Stupak's chilling effect

First, I think I should explain that the argument over federal funding of abortion seems contradictory to me. How can a law forbid the funding of a legal medical procedure? Can you imagine if tonsillectomies or appendectomies could not be federally funded? I see no difference in regards to abortion. You can claim that you do not support legal abortion and you are entitled to take that position, however, how can a government both recognize abortion as a legal medical procedure while restricting the federal funding of it? Does any other legal medical procedures share this restriction?

I went to the trouble of explaining my difficulty in understanding the Hyde amendment mostly to make the distinction more clear. It is important to understand that while the Hyde amendment seems contradictory and bizarre, the intent and potential effect on future legislation seems clear. I intend to demonstrate why, unlike the Hyde amendment, the real intent of the Stupak amendment is not only unclear but insidiously so.

The House and Senate health care bills both propose a market place for buying health insurance. This market place has been dubbed the 'exchange', obviously for lack of a better word. This insurance market will be populated by all of the usual suspects and, hopefully as an additional choice, a publicly financed health insurance provider. The exchange insurance providers will sell their insurance to a segment of the American population that does not already have health insurance.

Some percentage of the poorest of our population will receive federal assistance in purchasing this insurance. In most cases, they will still need to provide some of their own money. If any of these insurance providers have insurance plans that cover elective abortion then it would be possible that monies that originated from the federal government could then be used to purchase an insurance plan that at some point may pay for an abortion procedure. Yes, it is quite a long way to go, but ultimately, though indirectly, and only in part, it can be shown that public money will be paying for abortions. This is what the Stupak amendment intends to prevent, or at least that is the stated intent.

Many people argue that this is just a way to ensure that the intent and effect of the Hyde amendment is maintained. The best lies always contain some truth. What makes this amendment truly devious isn't the stated purpose but the actual effect that it will inevitably have on health insurance products overall.

Consider the total number of uninsured that will purchase their insurance from the exchange. Of that total number, a significant portion of them will receive some federal money to subsidize at least a part of the cost of health insurance, otherwise, they could not afford to purchase health insurance at all. The number of purchasers that receive federal subsidies will be sufficient to shape the health insurance market place. Insurers that would have otherwise provided a policy that covers abortion will not do so because consumers that are receiving federal subsidies will not be allowed to purchase that policy.

This is how the Stupak amendment will effectively make it impossible to purchase an insurance policy that covers abortions, even if you are paying the full price without any government subsidy. In fact, it is conceivable that policies that do cover abortion would come at a substantial premium, if they could be purchased at all.

Unavailability is no different, in a practical sense, than illegality. Your Democratic Congress could, in just a matter of a few days, do what the religious right could not accomplish over decades, even with the full control of the presidency and both houses of congress.

Call your elected representatives now and let them know that you do not support this end-run attempt at restricting the availability of a legal medical procedure.

Holding Deities Accountable

Recently I was surprised ( I don't know why ) to see a local news report that involved a full page story about a child that recovered from acute myeloid leukemia and while this is a wonderful, feel-good story, I couldn't believe what I was reading.

It seems the mother was very thankful for her son's remission which is not at all unusual but what is unusual is to whom she felt she owed her thanks. Not to the wonderful staff of St. Jude's hospital where her son was treated but to a fictitious deity. In fact, the dedication and effort of the highly skilled staff at St. Jude's was hardly even credited.

It immediately occurred to me, as it often does in these situations, that she didn't blame her god for letting her son get ill in the first place. The Christian god, according to the Christian belief, is supposed to be omniscient, omni-benevolent, omni-all things good. Yet he allowed this child to get cancer? How could this be? I've heard the standard apologist responses before but I've yet to hear one that is rational.

If you are a believer and you've come by my blog by mistake (not likely), or for whatever reason, here is your chance to put an atheist in his place. Why did your god allow little Will to get acute myeloid leukemia?

The Nook

Barnes and Noble recently released a new eReader called the 'nook' that looks to be the most advanced eReader yet. Until now I've been unable or unwilling to purchase an eReader, mostly because of DRM concerns. However, I've placed a pre-order for a new nook and I'm anxiously awaiting the release. I hope not to be disappointed and while I am concerned about the cost of eBooks, especially in comparison their competitors, I believe the open format support and other features may balance the additional eBook costs. I do believe I will read more with an eReader since availability and overall cost will go down. I generally prefer hardback books because the size is right for me and they are much easier to read at the gym, which is where I do the most reading (at least in a stretch), which brings up an interesting side-note. I wonder how eReaders such as the Kindle and the nook fare on top of an elliptical or treadmill?

