Prison Story, Part Eleven

The other day, two guys got in an argument about prisoners judging one another for their crimes.  The culmination was one of them telling the other that his crime (dealing drugs) was just as low as rape.  The guy who said that was invited to a private place to deal with the matter physically, but realizing he had went too far and was not prepared to fight, he backed down.  The other slapped him in full view of dozens of people, and still he backed down.  That was the end of it.

I listened to the guy rationalize why he allowed that to happen to him.  He said that it wasn’t worth it, that getting into a fight would have perhaps delayed his release date, that he doesn’t care what others think about him.  He was lying.  The real reason – the only reason – he backed down from the challenge and did nothing when he was slapped was fear.  I’ve seen it a thousand times in this place.  I’m not a mind-reader, but it’s easy to see when someone’s trying to hide their fear.

I look at it like this:  If you truly believe that fighting in the wrong answer and you don’t want to get in trouble, then that’s your decision.  By all means, make it and stick to it.  I have nothing against that stance.  But if fear is the only reason, and you’re lying to yourself and others, then you need to sstop being a whining baby and man up.  There are worse things than a black eye.  There are even worse things than having to do thirty more days in prison because you throw down with a guy in the cell.

Perhaps the reason for fighting was frivolous.  Perhaps in this case, the guy brought it on himself by opening his mouth about such a touchy topic.  Perhaps out there on the streets, a real man always walks away from a fight.

In prison, it’s a matter of whether you want to allow yourself ot be victimized.  I fyou allow a man to slap you and do nothing about it, you’re almost certainly causing yourself more trouble than a simple fight (which most likely would have neatly resolved the issue, win or lose).  This place is full of vultures and bullies:  They’re all going to see you as a victim.  They’re going to think they can do anything to you and get away with it.  After all, if you didn’t put your hands up when someone slapped you, you’re not going to do it when someone steals from you, for example.

If a prisoner wants to truly rationalize his decision of whether or not to fight, he must take this into account.  Maybe you have to fight over something that would normally be silly.  Maybe you just catch someone in a bad mood and get into an argument of whether Mary Kay LeTourneau is a child molester or not (I once saw a fistfight over that).  But whether the original reason is stupid or not, once you’re in that far, you may have to suck it up and start fighting anyway, if only because it’s the smartest move in the long run.

Full-Fledged Socialism

Surprise, surprise: This morning I heard that Obama’s new brilliant plan for America is to limit executive pay for Wall Street firms and banks.  Not just the black holes that have taken federal bailout money, mind you, but all Wall Street firms and banks.  That’s right, a bunch of non-producing politicians are going to take control of private corporation and enforce rules about how much a CEO can make.  I don’t know why people are so shocked by this; Obama talked about it in his book The Audacity of Hope.  He’s in favor of limiting salaries, and he even presumes to know “how much is too much” for private citizens.

To me, this is thievery.  Our president and these congressional politicians are thieves.  They have no moral, legal, or economic right to do something like this, but I guess that doesn’t matter to them.  All they need to do is get around the “legal” part, and that will be that.  No one cares.  Everyone loves Obama.  And the polls show that most Americans are perfectly okay with limiting how much those rich bastards can make.

I’m a Star Wars geek, and nowadays looking at what’s happening in this country reminds me of Senator Amidala’s response to the rise of the empire:  “This is how liberty dies – to thunderous applause.”

This is no longer a joke or a Republican campaign tactic.  Remember back during the election, when “socialism” was the big buzz word, the scare tactic supposedly used by Republicans and to warn America of an Obama administration?  Now it’s no longer an exaggeration.  We’re nationalizing the finance industry, the banking industry, health care; the government already owns most of the mortgages in this country.  We’re moving toward real live socialism.  And if this keeps up, we’re all going to find out what that means for America.

