But would a broad taxation of religion do any good? No.

Regardless of what you believe, there are quite a few churches which help their surrounding communities. Taxing churches can only hurt those who are in need of aid by decreasing funding for food, clothing, and counseling currently offered by theological institutions. San Francisco has learned the hard way that it is better to run churches offer programs than attempt a state takeover.

---

Maybe one should consider taxing not-for-profit charities. A rather foolish idea until one looks at the salaries involved in running a charity. Take for example, the American Red Cross, probably the most well-known charity in the United States. According to the latest numbers available their CEO earns an impressive $446,867 per year.

Brian Gallagher, the CEO of the United Way, rakes in an even more astonishing figure. He was paid $982, 768; keep in mind his salary is funded by donations and grants to the United Way organization, the same way the pastor of a mega-church earns money from donations.

Yet, even as charities are shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on their CEOs, does anyone doubt their worthiness to be tax exempt? No.

Keep in mind that charities also spend money on their fundraising activities. In 2008 the Saint Louis Zoo Foundation spent $975,375 on such activities while only spending slightly more ($990,853) on all of their programs combined. Factor in the $821,766 spent on administration and all of a sudden, the Saint Louis Zoo Foundation only spent 35% of their operational budget on their programs.

Still, should charities become taxed organizations? No, because the overwhelming majority are responsible organizations which help the community. A few bad eggs have and always will exist; it is irrational to impose blanket taxes on all charities because of the actions of a few.

---

Why then, should we tax the churches?

It seems that, at least, a main argument is that churches sometimes require individuals receiving benefits to adhere the certain religions guidelines – such as saying a prayer before eating a free meal at a soup kitchen. Wouldn't taxing those churches which have that requirement be a violation of the first amendment? That would effectively put a regulation on churches and how followers practice their religion.

Even with the arguments above, isn't the idea churches have a right to their own doctrine enough to stop this foolish tax?

It is also very important to realize rights are neither mutually exclusive or require sacrifice on any individuals part; that is to say, neither those exercising or waiving their rights are required to pay or give any item of value for those rights to be maintained.*

For example, with the right to free speech (in fairness, this is through constraining government) any individual has the inherit ability to think and inform others about their thoughts - regardless of how popular those thoughts may be to the state or other individuals.

The same may be said for the right to bear arms.  Every human has the right to defend him or herself with whatever armaments the situation may require.  This, like all rights, may only be removed by force from the State or other authoritarian figure.

Entitlements, on the other hand, are typically what (usually "progressive") individuals believe should be rights but fail to meet the most basic of requirements.  Unlike rights, which are given the Higher Power, entitlements are conferred upon humanity from the State - typically with some other individual paying the - sometimes literal - cost.

For example, Finland recently declared broadband internet access is a fundamental human right.  While I would agree right to free information is a right** the that broadband internet access is a right is foolish.  The hardware and software infrastructures which power the networks involved cannot be maintained at zero cost, which is where the problem lies.

The irony of this so-called right is it requires individuals to lose free access to their income.  The vendors involved require payment which will paid for through the taxation of the working class - thus diminishing a true right to the fruits of an individual's labor.

The same could be said for any other entitlement, including Medical coverage; doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical companies and so on all require payment which must be paid through the taxation of the populace.

It is because taxation - or any other form of payment - destroys true, inherit, rights we must never let entitlements corrupt our system of laws.  Entitlements are an attractive menace; truly they are wolf in sheep's clothing.

* There is an obvious exception in regards to tyranny and slavery.  However, in this country we have been blessed by the bravery and selflessness of those have come before us who have freed us from such crimes.

**Free information is a '"reverse right," so to speak.  In order for free speech to be maintained, individuals must be able to acquire speeches, texts, or other documents produced by other individuals.

As much as I dislike Toyota I can't deny their safety, reliability, and durability achievements.  Even the guys at Top Gear couldn't destroy an old (and I mean old) pick up; and considering Top Gear, that's quite an accomplishment.

Should you get into an accident your Toyota will likely protect you.  The Camry has a 5 star crash rating in every single category.  That's pretty gosh-darn safe!

I emphasized should for a reason.  The real Toyota question should be:

Are Toyota Drivers Safe?

No.

As it turns out Toyota owners rank the absolute worst when it comes to "safe driving;" that is to say, they get into the most vehicle crashes.

Out of the, rather large, Toyota driver pool, there is one segment that seems to be particularly prone to sudden acceleration incidents: old people.