Do you have an eBook collection, or are you sticking with hardcover and/or paperback editions?

I've put a poll up in the sidebar, if anyone can tell me how to embed polls within a post, I'd appreciate it.

Moral Relativism

I've been reading Sam Harris' End of Faith. When I got to the section "The Demon of Relativism" in chapter 6, I was not happy with Harris' refutation with moral relativism.

To paraphrase, Harris states that he believes there is an absolute moral right and wrong and that the claim that morality must be relative is itself an absolute statement about morality and so moral relativism is therefore self-contradictory.

For some reason, and I admit I don't know exactly why, this argument seems sloppy, and even facile. It is almost as if it is a trick or that it doesn't actually prove what the author intends. There is simply something wrong with this argument, though exactly what the problem is, has so far escaped me. I thought it might be good to ask for clarity on this issue. I seem to be facing a logical dilemma.

I do believe that things are right or wrong but only in a practical sense. I believe they are right and wrong simply because we have agreed collectively and individually that they are right and wrong and also that our evolutionary history appears to have reinforced these ideas of right and wrong.

In short, our sense of morality most likely come from nature and nurture, evolution and experiences. I do not believe that there are absolutes truths about good and evil in the same way there are physical truths about the universe.

I do not believe that the following two statements are equally true:

• "Murder is wrong"
• "1 + 1 = 2"
  

So, what do you think? Does anyone know of a clear and concise refutation of Harris' argument, or do you support Harris' argument?

Zombie Jesus Day Post

I have been really busy with school so I haven't had much time for the blog. As much as I like expressing my point of view and sharing my experiences with all of you, I am but one man with priorities. However, today I can say priorities be damned, this post is my priority.

We have made it to another Zombie Jesus Day. I don't know about you but this one has had a more significant impact on my daily life. Please, forgive the irony of my complaining about the impact it has on my life while I take the time to write about it. However, I had to write about it simply because I find this year's "holiday" far more intriguing.

In a year when religion is actually taking a lot of hard hits as fewer people are being fooled by the followers of the Zombie, the general public seems, at least in my experience, to be more zealous in their cause to promote the holiday. The secular among us have won the small victory of having the President of the United States state unequivocally that we are not a Christian nation. Perhaps this is why we are seeing such redoubled efforts to raise the visibility and status of a celebration of the death of the holy brain eater.

I have never wanted to be the guy who rebuffs the sales person or goes to customer service to complain about a perceived slight, especially when the perpetrator is probably not even aware they have caused me offense. So what is one to do when we are told "Happy Easter" as if my observance of the holiday can be ascertained by sight alone? If I took the time to comment to everyone who wished me a Happy Easter it would quickly get old. Perhaps, every year on the day before Easter I can wear a shirt with a glib anticipated response pre-printed in bold type across my chest. Perhaps, "Keep you zombie worship to yourself, I don't celebrate Easter!", or "Bah Humbug!" or "Easter, shmeester". Suggestions are welcome.

Seth Grahame-Smith released a new take on the classic Pride and Prejudice in which he simply added zombies and in doing so probably made the book at least 100% better, though that may not be saying much. I am somewhat ashamed to admit that I have not read the book, in either version. Perhaps this is what the authors of the gospels had in mind? For all we know the original versions of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were simply the really boring "Pride and Prejudice" of their time. So maybe Mr. Grahame-Smith's idea wasn't so original after all. They just didn't go far enough...


Matthew 28:1, 9

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.... And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, Brains... Brains..."


John 20:11-14
But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping ... and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus and that he was a zombie!


Happy Zombie Jesus Day!

Insights for new Atheists: Part #2

I started this series as a single post that grew too large but later I realized that I could probably write a book on what I've learned while on my personal journey.

In my experience, people who were indoctrinated from birth deal with their transition to atheism in much the same way that people deal with loss. This isn't to say that they have lost anything, or at least not anything worthwhile. However, the new atheist has suffered a shock to their system, and that has some immediately observable effects on their behavior.

In my last post I described the first stage as one of defiance, measured outrage, and a sense of righteous indignation. Please don't misunderstand, all of these emotions are justified and their presence is healthy, merely observing their existence does not reflect negatively on the new atheist. In fact, it is my suggestion to get it out. Express your outrage, proclaim the superiority of your reason over the theist's faith. Just try to do so with all the civility and composure you can muster because you'll need to be calm for the next stage.

