Politics

Legalization = condonation?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

There was a point in time wherein the idea of arguing for the repeal of criminal sanctions for actions was laughable. After all, in a free country like the United States, why should we argue for something to be made legal? Shouldn’t the argument focus on why something should be outlawed?

Along these lines, conservatives and the Republican Party are *not*, repeat, NOT for small government and never have been. Enacting criminal laws means that people will end up in jail. There is a lot of cost to enforcing laws, from the arrest, to the trial and sentencing, to maintaining the prison population. Democrats want to take your money and redistribute it to people of lesser fortunes instead of helping them break their dependence on government handouts, or spend it on pointless, wasteful government programs. Republicans want to take your money so they can lock people up.

But I digress.

Whenever the argument regarding legalization of anything comes up, one of the first things that gets shouted in response is along the lines of this: if we legalize [insert ill here], we’re sending a signal to society that it’s okay to do that. The “legalization = condonation” argument is rather typical of social conservatives. Christian conservatives like to argue against the legalization of a lot of things and the criminalization of even more things by citing some odd reference to God, as if the criminal laws of the United States must reflect laws in the Bible or the United States will be utterly annihilated in a torrent of fire and brimstone reflective of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament.

The one thing that’s rather interesting about this as well is that conservatives say they are for personal liberty, yet they argue against the legalization or for the criminalization of many things using societal arguments. I’m sorry, but you cannot stand for personal liberty and use arguments scoped to society to argue for the enactment or continuation of criminal sanctions. When someone starts scoping their arguments to society at large, personal liberty will almost always be restricted in the name of “protecting society”. Rarely is this a good thing.

Now is legalizing something the same as condoning it? Hardly.

To understand this better, let’s first look at dictionary definition of “condone”, from Dictionary.com1condone. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged.:

–verb (used with object), -doned, -don·ing.

  1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
  2. to give tacit approval to
  3. to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.

Let us first look at the first and third definitions in this list. By removing criminal sanctions, are we disregarding or overlooking that which was previously criminal? Hardly. Are we pardoning or forgiving it, excusing it? Look at the pro-life movement to see the answer to that question with regard to abortion.

However by removing criminal sanctions, are we giving “tacit approval” to that which was previously criminal? No. Again, one need look no further than those who call for bans on cigarettes, abortion, and all kinds of things which are, at least as of the time of this writing, legal.

Instead by removing criminal sanctions, the People, by way of the government, recognize that the proper course of action regarding certain actions is not the criminal process. Legalizing something does not mean you are going to sit by and let something continue to happen. It just means you won’t throw someone in jail for doing it.

Ask yourself this: should someone who smokes a joint at the end of the day before going to bed be thrown in jail? What about an unmarried man (or woman, for that matter) who solicits the services of a prostitute? Should they really be thrown in jail? Is that really the best course of action? Can you think of anything else that is currently illegal that just makes you go “why does the government even care”?

The government need not, and should not, be involved in all aspects of life and human behavior.

Along the same lines of the “legalization = condonation” argument is this: “You just want it legal so you can do it”. Aside from illicit substances, prostitution is one area where this argument tends to surface with the vigor capable of lifting a steamship. Arguments against the legalization of prostitution are, in most cases, absolutely shallow. For example, women calling for legalizing prostitution may be asked by men (predominantly) and women how much they would charge for sex or certain sex services. This is the “you want it legal so you can do it” argument at its highest level of disgust, because it presumes that women want prostitution to be legal so they can become prostitutes without fear of being arrested. While some might, it is highly unlikely that all women who want to see prostitution legal want to do it themselves.

The response to men calling for the legalization of prostitution is beyond insulting. I’ve personally been told that I want prostitution to be legal so I can “buy a woman”, “objectify women”, and the statements only get worse from there. The absolute worst, most shallow and disgusting argument I have ever heard is this: “so you want to pay a woman so you can rape her?” That’s right, there are people (both men and women) who think that prostitution is “consensual rape”. That’s right: consensual rape, consenting to rape. You can find some of these people on YouTube. Their arguments really are quite disgusting.

The one thing about the arguments against legalized prostitution is simply that people presume that no woman (or man) would ever want to do that, and any who do did not enter the trade of their own free will. Yet there are plenty of women (and men) who are in the sex trade — prostitution, pornography, and the like — because (and I know this may be hard to believe) they genuinely like it.

One person on YouTube has gone to greater lengths than really should be necessary to argue in favor of legalizing prostitution: xxxThePeachxxx. She’s created a three-part series of videos (embedded below) about prostitution and why it should be legal. I invite and recommend you watch all three if you’ve never seen them before as she is really quite thorough in her approach.

Now there are all kinds of things that are illegal today that really aren’t any of society’s or the government’s business. This includes, but is certainly not limited to:

  • adultery — oh yes, in some States you can be arrested for cheating on your spouse
  • fornication — apparently in some States it’s illegal to consent to sex if you’re not married
  • prostitution — fuck for free and you’re fine (presuming the absence of fornication laws), but as soon as money changes hands it’s a crime
  • sodomy2This is not limited to homosexual penile-anal penetration between two men. Many States classify sodomy as any sexual act other than penile-vaginal penetration, such as oral sex and anal sex. In some States, such as the Commonwealth of Virginia, such acts may be punishable as a felony.
  • recreational and medicinal use of illicit substances, such as marijuana
  • gambling (both online and offline)
  • purchasing various items on Sundays
  • “obscene” materials, including pornography and erotic literature

and the list can go on and on and on and on and on… Ask yourself this question: for the items on this list, is it really any of your business or the business of the government if I or anyone else, whether you know them or not, engages in these activities? Absolutely not.

