Beware of Scary Flowers!

It's been awhile since we had a good fearmongering article in the Sentinel. You know, something about scary loud noises caused by kids exploding soda bottles, or about unlit streetlamps coming to life and killing everyone. Those are great articles, and I've been missing them.

Luckily, today we get this article, ripped from the pages of the Lowell Sun (which has the same parent company and is just as terrible a newspaper as the S&E).

It's about the horrors of Morning Glory abuse, and how "teens" are looking to get high on them. Oh no!

Let's see what our intrepid mountain-of-a-molehill reporter has to say:

Groups of young teenagers would ride their bikes to the garden store to buy packets of morning glory seeds.

Their specific interest in the small black seeds wasn't for gardening, but rather a hallucinogenic high similar to taking LSD.

Teenagers eating legal plant seeds so they can convince themselves they're high? This is trouble!

This is also a topic that pops up every couple of years, when some heroic reporter realizes that yes, some people stupidly try to get high off morning glory seeds. Said reporter then tries to draw public attention to this huge problem and writes a dumb newspaper piece about it.

The chemical is Lysergic Acid Amide (LSA), the same chemical used to make Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, commonly known as LSD.

LSA is derived from ergot, a type of fungus that grows on grains, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Well, if the National Institute on Drug Abuse talks about it, then this must mean it's a dangerous drug, right?

I would have just checked Wikipedia myself, but that's why I'm not a newspaper reporter. Of course, I'd have found out that each seed contains about 10 µg of ergine/LSA, which is sort of interesting.

Anyway, it's well-known that Morning Glory seeds are a source of LSA, and that stupid kids try to use this property to get high (whether they are successful or not is a different story). So why should we, as a society that freaks out about drugs, care? What's the danger?

While LSD has been widely studied and documented, information about LSA isn't listed on the National Institute on Drug Abuse or U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Web sites.

However, because LSA mimics the hallucinogenic effects of LSD, doctors say it could be dangerous.

Know what else "could" be dangerous? Jumping to idiotic conclusions that aren't supported by facts.

LSA is not LSD, just like Ethylene glycol (antifreeze, basically) is not Polyethylene glycol (used in a bunch of stuff, including toothpaste and eyedrops). Little differences matter quite a bit when you're dealing with chemicals.

Furthermore, there are plenty of things that produce hallucinogenic effects, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're dangerous. Unless you think hallucinations themselves are dangerous, which I suppose they are in some situations. Luckily, most of those situations are not ones in which a Morning Glory junkie is going to find himself in.

So, "doctors," care to elaborate?

"LSD is a potent hallucinogenic; not only is there an acute effect, but people get all sorts of flashbacks and psychological damage," said Dr. Wayne Pasanen, vice president of Medical Affairs at Lowell General Hospital and medical director for Habit Management in Lowell.

So far, Pasanen has not seen any cases involving LSA, but Mike Miles, a Dracut School Committee member and Lowell police patrolman, has counseled two teens who have used morning glory seeds to get high.

Okay, so LSD is potentially bad news, because of the highly-scientific dangers of "all sorts of flashbacks" and other vague stuff. I can't argue with those facts!

LSA, which is what we're actually talking about, apparently isn't a huge deal. Dr. Pasanen hasn't seen any cases involving it, though this School Committee cop guy claims that he's known two (2) dumbasses who used it "to get high."

How'd that go?

Miles, a licensed clinical social worker who specializes in child and family therapy and drug and alcohol counseling, said both teens said they became sick to their stomach.

Oh, so those two didn't actually get high. They got sick. From eating a bunch of seeds. It's a drug epidemic!

Maybe someone else can provide better scares?

Other local law enforcement officials in communities surrounding Dracut say they haven't seen any incidents involving morning glory seeds, but are aware that it can be used as a drug.

"It's definitely on our radar," said Chelmsford Deputy Police Chief Scott Ubele.

So, even though they've never seen a case, and even though there's nothing illegal about Morning Glory seeds, the Chelmsford police are aware that some people might use them to try to get high. Hey, so am I! So is everyone reading this blog post. So what?

Maybe another cop will have more information?

In Billerica, Sgt. Roy Frost hasn't seen any cases, but is familiar with the ways morning glory seeds can be manipulated.

