Launching a new blog

I’m launching a monthly publication for my local area which I will be distributing this weekend. In conjunction with this, I am also starting a new blog. It shouldn’t take much time from For the Sake of Science because it will only feature articles which also get printed in the paper; it won’t be the exercise in near-daily posting that is this blog.

Some issues may be covered on both my blogs, but since Without Apology is also a print publication, its articles will have to be tailored in that way, so there will at least be a differences in writing between the two.

My hope for this publication is to get an honest voice into the local public sphere. Our local paper, the Kennebec Journal, prints generally boring or bad or otherwise lacking editorials. It also refuses to use a sharp tongue when a sharp tongue is needed. I recall a piece they wrote refuting a local school board member who wanted to “teach the controversy” about evolution. The guy’s main complaint was that old creationist canard ‘Evolution is only a theory!’. They did manage to call the guy stupid (even though “ignorant” is the appropriate term), but they were wholly ineffective. The piece was filled with appeals to authority. They didn’t attempt to quickly explain any evolutionary concept. Worst yet, they said nothing of the difference between a scientific theory and a laymen theory.

So visit Without Apology if this blog gets old for you (which couldn’t possibly happen; everything on the Internet is forever, right?). If you’re a person who has come across a physical copy of the paper and you want to comment, please go to that other blog. It’s your best outlet for expressing your opinion on Without Apology.

Exemplifying the wacky right

Over at Brad Locke’s blog (which is mostly about sports, but not hockey so who cares), there’s a post about spanking. It exemplifies the wacky right.

He first quotes a discipline expert from a CNN article.

Every public school needs effective methods of discipline, but beating kids teaches violence, and it doesn’t stop bad behavior. Corporal punishment discourages learning, fails to deter future misbehavior and at times even provokes it.”

That’s all true. Striking a person is negative reinforcement and only serves as a short term solution to behavioral correction; it offers no long term benefits. This has long been known to science for quite some time. But then, the right doesn’t care about science, does it? Locke writes,

I remember one afternoon during my 7th grade science class a friend and I decided we would throw paper balls as hard as we could to each other when our teacher, Roger Chism, wasn’t looking.

The problem, though, came when I misfired and nailed Coach Chism in the face just as he was turning around. Let’s just say my school didn’t have a problem with corporal punishment. Three licks later, I learned my lesson. It didn’t provoke violence within me, and I didn’t make that mistake again.

That’s a common fallacy in this argument. The anti-science group on the right always trots out anecdotal examples (usually themselves). Notice that in the quote from the discipline expert (Alice Farmer), she says spanking “at times provokes” violence. No one is claiming that spanking = violent kids. It’s simply that spanking encourages more violence among kids.

Same thing happened when I got bold enough to talk back to my dad during my early teenage years. Again, lesson learned. A very painful lesson at that.

Haha. This goes straight to another point made by Farmer: “Corporal punishment discourages learning”. How dare a teenager have the audacity to confront a parent! Everyone knows parents are right 100% of the time. It’s also well known that parents do not need to explain their actions or words to their children because, well, they’re older and bigger. It’s sort of like how a bully doesn’t need to explain why he’s taking your lunch money. He’s older and bigger and thus right 100% of the time. Right?

But Locke isn’t done. He needs to bring out the machismo guns.

You know what? Maybe that’s what’s wrong with society today. We’ve wussiefied our discipline to the point kids aren’t afraid of getting into trouble.

Oh, those fucking wussy kids! Why don’t they fucking man up?! Stupid little pussies! Eat a SlimJim!

This guy needs to stop typing with his penis. But he doesn’t.

There is no fear.

Of course! Why haven’t all the child psychologists, therapists, experts, and, um, educated think of that! FEAR! That’s the best teaching tool there is. Well, minus the “teaching” part. “Tool” is still pretty valid, though.

And it’s not just in the homes. We see it from our athletes.

Used to, if a player got in trouble, there was a severe suspension levied. Now, not so much. Coaches make so much money, they feel the pressure to win, even at the risk of keeping a troubled star on the team with very little recourse.

Wow. Talk about your non-sequitur. Suspending a student and hitting a student are not related except insofar as they both happen to be punishments. The real problem with coaches keeping troubled stars on the team has to do with what Locke already said: so much money. There’s no “wussification” (ARRRGGGHH!! STEAK AND POTATOES!) going on here. It’s an entirely unrelated problem.

Spanking teaches violence? Whatever.