Instead the only argument that can really be made for making these particular actions illegal is that “it’s better for society to criminalize them”. Give me a break.

You don’t have to approve of these actions to legalize them. Instead what you have to understand is the proper role of government. The government is not supposed to be in the business of handing down morality upon the people. Instead the government is supposed to be in the business of being out of everybody’s way so we can do what we want so long as we are not violating anyone else’s rights.

And be wary whenever someone says that a certain law should be passed “because it’s good for society”. This argument can be made for damn-near anything, and anyone who tries to make that kind of argument is, much more often than not, talking about enacting a law that will infringe on your liberties.

References[+]

Life/Marriage

Standards of commitment

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

I have friends who are both married and not. I have a friend who, last year, divorced her husband after he abandoned her. Let me ask this one question of everyone out there: who sets the standard of what shows commitment? There seems to be some unwritten, unpublished, but oft-quoted standard of what demonstrates commitment, and if, typically, the guy falls short, then he’s not actually committed.

Here are some of the things I’ve come across:

  • He’s not committed to you until he actually marries you, but
  • If the couple chooses to elope, or one of the couple wants to elope, there isn’t actually any commitment
  • If he doesn’t spend the equivalent of two (or three) month’s wages or salary (before or after taxes and deductions?) on an engagement ring, then he’s not really committed to you

and now, the latest one I’ve heard that comes from Prince William’s latest decision:

  • If he doesn’t wear a wedding ring, or stops wearing one, he’s not committed to the marriage

Ugh…

So someone, please, tell me who in the hell came up with any of these "standards" of showing commitment. I would really like to know so I can sit them down and set them straight. I wrote earlier on the fallacy of marriage being necessary to prove commitment (despite how many marriages each year ending in divorce?):

For some reason, many, many women have it in the back of their minds that

Marriage = Commitment

Even if you’ve been together for years, living together for most of that time, both of you are faithful to each other and talking about your future together, without the marriage certificate and the wedding rings, somehow the guy is not or has not committed? Somehow I find that very, very hard to believe, and downright insulting to say the least.

When my fiancée and I do get married, it is likely that neither of us will wear our wedding rings all the time. Does that mean we are not actually committed to each other? Indeed plenty of married couples who are perfectly committed to each other don’t wear their wedding rings all the time. Actually the last time I wore my wedding ring (I’ve worn one periodically since getting engaged) I think was when I had an in-person job interview about 2 1/2 years ago.

And after we are married, if I were to walk out of the apartment without the ring on my finger, she won’t worry or wonder if I’m fully committed or faithful. She trusts me and knows I will be faithful to her.

Now some do allow for an exception depending on profession. Not everyone is able to wear their wedding rings all the time because it would be dangerous to do so, and certain workplaces may require that the workers remove all jewelry: rings, bracelets, wristwatches, and necklaces or neck chains. Along those lines, certain hobbies that people undertake may not permit the wearing of jewelry or certain articles of clothing. For example my father likes to make things in his spare time and has a workshop on his farm. I hope he takes off his wedding ring before he starts working out there to avoid the possibility of it having to be cut off his finger. After all, safety first.

Let me put it this way, the ring doesn’t automatically mean the person is committed to the marriage. The sheer number of divorces per year should be a clear indication of this. And absent necessity for certain circumstances, if a married person chooses to not wear a wedding ring, it does not mean they are not committed to the marriage. The ring is, in my opinion, immaterial and is just another cultural relic from times past. It is not a commitment litmus test.

There are a lot of ways to show commitment within a marriage or relationship, but the oft-quoted standards don’t quite fit that bill. So what does?

While oft times it’s quite subjective and sometimes hard to pin down, I feel one thing above everything else shows commitment: the willingness to be honest. And I don’t mean honest to a degree, I mean completely honest. Now it is reasonable to withhold some information from your significant other so long as you are not being willfully dishonest. It is not necessary or practical to inform your significant other of everything, but you should not and cannot be willfully dishonest or deceitful if you are questioned about something. In general you need to be honest with each other about damn near everything, even if that honesty may provide for hurt feelings.

The glue that keeps relationships together is trust, and there is no agent better at dissolving that glue than dishonesty and deceit. And this applies to married and non-married relationships equally.

After all, as I’ve said before, there is nothing special about marriage. Marriage is nothing more than a legal status on your relationship that is recognized by the government. You can be committed without being married and you can be married without being committed to each other. Marriage does not make one committed, and neither do the oft-quoted standards.

Trust and honesty is what allows people to commit and stay committed. It doesn’t take a ring or a marriage certificate. All it takes is trust and the willingness to be honest.

Life/Technology

Gadgets you can keep

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Recently the New York Times ran an article by Sam Grobart called “Gadgets You Can Get Rid Of (or Not)” in which he severely downplays the usefulness of many gadgets still available, even if their demand is waning. In some cases he’s right, but let’s wait till the end to tally his score.

