purpose Driven Life," Rick Warren, was talking about his book. Besides demonstrating that he has no fashion sense, Mr. Warren made the common points often brought up by religious leaders. God created us all, and has a plan for everyone. Your life isn't about you, but about serving God. Mr. Warren railed against the "Me" generation and stated that we were created to serve God's will. This is our purpose and goal in life: To serve God by serving others. But let's take a little closer look at this purpose by asking the simple, yet profound question, why?

Assuming God does exist and did create us all and has a plan for us all, why should you serve Him? Would you serve Him if doing so would make you completely miserable and unhappy? What if that was God's plan and desire for you? Would you serve God if doing so would sentence you to Hell? What if that was God's desire, to see you writhe in Hell for all eternity, would you serve Him?

It seems that a reasonable person would say no to the above scenarios. Why serve God just to spend an eternity in Hell? It seems that the author has misidentified serving God as the end purpose of life, when in reality, according to religious people, it is only a means to the true end of human life, that is your own personal happiness.

It seems the author really means to say that only by serving God can one be happy, in which case, personal happiness, not serving God, is the ultimate purpose. Now whether serving God leads to happiness is, of course, debatable, but that's another topic. One serves God because he feels that by doing so, his life will have more meaning and this will make him happier, or maybe he looks forward to a pleasant after-life. But in appears, the only reason to serve God is for your own personal benefit. Your life is about you. It is "me me me." This is very selfish and that is natural and good.

For more on the subject of Rational self-interest see my previous post titled "Selfishness"

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

The Radicalism of Objectivism

2005-03-19T20:02:00.000-05:00

For those looking for a good introduction to Objectivsm, here is a very well done article covering many of the basics.

Read The Article Here

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Conservative Hypocrisy: Terri Schaivo

2005-03-18T23:57:00.000-05:00

I hate it when I see conservative commentators who usually make such insightful and consistent remarks on current issues foul it all up. It seems like every conservative commentator I know is coming out of the woodwork to defend Terri Shaivo's parents and demonize anyone who thinks that her feeding tube should be pulled. Anti-life they call you as they attempt to link this issue with the ever-present abortion quagmire. They say we live in a culture of death that will allow the legal "killing" of invalids.

They miss the point. If they simply followed their own ideologies consistently they would find themselves castigating those very legislators who they currently praise for trying to bully their ways into the lives of the Schaivo family. Conservative ideology believes in limited government. It believes in the supremacy of the individual and the right to your own life. They rail against government intrusion into our daily decisions yet here they are advocating government intrusion into your very own health care, intrusion into your right to decide your quality of life. The very conservatives that distrust government at every turn (and rightfully so) are pushing the federal government to intervene. They want them to use force to keep Terri alive, even though the courts have ruled that Terri would not want to continue living in her current condition. Do we really want the government getting into the business of deciding for us when we should leave this world. Should it be up to some holier-than-thou legislator to decide when your health is good or bad enough to discontinue treatment. Perhaps conservatives should make an effort not to hold contradictory and hypocritical beliefs and simply stick to their "government is the problem not the solution" ideal. Conservatives should defend the right of every individual to decide for himself how he will live his life and included in those decisions is the right to decide when it is the opportune time to make an exit of this world. Just be consistent, check your premises.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Death To Tyrants

2005-03-18T02:09:00.000-05:00

Individual freedom does not come from a piece of parchment. Our individual rights are not granted to us by The Constitution. They are not gifts so graciously bestowed to us by governments and officials. No, freedom is innate. Every man, as a man, is sovereign in and of himself. He has the sole right to his life. The freedom to live it, in accordance with his own designs. He has the right to his life and all subsequent freedoms which follow from that right, such as the right to the product of his labor. All men have these rights, and the right to fight to secure them.

unfortunately, not all men are willing to recognize the sovereignty of the individual. They are thugs. They brutalize, and steal. They attempt to put you in bondage, in one form or another. Maybe they steal what is yours, and thus put you in their service. Maybe they force you to live a certain way, making you their subject to order about. Or, maybe they simply decide your life is forfeit.

To protect ourselves from those who fail to recognize our right to our lives, we create governments. We attempt to create a system that enshrines our rights, lists them, hails them. We punish those that attempt to violate us. Our constitution does not grant us rights, it simply attempts to list them, and often fails to do so as thorough as need be.

But,what happens when those who we created the government to protect us from become the very ones in charge? What happens when the inmates run the prison? Sadly, this seems to be the state we are in. Thugs have used the very institution that is supposed to guarantee our freedoms to circumvent them, to repeal them, to violate them, to violate us.

tragically, these thugs have not come to power through that beloved method of theirs that they know so well, force, but through democracy. The mentality of thugs have spread so far that millions of people willingly and enthusiatically hand power over to bandits. It is not the scoundrels in power I fear, it is what supports them. I fear the masses of people who have decided liberty is quaint. I fear the millions of little tyrants who willingly throw shackles around their feet and are all too eager to clasp them over mine and yours as well.

They all have their own rationales. Maybe it's the "greater good" maybe it's society, God, or "my own good." These good-intentioned folk claim to posses a knowledge far greater than our own. They, and only they, know what is good for us. Just listen to them, let them decide things and everyone will live in peace and happiness. Perhaps it starts by mandating recycling like Mr. Davegkugler advocates or prohibiting such harmful practices as smoking. Maybe their efforts degenerate into congressional hearings about steroids in baseball. Everything falls into their domain of control, from the mundane to the magnificent.

Of course they don't like it when their own tactics come back to haunt them. They will cry foul and stand up for "freedom" when something they hold dear is affronted. So, their tactic is to get people into power that think like they do. People that will protect the freedoms they like and destroy the ones they don't. Their view, of course, misses the reality of their the situation.

