The Lesser of Two Evils

I've heard a lot of people, particularly on the left, who have become disillusioned by the political process, and thus have ceased the practice of voting. I think there are a host of legitimate reasons to take  this position. However, the most common one I hear is not. I'd like to talk about that today.

The way I hear this point summed up most commonly is that the political candidates are all the same. the Democratic party has become conservative. they're center-left, of course, but they exhibit the same kind of corporatism that their opposition in the Republican party does. This is true to some extent. After all, President Obama made ninety percent of the Bush tax cuts permanent. This is a profoundly conservative move, proof of which can be found here.

Events like these will often lead the above disenfranchised people to say something along the lines of, "That's why I stopped voting. I didn't want to keep electing the lesser of two evils."

Do I even need to explain the problem with this argument? It's the fucking lesser of two evils. Someone is going to be elected no matter what happens. One person not voting isn't going to change that. In fact, not voting is probably the worst thing you can do if you want to send a message. The whole point of democracy is that the people must have a way to send a message to their elected representative. You know how we send those messages? We fucking vote. That's how you affect change, by electing candidates who have views that will better the nation. But sometimes boring establishment people win the nomination. Sometimes the choices aren't radical enough. You know what we do then? We vote for the lesser of two evils. As I said, someone's gonna get elected either way, it might as well be the person closest to the correct one, especially if the precisely correct one is nowhere to be found.

Just something to think about.

Drugs

There's been something of a shift among progressive circles recently, and now many popular figures on the left are advocating for the abolition of prohibition. That is to say, they are in favor of the legalization, or at least the decriminalization, of all drugs. Their primary argument is that the cost of prohibition is exceedingly expensive, and that the sentencing laws for nonviolent drug offenses are so long as to ruin people's lives. And, near as I can tell, both of those things are objectively factual. Further, anti-prohibitionists claim that, by legalizing, taxing, and regulating substances, we would take power away from violent cartels and ensure that the substances circulating are safe and nonfatal.

Here  is a Web site which contains data about the drug war and determines that a progressive drug policy is the best fix for the problems outlined above.

The argument against is that drugs are not good for you. At least, that's one argument I hear from both the opposing left as well as the right. This is a bullshit argument, of course. Hamburgers are not good for you, should we criminalize those? If you want to criminalize something, you must take into account a whole lot more than whether it is or is not 'good for you,' whatever the fuck that even means. Snatching away and criminalizing everything that might possibly be bad for some segment of the population is, as outlined above, expensive as hell. It also needlessly ruins people's lives, and often ends up causing way more harm than it prevents.

Are there some drugs that are so harmful that they are worth the cost, both monetarily and otherwise, of criminalization? Perhaps. But the mere fact that something is unhealthy is not enough reason to ban it entirely.

Just something to think about.

Was Reagan Crazy?

Was Reagan Crazy?

Yes. This is clear. He advocated for an economic policy that, objectively, cannot work. Trickle-down economics states that granting tax cuts to the wealthiest corporate magnates will eventually lead to greater wealth for the workers employed by said corporations, and indeed all workers. This is provably false, as when you give the rich more money, it will invariably go towards lining their own pockets. Further, economist Steven Zydar conducted a study that showed that tax cuts for the wealthy do not create jobs. So, Reagan was quite clearly politically insane. He didn't care about facts, and neither do his disciples in the modern Republican party.

But that's not what I wanted to talk about today. Ronald Reagan, who ran our country for four years, was goddamned obsessed with the concept of an alien invasion. In an infamous speech to the UN, he hypothesized that an extraterrestrial threat would help to unify the world. He claimed that the invasion would force us to put aside our differences as we worked to save the entirety of the human race.

The speech can be found, in video form, here.

For the purposes of this examination, we're going to ignore the implausibility of there ever being intelligent life outside of Earth, let alone life that represents a significant threat to the human race. Let's assume that aliens are a known quantity. The invasion is inevitable.

So, the question remains. Is this an accurate statement? Does Reagan's idea about the invasion make any sense?

I think it does. Sure, in the beginning, mass panic would cause people to revert back to their primal, animalistic states. It would most likely be every man for himself for some amount of time. Society would, in all likelihood, devolve into loosely-connected bands of roving looters, struggling to survive and doing so by any means necessary.