I have a question for anyone out there who would even care about how much a free citizen of this country makes: “Why?”  They’re not stealing from you.  They’re not scamming you.  By them making more, you don’t make any less as a consequence.  So, why?  I really, honestly, cannot understand.  Is it as simple as petty jealousy?  Do you think you deserve the money theyearned?  Why, because you can whine and pout more effectively than they can?  Because you can mobilize lots of similar-thinking people to elect politicians to cater to you?

Here’s a wild suggestion:  How about you go out and earn your own money?

Pelosi and Immigration

This morning I heard Nancy Pelosi talking about immigration, and surprise, she’s about as crazy with this topic as she is with everything else.  This time she’s promising job protection for illegal immigrants.  Yes, in the middle of this ugly recession, let’s promise job protection to people who came here illegally, don’t pay taxes, and drain the health care system and public school system of money.  Why not?  Obama apparently wants to include them in his universal health care plan, so why not job protection too?

I love how Comrade Pelosi and her ilk always use these stories about “separating kids from their parents in the middle of the night.”  As if the American government is snatching people from their homes, systematically rounding up illegal aliens and leaving lost children behind.  Give me a freaking break.  We can’t even keep track of or deport illegal criminal aliens.  Why are these hyped-up tales of separating kids from their parents always anecdotal tidbits used by liberal Democrats in attempt to sound passionate?

Then Comrade Pelosi asked, “What kind of value system is this?”

Fair enough.  What kind of value system is it for people who illegally enter this country to be given the benefits and rights of people who immigrated lawfully?  What kind of value system gives taxpayer dollars to people who don’t pay taxes and shouldn’t even be here in the first place?  This is not about being unsympathetic to people who just want to make a better life; I understand that perfectly.  And if I were a doctor, I couldn’t turn away a sick kid who happened to be an illegal immigrant.  The point is that there has to be law:  We can’t just leave the country open to anyone who wants to enter.  There has to be a system.  Society can’t function without one.

Look, America loves immigrants.  All you have to do in this country is work hard and be fair, and you can do or be anything you want.  You can be elected to public office; you can change policy.

Just follow the rules.  Don’t come here illegally.  Take the tests, learn the language, and immigrate with the full support of all of America.  And you also might not want to march in crowds of thousands waving foreign flags, whining about the laws that you broke, demanding rights that are for American citizens.  At least you have to see the irony in that, right?

And perhaps Comrade Pelosi can step off her private jet for five minutes and remember that she was elected to represent Americans.

Atheistic Religion, Part Two

I have to thank Russ for responding reasonably to the first part of this post, which I basically spat out frustration over the fact that so many Christians seem to think atheism is a religion or a belief.  I suppose it is for some atheists – and I disagree with them.  Ideally, however, atheism is a position.  This is not to split hairs over semantics; it is the position that you’re suspending belief in God until some evidence comes along.  There is no belief there, no leap of faith, and no a priori assumption other than supernatural claims should require some evidence.

That being said, I haven’t precluded myself from hearing any evidence of God, any more than I’ve precluded myself from hearing any evidence of Big Foot or extraterrestrial life.  Show me evidence for any of those things, and I’ll become a believer.  I try to be fair.  I apply the same standard across the board, no special exceptions for any particular claim.  As always, I welcome evidence.  Just because I haven’t seen any yet doesn’t mean I won’t tomorrow, or five years from now.

First, Russ, I am well aware that the Old Testament laws are not for all Christians, and even that many of them were specifically made for only the Israelites of that time.  I think you’re missing my point, which is this: Why should anyone worship a god who did those things?  To give one example, in Judges 21 God orders the Benjamites to kill all of their enemies; every man, woman, and child, except the young virgin girls, whom they are to take as “wives.”  Think about it: The Benjamites murdered babies.  They raped virgin girls after killing their whole families.  In my opinion – and I fully admit that my moral opinion is all this comes down to – this is pure evil.  If God truly ordered this, I would as soon spit in His face as worship Him.  This is not rebellious bravado or ostentatious invective.

I also don’t think it makes any sense to say that because God is perfect and holy, He can do these things and they will be moral.  If whatever God does is moral, it means that morality is simply an arbitrary designation.  As I said before, we would have to praise God as holy for anally raping ten-year-old girls if He decided that was moral.

