Let's have a letter-writing contest!

Okay, here's the deal.

On November 21st some douchewad going by the name of "Richard Baker" had a letter to the editor printed in the Sentinel (Google cache here).

Here it is in its entirety, but feel free to skip to the end of it.

Local resident believes House Speaker is corrupt
Editorial / Opinion
Posted: 11/21/2008 07:24:17 AM EST

I wonder if many Americans are aware of what our Speaker of the House has pulled on the public?

Nancy Pelosi's home district includes San Francisco, and Star Kist Tuna's headquarters is also located in San Francisco.

Star Kist is owned by DelMonte Foods and is a major contributor to Nancy Pelosi.

Star Kist is also the major employer in American Samoa, employing 75 percent of the workforce there.

Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's husband owns $17 million worth of Del Monte stock.

In January 2007, when the minimum wage was increased from $5.16 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wages.

This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.

Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an "earmark" to the final bill, adding $33 million for an "economic development credit in American Samoa."

Now remember this: Nancy Pelosi called the Bush administration "corrupt," and I guess, she, of all people should know..

Now the Big 3 car manufacturers, Ford, Chevrolet, and Chrysler are wanting billions to bail them out of their own stupidity, and many big cities are lining up with their hands out for money too.

When will this end with the government bailing out every one who gets in line for their piece of the pie with worthless paper dollars? Of course, the giant companies will have to have their "working seminars" at those posh resorts with the bailout money, and they will not be able to earn more in bonuses than last year, so apparently the normal bonuses of millions of dollars are OK.

I guess we haven't seen the end of this socialist gang in Washington yet, and all I can say is God Help America because we ain't seen nutthin yet.

Richard Baker,
Fitchburg

Total nonsense, of course. Also mostly plagiarized from a chain email. If you like, you can go ahead and compare it to the original as seen (and debunked) on Snopes here.

Okay, so one sack of lies got by the Sentinel's ace fact-checkers! Surely that couldn't happen again, could it?

Of course it could!

In December 10th's letters to the editors we find this letter, also "written" by someone by the name of Richard Baker. Since it'll get archived soon, I'll reproduce it in full here.

Again, feel free to skip to the end...

Reader says taxpayers shouldn't pay for speaker's plane
Editorial / Opinion
Posted: 12/10/2008 10:49:28 AM EST

Madame Pelosi wasn't happy with the small private jet that comes with the speaker's job, no, Madame Pelosi was aggravated that this little jet had to stop to refuel, so she ordered a big fat jet with a bedroom that could get her back to California without stopping, carry her staff, family and friends.

Nancy's big fat jet costs us, the hard working American taxpayers, thousands of gallons of fuel every week.

Since she only works three days a week, this gas guzzling jet gets fueled and she flies home to California, cost to the taxpayers of about $60,000, one way.

Unfortunately we have to pay to bring her back on Monday nights.

Cost to us is another $60,000.

That is $480,000 per month and that is an annual cost to the taxpayers of $5.7 million.

I think of the military families in this country doing without and this woman, who heads up the most do-nothing Congress in the history of this country, keeps fueling that jet while doing nothing.

Madame Pelosi wants you and I to conserve and wants us to buy smaller cars and Obama wants us to get a bicycle pump and air up our tires. And they want to talk about Sarah Palin's dress and what it cost.

What a direct slap in the face to the taxpayers. She can get away with it because no one in Washington has the guts to stand up to her.

Richard Baker
Fitchburg

Here is the Snopes page showing you the very-similar original chain email this came from and debunking this sack of lies.

So in less than three weeks we've had two letters from this one idiot that were mostly cut-and-pasted from a chain email. Both take about 5 seconds to debunk. Both were printed in the newspaper.

Additionally, my copy of the phone book does not list a "Richard Baker" in the city of Fitchburg. That may not mean anything (lots of people aren't listed), or it may mean he's not even a real person.

Obviously, the Sentinel has absolutely no quality-control or factchecking taking place on its letters to the editor.

This is bad for them, but good for us...

It's time for a contest!

Let's see who can get the most ridiculously false and idiotic letter to the editor published in the Sentinel!

Here's how to play:

1. Write a letter to the editor about your topic of choice. Make sure it's really stupid, though. Think along the lines of "B. Hussein Obama can't be presdent becase he's a Secret Muslin!", but dumber. Or just copy a wingnut chain mail. Whatever.
   Note: Sensible, intelligent, or even well-written letters to the editor may be automatically disqualified. We're looking for crazy wingnuttery only. But it still needs to pass for a real letter! It's a careful balancing act.
2. Submit it to the Sentinel here. I don't recommend using your real name unless you want everyone to think you're an idiot. Don't impersonate any real people either, though. Stay under the radar.
3. Either email it to me, or leave it as a comment on this post, but stick the word "sentineleditorialcontest" at the top of your comment so I can hold it up in moderation until after it's in the paper. Email is probably safer, because sometimes my comment system goes wonky. This step is necessary so that people don't take credit for someone else's stupid letter. I need to see the letter before it appears in the paper.
4. You can swap those two steps above if you want. It would probably make sense to wait at least a few days before trying to get your craziness into the paper anyway.
5. Watch the letters to the editor section of the Sentinel for your letter to appear.
6. When it does, laugh derisively. Also, send me a follow up email or comment mentioning it, just in case I'm not paying attention.
7. ???
8. Profit!

I think that's it.

Then maybe we can vote on everything that gets printed, and crown a winner. The prize will be nothing but bragging rights. Or maybe a t-shirt proclaiming your awesomeness. Who knows?

If I'm the only one who actually does this (and you can bet I will), then I'll just declare myself the winner and write "I AM AWESOME" on a t-shirt with a magic marker, which I will then wear while sitting on my couch.

But if even one other person does it, I become ineligible for the prize. Which means if you're the only one to do it you automatically win! So do it!

Let's say the contest ends on January 31st at some point in the future (I won't set a timetable or the terrorists would win!). So you have plenty of time to get in there. Maybe even two or three times if you're good.

That is all.

S&E Publisher Runs Away!

Dammit, I need to start paying more attention to the Fitchburg Pride. Beyond making fun of the religious leaders they print, that is.

Instead, I had to rely on my time-traveling friend to point out this breaking news!

Sentinel & Enterprise Publisher Rick Thurman is no longer at the job, less than nine months after taking leadership of the paper.

When Thurman took over as publisher in March, he was the fourth person in the job in less than two years. He replaced Chuck Owen, who held the post for five months.

Multiple sources said on Wednesday afternoon that Thurman was no longer at the paper. An assistant at the Fitchburg office said Wednesday afternoon, “We’re not commenting on that,” when asked a question about Thurman’s status.

That's pretty much all you need to know from this article.

There are some quotes from people saying nice things about Thurman, and a lot of non-quotes from people who might actually know something about his departure but aren't willing to talk.

Indeed, Thurman has been wiped off the Sentinel's company directory page. So I guess he's really gone.

This is both disappointing and expected.

Thurman seemed to be helping the paper for awhile. Hell, I even had something positive to say about it way back in March. That's almost unheard of!

For awhile it seemed that the paper was on its way to becoming something better. It had been freed from the tyranny of Chuck "angry assclown" Owen and things were looking up!

For a few months there we actually had intelligent editorials and not just the incoherent and bile-soaked eructations of Jeff McMenemy. Sure, they were mostly syndicated editorials, but they were decent syndicated editorials. Not like the crap they've been reprinting lately.

The reporting also seemed to be more sensible. It wasn't all freaking out about totally sensible money-saving plans, or breathless articles about metrosexual vampire movies. I actually had hopes that it could one day become a respectable paper, and not just the WorldNetDaily of North Central Massachusetts.

Alas, I was wrong.

It's seemed like whatever positive influence Thurman originally had has been waning in the last couple of months. Sort of like McMenemy broke out of his little cell and has been running free again.

This is good for me, because I get easy-to-write posts out of it. But it's bad for the region, and for "journalism" as a concept.

I'm not a journalist, of course. So I'm going to wildly speculate about what happened to make Thurman leave. I've come up with a few different scenarios.