1. Desktop computer

He says: Lose it.

I say: Wait a second…

When you are deciding on a computer for your own personal use, evaluate all options available against what you need. For most people, it can be a toss-up between a laptop or a desktop. However if you are going to be doing any kind of video editing, spring for a desktop. If you’re going to be editing large images (such as from a >8 megapixel digital camera) spring for a desktop — the larger monitors that are available will make it a lot easier, and desktops have a lot more power to them.

What about games? If you’re a gamer, you already know that nothing beats a desktop computer, not even the consoles. Most hard-core gamers custom build their own systems, which brings up one major benefit of desktops over laptops: almost limitless upgradability. For most people this won’t be a major consideration, though.

Now if you need to be able to use a computer on the road, the laptop is pretty much your only option there. Laptops also generally use less power than desktops, though many desktop systems are rather energy-efficient, but they tend to also be inhibited system. Definitely shop around, though.

2. High speed Internet at home

He says: Keep it.

I say: Keep it.

You should definitely keep high speed Internet access at home even if you have access to the Internet through your mobile phone. The reason is simple: cellular and wireless signals are notoriously inconsistent and unreliable. Having a wired high-speed option coming to your home, either by cable or DSL, will save you a ton of headaches in the long run.

Plus if you get a wireless data card for your laptop, make sure to read the fine print on the contract: what is unlimited for your cellular phone may not be for the data card. Want to tether your cell phone to your laptop? That may cost extra too.

3. Cable TV

He says: Depends.

I say: Depends

My fiancée and I get away very well not having any premium television service coming into our living room. We are perfectly content waiting until shows appear online or on DVD to watch them. We don’t even connect an antenna to our television. You, however, may feel differently, so choose accordingly.

4. Point-and-shoot camera

He says: Lose it.

I say: Wait a sec…

Point and shoot cameras still have a lot of power and capability, and will always provide photo quality better than that of camera phones. Okay, much better than that of camera phones. If you actually care about photo quality, explore the P&S and SLR options available to find one that you feel suits you the best. Personally I have a Nikon D40 DSLR camera, and it’s not going anywhere.

Now while he does make a good point when he says that your point and shoot may not be handy when a photo op arises, are those ops the kind of moments where you will be planning ahead for quality pictures? If you’re going to be at a family gathering, will you be relying on your cell phone or a dedicated point and shoot or DSLR camera?

And to say that point and shoot cameras aren’t much better than cell phone cameras is just plain ignorance on his part. I’ve seen the differences and I’ve yet to see a phone camera that comes close to the level of quality you can get with a point and shoot, and none of them come even close to a DSLR.

5. Camcorder

He says: Lose it

I say: Not so fast…

Sam seems to think that the DSLR cameras available today can substitute well for a camcorder, but he also seems to think that you’re made of money. The DSLR cameras that are actually worth it that also shoot good HD video have 4 digits to their price tag before the decimal, yet you can get a good quality HD camcorder for around $300 to $400, possibly less, depending on where you go. Add on top the fact that a good quality point and shoot camera can be had for less than $200. Explore your options, of which your cell phone isn’t one of them.

6. USB Thumb drive

He says: Lose it

I say: Keep plenty of them

Once again a person not familiar with technology, or who hasn’t been familiar with it for long, is bringing up the cloud. And the cloud is a great resource: being able to store files online and access them from any Internet-ready device is a great convenience. But before you consider getting rid of writable DVDs, USB drives and external hard drives, here’s something to consider.

System administrators are very familiar with creating multiple points of redundancy in a system. Note this word: redundancy. When it comes to backing up personal digital affects, such as photos and documents, you want as much redundancy as possible.

First of all, online options have one very big weakness in them: the Internet connection. One may not always be available, and if one is not, you don’t have access to your files. Storing everything in the cloud exclusively requires you to relinquish immediate control of your digital property. USB drives are quick and easy destinations for small files such as copies of letters you’ve mailed and backing up your financial accounting system.

Now if you remember having to use floppy disks, you also remember this rule: never back up just once. With the reliability of today’s storage media this rule doesn’t entirely apply, but it’s still a helpful rule nonetheless, especially given that you can get a 4 GB USB thumb drive for $12, or an 8 GB drive for $20. Plus along with backing up small files quickly, you can also store digitally signed copies of a will or living will and keep them locked in a bank vault or fire-proof chest.

You will also always retain immediate access and control over your files without having to be at the mercy of a third party, passwords, and an Internet connection.

7. Digital music player

He says: Lose it (probably)

I say: Lose it

Virtually any cell phone today can play MP3s. For iTunes files you may have to… finagle things a little to convert them, but it’s doable. And virtually all phones (the iPhone being the only exception I can think of) have microSD slots on them, allowing the use of expandable media on which you can store your music collection. Don’t forget to keep backups, though.

Now I do have a 30 GB 5th generation iPod I bought a little over 5 years ago and will probably be keeping around until it dies. But when that happens, it’s not getting replaced with another iPod.

8. Alarm clock

He says: Keep it

I say: Keep it

When it comes to waking up in the morning, the cell phone alarm is a great thing to have, but nothing beats a backup. Plus having to answer both your alarm clock and cell phone alarm in the morning is a good way to help get you up on time.

