DemFromCT has a run down of some of the ways in which John McCain is getting a pass. Some of the stuff is important, some not. Mostly, I wouldn’t feel terribly inclined to jump McCain on most of these, but my anecdotal sense is that the “hammer on Obama for trivial things” train is picking up speed; and, at the least, McCain needs to be held to the same standard. In a race of McCain v. Obama that focuses on policy ideas; Obama wins. It’s hard to excited about a continuation of the policies of the Bush administration, from which McCain has not indicated a departure in any significant way. In a competition of biography v. biography; the race gets closer, particularly if the scrutiny applied to Obama is stricter than that applied to McCain.
Among other things:
- McCain is very honored by the support of John Hagee (Hurricane Katrina is punishment for homosexuality, etc.);
- McCain, foreign policy power house, is unclear on the distinction between Shi’a and Sunni;
- McCain thinks there is “strong evidence” that vaccine preservatives cause autism — there isn’t.
- McCain is unsure of whether information about contraception helps stop HIV transmission.
Personally, I doubt that McCain actually holds a lot of the views of his wingnut supporters. But, because of the nature of the Republican coalition, he has to tap dance vigorously on these issues. But, if we’re going to spend a month or two trying to hold Obama personally responsible for what his minister says about foreign policy (I expect we’ll hear about the racial intolerance of his barber next), I figure it’s fair game to sweat McCain over the sillier ideas of his supporters. (As well as the far more significant Sunni/Shi’a/Iran/al-Qaeda statements he made on a number of occasions.)
Well these foibles and apparently after five years of shifting objectives, elusive stability, an executed Saddam and other anti-climaxes, McCain is standing against surrendering Iraq and is rolling up his sleeves for whatever additional effort is needed to beat Iraq.
Beat Iraq? I thought we already did that. I thought we were *helping* Iraq; not trying to beat them. And it’s all well and good that McCain is willing to “roll up his sleeves” for “whatever additional effort is needed,” but how much is justified?
What benefit to the U.S. is supposed to be gained by this whole invasion of Iraq adventure? And, how many dollars and how many lives are justified by that benefit? Pouring money and lives down a rat hole in the name of being resolute isn’t bold. It’s stupid.
If I were a reporter I’d ask McCain to explain the dynamics of the Shiite vs Shiite conflict in Iraq and how does it think it complicates the traditional Sunni-Shiite Conflict?
Then I’d ask him, does he think it’s noteworthy militia leader, M.Al Sadr, can call off and call to arms at will,whereas Iraqi’s official Prime Minister doesnt know who will follow his orders and who won’t?
Then I’d ask about clarifications on social issues.
Doug, don’t worry your mind over Iraq any more. The Vets For Freedom bus (nice paint job, by the way) rolled into Evansville, and Executive Director Pete Hegseth, an Army captain who served a yearlong deployment in Iraq from 2005 to 2006, proclaimed, “If they (anti-war people?) haven’t gotten the memo, the civil war in Iraq is over. There are different complications and there are different problems, but that’s not what we’re facing today. The good news stories that are happening in Iraq and Afghanistan are not reaching the ears of the American people.”
Now that the good news has reached my ears, I feel so much better. Conflating Iraq and Afghanistan also makes me feel better. I also feel better knowing this guy has only one tour under his belt, so maybe before someone else gets sent for a third one, he could go for his second, since it’s all good except for the different complications and different problems of a non-civil war variety.
Can you give me more information on number 4? What exactly does that mean?
McCain doesn’t know that the birth control pill doesn’t prevent HIV transmission?
What a dumbass. He has to have a staffer find out what he used to think, to see what he thinks now. But he’s sure what he thinks now is whatever the current president thinks. And he self-references the Straight-Talk Express. What a bunch of bullshit.
It cracks me up how often he starts a statement with, “Let me give you some “Straight Talk”(tm?). For him, it’s like saying, “Let me give you a verbal answer in English”. But his audience is thinking, whew, I can relax now and just absorb his verbal brilliance without any thought to whether or not he might be lying, parsing, or just confused. Straight talk is straight talk, by definition.
Condoms don’t “stop” the spread of STDs. They help prevent HIV transmission, but even then, the risk is not zero. Other STDs are completely unaffected by condoms. That’s why 25% of teenage girls have the HPV virus.
And “condoms” and “contraceptives” are not the same thing. There are plenty of contraceptives that do nothing to stop HIV, much less all other STDs.
So I think that the person asking McCain the question is a biased, uninformed jackass.
What, and McCain doesn’t know any of this? What’s that make him?
Here is what I think – I think McCain knows that education on contraceptives helps prevent the spread of HIV/AIDs. Not down to “zero,” but nobody has made that claim, so it’s a straw man. In his heart of hearts, I think McCain probably knows that “abstinence only” sex education is worthless, and a waste of money. However, he has to pander to the religious zealots in the GOP. Unfortunately, this means no straight talk from John McCain.
Oh and:
sounds like a pretty compelling reason for instructions about contraceptives to be part of a sex education curriculum.
sounds like a pretty compelling reason for instructions about contraceptives to be part of a sex education curriculum.
Or just read the back of the box of condoms.
Regarding risk, the question asked was, “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.”
It is a misnomer that they “stop” the spread. You could plot condom sales vs. STD rates, and see for yourself that they do nothing to stop the spread of STDs.
You’ve got promiscuity on one hand battling with “safer” sex practices, thrown on top of a population that has education and intelligence levels that may or may not allow them to actually practice safer sex, or abstenance for that matter (time orientation is not strong in the less intelligent). Is it any wonder that HPV is so widespread?
I don’t know what the answer is, but I don’t think that the contrast between abstinance and safer sex is as stark as you make it out to be.
Is there any evidence that educating people about the proper use of condoms and other contraceptive devices increases promiscuity? (For this, I guess we’d have to have some sort of definition of “promiscuity” — I take it to mean “having sex before you should.” Obviously, there is a vast scope of opinions with respect to when sex is proper.)
Why must information be withheld or limited or parcelled out by religo-political hacks? I have never felt so strongly the intrusion of big government as during these so-called conservative government years of the Bush White House.Aspects of sex and reproduction shouldn’t be taught as a catechism class,certainly not when public funding is paying the bill. Am I the only one weary of points of view vs points of view rather an examination of a subject BEFORE we choose sides and moralize?
Example: whatever contraceptives are or aren’t should be thoroughly examined with those who are or will soon be be sexually active.Making moral decisions personally is a natural progression after one is informed fully.
Facts have a known, liberal bias.
Maybe we could make a deal — sex education can’t start any earlier or any later than religious education.
I don’t have the video in front of me, but reading these, it looks like McCain was caught off-guard and wanted to make sure he didn’t dig a deeper hole.
With the benefit of not being under the gun, I can see McCain responding with “Well, that depends on what contraceptives we’re talking about. IUDs do not help stop HIV. BC pills do not help stop it. Spermacide does not help stop it. Condoms can help stop it. Now, what exactly was your question?”
Being under the gun, he knew that there was a good chance of being screwed either way. Say no, and the headlines read (incorrectly) “McCain thinks condoms don’t stop HIV”. Say yes, and the headlines read (incorrectly) “McCain thinks birth control pills can stop HIV”
It looks like the questioner was rapid-firing questions with the hope of getting a half thought out answer and playing the stupid sound byte everywhere. He partially succeeded.
My post brings up another point. I wish we could quit with the quick interviews. Send all the candidates the same questions, give them time to think about them, then release all of their responses at the same time.
I don’t get the sense that being the president is like playing basketball. Do we really want the person who can respond on 60 issues in 10 minutes, or someone who is going to spend some time thinking about each one before acting?
The problem I’d have with the delayed responses to questions is the lack of an opportunity to ask follow up questions.
For me, it’s sort of the difference between submitting written interrogatories and taking an oral deposition. They both have their uses, but it’s a lot harder to get away with an incomplete, vague, or evasive answer during a deposition.
Is there any evidence that educating people about the proper use of condoms and other contraceptive devices increases promiscuity?
Of course there is. But as with any such “study” the devil is in the statistical details. How was the sample taken, was it representative, etc.
I think that on issues like this, common sense is more powerful than social science.
(For this, I guess we’d have to have some sort of definition of “promiscuity†— I take it to mean “having sex before you should.†Obviously, there is a vast scope of opinions with respect to when sex is proper.)
Agreed. This is one of those issues that opinion varies so much on that coming to a political consensus is almost impossible.
I personally think that sex before marriage, with or without birth control, is a loaded gun. You’re playing with fire, mostly because condoms don’t always work. I know 2 guys that got their girlfriends pregnants while allegedly using condoms (so they say, as a former condom user I’m a little skeptical).
I’m not even going to get into birth control pills. I wouldn’t trust any woman who said that they were faithfully taking the pill. I know too many married people who have “surprises”.
On the other hand, I has sex before I was married, and human nautre now is such that its probably unlikely that a government program could stop it from happening. Maybe abstenance only is unrealistic.
But to think that even if everyone were perfectly educated on the subject that that would solve the problem of unintended pregancies, that’s pretty naive. It doesn’t take into account the variation in human intelligence.
Condoms help prevent transmission of HIV, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, hepatitis B and C, and yes–also genital herpes and human papillomavirus (HPV).
Genital herpes and HPV are spread by skin-skin contact. To the extent that skin-skin contact is prevented by condoms, transmission is reduced. Is all skin-skin contact prevented by condoms? No. But most of the genital skin/mucus membrane contact is, and any affected skin will be quite distant from the cervix, decreasing cervical disease anyway.
In my clinical experience, most of the genital warts I see in males are on the penile shaft or foreskin–the areas covered by condoms. None of these patients has ever claimed regular condom use.
The herpes info is courtesy of the CDC.
The HPV info is courtesy of a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 354. Study design and results at http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9383. Study showed women who reported 100% condom use we 70% less likely to be diagnosed with HPV than women who reported less than 5% condom use. Combine these results with the effectiveness of Gardasil, and “condoms don’t stop HPV” becomes a non-issue. I would wager that condoms plus Gardasil is much more effective in preventing HPV than “intended” abstinence is.