I might not like drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes or marijuana, gambling, wearing neon colored shirts or flipping my collar up so that I look like a jack ass. But, just because I don't care for something, or believe it to be a detrimental activity, doesn't mean I should try to use force in order to curtail it. I don't have that right. I recognize the right of others to live their own lives. And that means allowing them to live it in ways I might vehemently disagree with.

If someone doesn't recognize the sovereignty of the individual, than he has denied freedom, he has denied his own sovereignty, his own rights. A man who does not recognize my right to my life is a threat to it. The minute he tries to shackle me down he ceases to be a man in my eyes. He is a tyrant and a dictator, a villain, a thug, a brute, an enemy. I will defend the right to my life and will feel no remorse in dispatching any little tyrant that tries to violate it.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

The Apology Of A Tin Man

2005-03-17T02:02:00.000-05:00

Several times, when debating someone with more liberal views than my own, I have been called "cold-hearted." As I speak out against such government programs as welfare and public schools, and the like, my interlocutor usually sees me as some mean-spirited, self-centered, closed-minded bigot who is unable to grasp the harshness of some people's lives. Self-centered...maybe, but by no means am I mean-spirited or a bigot.

I am inevitably asked how difficult my life has been, as though that has some bearing on the validity of my arguments. The appeal to feelings and emotion always seems a common occurrence when debating a liberal. But their attempt to categorize me as "cold-hearted" is, it seems, a failure to see beyond the immediate and superficial shock that comes when hearing such radical views and a failure to see the true meaning of my words.

To clarify this, we should emphasize that there is nothing, NOTHING, stopping the citizens of this country from giving many times the amount of money to those in need than is given through such government programs as welfare and medicaid. All they have to do is desire it. If people want to give to charitable organizations, then they are free to give as much as they want. I am not trying to convince people not to give to those who are in need. I am not saying that kids should not go to school, or people should go hungry. What I am advocating is freedom.

It is not the charity itself that I argue against. I argue against coercion. I argue against people being forced at the barrel of a gun to give their money to others, whatever the good intentions, it is wrong. I argue that there is no such thing as coerced charity. It is no virtue to give when you are only doing so to avoid punishment. That is forced payment, that is theft. It really boils down to a question on the requirements of morality.

An action cannot be considered moral or immoral if it is forced. Those who are forced to give are not compassionate, they are scared. I am not "cold-hearted" because I abhor the use of force. If someone wants to help out his fellow man, then more power to him. He can donate his time, energy and resources. He can aid a charity organization or even found one himself. As I said before, the money currently used for redistributive programs comes from the people. There is nothing stopping the people from voluntarily giving the same amount of money, if not more, to those in need. All I advocate is that they do so freely, that it is a choice. Only when one is free from coercion can one's actions be considered compassionate, or cold-hearted. Only then can one be considered virtuous or unjust. Perhaps it is just a difference in views of humanity. I believe that, given the freedom, people will help out others in need who deserve help. Perhaps liberals simply lack that faith in humanity.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Gone Campin'

2005-03-13T11:08:00.000-05:00

Hey everyone, just a note, I'm going camping (woohoo) for the next 5 days (it's spring break for me) so there will be no updates until I get back. I hope everyone has a good time while I'm gone and gives me plenty of interesting stuff to read when I get back.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Flights Of Fancy: Robots

2005-03-12T02:32:00.000-05:00

I went to see Robots today. The film is a pretty typical American Dream kind of story. Believe in your dreams, work hard, and no matter what beginnings you come from, you can become anything you want. The story revolves around Rodney Copperbottom, voiced by the ever-versatile Ewan Macgregor, and his adventures as he travels to Robot City to follow his dreams of being an inventor. When Rodney's naive outlook is crushed by the stereotypical evil corporate CEO Rachet, he must struggle to regain his positive outlook and refrain from the temptation to give up. Besides the bad guy being a corporate CEO, which I'm getting pretty tired of, the movie demonstrates lots of good lessons for kids, ahh who am I kidding for adults, kids already know such things, it's the adults that seem to need constant reminders to think optimistically. The movie is very fast paced and at times gets a bit hectic and off kilter as the story is decent but not the driving force. Robots seemed a bit more like several great action sequences strung together by a haphazard story. It's from the creators of Ice Age and that is really the best way to sum it up. Like Ice Age, it's a good, entertaining movie, but not an instant classic on the level of Pixar's efforts.

The real entertaining part for me was the theater filled with little kids. It had to be one of the best movie going experiences I have had in a while. The kids laughing at all the stupid gags and jokes really lightened my mood. I love little kids, they rock. Two other things made the evening memorable. One was the guy in the seat in front of mine. I have never witnessed a man laugh so much in my life, he was literally laughing when absolutely nothing funny was even happening. It was a strange yet entertaining experience. The other of course was the new trailer for Starwars Episode III. Mmmmm. I got chills man, chills. I know Episode I sucked, and II still left something to be desired, but damn.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Distributive Justice

2005-03-09T06:11:00.000-05:00

Once there was a Little Red Hen who lived in a barnyard with her three chicks and a Duck, a Pig, and a Cat.

One day the Little Red Hen found some grains of wheat. "Look, look!" she clucked. "who will help me plant this wheat?"

"Not I," quaked the Duck, and he waddled away.
"Not I," oinked the Pig, and he trotted away.
"Not I," mewed the Cat, and he padded away.

"Then I will plant it myself," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

When the wheat was tall and golden the Little Red Hen knew it was ready to be cut. "Who will help me cut the wheat?" she asked.

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Pig.
"Not I," said the Cat.

"Then I will cut the wheat myself," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

"Now," said the Little Red Hen, "it is time to take the wheat to the miller so he can grind it into flour. Who wil help me?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Pig.
"Not I," said the Cat.