9. GPS Unit

He says: Lose it

I say: Not so fast

GPS has been getting better and better as the years go by, and virtually every cell phone now has a GPS unit built in. Having a GPS unit separate of the one in your cell phone can still prove to be quite convenient, especially if you’re new to smart phones and haven’t quite figured out the turn-by-turn navigation on your cell phone, which also may not work if you’re also trying to talk while you’re on the road, depending on your cell phone provider.

10. Books

He says: Keep them (except cookbooks)

I say: Keep them (no exceptions)

Digital books may be the future, but they have two significant flaws. First, once you buy an e-book, you’re stuck with it. Hardcopy books you can resell at a used book store for credit toward other books. Not all books are available electronically either.

Second, the e-reader itself is an electronic device, meaning all kinds of things can happen to it. As Sam points out, books never run out of batteries, can withstand getting wet to a much farther degree, and they can be relatively inexpensive.

Sam says to lose the cookbooks, but I say to keep those too. They’re much easier to reference and virtually everyone has experience trying to cook from one. Plus recipes you find online can be printed out and kept in recipe boxes or, if you’re so inclined, in a Moleskine Passions recipe notebook or other kind of notebook. Plus would you rather walk into a kitchen with shelves lined with cookbooks and other assorted recipe books, or one with an iPad or e-reader and few, if any, cookbooks? The cookbooks tell you you’re walking into the kitchen of someone who loves to cook, and that’s the kind of kitchen I’d like to walk into.

Life/Religion

To all Christians

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 2 Comments

To all Christians,

On March 11, 2011, about a thousand citizens of Japan lost their lives when an earthquake erupted in the floor of the Pacific, sending a tsunami cascading not only toward Japan, but also toward Hawaii. In Japan there is concern about a nuclear power plant that sustained damage due to the tsunami. Thankfully the damage was nowhere near what it could have been.

However, if you feel the need or desire to have a Jerry Falwell moment and blame the tsunami on the fact that very little of Japan is Christian, then please do us all a favor and send yourself to your maker. This tsunami could have been far worse, both on Japan and the United States. Instead of trying to be a badass Christian by saying that this tsunami is part of “God’s wrath upon the world”, please keep your mouth shut. Contribute to the solution instead of trying to make the situation worse.

I dare any Christian to walk up to any family in Japan who lost a member due to this tsunami and say: “I’m sorry for your loss, but if he were a Christian, perhaps he would’ve been spared.” When you take the Falwell stance to tragedies such as the Japan tsunami, this is essentially what you are saying. You are blaming the dead for getting killed.

So to any Christians who feel like having thoughts similar to the comments Falwell and Robertson spewed forth after Katrina, please do us all a favor and take a long walk off a short pier. The world will be much better off without you.

Feminism/Life/Marriage

What’s in a name?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

A man marries a woman. Traditionally she takes his last name, but some woman opt against doing this for various reasons. Who knew that the idea of a woman not taking her husband’s name could create a firestorm? Okay, perhaps it’s inevitable. After all, this is the Internet and people will argue about anything on the Internet.

On The Stir, Janelle Harris penned an article that stirred up this debate.1Harris, Janelle. (2011, February 18). “Hyphenated married name fight heats up on Facebook“. The Stir.

In the article the author is debating on hyphenating her name with her future husband’s, with her name coming first: Harris-Williams. Her fiancé is apparently not impressed, saying that by doing so says that she is “wishy-washy about [her] commitment and (gasp) that [she’s] not ready to leave [her] family and be a wife.”

So here is my question: why the insistence that the wife take the husband’s name? Why not insist the husband take the wife’s name? I think there are a bunch of people wanting to claw my eyes out for even proposing such an idea, but it does happen. In 2008 screenwriter Kris Dyer took his wife’s name Myddleton when they married.2Harris, Sarah. (2008, August 17). “‘No one understood why I took my wife’s surname’.“. The Independent. The reaction was… less than according.

In my opinion that option is more logical in an evolutionary sense. It is the female of any sexually reproductive species (with some, but not many exceptions) that determines the fate of the species itself. And in human evolution there is ample evidence to suggest that women came first, contrary to the account in Genesis… wait a sec, did I just answer my question?

In the comments to Janelle’s article on its mirror location on Yahoo! Shine, Yahoo! user blackacidevil said this:

Your boyfriend or fiancee was right to state that you obviously lack the commitment necessary for a marriage. Men give up plenty to commit to one woman, to provide for her, etc. You should perhaps try to be honored that a man that is proud of his name and heritage would love you enough to GIVE you his name.

Talk about dated thinking. First most households have two incomes, meaning both the husband and wife work. So most husbands are not providing for their wives, instead both are providing for their mutual standard of living. Plus he’s not giving her his last name. It’s presumed that she will take it and when she keeps her maiden name or hyphenates, confusion seems to erupt.

Plus as Janelle says in her article, she wants a professional career that includes a doctoral degree. That career will require she make a name for herself, so it seems reasonable that she wants to keep her maiden name in part in that respect. After all her career is going to identify her separate of her husband.

