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.

Still waiting for one valid argument...

I knew it.

This tedious issue of illegal immigration has moved on from just outraging stupid people on message boards.

I heard stupid people arguing about it in my workplace this morning, a bunch of city councilors said stupid things to the newspaper, and McMenemy did what everyone knew he would do and wrote a stupid editorial.

We're approaching a singularity of stupid.

Let me clarify something, in case anyone is under the impression that I'm just calling people stupid because I disagree with their point of view. That's not actually the case.

There's certainly a discussion to be had about illegal immigration and how best to deal with it. Smart, sensible people can have different opinions on the issue. It's a very complicated issue, after all.

But what we're seeing is not smart, sensible people making rational arguments against allowing illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses. If we were, this would be a wonderfully interesting topic to write about and discuss.

No, what we're seeing is a bunch of people putting forward the same fundamentally stupid non-argument. It boils down to saying "illegal is bad" and therefore anyone who's been labeled an "illegal immigrant" or the dehumanizing pseudo-noun "illegal" is bad and should be punished in petty and nonsensical ways.

This "argument" is actually perfectly encapsulated in McMenemy's editorial headline: "Rewarding people for breaking the law."

That's what it's all about. There's no argument about whether allowing illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses makes sense or not. No, it's all about denying them the vast reward of being allowed to legally drive because they're ILLEGALS!

Dean Tran makes the same basic argument in his whining:

"I strongly believe this is an issue of right and wrong," Tran wrote in an e-mail responding to questions Thursday. "We should not condone illegal activities as we do not teach our children to engage in illegal activities."

Incidentally, note that the Sentinel initiated the questioning here. They're the ones trying to drum up outrage. They went looking for quotes condemning DeMoura, and found themselves a number of willing patsies. Way to get used, guys!

Here's the old dumb non-argument again.

Ward 2 City Councilor Norman Boisvert strongly disagrees with DeMoura's stance.

"I must be stuck in the old school," Boisvert said. "I believe anyone who comes here illegally should not be rewarded with a drivers license."

Boisvert is not anti-immigrant, he said, but he wants the laws to be obeyed.

Yes, what a wonderful "reward" driver's licenses are. It's not like anyone needs a driver's license. They're just a nice luxury item, like golden back-scratchers.

Also, please note: anyone who feels the need to state that they're "not anti-immigrant" is most likely anti-immigrant. It's like the people who say "I'm not a racist" before saying something incredibly racist. Just saying it doesn't make it true.

Kevin Starr thinks illegal immigrants should have a way to become legal immigrants, and I agree with him. But what does he think about this specific driver's license issue?

Ward 4 City Councilor Kevin Starr disagrees with DeMoura's position.

"A driver's license is a privilege you have to earn," Star [Sic] said. "It's not a right."

Oh, Kevin. You're a nice guy, but that's a really stupid thing you said. You "earn" the privilege to drive by passing a driving test and paying a fee. There's nothing about that process that inherently disqualifies people who haven't gone through the proper immigration channels.

Believe it or not, even foreign tourists can drive legally as long as they have a valid license in their home country. Have they earned that privilege more than someone who's actually living here but has been labeled as "illegal"?

About the only one in the S&E article who gets it at all (besides DeMoura) is Jody Joseph:

Ward 6 City Councilor Jody Joseph is upset that Patrick has the committee to begin with, saying illegal immigrants should not be receiving any benefits from the state.

"I don't know how comfortable and easy we should make it for refugees and immigrants to come into the area if they are here illegally," Joseph said. "I don't understand the whole concept."

But Joseph is not opposed to DeMoura's stance on giving licenses to undocumented immigrants.

"The chief just wants to be able to identify all of them," he said.

Sure, the first part of that quote is stupid (way to attack refugees for no reason, asshole), but at least Joseph understands that this isn't about "rewarding" anyone, it's about pragmatism.

Chief DeMoura didn't suggest allowing illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses as a reward, it's for purely pragmatic purposes. Let's actually see what he says:

DeMoura defended his comments Thursday. He said giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is a good policy.

"It's a procedural step that makes sense," DeMoura said.

It would allow police to be able to identify those immigrants during traffic stops or other police encounters, he said.

And the proposal would also give the state a way to get a fingerprint from the immigrant, he said.

Most illegal immigrants are people whose temporary work visas have expired, DeMoura said.

Clearly, this isn't about some stupid "reward", it's about making the job of the police easier. People have to drive. Not driving is really not an option if you live in Central Massachusetts and hope to have a job, or do pretty much anything.

