You Can Die in a War, But Don't Go to a Bar...

I don't understand why the legal drinking age in this country is so high. In fact, 21 is the highest drinking age in any country where drinking is permitted at all. But this wasn't always so. In fact, after Prohibition, the states were allowed to set their own drinking ages until about 1985. This is when, in a response to an increase in drunk driving, which was linked to college aged drinkers, the Federal government basically told the states that if they did not raise the drinking age to 21, it would cut funding for highways. But, as most 20-year-olds who have been to a college party will tell you, drinking still goes on. In my personal opinion, this also could be the reason why the rates of sexual assault on college campuses are so high -- if you don't want to get busted for underage drinking, you might be less likely to report an assault. So, in closing, I just don't understand how you can go to war and buy cigarettes at 18, but you're not old enough to have a beer.

Republicans and Ayn Rand

In recent years, the Republican Party has had a weird fascination with the late philosophical writer Ayn Rand.

Rand, for those who don't know, was a Russian philosopher and author, who advocated for, among other things, a completely free market capitalist system. She was generally thought of as the intellectual leader of what is now called Libertarianism. For this reason. a lot of Republicans often cite her as one of their influences.

But, what a lot of conservatives don't seem to realize is that Ayn Rand would have been appalled by the modern Republican party.

She was a committed atheist and staunchly opposed the 'war on drugs'. On the topic of abortion she said, "A man cannot say he is really for freedom, if he's not for a woman's right to choose."

And, not only did she not believe in God and was opposed to organized religion, she said, "religion is a disease and humanity will be better off once it is wiped out."

So, perhaps the Republicans who admire her so much, should do their homework on what she really believed. Then, they would either have to disavow her or change their parties' platform on a whole array of issues.

Abstinence Only Sex Education Spreads Ignorance and Worse.

When we think of HIV, we usually think of the stereotype of the promiscuous gay male in San Francisco. But new research is proving that this is not the case. In fact, the only places where HIV has increased over the last decade in the US, is in the most conservative states, such as Texas and Mississippi.

I think this is not surprising at all. In these states where you have religiously motivated taboos about talking about sex, and where you have mostly abstinence based sex ed curriculum, things like this are going to happen. This one of the things I find most distressing about religion. It's like religious people put up a wall in their brain. Even to the point of risking their own children's health.

When are we going to wake up and realize that not talking about it won't make it go away?

France Protects Freedom by Taking Away Choices

In 2011 the French parliament passed a law banning the Hijab and the Burka, religious garments worn by Muslim women. The parliament claimed that banning these religious garments would be a move that would stand up for women's rights and freedom of expression, although I find that argument an oxymoron, because if you are banning a type of clothing a woman might wear in public, then you are inhibiting her freedom.

In fact, many Muslim women say that wearing these things that cover parts of their bodies make them feel empowered because then men have to deal with what they say, and not the size of their breasts or the color of their hair.

And finally, I tend to get very annoyed with the special focus on Islam that the west seems to have. Orthodox Judaism, for instance has similar laws of modesty that govern how women and men can dress.

As a progressive and as an atheist, I find that Islam, like any other religion has old fashioned rules that we shouldn't be following in the present day. But I also believe that if you truly want to live in a free and democratic society, you can't start limiting such a basic freedom as what people can wear.

"Abstinence Only" is Dangerous

Recently, some students in Nevada rallied in favor of a statewide comprehensive sex education course. Nevada is one of several states that has only 'abstinence only' education.

This is ridiculous to me. It's as if people forgot what it is to be a young teen. I personally believe that teenagers are the most important group to talk to about how to stay safe while having sex. The fact is that many parents are too squeamish about talking to their kids about these matters.

And I would like to pose a question. Would you rather your kid have some sexual practices that you personally object to, or, would you rather them have to spend the rest of their lives having to take countless medications because they have AIDS?

The fact is, denying teenagers the right to know the truth about their bodies is not only wrong, it can be dangerous and deadly.

Vaccine Brouhaha

Recently, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul made headlines when he seemed to be advising parents not to get their kids vaccinated after a deadly measles outbreak.

I'm shocked that as a doctor he would say this. And, unfortunately his words have an impact. In the last decade, vaccination rates have declined dramatically, due to unfounded speculation that they cause Autism. This doesn't help, and it makes it even worse when celebrities like Jenny McCarthy lend their voice to the anti-vaccine hysteria.

The truth is, I don't think this is even genuine from Rand Paul. I think he's only doing this to pander to his black-helicopter-government's-trying-to-poison-us-all base.

I'm more inclined to agree with what Hillary Clinton recently said on Twitter; "I know Republicans aren't big fans of science, but the science is in, nonetheless. The Earth is round, the sky is blue, and vaccines work."

I'm not made of porcelain

Recently, in 2012, a Florida representative made headlines when he wanted to repeal a 1989 ban on dwarf tossing in bars, saying, "it's not for the government to tell consenting little people what they can do with their bodies." And that was the problem. The ban didn't only apply to non-consenting people, but also to little people who did this for a living, or at least to augment their incomes. Whether or not you agree with the ethical questions of throwing another person, the point is this: I feel that it's similar to the push to ban sideshows that succeeded in the early 1950s. What those crusaders and do-gooders didn't realize is that in ending the sideshow, they were taking away one of the performers' only viable sources of income. And I think banning dwarf tossing undermines the bodily autonomy of little people.

No matter if you disagree with it on safety grounds, or whether you think it's just mean, I think adults, no matter their height, should be able to do what they will with their own bodies, even if someone else finds it exploitative. People with disabilities must be respected as people first, capable of making their own choices. I'm not made of porcelain, and I can make my own decisions.

Is Fear of Backlash Keeping Discrimination Alive?

I want to talk to you about an issue that I find very interesting that nobody seems to be really talking about regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. Now, let me start off by saying that I am totally in support of two people who love each other being able to get married, and I think it's ridiculous that in America in the 21st century, we are still having this debate. But I have to talk about a concern that I deeply feel. And that is, the gay community promoting only traditional monogamous marriage, and not speaking about what I view as the very discriminatory laws which grant special rights to monogamous married individuals but leave out those who do not choose to live a strictly monogamous lifestyle. I understand that monogamy in a lot of ways is the most safe of sexual arrangements, but it doesn't mean that I think that those who choose to live non-monogamously should be left out of certain protections. I feel like only promoting monogamous same-sex couples is unfair and discriminatory, and demonstrates that the movement for so-called marriage equality is ultimately concerned primarily with appeasing heteronormative standards.