Possibility 1: Since the S&E keeps losing publishers, but somehow keeps the incompetent Jeff McMenemy as its barely-literate wingnut editor, maybe McMenemy is the reason for Thurman's departure. Perhaps he either has some dirt on the big boss or has otherwise curried favor with him. So when the idealistic new publisher shows up he runs into a brick wall when trying to deal with the cancer that is his editor. He sticks around trying for awhile, but eventually comes to realize there's no way to save the paper without getting rid of the cancer, and quits out of despair when he realizes he can't do that.

I consider that to be the most likely explanation. But here are some others.

Possibility 2: The newspaper industry sucks. It's dying. The smart passengers are getting off the ship before it goes under completely.

Possibility 3: I guess maybe Thurman could have been offered a better job. But in this economy? In the soon-to-be-dead newspaper industry? Doesn't seem terribly likely. On the other hand, any job is probably better than the one he had.

Possibility 4: Rick Thurman is an illegal alien and has been deported to from whence he came! This also seems unlikely.

Those are just off the top of my head. If any readers have their own theories (or better yet, know the real reason), please don't hesitate to share.

In the meantime; thanks for trying, Rick! Things were better for like two months!


UPDATE: Hey, it's been a long time since I put up a poll! So I did! About this!

Everyone endorses Obama!

Well holy crap.

Going against type, the Sentinel has endorsed Obama. Sure, they also ran two syndicated editorials slandering him at the same time, but still!

It was already pretty clear that conservatives who actually have a shred of intelligence have defected to Obama, but apparently even parts of the crazy base are falling for Barry now.

Just off the top of my head, Republican defectors to Obama include Colin Powell, Bill Weld, Christopher Buckley, Christopher Hitchens, Scott McClellan, Lincoln Chafee, and a bunch more.

Hell, if circa-2000 John McCain suddenly time-traveled to 2008, he'd probably endorse Obama too. Which would explain all those "Obama is awesome!" ads the McCain campaign put out earlier this year.

So who likes McCain? Well, there's Joe Lieberman. Also this idiot:



That's not very good company.

Vote for Obama, the choice of non-crazy people everywhere!

Street Lights and Psychoses

Ha, I totally called it!

The dumbasses at the Sentinel have puked out an editorial about turning off streetlights and it's as full of stupid as you'd expect.

But is it the particular flavor of stupid we were expecting? Let's find out!

First a little clarification though. On that earlier post a commenter mentioned that she has been informed that all these crappy (but byline-lacking) editorials are written by Jeff McMenemy, the S&E's editor. I have no trouble believing this, as Mr. McMenemy has written many similarly terrible editorials with an actual byline included.

However, I don't want to attribute such idiocy to an innocent party if it isn't actually Mr. McMenemy. He could have a really dumb acolyte doing the writing or something. So I will just refer to the person behind this editorial as "the editor".

Anyway, the editor pulled a switcharoo on me! I was fully prepared to debunk a claim that turning off some streetlights would cause an increase in crime. Maybe the editor read my earlier post mentioning that, because he didn't go so far as to make that claim. He does dance around it quite a bit though. So let's dance!

First, consider the opening paragraph...

Fitchburg Mayor Lisa Wong's decision to consider implementing a plan as a "last resort" that calls for turning off every fifth street light, except major intersections, in the city is equally farfetched as it is ill-conceived.

Umm.. what?

Her decision is "farfetched" and "ill-conceived"? That doesn't even make sense. You can call a plan "ill-conceived" or "farfetched," but you can't call the "decision to consider implementing a plan" those words.

Or you can, but everyone reading it will laugh at you and call you dumb.

Let's pause a moment to take special note that the editor recognizes that this plan is a "last resort," is by no means guaranteed to happen, and would affect only every fifth streetlight. Remember these things, because the editor will shortly forget them.

Here's paragraph two!

We can't think of a time or place where it would ever make sense for a mayor to call for turning off street lights -- it sends all the wrong signals about your city -- but this is especially true in Fitchburg.

Oh my god I love this paragraph.

It starts off with that great "we lack the ability to think" bit. I can think of a lot of times and places where it would make sense for a mayor to call for the turning off of street lights. Here's a free one: daytime. You'll have to come up with others yourselves.

But the best part is that once again the editor has fallen back to the braindead non-argument of "sending the wrong signals." Only today we're not sending the wrong signals to kids, we're sending them to... ummm... well the editor hasn't bothered to tell us yet. Devious! He simply tells us that they're sent especially hard in Fitchburg.

Why especially in Fitchburg? I don't know, but the editor has some lies to tell!

Fitchburg is a city where police are fighting an escalating crime problem, particularly violent crime, which is fueled by a growing number of gang members and the illicit drug trade.

Jesus fuck people, how often do I have to point out that crime has been decreasing for the last few years? Just saying things are getting worse all the time doesn't make it true!

I am impressed that the editor has pinpointed the cause of crime though. I'd be curious to see the epidemiological studies he ran to discover that violent crime in Fitchburg is due to gangs and drugs. Good thing he knows just what causes it.

Anyway, what the fuck does that have to do with streetlights? Oh, nothing? Well okay. Let's continue...

Likewise, the city's residents also have to deal with a [sic] higher-than-normal property crimes, caused by the drug addicts who steal anything they can get their hands on to fuel their illegal and destructive habit.

Wow, down on the drug addicts! Those studies must have been really conclusive. Because there's no way that destitute people in a terrible economy would ever steal anything unless it was for drug money. Only those degenerate drug addicts would ever do such a thing!

Also, what's "higher-than-normal" when it comes to property crimes? Is there a normal level of property crime that the dickhead editor would consider fine? Seeing as Fitchburg ranks 6th out of 14 similar-sized cities in property crime, I'd call it pretty normal. Right smack in the middle.

The Sentinel lying about crime rates isn't really newsworthy though. Let's get back to the rest of this idiocy.

Turning off street lights sends the message to them, and everyone else inside and outside the city that your city is in dire straits, and it encourages lawlessness.

Sending messages again! And now we finally know who's getting this message: everybody. Wow!

I wonder what it's like to be Jeff McMenemy the editor. Constantly bombarded by "messages" from streetlights and pieces of legislation and space aliens (probably). It must be hard to live like that.

Maybe he has magic sunglasses like "Rowdy" Roddy Piper in They Live, but instead of seeing the secret authoritarian messages hidden in the environment and becoming a freedom fighter he has embraced them and wants to be one of the creepy skull people too.

The editor sees this and thinks "Well okay, whatever you say!"
We've also finally figured out just what the streetlights are saying when they talk to everyone: They're encouraging lawlessness! Man, streetlights sure are jerks. I mean the ones that are off. The ones that are on are okay I guess. Or at least they don't talk to Mr. Psychotic Editor Guy.

Wait, maybe he's just scared of the dark?

The city of Fitchburg needs more lights and more police on the streets to keep residents, business owners and their customers more safe, not less.

Yep, I think he's just scared of the dark.

Mr. Editor, I am sorry for making fun of you. Clearly your parents did something wrong when you were a child, and never addressed a very primal fear that most of us got past years ago.

You see, darkness can't actually hurt you. More lights don't equal more safety. Also, there are no monsters under your bed.

The last quote represents pretty much the end of even the pretense of an argument about streetlights. From here on the editor just goes into a rant about how Mayor Wong is so incredibly terrible for proposing this plan mentioning this idea as a remote possibility.

Frankly, that part isn't even interesting enough to respond to. After all, it's based on the faulty premise that there's something wrong with the plan. Since that hasn't been established, the ranting that depends on it can be safely ignored.

Finally, just a word of advice to the editor: If a streetlight talks to you or tries to send you a "message" or a "signal", for god's sake just ignore it!

Question 2. Yes!

Dammit.

I was all set to write about this plan to shut off streetlights. I was going to debunk the idea that it would lead to more crime, which is very popular among the big piles of stupid who frequent the S&E's message boards.

But I figure the paper itself will probably do an editorial about it within the next week or so, and I can deal with it then. The S&E isn't representative of the community by any means, but they do a great job of promoting the ideas of the cranks who hang out on their message boards.

So instead, I'll deal with their current stupid editorial. As you've probably already figured out, it's about Question 2, and in a totally-not-shocking move is called Vote no on Question 2.