Lets look at some very real statistics about driver age from the kind folks over at OutLawyered.com

Drivers age where available or inferred in cases of sudden acceleration:

18, 21, 21*, 20s**, 32, 34, 36, 44, 45, 47, 56, 56, 57, 58, 60, 60, 63, 60s***, 66, 68, 71, 72, 72, 75, 75, 77, 77, 79, 83, 87
*Driver was with 21-year-old friend
**Driver had girlfriend and young daughter
***Driver was picking up 67-year-old friend for church.

A few things to point out: first, the median age in that group is 60.  Second, a majority of those individuals are at - or over - the median age.  Third, in two of the cases where 20-somethings are involved friends are in the car.  Statistically, young people are more apt to crash with friends than older drivers.

Something everyone should note is that sudden acceleration of vehicles isn't rare, isn't exclusive to Toyotas, and - I can't stress this enough - is primarily caused by human error.

General Motors and Audi have both faced sudden acceleration issues in the past.  In both "major" previous cases the NHTSA explicitly stated the problem was not with a defect but rather "pedal misapplication" - which in layman's terms means stepping on the gas instead of the brake.

But then, there is the smoking gun; the perfect piece of evidence proving Toyota has a really big problem: Jim Sikes's runaway Prius. I'll just leave off with these.

As the title would suggest, I wish I had a studio; "o rly" one might say.  I came to this conclusion after trying to find a place to start brainstorming a competition I came across.  The project, to design a music studio in Haiti, seems like something I would like to be a part of.

But alas, like I said I have a problem.  I have no where to really do anything; my desk, which realistically is the only place to write or draw in loose-leaf paper, houses my computer and mountains of papers that have no rational storage elsewhere.

The only other hard surface in my room is my dresser, which is where my light is.  Not necessarily a problem in itself but once said light is turned on the brightness is overwhelming.  Plus there are other things stored on my dresser as well, which puts the actual surface space down to about zero anyway.

So what am I to do?  Nothing, I suppose.  I can't really change the fact I don't have anywhere else to put this stuff (a lot of which isn't even mine, by the way) nor can I change the fact I can't just add more surfaces to my room.  It isn't nearly big enough.  If I had more money, I could add collapsible surfaces, but, alas, I'm a relatively poor college student.

Oh well.  I suppose I'll simply continue to mope about all the stuff I need.  Its either that or actually getting the things I need - but that's to hard.

Of course, I'm sure my position - or even the fact I have a position - on this issue will shock people.  I mean, as I Mormon never having a drink in my life supporting increased liquor sales?  Of course that isn't normal!  But the issue at hand isn't necessarily about wine or liquor but rather is about the supermarkets' proprietor's freedom to sell what they think their clients want.

I can understand why it failed; the liquor stores will - should the measure pass - face a decrease in sales.  That will, of course, cause the state senators and assemblymen/women problems during their re-election campaign.  Not gunna lie, kind of a bad reason to vote against something that will help consumers and the state coffers, but whatever.

Anyway, moving on; the biggest reason why the liquor store owners (aka The Last Store on Main Street - how subtle) are against this bill is that they will inevitably go completely out of business due to big grocers selling wine at a cheaper price and at greater convenience. Huh.  Run-on sentence aside, there really isn't that much I can say to defend that statement.

Second, is the concern supermarkets will primarily sell wine grown outside New York.  According to an MPNNow article a review of the wine menu at Wegman's Next Door Bar and Grill shows less than 5% of the wines available are produced within the State border.  I'm curious how much wine this group thinks New York State makes.  New York doesn't produce the most wine in the United States.  We don't even come in second place.  New York holds the high honor of third biggest wine producer. In the United States. Woot?

The shear fact of the matter is the Next Door Bar and Grill holds a spectacular percentage of New York wines.  Of course, it could be higher but when the United States as a country only holds a 3.8% market share on wine exports having a 5% of your menu devoted to local wines isn't bad at all.  Even if only 3% of the wines available for purchase are made in New York, that is still more than - statistically speaking - should be available based on wine produced.

The last store on main street is also concerned stores will close and jobs will be lost.  No doubt stores will close but as grocery stores add new product they will need to hire new employees trained in wine.  If they don't, liquor stores which remain open will have an intellect advantage and may even see improved sales as convenience shoppers move into the premium market.

As to the amount of store closings, I can't say for sure.  Based on the shear amount of liquor stores (I can think of at least 5 right along the Pittsford/Perinton border) the damage will likely be minimal.  Perhaps, should grocers start selling wine, there will only be 3 or 4 in this tiny patch of land; but like I said, I can't say for sure.

In conclusion, the market for wine is huge in the United States; the average American drinks 7-15 liters per year.  The shear fact of the matter is, grocer can't devote enough shelf space to truly capture the market.  "Small" stores, with the ability to devote huge amounts of shelf space to wine, will still have a place in the market and still employee knowledgeable staff to help customers.

