Thought of the day

I would be quite happy with New England becoming its own nation. We can give northern Maine to Canada, though.

Vermont gets vaccination bill half-right

The Vermont Senate has recently passed a bill taking away the ‘rights’ of parents to refuse certain vaccinations on philosophical grounds for their children before entering school:

The Vermont Senate on Friday passed and sent to the House a bill that would end the philosophical exemption from the requirement that parents get their children a series of vaccinations before they enter school.

But a religious exemption would remain in place, and senators and state Health Department officials agreed that there are no standards in Vermont law for what constitutes religious belief.

There are definite pros and cons to this bill. The overwhelming pro is that it sends the message that vaccinations are important to the health of children. This should help to counter some of the anti-vax rhetoric that still pervades much of the Western world as if none of us have ever heard of medicine or science. The biggest con, however, is that the actual implication of the bill is impotent. Vermont does not put itself in the place of determining what constitutes a legitimate religious belief, so anyone can simply lie on a form to exempt their child from good health.

And, of course, there is the issue of giving the religious special rights. This bill creates a divide which says that religious beliefs are more important than philosophical beliefs. It’s reminiscent of the hoops through which the military puts pacifists during a draft versus what they require of, say, the Amish. It’s not only morally and logically abhorrent, but I doubt it’s constitutional.

But there is an upside. Aside from the obvious health benefits, this could be a stepping stone to outlawing the religious from exempting their children, much like DADT acted as a stepping stone to what we have today. It’s probably wishful thinking, but it’s possible. Religious liberty is not unlimited, after all. (If you think it is, try sending your child to school completely nude on the basis that it is part of your religion.)

Thought of the day

It never ceases to amaze me how much historical revisionism conservatives are willing to create. I actually just read an entire thread on Facebook (on YH&C‘s wall) where people tried to blame Democrats and liberals for creating this ‘debate’ over birth control and Rush Limbaugh’s horrible, misogynistic comments. Last time I checked, it was the Republicans who were pretending that employers who get government funding shouldn’t be subject to government regulations, that any employer at all should be able to make up a ‘moral’ objection to something they find inconvenient. (Maybe we should do that with employers who ‘morally’ object to civil rights?) Last time I checked, it was Limbaugh who called all women who have sex prostitutes.

Yep. Looks like the left, once again, is not only in the clear on the bullshit-o-meter, but is also 100% correct on this entire issue. I don’t get why anyone votes Republican.

Kenneth Cuccinelli rebuffed

I wrote quite some time ago about Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli’s global warming witch hunt against Michael Mann. The courts have finally shut him down:

The Virginia Supreme Court says the state’s attorney general does not have the authority to subpoena emails from a global warming researcher.

And why did exotic pasta dish Cuccinelli want those emails? Because he’s a walking conservative caricature.

A nanosecond

Good job, Indiana

The Indiana House has passed a bill that I think is just dandy:

Hoosiers could legally defend themselves against police officers who enter their home under a measure that the Indiana House approved on a 74-24 vote, moving it another step toward becoming law, on Thursday.

The measure would overturn last year’s Indiana Supreme Court decision. The court ruled that homeowners do not have the right to use force against law enforcement officials who they believe are illegally entering their homes.

When I originally heard about this story it was from a biased source, so I was led to believe that Indiana was in the process of explicitly telling homeowners they could shoot police officers for the least of reasons. Of course, this bill would allow a homeowner to shoot a cop, but it would need to be for a damn good reason. Moreover, the use of force being discussed here is more about physically forcing an officer out of one’s home (provided the entry has been illegal) rather than just shooting him. In other words, it’s common sense. The police shouldn’t be granted the right to enter a person’s home illegally anymore than a grocery clerk should be granted that right.

Well done, Indiana. Well done.

Thought of the day

I get really curious when I hear people ignorantly declare that atheists are this or that, that we all hold these or those sort of values. If such a normative statement can be made, then I presume we could also make a statement as to the nature and values of those who don’t believe in leprechauns.

So tell me, theists. Tell me in no uncertain terms just what it is that unites a-leprechaunists. Are they moral? Immoral? Amoral? What common value do they all hold?

Drive-by Facebooking

I’ve decided that I need a stock post for the act of drive-by Facebooking. It is an act which has become so common that it would be easier if I could just toss this link up whenever I see it. Let me explain.

I have recently written about people who don’t think Facebook is “real life”. They’re utterly wrong, of course. Simply because something happens on the Internet does not mean it is without impact. Aside from the fact that what we read on our friends’ walls absolutely does affect us one way or another (whether to a major or minor extent, positive or negative), we can also look to huge, historical events. Ever hear of the Arab Spring? Guess what the driving force behind that was. Oh, social media? Funny that. But there is another cast of people who have a distorted view of how Facebook and other online platforms work. These are the people who realize that Facebook is real, but they don’t want to treat it how they would treat any other situation. I call them drive-by Facebookers.