There just aren't a whole lot of other options. Not everyone has an endlessly supportive friend who can ferry them around all the time. Not everyone has access to public transportation (which sucks around here). Taxis cost more than many people can realistically afford, assuming they can even get one when they need one.

And even if there were viable alternatives, the reality of the situation is that people are driving anyway. Doing this illegally causes problems. So instead of stamping our feet and whining about it, DeMoura put forward an idea that's very simple and solves a lot of problems.

So, can anyone point to problems that DeMoura's suggestion creates? I mean besides pissing off people who "earned" the privilege of having a driver's license by virtue of their mom getting knocked up while living in the United States?

Here's the closest I could find to an argument against DeMoura's suggestion, and it doesn't actually have anything to do with driver's licenses, it's just whining that anyone dare to give a shit about what happens to illegal immigrants. Cue Dean Tran:

And Tran thinks Patrick ought to be doing more for the legal residents of the state before he deals with illegal immigrants.

"If Gov. Patrick wants to help the people of the Commonwealth, he should be focusing his energy on creating jobs and lowering taxes," Tran wrote. "His committee is another representation of bigger government and more tax dollars going to waste."

Blah blah blah, typical conservative nonsense. You know, Dean, it is possible to do more than one thing at a time.

Or should we wait until every single problem faced by naturalized citizens is solved before we do anything for illegal immigrants? Because if that's how you think government works, it's no wonder you think Rachel is some kind of political genius.

Finally, McMenemy does present an "argument" that slightly deviates from the prevalent "stop rewarding the wetbacks" argument. Here it is:

Again, no matter how well intentioned DeMoura is, we think his proposal, if enacted, would only encourage more illegal aliens to come into Massachusetts, where residents and business owners are already paying high taxes which go, in part, to educating and housing illegal immigrants.

This, like everything that comes out of McMenemy's brain, is only valid in the peculiar little fantasy world that he inhabits.

I'll just discard outright the totally-unsupported-by-facts assertion that this would somehow turn Massachusetts into some sort of vacation resort for illegal immigrants. It's nonsense.

Also, please note that illegal immigrants pay less in taxes than citizens, but they also use less in services. Depending on who you listen to, they either use slightly more than they pay or pay slightly more than they use, but either way it pretty much comes out as a wash.

Sure, schooling illegal immigrants costs money, but illegal immigrants also pay into Social Security without ever getting any benefits from it. Sales tax hits everyone, of course. It's not a simple issue, unless you just choose to ignore all the complexities.

As for our "high taxes," Massachusetts was ranked 23rd in the country in 2008 for "tax burden." That puts us squarely in the middle. Of course, any tax is high in McMenemy's eyes.

But that's beside the point.

The point is, if you have a valid argument against allowing illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses, go ahead and make it. But base it on the real world, not some imaginary land where driver's licenses are considered "rewards" and a police chief expressing a desire to do one very simple thing to make the job of the police easier is some deep moral outrage.

In other words, disagree with DeMoura all you want, but please stop being so fucking stupid about it.

Police Chief says something smart, outraging stupid people

Some days when I check the local newspaper for my daily fix of "what a fucking stupid world this is," I find something that I just know is going to explode into a giant shitstorm of stupidity so vast that even I will soon have to avert my eyes, lest my neurons start apoptosing out of sheer despair.

Today is such a day.

I present to you Fitchburg Police Chief wants illegals to have driver's licenses.

Stupid thing #1 is that headline. Apparently the S&E has given up even the pretense of being a real newspaper. By embracing the dehumanizing term "illegals" to refer to illegal immigrants they've demonstrated that they're just as blatantly biased as Fox News or WorldNetDaily.

But we already knew that, so let's look at the article itself. Which is actually not that bad.

Fitchburg Police Chief Robert DeMoura won a standing ovation Wednesday night by calling for driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants during the New Americans Agenda public hearing held at Fitchburg High School.

"Let's start with the simplest thing we can practically do," DeMoura said.

DeMoura said giving undocumented immigrants driver's licenses would allow them to legally work and commute in the community. It will also simplify the job for police when stopping drivers for alleged traffic violations.

"When we stop somebody, we want to know who we're stopping," DeMoura said.

Well damn, that makes an awful lot of sense. It's not like there's anything even approaching adequate public transportation in Fitchburg. People have to drive, so let's make sure they're doing it legally and with the proper training.