A dear friend of mine (an immigrant from the Balkans) kept her maiden name when she married – didn’t take her husband’s last name at all. I know another person who has a PhD, but appears to have kept her maiden name as well. The marriage came after the degree as well. Then we have names such as Jada Pinkett Smith and Hillary Roddham Clinton where the woman continues to use her maiden name as part of her identity, even if she legally takes her husband’s last name.

Now several commenters on both Yahoo! Shine and The Stir noted that her last name is not actually hers anyway. That name is her father’s last name. On that mark, however, as others have noted, the husband’s last name is not the husband’s last name, but the husband’s father’s last name. But even that isn’t true. Your name predates you by… a lot.

I will be getting married later this year (if the stars align properly and nothing gets in the way). My fiancée has already started using my last name when talking to people, though she doesn’t sign anything with my last name as it’s not legally her name yet. If she wanted to keep her last name, in part or in full, I would have no issue whatsoever.

The one thing that few people seem to be realizing is that the name decision is typically one-sided. A lot of men seem to think that they have control in the matter, but that is not the case. It’s the woman’s choice.

A lot of people come up with a lot of reasons why the wife should take the last name exclusively, and, you know what, they’re all full of hot air, in my opinion. If the wife wants to take the last name, then great. If she doesn’t or wants to hyphenate, why is this such a big deal? Some women have good reason to keep their maiden names, such as women with careers and reputations that existed before getting married. But even they can decide to take the husband’s last name.

In my opinion it doesn’t entirely matter either way. It’s entirely a judgment call — on her part. And guys, if you feel offended that your fiancée doesn’t want to take your last name or wants to hyphenate, get over it.

Note: Please read my follow-ups to this article “Revisiting the practice of the wife taking the husband’s surname” and “Playing the marriage name game“

References[+]

Life

Aiming at the wrong target

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Imagine this scenario: you own a restaurant a couple blocks from the police station. It proves popular with the police department as well, and officers are frequent patrons. Then one night the police arrest one of your friends. You take issue with the arrest, and to protest it, you decide that the police are not welcome so long as they hold your friend in custody.

What do you think will happen? Will the police cave in and release your friend, or will your restaurant take a serious financial hit to the point where you’ll either reverse the policy or go out of business?

If you think the police would give in, you’re mistaken, yet that seems to be on the mind of one business owner in the Seattle-Tacoma area. Except instead of the police, the patrons are employees of the Transportation Security Administration. She seems to believe that by not allowing TSA members to patron her business that the TSA will change its policy.

Somehow I doubt that’s going to happen. Instead she’s just going to lose business. When one sacrifices one’s livelihood to prove a point, you neither prove your point nor have a livelihood.

Direct your anger at the source of the policy, not those whose job it is to take the policy and put it into practice. Taking your frustrations out on the TSA agents is like venting your frustrations about police during a police stop – an unwise idea to say the least. I’d like to see this business owner walk into an airport security checkpoint and mouth off to the TSA – I wonder at what amount the judge would set bail?

The one thing that everyone needs to bear in mind is that if you have a beef with the government, agents of the government are not the people to whom you should be venting your frustration or on whom you should be taking out your animosity. They are powerless. They must enforce the policy or they risk losing their job.

Mouthing off to police because they arrested a friend of yours will only get yourself arrested. Mouthing off or accosting TSA agents because you don’t like the policies they have little choice but to enforce will probably also land you in Federal court. Say your friend ends their lengthy unemployment streak by taking a job with the TSA? What then? Do you turn away their patronage at your restaurant? Make an exception?

If you have a problem with a particular policy, then avoid situations in which the policy becomes applicable and mouth off to your elected official – keeping it somewhat civil to avoid your words being misinterpreted as something else.

Your elected officials have the power to act on a policy. The lowly officer in the location where you encounter them does not. And turning away willingly paying customers simply because of who happens to employ them is a foolish decision. If a business owner were to turn away everyone who works for a company, organization, or agency with whom they disagree, they’d be out of business in no time.

Abortion

Are you really pro-life?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

A friend of mine from my youth provided a link to an interesting, and somewhat refreshing, blog post by a pro-life Christian:

Link — In Faith and In Purity: Are we really Pro-life?

In it the author, Valerie, points out some of the hypocrisy in the pro-life movement and tries to resolve the hypocrisy down to a central point. I’ll do my best to explain what I feel that point is herein, and Valerie, if you believe I have misinterpreted what you have said, feel free to provide a clarification.

The way she points out the hypocrisy that is seen in the pro-life movement is through a mock conversation. In this conversation, a pro-life woman protesting outside an abortion clinic verbally confronts a pregnant woman before she goes in. In the conversation it is revealed that the Christian pro-life protester is married, relatively well-off, has two kids, and to keep from having more children, her husband had a vasectomy. In response, the woman seeking an abortion says this:

So your [sic] telling ME, a non believer, with no husband, no money, and no house, I should trust in "God" to provide for me when it comes to children, and to welcome that unwanted child into my life with open arms because God loves children. And YOU a Christian who trusts in the God I do not know, who has a husband, and money and a home, and a car that works, wont even DARE let the chance of conception happen because your so scared of having more.

And Valerie is right that this is a display of hypocrisy. But how is it hypocrisy?