"Then I will have to take the wheat to the miler myself," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

The miller ground the wheat into fine white flour and put it into a sack for the Little Red Hen. When she returned to the barnyard, the Little Red Hen asked, "Who will help me make this flour into dough?"

"Not I," said the Duck, the Pig, and the Cat all at once.

"Then I will make the dough myself," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

When the dough was ready to go into the oven, the Little red Hen asked, "Who will help me bake the bread?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Pig.
"Not I," said the Cat.

"Then I will bake it myself," said the Little red Hen. And she did.

Soon the bread was ready. As she took it from the oven, the Little Red Hen asked, "Well, who will help me eat this warm, fresh bread?"

"I will!" said the Duck.
"I will!" said the Pig.
"Iwill!" said the Cat.

"No you won't," said the Little Red Hen. "You wouldn't help me plant the seeds, cut the wheat, go to the miller, make the dough, or bake the bread. Now I will eat this bread myself!"

And that's just what she did.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Selfishness

2005-03-03T22:55:00.000-05:00

Due to a request from Matthew I've decided to start a little series focusing on some of the major aspects of Objectivism. At first I was going to do one large post covering all the basics, but the thought of that Herculean task enticed me to change my humble little mind. To start, I want to take a look at the oft misunderstood concept of rational self -interest.

Objectivism holds that each individual should do that which is in his own rational interest. Often this concept is simply referred to as doing what is selfish. For clarity sake I will call it rational self-interest. Self-interest means that action which will bring about the greatest amount of happiness over time to that individual. For an easy example, if I have a choice between getting punched in the face or eating a nice steak, I would choose the steak, for it would bring me more happiness. For a slightly more difficult choice, I might choose to refrain from eating a cupcake, because, even though eating it would bring me some short-term pleasure, I might value being healthy more so. The happiness I would derive from being healthy for the length of my life, far outweighs the short-term pleasure of the cupcake. The important point to understand is that the individual's happiness is paramount. It is the ultimate goal that all actions should be judged by. One should never sacrifice one's own happiness, for anything.

An important point needs to be made here. I believe that everyone actually acts based on what he believes to be his self-interest. The key is that not everyone realizes what truly is in his best interest. To clarify this concept let's call that which actually and truly is in one's best interest to be ACTUAL SELF INTEREST. To counter this, is what one believes to be in their best interest, we'll call this BELIEVED SELF INTEREST. Everyone acts based on BELIEVED SELF INTEREST. Sometimes their BELIEVED SELF INTEREST is their ACTUAL SELF INTEREST, but sometimes they are mistaken. For example, a burglar chooses to rob a bank because he BELIEVES it to be in his best interest. Obviously, if he thought that he was going to get caught and that robbing the bank would ruin his life then he wouldn't do it. He does it because he believes that doing so will, in some way, solve his problems and lead to a better future than any alternative he has thought of. In this case, what the burglar believes to be in his best-interest, is not actually in his best interest. Through some fault in his reasoning, he has failed to see what truly is in his best interest. All actions are based on believed self interest. In fact, the only action I could think of that would not be based on believed self interest is an act that is completely random.

Just because everyone acts on believed self interest doesn't make them objectivists. In all things, you must strive to find and understand what it is that makes you happy. You must attempt to make your believed self interest as close as possible to your actual self interest. The problem many people have is that their value systems are flawed. They end up giving less important things higher values and more important things lower values. This leads to actions that produce less happiness than they are valued for. Let's have another example, shall we? I may put a high value on other's people's opinions. This will, of course, influence my decision making. Because I've put a high value on the opinions of others, I will belief that upholding those opinions are in my best interest. I might disregard other things, which I've put a lower value on, in order to preserve the high opinion of others, because I believe this will bring me more net happiness. In the end however, I have mistakenly put too high a value on other's opinions and too low a value on those other things, therefore, my evaluation of which action would lead to more happiness was skewed and incorrect. Again, the important thing to do, is always look objectively at your value system, finding and understanding what brings YOU happiness and assigning appropriate values to them. The goal for each of us is to live a life conducive to happiness on this Earth.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Spidey Of Galilee

2005-03-02T23:59:00.000-05:00

See Comic Here

Wow, so many stories in the news and things I'd like to write about, but so little time to do it. So instead, enjoy this great comic showing a more devout spider-man than I had previously known.

Thanks to NoodleFood for this link.

Fly higher,
Icarus Goodman

Best Modern Novels

2005-02-28T00:45:00.000-05:00

To View List Click Here

Here's a list of the top 100 modern novels. There are separate lists for the critic's choices and readers' choices. Besides the obvious realization that I have a lot of books I need to find time to read, I must say I'm glad to see reader's have good taste in books. Ms. rand occupying the first two spots, with what are my favorite books is certainly pleasing to see. I'm also glad to see great works such as 1984, Brave New World, Lord of The Flies and the lovable Lord of The Rings get some much deserved recognition. But what is Native Son doing at number 20 on the critic's list? That book really drags in the latter portion, and helped me get to sleep many times during highschool, when I was forced to read it.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Let Her Die

2005-02-24T22:07:00.000-05:00

Let's talk about death. Living in Tampa I have been bombarded with coverage of the Terri Schaivo case for many years now. For those of you who don't know about this case, look it up. The bickering I hear on TV seems to miss the real point of this story. They talk about how the husband wants to pull Terri's feeding tube, and they point at his new wife and the shady motives that may be behind his actions. They talk about the parents and how they still think Terri can recover and live a decent life. What I've failed to hear is what Terri wanted. I believe that the courts have already ruled that, while there was no living will, enough evidence and testimony has been offered to prove that Terri would not have wanted to live as she currently is. So, regardless of what the husband's motives are and what the parents want, we know Terri's wishes and of course they should be granted.