It's also laughably inept. Full of strawmen, non sequiturs, and just plain nonsense. It deserves a thorough fisking. Which will commence right now.

It actually starts off perfectly fine. Just the facts:

Question 2 proposes to decriminalize possession of one ounce or less of marijuana.

It would not, however, legalize possession. Civil penalties would be enforced, and crimes such as driving under the influence of marijuana or intent to sell marijuana would remain the same.

Civil penalties for those age 18 or older would include forfeiture of the marijuana and a fine of $100.

Those under 18 would be subject to the same penalties, if they complete a drug-awareness program within one year of the offense.

The program would include 10 hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the abuse of marijuana and other drugs.

If the program is not completed, the youth's fine could be increased to as much as $1,000. The offender could also face delinquency proceedings.

The main purpose is to prevent a one-time youthful offense from becoming a lifetime criminal record, which can make it difficult to gain employment, rent an apartment and secure student loans.

That is all correct. Sadly, that's the last we'll see of the facts for awhile. Wave goodbye if you like!

Here's where it starts to go terribly wrong:

We understand the intent. However, if this question is approved, what kind of message will it send to kids?

That breaking the law a little is OK? That if laws are broken often enough eventually we'll soften those laws?

I've lost count of the number of times I've read editorials in the S&E bitching about "sending the wrong message" to kids. It's one of their favorite arguments, perhaps because it doesn't actually mean anything. It's a thought-terminating cliche, so they can just sit back after using it and look smug. No followup required!

They do follow it up, though. With some nonsense about "breaking the law a little" being OK. Huh?

Possession of marijuana would still be illegal. It would just be a civil instead of a criminal offense. There's punishment if you do it, it's just that the punishment is more in line with the level of the offense. "Breaking the law a little" doesn't even make sense, and certainly isn't relevant here.

And yeah, if laws are broken enough, maybe they should be softened! What's wrong with that? We all break the old "blue laws" all the time (need I bring up fornication again?). Times change, laws change with them. If a law is so ridiculous that most people feel fine about breaking it, then maybe it needs to change. Has the S&E forgotten that this is a democracy?

On we go!

Massachusetts laws already require judges to dismiss charges and seal the records of first-time offenders.

Most first-time offenders are now required to participate in substance-abuse education and community-service work.

Okay, I was wrong up above. There were a couple more facts that snuck in. Unfortunately it appears they're attempting to be used to suggest that the criminalization of marijuana possession is fine because first-time offenders can have charges dismissed. This happens after a period of probation, which the editorialist neglected to mention.

Regardless of how these facts were meant to be used, we can just say "yep, that's true" and move on. It's not like the editorialist actually used them to make a coherent argument.

Back to crazy!

It is important to know that the marijuana available today is much stronger than it was 30 years ago.

Actually, no. It's not at all important to note that. Even if it's true, it's totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Question 2 deals with decriminalization of up to an ounce of marijuana, not the potency of the pot. Could we stay on topic, please?

It typically contains nine times the amount of mind-altering THC and is twice as carcinogenic as tobacco.

Dammit, what did I just say?

Still, nine times the THC? What wondrous times we live in to get such good pot! Sadly, it's not true. The pot today is pretty much the same as the pot 30 years ago.

Also, it's good to know that smoking pot is equivalent to smoking two cigarettes. If someone smokes ten joints that's like smoking a pack of cigarettes, cancer-wise! And if they do that every single day for multiple years it could be a problem!

But nobody smokes 10 joints a day, every day, for years and years. That would be insane. Studies have shown no connection between marijuana use and cancer. So why even bring up the carcinogens?

Oh, scare tactic. Right.

They don't really care about the health risks of smoking pot. It's not a health issue to them at all, really. It's a criminal issue. This talk of health risks is just meant to make marijuana seem more dangerous than it actually is.

We're starting to approach the end of the editorial. Time for the writer to bring out his big guns!

Making possession of one ounce or less of marijuana a civil offense would serve to embolden drug dealers and prompt teens to think it's acceptable to use the drug.

Seriously? You're sticking with the lame "sending kids the wrong message" non-argument? I'm pretty sure "teens" don't base their judgment on the acceptability of using marijuana on whether it's a civil or criminal offense. Has the editorialist even ever met a teenager?

Also, "embolden drug dealers"? What the fuck? Question 2 has nothing at all to do with drug dealers. No laws about dealing are changing. It's about possession, not selling. Drug dealers will be no more or less bold if this question passes than they were before.

But hey Mr. Editor, you're on a roll. You've provided not one valid argument against Question 2. Could you maybe vomit out some more irrelevant and/or discredited talking points? Please?

Plus, marijuana often serves as a gateway to stronger and more addictive substances that destroy lives and families.

Thanks, that's perfect!

First, this is of course irrelevant to the issue of Question 2. Question 2 is not "is pot good or bad?", it's about how to properly deal with people who illegally possess it. Do we fuck up their lives permanently for a little pot, or use a lesser punishment?

This "gateway drug" nonsense has been around forever. You'd think people would stop using it, because it's such a ridiculously easy argument to debunk.

Here's how it generally goes. The anti-pot brigade brings out some scary junkie. Someone who's done every drug they could find, and committed any number of crimes to finance their drug habits. They then point out that this person started with marijuana.

Kapow! Marijuana leads to heroin junkiedom!

But it doesn't. You can't work backwards. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in this country. So chances are that if you're someone who does less popular illegal drugs (like heroin, crack, etc) at some point you've probably also used marijuana. You're even more likely to have used the terrible gateway drug of alcohol, which of course should also be banned!

Of course most people who use marijuana don't go on to use anything else. Just like most people who drink alcohol don't go on to use other stuff. There's no causative link at all.

Hey, remember back when this editorial was dealing with facts? I miss those days.

Oh well, one more sentence to go. What's their coup de grace?

Decriminalizing marijuana amounts to an endorsement of substance abuse, and we do not support it.

That's not even an argument. It's just a lie. Well, the bit about endorsement is. They're probably not lying about not supporting it.

First off, nobody endorses substance abuse, you fucking moron. Even beer commercials--which explicitly endorse substance use--don't endorse substance abuse. Learn the difference.

Second, making marijuana possession a civil rather than a criminal offense doesn't even endorse substance use. It changes the penalties for something that remains illegal.

Let's say that somehow mail fraud had picked up the death penalty as its usual punishment. If you mail fireworks, you get executed. If they then change the law so that the penalty for mail fraud is a steep fine, that doesn't mean anybody endorses mail fraud. It just means that the original punishment was unnecessarily harsh.

It also doesn't mean people (or "teens" or whatever) are going to suddenly go out and commit mail fraud because the penalties aren't as bad anymore.

Question 2 is about changing the penalty for possession of small amounts of marijuana from being something that can ruin your entire life to something that will be a pain, but not ruin your life. That's it.

It won't increase drug use, it won't bring society to its knees. It'll stop some of the harm that's done to people in the name of the ill-conceived "war on drugs," which is truly just a war on the American people.

The gobshites at the Sentinel won't recognize this, of course. But they're clearly not operating in the real world. For those of us who are, voting YES ON 2 is a good idea.

The Idiotic Drug War And The Idiots Who Cheer For It

It's a damn holiday. I wanted to do some quick little post about nothing of importance. Maybe snicker at something stupid someone said accidentally or whatever it is I try to pass off as humor around here.

Sadly, this was not to be.

You see, the Fitchburg Police Department has decided that instead of doing something valuable with their time they should devote a whole lot of effort to busting low-level drug dealers.

So some people are probably having a slightly more difficult time getting pot than they did a week ago. Don't you feel safer already?

To make matters worse, they're talking about all this asset forfeiture bullshit. If you're not familiar with it, asset forfeiture laws basically allow the cops to steal the stuff of anyone in any way related to a drug offense. It's abused basically as a matter of policy.

So yeah, I'm not behind this current pointless law enforcement theater. But as anyone familiar with them should already know, the editors of the S&E love it.

Their editorial is entitled New approach against drug crimes will make a difference, which is both unsupported by the facts and laughably naive. Shocking, isn't it?