#2 Acceptance

By now you've become quite the expert at tearing down the typical apologetic and you discover you've learned a lot in the process. You have a rebuttal for the ontological argument nearly memorized, can smell a logical fallacy before it even leaves the lips of the perpetrator and you laugh out loud at Pascal's wager.

However, you've also realized that you are laboring under a severe handicap. The truly indoctrinated, will never be convinced because they do not use reason or rational thinking to arrive at their conclusions. Their thought processes are ruled by wishful thinking, the end result is a foregone conclusion, and debate is only a pretense where facts and opinion do not differ. So what do you do? Here are some things to keep in mind, however, remember these suggestions do not apply to the very new atheist:

1. Don't debate creationist - It only elevates pseudoscience to the level of science and gives credibility to those who should never be taken seriously. Debating a creationist is like arguing with someone who thinks the earth is flat. Can you imagine?
   


2. Don't debate close friends, co-workers, etc. Remember, that you like these people, or need to like these people in order to get on with your day.


3. Objectify the believer - In many ways they are the victims, try not to make them the criminals. It helps me to think of them as being in "The Matrix" and unwilling to take the red pill just yet.


4. Be clear about your lack of belief, set a good example, represent the side of the secular non-believer appropriately but only when it is appropriate.


5. Remember that not every slight that you feel is intentional. Theists tend to assume that everyone they see believes as they do, a trait that atheists should emulate.


6. Never fail to speak up whenever anyone (even those mentioned above) voices an incorrect statement about religion, atheists, or anything relevant to this discussion, but do so politely and as eruditely as possible.
   


7. Whenever you do speak up, the intention should always be to merely correct, not to start a debate, not to even entertain the notion of debate. I have found that many people just take what they hear as fact, without any corroboration. Introducing doubt usually has the effect of having them seek verification on their own, stubbornly insisting you are right seems to have the opposite effect.

I realize that some of these suggestions may conflict or even completely contradict the suggestions from part 1. As a result you may find people who you have debated in the past wondering why you have suddenly stopped provoking them or taking their bait, just let them know you've moved on.

The next part will focus on where I am today, so there will be much self-reflection in the meantime.

Insights for new Atheists: Part #1

This post is mostly for the new atheists. It seems the ranks of the non-believer are growing really fast so I'm always meeting people who've only recently "outed" themselves.

It has only been a few years since I started identifying myself publicly as an atheist but I've learned so much since then that I thought I should provide my insights, for anyone interested. Take it or leave it, at least from my perspective it is valuable, empirical knowledge that could be of use to someone.

#1 Let it out.

You'll find that new atheists are itching for a fight. They will do everything they can to hunt down the most conservative, fundamentalist Christian (ironically, the least likely to convince) and pick a fight with them. I did, probably most of you did too, or will. It's OK. I suspect the reason for this is simply that most atheists have kept their mouth shut for far too long and are now ready to let loose on those crazy Christians that have oppressed them for so long. I understand.

The key is to remember that your words will continue on far after they have left your fingers or your mouth.

Remember these pointers:

1. Don't argue in anger. I know this is far easier said than done but anger allows the non-rational to paint atheists with a very broad brush. Don't hand them the brush.
   
   A very good way to get it out without succumbing to anger is to argue with someone you know personally, someone you think could take it. You don't have to argue with them face to face, it can be Internet communication but you'll find that you are far more reserved and composed when you are conversing with someone whose company you must keep on a regular basis.
   
   Don't worry, it'll still be cathartic, just less damaging to your overall reputation.
   


2. Be Rational. The thing that makes atheists different from believers is our insistence on sufficient evidence before drawing conclusions. Live up to your own standards. Being more rational, becoming more rational, is what this blog is all about.
   
   I remember how angry I would get when arguing with a certain Christian because, in order to live up to my principles, I had to cite references and do research while he could dismiss my hours of work with an offhand gesture. Then he would present wild, unfounded assertions as evidence supporting his claim. Easy enough to disprove, but even disproving wild assertions takes time.
   
   I have dealt mostly with Christians as this was the religion to which I was indoctrinated. They catch on quickly that you will research every claim they make and soon they start to use your diligence against you. Save your research, you'll need it again.
   