"These kids can smoke it (morning glory seeds), they can chew it, or cook with it just like traditional marijuana," Frost said. "With a lot of these drugs, kids unfortunately think it's OK because it hasn't been criminalized."

Again, no cases. Why was this article printed, exactly?

Still, at least Frost knows that this drug, which is nothing like marijuana, is "just like traditional marijuana." He also thinks you can smoke it and cook with it. Since LSA breaks down at high temperatures, either of these techniques will just leave you with seeds that are worthless both for getting high and for growing flowers.

In other words, Frost is totally talking out of his ass. Just like everyone else in this pathetic article.

One more cop!

However, the legality of LSA in morning glory seeds remains murky, said Richardson.

The use of morning glory seeds as an illicit drug is not listed under state law, only under federal law, [Dracut Police Chief Kevin] Richardson said. Local officers do not have the authority to enforce federal statutes, Richardson said.

Allow me to clear up the legality of Morning Glory seeds for this police chief.

They're legal.

There, that wasn't so hard. LSA is indeed a Schedule III controlled substance, but LSA is not the same thing as Morning Glory seeds. The seeds aren't rendered illegal just because eating several hundred of them might get you high. Opium is made from poppies, but that doesn't make poppy-seed bagels illegal.

Okay, enough of this fact-free article full of totally clueless cops. If this is the best they can do to drum up scary outrage about seeds, that's pretty sad. Hell, they didn't even mention that some of the seeds might have been treated with antifungals, which could make you feel lousy if you eat them! Lame.

As for the actual subject of using Morning Glory seeds to get high, it's idiotic. If some dumbass tries it they're not going to die, they pretty much can't overdose, they most likely won't even get high, and they stand a decent chance of ending up with some pretty unpleasant diarrhea.

It's also not the kind of thing anyone's going to do very often, because it's a giant pain for very little reward. Plus, anyone with half a brain is going to make fun of them for doing it in the first place, because it's incredibly lame.

In the end, this is a non-story about something that doesn't seem to be happening very often (two kids with tummy aches does not really support a whole article). It's full of logical fallacies and outright falsehoods, and it lacks any firm grounding in the real world. It also interviewed way too many cops, who are apparently all idiots.

In other words, it's almost a perfect Sentinel Lowell Sun article.

Way to go, MediaNews Group! I eagerly await your expose on the danger of smoking banana peels.

Take your mind off Armageddon with this video!

Hey Fitchburgers!

Are you enjoying your post-apocalyptic wasteland?

No? Well, take your mind off it with this profoundly stupid video that your tax dollars funded! If you have power, that is (maybe at work?).



I made it a full two minutes into this thing before I decided I just couldn't take it anymore. Can you do better?


ps Biden's puppy is cuter.

Webster craps all over the First Amendment

The town of Webster isn't particularly near Fitchburg. That's probably a good thing, because it sounds like the town government has zero respect for the separation of church and state.

For instance, check out this article in the Worcester Telegram. Let's quote:

With the three wise men, Joseph and the baby Jesus gone, only the Virgin Mary remains of the Nativity scene that was displayed in front of Town Hall.

Police Chief Timothy J. Bent said police went to Town Hall last Wednesday night, shortly before midnight, after getting a report that some people were knocking over Christmas ornaments. Police discovered that only the Virgin Mary statue was left from the Nativity scene, which has been displayed for at least 20 years in front of Town Hall.

Okay, simple story so far. Some vandals absconded with everyone but Mary from a nativity scene in front of town hall.

Obviously that's not a good thing to do. But this isn't a post about how vandals are jerks. This is more about how the nativity was put up than how it was taken down.

Parks Department workers put up the Nativity scene the day after Thanksgiving, according to interim Town Administrator Joan R. Czechowski. The approximately half-life-size, heavy-gauge plastic figures were donated to the town many years ago, and Chief Bent said they are not very heavy.

Okay, that's not good. The Parks Department is definitely not supposed to put up nativity scenes in front of Town hall! That's about as blatant a violation of the separation of church and state as you can get.

In fact, it's a violation they've been warned about before!

The Nativity scene was the subject of some controversy last year when Americans United for Separation of Church and State urged the town to remove it from the Town Hall lawn. Then-Town Administrator Raymond W. Houle Jr. replied in a letter that any group could put any kind of religious display on the Town Hall lawn.

