I hate articles that regurgitate news anyone with half a brain already knows. Is it that surprising that study after study of teen sex always comes up with statistics showing that there is no difference in premarital figured between kids who are taught sex ed and those who are taught abstinence? No, of course not. Is it shocking that kids without sex ed are less likely to use any form of birth control or protection? Nope. And yet, they still “teach” this garbage in schools hoping that somehow kids will abstain from having sexual relations, completely ignoring the fact that these raging bags of hormones find it difficult to avoid the temptation to play with themselves several times a day, let alone invite anyone to the fun.

Kids like sex. They want it. They crave it. Everything about their biology is inclined to try and get it. Yet somehow, a religiously motivated cretin thinks that a promise and a shitty ring is enough to keep their hands off each other. It’s time we stopped living in a fantasy land and take a pragmatic approach to the issue. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent teens from having sex. Most of the Western World has already acknowledged that. But the US is a special place; they fight wars against windmills, believing that prohibitionism in all forms is the only way of curbing the natural vices of people. The problem is, of course, that morality is a private thing, and cannot be policed.

Guys, get real about teaching sex ed in high school. Abstinence is nothing more than religiously mandated classes, and any country that takes the separation of church and state seriously would make mincemeat out of it. The US has a shamefully high rate of teen pregnancies and drop out rates shared only by developing nations. Let’s get real here, shall we?

Spread the outrage

Like many Canadians, my family is separated by divorce. Since the age of 5, my parents have stayed as far away from each other as possible. Like most divorces, theirs was a messy affair, and it was not unusual for us to be caught in the middle of the fierce crossfire. But time heals all wounds, and in our adult years, my parents have managed to become civil to each other. I would even go so far as to call them friends.

This year, we had all agreed to rent a cottage so all of us could have Christmas under the same roof. It was an ambitious undertaking; my two sisters are married, and both my parents are in serious relationships. Add to that the fact that my brother in law’s parents were also down from Bermuda, and you had yourself a full house indeed. Still, thanks in large part to the hard work of my sister Melissa, we found a suitable place that could accommodate our needs.

We were all excited to go, but each of us knew that the 7 days of family fun could be a gamble; after all, there was no way to know if we would all get along for such a long period of time. But upon our arrival at the lovely dwelling, our fears melted away into wonder. The cottage was bigger and more beautiful than we had imagined. We could not have asked for a more perfect setting.

Before we had left, I had intended on trying to have a private conversation with each member of my family. In the past year, I’ve done quite a bit of thinking about the meaning and importance of familiar bonds. I realized that in my youth, I was an unemotional and distant child. I would bury myself in my artwork; the only real way I could express my emotion. As I’ve grown up however, I’ve come to appreciate the love and support my family have given me. Since I could not afford much in the way of material gifts, I thought I could instead try and make a deeper connection with my family, and reflect with them on the significance of our bond.

The conversations themselves were private, so I will not discuss them here. Sufficed to say, I cannot imagine a Christmas that could have gone as swimmingly as this one did. I not only got to connect with my immediate family, but also my new one. And because we all knew that the purpose of this trip indeed had been to connect, we were free to express ourselves in an honest and open way. There were many tears of joy, many hugs, and many kisses that were exchanged that week. There was not one person who walked out that was not affected or changed by the experience. It was a Christmas to remember.

The effects are still with me. I have come to realize that all human relationship reflect the need to connect in one way or another. We can only truly feel complete and loved when we lower our defenses, and allow others inside. Human beings that cannot trust others, or feel constantly under attack must be lonely indeed. There is a human compulsion to try and bond with others, marred only by our more jaded side. It is a shame that some people can never get passed it.

This Holiday will stay with me for a long time, and I shall never forget the lessons I learned. When someone asks me “what did you get for Christmas?”, I will tell them that I was able to share some of the most significant moments and insights of my life. Not a bad present, eh?

Spread the outrage

With the holidays coming up, I’m going to be holed up in a cottage with my family far away from the civilized world. This of course means that during the next week, there will be no posts while I enjoy the yuletide celebrations. If you’re on the internet looking for my words of wisdom, you’re fresh out of luck.

After the holidays, I’ll be recording a special podcast. I ask all of you fans to write in and submit some questions you would like me to answer. They can be silly, serious, or even personal if it strikes your fancy. So either leave your questions in the comment section, or email me at jacobfortin@gmail.com

I hope everyone has a safe and fun Christmas. Be safe, and I’ll see you all next year!

