Bill O’Reilly and Prostitution

So prostitution may become legal in San Francisco.  As a guest on his show, O’Reilly had a former prostitute and advocate for sex worker rights, who of course was in favor of legalizing the trade.  Her argument was that legal brothels and government regulation would make it safe for many of the prostitutes who have to live on the edge of society, and who can’t seek justice because they’re turned into criminals.

O’Reilly has made it clear several times that he thinks this reasoning is a “ruse.”  He argues that legalization still won’t bring out the fourteen-year-olds and the drug addicts.  They’ll still be on the streets and won’t be helped.  He’s absolutely right, of course.  Even if we made prostitution legal in every city in America, there would still be some girls and women in the shadows, unable or unwilling to get a job in a legal brothel.

But here’s the point that O’Reilly seems to be missing:  There would be fewer prostitutes on the streets and in danger of being victimized.  The situation for many of them would improve.  That’s kind of the definition of moral behavior, is it not?  Trying to do what will help the most people possible?  No one’s claiming that legalizing prostitution will fix all the problems or make everything perfect.  But it will make it better.  This has been shown over and over in places where the sex trade isn’t criminalized.

I don’t understand what’s so demonic about legalized prostitution.  In Nevada, there’s never been a case of HIV among the legal sex workers, and the STD rates have not risen.  Social order isn’t breaking down.  No one is going to put up brothels in residential neighborhoods or next to schools and playgrounds.

It seems pretty clear to me.  Make prostitution legal, and the police can stop wasting time, money, and effort on consenting adults who aren’t hurting anyone.  Make prostitution legal, and many more prostitutes will be spared the risk of violence.  Make prostitution legal, and prostitutes pay taxes, benefiting the entire economy.  Make prostitution legal, and the instances of unsafe sex and STDs go down.  Make prostitution legal, and we can embrace what “freedom” really means and give these women (and men) the right to do what they want with their own bodies.

Nas and Bill O’Reilly

I was watching The Colbert Report the other night, and the guest was the rapper Nas.  Apparently Nas (along with many others) is participating in a petition against Fox News and Bill O’Reilly in particular.  According to Nas, O’Reilly is a racist who says “much more hateful and spiteful things than any rapper does.”  This started after the Virginia Tech murders, when O’Reilly protested the fact that Nas was performing a benefit at the school.  Because Nas has lyrics glorifying violence and a gun conviction, O’Reilly said, the rapper is a poor choice to perform, considering what the students at the school had just been through.  In response, Nas came back and called O’Reilly a racist.  How clever.

I watched that initial exchange, and I’ve been watching The O’Reilly Factorfor years.  I hardly ever agree with Bill O’Reilly, and I think there are plenty of times that he should be naming himself the “Pinhead” of his “Pinheads and Patriots” segment.  I post my disagreements with him all the time.  But he’s not a racist, he doesn’t use smear tactics, and he doesn’t spew hateful diatribe.  He even occasionally admits that he was wrong.  I’m not defending him or Fox News – I like to think that I’m defending rationalism.

Nas is simply being irrational.  Regardless of whether O’Reilly is right or wrong, he never brought race into the issue.  He simply pointed out that Nas had violent lyrics and a gun conviction.  I get it, I get it:  Nas is a baby.  He can’t take the heat, so anyone who disagrees with him or doesn’t like his music is a racist.  I hate to break this to Nas, because he seems to have a neat little world of self-entitled victimhood worked out, but just because someone criticizes you doesn’t mean they’re a bigot.  It also doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

On The Colbert Report, the host asked Nas about that gun conviction.  The rapper’s response?  “We need to talk about how those guns get into our neighborhoods in the first place.”  Typical victim thinking.  It’s not my fault I decided to carry an illegal weapon, it’s because of America’s culture and social structure.  They forced me into it.  I’m such a mewling little infant that I can’t be held responsible for my own actions, so I’m going to blame for my own actions, so I’m going to blame everyone else.