But this story hits upon a deeper problem; the control of one's life. Who owns you? Does the government? Do your parents? Friends? Spouse? The answer is of course None of the above. No one owns anyone. Each person has sole ownership of his or her life. This gives each person the right to live their life as they see fit and to end it as well. How much more tyrannical can you get than telling someone when and if they can die. This issue has also come up concerning the very good movie Million Dollar Baby. Conservatives are up in arms about the supposedly anti-life message. I thought conservatives where supposed to trumpet liberty and the sovereignty of the individual. Yet, many want to deny individuals the right to end their own lives. I suppose all those ideals of freedom go out the window when it contradicts Christian beliefs.

On a side note, why is it that people, especially Christians it seems, are so afraid of death. Often I see Christians cling on to any sliver of life as though they knew they were destined for damnation. If you believe you are going to heaven, and you know how wonderful heaven is, why the hesitation. You'd think they would be leaving at their first opportunity, yet I often see them vehemently fighting to keep people alive who are shells of human beings, and who are only being sustained through extensive medical and technological intervention. I just don't get it.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Computers...ughh

2005-02-24T01:14:00.000-05:00

I apologize for the lack of updates recently. While installing a new Hard drive onto my PC, it decided to committ suicide. So, I've been busy this past week raising it from the dead. Finally, however, all is back to normal, so regualr updates should resume tommorow.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Liberty, Plain And Simple

2005-02-16T22:14:00.000-05:00

Here is a very nice flash animation that spells out the basics of liberty. This is probably the simplest and most easy to understand I've ever seen libertarianism presented. A child could easily understand these concepts which are so well laid out.

Watch Animation Here

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Censorship, A Government Monopoly

2005-02-16T19:37:00.000-05:00

Ted Rall is an extreme left-wing liberal cartoonist and editorial writer. I probably disagree with him, oh let's say, about 98% of the time. However, I read his article and his blog on a regular basis as a barometer of the hard left. If you choose to do the same, try not to get too pissed off.

Read The Article Here

In his latest article, which is pretty well written, he defends ward Churchill by attempting to dismantle the conception that only government censorship is bad. He says the that private censorship is also some violation of free speech. I really do not see how this position can be adequately defended. Any private person or institution has the right to free speech and assembly. If they choose to not allow someone to use their platform to spread ideas they disagree with, than that is their prerogative. Private interests censor ideas all the time. A television station can choose not to accept advertising it deems adverse to its ideals and image. If I invite people to my house to talk and a guest says something I don't like I have the right to dismiss him. No one has the right to the use of another person's property. Don't think that I am advocating rampant private censorship, it is almost always better to get ideas into the market place than to stifle them. Even private censorship should not be taken lightly. However, only the government can forcibly restrict a person's right to free speech and make such an abhorrent action legal.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Bureaucrash

2005-02-16T12:11:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to let everyone know about this pro capitalism/pro freedom site called bureaucrash It's an organization centered around teens and college students, and the defend and promote capitalistic ideas. This kind of initiate is sorely needed in order to combat the rampant liberalism that is found and that often goes unchallenged in our public schools. Also they have some great t-shirts, I plan on ordering a few myself.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

The Foundation

2005-02-12T22:43:00.000-05:00

I felt a foundational explanation was necessary for this site. Within this blog I often write about controversial topics for which there are many opinions and views. Generally, I try to present what I perceive to be the truth and try to back up my views with logic and evidence. Regardless of how well I present my case, others are bound to object, and even take offense from time to time. To address this, I want to make sure that everyone reading this blog understands the following points.

- I'm not always right, and neither are you. I am not all knowing, nor claim to be. I have been wrong often in my life. My views and opinions change and, hopefully, evolve over time.

- Above all, what I hold dear is the truth. I hope that in this I can find a bond with anyone, no matter what their specific views. We all search for the truth. There is no opinion or view that I hold that can trump that.

- Since I am seeking truth above all things, I present what I feel to be closest to it. If I degrade a belief of yours, do not take it personally, it is simply because I feel it not to be aligned with truth.

- Again, since I am seeking truth above all things, please feel free to engage in debate, and disagree. I will not feel offended. I assume you hold your views because you believe them to be the truth as well. Perhaps by presenting flaws in my views you can lead me to reject my current view, which has happened many times. For this I will be eternally grateful, for what is worse than to be believe in something that is not true, to follow a falsehood. If you can show me that what I believe to be true is indeed false, then you have helped me get one step closer to what actually is true, and for that I will thank you. All I ask is that you do the same. We all hold the same goal of finding that which is true, that which is actual reality, and in this endeavor we can greatly help each other.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Unconditional Love

2005-02-12T19:45:00.000-05:00

Nothing is sweeter than the unconditional love between a mother and her child, or the love between brothers, or the love of a kid for his grandpa. Really, the only problem with unconditional love, is that it does not exist.

I am writing about this topic because, while listening to the radio, I heard a commentator berate a caller for saying that he would turn in his child if he did something wrong (like shoplifting for instance). The host went on to call this man despicable for wanting his child to take responsibility for his actions. He spoke of the unconditional love a parent has for a child and that this would require the parent not to "rat out" his child. We will get to the "ratting out" later, but first I must address this misguided notion that unconditional love exists, or should exist.

First lets make a very rough and quick definition of love. Love is the word to describe an extremely high value of someone or thing. To love someone, is to value that person, to take joy in their success and well-being. Now for a definition of conditional. To do something conditionally means that there are certain stipulations that must be met. For instance, I might give someone 10 dollars on the condition that they mow my lawn. To do something unconditionally, is to have no stipulations. I give someone 10 dollars whether or not they mow my lawn.