Remember, spare the rod and spoil the child. Well, into today’s translation it would read, spare the spanking and you get a spoiled brat.

So I suppose there’s a causative link (hell, I’d settle for a correlation) with brats and a lack of spanking, right? Or maybe THESE KIDS JUST NEED MORE SLIMJIMS, FUCKING WUSSIES! AAARRRRGGGHH!

In my own household, the wooden spoon was the trick. Most times, I didn’t have to use it. After a few discipline sessions, all I had to do was point to the spoon if trouble of a different nature arose. Trust me when I say that worked.

Awesome. So this guy is raising his kids by threatening them with violence, as if they’re his pets (which would be deplorable for his pets, too). This is likely to lead to adults who are less well equipped to decide what makes something right and what makes something wrong. He is FAILING to teach anything about how the world works. I hope his children go off to college where they can be around WELL educated people instead of this joke of a father.

Some people are just so wrong

This is a Letter to the Editor from today’s Kennebec Journal.

I don’t know about you but I am outraged to think that a felon can vote in Maine. Isn’t it wonderful that we have the reputation of being one of only two states in the country to allow a felon to vote?

Can you imagine that a pedophile who rapes a little child can vote? And, how about the adult rapist, the bank robber, the arsonist, the killer, the guys who used a machete to hack up those folks in Pittston and all the rest of the lowlifes.

I hope the editors of this newspaper write an editorial someday about this travesty of our law. The liberals like it because most of these punks vote for them. It’s easy to know why.

I will sign a petition to get this law changed. Is there an organization out there that will start one? Is there anybody or any group that will say “enough is enough?”

Is there a politician with guts enough to stand up and be counted and start the ball rolling? If the voters of this state don’t wake up and start electing people other than liberals, we will have such a mess that it will never get cleaned up.

C’mon folks, do something!

Roland Preble

Gardiner

Despite the lazy outrage (“Someone else do it!”), I actually was quite pleased to see this letter. I wasn’t aware (or at least had forgotten) that Maine allowed felons to vote. This is excellent. Why should criminality bar someone the voting booth? Committing a felony says nothing of a person’s ability or (more importantly) right to vote. I see no good argument for it.

I do, however, see a great argument against it. We still tax felons, no? We still charge them fees for various registrations and whathaveyou. If we are going to force them to give money to the state for the benefit of the whole, we must also give them the right to have a say in what we do with that money. It is not the place of the state to permanently dictate to any person what it shall do with said person’s money. That is an unreasonable punishment. It amounts to a life-long fine. Worst yet, it strips people of certain fundamental rights. The right to vote should never be taken away from any person, no matter how heinous a crime has been committed.

But I would imagine Roland would prefer felons to vote. The vast majority of the prison population is Christian and against da gays. The whole group could be a boon for conservative issues (like bigotry and ignoring reason).

Another couple prays child to death

A couple from Pennsylvania has prayed their child to death.

A fundamentalist couple who prayed over their sick toddler rather than get medical help before his pneumonia death have been ordered to stand trial on manslaughter charges.

Prosecutors believe 2-year-old Kent Schaible succumbed because his parents chose prayer over modern medicine.

There may be some legitimate defense in this particular case, but there is a more important issue here.

Some states carve out exceptions to criminal neglect statutes for parents who rely on faith or spiritual healing.

These states (including my own) disgust me. Believing in magic is not a license to practice magic, especially when the life of another person is at stake.

Liars and the arguments they make

Awhile back there were a couple of editorials in the local paper about same-sex marriage in Maine. I have taken to ripping apart the one that is against liberty and freedom and the pursuit of happiness and civil rights and all things good.

Research and statistics repeatedly show the best environment for stable families and children is one with an opposite-sex union of a father and mother.

This is a lie. No research has been done which compares mother/father relationships to father/father or mother/mother relationships in terms of child rearing. This is just another abuse of science by the right.

Marriage is not a civil right. Societies have always regulated marriage. A man cannot marry his daughter or mother. A woman cannot marry her brother or nephew. Marriage is a tool of the society to ensure that the next generation is stable and self-reliant.

Societies have also regulated voting. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a civil right. And that a man cannot marry his daughter goes to other reasoning than that marriage is between one man and one woman. It must. Obviously a man marrying his daughter is one man and one woman, so if we disagree that it should happen, then we must be using some other reasoning beside the one man/one woman mantra.

Marriage being a tool to ensure generational stability is a non-sequitur and bad writing.