To quote Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: “In saying, therefore, that things are not good according to any standard of goodness, but simply by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory; for why praise him for what he has done, if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the contrary?”

Second, Russ, I reject the Bible and the existence of God notbecause I don’t understand or haven’t experienced what you’re talking about, but because it has failed to meet any reasonable expectation of evidence (so far, that I’m aware of).  I was once a Christian.  I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior.  I was involved in a church youth group when I was younger: I was a kid who knocked on doors, handed out pamphlets, and tried to let others know of the Gospel.  My faith was a s real to me as it is to any of you out there.

Thirdly, your knowledge of scripture seems a bit muddled, Russ.  The fourth commandment is the one concerning the Sabbath, not the law about honoring one’s parents, as you said in the comment you left on Atheistic Religion.

Finally, the Bible is not “foolish and archaic” in my mind.  I have never denied Christianity’s influence on the moral development of our species, its place in history, its contribution to Western civilization and law, or the fact that it is a positive thing in the lives of many, many people.  However – and this is the crux – none of that means God is real.

Laura Ingraham’s No Fat Zone

On The O’Reilly Factor the other day, guest host Laura Ingraham played the clip from her radio show in which she mocked Meghan McCain by saying (with a vapid, Girls Gone Wild voice): “I’m Meghan McCain and I wanted to be on The Real World, but they like, don’t accept plus-size models.”  Then Ms. Ingraham looked at the camera, gave a smile, and said, “I did not call Meghan McCain fat!”

Yes, Ms. Ingraham, you did.  For you to sit there and claim otherwise, to claim that you’re a victim of his left-wing bias and “selective liberal outrage” is pathetic.  And bringing up nasty things that have been said about you and jokes about Rush Limbaugh’s weight?  What does that have to do with anything?  Are you saying that you were justified in mocking a woman’s body because of those things?  Isn’t that an admission that you did indeed call her fat?

This has to be the most mind-boggling bit of spin I’ve ever seen on The O’Reilly Factor … and by the host no less.  O’Reilly should be ashamed.  If he doesn’t call Ms. Ingraham out on this, I’ll lose a lot of respect for him.  You play a tape of yourself making fun of a woman’s weight, then say you didn’t five seconds later.  I won’t call Ms. Ingraham a liar.  I have something worse in store for her: This was Clintonesque.  “It depends on what the definition of ‘plus-size’ is.”

Ms. Ingraham’s wounded protests were hilarious.  “Come on, I’ve said before that Meghan McCain was an attractive woman!”  She also let us know that she supports the plus-size body type and has blasted popular culture for idolizing the anorexic look in young women.  Check this out:  Didn’t Ms. Ingraham saying, “I didn’t call her fat; I’ve spoken against the Hollywood rail-thin image for years!” sound suspiciously like someone saying, “I’m not a racist; I have black friends?”

Stop trying to clean it up, Ms. Ingraham.  You made fun of the girl’s weight.  It’s not a big deal; your show has an entertainment element to it.  It was satirical.  Hell, I thought the mocking voice (painting Ms. McCain as shallow and stupid) was more insulting than saying she was plus size.  I don’t think you need to apologize or throw yourself at the mercy of the liberal whiners.  I don’t think you were trying to attack a woman’s physical appearance to shut down her political views or any such nonsense.  Just admit you poked fun at her weight!  Don’t insult us by thinking we’re actually going to swallow that line of Orwellian bullshit you tried to pass off.

Bristol Palin the Role Model

So Bristol Palin is splitting from the father of her child, deciding not to get married after all.  And the left-wingers and Sarah Palin haters are creaming their little panties over it.  I swear, they act like this is an intellectual vindication of their position, a battle won.  Ha-ha, they say, conservatives like Sarah Palin preaching about traditional families are full of it!  They’re hypocrites and stuffy old losers!