How many people would be shocked to know that Nas is stirring all of this up at the exact same time that his new album is coming out?  Starting a feud with Bill O’Reilly is good for publicity.  I have a suggestion for Nas:  How about a petition against CNN or Jesse Jackson?  You remember when that CNN analyst called Juan Williams a “happy Negro?”  You remember what Jesse Jackson said about Barack Obama, and how he used the word “nigger?”  You remember when Dan Rather called Barack Obama “Osama bin Laden?”  Where’s the outrage?  Where are the charges of racism and hate-spewing?  Has O’Reilly ever said anything remotely as bad as that?

The “worst” thing that can be said about Fox News is that it leans to the right.  So what?  You’re a big boy, Nas.  Pull up your training pants and accept the fact that in America, everyone doesn’t have to agree with you.  Try actually making an intelligent argument against them rather than killing rational discourse with cries of racism.

Why Flip-Flopping is Good

One thing that’s always annoying about watching Hannity & Colmes is that the two hosts constantly play the witless game of rushing to the bottom.  Hannity does it often, but Colmes is sick with it.  Half the segments consist of Hannity pointing out some bad behavior on the part of a Democrat, then Colmes saying, “Oh yeah, well what about this Republican who did something similar?”

Okay, fine.  You’re going to find questionable things about everyone.  How about actually addressing these questionable things, rather than trying to justify them by saying that the “enemy” does them too?  At least Bill O’Reilly has the presence of mind to say, “You don’t justify bad behavior with more bad behavior.”

Flip-flopping is the latest topic du jour.  Obama flip-flopped on campaign funding, McCain flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts, Obama flip-flopped on Iran, McCain flop-flopped on offshore drilling, and so on, ad infinitum.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but let’s cut the politicians a little slack here.  Obviously, what’s bad about flip-flopping is not changing one’s mind, but changing one’s mind because you want to make people happy and win votes.  It smacks of sliminess, insincerity, and everything else that’s bad about politicians.  But it gets a little ridiculous when a politician can never, ever change his or her mind about anything without being vilified.  Stop taking that ability away from them!  We do not need elected leaders who follow a course even if the evidence suggests a contrary decision.  Flip-flopping is better than blind dogmatism.

Just a couple days ago I heard Dick Morris say that even Obama will change his mind about drilling in America if gas prices reach seven or eight dollars a gallon.  And why shouldn’t he?  He’d better.  I don’t want Obama to be president, but I wouldn’t call him a flip-flopper for that; I’d call him intelligent.  There’s nothing wrong with getting up and saying, “My fellow Americans, I despise the notion of drilling because I think it may hurt the environment, but this is a drastic situation, and we have to take the lesser of two evils.”  I’d actually have more respect for the guy if he realized that affordable gas is just a tad more important than caribou in ANWR.

Similarly, John McCain saying that he now supports the Bush tax cuts because he witnessed them working is just a rational decision.  If something proves you wrong, you’d better change your mind.  I want a politician who has the courage to admit when he held an erroneous position.  We all do it sometimes; every single one of us.  What differentiates us is the ability to say, “You were right and I was wrong.”  Think about how rare it is to hear a politician – or anyone else – say that.

Of course, in reality, politicians are going to continue changing their views simply to get votes.  It’s unaviodable.  Perhaps we can never truly separate when one of them is flip-flopping and when they’re actually using the faculty of reason to change their mind.  There’s not a litmus test to know for sure.  But automatically labeling all of them flip-floppers, all the time, isn’t going to accomplish anything constructive.

Why Prisoners Need Richard Dawkins

I remember a particular point Dawkins made in his book The God Delusion that struck a chord with me, for obvious reasons.  He was discussing the correlation between religion, skepticism, and crime, in part to answer the ridiculous creationist claim that people are more prone to commit crimes if they’re atheists.  Dawkins suggested the opposite: that he would be surprised if there were very many atheists in prison at all.

(I think he was also making a point about education.  That is, since prisoners are in general woefully uneducated, it would be difficult for many of them to be informed atheists anyway.  Prostrating oneself before a higher power and having faith doesn’t require any education; learning about actual evidence in the natural world does.)

