Author Archives: wellsdc

I’m not letting the HPV vaccine issue go

Posted on by
2

The more I read about Rick Perry and Merck, the more I get suspicious about graft & such, but doing the right thing for the wrong reasons still involves doing the right thing. And opposing the right thing for the wrong reason (when there are better reasons) is still…you get the idea.

From Bill Maher, courtest of Salon.com:

March 2, 2007 | New Rule: If you don’t think your daughter getting cancer is worse than your daughter having sex, then you’re doing it wrong. Last year, science came up with a way to greatly reduce cervical cancer in young women. It’s a vaccine that prevents women from getting HPV, which is a sexually transmitted disease that acts as a gateway to the cancer. And the vaccine is so good, it could wipe out HPV. I keep a stockpile near my hot tub, and I can tell you, that tingling sensation means it’s really working. And I’d say that even without the endorsement deal.

Now for the bad news: Not everyone is pleased with this vaccine. That prevents cancer. Christian parent groups and churches nationwide are fighting it. Bridget Maher — no relation, and none planned — of the Family Research Council says giving girls the vaccine is bad, because the girls “may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex.”

Which is really a stretch. People don’t get the vaccine for typhoid and say, “Great, now I can drink the sewer water in Bombay.” It’s like saying if you give a kid a tetanus shot she’ll want to jab rusty nails in her feet. It’s like being against a cure for blindness because it’ll encourage masturbation. It’s like being for salmonella poisoning in peanut butter because it’ll discourage weirdos from spreading it on their ass and calling the dog.

And yet, the anti-vaccine folks seem to think that if a teenage girl feels a little prick, she’s gonna want to feel a whole lot more. But HPV shots don’t cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do. Everything your kids buy is sold to them with sex. The vaccine doesn’t make them want to screw: MTV does. And hormones. And having moron parents they want to escape from. Hey, when you’re 15 years old, breathing encourages sexual activity.

But let’s be frank: These Christian groups aren’t just against the HPV shot; they’re against family planning and condoms and morning after pills — they want to make sure sex is as dangerous as possible, so that kids know, if they sleep around and get an STD, that’s God teaching them a lesson. And the lesson is, you should never have tried out for “American Idol” in the first place.

There’s only one kind of medical science that excites Christians, and that’s anything that proves life begins earlier and earlier in the womb. If you could use stem cells to prove that life begins at foreplay, the pope would turn the Vatican into a lab. These people don’t really want to see a cure for anything, except homosexuality.

But as a parent, if you’re so obsessed with abstinence you’d risk your kid’s health, there’s a word for what you are, but it’s not “follower of Christ.” It’s not “moral.” It’s not “Christian.” It’s not even “logical.” So just admit it. You hate sex. It’s OK to say you hate for the sake of hating. It hasn’t hurt Dick Cheney.

I hate to tell you this, Mrs. Maher, and anyone else who thinks a vaccine gives your girls a “license to have sex”: Your daughter knows she doesn’t need a license for sex. She’s already on the Internet exchanging bondage fantasies with a German boy she met on MySpace. Forget HPV; she’s already on to S/M. We all know, there’s only one 100 percent proven method to make a woman abstinent — marry her.

Share

Worst pick-up line ever???

Posted on by
Reply

I still don’t quite get the nature of the controversy–perhaps there’s just a limit to how much prurient exploitation our culture is willing to accept (dissing your singing is fine, but racy photos, no matter how private, maybe ain’t)–but it is a controvery nonetheless. Now Glenn Beck takes the opportunity to hit on a cute journalist (who has never posed for racy photos and is at least somewhat of a professional, I might add):

That may be the most uncomfortable silence I’ve seen in some time.

Apparently he’s done this before, too.

There has been some backlash, but I can only begin to imagine the chilling effect this will have on people’s ability to take racy pictures of themselves. What are digital cameras for, anyway?

Seriously, though, Glenn, if you want to take racy pictures of a girl, there are places you could find them. Just saying.

Share

Trouble in the Alps – Some news just seems to slip through the cracks

Posted on by
2

With all that’s going on in the world, it’s easy to forget about the neutral countries.

What began as a routine training exercise almost ended in an embarrassing diplomatic incident after a company of Swiss soldiers got lost at night and marched into neighboring Liechtenstein.

According to Swiss daily Blick, the 170 infantry soldiers wandered just over a mile across an unmarked border into the tiny principality early Thursday before realizing their mistake and turning back.

A spokesman for the Swiss army confirmed the story but said that there were unlikely to be any serious repercussions for the mistaken invasion.

I’ve never been to Liechtenstein (it’s not Luxembourg), but it’s great to see them in the news every so often.

