Crash Kings - Saving Grace
	Found at skreemr.org

The wicked piano riffs make it something worth listening to over and over again.

From the album: "The Crash Kings"

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

All that needs to be said.

Awesome.

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.

Its bad that your Web site gives me absolutely no information about how to deal with my issue.

Its very bad how the "email us" doesn't allow me to select the proper problem I'm having.

Its just terrible that the CSRs are also completely unable to help as well.

Now, the obvious thing to think is "Wow, I've got some real big issue!" Wong.  I just can't migrate my account from one Xbox to another.  I tried and tried, but nothing I did worked.

So I called Support.  I could barely understand what the person was saying!  She could barely understand what I was saying.  The only help I could get was what email address I used to sign up for the account.

It was something, though, so I decided maybe I could login to Xbox.com with that email address and retrieve my billing information that way.  I thought wrong.

Quite frankly I don't think its worth the trouble anymore.  I don't know how much time I've spent trying to solve this problem to only wind up no closer to a solution.

The shear fact of the matter is, I don't play on XBL that much as it is - even though I've faithfully paid the $6.95/month access fee whether or not I use it.

But, given the fact that I cannot rely on Microsoft to provide adequate support, I think I'm leaving XBL for good.

Which leads me to my next problem.  How do I cancel my account through Microsoft?  The CSRs that I cannot communicate with or the Web site where I cannot access my account?

Forget it, I'll just go through my bank.