I think Dawkins is right.  As an insider, I can state two things with some amount of certitude.  The first is that there are plenty of religious felons in prison.  The second is that there are very few atheists.  Further, there are very few atheists who have devoted any efforts to actually pondering and studying the idea.  This is a shame, because I’ve found that those who make such an effort tend to be more adept at using their brains than is usual for prisoners.  I’m not saying that religious prisoners are unintelligent.  There are guys with an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible, but then there are also guys with an encyclopedic knowledge of football.  Neither one is going to teach us how to think critically and use the tool of reason.  For prisoners, this should be priority number one for improving ourselves.

One thing standing in the way is the fatuous notion that religion is the answer.  Some prisoners do become better people through embracing religion, and I have no quarrel with that.  For this purpose, I think the destination is more important than the path.  But my main problem is the idea that religion seems to be required.

Despite the title of this article, I’m not saying that prisoners need to share Richard Dawkins’s views to be productive individuals who can function in society.  This isn’t about “converting” prisoners to an ideology; it’s about teaching them to think rationally.  It is not even imperative that they agree with Dawkins.  For the purpose of this argument, the content of his books is not as important as the method he uses and the language and skill with which he presents his arguments.  If convicted felons can learn to sue the powerful tool they have inside their heads, if they can learn to approach their problems, trials, and decisions with rationality rather than tradition or uninformed reaction, they’ll have the foundation they require.  Reading Dawkins is a good place to start.

One sign of hope:  The library here purchase The God Delusion last year, and ever since that time, it hasn’t been able to stay on the shelves.  It’s being borrowed and read as quickly as it’s returned.  Perhaps this will lead to prisoners putting down the Bible and reading something by Carl Sagan or Ayn Rand.  Perhaps they’ll listen to visionaries of the civil rights movement rather than prison chaplains.  Perhaps they can learn to see that the path to morality is reason, not obedience to mythology.

What You Earn is Whatever You Can Get

I got into a discussion with someone a while back who was very earnest about the wage gap in this country and the plight of middle-class Americans.  His point was that a blue-collar worker toils at physical labor all day long for his entire life.  He does it knowing he’ll never be rich or live comfortably.  He does it to support a family.  He works hard, much harder than many people who make a lot more money and don’t deserve it (like actors and rock stars, for example). 

It was a matter of proportion.  He was arguing that a blue-collar laborer should be making more since he’s busting his ass, providing a useful service, and probably doing it for a nobler purpose.  Conversely, the entertainer is a millionaire only because of the whim of some fans, and doesn’t really work hard comparatively.  It wasn’t fair, he said, that people make so much money for frivolous reasons.

I shocked him by disagreeing.  I told him that I think that rich actors and rock stars earn every penny of their money. (How they might squander it later on is a separate issue).  I told him that I don’t think a man’s sweat and physical toil are the measure of what he earns.

Predictably, of course, he accused me of being a “rich white kid.”  Though it’s irrelevant to the point, I had to dispel that assumption by telling him that I grew up in trailer parks and low-income housing with a single parent, eating hot dogs and Hamburger Helper.  When I turned fourteen and got a job, I was never given a single thing again; not even clothes or school supplies.

People who think like this guy are always certain that some should be “earning” more money, and some are “making” more money than they’re earning.  But they’re not talking about what is earned here – they’re talking about what they think these people deserve.  They’re basing their opinion about what a person earns on how much they need.  A blue-collar laborer has a family to feed and barely makes ends meet – he might not even be able to pay for his kids to go to college.  Therefore, he should be earning more.

I was called callous and heartless when I told him that “deserve” is not the same thing as “earn.”

What you “earn” is simply this: the amount of money people are willing to pay for your good or service.  That’s it.  That’s the only rational way to determine it.  How else can the amount someone has earned be measured objectively?  You may think a blue-collar laborer deserves more for his service (and maybe he does), but stop and think for one moment what it would mean to legislate it:  It means you would have to force someone else to pay more for that service than they are otherwise willing to pay.  How is that fair?

What do you think would happen if people were awarded money based on what they need, rather than what they earn?  It’s called communism, and it’s horrible not simply because it’s a bogeyman word, but because it doesn’t work.  No one would have any reason to produce any good, provide any service, or work at all.  Think about it:  The harder you work, the more that’s taken away from you and given to others.  You are punished for achieving, and rewarded when you do nothing.  Guess which one people choose.