Houle's a moron.

First off, a big part of the problem isn't that the scene was put up, it's that the scene is put up and owned by the town. The town of Webster pays people to put Christian symbols on town property. If you live in Webster, your tax dollars fund Christian propaganda. Lucky you!

Second, they put up only Christian symbols. No other viewpoints are represented unless someone comes along and puts them up themselves. So the town is blatantly promoting one particular religion.

Third, while it's true that nativities and the like are allowable when displayed alongside other displays, it's not just limited to religious displays. Atheists can put up displays too. (Note: Any commenters who care to remark that "atheism is a religion" will be swiftly eviscerated.)

Fourth, if all this seems like a big mess, you're right. That's why towns should just avoid the whole issue entirely and keep religion and government totally separate. If people want to put up nativities, they can do it at their own houses.

So Webster is totally disregarding both the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment. While simultaneously whining that someone had the gall to swipe parts of their totally unconstitutional display.

“It is upsetting,” said Mrs. Czechowski, who wondered what would make somebody take something that means so much to so manypeople.

Chief Bent said he also was upset.

[...]

Judy Williams, a hairstylist at the Rob Roy Hair Salon on Main Street, was upset about the missing figures.

“I think it’s disgusting,” she said yesterday afternoon. “I hope that’s on their conscience, I really do. There is no reason for doing it.”

Oh, I can think of a reason. Maybe someone out there cared more about the Constitution than your hurt feelings. Or maybe they were sick of the town government promoting religion. Or maybe they were just bored and drunk (this is the most likely reason).

Stealing the crappy statues was still the wrong way to go about things, but I can certainly understand the impulse to do so.

So, have the town's leaders come to their senses and realized that maybe they shouldn't be in the business of promoting Christianity? Hell no!

Last year a selectman, Mark G. Dowgiewicz, offered to donate $1,500 to pay for a manger after seeing a picture in the Telegram & Gazette of the figurines covered in snow. The manger was not on display this year. The manger was never replaced last year, but Mr. Dowgiewicz said yesterday the offer is still on the table.

He said he has contacted officials at Bay Path Regional Vocational Technical High School in Charlton to see whether students could build another manger, and had offered to pay for the work after it is done. Superintendent David P. Papagni said he would talk to the school’s vocational director about the project.

He said the school would be glad to do the work: “We thrive on things like that.”

Oh, what a great idea! Let's put public school students to work on building religious icons! Maybe we can slip it in between mid-afternoon prayers to Mecca and evening Vespers!

Look, Webster people. If you want a nativity scene, great. Put it up in front of a church, or on your lawn, or basically anywhere except for town property. Also, don't make matters even worse by having schoolkids build your religious crap. I'm sure that if they really try they can find someone willing to accept $1,500 to build a crummy manger.

Also, hey vandals, return the fucking statues. Yeah, they shouldn't be there in the first place. There are other ways to deal with it than swiping them, which will just make the poor oppressed majority-group more dedicated to putting up a nativity. Instead, how about promoting one of the world's less-popular religions alongside it? I suggest this one.

Finally, it occurs to me that I haven't had reason to drive down Main Street in Fitchburg for a few weeks. What sort of displays (if any) are up in Fitchburg?

Merry War on Christmas!

Over the last few days, you may have noticed the media talking about Christmas. This is something they do incessantly for an entire month, because it's easier than doing actual journalism.

It generally starts off on Thanksgiving, with a big lie. Namely, the claim that the day after Thanksgiving ("Black Friday") is the biggest shopping day of the year. It's not.

That's followed by the claim that today ("Cyber Monday") is the busiest online shopping day of the year. It's just another lie created by a retailer's association. But it gives media puppets something to talk about.

And really, isn't the whole point of the season to lie? There's the lie about Jesus being born on December 25, which biblical scholars know quite well is not true. And let's not ignore the massive Santa Claus lie that we foist on children for some reason. I don't honestly know why, besides tradition. I guess someone in history thought lying to little kids sounded like a fun time.

There are also all the little pseudo-lies. Pretending you actually like your coworkers enough to attend a Xmas party with them. Ditto for your family. There's the pathetic mask of forced happiness people feel obligated to put on, and the month of pretending that they actually give a shit about their fellow man. It's the season of insincerity.

