Shortly before four o'clock this morning MSN carried a headline for a story not in the top heads. It had to do with Sen. Paul's sacrifice of professional integrity in the cause of reckless pandering to the nutwing anti vaccination crowd. It correctly described if more mildly than here, the Senator's outrageous pronouncements on a subject in which his hipple critic oats allow him lotsa latitude. Recognizing it's error or perhaps an editor reeling in horror, MSN quickly began it's devolution into the appropriate swamp of non reportage:
"Rand Paul repeats irresponsible vaccine comments"
“Vaccine [']debate['] tricky for possible presidential candidates"
"Vaccine [']debate['] has long been a political minefield."
It is understandable that to suggest that a politician is pandering much less irresponsible must be terrifying (when it involves conservative demagogues anyway). But at the very least, why can't the pusillanimous news organizations point out that there is no debate about vaccines/vaccinations? They exist; they are effective; they are safe; they are necessary (yes, the earth prolly is round and the sky blue [more or less]). The "debate" is over whether those who wish not to partake of vaccinations for themselves or their children have the right to expose the rest of the population to the consequences of their decision. A further "debate" is whether society should allow them to expose their own minor children in which they have property rights ("own")--according to the pronouncement of a professordoctor in Congress--to those very significant risks.
Once the answer was clear, but progressively religion and stupidity have begun to permit the fringe to expose the public to such hazards as needed. And that is said to be freedom...just as it is for some Chucklehead to refer to someone's comment on the other side of the crevasse as "condescending."