But, eventually, we would all realize that a lawless, purely individual societies are doomed to fail, In fact, they aren't societies at all. In the wake of the invasion, amid the death and destruction, humanity would have to come together on a larger scale, and rebuild civilization itself from the ground up. In that scenario, there's no place for bigotry of any kind. Everyone must pitch in, so exclusion of any group spells death. Humanity will need all the help it can get, and the unity that arises will be unparalleled.

That's assuming that things like race, gender, and sexual orientation are even on people's minds after the fall of civilization. Nobody gives a shit about your politics when there are giant green men coming to eat everyone. When survival is not a guarantee, there simply isn't enough room left in your brain to think about such trivial things.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that, no, Reagan was not talking out of his ass in that video. That's surprising, I know, but there's a first time for everything, I suppose.

Then again, maybe I'm an idiot. Perhaps my idealistic optimism is clouding my judgement about human nature. Perhaps, in the aftermath of the invasion, our dividing factors would be more important than ever. Maybe, without the glue of compulsory participation in society holding us together, each group would split into their own separate nation-states. Societies then would only be made up of like-minded people who banded together out of choice, rather than necessity. Then all the groups would wage perpetual war with one another over the planet's scant natural resources. Maybe I'm giving the human race too much credit.

Just something to think about.

The Slippery Slope of Religious Freedom Laws

In the wake of many recent events, the American public has initiated a discussion about religious freedom, particularly as the concept relates to business owners and the conduct thereof. That's what I'd like to talk about today.

In Indiana, there was a bill proposed called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would make it legal for business owners  to refuse service to anyone if serving them violated their 'sincerely held religious beliefs." Proponents of the bill stated that the bill was a response to religious liberty. It was about affording theistic business owners the right to practice their faiths, even during business transactions.

I call bullshit. Let's not kid ourselves here, the RFRA and other bills like it are not about liberty or freedom. It isn't about making Christian business owners feel comfortable. It's a thinly-veiled attempt to push discrimination against the LGBT community, pure and simple. This is a form of modern segregation, and nothing more.

And yet, many people, including those on the left, are in favor of such bills being made into laws. They support the right of private business to choose how they conduct said business, even if it means enforcing discriminatory policy. To them, it isn't a matter of bigotry. It's about workers' rights, apparently.

These people go on to claim that it's okay for bakeries to not serve gay couples, so long as there is a separate bakery where the couple can go to be served. That way, both the bigot and the couple can remain comfortable, having never crossed paths with one another in the first place. That would be fine, except for one small problem. Separate but equal is inherently unequal. We have already had this discussion. We ruled that, under the fourteenth amendment, segregation is unconstitutional. There. This discussion is over.

Wait, no it isn't. So-called pro-freedom individuals will say that we have to empathize with Christian business owners. After all, if you believe that serving a gay couple will result in you burning in Hell for eternity, then isn't it wise to not serve that couple? Again, it's about the feelings of the business owners.

But that's a slippery slope. The irony of me invoking this argument is not lost on me, but I feel it makes sense in this context. If Christian bakers can refuse service to business owners based on their feelings about Hell, what's stopping Christian landlords from doing so? There are many states where it is completely legal to fire someone for being gay. This is again based on the feeling of the business owner. The point is, should laws like these become the norm, you will eventually see gay people being turned away from vital services, such as, again, housing. The RFRA sets a very dangerous precedent.

 If the goal of the RFRA is to prevent the eternal torture of a significant subset of the population, then by all means, sign it into law immediately. I might disagree with your views, but I certainly don't condone torture. But here's the problem with that line of reasoning. Nobody fucking knows what happens after we die. Many of us like to pretend we do, but at the end of the day, we have no clue. At a certain point, we're going to have to be pragmatic and make decisions based on the here and now, instead of some hypothetical scenario that, in all likelihood, will probably never come to pass.

Just something to think about.

An Open Letter to the LGBT Community

An Open Letter to the LGBTQ+ Community

Leelah Alcorn’s death was a tragedy, of this there is no doubt. Her struggles were the result of factors beyond her control, the product of baseless hatred and entirely outdated thinking. In an ideal world, there would have been a way for her to make it through her hardships. This, sadly, was not the case. Her parents cut her off from the wider world, from the network of love and support that is offered by the World Wide Web, thereby plunging her deeper into a personal hell from which there was no escape.

