Christopher Maloney tweets

One of the successes of my original letter to the editor about Christopher Maloney is that it’s unlikely he’ll write in support of naturopathy again any time soon. If he does, he’ll just be re-raising his profile, prompting another, cutting letter from me, and probably getting a few more Google results for himself. I’ve said it several times: there are far more interesting topics for a blog, but so long as he continues to try and put his quackery out there, I’m not going to be the person who ignores it. Simply, I, quite honestly, do not want to see people going to a naturopath when they need serious medical attention.

And the thing is, I don’t think I’ve been unclear about any of this. Sure, I never said my paper is UMA endorsed, nor have I ever said I’m an English major, nor have I listed my age as 18 (I’m 25, as of Sunday, for those interested), and sure, Maloney inanely thought otherwise, but I still think there’s no excuse for not knowing that silence is the only reasonable option for him right now – especially since I’ve made the point over and over. Really, there’s nothing he can do to help himself at this point; he can only not make things worse.

So that’s why it’s so perplexing that Maloney would start Tweeting. So far he’s only had vague, new agey-sounding posts.

The impossible is simply a few steps removed from what you consider ordinary. Focused attention will draw it into your ordinary sphere.

So inspirational! But whatever. If he wants to spout truisms or whathaveyou, he’s welcome to do it; I can’t muster enough concern to make posts about each one. (Plus they’re even less interesting than the rest of his life.) I’m just interested to see how long until he starts disparaging vaccines while promoting black elderberry or some other dangerous malarkey that can have the actual result of making people less healthy.

Supreme Court recognizes that people change

In a no-brainer, the Supreme Court has picked up on the fact that 17 year olds are likely to be different individuals when they get older.

By a 5-4 vote, the court said young people serving life prison terms must have “a meaningful opportunity to obtain release” if they haven’t killed their victims. The majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy extended the “children are different” rationale that drove his decision five years ago that outlawed the death penalty for killers under 18.

To no one’s surprise, Scalia and his puppet, Thomas, both dissented. Of course, they’re legal minds haven’t matured past the age of 11 year olds, so maybe they just aren’t aware of the obvious facts of life.

But even the average Joe can be an idiot. This is from the comment section on the Yahoo! article; I suspect it will turn out to be rather representative of the conservative criticism that will be dealt out to this piece of reason.

This is great. Once again the US Supreme Court is telling juveniles it is OK to disobey the laws of this country as long as you do it before 18.

Yes, that’s exactly it. Despite all the news reports, the quotes from the justices, and the actual written opinions, what has actually just happened is that the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no punishments for crimes committed as children. Rob a store at 17? You’re free. Snort cocaine and get busted at 16? No sweat. I mean, how else could someone possibly interpret such a heavy and complex ruling?!

Atheist meme of the day

I’m just stealing everyone’s blog posts today.

Today’s Atheist Meme of the Day. Pass this on; or don’t; or edit it as you see fit; or make up your own. Enjoy!

Atheists are open-minded, and we are willing to consider the possibility that we might be mistaken. In fact, most atheists used to be believers — it’s the fact that we are open-minded and willing to change our minds that made us become atheists. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.

Via Greta Christina

The militancy!

Jesus and Mo

Thought of the day

It seems like the key to becoming an effin’ huge example of marine life is to just eat a bunch of plankton.

Via Jerry Coyne