But the most awesome lie of all is the whole imaginary persecution complex that is the "War on Christmas."

As ridiculously made-up as it is, the far right is nuts about this "War on Christmas." The rest of the country pretty much ignores it and goes on with their lives. Still, we'll encounter idiotic editorials like this one and whatever Jeff McMenemy has brewing.

From the stupidly-spelled Liberty Counsel, we also get this awesome Naughty or Nice list, in which they tell you where to shop based on important factors like whether or not the store yells the word "Christmas" at you repeatedly.

Look how awful these store are!

Circuit City – Web site: Winter snow scene on home page and “Beat the Holiday Rush.” No mention of Christmas.

Honey Baked Ham – Report: “HOLIDAY was written everywhere!! Nothing about CHRISTMAS. I asked and was told the usual ‘we don't want to offend anyone.’”

What assholes! How dare they not use the words the Liberty Counsel prefers? The nerve!

That "usual" statement about not offending anyone is obviously made up. The only people who actually think anyone gets offended by the word "Christmas" are the wingnuts who want to force it down everyone's throat. Nobody else really cares. The fact that there's actually a store called Honey Baked Ham is apparently true, and sort of depressing.

What exactly am I getting at with this overly-long introduction?

Easy. I am going to join the forces behind the War on Christmas, and I want everyone to join me! We will be culture warriors! The best among us might get medals, or ribbons or something!

But we'll never win this war without a plan, so here are some ideas on how best to wage War on Christmas along with me and my army of evil secularists:

Situation: Some Christmas-lover mentions his "Christmas tree."
Response: You might think the correct response is to demand he call it a "Holiday tree." Wrong! The word "holiday" comes from "holy day", which is totally not in keeping with our secular War on Christmas! Instead, demand that he refer to it as his "house tree of probable Teutonic origin."

Situation: Someone says "Merry Christmas" to you.
Response: If the person saying it is unaware that you're in the anti-Xmas secularist army, stick with the standard of getting offended that they used the word "Christmas" and demand that they apologize for their rude behavior.
If the person saying it knows that you're a warrior for the WoC, chances are that they're saying this to try to provoke you. This makes them an enemy combatant, and you are therefore entirely justified if you stab them in the throat.

Situation: You have to go shopping, but don't want to put up with any "Christmas" nonsense.
Response: Use that "Naughty or Nice" list to determine where to shop, but only shop at the places that hate Jesus. Make sure you tell the cashier that you're shopping there because you consider them an ally in the War on Christmas. Cashiers are very interested in such things.

Situation: Your Christmas-loving neighbor has just put up a big ugly nativity scene on his lawn.
Response: Get him one of these:


Then send a letter to the local black churches telling them they should probably watch out for that guy.

Situation: You realize the whole War on Christmas thing is a total scam made up by people who just want to promote their own theocratic vision of America by trying to exclude any non-Christians from being involved in a seasonal celebration.
Response: To hell with it. Christmas is totally a secular holiday at this point anyway. You don't have to be a Christian to celebrate it. So we've already won. Congratulations!

Good luck, soldiers!

Another lousy drug prevention program

Last week there was an article in the Sentinel entitled Drug statistics sobering facts for parents. That was a pretty misleading title, because the article was really just about a regional conference of the National Association of School Resource Officers, but that's not super-important.

Now, the conference focuses on various things, but since the Sentinel decided to focus on the drug element, so will I!

Here's some relevant stuff from the article:

Students need to hear drug prevention messages early and often, said Lacy Lowrey, the manager of national programming and development for Project 7th Grade.

[...]

Project 7th Grade, part of a Phoenix-based youth program, offers free presentations to parents through schools and law enforcement officers.Lowrey gave statistics on youth drug use and exposure, including photographs of illicit drugs that are designed to attract young users and, in some cases, look almost indistinguishable from candy.

Damn pushers, stop making things look like candy!

Anyway, I had never heard of Project 7th Grade. But since they're getting free press in the Sentinel and are making presentations to local educators, I figured it might be a good idea to check them out and see whether they're reputable.

I should probably say from the outset that I think most drug prevention programs suck. The most well-known case of their suckage is probably the ridiculously ineffective waste of money that is the D.A.R.E. program.