Let's look at some idiocy:

For literally years now, we have been saying that police and prosecutors, along with city officials and judges, need to start treating drug offenses like the serious crimes they are, and stop coddling drug addicts, who by definition are criminals.

Oh fuck you, editorialist! This "drug addicts are by definition criminals" argument is the oldest and stupidest argument in the prohibitionist's arsenal.

Fornication is illegal in Massachusetts. If you have sex before marriage, you are by definition a criminal. So we could just as easily change the above to say:

For literally years now, we have been saying that police and prosecutors, along with city officials and judges, need to start treating fornication like the serious crime it is, and stop coddling fornicators, who by definition are criminals.

Shit, they probably actually do think that.

The point is, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. Apparently the big-government Republican assholes behind this editorial like having the government legislate their morality, but the rest of us can do just fine without the help, thanks.

Also, hey assholes, drug addicts are NOT criminal by definition. The vast majority of people with a drug problem use only legal drugs (alcohol, mostly). So let's stop with the bullshit argument already.

Whatever. Moving on:

DeMoura said that any property where a drug dealer has been arrested will receive a letter addressed to the landlord or listed owner warning them to evict or eject any tenants that are committing illegal activity.

DeMoura said if no action is taken by the landlord then the owner can be fined between $100 and $1,000, imprisoned for between three months and one year, or the house can be seized.

There's our friend asset forfeiture again.

Don't misunderstand what's going on here. The landlord is being told to evict or eject any tenants that are committing illegal activity. If they don't do this, they face fines, imprisonment, or even the seizure of the house. Even though they had nothing at all to do with the alleged crime, the landlord could suffer serious repercussions.

Why do they do this?

Well, courts have a funny way of considering you innocent until you're proven guilty. I'm sure the S&E doesn't back that either, but that's the way it is. Landlords, on the other hand, aren't bound by that (though they may be bound by the lease).

An arrest took place on their property. That's not a conviction, that's an arrest. It could all be a big mistake. The landlord still has to do the eviction thing, apparently. And they have to evict anyone who's "committing illegal activity." Man, I hope nobody has any speeding tickets!

How, pray tell, is the landlord supposed to know if someone's committing illegal activity? Most people make an effort to keep their illegal activities pretty quiet. But hey, the police don't care about your fancy "rights" and other liberal claptrap. They care about intimidating your landlord into kicking you out of your home, even if there's no basis. Better yet, if your landlord is the principled sort who doesn't want to go along with it, they can fuck up his/her life seriously. Hooray for our great protectors!

But if you ask the S&E, those great protectors aren't worth a damn unless they also punish, punish, PUNISH the already-presumed-guilty!

As important as the actions taken this week are, it's just as important that judges set high bails in these drug cases, and then implement strict sentences when a defendant is found guilty.

Likewise, city officials, working with our Statehouse delegation, should do everything they can to rid the city of Fitchburg, and particularly Main Street and the downtown -- of non-profits that cater to drug addicts.

Oh yeah, and that's who the real guilty party is! It's non-profit organizations that make an effort to help people with substance abuse problems! Those fucking assholes, with all their compassion and their "helping your fellow man"!

It's long past time to get serious about fighting drugs and to throw these failed treating the criminal like a victim or client policies out the window.

There's your final sentence of the editorial. It's a garbled sentence, but the message is clear.

Do you have a substance abuse problem?

Well then, according to the Sentinel you don't have a medical problem, you are a problem. You're not sick, you're a criminal. The system isn't corrupt, you are. And they'll do everything they can to influence asshole cops and spineless lawmakers into ruining your entire life.

We need to take this power away from the cops and the lawmakers (the editorialists are already impotent, they can whine all they like). For now, make sure you vote for Question 2, and help move us in the right direction.

This stupid war on drugs helps nobody. It's just the way that moralizing nitwits like the S&E's editorialist get their rocks off. They clap and giggle when people's lives are ruined. And for what? Because some people like to put things in their body that the government doesn't like.

That's it. That's what people go to jail for.

Time for the government and the police to face reality. Understand that people have always taken mood-altering substances. Get over it. Decriminalize it. And let's start helping those who suffer instead of making everything worse.

Letters to the Editor are Always Fun!

By "always" in the title up there, I of course mean "never."

Honestly, I feel sort of bad picking on people who write letters to the editor. Yeah, 95% of the time they probably deserve it because they're just totally insane, but it still feels sort of like a cheap shot to address a simple letter-writer instead of the propaganda-spewing paper itself.

But here we have an interesting case.

Obviously, people who write letters to the editor don't provide a title for the paper to use as its headline. So you can sort of tell the political inclination of the paper just by seeing how they interpret the letter. Allow me to provide an example!

In this case, here are two quotes from a recent letter to the editor in the S&E dealing with teen pregnancies. Together, they make up the majority of the letter.

Quote 1:

I think there is a larger influence at work that I have not yet heard blamed: music.

I am personally disgusted with most of the music that is on the radio.

Songs introduces sexual themes to younger and younger audiences, and so they feel ready to expirement [sic] when their parents haven't yet talked about safe sex with their children.

This part is obviously pretty dumb. It's the typical blaming of pop culture for whatever ills you perceive in society.

Presumably, the letter-writer is an older person who finds hip-hop frightening and has forgotten that the only reason most people need to engage in sex is that it's really a whole lot of fun.

It also misses that perhaps "younger and younger" children maybe shouldn't be listening to the Lords of Acid (or whatever kids listen to these days). Which is a parenting issue more than a music issue.

Quote 2 (starts right where Quote 1 ended):

Also I think with the rise in teen pregnancies comes parent paranoia. I feel, in complete disagreement with your article, that parents who continually advocate a no-sex policy with their teens -- and I'm talking older teens not 13- and 14-year-olds -- will only push their kids to have sex behind their backs.

That will only make things worse because teens will then be embarrassed to ask for birth control and condoms, because they don't feel they can talk to parents about it.

I think the best way to prevent teenage pregnancy is to be very open with your children about sex.

Now, this second part is not just larger than the first part, but it's actually pretty sensible (though starting earlier than 13 or 14 would be preferable, kids can already get pregnant at those ages). Abstinence-only education is a huge failure, any way you look at it. And being open with your children about sex is good advice.

Guess which part of this letter the Sentinel decided to focus on? The part criticizing abstinence-only sex ed?

Here's the letter: Reader: Popular music to blame for teen pregnancy increase.

I guess what I'm getting at is that if you write a letter to the editor expressing criticism of a policy that the editor endorses, stick to just that topic. If you mix in anything else, it's going to get the headline. Especially if it's crazy.

Freedom on the Internet = Bad!

Okay, I've been bored to death with local politics lately. Too much whining about the stupid trash fee (services don't come free, people!).

But we're back to good times, because we've got another dumb editorial from my good friend Jeff McMenemy!

This one has the very promising title of Laying down the law on the Internet, and it gives me the excuse to talk not just about about a terrible legal case, but also ruminate on freedom on the internet and the nature of pseudonymity! Whee!

The editorial is about the rather depressing case of Megan Meier, who committed suicide after being rejected on MySpace by a fake person. Said fake person was portrayed as a 16-year old boy, but in reality appears to have been several people. The one we're dealing with today is a 49-year old mother by the name of Lori Drew.

She's just been charged with a crime, and Mr. McMenemy in his editorial couldn't be happier!

The world of the ever-growing and ever-more dangerous Internet got a little dose of much-needed law-and-order Thursday when a federal grand jury indicted a Missouri woman for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online social network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide.

As anyone who's listened to his dribble before knows, McMenemy is no fan of freedom on the internet.

But let's deal with the charge first. What Drew allegedly did is certainly distasteful, but is it really illegal? I mean, this is an old story, and the official word had been that Drew didn't actually commit a crime. But there's an indictment (and here's a pdf of it). So what's Drew charged with?

To put it simply, she's charged with breaking the MySpace Terms of Service. That's right, the "injured party" here is more MySpace than Meier, she's just so much collateral damage. This charge is being brought under a federal law that's generally used against hackers. Not the cool kind, but the intrusive criminal kind.

