Rent A Midget

I want to rent dwarves for my yard! hahaha :)

http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=519&item=4382558502&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

The new show on Comedy Central, Mind of Mencia, has a midget on it. I asked Je if remembered when we saw that movie from the 20s called Freaks and he said yeah. Then I commented that not much has changed; midgets may be deemed cooler now, but they're still exploited. He said, "Well at least they're employed." I said, "They were employed in the circus, too. That doesn't mean their role in society has any dignity." He said, "But they get paid good money." I said, "Yeah, the prostitutes can make a decent buck too, but I wouldn't call spreading your legs for strange men doin' it with dignity either."

(nods) i've seen commercials for mencia's new show. but then i lump him in with lenny bruce in the 'overrated comics' bin. most of what i've heard mencia do i'd call exploitation comedy.

i can handle exploitation comedy if it's funny, but he's unfunny so often that it just irks me. i don't see how he can be popular.

i just don't get it.

a lot of professions (midget rental, comedy, porn, bagging groceries, prostitution, and being the white house press secretary all come to mind) amount to doing degrading things in exchange for money. only one of those things is illegal (excluding parts of nevada, at least).

that said, too many people confuse the condemnation of a given practice from a sociological or ethical perspective with the condemnation of that practice from a legal perspective. i can disapprove of something without thinking it should be illegal, and vice versa.

perhaps it's the libertarian streak in me, but i am convinced of neither of the following propositions:

that all things moral should inform all things legal (as some on the religious right seem to suggest, as if they didn't understand the concept of free will),

or that no laws can have a moral or religious basis (as the intolerant aclu-wingnut left would have you believe, despite the fact that ALL laws have a moral basis).

> ALL laws have a moral basis

I have to disagree. Some laws have a moral basis. Others have a safety basis. I could probably also argue that there are also laws based solely in generating revenue.

you don't think it's moral to avoid unnecessary injury? or that it's moral to fund whatever programs our elected representatives enact on our behalf? morality isn't so narrow as what one particular religion defines as "sin" or whatnot.

I took Philosophy 101 (sarcasm). I do understand the definition of moral, or rather, the lack of definition, seeing as how every culture has a different idea of morality - i.e. the accepted practice of infanticide.

But personally, no, I don't think it is moral to avoid unnecessary injury. I think that's babysitting. That idea of morality is too utilitarian even for me.

Is it moral to fund progams? Yeah, you could probably sell me on that idea. But then it goes back to argument that everyone has a different definition of morality.

ok, so let me clarify my statement: you said All laws have a moral basis. I disagree on the following principles:
-The basis of the law comes from the person who proposes it.
-Said person could propose the law for reasons that are not inherently moral to that individual. They could be for selfish reasons or for safety like I said early. That individual could differentiate between morality and safety as I do. This doesn't mean that the law is not moral in some peoples eyes, but those people are not the "basis" of the law.
-Therefore, the basis of some laws may be moral, but not all.

But seriously, I am just at work with nothing better to do that argue semantics and morality... and I'm bored with it now.

here's hoping your boredom dissipates. ;)

1.5 hours to go.