Hell, you can even find articles in USA Today dating back to 1993 that talk about how DARE doesn't work. So it shouldn't be news to anyone that it's a waste of time and money. Yet people still support it, and I still got harrassed by some jerkwad in the entryway to Circuit City trying to raise money for it (he didn't like being told the research shows DARE is ineffective, apparently).

DARE is hardly alone in their suckage, though. The government's stupid anti-pot ads on tv may actually increase marijuana use, which frankly isn't surprising. Kids don't tend to listen to you when they can tell you're lying to them. Also, the ads are much funnier to watch when you're high.

So there's a lot of junk out there, and very few programs that work. But how about Project 7th Grade?

Now, I haven't been able to find any research on its efficacy, but it's a pretty new program. I did write to them asking if they could direct me to some research, but got no response. So let's just assume there isn't anything out there indicating their program actually works.

Still, if it's a sound program perhaps they'll pick up some good research down the road. Is it based on sensible ideas? Does it follow sound principles? What is it all about?

Having read over their stuff, it can be distilled down to one phrase from their website: "We recommend that you [drug] test your child frequently and randomly."

Of course, drug testing is generally a bad idea and has many destructive effects, but few positive ones. Even ignoring the erosion of trust and family bonds, there are false positives to be concerned about, not to mention oppositional effects (your parents don't trust you, so you might as well do drugs!). There's also a total lack of evidence that it's an effective deterrent to drug use. And, of course, it in absolutely no way addresses the source of the drug use. So it solves nothing.

Why would anyone put forth such a stupid program?

Well, that bit is easy. You see, Project 7th Grade is a partnership between notMYkid and First Check Diagnostics, LLC.

First Check Diagnostics just happens to be a company that makes and markets home drug testing kits. They have an ad on the front page of Project 7th Grade's website, and you get a free test kit at the completion of the program.

But, much like a 1970's movie where the pusher hooks unsuspecting suburbanites with free joints just to later get them hooked on smack, it's only the first one that's free. After that it's about forty bucks a pop. That's a pricey habit!

Sounds like a great program for putting money into the hands of drug testing companies, but not so great for actually dealing with drug use in kids.

Then again, most parents probably won't do more than a couple of these drug tests before they stop paying the high fees to do it. Which is awesome, because they'll already have managed to screw up their relationship with their kids. Then they'll stop testing and the kids can go off and inject angel dust into their eyeballs without needing to worry!

Now, the information that Project 7th Grade gives out may be truthful (though a perusal of their website suggests they're more in the fearmongering business than in actually taking a serious look at the issues). Perhaps they have other elements of the program that are good. I haven't seen the entire program, so I can't really say.

But it still appears to boil down to "drug test your kids." Which is just a terrible idea. So no, it's not a reputable program. It's a promotion for a home testing kit. Besides that, it's based on bad ideas. And chances are that if it has any effect on drug use at all, it's not a good effect.

Stay away from this one.

The War on Paganism!

Here I was, sitting back and trying to simply ignore the whole "Holiday Season," sitting at work, watching people slip around hilariously on the ice outside, when my peace was disturbed!

I blame the time-traveling Mr. Lincoln for forwarding me this Sentinel editorial, no doubt in an effort to get me riled up. And riled up am I!

The editorial is written by Sentinel editor/douchebag Jeff McMenemy and is entitled "Tree controversy shows what the world is coming to."

Oddly enough the piece doesn't really explain what the world is supposedly coming to. Is it Armageddon? Cultural awareness? Orgies on every streetcorner? Also, are you really supposed to end a sentence with a preposition like that, Mr. Editor? Shame, shame!

Anyway, McMenemy is apparently a Teutonic Pagan and wants to push the trappings of his crazy-ass religion (I can say that because my girlfriend is a pagan) on the rest of us. To wit:

I don't understand the world today sometimes. [Unicow's note: this is both self-evident and a really sucky sentence.]

Case in point being the decision made by Samoset Principal Donna M. Pierce early last week to take down the school's giving tree -- which was used to collect donations to give to less fortunate people in Leominster -- because she received several complaints from parents and school employees who said it wasn't fair to put a religious symbol in the schools during the holidays.