It comes down to two things: stating that God should be the decision maker in whether a child is conceived and born, and employing artificial methods to prevent pregnancy. Any contraceptive method can be seen as acting in conflict with God’s alleged plan for you. Even the rhythm method can be seen as this as well because you are purposefully ignoring your own innate instincts until such a time as the chance of conception is at its lowest.

This is especially pertinent given the language that was used in the argument. The woman says "we decided our family was complete", implying it was only the husband and wife. Did they pray on it? If they did, it wasn’t mentioned so we have to assume that they did not. As God wasn’t consulted, their actions could be seen as contrary to God’s plan because God wasn’t given the chance to provide any indication that He decided their family was complete.

Could the confrontation have gone differently in such a way that does not seem hypocritical? Maybe.

In response to the question "Is that all [the children] you plan to have?" the protester could have responded simply with "Yes, that is all we plan to have". Is there any implication of hypocrisy in that statement? Certainly not. The question was answered. But the pregnant woman could still reveal the hypocrisy of the protester with two questions: "Are you and your husband still sexually active?" and "What measures do you take to prevent pregnancy?"

The answer to the first question would be "Yes", and responding to the second question truthfully would reveal the hypocrisy and place the conversation back where we left it. The hypocrisy is out in the open, and the protester again looks foolish.

Now how could the hypocrisy have been avoided at all? This I think is the question that Valerie should have explored as it leads to the true answer to the question of whether you are really pro-life. Let us explore this.

Instead of the black and white "Choose life. Trust God." argument the protester was stating, the focus really needs to be on providing help. "Well turning them to God is helping them," I can already feel running through the minds of Christians reading this. And if you’re thinking that, you are missing the point.

In about 3 of 4 abortions, financial difficulties were given as the reason the woman was terminating the pregnancy — she just didn’t feel she could afford to raise the child.

Here we have an unwed, single, impoverished, pregnant atheist. Instead of engaging her only to say "Choose life. Trust God", you could instead say, "Let me hand you a business card to a private charity who can help you get whatever you need." And if you were to try to direct this woman to a charity that would try to proselytize to her, she may end up back at the clinic.

If she still says she doesn’t want the child, an alternative could be "Let me set you up with a lawyer who can help you arrange for an adoption when the child is born." You could also include in the argument that many couples looking to adopt children from unwed pregnant impoverished women also help cover prenatal medical expenses, in some cases in full.

Find a way to respond to their concerns regarding the pregnancy and you may be able to talk them into continuing to carry it.

I am pro-choice. The decision regarding an abortion is ultimately between a woman and her physician. However if the woman has expressed interest in obtaining an abortion, then within reason others can try to talk her out of that and toward other options. However this should occur without mentioning God, Christianity, or Christian principles because that has a remarkable capability of turning people off, in which case you’re only going to lose the argument and the chance to talk a woman out of an abortion.

As painful as it may be for you, if you want to convince women to not obtain an abortion, you need to leave God at the door. Bringing God into the argument will only cause you to be perceived as an older sibling getting daddy to back you up in a bid to get them into trouble. And if you want to successfully turn women away from abortion, that is not the impression to be giving.

So let’s get back to the question of whether you are really pro-life.

First let me ask you this: do you really think, in the bottom of your heart and in the depths of your soul, that protesting and proselytizing outside an abortion clinic is really helping to turn lots of women away from the clinics? To the best of my knowledge there is no unbiased evidence suggesting this. So protesting outside a clinic isn’t doing any good, especially if all you’re doing is shouting and proselytizing. ("Trust God. Choose life. Abortion is murder! You’re going to regret this!")

So if in your bid to curtail abortions you employ means that have no demonstrable evidence of obtaining the ends you seek, are you actually pro-life? If what you are doing is having little to no demonstrable effect on the incidence of abortions, in the United States or abroad, are you actually pro-life?

Valerie says this toward the end of her blog post:

BUT AT LEAST now I can say honestly to any woman who asks, I am pro-life. I will welcome any child God chooses to give me. And if you choose not to raise your child, I will gladly welcome that child into my home also.

She believes she could honestly say she is pro-life because her husband had his vasectomy reversed, despite there being an apparent irreversible negative effect on her husband’s fertility courtesy of the vasectomy. But even with him seeking the vasectomy, could she still have said she is pro-life without looking like a hypocrite?

Yes.

I volunteered as a counselor/client advocate at a crisis pregnancy resource center and all the while, my hope was that I could encourage, love on, and bring hope in the name of Christ to some of these hurting women.

While the actual effect of crisis pregnancy centers on the incidence of abortions in the United States is dreadfully difficult to measure, I would be lying if I said they had no impact. They are set up to help people. Some are established with the secondary purpose of proselytizing, but they are there in an attempt to give women an alternative.

Valerie took an active, peaceful role in turning women away from abortion, therefore she is pro-life. It is all in how you try to combat the incidence of abortion that makes you pro-life. Do you proselytize and preach, standing around holding signs and shouting, or do you actually try to help the women who are in need?

Are you really pro-life?

Capitalism/Driving/Libertarianism/Second Amendment

Self regulation

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

One of the primary principles of libertarianism, and also capitalism, is the idea of self regulation: people will naturally want to find a way to co-exist that is peaceful and cooperative. One of the more interesting aspects of self regulation is how this can occur, automatically, without law or law enforcement.