There are perhaps two big problems here that just about anyone can see:

First, the assumption is made that Drew's messages caused Meier's suicide. Personally, I'd argue that an otherwise emotionally healthy person doesn't hang herself over some MySpace friend she's never met, but people seem to be assuming causation anyway.

Second, the federal law is really about intrusion into systems, not breaking stupid Terms of Service. Breaking Terms of Service is generally grounds for losing your account, not going to jail. So it's an obvious case of trying to cram something that doesn't really fit into the federal law because the federal law has harsher punishments.

So not only does this case have the assertion that bad messages on MySpace were a causative factor in Meier's suicide, we also have a case of misusing anti-hacking laws to punish someone for essentially creating a fake online persona and doing (extremely) stupid shit with it.

It's no wonder McMenemy loves it!

While there is little doubt prosecutors may have a tough row to hoe -- as they say down South -- when it comes to making their case, I applaud them for having the courage to charge the woman with a crime. [Ed: This would be called "wasting taxpayer dollars" if McMenemy wasn't in favor of it.]

For too long, the Internet has been not only a place for freedom of expression and instant communication with anyone in the world, but a place where unsavory people can inflect real emotional damage on another human being.

Man, the internet sucks! People can say stuff that other people might find unpleasant!

To continue with the editorial:

As I've said repeatedly, the Internet is a great tool for the world, but it also allows people with little or no morals to say things to people anonymously that they would never have the guts to say to their face.

Ah, now we're on to a different topic, and it's one I enjoy.

I always love the "anonymous people are cowards" line of attack. Chuck Owen used it on me, and pretty much every pseudonymous blogger in the world has heard the same thing at one time or another.

Not because it's true, mind you. There are a lot of reasons to remain pseudonymous on the internet (note: pseudonymity != anonymity).

Having seen some of the abuse heaped on female bloggers basically just for being female, I'm amazed that any of them use their real identities. People with families also have a good reason to be pseudonymous. To say nothing of whistleblowers, those living under oppressive governments, and basically anyone who would rather avoid every crazy asshole on the internet knowing who they are.

The thing I find funny this is that it's very commonly the line of attack used by newspaper-people. I guess we're supposed to assume that because their names are (sometimes) on their stuff, it means they do have the guts to go up and say these things to people's faces. Which is laughable, but I'll get back to that...

In contrast, they can easily say that pseudonymous people don't have those guts, because who can really tell? If I go up to McMenemy and tell him exactly what I think of him, he's not going to think "wow, that pseudonymous blogger actually does say things to people's faces." He's going to think "hey, that jerk I don't know just came up and told me off!" Most pseudonymous bloggers I know are not shy about telling people what they think in person, they just don't want their names all over the internet.

Of course, I contend that newspaper reporters don't in fact have guts at all. Sure, maybe a few do, but when Helen Thomas is the pinnacle of bravery in journalism, it's a pretty sad state. Have you ever talked to a reporter who's on the job? They're the most pusillanimous little shitsacks you'll ever meet in person. Even an "aggressive" reporter in person is about as intimidating as your average narcoleptic. Maybe not all are like this, but it sure seems to be the majority. No hard questions, no probing, nothing but simple stenography. They're not going to even hint at what they think.

Now, that may be for a good reason. Newspaper reporters need to maintain their access. Bob Woodward is a great example of this (in his more recent years, at least). Not pissing people off becomes important if you want to keep getting interviews. It also leads to cowardice.

Picking right back up with McMenemy:

Combine that with the disturbing trend of people taping people being attacked and beaten, and then posting it online, and it's obvious that it's time to start taking control of the Internet and punishing people who act maliciously while using it.

Yeah, maybe creating limits on free expression because you don't like what people do with it isn't that obvious a need to most of us, Jeff.

People who lack familiarity with the internet (and I'd argue that McMenemy is one of them, as was Chuck Owen) often like to use it as a scapegoat for society's ills. The general form is:

1) Person sees something unpleasant on (or involving) the internet.
2) Person can't recall having seen that particular thing in person.
3) Person therefore blames the internet for causing the unpleasant thing.

This is, of course, a logical fallacy. Just because you haven't seen it before doesn't mean it didn't exist, and it sure as hell doesn't mean the medium on which you saw it caused it to happen.

McMenemy relates what he remembers as a bad day, which boils down to either getting turned down when asking a girl to the prom, getting a strike in baseball, or acting dumb at a party. That's a tough life, alright! Maybe he really does believe that these things didn't happen when he was a kid, just because they didn't happen to him. Could he be that blind to reality?

Just because the technology didn't exist to videotape fights and post them online doesn't mean they didn't happen. They did.

Similarly, jilted lovers have always committed suicide. It's always tragic, but that's life. Is this more tragic because one of the "lovers" was a fraud and MySpace was the vector? I don't honestly know, but I hardly see how it's vastly different. In Meier's mind it was no different at all.

I get the feeling that those who would put limits on freedom of the internet are not really interested in solving these problems (because they won't), they just don't want to have to have to see them anymore. It's reality-denial at its finest.

If this case is successful, it's bad news for everyone. If people like McMenemy are successful in limiting the internet to only the things they like, it's even worse. The world exists in this form whether you can see it or not. If you can't deal with it, shut your eyes. But don't try to force everyone else to shut theirs.

Oh no! I hurt that publisher's feelings!

Lately I've been less critical of the Sentinel than I once was. For good reason too. Since the new publisher took over, there's just not as much there to be critical of.

So yay for the Sentinel, right? Let's all move on to a happy new day of better newspapers! Let's forget the past crappy publishers and let bygones be bygones!

Or alternately, let's make fun of the hilarious comment the former publisher (or someone cleverly impersonating him) just made on this old post!

Yep, that would be more fun. But doing it on a post from five months ago would be pretty pointless, so I'll bring his long-ass comment to the forefront here, interspersed with my response. Fun!

Mr. Chuck Owen, former publisher of the Sentinel, will have his comments in blockquotes for your protection. I will respond in normal text. Don't get confused! By the way, I'm not going to bother throwing [sic]s in his quotes, because it's such a horrible mess it would probably take me forever. Just pretend there's a big [sic] at the end of the whole thing.

We start our tale with what I assume is a failed attempt at humor regarding my pseudonym. Or he's trying to insult me? Beats me...

Hey Madcow,

You know, I read your comments when you first posted them back a few months ago and I came across them again as I was looking into something on line. Let me offer you something, I am that departed publisher and I still stand by my words from that article. What is interesting is that you were not in the room when I was being interviewed so you wouldn't have a clue about the context of the question.

Yeah, that's not really interesting.

Also, the article was in interview form. Which sort of suggests that the context is right there in the article. Or was there a lot of hand-gesturing and winking that adds context we're not aware of? Maybe it was just edited down from a huge context-filled cornucopia of journalistic brilliance?

Not that it much matters if he stands by those statements anyway...

Oh, I should probably mention what statements we're talking about. The part that I focused on is presented here in full. I will use double-blockquotes so you know it's not something Owen said in his comment, just something he said in the Worcester Business Journal. I'll also bold the part that's particularly of interest/controversy.

What about competition?
Quite frankly there's competitors coming out of the woodwork: the [public access] cable, the [free weekly] Leominster Champions, the Fitchburg Prides of the world. The free newspaper has its niche, and I respect it a great deal, but it doesn't have the news of the day. They can shape it all they want as being flowery and nice news and stuff like that, but you know what, I'll use this analogy: People go to stock car races not so much because they want to watch it go around and around and around. They go to see the car crash. We're reporting on certain pieces of news, news that people may not like, and they may call it negative, but it gets people to respond, to clean up, to take an active role in their community.

So that's what this hubbub is about, and that sort of car-crash journalism is what Mr. Owen stands behind. Incidentally, that statement by Owen also got the attention of the Publisher of the Fitchburg Pride, who wrote about it (and me, slightly) in an op-ed here.

As you'll find throughout this post, Owen isn't big on sticking to any one topic for more than a couple sentences. He defends himself, then makes weird attacks on me, then goes back to defending himself. I will henceforth assume he has poorly-managed rapid-cycling bipolar disorder and his meds are acting up. Or maybe he just can't form a coherent thought. You decide!