Her suicide note, brought to the public consciousness through the Internet, was at once heartbreaking and thoughtful. She wrote extensively about the state of the trans rights movement in America, and the hatred that certain groups cause simply because they fear that which is different from themselves. The ending of her note is particularly relevant. “My death needs to mean something. Fix society. Please.”

 I would like to focus on that statement today. Leelah wanted, more than anything, to make progress as far as trans rights were concerned. She is no longer here to make that happen, but you are. Leelah’s death is already bringing about significant change. There is a dialogue about queer issues that surfaced in the wake of her death. It is taking place largely over the Internet, but that’s okay.  Straight individuals are participating in that discussion, and are aware of the problem. These people might not have spoken up prior to the incident, but now they have. Change does not happen overnight, but it does happen. Keep fighting. For Leelah, for me, and for yourself.

In closing, I would like to ask something of you. Carry on Leelah’s legacy. March for queer rights, call out bigoted politicians. Make a change. As I said, the information superhighway is our greatest weapon in the war against hate. Use it. Post rants to Facebook and Twitter, spread the word. Don’t be afraid to speak your mind. And, most importantly, never doubt that a small group of passionate people can make the world a better place. It’s the only thing that ever has.

Just something to think about.

Happy Valentine's Day, Rush Limbaugh: A Poem

I love your imagination. I love the way your brain conjures up new worlds and new ideas, with no regard for that which is real. Your rejection of conventional reality is simply astounding. You should be a novelist.

I love your voice, loud and boisterous and echoing. I love the way you scream yourself hoarse, even though no one is listening.

I love your courage. Everything you say flies in the face of fact, but you don’t care. You go right on yelling.

I love your ego, even though it’s the size of Texas. You think of yourself as a savior, a reverse Robin Hood, helping those who already have the means to help themselves.

I love the way you experience life, each moment more intense than the last. You’re able to take one tiny event and blow it out of proportion until you’ve got everybody running around like decapitated chickens. But most of all, I love the way you refuse to change.

Why I'm a-Gasp-Feminist!

Why I’m a-Gasp-Feminist!

As you can probably tell from the title, I am a feminist. In recent years, that word has been cast in a very negative light, especially here on the Internet. Given that I spend most of my time on said Internet, I feel that it is my obligation to share my thoughts on the matter. Here we go.

Before we move forward, I think I have to go all college professor on your asses. I need to define my terms. More specifically, what exactly do I mean by ‘feminist?’ Well, I believe that feminism is a gender equality movement, pure and simple. That means that feminists, by and large, are also interested in men’s issues, such as custody of children.

See, what most antifeminists don’t understand (Cough, TJ Kirk, Cough), is that most men’s issues can trace their roots back to institutionalized misogyny. The biggest thing that Men’s Right’s Activists site as a men’s issue is that custody battles, as well as alimony payments, all heavily favor the lady. And, for once, they’re right. It is true that, when it comes to children and things of that nature, men do face sexism. Point MRA.

But the root of the sexism they face is, in fact, misogyny. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers, and thus deserve greater custody of their children, is part of the patriarchy. In the context of traditional gender roles, women are typically the home-makers, while men bring in the bacon. Any reversal of this is seen as abnormal, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. Men can be excellent parents, given the chance. The reason the legal system doesn’t give them that chance is because of sexism towards women, not dudes. Point Feminists.

The same can be said for the unrealistic body image standards that men face. The reason that all man are encouraged, if not required, to have more muscles than a beach after a storm is because the patriarchy doesn’t want them to be perceived as traditionally feminine. This is because they think women are weak. By expanding women’s rights, we force the patriarchy to see them as powerful people, as leaders. Not only will this help dispel unrealistic standards of appearance, it will also make it possible for men to express any emotion other than anger. This, in turn, leads to an open dialogue between all people wherein nothing is off limits. A more open society means that more things get done. That’s just basic logic. Point Feminists.