No, I'm sorry.  I'm joking, they didn't cure cancer.  Instead what they did - and this is not a joke - was post their bra color as their status in an effort to bring awareness to this disease.

Now, I won't lie, its a noble effort to bring awareness to unknown, debilitating, diseases.  But that being said, breast cancer isn't unknown.  If anything it is one of the most well known diseases on the face of the planet.

The problem with breast cancer, like with all cancers, is that its cancer.  When you're diagnosed there are no assurances - even with early detection - you will survive; that's simply the sad state of cancer research.

I understand that, at this point, I'm going to be ridiculed, harassed, and so forth for this post but I cannot help but feeling as if this act won't accomplish anything - because it won't.  All it will do is make you feel as if you're accomplishing something - in the absolute laziest way possible.

If you're like me - that is to say you have no medical experience at all - to really help cancer research you should be donating money or what skills you do have to research organizations.  That will go a lot further in really making people's lives better.

American Cancer Society
Susan G. Komen - For the Cure

Regardless of any argument anyone may ever make, prioritizing presents, gifts, or anything else over the true reason of Christmas - the birth of Jesus - can never be considered good.  It is this time of year we must move our attention to others rather than ourselves; or in the case of us business owners, our profits.

Nevertheless, the slight commercialization of Christmas can indeed be a good thing.  This is the season when individuals give gifts to make other people happy.  In order to give these presents individuals first must find gainful employment to acquire the resources to either purchase or manufacture the gift.  Typically, this means getting a job, rather than foraging for wood, metal, or other resources.

As this individual is employed he or she will manufacture a product for someone else to purchase, who will also need to be employed, and so on.  This will increase the standard of living for all those involved; the gift recipient, the gift giver, and all of those who are indirectly involved in this process.

Of course, my point is moot as generally people must be employed to, y'know, eat, but just some food for thought.

Why?  You think university/college tuition is slavery.

You have the audacity to compare being kidnapped, being stripped of all rights, and then forced to work against your will for some slaver owner to freely entering into a contractual agreement to pay professors for their time.

I cannot even fathom how you can possibly dare to compare those two things.  One: a horrible act of violence against another.  The second: a generally well accepted idea that you pay someone for their goods and services.

It's like when PeTA compared eating chicken to the holocaust.

I... I...  I honestly cannot think of anything else to say, please, just grow up.

Warm regards,
Greg.

P.S. I know what you're trying to accomplish: getting the government to pay for the tuition for you.  But don't get me wrong, I still hate you.

Its really a bad idea, but, since you all seem to be against a little thing called "research" I'll provide some relevant facts:

First, there is no free lunch, or free breakfast, or in this case no free tuition.  Money has to come from somewhere and it will either come through inflation (like with Healthcare) or through new taxes.  Either way, you'll end up paying for the professors, classroom resources, and a boatload of government bureaucrats.

Second, the rise in tuition costs are largely due to the increase in people going to school.  Figure classrooms, dorms, and the surrounding communities can only support a limited amount of students.  As more students converge on a given campus prices rise due.  It's simple economics.

Third, government subsidized loans are a huge reason for the increase in tuition costs. As the cost of money for students is cheap, students typically can safely borrow more money and be able to pay it back.  The obvious benefit: students can pay higher and higher tuition costs.  The drawback is with students being so flush with cash universities have no reason to control costs.  Instead, the university can charge ever higher premiums and know students will just borrow the money.

Fourth, you have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt a college or university education makes anyone smarter.  Tuition as slavery?  I know, I made a huge deal about it before, but, still.  Maybe we should just abandon universities and actually make stuff in factories (which, by the way, pays more than you might think), instead of whining the "problems" we do or do not face.

Like I said before: I hate you.

Around 6:20 She (who I will refer to as "Ana", the first name on the 2009 hurricane name list) entered queue and proceeded to put her items on the conveyer.

When it was her turn to be rung up, she preemptively apologized for being "my worst nightmare" - which didn't seem out of the ordinary considering she had a few dozen items, most of which were air fresheners or pet treats.  Considering these items were on clearance and relatively complimentary, that aspect didn't seem to out of the ordinary either.

Before I was able to start processing her transaction, Ana requested $400 in gift cards, which is a lot, but she said she was doing this as a fund raiser, which seemed to make sense considering gift cards make good raffle prizes.  Once these were put in the register, she immediately put the cards in her purse.

Here's the scam: It adds $400 to the total, which is important in this situation as you will see later.  Additionally, she may have thought if she was caught and had the transaction canceled (which is what happened) she could quickly exit the store and have the gift cards still work, though they do not.