Anyway, let's have an attack now!

Like many people who hide behind blogs, is that your an expert on many things but you probably don't have the character to speak with the person directly or go before a group publicly.

In this quote, Mr. Owen is clearly trying to confuse me by cleverly switching the subject in the middle of a sentence that doesn't make any damn sense in the first place. No dice, Chuck!

Anyway, yeah, I'm pseudonymous. Boo-fucking-hoo. Welcome to the internet.

What does come through pretty clearly in your writings is that your a pretty angry person.

Another blow! He thinks I'm angry! I am indeed! I'm glad my writing conveyed that properly.

Now, here's where things start to get extra-confusing. Taking a break from the attack/defend dichotomy, Chuck starts responding to the various comments on that old post. I won't say a lot, but I do encourage the commenters to stick up for themselves in the comments to this post.

Especially you, Mr. Bartender. He's about to move from praising you to insulting you in no time at all...

The bartender hits the nail on the head when he states some of the primary roles of a newspaper is ad sales and circulation of the paper but, to state it as if that's it's only purpose is wrong. Mr. Bartender, I grew up in the newspaper business and have worked in it from the business side for over 20 years, I have a very solid business perspective of the business. So when it comes to my understanding the role of newspapers, why don't you stick to mixing cocktails and pouring Bud's!!

I think the meds must have worn off halfway through that... And yeah, shame on you Bartender! How dare you express an opinion that actually defends what Owen said! He doesn't approve of that!

Continuing (and finally finishing up the first paragraph of his screed), we abruptly back away from praising/insulting commenters and move back to Chuck's stupid car crash.

The content is important to many who buy it and read it on line. When you look at the Sentinel over seven days, there is a whole lot of good positive things covered and they out weigh the negative. That is what was being discussed.

It's a shame that the thing being discussed didn't appear in that article, then. I was only responding to the article itself. I'm not a mind reader, Mr. Owen!

Anyway, Owen's first paragraph is finally over!

The Sentinel has been recognized by it's fellow papers in Massachusetts and N.E, for some of the articles written over the last couple of years winning awards in their category and newspaper size.

That's super. Unfortunately, a shitty paper winning awards because other shitty papers respect it is not a substitute for being a good paper.

You don't get that from the wind [Ed. Huh?], you get those results from very young reporters who are probably working their first full time gig. They are led by a person who cares greatly about how they do their jobs and is passionate about his work, Jeff McMenemy. You may not like Jeff's views in his editorials, I didn't always but, to my point that it gets people to respond, is important. He continues to work with reduced budgets and staffs like many business have to do today and because the these jobs are handled by new fresh out of college kids their average time at the paper is barely over 2 years on average. Many pursue the next level if they can and move on. It's not perfect, if you want a deeper dive into the human tragedy of not being able to afford an XBOX or any presents at all at Christmas, your fortunate you live where you do, pick up the Globe or the T&G and read the deeper dive into it. They have the resources to commit the attention it rightfully deserves.

I'll translate that semi-coherent rambling for you:

Nobody but kids straight out of school will work for us. Jeff McMenemy threw in all that shit about "liberals" in an hilarious attempt to be controversial. Also, he tries hard with the shitty budgets and stuff, he's just not really competent. Most people we hire leave after 2 years (once they find something anything better). It's okay that the Sentinel sucks because the Globe and T&G are slightly better.

Which just boils down to a lot of excuse-making. You're not automatically allowed to be a crappy paper just because nobody wants to work for you. More likely, nobody wants to work for you because you're such a crappy paper. Have some higher standards!

Also, it's not okay to suck just because other newspapers in the area don't suck as bad. What the hell kind of logic was that?

Anyway, we get a new paragraph now, and it's back to addressing commenters and so forth:

Sorry Rachel, the posting of Unicow didn't have a damn thing to do with me leaving. They were between me and my employer. Before you take up the practice of bashing what I did or didn't do, let me tell you a little. I attended many of the debates in Fitchburg from School committee to Mayor, I met with many of the Rotary members at their luncheons, I meet with many business owners in the area and attended openings. I spoke with Lisa Wong on several occasions and to make certain I was fair in my own approach, I spent an afternoon riding around the city with Councilman Donnelly, learning as much as I could and listened. I met with the Mayor of Leominster and other community leaders in both cities. Doing this while trying to lead a sales team as a market was sliding and tend to other aspects of running a newspaper.

Personally, I never thought what I write had a thing to do with Owen leaving. On the other hand, what firing isn't "between me and my employer"?

Also, bragging about doing the things the publisher of the local paper should probably be expected to do? Awesome! Hell, I've done a bunch of those things too and I'm just a cowardly blogger!

Now is around the time that Chuck Owen, former publisher of the Sentinel, starts to get upset with me. Watch out children!

Don't flatter yourself Madcow, you would reach more people standing on a street corner with a megaphone than reading your ranting blog. The only reason I found it back in January was when I happened to google the Sentinel and my name together.

I'm not really sure how knowing how many hits my site gets and judging that number to be bigger than the number of people I could reach yelling on Main St counts as flattering myself, but whatever. Apparently the only websites that exist to Mr. Owen are those he finds when Googling his own name.

And seriously, should he be saying I'm flattering myself then immediately launch into talking about how he's doing Google vanity searches on his own name? I mean, he could at least throw a couple sentences in between to make the irony less obvious!

Then Chuck's meds kick in and he's back to approaching lucidity again!

Let's be clear on something, sensationalism isn't what I was promoting, it's what people most often respond to in papers and click through on news web sites. People use papers for many things and everybody differs on what they like and dislike. The Sentinel isn't the problem in your area, if you insist that it is, your misguided. Poor economy, poor leadership over a stretch of many years, the electricity provider in the area runs like a monopoly. With Lisa Wong in place and a number of new faces on the city council, your headed in the right direction. Your state reps should be pushing for high speed rail to run out through Fitchburg. Shortening the commute to Boston substantially would drive housing in many of the areas, bring in more money into the communities and would help with traffic.

Okay, I don't have a lot to complain about there (aside from the lie that he wasn't promoting sensationalism, because that's exactly what he was doing).

I assume this was in response to my throwaway comment that included: "I've become convinced at this point that the Sentinel is one of the biggest problems facing Fitchburg in its quest for rejuvenation. It's a cancer on this town."

In retrospect, that was pretty hyperbolic. "Biggest" wasn't the right word. Oh, the S&E is a big problem (less so now than back then), but certainly not the biggest. So you win this round, Chuck! I stand by the paper being a cancer on the town, though.

Sadly, the meds didn't last long, and it's back to Angry Chuck Owen!

To be truthful Madcow, I'm not going to judge you based on your writings, [...]

Well, what a sweet sentiment that is. What a nice guy! Now watch while he does precisely the opposite!

[...] clean up your use of the vulgarities it really shows your age, early twenties? If your older than that, grow up. Oh but wait a minute that would infringe on your first amendment rights? The only place you would get published is on your own blog.

I forget where I asked for writing advice, but obviously I must have. Why else would I get this little lecture from a guy who writes at a fifth-grade level?

Worse yet, a former publisher of a shitty paper in an industry I resoundingly despise says I can't get published! Motherfuck! And all my goddamned swearing makes me seem ten cockwaggling years younger than I am!

And umm... something about growing up infringing my First Amendment rights? Huh? If someone tells me to "grow up" I don't think it's a constitutional issue. It's just a sign that that person is an asshole. An asshole who in this case works in publishing but seems to have a negative view of the First Amendment. Which is a bit creepy.

Now the final bit of Chuck's diatribe.

The part that gets me the most is how judgemental you and some of your fellow bloggers are. Don't let the title fool you, I'm more of a regular guy than anything else. I don't pretend to have all the answers and they more than likely don't align with you. When people ask for an opinion, I'll give it. Every body wants to be liked but I'm a big boy and what you or others like you think really doesn't matter. They usually come from people who don't want to put a face to the words, who don't want to get involved with the process from a public service stand point and generally they just want to complain and bitch about things while feeling they have all the answers but not the stones to try and bring them forward.