3. Be correct. If you make a claim, do your best to be sure it is factually accurate. The believer will be consistently incorrect, but you cannot allow yourself to be. Don't put it out there if you have any doubt. Don't speak in absolutes and try your best to avoid logical fallacies while being always on guard to expose them.
   

Since this post is getting way too long. I'll continue this subject in my next post.

Pizza Pushing Proselytisers II

A long while back I wrote a post about how I am trying to protect my son from adolescent indoctrination from the local church youth groups. The activity, called Disciple Now or "d-now" for short, is a weekend long slumber party with lots of fun, exciting activities. But of course all of this fun doesn't come for free. The very tightly wound string attached to all this fun is the intense indoctrination at the hands of the activity coordinators. Mini church services tailored to teenagers, and one-on-one style confessionals are the kinds of things you could expect to see.

So why bring it up again? Well, it seems my son is going again this year, could it be that he has been indoctrinated? I seriously don't know. Unlike my "adversaries" in this battle my motives are to allow him to make his own decisions and establish his own worldview, my only caveat is that he must be given factual information. The flaw with this approach is apparent to anyone who understand how proselytizing works. I am severely handicapped by my insistence that I not unduly influence his decisions, and by their shameless desire to do exactly that. It also doesn't help that they are ubiquitous in this region, which gives them nearly absolute control over his social standing with his peers.

He often tells me he only goes for the fun and games and the normal desire to be sociable that is typical of all teenagers. I'm not naive enough to believe that he isn't telling them the exact opposite and I'm not quite sure I wouldn't (or haven't) done the same in his position.

I have no faith in your initiative

A recent story about Robert Eric McFadden, former director of Strickland's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives has me wondering why anyone would be surprised by this news. The faith based community is obviously just as capable of the same sort of deviance as any other, maybe even more so. However, in being hypocritical, no other group comes close.

Then again, why not be hypocritical when, in your mind, you don't answer to your peers but to a magical being in the sky who will forgive anything and whose opinion is the only one that matters? When you think about it that way it isn't a leap to suspect that the faith based organizations are even more likely to be corrupt and we have quite enough corruption already. I have little faith in people, I have even less faith in politicians, and I have no faith in those with faith.

Let's keep them out of government.

No Facts Left Behind

My son has told me that his teachers rarely even mention the word evolution for fear of upsetting a parent, even the teachers that do support teaching evolution live in fear that they will lose their jobs if they teach it properly. There comes a time when good people must stand up and demand that preventative action be taken to address grave deficiencies in our nation's educational system. This isn't about fairness, it isn't about academic freedom, there is no controversy, it is about providing the best quality education we can for our children, and it's about breaking the cycle of ignorance.

While providing a solid education for our children is something any parent would want, there are also less altruistic motivations for doing so. Someday you may have the opportunity to not benefit from the medical advances that did not happen because our children were, for lack of a better word, discouraged, from fully understanding evolutionary biology. You may find that you live in a region that is being flooded because no one took climate change seriously; they were taught that it was just as likely a cyclical event and not man-made. The next Nobel Laureate may not be inspired to invent, write, or discover because they were too busy taking care of their child to attend a University; their potential wasted because they were taught to just say no to sex, as if such a thing were realistic.

Brain drain, a faltering economy, geological consequences, medical advances, the future standard of living of an entire nation rests squarely on the shoulders of those currently being taught that evolution is only a theory, that global warming might not be man-made, and that abstinence is the only safe way to avoid pregnancy and disease. To this end, I propose a hypothetical excercise where we consider what it might be like to pass a federal bill that would end pseudoscience or non-evidentiary curriculum in the classroom. I'd call it the Fact Based Education Act and the base provisions of the bill would be simple: All curriculum would be peer reviewed, science education would be peer reviewed by the National Academy of Science and textbooks chosen by a committee of experts in the field as well as educators.

Every child, no matter where they lived, could count on getting a textbook appropriate for their needs, while also ensuring there is no disparity in the information presented. I would prefer a national curriculum mandated by the federal government, this would also help lessen the disadvantage poorer students face. There would be no modification of the curriculum or text allowed without federal approval, and strict monitoring of the curriculum would be instituted. Perhaps one way to get it enacted would be to simply withhold funds to those states that do not comply. I know my hypothetical bill would have little chance of passing, but the purpose of my Fact Based Education Act isn't to be realistic about what we can do now, but to show that if we don't try to focus our efforts to fix education at a federal level we will continually be fighting battles at the state level where we are only playing whack-a-mole, especially when, like reason, precedent isn't shown any consideration.