Spread the outrage

Signing a UN deceleration is about as binding as anyone’s New Years resolution. Still, they are symbolic representations, meant, like a lofty resolution, to indicate that an issue is important and needs to be addressed. It’s why I’m appalled that the US failed to sign a UN declaration aiming at decriminalizing homosexuality. Of course, I’m not entirely surprised, since the government seems to have no regard for civil liberties when pertaining to sexual orientation. There are still states that allow employers to discriminate against gays, and on a federal level, homosexuals aren’t allowed in the military.

I’ve been repeatedly asked why I talk and write extensively on the issue of homosexuality, since it does not directly pertain to atheism. I started this site and podcast as a way of expressing my concern about many issues I felt were, and are, important to a moral society. During the civil rights movement, there were a number of whites that fought for the equal rights of African Americans. They did because of their conviction that the attitudes of their fellow citizens did not reflect the principles that they believed in. They also correctly viewed that segregationists were on the wrong side of history. I believe the only real difference is that the desrimination of homosexuals seems only more acceptable to others because it is a matter of sexuality, and not of race.

In many places around the world, homosexuals are beaten, tortured and killed over their difference. They are hated and despised. We use the term “gay” to mean stupid, undesirable, wrong, or lame. Imagine if we were all using other racial slangs in our language? Would we consider ourselves to be a progressive society?

Homosexuals are hoping that with the departure of Bush, President elect Barack Obama may have a more favorable disposition towards them, but his choice of minister for his inauguration does not provide much hope of any general improvement. Homosexuals are still second class citizens, and the majority of the population doesn’t seem to care. So long as that’s true, I’ll continue to fight the good fight.

Spread the outrage

It’s never good news when Iraq makes the front page of the news. That’s usually because we’ve become so accustomed to tragedy, that daily events, bombings and massacres are just casually relegated to a dark and lonely corner of most mainstream media sites.

Thursday was particularly brutal, as a female rights activist was beheaded in her home. Violence against women has been increasing, and I don’t see any reason why it will stop. It was obviously intended to discourage other women from speaking out, and my guess is that it may well have the intended consequence.

All of this comes just a little over a month before their general elections, which the US hopes will help stabilize the country and give the population incentive to get involved in their government. Is it just me, or is this a fundamentally bad idea? The country is in no shape to vote, and their priorities should be focused on bringing order and peace to the region. Setting up a fragile government made up of warring groups will only further exacerbate the situation. Order in a country is the result of trust in government. It is unlikely that this will occur. If anything, these elections will prove just how the Sunni, the Shiite and the Kurds are unwilling to negotiate with one another. I predict more disaster, and far more politically motivated violence.

Spread the outrage

Imagine that your family is being held hostage. They are hidden in a secret location inside a chamber that is slowly filling up with water, and you have somehow managed to capture one of the men responsible for their disappearance. You do know that time is of the essence, and you have very few options. In this scenario, would you resort to torture to get your information? If you did, would you feel morally justified in your actions?

We’ve all been presented with the “ticking time bomb” scenario as a way of explaining away torture. Sure, if the stakes are this high, and information is vital, any human being under duress would not hesitate to extract information from someone, even if this meant torture. However, these types of scenarios take many factors for granted that, once examine, question the assumption that we all make in this circumstance; what kind of information are we going to extract?

Let’s use the same scenario above, but let’s add more complexity. Yes, you’ve managed to capture one of the kidnapers, but how can you know what level of involvement this person has? In the perfect scenario, you know for a fact that the person in your custody knows with 100% ertainty where your family is located, but how often is this true in real life? The act of torturing someone is designed to try and get information out of a person, but there’s no indication that information told under duress is accurate or not, given the fact that you have no way of determining lies from truth. Let’s put this another way; if you were to torture a person that might or might not know where your family was located, how could you determine that the information you were given was real or fake?

If that’s not entirely clear to you, imagine a much more different scenario. One of your friends asks to borrow your car, and help him run a few errands. You take him to the hardware store, and lend him a bit of money on some supplies. He drops you home and says that he’ll bring the car back in a few days. Later that night, someone breaks into your house, kidnaps you, and brings you into a small and dark chamber. They claim that you are a conspirator in the kidnapping and torture of a mother and her two children. The interrogators are convinced that you know the whereabouts of the location they were taken to. Because they are pressed for time, they have decided to extract as much information as possible from you. They have been told that they are to torture you until you crack.

You might think that your kidnappers would be willing to believe you that you have no idea where they are being held, but they are convinced that you know something. No amount of pleading or begging makes them stop, and each hour that goes by, the interrogators get more and more desperate. The pain is so great, you would be willing to say anything to make it go away, but what can you tell them that they do not already know? In that case, you would tell them anything you thought they would want to hear. Since they alredy have made up their mind, all you need to do is tell them what they want to hear. It’s the only way to make them stop. Of course, during this entire time, all you can give them is false leads.