So, what is unconditional love? Simply, it is to love someone with no stipulations on that love. In order to see if this is possible let us look to the most likely case of unconditional love, for if we see that it is not possible there then we can generalize that it is not possible anywhere. Can a parent have unconditional love for a child? At first, you might think "Sure, of course, if I have a kid I'd love him no matter what." But would you love a child if he was a murderer? Yes? Still? Hmm... ok, how about if that child was an out and out evil, spiteful, despicable human being, who raped little children, burned women alive, and was a fan of "Glitter." What if your child was a skilled and talented person who did nothing but waste his potential, never did anything with his life and spent every second of the day hating your guts? You still hesitate to say no? Again, let us look at what love is. It is the highest measurement of value. When you want to differentiate between what you like, what you really like, and what goes beyond all that, you use the word love. Love represents that which you hold to be the best, your most revered. Tell me, is someone that engages in acts of murder and hate what you value most? Now you may still love what that child was, or what he could be, but you do not love what he is.

What of a baby? Clearly the child's mother loves him unconditionally, and no baby can commit such atrocious acts. In truth, the mother loves the child because it is hers. She does not love all children, she loves hers because it is HER child. That is the condition. If there was such a thing a unconditional love, it would force you to love everyone and everything equally, for that is necessary in order to love without stipulations.

In addition to their not being unconditional love, it should not be seen as some ideal to strive for either. As stated earlier, love is the strongest feeling one can have for something. It is, in fact, a form of honor that you bestow to what it is you love. To love everything, good or bad, for no reason, is to devalue love until it means nothing. If someone is truly good and worthy, yet is loved the same as the wretch and scoundrel, then surely your love ceases to have meaning. Love is something that must be earned, and to be earned it must be conditional. Your love for your mother is conditional. The love for your brother is conditional. The love for you child is conditional. Even the love for yourself is conditional. All love is conditional, that is why love still means something.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Jesus Christo!

2005-02-10T07:12:00.000-05:00

Read The Article Here

Thanks to SOLOHQ for this article.

-- "Know why we're doing this?" he said to a group of school children visiting the park. "For no reason! It's art, and art is for nothing!"

Could anything be more destructive than this loon and his fancy fabrics? This is a man who claims to be an artist and yet proclaims that art is nothing. Well, I agree. If this is art, then art is indeed nothing. In fact we are faced with this nothingness all the time. Nothingness abounds in city squares and modern art museums. It makes one wonder why it's so important to promote such a thing, it is, after all, nothing. Perhaps we should rid ourselves of the financial burden of subsidizing these acts of air, these nothing galleries. Why pay for nothing? Let's rid ourselves of these self-proclaimed nothing propagators.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

No Girls Allowed

2005-02-10T06:50:00.000-05:00

Read Article Here

It's not necessarily that there may be some genetic inferiority in women as regards the fields of math and science. Perhaps, the genetic difference between men and women, in regards to math and science, is in the level of desire. I heard this take on a radio program. Just as a much higher percentage of men than women enjoy football, maybe a much higher percentage of men than women enjoy math and science. It's not that women can't excel at these fields, they can, and do, but, on average, it's not where their interests lie.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Coming Soon

2005-02-08T23:15:00.000-05:00

I apologize for the paltry update. In addition to my studies, which have been keeping me busy, I just landed a job with the student government marketing department. That, in addition to my internship, will keep me quite busy. I will still update the blog regularly, but I didn't get time today. I hope to write a piece about zoning, as my urban politics class has been infuriating me lately. Also, Thanks to Michael Dube, who gave me a Gmail invitation, I'd link to his blog but I don't remeber it's URL.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Written In Stone

2005-02-07T02:24:00.000-05:00

"My own mind is my own church." -- Thomas Paine

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Our Godless Constitution

2005-02-07T02:20:00.000-05:00

Read The Article Here

A nice little article for all those who claim that our constitution was based on Christian beliefs.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

God Isn't Dead, He Never Existed

2005-02-06T02:34:00.000-05:00

What is existence? Where did existence come from? What created it? Why? The eternal questions that have thrived in man's mind since he could first recognize his image in the water are asked at some point by all inquiring minds. Many views abound. From perceptions of gods to the denial of existence, the range of answers seems endless. Here, I want to take up just two possible answers, the view of an almighty deity and the view that maybe our questions answer themselves. First, we shall look at Deism.

When contemplating existence, one sees that all objects are created, and being so they are created by something. Two premises are drawn from this. First, that something cannot create itself. The second is that something cannot be created out of nothing. Examples of these premises follow: A person cannot create himself, he must exist in order to create and he must have been created in order to exist. Also, I cannot create a bicycle from nothing, I must use already existing things in order to create it. These premises lead one to think more abstractly. One begins to create a regression of what created what, in order to find the origin of all. The two premises lead to nothing but a rabbit chase as the assertion that "this created that" leads directly to the question "well then what created that?" This is where the concept of a deity comes in.

God, as it is often called, is really a name for the primary cause, the creator that is responsible for all that comes after. When one makes the assertion that god created everything, the obvious question is "well, what created god?" Now, in order to balance this god theory with his first two premises the thinker must impart special status to his deity in order for it to circumvent the laws. This must be done, for if this god is subject to the two premises, then one must account for what created god and the infinite regression continues. Therefore, the thinker gives god the distinction of being different, or supernatural. I prefer the term alternatural, meaning different from nature. As all things we know of have a certain nature, (the nature that is obedient to the two premises) this god has a different nature than anything known to us, for it is not bound by these two premises. God has always existed, exists today, and always will exist. God is outside of time. It just is. God was not created and god cannot be destroyed. Thus the thinker averts dealing with the two premises because his god never was created and therefore has no creator. Now that the thinker has Identified his primary existant, god, he can make it the primary cause of all that exists. God, who always existed, is the thing that cause everything we know of to come into being. Now we still don't know how or for what ends this god has chosen to create existence but religions are quite willing to give it a college try.