Have they ever stopped to think about Sarah Palin’s own devotion to her family?  I mean, it would be different if she was carrying on six affairs and snorting meth with transsexual hookers.  Thatwould make her a hypocrite.  Instead, these haters find nothing wrong with Sarah Palin, so they indirectly attack through her daughter.  Her teenaged daughter, might I add, a girl who doesn’t deserve to hear imbeciles chortling with glee over her troubles.

Am I missing something here?  Are they saying that any parent with a child who makes an irresponsible choice is now disallowed from having a say?  Does Sarah Palin’s message about the value of traditional families become invalidated because of what her daughter did?  I fail to see the hypocrisy involved here.  I fail to see the irresponsibility on the governor’s part.  Kids do irresponsible things, period.  The kids of relatively perfect parents still do irresponsible things.  It happens.

You know what I did when I was eighteen?  My mom tried to instill in me a sense of responsibility, a sense of morality, notions about safe sex, drunk-driving; the whole shebang.  And yet I went out and committed robbery and killed a man.  Perhaps my mom should be called a hypocrite for being anti-murder and anti-robbery?  If she’d been a guidance counselor telling kids that robbery is wrong, would my crime have made her message a load of shit?

Whatever the political issues with Sarah Palin and the personal issues with her family, I think that her and her daughter are doing okay.  I saw Bristol Palin during her interview, and she wasn’t a whining, capricious little brat, cavorting through the world without a care for anything but herself and her iPhone.  Admittedly, not a very high standard, but I heard her taking responsibility for her actions.  She had the intelligence (and the guts) to say that abstinence-only is not realistic for teenagers.  And she has the poise to say no to a marriage that will almost certainly fail and leave her life (and the life of her kid) in shambles.  Good for her.

No Lap Dances Without Taxation

Is it a coincidence that politicians are heavy on the moralizing when they need money?  I hear more about “sin” taxes nowadays since we have a president and Congress that seems bent on bankrupting America.  When the money’s low, suddenly politicians are whipped up into a fervor about punishing the “sins” and getting some revenue out of it.

The latest is now the “pole tax” being tossed around, an extra tax that might be levied against strip clubs.  Forget the mind-numbing puns; here’s what I thought was funny:  The politicians have drummed up a new low in fear-mongering and moralizing.  This time, it’s because “sex workers should be held responsible for their part in damaging society and harming the children of the nation.”  I even heard mention of the underground sex trade – the newest chimera of fear.

Yes, brilliant.  Strippers are responsible for harming America’s youth and perpetuating the sale of underage girls as sex slaves.  I’m sure no one will mind them, if we start taxing them more.  I’m sure it’s only out of concern for the moral fabric of our country and the safety of the little ones.  I’m sure it’s absolutely notbecause a bunch of looter politicians have wasted all our money to the point where they can’t even justify their ridiculous deficit anymore, so they need more money.  No, it couldn’t be that.

Look, there is certainly an illicit sex trade, and its purveyors should be dealt with mercilessly.  But to grandstand about it is akin to hyping up fears about teenage assassins for hire (I saw a news segment on that, if you can believe it).  And to justify demonizing strip clubs “for the children” is as pathetic as it is insulting to the intelligence of children.  If you want to help the youth of this nation, start by not treating them like morons.  Start by not making the problem about your perceptions.  And if you want to attack immorality and irresponsible behavior in this country, start by kicking the tax-and-spend looters out of Washington.  (How are parents supposed to teach their kids about the value of money and financial responsibility when our national leaders are Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi?)

There is no stripper lobby.  No one’s going to stand up for strip clubs being unfairly taxed, and anyone who does will be seen as a snake hiding a slimy smile and a fetish for Asian chicks with big boobs.  The “pole tax” is nothing more than the latest and lowerst attempt by looter politicians trying to find easy prey.

Atheism Directly From the Mouth of Babes

I saw a segment on The O’Reilly Factor about how atheism is gaining popularity in America.  Apparently a repeatable poll puts the percentage of nonbelievers as high as fifteen percent, when it was less than ten percent in 1990.  I’m not sure how to interpret some of these studies, since most other polls put “true” atheists around only seven percent, and then you have these people who say that they’re “spiritual” but don’t identify with any religion.