So now you might be thinking, “If feminists really care about equality for all genders, why is the movement call feminism? Doesn’t that imply that it’s looking out exclusively for the well-being of women?” They call it feminism because there are certain issues that are faced primarily or even exclusively by women, which feminism seeks to mitigate or, hopefully, eradicate entirely. Fixing these issues leads to equality for everyone, because it helps foster a more inclusive and open culture. As I said above, this can only be a good thing.

Further, it’s called feminism because females are the underprivileged gender, and feminism seeks to give them equal opportunity. Feminists want to elevate women to the standards that men already have. You attain gender equality by putting women in the same place as men. The only other alternative that can be called equal is to bring men down to the levels that women are currently on, and nobody wants that. That’s just fucking stupid, guys.  Good. Glad we cleared that up.

Now, the rebuttal to these points is that the feminist movement has been taken over by a pack of rabid, man-hating she beasts, and it is no longer about gender equality, but rather about female supremacy or domination. But these women, who complain about manspreading and come up with things like #KillAllMen are not real feminists. Before you smash your computer and cry out, “NO TRUE SCOTSMAN,” hear me the fuck out. I’ll say my piece, and then you can say yours. Deal? Good.

They aren’t real feminists to me because they do not meet the above definition of feminist, which I previously defined as “Someone who advocates for the equality of the sexes through the furtherance of women’s rights.” So for the purposes of both this article and my own life, these so-called ‘female supremacists” are not feminists.

But that’s just me, and some opponents will call my definition of feminist a “special definition,” e.i. One that I defined purely to further my own ideology. I would argue that every definition can, on some level, be thought of this way, but I understand where my hypothetical critics are coming from. So I’ll tackle this idea from a (mostly) objective standpoint. Specifically, a linguistic one. Buckle up.

These man-haters aren’t feminists not only because they do not meet my definition of that word, but also because there is already a word for people like them. It’s called misandry, and it is defined as, “A woman who believes that women are better than men, and thus deserve more rights or opportunities than them.” In short, they’re women who are sexist towards men. They are man-haters. See what I did there? They have their own word, their own identity. They’ve just co-opted the term feminist for their own nefarious purposes.

But why did they do that? Why not just stick with the label the dictionary gives them? There are two reasons for this, I think. Firstly because all supremacist ideas have a negative connotation, as they should. Nobody likes to think that there are people who are innately better than one another, because it isn’t true.

They do it because, on a very basic level, feminism is credible. The basic ideas that the movement perpetuates, like equality, make sense. They, put simply, make a whole lot of sense, So the reason that man-haters call themselves feminist is because they want to mask their bullshit ideas in a really credible movement. But instead it backfired, and dragged feminism down into their own cesspool of idiocy. And that’s bullshit. That’s wrong.

Just something to think about.

The Hypocrisy of Antifeminist Atheists

The Hypocrisy of Antifeminist Atheists

Chris Costello

I am an atheist and, as anyone who’s spent any amount of time with me will tell you, I am also a feminist. This is kind of an odd combination, given that many outspoken internet ‘anti-theists’ have also devoted their time to ranting about the evils of feminism. The Amazing Atheist is an example of this. I’d call him an excellent example, but nothing about TJ Kirk is excellent. But, hey, nobody said that atheists all have to think a certain way, especially because the only thing uniting the atheist community is our lack of belief in magical sky people. So while atheistic feminists are certainly unusual, they still exist. Let’s move on, then, because there’s something else I wanted to discuss today.

If for some reason the title didn’t clue you in already, the subject of today’s article is the hypocrisy that is found within the atheist community, particularly as it pertains to feminism. I am speaking, of course, about cherry-picking.

Outspoken atheists, myself included, will often berate religious people for cherry-picking their beloved holy texts. In my experience, this is mostly a Christian tactic, but I am positive that people of all faiths employ it. The exchange below is a common example of the sort of thing I’m referring to here.

(EXT-PARKING LOT, MID-AFTERNOON. THEIST AND ATHEIST ARE STANDING NEXT TO A CAR, DISCUSSING RELIGION)

THEIST: The Bible (or the Quran, or the Torah, or whatever), is a book of purely good things. It is an ironclad moral code. God is entirely good, as is His word.

ATHEIST: But what about the part where it advocates the murder of gay people? The KKK and the Sovereign Citizens are both right-wing, Christian terrorist groups, you know.