The article also contains some stories from illegal immigrants, who point out that it's ridiculously difficult to integrate into American society despite their desire to do so. Lack of SSNs and driver's licenses contribute to this, while of course the ridiculously convoluted immigration system itself is also at fault.

So, aside from its deeply idiotic headline, the article itself isn't the stupid I'm going to be focusing on. It's actually relatively decent for an article in the S&E.

No, the stupid is exploding elsewhere, in the comments on the story, which have already increased from 30 to 37 in the time I've been writing this.

In these comments the xenophobia, racism, and just outright stupidity run thick. If stupidity were gravity, we'd be well on our way to a singularity. There are maybe one or two sane people trying to stem the tide of stupid. It's a lost cause, guys! Get out before they drag you down!

As an exercise, I'm going to pick the "arguments" out of a set of some comments and see how concisely I can rip them to shreds. Most of the comments don't actually bother to make any arguments, and are just people being outraged and whiny, so I probably won't bother with those except maybe to briefly mock them.

Let's start!

Here's what "Jim" has to say:

What part of "illegal" do they not understand, we spend a fortunate enforcing immigration laws, and there are many valid reasons for doing so.

To suggest that we should ignore the laws, or look the other way is illegal as well, and we should expect everyone to enforce them.

Jim here uses the old "illegal means bad!" argument that you'll be seeing a lot of. But the more interesting part is the fact that this legal scholar believes not enforcing a law is also illegal, and that "everyone" should be enforcing immigration laws.

It is not illegal to not enforce a law. If it were, every cop would be breaking the law constantly (even more so than they do already). There are priorities to consider, because if you spend all your time enforcing the "keep off the grass" signs, it sort of lets other things get out of hand.

Also, "everyone" enforcing the law means vigilantes. Vigilantism actually is illegal. Next!

From "enough":

ok, so now the police sheif is actually condoning criminal activity? this is all so insame, i think i am going to vommit.

The Chief is condoning allowing illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses. There is nothing illegal about that. Don't blame him for your bulimia.

From HAHA:

So if DE dum dum is going to ignor that crime will he turn a blind eye to all other crimes commited by these illegal people? What about the people who pay his income are we exempt from the laws also?

Oh, the old "I pay your income salary so you have to do what I want" gambit! Well played!

Additionally, "illegal people" is not a thing. And if such a thing did exist, I'm sure the police chief would not turn a blind eye to all their "other crimes" which you seem to believe they commit.

Hmm, this is getting tedious. Let's mix it up with a quick listing of people who are shocked, shocked I say, at how nobody but them understands the meaning of the word "illegal." Also, please note that the proper spelling of "illegal" is in wingnut all-caps:

• "Doesn't the word ILLEGAL send up any red flags?? If they are not LEGAL citizens, why are they here?" - reply
• "How are ILLEGALS driving...whos car?" - Misfortune Teller
• "Illegal means not within the law; therefore, they should be issued the apt punishment, not a license." - Truffles
• "I am outraged that my tax dollars are being used to allow illegals to attend Schools and colleges." - Ken Burgess
• "I hate to be the bad guy here, and I do know quite a few foreigners without papers, but why should they enjoy ANY degree of comfort or service while they are here ILLEGALLY?" - eric
• "When you stop ILLEGAL aliens arrest them." - Concerned Citizen
• "Illegal is not a sick bird. [...] Wake up everyone, we are the MAJORITY. Let us not bow to ILLEGAL minorities. " - Kojak (who brings the funny before calling for a race war!)
• "F**k the illegals." [that was his entire post] - Jon from Lunenburg

Clear enough? These people really really really hate the word ILLEGAL. Also, brown people.

In case you can't follow their logic, the brilliant "Resident" spells it out:

If they are illegal we shouldn't be doing anything but deporting them. Honestly, this liberal bullsh!t is appalling.

Undocumented = illegal
illegal = breaking the law
breaking the law = got to jail, or leave the country.

Why is this chain of logic so difficult for people to understand?

Thanks, "Resident"! Your command of the English language is remarkable!

Of course, the reason people don't follow your "chain of logic" is because it's not actually logical. See, breaking the law doesn't actually equal "got [Sic] to jail, or leave the country."

Most of the time, breaking the law doesn't result in anything at all. Part of the time, it equals a fine or penalty of some sort. A tiny fraction of the time it equals going to jail, and an even tinier fraction of the time it equals deportation.

