Friday Cat Blogging With Links!
I know I've been remiss in posting. Actually I have not one, not two, but three half-written posts that I've never been quite happy enough to put up. So in lew of finishing them here are some thought-provoking links.
*Washington Post story highlights a teenage track-star's photos being splashed everywhere without her consent. Basically the internet allows everyone to feel free to make her into into a sex object which they are okay to comment on. I was going to write that this is like hearing the public's id. We don't really want walk around hearing everyone's most base thoughts about us.
*AddieStan asks, quite rightly, if we do leave Iraq like some people want (to save American lives) then what can we expect will happen in Iraq? It's not about staying and winning or leaving and losing, but that doesn't mean leaving won't change things for Iraqis, and neither side is honestly talking about that. The answer might not preclude pulling out of Iraq, even if it means the situations gets worse for Iraqis, but for god's sake let's at least acknowledge that leaving will have an effect. (I'm agnostic on the pull-out question, something my post was going to grapple with).
*Ann at Feministing busts some bullshit on the Judicial Watch's recent press release on the dangers of the HPV vaccine. I was going to ask exactly how cynical is Judicial Watch? Do they honestly believe HPV vaccine doesn't work or are they afraid it does work and then will lead to more sex (which they want to prevent)? Have they asked themselves what their true goal is in putting out that press release? Does Judicial Watch think the risks of HPV (cancer) are lower than the risks of taking the HPV vaccine? Have they asked themselves whether the vaccine, which might carry some risk as do all vaccines, is a better risk to take than the risk of getting cervical and throat cancer? Have they even thought about this or are they like a morally-inert controversy-seeking missile, indifferent to the ethical quandry of the implications of their arguments. What would Judicial Watch do if an HIV vaccine was developed that might lead to more sex, of both the straight and gay kind? Would they work to depromote it based on sheer principle that STDs are morally useful diseases?