Holy crap he's a bad writer. Not to mention a misleading one. Did people really think it wasn't "fair" to put up a religious symbol (in this case a Pagan one) in a public school? I'd bet they thought it wasn't constitutional, which is unrelated to fairness. McMenemy clearly has no qualms about pushing his nutty nature-worship on the rest of us, but the Constitution of this country isn't real big on that kind of behavior.

He goes on to say:

Pierce later agreed to put the tree back up after a huge public backlash.

Hmm. Do you think Mr. Pantheism there reads his own newspaper?

Because there was this story which explained pretty clearly that...

A parent put up the tree Friday to the "surprise" of faculty members and students, who had been working on a display that now includes Hanukkah and Kwanzaa symbols, as well as Christmas decorations, Superintendent Nadine Binkley said Wednesday.

"A parent came in and put up the tree without consulting anybody," she said. "It was an individual parent who chose to do it as opposed to a unified effort from the school community."

Oh, what a huge controversy! The school took down something that was erected too soon only to put it back up when it was due to go up anyway! Oh no!

So, some parent comes in and does something that could be argued to promote religion in a public school setting if left standing alone. Instead of leaving it there, it's taken down until such a time as the planned and coordinated Xmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa/Solstice/Whatever decorations can get put up and thereby avoid potential establishment clause issues (displays for religious holidays are okay in public schools only if you give equal time to all comers, and don't promote any religion). Horrible!

[Another note: I was going to make an establishment clause / Santa Claus joke here but decided against it. You're welcome.]

(Also, if you're curious about what is and is not acceptable when it comes to religious holidays in public schools, the Christian Legal Society has some information here.)

Actually, what the principal did makes a lot of sense. But it's not controversial and doesn't fit into McMenemy's preconceived "War On Pagan Traditions That Are Explicitly Warned Against By The Bible."

I mean, only an idiot would freak out over schools following their own schedules, right? Or is he advocating anarchy in our public schools now? What if the parent had put the tree up in September, Mr. Goat-worship? Should we just leave it up and thereby abandon all order? Think of the children!

If McMenemy had left it at that I wouldn't have been too bothered. I mean, he's just one dumbass among many. But for some reason he had to get nasty:

The correct thing for Pierce to do would have been to thank everyone for their concern, and then politely tell them the tree was staying up, and suggest they could lessen their chagrin by donating something to put on the tree.

That way these thin-skinned, politically correct left wingers -- because you know we Republicans love Christmas -- might actually do something helpful for once in their lives.

What the fuck?

"We Republicans love Christmas?"

Okay, I'd like to think that was tongue-in-cheek, and McMenemy just doesn't have the writing skills to convey sarcasm. But I don't think it was, which just means that Jeff McMenemy is an unbelievably huge asshole. Hey, fuck you, Jeff!

I get told by people all the time that Xmas is about giving and brotherhood and all that (hey, wasn't Jesus into brotherhood too?), and you come in defending it with the most stupidly divisive statement I've ever read? Fuck you again!

What, Democrats don't love Xmas? That'll come as news to an awful lot of people. Now, I hate Xmas, but I hardly speak for all Democrats (and my hate has more to do with the secular annoyance and conspicuous consumption than the let's-pretend-Jesus-was-born-in-December-even-though-he-wasn't religious tripe anyway).

And to suggest that the left-wing doesn't do anything to help the needy? What world have you been living in? Fuck you yet again! Fuck you and all your animal-sacrificing buddies!

I wasn't opposed to having Xmas trees in schools before (when done correctly, in a way so as not to promote religion), but now I am! Just to piss off Jeff McMenemy.

People like McMenemy are so keen on destroying the First Amendment and breaking down the separation between church and state (and make no mistake, that's what this is really about), that they become blind to what's actually going on.

In reality there's no controversy here. There's no sign of "what the world is coming to." It's a non-story that the Sentinel has tried to turn into a controversy by having three stories and two opinion pieces about it (so far). All that's really here is some right-wind fucktards freaking out over nothing, and using it as an excuse to attack people who they disagree with.

I may not subscribe to McMenemy's neo-paganist beliefs, but he's welcome to them. Trying to stir shit up for no reason isn't cool, though. Nor is it in keeping with his supposed belief system. Nerthus would be very disappointed!

ps Also, nice job pushing your pro-death penalty agenda in the same editorial thing, Jeff. 'Tis the season for giving (lethal injections)!