One more post, just for fun! Here's "believer"

are you freakin kidding me is right....you know just when you think you've heard it all you hear more!! nothing like catering to these cry babies, they should have rallied them up and sent them back to their own country, I mean one guy 20 dam years!! now that is a huge effort to become legal 20 years later........wow the U.S. is a dam joke to these people.

Cry babies? Pot, meet kettle.

Okay, so my attempt to briefly eviscerate their arguments has been foiled by everyone having failed to actually make any arguments beyond "ILLEGALS suck," which isn't actually an argument at all.

So let's just examine why these people are so hung up on the word "illegal," as if using that word instantly makes immigration a simple issue to deal with. As I see it, there are several factors that go into this.

• Lacking an actual understanding of the very complicated and nuanced issue of immigration, people latch onto the division of legal/illegal so they can pretend they understand it.
• They're all a bunch of racists who would like to get rid of all immigrants, but know they can't do anything about legal immigrants.
• They spend all their free time tossing Lou Dobbs' salad, and just automatically parrot back whatever bullshit he spews.
• They have serious daddy issues.
• "Illegal immigrant" is wingnut code for "Mexican," and wingnuts do not care for those lazy Mexicans one bit.
• It's the only word they can consistently spell right.

I suspect it's a combination of all of the above, mixed in with big heaps of jingoism and old-fashioned xenophobia.

In conclusion (at least until Jeff McMenemy writes an outraged editorial about this in a day or two), good job Chief DeMoura! If you're pissing off this many idiots, it just means you're doing something right.


UPDATE: The Telegram has a pretty crummy article on the same meeting, also using the word "Illegals" in the headline! What the hell, Telegram? You're supposed to be the paper for grown-ups! At least it doesn't focus as heavily on the stupid driver's license issue.

The comments there are similarly depressing. Jesus fuck, we're surrounded by dipshits.

Jerome Corsi, world's greatest idiot

You may or may not know who Jerome Corsi is by name, but you've almost certainly heard about his works.

See, this is the asshole behind the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Same guy who recently published the book "Obama Nation", which is a nice compendium of lies and idiocy. Want someone to thank for the stupid emails your grandmother sends you claiming Obama's a Muslim? Corsi's your man.

He's also a 9/11 "truther", which of course means he's a gullible idiot. Oh, and he made news just recently for getting detained in Kenya for not having his papers in order, while in the country on some dumbass anti-Obama stunt.

He's also a favorite of the worst "news" organization in the world, WorldNetDaily. They love him!

In fact, here's a fun article in WorldNetDaily about Corsi and his devastating "proof" that Obama is all buddy-buddy with Kenya's Raila Odinga. Though in typical WND fashion, Odinga is referred to as "ruthless, foreign thug." Both those adjectives are intended as epithets.

What's Corsi's proof of this connection? Emails, of course! Which we can happily see for ourselves in shitty-resolution scans of printouts of them! Let's look at them!

Here's the first one:

In case you can't make it out, I'll transcribe that for you:

Subject: Let's share a dream!

Hello brother,

I will kindly wish that all our correspondence handled by Mr Mark Lippert. I have already instructed him. This will be for my own security both for now and in future.

Faithfully,
Obama

How damning!

Apparently not only is Obama secretly best friends with Odinga, he's also a Nigerian email scammer!

No native English speaker uses the phrase "I will kindly wish." Not to mention leaving out numerous words (like "be" before "handled by" and "the" between "in" and "future"). And seriously, do we really think Obama signs his emails "Obama" and not "Senator Obama" or "Barack" (for friends/foreign dictators)?

The second email is almost as bad!
I'm not even going to transcribe that one, but let me point out a few things.

"mark.lippert.obama.senate.gov" is not an email address. Sure, maybe that's just a typo. Mysterious foreign Obama sure makes a lot of them.

He also has his email program set up really weirdly, since the first time around his return address wasn't capitalized and the second time it was. Nothing suspicious about that!

The fact of the matter is that even if these emails had been written by a competent forger and not someone on a break from sending out Nigerian 419 scams, there'd be no reason to believe them. They're emails, presented without headers (also forgeable, but it's not like these people are competent), context, or really anything at all that would actually tie them to Obama. Forging an email is about the easiest thing in the world.

Yet WorldNetDaily considers these obvious fakes "Proof" that Obama backs Odinga. And what WND prints gets reprinted by Drudge, and Fox, and all the other right-wing shills out there who care more about someone confirming their biases than actual facts.

Well, I have "proof" of something almost as devastating!



Quick, someone tell Drudge about this!

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.