This is what I believed at one time. I thought that this deity, as vague as it was, was a necessary being in order for existence to have a creator, a beginning, a start, and of course I believed that it must have had a start if it exists. I believe I was mistaken.

It was a simple sentence that got me thinking (which is more often than not the case). Why can't existence always exist. The most apparent problem with the deist theory is that it doesn't answer any of our questions. Instead, it just transfers those questions onto something other than existence. Now, instead of being confused and ignorant about the nature of existence, we are instead equally confused and ignorant about the nature of the deity. We have not learned anything. We have just attempted to assure ourselves with a fake and shallow knowledge of reality and have pushed our doubts and questions onto something more abstract and therefore less threatening. We are left exactly where we started. Where did god come from, how can it always exist and why and how did it create existence? Instead of asking these questions about existence we ask them about god. The question is, why can't existence play the role of god?

The problem with the deist theory is that the premises appear incorrect. They both deal with creation, but what is that? Really? The deist has misidentified what creation is. What he is talking about is not creation but change. When a man makes a bicycle from other parts, he creates nothing. He has simply changed the forms of many things into one unified form. The matter, or "stuff" that those parts were made of remain, changed, but the same. Just as I can change water into ice or matter into heat, in anything we do, all that is done is the transformation of one thing into some other form of equal value, nothing is created or destroyed. The true definition of creation is the coming into being of something out of nothing. This is in direct opposition to the second premise that something cannot be created from nothing. In fact, something must come from nothing in order for it to have been "created." So, is creation possible? Not that I'm aware of.

If we examine the reality in which we live we will find that nothing is created, nor is anything destroyed. You cannot create matter out of nothing. Try creating water molecules or protons, it's hard. Similarly, nothing can be destroyed(meaning you cannot take something that exists and make it cease to exist). Try making that ice cube cease to exist. We can change somethings form. We can change its shape or density. We can change matter into energy and energy into matter. But, in all these transformations, nothing is lost, nothing ceases to be. The problem the deist has is creation. He cannot account for it, for something always has to create something and this leads to infinite regression or the pointless assertion of the deity. This problem does not exist. The reason is that the concept of creation does not exist. There is no such thing. Nor is there destruction. The answers to those eternal questions we listed at the outset were in the questions themselves. In effect, let us think of existence as god. Existence exists. It always has, and always will. It will change forms, but it will not be greater or lesser than it is. As to why it exists and how this is, well, that is still quite beyond me. But I am assured in knowing about its nature, its primacy, its immortality. I have no longer any delusions of a deity that creates what cannot be created or fear the destruction of that which cannot be destroyed.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Kill 'Em All

2005-02-04T22:27:00.000-05:00

U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant General James Mattis, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan recently made the public comment that it is "fun to shoot some people." Like wolves to a lame doe, on rushed any bleeding heart to instantly demonize this man and his vile words.

"Actually it's quite fun to fight 'em, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up front with you, I like brawling," said Mattis.

Now, anyone's first reaction to this is to be taken aback. Fun to shoot people? Fun to take human life? How dare he?! How about because it's his job?

Obviously this was a bone-head move as far as public relations go. When fighting a war that doesn't exactly have wide popular support, publicly speaking about the exhilarating rush of wasting people isn't the wisest move and I disapprove of it, if only because it harms the US image and therefore the ability of the military to accomplish its goals. But, let's talk about the real point of what Mattis said. Is it bad to enjoy killing people?

The initial point I must make is that this man kills people for a living. It is what he does. He is a professional killer. He is trained and habituated in order to kill, to kill well, and to kill with as little remorse as possible. And he is trained by our taxpayer money. I am glad this man enjoys killing, and I would feel less secure if the men who comprised the U.S military were a bunch of teary-eyed ninnies, hesitating to pull the trigger because, "well, he has a family too, and..sniff...hopes and dreams..and....sniff....maybe a little dog named fluffy...." That is not the mentality you want your fighting men to possess, unless maybe you're French.

I don't want men who aimlessly love to kill however, running around starting wars just to quench there blood lust. Mattis addressed this when he spoke of why he enjoys shooting some people, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil..." It is not a glee felt in killing random innocent people that Mattis talked about. The glee is in killing those who have not the respect for life that we all take for granted. It is the glee found in ridding the world of people who recognize no right of the individual but only the right of force, the right to impose and coerce. When a man refuses to recognize the inherent worth in an individual and the necessary autonomy that individual must have in order to aim his life toward happiness, then he is forfeit. By rejecting the inherent rights of others he has renounced his own. He is not a man, for he does not recognize what it is to be a man. When his views inevitably lead to the violation of his fellow man then he should be got rid of in a most expedient fashion. Furthermore, those that risk the hardship of wiping his foulness from the Earth should take pleasure in that act, and much more. Pride should be their crown to wear for all to see and praise should be readily forthcoming.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Gunner Palace

2005-02-02T23:56:00.000-05:00

See The Trailer Here

Here is a link to a new documentary movie coming out in March called Gunner Palace. Tells the story of a group of soldiers in Iraq from their point of view. Looks interesting. A must for anyone interested in the whole Iraq debate.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Dancin' In The Rain

2005-02-02T23:08:00.000-05:00

Click Here To View Ad

A pretty cool ad from VW.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Godman

Promising, But Far From Perfect

2005-02-02T22:34:00.000-05:00

Well, I suppose I should add the obligatory comment on Bush's State of the Union address. First, I want to say, in response to a comment I just overheard by some random democrat on TV (I didn't get his name,) why do we have to be united? What is this enormous obsession that Democrats have with uniting everyone?! For goodness sake, I don't want to be unified with jelly-boned socialists. Of course, it's only now that the democrats are in the strong minority that they wail for unity, as if those who were duly elected into majority power have some obligation to tie their hands behind their backs so as not to put forth proposals they disagee with. I doubt very much that the Dems would strive for unity with Republicans if they held power, but thankfully that hasn't happened in quite some time.

