newsflash: sex is dangerous
one of the more savory ironies of the sexual revolution is the consistency with which the sides are reversed. champions of traditional american mores are jeered as backward while the glorified hedonists of team just-do-it are cheered like moral thomas edisons.
but who's stuck in the stone age? a generation ago, the boomers convinced themselves that sex was just good, clean, wholesome fun to be enjoyed carefree whenever the spirit moved them. and what have they learned from the thirty years of death and destruction their eternal puberty hath wrought? that sex is still good, clean, wholesome fun. millions dying of AIDS? use a condom. millions birthed out of wedlock and into abject poverty? have an abortion. millions left hollow by a life of vain pursuit? pop a prozac. but for God's sake, bruce, don't bring me down.
the refusal to link action with consequence isn't peculiar to the left's view of sex, it's practically liberalism's keystone. throw that stone into the sea of american culture see it ripple from shore to shore. kid accidentally shoot himself with a handgun you kept locked, loaded, and lying on your living room table? sue beretta arms. smoke six packs a day for thirty years and contract lung cancer? sue phillip morris. and so forth.
there's an almost pathological determination to disassociate cause and effect, but when that determination withers in the face of the intractable truth, liberals will invariably attempt to shift the blame. AIDS is ronald reagan's fault. had nothing to do with a decade of caligula-style bath-house orgies, anonymous men's room trysts, and tainted needle swapping. who woulda thunk that sort of behavior is bad for you?
moral conservatives, that's who. thirty years of preaching "there will be consequences" and thirty years of being alternately scoffed and blamed, but never once listened to. well listen now: there will be consequences.
human papillomavirus (HPV) is the umbrella name for dozens of different strains of virus, most of which are gross but relatively harmless. the remaining bad apples, though, are more than enough to spoil the bunch. and your cervix. turns out that HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer, a form that kills about 4,000 women each year. turns out that HPV is so slick and slippery that wrapping your rascal, the end-all and be-all of what liberals like to call "sex education," cannot prevent transmission. it has to do with the gaps in a condom's butterfly net being a bit too wide for this particular bug, rendering it little more than an uncomfortable latex placebo.
hoping for an ounce of prevention, the bush administration has asked the FDA to require a warning about a condom's achilles heel on every wrapper. now you would think that this would delight our friends on the left: bush repenting the sins of his political fathers by getting in on the ground floor of an STD's prevention. granted, pap tests and advanced treatment methods have made tremendous strides in the battle against what was once one of the leading cancer killers in women, but still, why get it if you don't have to?
yes, you would think that. but you would be wrong. the condom crusaders on the left are livid.
"I want to be polite. But it appalls me when I see scientific and medical studies being manipulated for a different agenda," said Tom Broker. He's a professor of biochemistry and molecular genetics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and president of the International Papillomavirus Society, a coalition of experts who study HPV.
what is this science of which you speak? a 2002 university of washington meta-study found that "Among 27 estimates from 20 studies, there was no consistent evidence that condom use reduces the risk of becoming HPV DNA-positive." the best they could say for condom use after pouring over twenty studies was that while they "may not prevent HPV infection, they may protect against genital warts," and even this ringing endorsement was tempered with warnings of "inconsistent" data.
Wash U's conclusion is by no means exceptional. note that the previously-quoted mr. broker didn't bother arguing that they could actually stop HPV, hence the sleazy "condoms have been shown to reduce the risk of cervical cancer" remark, an echo of a 2001 NIH/CDC/FDA/alphabet soup report that claimed an "association" between condom use and lowered cervical cancer risk. why the lower risk? unknown, but the same report logically speculates that diseases condoms do prevent, like the immune system-defeating AIDS, could increase the risk of HPV infection turning into full-blown cervical cancer. this belief has been better substantiated over the last few years and is now the crux of the left's apologetic, "the focus," as mr. broker put it.
according to the condom crusaders and their career-bureaucrat friends in the FDA, therefore, the focus of russian roulette-ed ought to be that one bullet gives you better odds than two, rather than the fact that hollow point lead projectiles propelled at a thousand feet per second and encountered at point blank range can cause significant trauma to brain tissue and should probably be avoided at all costs. now NO cancer blow-by-blow could be too graphic for a cigarette package, but we're not even allowed to mention that condoms don't stop the STD that causes most of its cervical form in women? can't even include little print-too-fine-to-read-anyway warning so that there could at least be a slight chance of someone making an informed decision?
censorship is bad enough, but combine it with a vigorous propaganda campaign and you've got the makings of a disaster. check out planned parenthood's tap-illoma dance:
How can I avoid getting a genital HPV infection?