THEIST: I don’t believe in those things, so they don’t count. Not all Christians are hateful, intolerant bigots. Don’t lash out against an entire group of people based on the actions of a very loud minority. Stop painting with such a broad brush.

ATHEIST: All right, I get that. You aren’t an asshole, so that must mean that Christianity can be a force for good. It does often encourage people to aid the poor, after all.

THEIST: Precisely.

(THERE IS A PAUSE)

THEIST: Incidentally, did you know that Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists? That must mean that you’re a violent, oppressive dictator, right? All atheists are evil!

ATHEIST (ANNOYED): You realize that’s the same thing you told me not to do, right? Painting with a broad brush?

(THEIST BEGINS TO WALK AWAY)

That’s a perfect example of both hypocrisy and cherry-picking from religious people. Every atheist has been on the receiving end of something like that at one point or another, and it pisses us off, mostly because it’s fucking asinine. The anger that arises from stuff like this has caused most atheists to rally against hypocrisy and cherry-picking, in any context. For the most part, I agree with the sentiment that these two things are always bad.

So why, then, do antifeminist internet atheists regularly engage in both of these practices, often at the same time? To illustrate my point, I’ve included another scene. Consistency for the win!

(EXT-PARKING LOT, MID-AFTERNOON ANTIFEMINIST AND FEMINIST ARE STANDING NEXT TO A CAR, DISCUSSING FEMINISM. FOR THE SAKE OF THIS SCENARIO, BOTH ARE ATHEISTS.)

FEM: My definition of feminism is equality for all genders. We seek to elevate women to standards men have already archived, thereby furthering equality for everyone. It’s an intersectional movement.

ANTI: But what about Sydney Greenheart, who believes that we ought to control the population on men in America by killing them. She calls herself a feminist, so she must be one, right? That means that the entirety of feminism is evil and obsolete. It should be eradicated, man.

FEM: The official name of North Korea is the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, but we know that it’s really a communist dictatorship. Just because somebody uses a label doesn’t mean that label actually applies.

ANTI (NODDING): Okay, that makes sense.

FEM: See, now you’re getting it. Also, though, hold on. You just cherry-picked the most extreme example of feminism you could find to straw-man my argument. You wouldn’t want somebody doing that to you, right?

ANTI (NERVOUS): Well, no, I guess not.

FEM: Exactly. What you just did there is exactly the same as a religious person saying that all atheists are evil because Pol Pot and Stalin used the label. It makes even less sense in this context, given that Ms. Greenheart doesn’t meet the definition of feminism that I use. She’s a misandrist, pure and simple. I thought you were against hypocrisy. Whatever happened to that?

ANTI: Uh, um, uh, that’s different.

FEM: How is it different, exactly?

(ANTI BEGINS TO WALK AWAY.)

Just something to think about.

My Rant About Conservative Talk Radio

My Rant About Conservative Talk Radio

Chris Costelo

He’s angry again. I don’t know why, but I’m almost positive it’s misguided. None of his rants make any sense these days, and he fumbles the facts like a quarterback with anxiety. It’s a mystery. Last week he was pissed about somebody on TV taking the Lord’s name in vain. Before that it was the EPA, then the Department of Education. He stands up there on his podium, screaming his ass off about big government interfering with hard working job creators. He talks about limiting their power, then votes against gay marriage. I guess he wants the government to stay out of your way, but only if you’re exactly like him.

I don’t think he really believes in any of the stuff he says. I think he just likes to hear himself talk. This whole thing is just an excuse for him to get his ego stroked. Well, who can blame him? We all want to feel important, we all want to be remembered. But what he doesn’t realize is that history only smiles upon the intelligent ones. He’s already out of luck.

My Experience With a Crazy Religious Nut

My Experience With a Religious Nut

Chris Costello

As all of my regular readers, and indeed anyone who knows me at all, can attest, I am an atheist. I am also alive during this, the heyday of the internet, so I feel it goes without saying that I am pretty outspoken about that fact. I spend a great deal of time speaking and writing about my atheism, both in person and on the Web. I’ve seen my fair share of religious fundamentalist nut-jobs of all faiths, mostly on the internet. I’m very good about avoiding those types of people in real life.

That’s very hard to do when the nut-job in question is family.