During the inquisition, women suspected of being witches were regularly tortured. They were made to confess that they had been practicing black magic, and there was nothing these women could say that would make these men change their mind. In the end, many of these women actually began believing that they were indeed witches. Their only option was to tell the priest exactly what they had already concluded, if only to end their misery.

Now, before you try and tell me that there is still a good chance that torture can garner information out of people, consider the idea that all of this is actually a smokescreen for the true purpose of torture. The act of torture is not primarily to gain information. It is used as psychological warfare. It is, in a sense, a deterrent against activities that the powers that be consider solicitous. It is used all over the world to ensure that the population does not revolt. This is the use that most suits torture. Information is only the secondary benefit, usually done as a way of locating and torturing other subversives.

Although the scenario I mentioned might sound as though torture is morally justifiable, in truth it represents the last in a long series of events. Was there a way of preventing this situation from evolving? Proper law enforcement and good investigative methods prevent the “doomsday” scenario from even being a possibility. The truth is that most of the time, in most of the circumstances, there is no moral authority to conduct such a violation of a person’s basic human right.

Spread the outrage

What are you supposed to do if you are asked to chose between two evils? We like to believe that the decisions we make usually correspond to our morality, but there are often problems that arise in our modern world that have no adequate solution. In these circumstances, we must act pragmatically to ensure that the consequences of our actions do not exacerbate an already difficult situation.

If we can accept that the choices we make do not always lead to a perfect solution, than we are in the right frame of mind to discuss the issue of prostitution. As many of your readers already know, I am an anti-prohibitionist. I believe that legislation to control the individual moral choices of people is ultimately met with failure. Worst still, criminalization creates a giant black market, and the lack of oversight means that individual victims become criminals. This, of course, is an over simplification, particularly when concerning the delicate issue of sex workers. Legalization carries with it a number of issues and concerns, and the simple act of decriminalization does mean that prostitutes are no longer exploited.

In countries that have legalized it, a large portion of sex workers are foreigners. In the Netherlands, there are many reports that these workers have been trafficked, often tricked into entering the country by pimps who entice them with the prospect of other work. The fact that it is legal still does not mean that coercion is impossible, or that a black market does not exist. But the argument that this is an inevitable consequence of legalization is unclear. For instance, the current legislation makes women the easy target of pimps. Although they are no longer underground and offered protection, it does not change the fact that many of these women can be abused, and have their safety compromised. It’s precisely why many in Amsterdam are calling for legislation to ban pimping rather than prohibit prostitution. The problem is, of course, that the law already makes the exploitation of women illegal. The problem lies more in it’s enforcement rather than it’s legality.

Another argument against legalization is that it can often lead to an increase in the use of the services. If it is indeed true that legalization does not decrease human trafficking, there is the chance that demand may actually increase this type of sexual slavery. It would be foolish for me to assume that this is not a possible consequence. Many women in the sex trade have no desire to become registered, as there is still a great deal of taboo about the job. In these cases, women are still operating outside the confines and protection of police and law enforcement, and as such have none of the advantages of legalization.

Obviously, there are troubling aspects in the legalization of prostitution, but that does not mean that making it illegal is an adequate option either. The truth is that regardless of legislation, the demand for sexual services does not significantly change. We can try and make this a moral issue, and yet even people of supposed high moral character still use the services of prostitutes. In any case, a person’s private morality is not anything I believe I have the power to change, and it seems as though no institution can, religious or governmental. Considering the size and scope of both, it seems unlikely that moral and civil legislation is doomed to fail, and that worst still, well meaning laws can often exacerbate the issue. If conditions are bad in legalized countries, they are far worst in those countries that prohibit it. Drug abuse among sex workers is far higher in criminalized countries, as pimps use drugs as a way of keeping these women essentially as slaves, paying them very little and providing no protection (and often psychologically and physically abusing them).

From a pragmatic point of view, it is irresponsible to assume that the criminalization of something enhances the safety and security of the population. The fact that prostitution is rampant in both rich and poor countries, and in legal and illegal ones signifies that it is not about to go away anytime soon. I do not want to sanction whether or not this activity is acceptable. Perhaps the most difficult thing for human beings to control is their sexual impulse. This primative drive is the main reason why prostitution is such a popular business. It is unlikely that we will be able to properly control this impulse. Perhaps we have no real desire to. But just as a biological instinct can benefit us, it can also cause pain and misery.

The difficult thing to accept is that prohibition does nothing to prevent the sexual trafficking of human beings. Worst still, the enterprise becomes so profitable that the players involved have every incentive to continue to provide the service. We are therefore stuck in a no win scenario. What choice are we to make?