While I was ringing up her items, Ana was more talkative than the average customer; which isn't bad.  She asked questions about where I lived, where I was going to school, what major I was in, how busy we were, and how long I have been working at the store.  It was actually sort of nice, considering how long her transaction was.

Here's the scam: A few things are happening here.

First the small talk forces the brain to focus on the conversation and the guest - rather than the prices of the products being rung up or the $400 worth of gift cards which are no longer in sight.

Second, she's sizing up her competition: me and store security.  Knowing how long I've been working allows her to have a better guess of my ability to catch a coupon scam.  Knowing how busy we are gives her a better guess of whether or not we would just "let it slide."  The other questions and small talk are simply there to act as filler to hide her hidden motives.

Once all of her items were bagged and in her cart, Ana once again apologized about her transaction and presented a stack of coupons.  I don't have an exact number of coupons, but there was at least 2 dozen.  Her coupons were a mix of "Buy 2 Get 1 Free" for both the pet treats and air fresheners, which was a really good deal considering how many she had purchased.

She said every single one would work, and sure enough they all did - our registers reject coupons where the required items are not present.  After her coupons had been entered into the register, I turned on the "Help" light at my register to get clarification of the coupon policy.

Val, the acting front end manager at the time, verified the policy but with one caveat: the air freshener coupons were for singles, rather than two packs.

Though, technically, Ana could use all of her coupons since she was purchasing the required products, the shear number of coupons concerned Val to the point where she called for Craig, the store manager, to the register to make sure everything was ok.

At this point, Ana stated she "was in a hurry and [she] didn't have time for this", requested her coupons and left the store taking only her coupons.

Here's the scam: Remember the gift cards which "added to the total" and the that the items where on clearance? Each coupon was subtracting close to $10 from the total - when they should have subtracting around $1.50.  This resulted in the bill being $16.52 - when at the very least it should have been $400.  Had Ana not had those gift cards, I would have owed her money - increasing the chances I would have known something was wrong.  Since I forgot about the gift cards - due to the small talk - the result seemed normal.

Now, in a typical scam operation the guest would simply return the products for cash or store credit, since the registers do not factor in coupons during returns.  However, there is something rather odd about this instance: most "buy X get X free" coupons require me to enter the amount of the coupon into the register and may even require a manager to sign off on the coupon.  This time, these coupons subtracted an incorrect amount automatically.  I have to believe that Ana somehow knew this would happen, because scamming $1.50 clearance items simply does not pay off well.  It is, therefore, my opinion this was an inside job as only someone who works with the company would know about this coupon error.

For those who are worried about this post helping "the bad guys", I wrote this on the basis that full disclosure can result in fewer successful scam payoffs in the future.  Understandably, this post may help the amateur scammers, but this information is already out there and well known to professionals.  But the information here can help "the good guys" close security holes and prevent scams.

Update
I was informed that coupons can have a value of up to $10.00 embedded in the bar code.  It is very possible these coupons were "pre-programmed" or even altered to talk off the specific amount.

I definitely didn't skip because I somehow support the ridiculous tax and spend plan of Obama - or worse - the don't tax and but spend plans of the previous administrations.

What I noticed, as the Tea Party movement grew, is that rather than protesting taxes, economic fascism (supply/demand manipulation through regulation), and an unstable currency the Tea Party Protesters only seemed to be concerned about Obama.  Just Obama.

A contact from Austria asked the question: would the protesters care if it was McCain & Palin on the spending spree?  Would Maddow still be piddling adult humor at her viewers? Both; the protesters wouldn't care but Maddow, being the pillar of morals she is, would still be treating her viewers like hormone-enraged middle schoolers.

It seems to me that most of everyone who attended these rallies where spurred on by the talking heads at Fox screaming "Socialism!" when the tax dollars went from funding wars over seas to "saving jobs" in the U.S. itself.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support public funds going into private bank accounts.  Nor do I support fighting a war on emotions in countries on the other side of a globe.  In both of those situations, I am a debt slave; a slave to China or the IMF or whomever my "representatives" are willing to sell me to.

To me, that's not the worst part.  What is really frightening - and truly saddening - is that the generations of Americans after me share the same fate.  My kids and their kids - whom have yet to even know life and the ideas of freedom - will be born into slavery.

So, to align these two tangents: I skipped the Tea Parties because those organizing the events missed the point.  If we're in a war in Iraq or bailing out GM it doesn't much make a difference: we're still selling ourselves into bondage and worse: we're selling our children into slavery without giving them a fair chance.

We must fix the real issues; end the Federal Reserve system, stop printing money, and, most importantly, stop whining about who's in the White House when the person we want in would do the same thing!