I might share my thoughts on the nature of family some other time, but we’ll table some of the broader questions this story raises for now. The big stuff isn’t relevant just yet.

What is important is that I recently attended a graduation party for a cousin of mine. It was an excellent affair, with a DJ and everything. I had a great time until I was taken hostage by an aunt of mine, who is called Helen. She sells alternative medicine and is a right-wing evangelical Christian. So, as you can probably tell, we have very little in common.

The conversation took a turn for the worst pretty much immediately after she roped me into it. I was born prematurely, and my brother and I spent the better part of four months in the hospital. I ended up with a mild case of cerebral palsy, and I had to work for years to overcome this. I would very much like to forget about that whole section of my life, thank you very much.

Helen missed the memo on that last bit. Every single fucking time I see her, she cannot resist bringing up all of this, along with the idea that God saved me; that I was a ‘miracle baby.’ I was under the impression that it was modern medicine hat saved my brother and I, but whatever.

This grad party was no exception. She brought up the miracle baby shit, as she always does, and I kept my mouth shut and nodded along with her. I’m not trying to start a fight, and Helen is so far gone that all of my reasoned, logic arguments would just bounce off her.

So, thus far, must of her stuff is pretty run-of-the-mill. It’s still crazy, but nothing I haven’t heard before or gotten used to. Whatever, you know? Let’s just move on, Helen.

And move on she did.

Helen knows I’m a writer, as do most of the people in my life. She waxed poetic about the power of writing, and for once, I actually found myself agreeing with her. I fully believe in the ability of writing to unite people and help us repair any wounds we might have.

Then Helen, as per usual, fucked everything up.

She told me a story, which has been transcribed in its entirety below. Here goes.

“I know there’s power in writing because in 1998, I wrote down the kind of car I wanted on a slip of paper and I stuck it in an old bible. Then I forgot about it for a year. Well, in 1999, my husband came home from work in a new car, and it was the exact kind I’d wanted! I asked him how he knew, since I’d never told him anything about wanting it. He’d found the slip of paper in that old bible. God moved him to buy me that car. There’s power in writing, Chris. Keep writing.”

Wow, okay. Where do I even start with this one I shouldn’t have to tell you how batshit insane that is, right? The fact that starving children and murders exist, but your deity was totally able to help you get a fucking car? That’s despicable, and narcissistic, and just...awful.

But never mind that. Helen’s conclusion is just wrong. God had nothing to do with her husband’s decision to buy that car for her. He just found the slip of paper and knew that she wanted it. The bible is irrelevant. She could’ve left it on the table somewhere and the outcome would’ve been the same.

But, as before, I smiled, and nodded, and agreed. There was no point in making a scene.

Helen ended the conversation by saying, “You’re so interesting, Chris. I love talking to you.”

Throughout this whole exchange, I never said a word.

People like Helen actually exist. These humans, if they can really be called that, are out there. They are real, and this is baffles me.

Just something to think about.

No Call For Equality?

No Call For Equality?

Chris Costello

This is going to be a short one, but I felt I had to write it anyway. This is my rebuttal to a very common argument that I hear from the Men’s Rights Movement, or MRM. They often bust out this little gem in response to a feminist, such as myself, saying something like ‘women make up half of the US population, and yet they comprise only about fourteen percent of CEOs, or scientists, or political leaders. I feel that this disparity is too great for it to be entirely a matter of personal choice. Discrimination against women still exists, and we must work to fix it.’

To which the Men’s Rights Activist will invariably respond, ‘well, garbage men are over ninety percent male, and you don’t hear feminists whining about being underrepresented in that area. They only care about the comfortable positions, they’re not really concerned with equality. All they care about is power.’

Now, I’ll give credit where it’s due. At first glance, this point appears legitimate. Then you turn around and see the hole that’s big enough to drive a fucking tank through. Feminists do want power. The whole point of the movement is to empower women, for fuck’s sake. That’s why there’s a call for more female CEOs. Because CEOs can affect change. They can advocate for policies that help women. They have real clout, and are able to elevate the standing of the female gender. Sanitation workers, sadly, are not. So at the end of the day, it isn’t actually about feminists wanting all the power. It’s about people, wanting to affect positive change.

Just something to think about.