Overall, Bush's speech was middle of the road. There were some highlights, such as the woman from Iraq, but more often than not, it was a dry listing of proposals that will only half-heartedly be pursued. As for the one big issue that, it seems, will define Bush's second term, Social Security reform, it was a mix of good and bad. I am really excited at just the mention of reform for this seriously flawed system, so let me give kudos for attempting to tackle it at all. I love the idea of personal accounts. What a novel idea, let people manage their own money, hmm might have something there;) But, it all, as usual, doesn't go nearly far enough. Bush still talked about controls on the the use of the money in the accounts, such as not letting the owners of the accounts withdraw all the money when they want, instead forcing them to withdraw it in an interval method. When will the government just let people live their lives in the manner they choose and let them reap the consequences of those decisions. If people could just take responsibility for their actions, oh what a world it would be. But, I'm not one to bitch and moan too much. While not perfect, I'll take some control over my stolen money over no control at all.

And one more suggestion for Bush: Don't stick to the script so much. Remember when you went to Canada and made that off hand remark about the Canadians waving "with all five fingers"? That was great. You got tons of good press from that. Even Jon Stewart gave you props for a funny quip. So, the next time an audience gives some adverse reaction to something you say, respond to it, don't just plow through the speech, take a detour and show some quick wit, it will win you a lot of battles.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Left Of Equality

2005-02-02T20:05:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Four Guys Ranting for this hilarious look at the contradictary nature of the "compassionate Left."

Can I Be Next?

2005-02-02T19:41:00.000-05:00

Read the article here

"Late-night sessions featuring sexual touching, displays of fake menstrual blood, and parading in miniskirt, tight T-shirt, bra and thong underwear." Aside from the fake menstrual blood, sounds like a pretty good night right? I can't tell you how many times I wished I had nights like that in high school. But Maureen Dowd, op-ed columnist for the New York Times isn't writing about the exploits of a drunken frat party or what might occur at a late-night Michael Jackson sleep-over, what she is writing about is torture.

I know what you're going to say. "Hold on there Mr. Goodman, isn't torture some sort of infliction of pain or trauma?" I thought so too, but apparently we have been living in a shroud of ignorance as to what true torture looks like. Thankfully, Ms. Dowd is here to graciously bestow true knowledge to us simple-minded folk.

See, Muslim men, apparently, aren't to keen on the whole dressing sexy thing. It gives them impure thoughts, leading them to sin. So when a female interrogator at Guantanamo "removed her uniform top to expose a snug T-shirt," and later "touched her breasts, rubbed them against the Saudi's back and commented on his apparent erection," in an attempt to pressure the Muslim detainee into giving information, that wasn't a 12 year-old boy's wet dream, it was actually despicable and inhumane torture. To think, all this time I thought acts like beheading civilian prisoners and flying jumbo jets into skyscapers were inhumane and despicable. The only tortuous aspect I see in this article is a religion which makes men hold such pleasurable and beautiful things such as breasts and thongs as evil. If this is torture, where's the sign-up sheet?

Fly Higher,
Icaus Goodman

New Links

2005-02-01T10:50:00.000-05:00

I haven't had much time to update these past few days, but I have added a few new links to the link section. In there you will now find the Drudge Report, which any news junkie simply must have, also present are links to the Quent Cordair Fine Art Site which has some really good artists. Creators takes you to Creators syndicate, where you can find op-eds by many noted thinkers such as Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams. SOLOHQ is the site for Sense of Life Objectivists, the most lively objectivist site around. Lady Artemis is blog by an associate of mine and Ad Age is the online version of this helpful resource for advertising news. More will come in time, but for now, look them over and have fun.
And happy Birthday to anyone out there who happens to have a birthday on this great and wonderful day!

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

The Rough Yet Worthy Road

2005-01-30T22:59:00.000-05:00

Another step toward making it worth it.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Apparently I'm Not Immortal

2005-01-30T09:01:00.000-05:00

I'm still not covinced though.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Wut Da Shyt?!

2005-01-29T22:14:00.000-05:00

Tip for every teenie bopper out there: Learn to fucking spell!!!!! Do you really think you are cool or somehow special because you spell like a retard? Writing a "2" instead of "to", guess what? It's not cool. Maybe if U larned 2 spell ur life wuddnt suk N u wuddnt hav 2 bitch all da tyme bout it. Den u culd do beddr at skool too. Yeah, that's the thing that really gets me, I read a blog by some 15 year-old and she spells just about every word in ghetto style but she somehow gets the proper "too" in there. Just stop it! This goes for those "artists" out there who continue to title there songs with such names as "Can U Control Yo Ho" for goodness sakes! If nothing else, the whole "spell things ghetto" is played out. At least be original. Wut da shyt?!

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Marriage Is Foolish?

2005-01-29T13:58:00.000-05:00

NoMarriage.com - honest marriage and relationship advice for men.

I ran across this site today thanks to www.solohq.com. It's a hilarious look at the modern American (Western) woman and why American men should never even think about marrying them. Very funny stuff and more often than not hits on some very true observations. Give it a look.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Flights Of Fancy: Life As A House

2005-01-29T01:31:00.000-05:00

Let me begin by welcoming you to what will be a recurring column, Flights Of Fancy. This column shall be used to review various art;from film to books, websites, video games, sculptures, and anything else I feel falls into this category.