Share

A few clarifications

Posted on by
2

Some excellent points were made about some recents posts of mine, so I’d like to make a few clarifications.

First of all, I tend to post only when I’m worked up in a frenzy of blog-fueled rage. Not at all an excuse for any half-baked arguments, more a setting of context.

With regard to my comments on Al Gore’s alleged electrical hypocrisy, I don’t have an inherent problem with people making information available and letting the public draw their own conclusions, ever. And I have to conced that it’s probably impossible for anyone to present information without some sort of bias–if you look hard enough, you can find traces of spin anywhere. I do have a problem with people making information under the guise of an official-sounding organization that may or may not exist–for me, it’s an honesty thing. People are free to draw their own conclusions–I happen to fail to see the relevance in this particular instance, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be said.

That wasn’t the intended point of my post, though. The proper treatment for dishonest/deceptive/hateful/whatever speech is more speech. That generally isn’t what happens in these situations. I invoked the Swift Boat analogy because this situation reminds me of that situation: a group made a number of allegations that were capable of being disproven by numerous records and witnesses, yet the Kerry campaign didn’t say squat back in 2004. A lot has happened since then, and it would be nice to see someone with more credibility and a bigger audience than me offer some sort of counterpoint to what people and groups like the Tennessee Center for Policy Research have to say. Like, say, Al Gore. And he did.

A quick note on the relevance issue–the argument seems to be that (a) Al Gore addresses the severity of global warming; (b) Al Gore uses electricity at a level above the national average; therefore (c) Al Gore is a hypocrite. The problem is, (c) doesn’t say anything at all about (a); it just attacks the messenger.

With regard to the Discovery documentary on Jesus, again I have no problem with anyone presenting information or opinions. I draw my own conclusions and my own opinions. Personally, based on what I have seen so far, I think the documentary is full of crap–it is an interesting premise but has about as much historical weight as the Da Vinci Code. I don’t blame Mr. Wildmon for trying, either, but if that is the best he can do, I kind of feel bad for him. My point is that if watching the documentary shakes someone’s faith to the core, you really can’t blame the filmmakers for that. My objection here is similar to my issue with the Gardasil debate: valid arguments against a proposal that are grounded in science, history, logic, etc. supercede arguments based only in faith. Object to the documentary because it’s bad science, bad archaeology, bad statistics, and so forth. If someone publicizes information that contradicts the foundation of someone’s faith, and that information is objectively flawed (e.g. not based in sound science), why not make that your first argument? My understanding of Mr. Wildmon’s argument is something like this: (a) the Bible states that such and such happened; (b) a new documentary may present evidence that contradicts the Bible; therefore (c) Christianity is under attack.

In retrospect, my statement “I am not out to offend or denigrate anyone else’s religious beliefs” was not entirely accurate. I do not intend to denigrate religious people. There is a difference, subtle though it may be, between crticism of a system of beliefs and criticism of the believers. I may not agree with someone’s beliefs, but I do not intend to disrespect the person. And I have a very hard time respecting a lot of religious beliefs. I could probably write a book on that issue (and I might), but if anyone is offended by what I have to say about religion, it’s honestly kind of flattering because it implies that the person is placing my words on a rhetorical level with the Bible or whatever book they follow. Well, that’s how I look at it, anyway. I can’t help how people interpret what I, or anyone else, say. All I can do is try to be honest and rational–I’ll admit it doesn’t always work (although I still think it did this time.)

I also stand by my characterization of faith, which was pretty much based on the definition at dictionary.com:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.

4. often Faith ChristianityThe theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

The difference between faith and science is that science (assuming you are dealing with an honest practitioner), has to change in the face of contradictory evidence. Faith does not. Yet they can co-exist for most people just fine, most of the time.

If I do have any particular bias creeping into posts of this nature, it is my frustration that agnostics (I prefer the term apatheist, but I’ll go with a more recognizable one) are so often misunderstood and disrespected on a personal level. That must be a topic for another day, however.

Share

Don’t bother me with pesky "evidence"

Posted on by
2

Courtesy of my daily e-mail from the Texas Freedom Network:

E-MAIL FROM THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT
Text is taken directly from e-mails written by religious-right groups. The Texas Freedom Network does not edit the content for grammar or accuracy.

Date: February 28, 2007
From: American Family Association
By: Don Wildmon

The Discovery Channel documentary slams Christianity

The documentary claims that the tombs of Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdalene and a supposed son of Jesus —Judah— have been found, thus making the Bible and two thousand years of history a lie.

According to the Discovery Channel’s documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” airing Sunday, March 4, the bones of Jesus– buried with His family — have been found. In addition, the documentary says that Mary Magdalene and Jesus might have had a son named Judah.

Here is what The Discovery Channel says about the program and the Christian faith: “All leading epigraphers agree about the inscriptions. All archaeologists confirm the nature of the find. It comes down to a matter of statistics. A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.”

Having watched how Hollywood portrays Christians and Christian values for the past 30 years, it is clear that Hollywood considers Christianity its greatest enemy. Because of our silence, Christianity is the only religion they feel free to attack!

It is time for Christians to send a message to The Discovery Channel and Hollywood that enough is enough! Don’t stay silent while The Discovery Channel and Hollywood continually attack our faith and our values.

The documentary was produced by James Cameron, whose claim to fame is directing the movie “The Titanic.” Saying that Cameron is qualified to make a documentary on Jesus is like saying Hugh Hefner is qualified to make a documentary on abstinence before marriage!

Having not seen the documentary yet (and I doubt Rev. Wildmon has either, unless he has a time machine), I can’t say much about its production values, attribution of claims, or the general quality of its historical research. I can say that there is not very much harm in presenting information about something that somebody found somewhere and letting people draw their own conclusions from it. The e-mail above does not challenge the veracity of any claims made by the documentary–it barely scratches the surface of identifying any claims made by the documentary. In fact, Rev. Wildmon does not challenge a single assertion made by the publicity for this documentary. He does say this, though: “The documentary claims that the tombs of Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdalene and a supposed son of Jesus —Judah— have been found, thus making the Bible and two thousand years of history a lie.”

I guess one man’s metaphor is another man’s lie. Rather than critically examine archaeological evidence that may or may not have any impact on his faith, he would stick his nose back into an old book and pretend it isn’t happening. And he would have everyone else do the same.

But it doesn’t stop there. See, presenting evidence that might contradict one man’s narrowly-drawn version of reality isn’t bad enough…there must be a bigger bogeyman behind the scenes. He identifies the documentary as a broadcast of a Canadian network, a British nework, and the Discovery Channel (whose umbrella corporation is headquartered in Maryland), and then makes the following statement: “Having watched how Hollywood portrays Christians and Christian values for the past 30 years, it is clear that Hollywood considers Christianity its greatest enemy. ”

Huh?

How did we get to Hollywood? And what happened 30 years ago?

Oh, right. Hollywood is run by liberals, liberals hate America, America is Christian to its core, and therefore Jesus is going to kick our asses…the argument goes something like that. Point being, it’s a docu-freakin’-mentary. At least try to formulate a coherent argument that addresses the evidence it presents.

Or is “Hollywood” a code word for something else???…

“Don’t stay silent while The Discovery Channel and Hollywood continually attack our faith and our values.” He isn’t so clear what he wants his peeps to say to the Discovery Channel and Hollywood (oh my!), but I’m not exactly his target audience. I guess something along the lines of “Your objective and corporeal evidence offends me. I object to your displaying it on a basic cable network most people do not watch on a Sunday night.” Come to think of it, that is easier than actually crafting a counter-argument.

I should note that I am not out to offend or denigrate anyone else’s religious beliefs. I should also note that I do not believe for a millisecond that people like Don Wildmon would ever extend to me the sort of courtesy I tried to extend in the previous sentence. So anyone with tender religious sensibilities should just skip the rest of this paragraph. Now then, it may seem easier to draw life lessons from an ancient book of fairytales that has not been edited since at least the 5th century AD (or CE). But really, in the face of a second-rate documentary by the guy who brought us The Abyss, I guess peddlers of a rather poorly-edited anthology of uncertain attribution and extensive internal inconsistencies should be worried about the staying power of their wares.

That said, there are many valid criticisms of the documentary’s facts (remember those?), such as the following:

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary…is even unsure that the name “Jesus” on
the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it’s more likely the name “Hanun.”

Archaeologists quickly discounted the theory that the boxes contained the bones of Jesus and his family because the names inscribed on the boxes were quite common in the region during the 1st Century.

So how’s about we quit the whinin’ and the bellyachin’ and let the documentary stand on its own (possible lack of) merits. I have no idea if the documentary is any good, or in the least bit convincing. If it shakes Christians’ faith to the core, that’s their problem, and it would only prove that Don Wildmon is not very good at his job. See, faith isn’t supposed to depend on facts or evidence anyway, remember?

I can’t finish this post without ridiculing one other part of the e-mail:

The documentary was produced by James Cameron, whose claim to fame is directing the movie “The Titanic.” Saying that Cameron is qualified to make a documentary on Jesus is like saying Hugh Hefner is qualified to make a documentary on abstinence before marriage!

Ah, the ad hominem attack, lynchpin of the man with no solid argument in the first place. But really, is a film director making a documentary on Jesus any worse than a glorified televangelist attempting to discuss archaeology?

Also, give Mr. Cameron a little credit for The Terminator, seriously.

In closing, now that I’ve read about all this controversy, I’m definitely going to watch the documentary (Sunday, March 4, 8 p.m. CST).

Share

Deliberate ignorance finds a new home on the web

Posted on by
Reply

I can’t sleep, and this was too strange not to mention. Apparently Phyllis Schlafly and those of her ilk have decided the liberal bias of Wikipedia is too much to bear, so they have launched their own site, Conservapedia. There are some amusing comments on the site’s content and lack thereof.

Is it too much to hope for that this marks the beginning of a trend; that Ms. Schlafly and her followers will simply abandon other modes of contemporary communication to start their own? Eventually, they will disappear into self-imposed segregation (yeah, I said it), secure in the knowledge that they will never have to hear a dissenting opinion, have their Christian faith questioned, or hear the word “evolution” again. They will breed prodigiously for a while, what with the total lack of condoms or sex education, but without any knowledge of evolution, flu epidemics will probably be common (since there would be no need to ever update their vaccine supply, since viruses couldn’t possibly mutate or evolve without God’s help.) Large-scale flu epidemics would be tragic, please understand. I’m just the messenger.

Oh, for fuck’s sake, this is satire! Chill out.

Share

Condoleeza Rice thinks you are stupid

Posted on by
Reply

I’m not going to bother to reprint any of her argument from Fox News yesterday. My opinion of those who try to compare the current war situation to World War II should be clear by now (ignorant, indefensible, and akin to slime mold).

Secretary Rice may have hit a new low by essentially reversing history and suggesting that we should not have used force…wiat, we should have used force but not rebuilt…uhh…shit, I can’t make heads or tails of anything she said. You owe it to yourself to watch what Keith Olbermann had to say.

Seriously, watch it.

Don’t come back until you’ve watched it.

This is more like old school SportsCenter Keith, not new stodgy Keith.

OK, hopefully you’ve watched it by now. I’m too pissed off to write much more. Let me just ask a (presumably rhetorical) question: if Iraq is so comparable to WWII, why are we throwing so few resources at it, where are all the calls for sacrifice, and so forth? We kicked Hitler’s ass after throwing everything we had into the fight, and then we threw even more into rebuilding the place. You can’t save the world on the cheap.

Share

New definition requested: "Stable"

Posted on by
2

I’ve pretty much given up on ever getting a definition of “victory,” so I might as well move on to the next bit of ambiguity. Laura Bush had this to say on Larry King:

Many parts of Iraq are stable now. But, uh, of course, what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everyone.

I guess it depends on what your definition of the word “stable” is. Mine doesn’t allow much wiggle room on the issue of daily bombings.

And damn those insurgents for harshing our buzz with their daily bombings!

I try to flippant to keep from losing my mind, but this is just getting fucking depressing.

Share

The Swift Boating of Al Gore

Posted on by
2

Say what you will about Al Gore, but he made a good movie and he doesn’t deserve this:

Last night, Al Gore got very favorable national press and worldwide television exposure.

This afternoon, a group calling itself “The Tennessee Center For Policy Research” sent out a press release denouncing Vice President Gore for the size of his household electrical bills.

Apparently the attempt at a smear has spread throughout much of the internet already–heck, it’s been nearly 24 hours since the awards show. The question is, will they get away with it this time? I have long been of the opinion that Al Gore was too freakin’ polite for much of the 2000 campaign, but I am conflicted about the best way to deal with it long-term. Maybe progressives need a shadowy corps of smear artists to go head to head with Fox News and its ilk. There are two principal problems with that idea, though: (1) most progressives have too much integrity/self respect/human decency to routinely engage in the lying/twisting/manipulating of basic common sense and reality so common in their opponents, and (2) progressives may be too darned independent-minded to take the kind of marching orders that would be necessary for this sort of plan. This is not the kind of problem that will go away if you ignore it (it would if everyone ignored them, but that ain’t gonna happen.)

So I am calling on all intelligent independent-minded people to resist all these b.s. attempts to deflect attention away from what people like Al Gore say and towards misleading innuendoes about who they are. See, there probably aren’t very many actual counter-arguments, so the goal is to distract attention from that fact. I’m still trying to get my head around the arguments of those who doubt global warming–highlights seem to include that liberals hate America and that science can be determined democratically if enough people simply refuse to believe something (I choose to reject Avogadro’s number. I’ll get back to you on how that works out.)

Don’t just ignore this, though. It may not be worth dignifying with a response, but silence is really no longer golden.

Sigh.

Share