Let Them Have Sex

These GARDASIL ads make me angry.


An advert on TV for prevention of cervical cancer, at first blush, seems like a good idea. Until you realize they are pitching prevention of HPV. HPV? Wait a minute. HPV is a veneral disease that has one main side effect: STERILITY. 95% of victims with a second case become sterile.
Can we take a drug to treat that? No!

So why not tell kids to AVOID the disease? Because instead we can make sure its safe for them without asking them to take any responsibility!!! Because we can make them safe from the horrors of cancer. But what about the horrors of finally finding the love of your life and telling him, "Sorry honey, but I cannot have your children?"

The website does tell girls how you get HPV. GENITAL CONTACT, not (just) from intercourse! So this drug is a way for these girls to have genital contact but feel safe about the consequences? Say what? You want me to tell my daughter to be safe from consequences? Do you think she is an idiot? Do you think I am an idiot? What about just saying no to all those boys with a zipper problem instead of taking this drug?

Just look at those innocent faces in that photo. Girls lined up to meet boys of no self control who won't marry them. Ok guys, down with that zipper, we are ready for you! We're going to do it anyway, may as well avoid cancer!

Ok, the argument will be made that the girls are already promiscuous. So why the pitch to start your daughter on the drug as young as possible? Is it shameless self promotion? For drug company profits?

I see this mindset as an offshoot of the abortion industry. No consequences == no pregnancy. No pregnancy == no consequences. Period. Sterility? Hah! One less baby factory, one less lifetime of producing babies. Very Very desirable from the viewpoint of the pro-choice, "do anything you want because God is dead" crowd. The belief there is that pregnancy is the worst thing that can happen to you. Followed by cancer and death. Followed by the inconvenience of ugly warts and unpopularity. Who is going to worry about the trifling problem of sterility if we can prevent all the other problems and have fun at the same time?

I see these girls as innocents who are being victimized by an anti-human culture. That makes me angry.

Seifert Against Prop 8?

Minnesota has had its own round of the Defense of Marriage Act in the recent past. It failed. But the 1.5 million Obama voters in California who voted for a definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, not between some other combination of people, may have a message for Minnesota GOP leaders: get with the program.

This may prove difficult. GOP leaders have leaked the news that GOP leader Marty Seifert (R 21A) (see photo) is part of a leadership coalition that considers Defense of Marriage to be an extremist position. If true, this certainly isn't what we "joe average" republican voters thought we were voting for when marking republicans on the ballot.

More disturbing is the allegation that GOP leaders have targeted marriage supporting Republican candidates for defeat. In 2008 there are some districts where the GOP deliberately failed to help republican candidates the way they normally would by advertising against DFL candiates. Meanwhile the DFL and independent organizations spent $$ against the republican. This made the difference in some cases.

Joe Average GOP voters are openly discussing how GOP candidates were defeated, not by democrats, but by their own party.

What is at the root of this lack of support by Minnesota GOP leadership? In light of Prop 8 receiving so much support from Obama voters, could it be that the Big Tent and moral high ground has been stolen by ( or sold to ) Democrats? Have the days of the GOP as the Big Tent Party evaporated?

And what's underneath this intolerance of diverse views?

Leaving analysis of macro party politics aside, what is most disturbing is the value system being reported about GOP leaders. GOP leaders such as Seifert openly discuss their feelings for candidates who would oppose taking 6 year old Susie to a lesbian wedding. Let me clear about my view. My view is these opponents to Susie at a lesbian wedding are just average. Seifert's alleged view is opponents to taking Susie to a lesbian wedding are extremists. And Seifert is serious enough about this he thinks the GOP must purge itself of these average citizens. Ergo the lack of party support during campaigns. Ergo the labeling of GOP candidates as extremists. What Seifert is missing is that the purging would include all the average Joe's like me who support the Joe Average candidates Seifert has labeled as extremists. Seifert's dim views of a Joe Average value system combined with his intolerance have a grave implication: Joe Average cannot tell the difference between the GOP and the Democrat leftists. The Democrats have made America into the land of gay marriage. Now the GOP is purging itself of all elements which would keep it from joining the Democrats in that effort.