Regardless, I love how so many conservatives and traditional guys like O’Reilly see a decline in religion (the main point being a decline in both Catholicism and Protestants) in two ways.  Number one, they think growing atheism is the root of the cause of a perceived breakdown of morality in this country (as if we’re a nation full of morons who need the Bible to tell us that – surprise! – it’s a bad to commit crimes).  Number two, they blame growing atheism on some ephemeral concerted movement that ties together secularism, evolution, the sexual revolution, youth culture, and whatever else they can drum up to scare the good old folks in the heartland.

The view these people have goes something like this:  Human beings are naturally lazy, selfish, sexually deviant, and devoid of responsibility.  A divine moral source (Christianity) is what keeps this at bay and saves mankind.  Now that belief in this divine moral sense is fading, people are reverting to their natural states.

Perhaps this is a stretch, but I don’t think it’s a straw man argument.  This is the message I hear all the time from conservative Christians, and it’s fundamentally the entire point of the Jesus-redemption story.  It’s also pathetic and insulting.  Their entire worldview rests on the false (I certainly think) premise that human beings are shit.  By reminding you of the astounding fact that you and everyone else have done bad things in their life, they basically guilt-trip you into joining their boring cult.  Then they piss and moan when people in a free society discover that it’s nothing more than a boring cult.

On the show, O’Reilly pointed out that atheism is more popular among kids, apparently because, “it’s cool and hey, no morals!”  How out of touch is O’Reilly?  Does he really think teenagers are out there saying, “I don’t believe in God because then I can do whatever I want and there’s no consequences?”  Most kids aren’t religious for one main reason: It’s rebellious.  It’s no different from listening to music with profanity in it.  Use your brain, O’Reilly.

However, I like to think the kids rebel against religion and the idea of God because they’re honest.  They don’t really care about the stereotypical social obligation respectable adults are supposed to have.  They’re okay with saying, “Fuck this, religion is boring and outdated, and it can’t tell us anything interesting about the real world.”  They know better than their clueless parents who try to drag them to church, as if wasting a few hours every Sunday morning is going to help you accomplish something meaningful.

I remember Mark Twain writing about the irony of people dragging themselves to church, most fully admitting that it’s tedious but necessary, and yet they envision heaven to consist of more of the same: Constant praise of the deity.  Bow and scrape all your life to something you tolerate only because you think it’s required, and your reward is exactly the same thing, only for eternity.  The discerning youth of America know a raw deal when they see it.

Don’t Mess with Texas’s Ignorance

From what I heard on the news this morning, the forces of reason should be gearing up for another fight over evolution in public schools.  Call it Dover, Pennsylvania, Part Two.  Of course, if the Dover case is any indication, the word “fight” is a bit of a misnomer.  It was more like an intellectual slaughter, with the good guys (i.e., reasonable Americans who believe in the first amendment and understand the difference between science and magic) trouncing the bad guys (i.e., bumbling dipshits like Bill Buckingham who lied about his blatant attempts to have Genesis taught in public school science classes).  We shouldn’t feel good about this, though; it’s like beating up a mentally impaired kid.

Now the Texas Board of Educatino is possibly going to change the science curriculum’s focus on evolution to “challenging the theory and discussing its weaknesses.”  It’s funny how these Christians (I don’t know for sure, but I’m going to go out on al imb and say the school board members who came up with this idea are Christians) try to appeal to reasonableness: “Oh, we just want kids to see both sides.  We want them to hear the evidence and evaluate it.  Isn’t that the heart of science?  Inquiry and investigation?”

Sure, why not?  Any definition of science that fits their religious notions will do, apparently.  Let’s apply this across the board.  How about when the kids learn about the theory of relativity, the focus is on challenging it and pointing out its weaknesses?  How about the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of disease?