Take the period off the end of the link above and it should work…
Ugh. I thought my job was bad. At least I don’t have to deal with genetal warts of the penile shaft.
So when you ask these guys why they don’t use condoms, what’s the answer?
70% reduction is not a 100% reduction. And Gardasil is not effective against all the HPV viruses.
I’m just saying.
Combine these results with the effectiveness of Gardasil, and “condoms don’t stop HPV†becomes a non-issue.
It’s a non-issue for those who failfully use condoms and have been vaccinated.
What would you say the average IQ is of the people who failfully use condoms and have been vaccinated? And what’s the avergage IQ of one of your genital wart patients?
It is unrealistic to expect the unintelligent to be able to faithfully use birth control.
I’m in the middle of “Farewell to Alms”. Interesting socio-economic history. I’ll have to dig out the proper statistics, but in 18th century England, the average woman was getting married in her 20’s (at a time when life expenctancy was 30 or so). And the illegitimacy rate was 4 to 6%. Seeing as they didn’t have birth control back then, abstinance was being practiced.
Now, I’m not sure that our want-it-now, sexed up materialistic society could ever go back to the moral standards of 18th century England, but there is nothing in human nature preventing abstinance from working. And if you believe the Flynn Effect is real, the average IQ and thus future orientation of the 18th century population was significantly less than it is today.
What’s the average IQ of someone who receives abstinence education and remains 100% abstinent?
Anyone with the mental capacity to remember to brush their teeth daily is capable of faithfully taking birth control pills.
Anyone with the mental capacity to remember to use a seatbelt when riding in a car also has the mental capacity to remember to use a condom during sex.
The usual answer for why condoms weren’t used is a)wasn’t planning to have sex, b)didn’t know she “had something”, c)doesn’t feel as good, d)”If I had known I was going to get these bumps on my dick I would have. Damn!”
There are over 100 different strains of HPV. About 90 of them have no identifiable effects on health. Gardasil vaccinates against those few HPV strains that cause 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts, and is believed to be 100% effective against the strains it is designed to combat.
So condoms will reduce transmission by 70%. Of the dangerous strains that do rarely pass from skin to skin despite condom use, 70-90% of those strains will be completely blocked due to the vaccine. And if you’re unlucky enough to not have it blocked, you will more likely have an external genital wart rather than direct innoculation to the cervix. Add in annual pap, and HPV becomes a rare annoyance rather than a serious threat to life.
Or you could be so sure that you’re going to remain “pure” for your “one true love” that having a condom around just seems silly. I see those people in the office, too. Usually four days later without a clue that they had options. They’re slowly reactive rather than proactive. And they’re having a baby. Or warts. Or herpes. Etc.
The usual answer for why condoms weren’t used is a)wasn’t planning to have sex, b)didn’t know she “had somethingâ€, c)doesn’t feel as good, d)â€If I had known I was going to get these bumps on my dick I would have. Damn!â€
Every single one of them is a sign of poor future orientation. Which itself is an indicator of low IQ.
I agree with #3, BTW. Not a reason not to use one, of course, but true nonetheless.
I’m not arguing that abstinance is superior for those with low IQ, other than just to note that in a society not too long ago, it did work for a population that had a much lower mean IQ than today.
Of course, that is promoting “middleclassness”. Can’t do that. Might upset all those parishoners at Trinity Church.
Or you could be so sure that you’re going to remain “pure†for your “one true love†that having a condom around just seems silly.
No, that’s not the choice to be made. The choice to be made is not to engage in the hookup culture that is rampant in this society. If your number of lifetime partners can be counted on one hand (consistant with a small number of long term relationships), the risk of HPV is minimal.
The only reason that HPV is so rampant is the hookup culture. And the risks of HPV are but one risk. Okay, it can be mitigated with condoms and vaccines. What about all the other risks, like psychological damage.
How much of the psychological damage, to the extent it occurs, is attributable to the act itself, and how much is attributable to social opprobrium? In other words, if the churches and like minded social leaders stopped saying “YOU’RE NAUGHTY!” how much psychological damage is left?
If we can mostly prevent unwanted pregnancies, transmission of STDs, and psychological damage caused by social opprobrium, what other problems do we have left to tackle?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m going to try to discourage my kids from having sex at a young age. But, I’m not sure I’m going to be doing that for entirely rational reasons. And, my goal will be to do it in such a way that, if they do have sex, they’ll know how to get the job done without having kids or contracting diseases.
If abstinence hasn’t been shown to work, then wishing otherwise doesn’t really constitute a health strategy.
Waxing nostalgic for the past isn’t a health strategy either.
Sex is psychologically damaging? War is too, no? Abstaining from it might be good, but that’s not always practical or in our best interests. And even when abstaining from war is in our best interests, it can still prove just too damn irresistible. So we opt for a vigorous defense, just in case we’re not able to abstain. Condoms and Gardasil are like that.
Use what works. Wish for a perfect world in your spare time.