Both Democrats and Republicans are for big government. Do not be fooled by the Republican rhetoric — they are not for small government. Never have been, and never will be. And how can I say that? Quite simple: they do not like the way people self regulate.

The one example that is commonly used about why we need laws is actually the clearest example of why we do not: traffic.

For anyone who commutes on a regular basis, such as to work every morning and night, it becomes quite easy to see how the people can and do regulate themselves. This regulation on the road can be called a traffic pattern. The drivers of the individual cars will adjust their speed and driving behavior in such a way that people can get to their destination without being killed.

It is actually those who try to evade this self regulation that end up in car accidents, and it is the possibility of this consequence that brings people into regulation. Again all of this happens relatively automatically and without any signals or communication between the drivers on the road, and more importantly without law enforcement trying to regulate traffic.

When you introduce law enforcement into the mix, you interrupt this regulation in surprising ways because now instead of getting into a car accident, the drivers have a secondary fear that is more immediately conscious: the traffic citation. Introduce law enforcement into a well and self-regulated traffic pattern and you see a disruption of that regulation.

It is actually for this reason that, contrary to what many people believe, law enforcement will only look for outliers when it comes to traffic violations: people trying to speed through traffic or those driving erratically. Those who are trying to evade that self-regulation, or actively inhibit or impede it, are the ones who get pulled over, or worse.

On a grander scale with capitalism we have the idea of self-regulating markets. Yes markets can, and often do, regulate themselves without the "help" of the government. And like with law enforcement and the traffic pattern, when government tries to regulate a market beyond the normal definition of regulation, those markets are impeded, and at times in striking ways.

Now I said "beyond the normal definition of regulation", so what do I mean? Regulation in its natural sense means one thing only: to make regular. What many people have come to believe "regulate" means includes not only making regular, but restriction.

Proper government regulation is little more than the establishment of standards and processes: defining the monetary unit along with standard units of weights and measures, defining certain kinds of bank accounts, and establishing processes. The original idea of regulation at the Federal level was to establish minimum or uniform standards of trade and operation between the several States.

The idea that regulation includes restriction is a little far fetched. Let’s take one example: purchasing a handgun.

To purchase a handgun, there are certain legal restrictions you must meet: must be 21 years old or older, cannot have been convicted of a felony, and various other restrictions. As part of the need to enforce these restrictions, the Federal government has established various regulations on the process of purchasing a firearm. You cannot just walk in and buy a gun. There’s a process to follow first, just like there are processes for purchasing other items like cars and houses.

The minimum standard established by the Federal government requires only one thing: a background check performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This process is regulated as well, but not heavily. Unlike your taxes, purchasing a firearm requires only one form: ATF Form 4473. And on that form the purchaser only fills out the first page. The seller fills out the rest.

It’s not a painful process either. I went through it myself about 5 months ago when I purchased my handgun. My resident State of Missouri follows only the minimum Federal standard and does not enact any additional regulations or restrictions on the purchase and sale of firearms. Your State may differ, so check with local gun shops or local law enforcement for details.

Now regulation can be, and often is, a product of restriction. The restriction implies the regulation of verifying the restriction is not applicable. For alcohol, ammunition, and tobacco purchases, there is an age restriction, implying a regulation on the sale for checking the age of the purchaser.

But let’s say there were no restrictions or regulations on the purchase of a firearm. You could freely walk into any gun store and walk out with a handgun (after laying down several hundred dollars, mind you). Would this result in a populace armed to the teeth where people will be killing others in cold blood just for sport, as some gun control advocates seem to imply?

No.

This goes back to the notion of self regulation. Even before massive regulations and restrictions were enacted on the purchase and sale of firearms, people weren’t killing others for sport. There were a couple reasons for this, with the primary reason being that guns were (and still are) expensive items, so they weren’t being bought up to the point where the entire populace could fight an intergalactic war and win.

But there’s another reason that is far more fundamental: all actions have consequences. And consequences have one hell of a way of keeping people in line.

Those who do use firearms to rack up a huge frag count are not the norm, something that people seem to conveniently forget when there is a mass shooting, such as the recent assassination attempt of Congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords that resulted in the death of a Federal court judge and a 9 year-old girl.

Virtually all of society is self-regulating and not in need of government and law enforcement. The fact that people follow the law voluntarily without cops swarming the streets and invading every aspect of your life to ensure you’re complying with arcane and mundane laws you didn’t realize exist proves that people are self-regulating. And when government intervenes in such a way that interferes with this self regulation, it causes strife within the community.

Less regulation from the government is always best because self regulation is always better than government regulation. Self regulation is blind, unconscious. Government regulation is direct, focused, conscious and deliberate, with questionable motivations that always impedes on personal liberty and individual freedom.

Charity/Life/Religion

Praying for me

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Anyone who’s read a bit of this blog knows how I feel about prayer. Several who know me know that I’ve used words more harsh than I’ve published here to describe and discuss it. However I know that there are many strong-willed Christians who still won’t take the hint, so I have an idea.