condoms can reduce the risk of HPV infection? hell, with enough luck, a conscientiously-applied fart might be able to alter the course of an onrushing tornado but i wouldn't go betting my life on it. women are needlessly dying of cancer and planned parenthood has them grasping at straws based on a distortion of science so grotesque that it fails to qualify as a bald-faced lie in only the most legalistic sense.
if liberals are ever forced to really confront the knowledge that condoms are no panacea, then they will be forced to confront the knowledge that sex is a risky business, i.e., that there are indeed consequences for our actions. HPV is the microscopic bob woodward that just might blow the lid off their little cover-up, which is why they're waging a full-scale war on two fronts, trying to keep people from finding out about its risks while trying to downplay their significance in the minds of those who have.
locdog doesn't mind fighting back
no, not npr. the OTHER liberal radio network.
pinko radio brand spankin new and me with no time to post. ah well, that's the glamorous, fast-paced life of the full-time sys admin/part-time student. got some time now, though. lucky you.
i haven't heard the thing yet aside from a few clips played by bemused conservatives on their own talk shows. hardly fair to form a judgment on that basis...but i'm going to anyway. what i heard was so utterly predictable that it seems pointless not to:
the new liberal radio network is a blatant rush limbaugh rip-off.
they just coopted the format rush, genius that he is, pioneered for their own rush-hating market. will it work?
i say no.
today's righty talk radio came about when conservatives found themselves without a voice. there was (and is) a palpable liberal bias to traditional media (you liberals can amend "palpable" to "perceived" if it makes you feel better--why start letting reality stand in your way now?) and over the last two decades or so, we cons began migrating to alternative outlets where we could regroup. simply put, there was a virgin market out there just clamoring for exploitation.
now our new liberal talk radio network exists not because of the immutable laws of supply and demand, but because a few of the elites think it ought to exist. the liberal radio network is itself an excercise in liberalism. which is why it's going to fail.
the success of low-brow lib books from the likes of franken and moore make it difficult for me to dismiss radical radio outright. but if the clips i heard from franken's radio show are any indication, "air america radio" isn't long for this world. franken's acidic, er, humor may appeal to a narrow segment of highly disgruntled liberals (is the phrase "angry white males" taken?) but air america is going to need more than that. the first time i heard that franken's new show was called "the o'franken factor," i almost wanted to listen out of pity.
love him or hate him, rush limbaugh is an innovator. he defined the cultural movement that is talk radio almost single-handedly, and did it with class and flair. if the best the libs can muster in response are shallow agitators like franken, who compensate for their lack of genuine style with shrill, hand-waving polemics against the very gods whose likeness they're trying to remake themselves in, well, they're in serious trouble.
locdog is internet america
it's 14:59, mr. clarke...
if you, like me, had better things to do on a sparkling sunday morning than watch a frustrated bureaucrat declaim against his former employer, then you can catch yourself up here courtesy of nbc news' meet the press transcripts.
on balance, i took the interview as the most recent exhibit in a growing chain of evidence that clarke is a daft little man busily savoring every last scrap of attention he's for so long thought himself denied. exhibit A would be his book, which, i must admit, i have not read. condi rice lolling into vacuous stares at the mention of al qaeda? rice's intellect is a humvee to clarke's pinto, and anyway, clarke was a cyber-terror expert, protecting america from osama-sponsored email porn and whatnot. thanks, but i'll get my fiction elsewhere, preferably from sources not timed to cash in the thousands of deaths clarke grandiloquently apologized for. which brings us to exhibit B, clarke's recent congressional testimony, particularly the tub-thumping "I LET AMERICA DOWN" speech that prefaced it.
no you didn't, mr. clarke. america has never even heard of you before and that with good cuase, so don't flatter yourself by pretending that you actually had any responsibilities to shirk. you had a position of theoretical heft under the clinton administration, but terror found itself nestled between new brooms for the olympic curling team and the reinflation of the national helium reserve on slick's priority list. under bush, you fulfilled your destiny by becoming another faceless mid-level bureaucrat. hell, you might as well have come out apologizing for the hole in the ozone.
and then, of course, we have exhibit C, the russert interview. before i get into the specifics, just listen to this guy:
"I'm not the issue."
"The issue is not me."
"Let's not talk about the personalities...I don't want this to be about personality. I want it to be about the issues."
"Now, here we go again, you know, with 'it's about Dick Clarke and it's about his motivation'..."