The reason no sane scientist would advocate teaching the theory of relativity to kids by focusing on its weaknesses is not because they don’t exist.  Relativity, while extremely powerful, still fails to be reconciled with quantum theory, for example.  No theory is above reproach.  Science does indeed welcome challenge.  But it does not welcome personal feeling – unless you can back up those feelings with testable evidence.

Similarly, evolution certainly has unanswered questions.  But like relativity, it has proven itself to be an extremely useful explanatory model with astounding predictive power across several independent fields of science.  Few theories in science are as powerful, well-tested, and frankly, fat with evidence, as evolution.  There is no more reason to pay particular attention to its “weaknesses” than there is to the weaknesses in atomic theory of matter.  Sure, if the creationists want to be fair, we can apply their brand of court-enforced “science” to that theory.  Shouldn’t the kids hear the “other side” and decide for themselves whether neutrons, protons, and electrons are real?

Some ideas are so well established and supported by evidence that to teach the “other side” as a viable alternative would be absurd.  Presenting both sides is fair, but only when both sides are equally supported by evidence and subject to the rigors of scientific testing.  Presenting a Bible-inspired creation event as a reasonable alternative to evolution is not only intellectually fraudulent, it’s also a clear violation of the establishment clause.

I don’t know why I’m saying this, since anyone who says “evolution is only a theory” or doesn’t see the irony in a term like “creation science” won’t understand a word of it anyway.  Suffice it to say that we should leave science to the scientists, and Christian creationists should stick to what they do best: Bowing and praying for answers while science works for – and keep finding – those answers.

How Christians Respect the Institute of Marriage

I was just reading Ann Coulter’s objection to gay marriage: “The purpose of marriage is not to sanctify the intense feelings people have for each other.  The purpose is to harness men’s predatory biological impulses into a paired heterosexual relationship directed toward raising children.  Mankind has never concocted a better scheme for civilizing men than marriage.”

Wow, who said romance was dead?

First of all, what does this notion even have to do with gay marriage?  Even granting Ms. Coulter the point that marriage is necessary to civilize men, how would allowing gay people to marry harm that?  If gay marriage is legalized, are straight men going to suddenly start saying, “Well, the gays are getting married, so the only logical response is for me to forget marriage and go our and screw as many chicks as I can?”

Second, I find this view about men’s “predatory biological impulses” to be a little disconcerting.  It smacks of biological destiny and reductionism.  Ms. Coulter is a critic of evolution and a creationist who expresses distaste at the thought of humans evolving from “lower” creatures, so this is a surprising attitude.  Creationists often complain that evolution demotes men to base, soulless creatures who crawled out of the muck, but here we have a good example of a Christian lowering men to mere beasts that require a “scheme” to control their primal urges.  I think I detect a whiff of projection here: What kind of men is Ms. Coulter used to dealing with?

Hers seems a rather grim view, vaguely reminiscent of communist propaganda that portrayed men as ugly creatures who can only struggle to achieve mediocrity.  It also appears to be an area where Ms. Coulter clasps hands with radical feminists who say similar things about men being nothing more than brutish pussy hounds.  And what about personal responsibility?  This kind of talk just gives some men a smirking excuse to say, “I couldn’t help it babe; my ‘biological impulses’ made me screw your sister.”

I’m an atheist who thinks men do indeed have a propensity – designed by natural selection – to spread their genes around.  But I stay far away from the naturalists view of ethics.  Just because something is natural doesn’t mean it’s moral.  Natural selection also gave us a cerebral cortex, and thus the tool of reason, and thus moral responsibility.  Whether I care more about spreading my genes around or being faithful to one woman in marriage is an ethical decision that I make, on my own.  I think the claim that marriage is a “concocted scheme” necessary to civilize men – and that it’s purpose is not the sanctification of love – says more about Ms. Coulter’s views on marriage and the opposite sex than it does about the average man’s.

Perhaps Ms.  Coulter beleives men have “predatory biological impulses” because of a story involving talking snakes and apples, but either way, it amounts to the same thing: Since when did we have to set such a low expectation for human beings?