Imagine you’re sitting at a cafe or a bar talking with someone. For one reason or another, the discussion turns to something controversial. You and your friend find that the two of you are in disagreement. In fact, you’re position is so offensive to your friend that he gets up and walks away. But wait, wait, wait. He doesn’t merely storm off. That would be childish enough, of course, but there’s more. Instead of walking away in a puff with a final angry word, he says what he thinks, listens to your response, and then with a completely blank stare just walks away. No words that indicate an ending to the discussion. No expression. No overt sign of anger. It would go something like this:

You: I don’t like X for the reasons A, B, and C.

Friend: I really think your position is just awful! Here is the problem with A ____. And here is the problem with B ____. And here is the problem with C ____. I just can’t believe you think otherwise!

You: Here is another way of putting my argument ____.

Friend: *walks away, never to be seen again*

I’m not saying there needs to be a formal end to every discussion and debate. In fact, I think it’s a sign of oldness when someone says, “Good night!” or “I’ll be on tomorrow to continue this!” It’s the Internet, the place where time is irrelevant. There is no need to alert everyone to the fact that you’re leaving. The thing about which I am talking is when people storm in to make a point criticizing something, but when they are challenged back, they lack the common courtesy to respond. It’s an infantile act; it’s a way to declare a belief without needing to defend it in the least.

I can see some gray area in what I’m arguing. How many responses are needed in order to show appreciable courtesy? One? Two? A thousand? There is no clear line in the sand. Still, that does not justify the sort of thing about which I am talking. However blurred the lines get, there is no good reason for drive-by Facebooking. It’s nothing more than an excuse to show disagreement with a person without owning that disagreement. It’s like the frustration one might feel after getting cuffed on the back of the head and then having the attacker run off and face zero consequences. As a person who relishes debate, I see more than my fair share of people doing the equivalent to this online. I’ve grown tired of it. I think it’s childish; if people want to argue a point, then argue it as much as time will allow. Someone who is unwilling to do that should also be unwilling to comment in the first place.

So can we do away with this drive-by garbage, please? If you have an argument to make, make it. Just don’t run away when someone challengers what you’ve said. After all, no one likes a coward.

‘Tek and Wake



“Facebook isn’t real life!”

People have this view of Facebook where they think it somehow isn’t substantial, that it doesn’t “count”, that it isn’t “real life”. I think they are almost entirely wrong.

When I write anything on FTSOS, Facebook, or elsewhere online, I make it a point to not type a single word I wouldn’t also be willing to say to someone in person. Doing otherwise betrays a false bravado and that isn’t the sort of person I ever want to be. However, not everyone feels this way. Or, at least, they don’t act this way. For instance, I have had a number of people get into heated debates with me over Facebook and then, upon seeing me in person, they try to cool things off, occasionally even apologizing. My response is to consistently say that I don’t care that they were speaking harshly or that they were being rude or whatever. My view is that the reason they said those things is because they believe them. If anything, I’m happy they spoke what they think is true. I may think their beliefs are erroneous, even stupid, but I would rather read what they really think than read what they think is the nice thing to say.

There is an unfortunate reason why people change their tone (and not just with me) so quickly when they see their ‘opponent’ in person. The Internet amounts to a comfortable buffer which insulates people from many feelings of awkwardness, distress, etc. This causes people to place less value on the words they are willing to type versus the ones they are willing to speak. In other words, people believe, as I so often hear and read, that ‘Facebook isn’t real life!’ They think there is a fundamental difference between in-person interaction and online interaction. I think they’re wrong.

I’m not about to deny that there is a clear difference in dynamics between so-called ‘real life’ interaction and online interaction. There is. But that is the only difference in non-anonymous situations and it is not fundamental (due to the lack of anonymity). What a person says on Facebook and other online places still impacts the thoughts, feelings, emotions, and mood of a person sitting at the end of another connection. Right now, I mean right now, anyone reading this post is considering what I am saying; anyone reading this post is computing in their minds what they think and how they feel about my argument. Is that not real life? Is that somehow fake? Is everyone who sees this just pretending to exist?

None of this is to say that online interaction is better than in-person interaction. I think in-person interaction has many advantages over online interaction, including a wider array of dynamics. On the flip side, I think online interaction has its advantages, including the ability to formulate detailed points and stories and arguments. However, I think the people who scream that Facebook and other online media platforms aren’t ‘real life’ would be the same people decrying the ‘realness’ of telephone conversations back when they were still a new thing. They have a ridiculous argument – ridiculousness that is just as real whether it is said over a cup of coffee or on a status update.