How much a person needs is not an indicator of how much they’ve earned.  This does not in any way suggest that we should ignore those in need.   It does, however, suggest that we should not take from those who earn – even if it’s to give to those who need.

Why God is Ignorant of Love II

It’s humorous to me that many Christians who say that love is a gift that God grants to us, that this highest of emotional states can only come from a divine source, also say that homosexuality is a sin (or at least immoral).  The Bible literalists and fundamentalists even say that unrepentant homosexuals will end up burning in eternal torment.

What I want to know is this:  If love is so important to God, why does He define it by a person’s genetalia?  Why does He say that it only applies to heterosexuals?  Why does He place limits and regulations on it?  Why does He tell you who you can love and who you cannot?  God is said to value all forms of love: the love between a man and woman, brotherly love, neighborly love, the love of a child, the love of a parent, the love of strangers, the love of life, the love of virtue, the love of forgiveness, the love of God himself.  Why does he invalidate love between gay men and women?  Why is it that a homosexual is ostensibly capable and deserving of all of these types of love – except for one?

Isn’t this rather hypocritical of God?  Is the love that homosexuals experience not real?  Does it not live up to God’s standard of love?  What about platonic love between two friends of the same sex?  Why is that worthy to God, but suddenly unworthy if the two of them decide to express this feeling physically?  Does their love suddenly become false?  An illusion, a sickness, a trick they’ve played on themselves in search of comfort and companionship?

If not, why should God have a problem with it at all?  If so, why would God play such a cruel trick on them?

If a child grows up in a home with two loving, homosexual parents, would these Christians tell this child that what their parents feel for one another isn’t real?  If these parents are capable of expressing love toward their child, isn’t it fair to assume that they know something about their love for one another?  That they know something about love period?  And if gay men and women are capable of expressing and feeling love the same way a devout Christian married couple can, if they can reach that same level of commitment and trust, what exactly is wrong about the relationship? 

Is this what Christians think is moral to teach children, that love is conditional, that love is not for you to decide, that love becomes ugly and sinful if the arbiter of love doesn’t approve of who you choose to love?

Why Ann Coulter Thinks Evolution is False V

“The evidence found in nature supports creationism.”

Here’s how creationists like Ms. Coulter seem to prove that their deity exists: “Since there are gaps in the fossil record, unanswered questions about the evolutionary history of life, and debate in the scientific community, evolution must be wrong – which of course means that creationism is correct.”

For once, I’d like to see them stop trying to attack something that doesn’t fit their creation myth and instead come up with some evidence of their own.  You can’t prove God exists by trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution; this is applying the either-or logic fallacy.  The creationists are saying that either Hypothesis A is correct or Hypothesis B is correct.  Oh really, why is that?  Can there not be a Hypothesis C?  But this is how they operate.  If they find any question about evolution that a scientist can’t answer, they crow triumphantly: “Ha-ha! We will by default.”

This tactic is the best they can come up with.  They do it because they have no case.  They can produce no evidence whatsoever, and their only explanation is that divine magic explains every tough question.  Imagine Einstein trying to prove relativity merely by trying to poke holes in Newton’s theory.  Moreaptly yet, imagine if Charles Darwin had tried the creationist method rather than actual science: “There are things you creationists don’t know about God?  Very well, we automatically win.  God must not be real, and a natural process must have created life.  No, we can’t explain how this process works, and we don’t even have to because Nature works in mysterious ways, but obviously it’s true because you can’t answer every question about God.”  Absurdities are more humorous when they’re close to the truth.