Oh no! I'm stoneless! We calls them "balls" in the grown-up world, Chuck. Or is that too vulgar?

Shockingly, it's quite true that I've never done any public service using the name "Unicow." Go figure!

For a guy who doesn't care what I think, that was a hell of a long ranty bitchfest about me expressing what I think.

So what have we learned here?

A summary:

• Chuck Owen writes like a fifth-grader.
• Chuck Owen was a worse publisher than I thought.
• Chuck Owen doesn't like bloggers in general, and me in particular.
• Chuck Owen is sort of a dick.
• We are very lucky the Sentinel got a new publisher.

Yeah, I think that's about it!

Vaccination fun!

Earlier I expressed my pleasure with the Fitchburg Pride for having a real reporter who does actual journalism and produced a decent article.

Sadly, the local daily paper can't measure up to the standard set by the free weekly paper.

Case in point: A pox on them: Parents slam school; officials say they are following law, in the Sentinel of course.

This incredibly sloppy and biased piece of stenography (it's certainly not journalism) brings to mind all the things that are wrong not just with the Sentinel, but with so many news outlets in general.

It's a simple story of an incredibly dumb woman who refuses to vaccinate her children and whines that the school treats her unfairly because she's just too stupid to understand what's going on.

Genna and Felix Velazquez made a decision to avoid immunizing their two elementary school-age daughters against Varicella disease, more commonly known as the chicken pox.

The Velazquez family is now concerned their 8-year-old daughter Dianelis Velazquez is being unfairly singled-out by Reingold Elementary School officials because of their decision.

Oh no! Mean old school! They're saying her kid can't be in school because there's an outbreak of Varicella!

The school's decision is based on a state statute that allows schools to quarantine students exempt from immunizations if their [sic] is an "outbreak."

"Basically, it isn't up to the school to determine this policy," Roy said Thursday. "It is the Department of Public Health who dictates the policy."

The law requires a number of immunizations before a child can enter school. If 'sincere religious beliefs' exempt a child from receiving immunizations, the law permits schools to quarantine the student if they are susceptible to an illness.

Oh, I guess it isn't such a mean old school. It's a school that follows the law (and common sense) by not exposing her child to disease and turning her into a likely vector who can then go around infecting everyone else.

I guess we need to change the headline then, because the original was misleading. I suggest: "A pox on them: Parents whine about law; officials follow it".

The whole article is at this same level. Velazquez is bafflingly portrayed as some sort of victim, instead of properly being mocked for being a whiny idiot who chooses to endanger her children because of some moronic religious belief.

Let's look at a few examples.

First is the most obvious one. Velazquez has absolutely no basis for her claim that she's being treated unfairly. Which makes me wonder why the article was even written in the first place. But unfortunately it was, so here are some more examples of sheer ineptitude on behalf of the reporter.

Reingold Elementary officials told the family that Dianelis Velazquez must be out of school from April 11- 22, according to Genna Velazquez.That time would fall in the middle of school vacation, meaning Dianelis Velazquez would be away from school for nearly three weeks in a row.

Huh?

April 11th is this Friday. School vacation takes place from April 21-25. Which means the kid misses a grand total of 6 days of classes. That doesn't sound too bad though, so the reporter chose to focus on the far greater but totally meaningless measure of time "away from school," as if weekends and vacation time should be significant. Even taking that nonsensical measure, the kid's going to be "away from school" from April 11-27, or 17 days. That's two weeks and three days, which no sensible person would call "nearly three weeks."

Velazquez herself is clearly not a very bright woman, and asks lots of questions in the article.

Genna Velazquez knows of two students in her daughter's class that had chicken pox. The family didn't receive notification the first time a student came to school with red pox associated with Varicella, Velazquez said.

"The nurse told me the first case was unconfirmed and that's why they didn't call me," she said. "If this second case is confirmed, why was the student at school today (Wednesday)?"

The reporter didn't bother to find an answer to this question. Nor did she even confirm that the child with the confirmed case (the only one that matters) was actually at school.

If the infected student was at school, s/he probably shouldn't have been. But we have no way of knowing if that's even the case. Not that it matters one bit to Velazquez's crazy-ass claim anyway. It's just irrelevant whining, meant to make you think there's some sort of vast conspiracy to keep Velazquez's daughter out of school.

Another bit from Velazquez that goes without response:

"Anyone who can't prove immunity should go home," Genna Velazquez said. "Why are we protecting students who are immunized if the vaccine works?"

I count three problems in that one quote!

1. Velazquez's kid is the only one who isn't immunized. Everyone else can prove immunity, because doctors keep records!
2. They're not "protecting students who are immunized"! They're protecting your daughter because you failed to do so! They're also protecting anyone your potentially infectious daughter comes into contact with.
3. The "if the vaccine works" bit is clearly meant to make the reader believe the vaccine doesn't work. That's stupid. No vaccine works 100%. The varicella vaccine itself has an efficacy of about 88.5%, and those who do get chicken pox anyway usually only get a mild case. The vaccine works just fine.

As we've come to expect, the stenographer behind the article addressed none of these points.

On to more problems!

Genna Velazquez called the state Board of Health. They simply explained that a child is contagious after six days of being exposed to the chicken pox.

"She has already been exposed to students with chicken pox," she said. "They are making us take her out at the end of next week, it just doesn't make sense."

Another unchallenged quote. If the stenographer had bothered to go to the Mass. Department of Public Health website she could have found the exact recommendation (pdf) that applies here. Which is:

Susceptibles shall be excluded from work or classes from the 10th through the 21st days after their exposure to the case while infectious with rash (not including the prodrome).

So yeah, that's about the right timeframe, dumbasses.

Okay, I've criticized Velazquez a lot in this post. And she deserves it. Not immunizing your child is one step from child abuse, as far as I'm concerned. Not immunizing your child for religious reasons is a half-step. The poor kid gets no say in any of this, she's just the innocent victim of ridiculously stupid parents and a government that allows virtually any stupid behavior to pass if it's part of your religion.

But Velazquez isn't the real problem. She's just a whiny idiot, nobody cares about her. I feel bad for her (and far worse for her unfortunate children).

The problem is the Sentinel's absurdly horrible article about her. It has all the hallmarks of trying to stir up another pointless controversy, it lacks the most basic fact-checking, it's clearly biased in favor of Velazquez, and it should be an embarrassment to the person who wrote it.

Worst of all, the article exists. This is not a news story. Velazquez doesn't have a legitimate complaint worth reporting on. She's a not-very-bright woman who doesn't understand that when you neglect to immunize your children there may be consequences.

The Sentinel should have done the smart thing and never run this story. If Velazquez contacted them, they should have said "We're sorry, but you're terribly confused" and sent her on her way. Instead they wrote a big horrible article about it, presenting her side almost exclusively, and making themselves look like total idiots in the process.

What you don't print is as important as what you do. The Sentinel has a long history of ignoring the actual news and printing this kind of tripe. Sadly, articles like this are in no way a surprise. Just a huge disappointment.

Note to self: Don't spraypaint churches!

I have to confess, I was a little concerned at the time of my last post. I mean, if the Sentinel was going to write editorials that I agreed with how could I possibly argue against them? It was a terrible quandary.

But never fear, thanks to some idiot with goofy hair and bad taste in music the Sentinel has written another dumb editorial! It's entitled Serious crimes deserve serious bails.

Please note that if you misread that title--as I did--as "Serious crimes deserve serious balls" it's much, much funnier.

Nevertheless, the concept that "serious crimes deserve serious bails" isn't that hard to agree with. I mean, you don't want a murderer getting out on $20 in coupons or anything like that. So what's the supposedly serious crime in question?

Well, it was some dopey teenager spraying graffiti on a bunch of churches, of course. Not just any graffiti, though! "Offensive" graffiti that made some religious folks lose their faith suffer financial hardship feel bad.

What sort of graffiti?

Griffin and an alleged accomplice scrawled messages like, "Jesus didn't rise again," "(Expletive) Jesus," and "You brainwashed zombies," on the churches.

He also confessed to spraypainting a vile message about Mary, who Christians believe is the virgin mother of Jesus Christ, but it is too obscene to print in this community newspaper.