It’s my belief that we must first accept that human beings will not always make the right decisions about their lives, and that no amount of law will prevent them from doing so. It’s natural for society to want to protect its citizens, but the way of achieving this is not by making something illegal. Marijuana is illegal in the US, but still 1/3 of the adult population still consumes the drug. In the end, it seems that we have no control over what people choose to do with their own bodies, and why should we? Yes, there are individuals being exploited, and surely those that exploit them must be punished, but what of those that are doing this out of choice? Are we to tell them what they can and cannot do? How presumptuous to assume that anyone can know what is best for another human being. I might be repulsed by the idea of stripping (ok, maybe not that repulsed), but there is a demand for it, and making that illegal would not change the habits of its consumers. Does legalizing it make it morally acceptable? Obviously, to those that choose not to go to a strip club, the answer is obvious. But how much darker and sinister would it be if strippers faced the risk of incarceration, or if they were under the manipulation of pimps?

I do not pretend for a second that the legalization of something has no negative consequences. It’s normal to feel as though all of our options are inadequate, and that we are powerless to do anything positive in this zero sum game. Prohibitionism does not work, this at least is clear. It is my belief that we have to help people make the right decision rather than punish them for making the wrong ones. The legalization of prostitution is an effort to shed a light on a dark world. It’s true that we may not end up liking what we see, but I would hate to send these people back into the void. There are some things about human nature that take time and effort to change, and that no universal morality guides our actions. In the end, all we can hope is that by giving people the option of choice, they may make the right ones.

Spread the outrage

The Bush presidency has been a disaster. Perhaps there are some of you out there that believe that somehow, history will vindicate this man, but it is as clear to me today as it will be in 50 years; President Bush is the worst president in the history of the united States of America.

It could be the fact that his government was involved in perhaps the biggest scam in the world by convincing their blood drunk populace that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. It could have been the general incompetence and cronyism that led to the Katrina disaster, or the fact that no other president has ever overseen such an unprecedented debt increase in the country’s history. Yes, these are all very serious charges, all made worst by the fact that the US is in the worst recession since the Great Depression.

I want to put aside the fact that the money being pumped into corporations without proper oversight represent a watershed moment in US history, since there is still a chance that with his departure, there may be changes on the horizon. No, the real legacy that Bush brings to American politics is the  division he managed to create, and the anti-intellectual crusade that will resonate for generations after his departure.

How frightening is this world when one of the most incompetent and ignorant candidates ever to enter politics survives on the premise that he is one of the “common people”? President Bush managed to convince the American public that he wasn’t elitist, despite the obvious fact that he has always been rich, and that his entry in politics is a nepotistic affair. His general stupidity and lack of eloquence was seen as some form of quality. This has opened the door to so many other incompetent candidates that it now appears that a person’s intelligence and skill seems less important than how well the general public can “relate” to them. How popular was Sarah Palin, who is, without a doubt, perhaps one of the most ignorant and uneducated politicians of all time? How close was this person from the White House?

There’s a reason that the office is usually held in such high regard. The fact that one human being carries with them the ability with one button push to eradicate the entire population of the Earth is not a responsibility to be taken lightly. And yet, the mistrust of intelligence, reason and education is now rampant. If you’re smart, you’re branded as an “elitist”.

This legacy will have consequences in the long term future, unless there is a movement to counter this attitude. Stupidity is nothing to be proud of, and it is not a state of mind but rather a general lack of education. All humans have possess the ability to be intelligent and thoughtful, but for some, it can be harder than others. If we continue the Bush tradition of being proud of our ignorance, it may set the wheels in motion to our eventual destruction. That’s not a legacy anyone should be proud of.

Spread the outrage

There’s been a lot of “debate” concerning the definition of marriage. I know that a lot of conservatives are offended that guys like me call them on the fact that the real reason they dislike gays marrying is that they are homophobic. I’m accused of making blanket statements about conservatives, and of labeling people.

Now, I want to make it clear to everyone that I’m not trying to make a person feel inferior for being a homophobe. Homosexuality is only now becoming more accepted, and I know of many friends and family members that have a certain degree of prejudice against them. But that’s the thing; it’s a controllable degree, and the trick is to try and rise above your upbringing to overcome some of our less noble emotions.

Even so, there’s still a big segment of the religious right that will tell you that they want the definition to stay the same for religious reasons, not because of any real homophobia. Fine. If you want it that way, however, you’re going to have to follow it to the letter and stop choosing only the stuff they like. Here are some of the rules courtesy of Daily Kos:

• Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
• Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in
  addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
• Marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
  virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
• Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.
  (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
• Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
• If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
• In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Any takers?

Spread the outrage