Leaping to “God did it,” is not only intellectually torpid, it also fails as a reasonable replacement.  Why did God spend two billion years of history watching only microbial life before He decided to make something more complex?  Why did He wait 570 million years after His Cambrian “creation event” before creating humans?  Ninety-nine percent of all the species that have ever existed are extinct.  Did God create all the uncountable species that have ever lived, including all the unsuccessful ones, each at different points throughout billions of years?  If so, why does it appear as if He tried out some species, allowed them to go extinct, then moved on to other species that appear more like the modern ones we see today?  Why did He create dozens of species of elephant-like creatures, each progressively more like modern elephants, and allow all but two to go extinct?  Why did God put so much junk in our DNA that just happens to look like detritus from an evolutionary past?  Why did God give chimpanzees twenty-four chromosomes, then fold two of the human chromosomes together to give us twenty-three?  In tracking mitochondrial DNA, why haven’t geneticists found a bottleneck that would indicate when and where God created the first man and woman?  Why did God give whales nonfunctional hipbones and femurs?  Why did God give give us wisdom teeth, flawed spines and knees, and an appendix?  Why did He create so many intermediary species between aquatic creatures and four-limbed walking creatures?  Between reptiles and mammals?

In her book Godless, Ms. Coulter never goes any further than trying to discredit evolution.  She doesn’t present an alternate theory to answer any of these questions.  Even if we take away the theory of evolution, she can’t even begin to explain how the geological record and life’s history supports the idea of a creator, let alone the anthorpocentric interventionist deity from her particular fairy tale.  She never presents on shred of evidence that points to the existence of a creator.  The only so-called argument she makes is this: “My opinion is that the evidence for evolution is inconclusive, so therefore (my) god exists and designed everything.”

What Prison Has Taught Me

I wrote the title of this article to make myself think and see what I come up with.  I grew up and became a man here; I was arrested when I was eighteen and still extremely immature.  I suppose I could mention some of the positive influences I’ve had, such as the friend who taught me that guilt can be a part of responsibility, or the person who showed me how easy it is to deceive yourself with dogmatism, or the writers who prompted me to be a free thinker.  But those can be universal experiences; I’m after something indigenous to being a prisoner.

I should probably talk about learning to be responsible.  I’d say that in a general sense, prison can teach you responsibility like no other experience can.  This is not to say that many – or even most – prisoners learn to be responsible here.  But learning to be a responsible adult is one effective way to deal with being locked up.

You learn quickly, if nothing else.  When I was a duck through the door, I started gambling on card games and quickly got into debt for eighty dollars (which is the equivalent of about two month’s wages out there on the streets).  You can avoid nearly all the violence in prison if you keep away from entanglements with two main issues: Money and gangs.  And here I was already fucking up with one of them.  I was also busted for pruno once back then, which cost me some time off for good behavior (good time).  One lesson at the beginning was enough for me – I never gambled or felt the need to drink again, regardless of how many times I was accused of being “scared” for bowing out of situations.  (I’ve found that in prison, being “scared” is often synonymous with being “rational.”)

You also learn to be respectful of others, if for no other reason than being disrespectful is the quickest way to get in a physical altercation.  As a result, prisoners hold doors for each other, they say “excuse me,” they clean up after themselves, they don’t cut in line, etc.  I’m not saying that fear of reprisal is a good reason for people to be nice to one another, but in the case of prisoners, at least it gets us in the habit.

Most of all, though, you learn to rely on yourself.  Unless you choose to become a part of some racial or social group, you’re on your own.  And good luck finding someone who cares about your problems if things turn bad for you.  You quickly learn that most “friends” only care so far as it concerns their own welfare, and run for the hills the minute a hint of trouble comes.  You’re stuck with only your thoughts and any values you try to eke out.  The old dichotomy about choosing to be a leader or a follower doesn’t really mean much there on the outside, but in prison, it means everything.  Of course, you don’t have to be a leader in prison – it’s sufficient just to be an individual.

If you ask for nothing, you owe nothing.  If you expect nothing out of people, they can’t betray you.  If you place all your problems on yourself only, you embrace personal responsibility.  That’s how you solve those problems and learn to respect yourself.  And the more you respect yourself, the harder it becomes to ignore the fact that everyone deserves that same respect.

I don’t know if I ever could have learned to be responsible the way I have here in prison.  It’s too easy out there on the streets; the consequences aren’t as great.  Out there, you have friends and family to bail you out, and you can avoid dangerous situations simply by walking away.  In here, it just doesn’t work out that way.  Call it “learning the hard way,” or “growing up fast,” or some other such cliche, but you can’t avoid it in this place.  And I don’t think it takes a special kind of person or an “inner strength” to take something positive out of prison – I just think you have to be honest with yourself and learn to take responsibility for the decisions you make, both good and bad.