The social institution of marriage is centered on children. Allowing same-sex couples to marry radically alters the social institution of marriage. Same-sex marriage is centered on adults and what is best for the adult rather than children. The two definitions of marriage cannot co-exist.

This is an argument against infertility, the right to choose to not have children, and marriage beyond the age of child-bearing years, too. Does the right really want to go into those grounds?

If marriage becomes an adult-centered institution, the social expectation of raising children in a home where the biological parents are married will continue to erode and fewer heterosexual couples will marry.

This is purely speculative and has no data to back it up. It is also easily countered with more speculation because one can simply say that homosexuals getting married will have no effect on a heterosexual’s decision to marry. It’s sort of like how blacks getting married didn’t cause white marriage rates to decline.

Keeping marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman is not about discrimination, intolerance or denying civil rights, it is about ensuring our society continues to reap the benefits of marriage between a man and a woman.

Lies. This is about Bible-based hatred of homosexual activity (and often homosexuals, despite lying denials). And if this is about ensuring society continues to reap the benefits of marriage between one man and one woman, then there should be a push to legally compel people to marry. After all, that wouldn’t be about denying the civil rights of individuals to choose to not get married, it would be about ensuring societal benefits, no?

If they want tax exemption…

Catholics add $86,000 vs gay vows

Catholics in Maine gave about $86,000 to fight same-sex marriage through collections at Masses in September.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland said Friday that parishioners put $41,000 into baskets during collections supporting the campaign to repeal Maine’s new law legalizing same-sex marriage.

Donations made in envelopes weren’t opened by the churches but sent directly to Stand for Marriage Maine, the political action committee organizing the repeal effort.

This seems like such a clear issue. If any given religion wants tax-exempt status, it should effectively remain a-political. In this instance, preaching a lack of acceptance should be legally acceptable (and expected of religion), but donating to political campaigns is out of the question. Telling followers how to vote should not be allowed. It’s bad enough that these organizations are allowed to influence their parishioners towards bigotry; they should not be allowed to do it without paying taxes.

As we should have learned from Kent Hovind, Jesus does not put one above the law.

Oh, this “news”paper

So the Kennebec Journal has been advertising for certain political positions lately. This hasn’t come in the form of regular ad space, but by a devotion of front page space.

A little while ago the editor, Richard Connor, printed an article advertising a political strategy for pro-bigots on the front page. This was done when Obama had just given a widely-anticipated speech on health care. After multiple opinion pieces printed by the KJ by its editors saying Obama needed to make his positions known, his speech found itself on page A3. There are two possibilities: Connor is a dumb editor who does not have a basic ability to recognize front page news or – and here’s where my money is – he’s a hack who wants to use a newspaper to prop up his particular views.

A couple days later, he followed up. The article said nothing other than “We had a meeting and decided we still hate da gays”. Not long after that, Connor, hack extraordinaire, advertised an anti-abortion rally.

Now there’s yet another article. In today’s paper, he advertised some rhetoric from the bigots. It was all about how proponents of same-sex marriage are utilizing outside resources to help with their campaign. The sub-headline said something to the effect of “People from away are helping with the campaign”. I would quote that directly, but I do not waste my money on rags, so I don’t have a copy of the paper on hand. But how about a link? Well, sir, I cannot find it. The KJ is not featuring this article on its website, despite the decision to put it on the front page of today’s paper. But I can tell you that the Vassalboro boat ramp will be closed. Because that’s important.

My favorite part of this is that this is the exact rhetoric used by the bigots. Both sides are guilty of it, actually, but the bigots seem to be more aggressive with their tactics. “From away” is a Maine phrase which means anyone who isn’t from Maine. In this context, it is designed to alienate the opposition from voters. It’s an unsubstantial ploy to woo their votes. Who really sits at home and says, “Hmm, people from out of state are trying to persuade me. Yeah, all right, voting just to spite them is a good idea”? Come on.

The kicker to all this is that it was only about 6 weeks ago that the KJ had an article which noted, simply, that both sides are getting outside funds. I guess Connor forgot about that when he decided to get hung up in all his campaigning.

Oh, this "news"paper

So the Kennebec Journal has been advertising for certain political positions lately. This hasn’t come in the form of regular ad space, but by a devotion of front page space.