Damn you Sentinel, I want to know what that vile message is! Because the other ones, while not exactly high-caliber works of prose, don't actually seem all that bad to me.

Hell, "Jesus didn't rise again" is one I fully agree with, though I wouldn't go writing it on a church. And "Fuck Jesus" and "You brainwashed zombies" are not really super-substantive. I mean, it's not like he wrote "I'm going to burn your church down" or painted a swastika on a synagogue (which sort of has the same implication).

To put it in perspective, if he wrote "Fuck the principal" on a school or "Hannaford has poor security practices" on a supermarket I really doubt it would be front page news. It would still be pretty dumb, because graffiti is always pretty dumb (with extremely rare exceptions for actual talented graffiti artists).

To wit, he actually did paint on a school, but what he wrote there doesn't seem to have been reported. Because nobody cares, because it's just stupid fucking graffiti made by a dumbass.

Anyway, instead of keeping his mischief-making to those sorts of simple targets that nobody cares about, he went and graffiti-ed up a church. Big mistake! People get freaked out over such things. They take out $1,600 bounties on your head and write editorials and talk about "hate crimes!"

You see, despite being a secular nation (albeit one where open atheists can't get elected) and despite the Founding Fathers' best efforts to keep religion and government totally separate, religions enjoy a privileged place in American society.

If you start criticizing religion, people get very upset. And the big religions have a lot of money and power. Fucking with them is bad news. You don't get a $1,600 bounty on your head by being a dick to just any old group, but you do if you start fucking with Christians (who I thought were supposed to be all about forgiveness, but I guess I was wrong).

The point I'm making here is it's not the crime (petty spraypaint-based vandalism) that has people upset and calling this a "serious crime," it's that he had the nerve and the terrible judgment to go after religion.

This bothers the fuck out of me.

I'm an unabashed liberal. Legislation about "hate crimes" is often put forth by liberal politicians. So that might lead you to think I back "hate crime" legislation.

Wrong!

You can't legislate hate away. You can no more prevent hate with laws that you can fight a war against an emotion (like "terror," for instance). If you try, it leads to a horrifying Orwellian state where we're judging people not on their actions, but on their thoughtcrime. I don't care if your target is religious beliefs or gays or certain racial groups or hippies or whatever. It's a bad idea to let the law consider a person's private beliefs when it should just be dealing with their actions.

Here's a quote from the Sentinel's editorial:

Remarkably, the suspect, Brian Griffin, 19, of 10 Power Mills Road, Phillipston, admitted that he and his alleged accomplice were trying to essentially get a rise out of churchgoers by spraypainting such hateful messages on churches shortly before Easter.

"We decided some sort of religious reference would offend a lot of people," Griffin wrote. "After we left the school, we decided it would be a good prank to do the same to local churches."

But now that he has been arrested, Griffin is claiming he did not intend the anti-Christian graffiti as a hate crime.

Okay, Griffin is a fucking idiot. That's established. But the editorialist seems to believe that just because this fuckwit was trying to get a "rise out of churchgoers" (which I suspect is the point of most graffiti, albeit with different groups targeted), that means he hates Christians.

I don't buy it.

Now, in addition to being a liberal, I'm quite openly an atheist. I don't believe Jesus rose from the dead. I've also almost certainly characterized certain religious zealots as "brainwashed" at times. Most of the world agrees with me about the Jesus thing, and I'm willing to bet a fair number agree about the brainwashing.

So I, and many other people, at least agree with some of the things Dumbfuck McBadhaircut wrote. But that doesn't mean I hate people who believe in God, so I see no reason to believe this guy does either.

Admittedly, I'm not idiot enough to spraypaint churches. Still, I've been known to get into hour-long conversations with those Mormon guys who go door-to-door trying to convert people. They try to sway me towards Jesus, I try to make them question their own belief system, and much fun is had!

Really, as long as they keep it out of my face (and my government) I couldn't care less what they believe. There's no more point in hating religious people than there is in hating people who actually believe what they read in their horoscope, or in hating kids for believing in Santa Claus. I see all these beliefs as pretty stupid, but if people enjoy it then who am I to complain?

Furthermore, Griffin has said "I have nothing against the Christian religion," and while that may seem hard for a lot of people to believe, it's not like you or I can actually know how he feels. Until we can read minds, we have to take him at his word.

Hate doesn't need to factor into things at all. He wanted to provoke a reaction. He knew attacking religion would provoke a reaction (I sort of doubt he actually realized how big a reaction, though). So yeah, he got what he wanted. Of course, then he felt bad and turned himself in. So you have to assume not a whole lot of brainpower went into this action in the first place. There's a lot of stupidity at work, but not a lot of hate.

It boils down to this:

This Griffin guy did something moronic, but it's hardly the huge deal people want to make it out to be. He didn't do something violent, and he didn't do any major property damage. He did some petty vandalism and hurt some people's feelings. The first part is illegal, the second is perfectly legal. It's not a serious crime, it's a fucking stupid one. Nobody's being oppressed, nobody's faith has been shattered, nobody's actually been hurt in any way. So get over it, people! Let the kid learn his lesson and move on, like everyone else who's ever done graffiti.

Still, there's another part to the Sentinel editorial that goes beyond just normal stupidity and enters smack dab into the realm of nearly mythological stupidity:

If Griffin ultimately just gets a slap on the wrist for his desecration of these churches, then other teens will get the clear message that it's okay to vandalize churches, schools or anyplace else they want to.

What are you smoking, Sentinel editorial guy?

Okay, first a minor point before addressing the most profound idiocy; "desecration?" Seriously? Here's the word's definition:

blasphemy, sacrilege (blasphemous behavior; the act of depriving something of its sacred character)

Fine, I'll admit that blasphemy is technically illegal in Massachusetts, but that's an ancient and profoundly unconstitutional blue law that is never enforced (for good reason). You seriously can't prosecute somebody for that. And I fail to see how a little spraypaint deprives a church of its "sacred character." It's not the paint that makes a church sacred, after all. So this is hardly "desecration." It's a nice loaded word though, so nice try!

Far more significant and idiotic is the claim that people will think it's okay to vandalize places if there's not some sort of big bail set. You almost get the feeling that the editorialist truly believes that the reason people don't vandalize churches more often is because they're afraid of having a high bail set, and that if it were legal everyone would be spraying "Fuck Jesus" on churches. Which is deeply, deeply stupid.

Here's some news: Nobody thinks it's okay to vandalize churches, schools, or assorted other places. Griffin didn't. "Other teens" don't. Nobody does! Because it's not!

And that's why they do it! It's a pointless display of adolescent rebellion, not a lack of realization that what they're doing is wrong!

In the end, what point would there be in setting a high bail? It wouldn't prevent anybody from doing anything like this in the future. It wouldn't send any message except that churches get special treatment. It wouldn't clean off the graffiti or mend hurt feelings. So what would it do?

Well, that's obvious. Revenge.

Leviticus 19:18
" 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.

Proverbs 24:29
Do not say, "I'll do to him as he has done to me;
I'll pay that man back for what he did."

1 Thessalonians 5:15
Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.

Disclaimer: Revenge sucks for purely secular reasons. It's just fun to throw bible verses at people who believe them but have apparently never bothered to read and/or follow them.

Is it just me, or is the Sentinel improving?

As is often the case, I've been readings bits of the Sentinel & Enterprise today. I only do this a few times a week, because normally it's an infuriating process. Editorials full of pointless liberal-bashing, horribly biased articles, etc. It's enough to drive one mad.

But today something seemed different. I read editorials and found myself agreeing with many of them! Even more amazing, they seemed to be better-written than what I've seen in the past!

On top of that, the articles weren't all stupid! What's going on?

Well, I do know that they have a new publisher. And he started on March 17th (so a week ago). Here's the Google cache of the article about him, since it's been moved into the S&E's archive of stuff you can't read.

I haven't worked in the newspaper industry, so I don't actually know how much influence a publisher has on content or style, and I have no idea if he's responsible for this week of relative respectability. Perhaps he's the impetus for the paper turning around. Or maybe the writers are just on their best behavior right now because they have a new boss, and things will go back downhill.

Whatever the case, I hope it keeps up.