In this initial article I shall review a little known film that has gained popularity among my social circle. Life As A House. Now, I should preface this by letting you know that I already wrote a nice, lengthy review that was accidentaly deleted. So excuse me if this review lacks flow or style in some parts as I am quite annoyed having to write it all over again.

Life As A House stars Kevin Kline as George, a sad man in his late 40's who basically lives alone, hates his job and hates his life. George's son, Sam, played by Hayden Christensen, lives with his mother and his step-father and is basically a portrait of a typical depressed teen. Black clothes, horrible music, piercings, drugs and apathy make up his character. Everyone in the film lives estranged and alienated lives. Sam's step-father coldly asks his 6 year old son if he has washed his hands when the boy hugs him at the dinner table. George is disrespected and unwanted at his workplace of 20 years (he builds models for an architeture firm.) Sam considers selling his body to locals through a highschool pimp.

The impetus for changes comes when George is fired from his job, has a breakdown, and is diagnosed with terminal cancer. He has four months to live. The old George dies and is reborn with a new urgency to rectify his mistake-filled life. To do this, George plans to demolish his shack of a house and build his dream house for which he has planned his entire adult life. He plans to build it with Sam.

After Sam reluctantly agrees to spend the summer with his father the true progress begins. Father and son demolish the walls in their lives as they smash the walls of the shack with sledgehammers. They go through many trials as they gradually reconnect. The numbness that covers same is slowly scraped away as productive work with his father begins to rebuild his sense of life. As George and Sam begin to build the foundations of a new relationship, the foundations of the new house begin to rise from the ground. George, in effect, transfers his new found respect for life into his son, for as Sam's outlook brightens, George slowly withers away.

The main story is interspersed with smaller threads involving George and his ex, Sam's step-father, and the girl next door. Humor and a tenderness are found throughout the film, lending it an intimate charm. It also boasts good direction, a wonderful soundtrack (including songs from Guster), great performances, and very human moments. In the end, of course, George succumbs to his illness. Despite this seemingly sad outcome,we are left with a sense of happiness as George's illness has given new life to the rest of the characters, especially his son. George has atoned for a life in which he was often disappointed and in which he often disappointed others. George's life is reflected in the house that he and his son built and in the reformed character of Sam who learns to love his father and himself. Life As A House is an excellent movie demonstrating the importance of human relationships, and the fact that it's never to late to change directions in order to reach fulfillment.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

The New Forum Picture

2005-01-26T23:56:00.000-05:00

This is the new picture I'm putting up in The Forum. Good old Socrates. Now here is an example of art.

You Call That Art?!

2005-01-26T22:15:00.000-05:00

Today while walking around campus at night I wound up near the engineering buildings. There, I came across a sculpture that I had seen many times. I suppose I had never really paid much attention to the sculpture before, but today, having just finished a run and just cooling down with nothing to do, it really struck me how awful it was.

This is a sculpture that should be a tribute to the science of engineering, one of the most important sciences of man. Engineering, as much if not more than any other discipline, has helped mankind achieve the awesome manner of life we have today. Engineering is dominated entirely by conscience, reasoned thought. In any product of engineering, every piece, every shape, every design is there for a reason. Every piece has a function, every space has a need, every material has a particular strength. Every piece is put together with a complete functioning end product in mind. It is the product, not of faith, or random chance, but of the deliberate, ingenious, reasoned choices of a man. Engineering is the tool and domain of science, of reason, and its purpose is the betterment of man's life on Earth.

What did I see instead? A junk pile. What could have been mistaken for scraps from a construction site, was masquerading as art. I'll try to get a picture of this abomination up here, but until then, I'll provide a brief description. Random pieces of yellow metal welded together in some incomprehensible shape. Moving, isn't it? In engineering, every piece has a function, for every design there was hours of hard work and thought put into making it the way it needed to be made. There are no superfluous aspects. This entire piece of "art" is superfluous. It has no meaning. It has no shape or function. Each piece, chosen randomly, placed randomly, for the end purpose of randomness. It is devoid of everything save incomprehensibility. It is, in my view the very antithesis of what engineering represents.

Now, I know I'll be attacked by modern, grey-eyed, subjectivists. They will say that I just don't get it or they will say that the art reflects some emotion of the artist. Poppycock! Art, especially public art, is supposed to convey something. It should convey a theme, it should have a purpose and a message to say. Of course, that message should also be intelligible. Despite any wailing from defenders that this monstrosity has meaning, let me assure you, it doesn't. They are full of shit. When a man can show you a canvas spread with dung and convince you it is art, then you know you have been conned and that thing called art, no longer exists. This sculpture, nay, let it be called what it is, this junk pile, is tantamount to a slap in the face to all those studying the great field of engineering and to all men who revere reason and science and I am ashamed to have it at my university.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Learning The Ropes

2005-01-26T01:35:00.000-05:00

One day later and I'm still learning the ropes. I've figured out how to mess with the HTML code a bit to modify the template. I now have a Links section in the sidebar where permanent links can be placed. I've also got a profile picture and know how to post pics and links inside the posts. I am going to look into adding a few other features such as a counter and possibly some other things that catch my fancy. In other news, I am starting an internship for a local advertising agency next Friday and I have a job interview for a marketing position with USF's student government on monday, so things are looking up. Again, I'm still putting up the curtains here so bear with me.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman

Crafting The Wings

2005-01-25T03:10:00.000-05:00

I wish to welcome you to my blog. This is the initial outset of what hopes to be an insightful, passionate, reasoned and adventurous online life. I am aiming at making this site a refuge, a bastion of sorts for the good life. That is, the life ruled by reason, aided by passions, and always striving for happiness. Much work is needed to even approach the fulfillment of these goals, but I will endeavor to make it so.

Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman