[16]
Subscribe to RealityCast:
RealityCast iTunes subscription [17]
RealityCast RSS feed [18]
Links in this episode:
Mishappery [19]
Do condoms prevent HIV? [20]
Survey says yes [21]
McCain stumbles [22]
McCain 2000 stumble [23]
HPV vaccine paranoia [24]
Anti-choice songage [25]
Transcript:
This week on Reality Cast, we'll have an interview with Gloria Feldt about electing more female leaders. Also, a review of John McCain's campaign strategies, a smackdown of CNN for running with a scare story, and another anti-choice song clip.
I promise that this will be the only mention, ever, of the bloggers on Jezebel making fools of themselves on Liz Winstead's show "Thinking and Drinking". I was sympathetic to them on my blog, because they were trying to joke about stuff, and I know of the pain of a joke falling flat. But they pushed a bit of misinformation that needs serious correction.
- insert pulling out
It is neither true that pulling out is a decent method of not getting pregnant nor that it's objectively the most fun method. Someone is getting pregnant pulling out somewhere in the world as you listen to this, it works so badly. And they're staining the sheets while they're doing it, for a sum total loss. Dramatically flinging the used condom in the trashcan, perhaps to music, is a way to satisfy the need for entertainment and it's safer to boot.
*************
It increasingly seems like John McCain's strategy for dealing with the landmine of reproductive issues is to punt the questions. Campaign watchers started to deduce this when McCain pleaded ignorance on the subject of condom usage to prevent HIV. Some video bloggers covered the issue at The Fore Thought.
- insert mccain hiv
But what seemed to be a mere stumble is beginning to look like a bona fide strategy of avoiding the question. Just listen to this clip from MSNBC.
- insert mccain contraception coverage
Why is this issue so hard? No, really. More than half of voters are women, and 98% of them have used contraception at some point in their lives. Really, when 98% of more than half of the voting population actively enjoys a certain right, and the other half of the electorate is supportive of that enjoyment, then what's the issue? You'd think contraception would be as popular as spring days and ice cream.
Well, because he doesn't think he can win without the religious right, who are clearly a hardline minority vote but still wildly influential. With McCain leaning hard to the right on the religious right's favorite issues, it's hard to imagine why he's still on notice with them. He's crossed his Ts and dotted his Is on abortion, gay marriage, and as we see here, he's willing to play that he's amendable to restrictions on contraception. And yet they still have a grudge. It goes back to the primary of 2000.
- insert mccain debate
Yeah, that's haunted him since. Since he lost in 2000, I'm guessing he thinks that was a major misstep and he's not making that mistake again, though he's already won the primary, and the hard right vote is diluted in the general election. He really backtracked a couple of years ago on Meet The Press.
- insert mccain meet the press
Of course, Falwell was an agent of intolerance, and that's why the hard right wingers followed him. If he wasn't an agent of intolerance, he'd have died a nobody in Virginia. His entire life was dedicated to being an agent of intolerance.
But I see why McCain realizes that the accurate phrase might set off believers who prefer their agency of intolerance to get a more cuddly name. But some believers are going to hold his accurate comments of 2000 against him until forever, so he's been running hard to the right on their issues to try to win them back.
I suggest campaign reporters make a sport out of asking McCain about various forms of contraception and availability, to see if you can get him to set a record for the length and silence of his pauses before he refuses to answer the question.
**************
- insert interview
*************
The crankery about the HPV vaccine makes me doubly insane, because it plays on two of my biggest hot buttons, which are mindless sex phobias and anti-vaccination crankery. I will never understand why vaccinations, of all things, have become this focal point for people who are willing to say or do anything to attack them. It's not just the HPV vaccination, but all childhood vaccinations that have set off waves of ridiculous claims about how they cause autism, which they most definitely do not. Why do cranks have it out for vaccinations? There just seems to be something about preventative medicine that brings out the worst crankery. It's like the fluoridation thing in the last century. People just want to believe that someone is out to get them when someone is actually trying to help them.
Of course, you can't suddenly develop autism at 14 years old, so that bit of misinformation won't get attached to the HPV vaccination. But don't think that this will mean that people won't try to spread paranoia. We are talking about the deadly combination of preventative medicine and sexual health care, which is going to drag out the paranoias.
CNN should be ashamed of themselves for adding fuel to the fire by having a report that made it seem like the HPV vaccination is especially dangerous.
- insert hpv paranoia 1
If you've got an eye, or should I say ear, for these things, then you already can see where the report is misleading. Yes, I'm sure this woman thinks that the sequence of events means that it's a causal relationship, but that's not necessarily so. But more importantly, you can guess that if this is in fact crankery, then the vaccine will be accused of causing a whole host of diseases, with the symptoms unique to each sufferer.
Why is this a problem? Because most diseases tend to have a cluster of symptoms in common, not just any old thing under the sun. The fact that the second case isn't spelled out inclines me to think it's an entirely separate disease, which means that people are likely blaming coincidences on the shot.
But then CNN really steps over the line.
- insert hpv paranoia 2
Oh yeah? Sick with what? Gosh, want to bet the shot is getting blamed for everything from having an itchy arm to getting the flu to stubbing your toe? That adverse reactions are reported doesn't mean they're real. The accompanying article says that of these nearly 8,000 complaints, 15 were deaths, and already the CDC has affirmed that 10 of the deaths have no relationship to the shot, and I'm sure that all or most of the other 5 will be cleared.
The CNN reporter does admit that the immediate explanation is coincidence, but by putting those words in the mouths of the company that makes the drug, and not noting that Merck is being backed by independent government agencies, she's leaving a question mark where none belongs.
And when the reporter is asked what parents can do, she has this answer.
- insert hpv 3
Amanda smash! Sorry, had to drop the semi-recent pop culture reference in there. But seriously, this is so irresponsible. So, so irresponsible. By saying, "Oh you don't have to worry until your kid has sex," you're encouraging people to put their kids at risk. You get the shot before you have sex, which is why the 11-year-olds. That's how vaccines work. Before the exposure. Not, "Oh, I rubbed my face in polio then I got the shot." Before exposure. Before.
By putting it that way, you're encouraging people to see the shot as a judgment on their parenting skills, when they need to see it as routine preventative care. The last thing we need is parents thinking that getting this shot for their daughters is as good as admitting that they failed some kind of stop your kids from humping test.
Not to get ranty, but it just makes me so mad. This country is paranoid about sex, to the degree that we'd rather see girls die unnecessarily of cervical cancer than chill out about the reality of sex.
Thanks to Feministe for the link and the analysis.
*************
And now for the Wisdom of Wingnuts. I asked for people to send me anti-choice songs, and one reader named Johanna did. Thanks Johanna for this clip of "Mommy Can You Hear Me" by Caroline Purr.
- insert mommy can you hear me
That one is a part of the singing fetus genre, where the fetus itself sings and berates its mother. That is the first song I've heard where the singing fetus is a woman. However, the singer is peddling mediocre adult contemporary crap, so I find myself unmoved by the argument that the world absolutely needs her talents.
Follow Amanda Marcotte on Twitter, @amandamarcotte [26]