A little while ago the editor, Richard Connor, printed an article advertising a political strategy for pro-bigots on the front page. This was done when Obama had just given a widely-anticipated speech on health care. After multiple opinion pieces printed by the KJ by its editors saying Obama needed to make his positions known, his speech found itself on page A3. There are two possibilities: Connor is a dumb editor who does not have a basic ability to recognize front page news or – and here’s where my money is – he’s a hack who wants to use a newspaper to prop up his particular views.

A couple days later, he followed up. The article said nothing other than “We had a meeting and decided we still hate da gays”. Not long after that, Connor, hack extraordinaire, advertised an anti-abortion rally.

Now there’s yet another article. In today’s paper, he advertised some rhetoric from the bigots. It was all about how proponents of same-sex marriage are utilizing outside resources to help with their campaign. The sub-headline said something to the effect of “People from away are helping with the campaign”. I would quote that directly, but I do not waste my money on rags, so I don’t have a copy of the paper on hand. But how about a link? Well, sir, I cannot find it. The KJ is not featuring this article on its website, despite the decision to put it on the front page of today’s paper. But I can tell you that the Vassalboro boat ramp will be closed. Because that’s important.

My favorite part of this is that this is the exact rhetoric used by the bigots. Both sides are guilty of it, actually, but the bigots seem to be more aggressive with their tactics. “From away” is a Maine phrase which means anyone who isn’t from Maine. In this context, it is designed to alienate the opposition from voters. It’s an unsubstantial ploy to woo their votes. Who really sits at home and says, “Hmm, people from out of state are trying to persuade me. Yeah, all right, voting just to spite them is a good idea”? Come on.

The kicker to all this is that it was only about 6 weeks ago that the KJ had an article which noted, simply, that both sides are getting outside funds. I guess Connor forgot about that when he decided to get hung up in all his campaigning.

Greensburg Salem High School follow-up

Sometime back I wrote about the irrational rule internalization which resulted in six teens from Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg, PA being charged with distributing child pornography. In short, six teens (3 girls, 3 boys) were involved in sending or receiving photos which featured three of them in the nude or partially nude. Each person involved in these exchanges is allowed to engage in sex with each other under Pennsylvania law. So according to the Greensburg DA and the city’s police captain, George Seranko, these teens may see each other nude, even have sex, but if they do it via scary electronic devices*, they are subject to prosecution.

Since I never followed up on this case, I have gone ahead and found out what happened to these kids.

In January, six Greensburg Salem High School students were charged in juvenile court with child pornography offenses for sexting. The teens were sentenced to community service or a curfew and didn’t have to register as sex offenders.

These punishments are either too harsh or irrelevant. Had they all stood in a room together naked, would anything have happened? Of course not. The law in Pennsylvania says nothing can happen in terms of prosecution; the teens have been deemed legally responsible enough to engage in these activities. Giving any of them community service is too harsh a punishment for that reason. They should not be subject to servicing a community which has already given them the rights to engage in sexual behavior with each other. If anything, those leading the community – namely Capt. George Seranko – owe these teens an apology. As for the curfew, that is entirely irrelevant to the ‘crime’ with which they were charged. Their phones work just as well in the evening and at night as they do in the day. Curtailing the freedom of these teens (especially the ones who may work) serves no purpose. It says nothing of what they did and does nothing to prevent it from happening again. Not only are the police, prosecutors, and judges of Greensburg internalizing rules like robotic morons, they aren’t even applying the punishments for the rules appropriately. That city is obviously not run with intelligence.

*The older one beomces, usually the more mature and worldly one becomes. Not so with technology. It frightens the elderly.

UPDATE: I would email this to the Greensburg PD, but they insist on showing their lack of grasp of technology and its role in our lives, so they have no email address.

Nothing is to be held sacred, right?

PZ Myers has this thing he does on his blog. When he finds Internet polls, he gets them Pharyngulated. People put too much stock into these things, so he attacks them just to make a point. Any result is meaningless when it is had through the interwebbings.

But the normal point of attack is polls which are likely to have a pro-religion or pro-conservative sampling bias. What of polls which will appeal to the non-believers? We cannot hold these to be above attack.

And so it is with that in mind that I present this poll

Do you believe in God?

Yes 22% (65 votes)

No 70% (211 votes)

I don’t know 8% (25 votes)

This is Blasphemy Day. The point isn’t to knock down religion; it’s to say that no ideas should be insulated from criticism or frank discussion. To demonstrate this, one should use blasphemy. But this principle doesn’t end at religious blasphemy. The Pharyngulation of polls should be subject to the same ideas.