First, for the purpose of this post, I’ll temporarily grant the presumption that God exists and does answer prayer. On that mark, I am probably very, very low on his list of people for whom prayer is actually needed. In other words, you could be spamming God’s inbox with tons of prayers for which he just hits his divine “delete” key. So instead of praying for me and crowding God’s inbox even more (which, if he’s like anyone who gets e-mail or any other kind of message, this likely pisses him off to no end), how about taking the moment you’d otherwise be praying for me and putting that time to use by sending a donation to a charity.

Now do I have any particular charity in mind? Well donate money to your favorite charity, a little more than normal (this is a new prayer, after all), or if you don’t have a charity in mind, how about helping children across the world with their medical costs by donating to the First Hand Foundation (link below and at right under Charities).

The First Hand Foundation is a charity organization owned and administered by the company that employs me. Their administrative costs are entirely absorbed by their parent corporation, so 100% of any money you donate will go to help some child in need.

This is the kind of prayer that I and many other will appreciate, because you’ll actually be doing some good in the world instead of flooding God’s divine inbox with prayer spam. And I won’t mind if you tell me you’ve donated to them.

So visit the foundation’s web site and look around and read about the kind of work they do to help people and give a little of yourself to help them.

Link: First Hand Foundation – click on “support our mission” to make a donation.

Religion

Talking about God

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

I’ve got to thank a friend of mine for giving me two blog post ideas in a row. First was the previous post about Christians praying for non-believers, and now this one. In response to my last post, she posted to Facebook with this:

Like I said before, for a guy who does not believe in God you spend alot of time thinking and talking about Him. I’ll be praying for you Kenneth.

Yes I do spend a lot of time talking about God and Christianity for one simple reason: plenty of people hold a belief in God and subscribe to Christianity. And talk of God is everywhere, especially from Christians: "In God We Trust", "one nation under God", "God hates fags", "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".

And let’s not forget about Jesus Christ. Oy vey.

It’s not like I can just ignore it, especially since if I say to someone that I don’t subscribe to Christianity, the "I’ll pray for you" reaction is the milder of the reactions I typically receive. So as long as Christian’s won’t shut up in trying to promote God, I’m not going to shut up in trying to counter the unfounded beliefs behind Christianity, Islam, or what have you. Plus there’s the fact that Christian beliefs that get in the way of personal liberty have become the basis for laws in this country, up to and including talks and proposals of amendments to the Constitution of the United States!

And yet there are people who say that without God we have no liberty. Bullshit!

Contrary to a rising belief among Christians, atheists don’t talk about God because we actually believe in him and are just trying to "rebel". That may be true among some people who call themselves atheist or agnostic, but the vast majority of us don’t believe in God or subscribe to Christianity or any other religion because we’ve either never followed it (like me) or see it (and can show it) to be entirely bullshit.

I talk about a lot of things I don’t believe in, simply because they are beliefs people hold and defend with all their energy and might. Read through this blog about the many things people support or believe that I discuss and attempt to counter: socialism, the pledge of allegiance, creationism and intelligent design (not so much), hetero-exclusive marriage, statism, and so on.

If people didn’t espouse a belief in God, or any of those other topics, would there be a need for me to discuss it or counter it? Of course not. It’s a waste of my energy trying to counter a belief or point of view held by a relative few number of people or no one, with one exception: beliefs that pose a risk to human life, such as eschewing modern medicine in favor of faith healing or some other unsupported, unsubstantiated mess that only results in a far more painful death.

I’ve also written about holidays and I’ve considered writing blog posts about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and why you’re doing a major disservice to your children fostering those kinds of beliefs in them.

Here’s the bottom line on religion…

Christians, you can dial the phone all you want, but that voice you think you’re hearing on the other side ain’t God. It’s just your own mind conjuring what you think is God. That’s right, your mind is playing tricks on you. So hey if you want to pray to what is essentially your imagination that I will know my imagination and whatever love it might have, then let me save you the energy: I already know my own imagination, so I don’t need to do anything more to accept it.

However praying to an invisible being that you cannot prove exists that I will eventually know him and his love is about the same thing as my mother saying the same about my father: "your father loves you, and I hope you’ll come to know him and his love". The difference, however, is that I can talk to my father, directly, and he will respond, directly with audible words, and we have a good relationship.

Plus I can prove he exists as he is a physical person who is alive and DNA testing can establish beyond reasonable doubt that he is, indeed, my father. Plus anyone who has met me and my father can tell without any cue that he is my father — with the exception of one waitress in Rock Port, Missouri, who thought we were brothers…

So as long as I still have the capacity to do so, and as long as people still follow Christianity, which is likely for much of the foreseeable future, I will continue to talk about God and Christianity. If you don’t like that, tough luck.

* * * * *

Resources

Why do atheists talk about God? — Ask the atheists

Why Atheists think about God — Atheist Revolution

Atheists – Always talking about God – Radical Atheist

Why are atheists concerned about other people’s belief in God? — Kylyssa Shay, Yahoo Contributor Network

"If atheists don’t believe in God, then why do they talk about him so much?" — Way of the Mind

Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-off (with links to videos) — Martin Bashir, ABC News

Let’s Talk about God — Lisa Miller, SamHarris.org

* * * * *

Videos

Why atheists care about YOUR religion — GoGreen18 (YouTube)

Why do atheists care about religion? — ImRational (YouTube)

…and there’s plenty more out there, so google around.