Why McCain Should Ignore the Conservative Base

You know what I think makes the conservatives more upset than anything during this election season?  It’s not that John McCain as the Republican nominee isn’t their ideal candidate.  They’re constantly bemoaning this fact, talking about where he differs from traditional conservative values, and how he needs to “reassure the conservative base.”

But this isn’t why they’re agitated.  They’re upset because they have no power this time around, and the reason is that they’re going to vote for McCain anyway.  I doubt you’ll hear them admit that, but it’s true.  No matter about those pesky McCain positions that cause conservatives to bite their fingernails (such as the environment, immigration, and campaign finance reform), he’s still a thousand miles right of Barack Obama and everyone knows it.  He’s a warrior on national defense, he won’t raise taxes to pay for huge entitlement programs, and he’ll appoint conservative judges.  Look at Obama’s voting record and promises, and tell me that conservatives are going to pick him over McCain.  Yeah right.

Conservatives won’t be voting for Obama, and they won’t be sitting out.  They’re stuck with McCain.  He’s their man.  And they’re incredibly fortunate to have him, because there’s no way someone like Romni or Huckabee would have a chance to win in November.  McCain will probably still lose, but Romni or Huckabee wouldn’t even have come close.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am someone who agrees with Obama’s positions socially.  Nevertheless, I would vote for McCain a thousand times over.  The ramifications of an Obama presidency with a Democratic Congress are simply scary.  And if it scares someone like me, I know it frightens the hell out of conservatives.

John McCain needs to assure America that he’ll keep it safe from Islamic terror and lower gas prices; that’s how he can win.  He has to give up that ridiculous reluctance to drill in ANWR, select a running mate with economic and business credentials, and buckle down for a fight.  Conservatives are going to embrace McCain anyway; he should divert his energy to the moderates and independents that are going to decide this election.  Period.

Why It’s Wrong to Believe in Evolution

It is quite common for people to say, “I don’t believe in evolution because it’s just a theory, not a fact.”  There are two things wrong with a statement like that.

The first is the use of the word “believe.”  Evolution is not a belief to be picked up or discarded based on whether you like it or not.  This may seem like I’m splitting semantic hairs, but I think it’s important.  You don’t have to believe or disbelieve in evidence.  Either you think it’s sufficient or you don’t.  It’s better to say that you accept or reject the evidence for evolution.  Believing is something you do when there is no evidence.

The critical point here, however, is the blurring of “theory” and “fact.”  People who say things like that have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is.  Scientists don’t use the word “theory” like we do.  The theory of evolution is not the same as a football fan’s theory that his team is going to win the Superbowl.  The theory is a hypothesis that has been tested, modified, tested again, and proven to make accurate predictions.  Gravitation is “just a theory.”  Relativity is “just a theory.”  That doesn’t mean that they are weak or doubtful, and it doesn’t mean that fifty percent of scientists think they’re wrong.

Michael SHermer, the editor of Skeptic magazine and author of Why Darwin Matters, puts it best.  He has explained that theories and facts are not to be confused as matters of degree, as if a fact is an improved version of a theory.  Facts are the world’s data, and theories are tools to explain what the data means.

Evolution is a superalative example of a good scientific theory.  Nothing in modern biology and genetics makes sense without it.  It has been verified repeatedly in multiple fields of science such as embryology, biology, paleontology, genetics, and geology.  Of course there is still debate and questions, since this is a necessary component of science, but evidence of the mechanism of evolution has never been stronger.  The theory has withstood and answered every challenge ever posed to it.  It has made accurate predictions, which is the most important test for a theory.

In essence, people must understand that designing evolution as a “theory” is not a sign of weakness.  It is not indicative of doubt in the scientific community.  The evidence for all life on earth sharing common ancestry is as powerful as the evidence for nuclear fusion occurring in the core of the sun.  Whether you call evolution “just a theory” or a “hard fact” is simply a philosophical question.