"This is not about Dick Clarke."
me thinks thou dost...aw, you know how it goes. perhaps you're thinking "so we've found a megalomaniacal bureaucrat, so what. next thing you know they'll be finding cowboys with pointy boots and big hats, right?" but you must admit, even for a megalomaniacal bureaucrat clarke is a howl. i hear tell that in his book he basically took credit for running the country on 9/11, single-handedly ordering the president to remain in florida while authorizing the military to blow any plane deviating from its flight plan out of the sky. on russert, he took responsibility for everything else.
who is mr. clarke according to mr. clarke? first and foremost, he's an orwellian hero waging a desperate, solitary struggle against the focused might of the Vast RightWing Conspiracy.
[T]his is part of a general pattern of the White House and the Republican National Committee and the president's re-election committee distributing talking points like that to senators and to press and to media trying to make me the issue and trying to engage in character assassination...
now i know what you're thinking. fending off what clarke later describes as the white houses' "vicious personal attacks" would be a full-time job for an ordinary man, but you must remember that mr. clarke is no ordinary man. he somehow finds the time to dictate to the american people who and what they should be discussing (not me! it's not about me! honest! i really, really, don't want you talking about me! are you guys talking about me? because i would really hate it if you were still talking about me!) but more than that, he can personally transform the entire tone of that discussion. changing the nature of the debate seems like a heavy burden for one man to bare--particularly when he's snagged the load from 9/11 to hump with him everywhere he goes--but clarke's more than up to it. just ask him.
And you know, Tim, what I would like to do, beginning today, it's been going on for a week now. What I would like to do beginning today, is let's raise the level of discourse. Let's get some civility back into this issue.
this holy paladin courageously slays dragons while ameliorating all the pain of the worst tragedy in american history and re-civilizing the body politic, but even so he's managed take up a hobby: driving back the dark clouds of censorship with the shining light of his pure conscience.
Let's declassify all six hours of my testimony...And I want more declassified. I want Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9-11 Commission declassified, and I want the thing that the 9-11 Commission talked about in its staff report this week declassified...and Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9-11 Commission...In fact, Tim, let's go further--
a real take-charge kinda guy, no? clarke's just getting warmed up.
--The White House is selectively now finding my e-mails, which I would have assumed were covered by some privacy regulations, and selectively leaking them to the press. Let's take all of my e-mails and all of the memos that I've sent to the national security adviser and her deputy from January 20 to September 11 and let's declassify all of it.
in other words, oh yeah, bill frist? well i'll call your 2002 sworn testimony and raise you a condi rice, and here, i'll even throw in a few emails. i don't know if clarke plays poker (for his sake, i hope not) but he looks like a dead-luck loser bluffing on a pair of deuces. he's got nary a card to play and is raising the stakes with someone else's money, but, though it cost him his last dime, he'll find a way to help the needy.
I planned to make a substantial contribution, not only to [the families of 9/11 victims] but also to the widows and orphans of our Special Forces who have fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq. And when we see the results of the book sales, we'll know how much we have to make donations...I planned to make substantial donations, and I will make substantial donations.
so yeah, tim, he'll kick back a b-note or two, but first the man's gotta figure out what his own cut's gonna be. jeez, tim. lay off. clarke may be a superman, but even superman's gotta buy a new pair of tights every once in a while. after all, conveniently nameless white house friends have informed him that the fix is in: "One line that somebody overheard was 'he's not going to make another dime again in Washington in his life.'"
ye gods, that's priceless. bush pounding his desk and yelling "YOU'LL NEVER WORK IN THIS TOWN AGAIN" what movie of the week did clarke crib that one from...
so in other words, tim, i'd give it all to the victims of 9/11 if it wasn't for that terror-ignoring schmuck in the white house. but as it stands, i'm going to leave them a nice tip. a substantial tip. probably a pouchfull of flashy gold coins to fill the offering plate...
and speaking of the folks...
You know, I had a very emotional meeting with the families after the commission hearing. I had asked for their forgiveness in my testimony. And several of them came up to me and said, "I forgive you, I forgive you." It was a moment that I will never forget.
so sit on that and spin, tim you ignorant slut.
ah, richard clarke. would that you were john wayne, mother teresa, and winston churchill all rolled into one. we could use somebody like that. instead we've got one more game-playing stuffed-shirt living the bureaucrat's version of the american dream: screw your passed-you-over ex-boss and get rich doing it. believe your own legend if you want to, and have fun at it, too. cause bush will be reelected in a few short months, and then your usefulness will be at an end.
locdog just might actually miss him