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.

What Exactly is Feminism?

Feminism is kind of a new movement, and its definition is rather nebulous. The way that I define feminism, and the definition that I think others agree on, is this. "Feminism aims to achieve equality for everyone by raising women to the standards that men have already achieved." That's a good starting place, but it raises a good number of questions. Namely, how the fuck do we do that? We know that women need to be elevated. The playing field needs to be evened out, but there's a lot of discussion, even in feminist circles, about how exactly that ought to be done.

Well, I figured I'd throw my hat into the ring. Here's a breakdown of what feminism means to me:

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, I'm trans-inclusionary. This is a point of contention among feminists, with one camp claiming that feminism is about protecting 'real women,' whatever the fuck that means. In my opinion, if you identify as a women, that's what you are. And, let's be frank with each other, trans people are still oppressed, as are women. That's a shame, but it is also true. Some would even argue that trans women are even more disadvantaged than cis women. I'm against turning oppression into a competition, of course, but I'm also inclined to agree. There are several states where employers can refuse to hire trans individuals simply because of their gender identity, and that needs to stop. Feminism has to be intersectional, and work to further the standing of all women.

I'm pro-choice. I think that most feminists agree on this point, but there are some people who believe that abortion is akin to murder. This is crap. That came out a little more bluntly than I intended, but I stand by the sentiment. Before viability, a fetus is nothing more than a collection of cells. So is hair, and no one gets lynched for exfoliating. Further, the fetus feeds off of nutrients that is gathered by the mother. Until viability, it is virtually indistinguishable from a tape-worm. But perhaps that's a flimsy argument. Most pro-life people claim that abortion robs the world of potential geniuses. 'What if we aborted the person who would eventually go on to cure cancer,' they say. I'd like to take a moment to correct this. Children who receive the sort of education and support required to cure cancer are not raised by parents who consider getting abortions. Abortion ought to be available for everyone, but only people who would be unable to provide for a child take advantage of it. It's as simple as that.

Finally, I'm sex-positive. This is an easy one, and it ties into an old pro-choice argument. What someone else does with their body is none of your fucking business, nor is it mine. It doesn't matter if people want to fuck, or get abortions, or get tattoos. Just back off, man. Be cool. Also, and this is the biggest reason, sex-negativity encourages the proliferation of abstinence-only sex education, which is provably ineffectual.

So, yeah. That's my personal brand of feminism, and it's the direction I think the movement as a whole ought to be going in. But I'm always open to hearing and discussing new opinions, so if you disagree, tell me.

Just something to think about.

Are Babies Atheists?

I've seen an info-graphic circulating around the Web recently, particularly in atheist spaces. It depicts an infant, and then below that, the words: 'you don't become an atheist. You go back to being one.'

That statement is clearly meant to imply that, since babies have no concept of a god, they must be atheists. Hence, you go back to being one.

This is a bullshit claim, and it doesn't take very long to refute. So let's do that right now. Say it with me, "LOW HANGING FRUIT!"

Babies aren't atheists for the same reason that proponents of the above theory claim that they are. I know that sounds weird, and it is, but just bear with me for a minute. This'll all make sense in time. Atheism as a viewpoint is entirely dependent upon theism to exist. That is to say, if there were no theists, there would be no atheists. The only reason that atheists are able to reject theistic claims is because we were introduced to them first. Without the concept of a deity imparted to us, we would never know how to refute said claims, nor would there be a reason for us to do so.

That's why babies don't meet the definition of atheism. Atheists lack a belief in God, but babies do not. It is impossible for them to make any decisions about their theological positions because they have no context on which to base those decisions. It would perhaps be accurate to state that babies are secular, as in wholly nonreligious, but they are not atheistic. They can't be, because they don't know who or what God is yet.

Just something to think about.

Walking on Eggshells: A Poem

These eggshells are land-mines, 

concealed under layers of dirt 

and halfhearted apologies.

they tread carefully, not daring

to disturb the centuries of ink

That were spilled to sculpt the skyline.

These eggshells are land-mines

And I don’t dare move.

Waiting for a Miracle: A Blackout Poem

Waiting For A Miracle: A Blackout Poem

The clock ran out,

 and people just got a peek

 behind the curtain this time. 

Mary never materialized.

This is a blackout poem, after having been freed from the page. For the uninitiated, a blackout poem is, obviously, a specific form of poetry. The writer takes a section of newspaper and 'blacks out' words he or she wants to exclude. The stuff left over constitutes the poem. I think it says a lot about the subjectivity of media. I looked at an article about a Lady Gaga performance and saw this. You might've come up with something completely different, and that's fine, too. Stuff like this opens up a lot of interesting doors. Hope you enjoy! 

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.

Humanists Behind Bars

Recently, an inmate in a correctional facility in Oregon sued the prison for the right to practice his 'religion of humanism.' The Federal Bureau of Prisons recognized his plea. This means that, for the purpose of the prison system, humanism is considered a religion. This new designation affords humanist prisoners the right to form study groups, hire chaplains, and speak to philosophers.much in the same way that Christian inmates would be allowed to hire priests.

This seems to be following the US Army's example of recognizing humanism as a 'religious choice.'

Now, many atheists, most of whom refer to themselves as secular humanists, take this as a mixed blessing. And, honestly, I can sort of see where they're coming from. After all, humanism is not a religion, and recognizing it a such might contribute to the collapse of the already tumultuous relationship between outspoken atheists and conservative Christians. After all, we've spent years correctly denying the claim that atheism is a religion, and now it is being recognized as such. At least it is in one specific context.

So, doesn't this designation sort of undermine our push for scientific literacy and reason? We claim that said push is not about furthering a religious agenda, and this law seems to be in direct opposition to that claim.

In this context, I don't think it does. See, this isn't really about the classification of humanism. It isn't a religion, but I don't think designating it as such here will actually contribute to misinformation among theists. At least, not among those theists who still have functioning brains. There aren't many, but they're out there. My point here is that calling humanism a religion is a means to an end. If there were a way to get around that, I'm sure prison officials would have taken that path. But I don't know. Maybe I'm giving these people too much credit.

Or rather I would be, were it not for the fact that this case does not designate humanism as a religion. It explicitly calls it a religious choice, as the US Army did. This is not the same as a religion. I think it can best be summed it with a quote from Bill Maher. "Atheism is religion like abstinence is a sex position." Yes, these two things are very different, but they're on the same spectrum. Opposite ends of it, sure, but the same spectrum nonetheless.

This case is not about religion. It's about whether or not secular humanists are entitled to the same protections under law as religious folks. Quite simply, this is a matter of human rights. The FBP was sued by the American Humanist Association, and they agreed to acknowledge humanism as a worldview, rather than a religion. So, really, the argument against this is meaningless.

This decision allows humanists in prison to request time and space for activities, the right to form study and debate groups, and many other things. Before, only theists had these rights. This breaks down the barrier between special religious rights and opens the door for debate and discussion. This is about equality. We have to focus on that, rather than the technical label.

Just something to think about.