I would be quite happy with New England becoming its own nation. We can give northern Maine to Canada, though.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: New England, Thought of the day | 4 Comments »
I would be quite happy with New England becoming its own nation. We can give northern Maine to Canada, though.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: New England, Thought of the day | 4 Comments »
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.)
Filed under: News, Science | Tagged: Vaccination, Vermont | 8 Comments »
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.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Historical revisionism, Thought of the day | 10 Comments »
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.
Filed under: News | Tagged: Global Warming, Kenneth Cuccinelli, Michael Mann | Leave a comment »
Filed under: Science | Tagged: Grace Hopper, Nanoseconds | 1 Comment »
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?
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Leprechauns, Thought of the day | 6 Comments »
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.
Filed under: Rant | Tagged: Drive-by Facebooking | 2 Comments »
Filed under: sports | Tagged: Jason Varitek, Red Sox, Tim Wakefield | Leave a comment »