Disclaimer: I'm not a medical practioner, or other health specialist, nor am I a young woman. However, there are plenty of other people with those same lack of credentials speaking on this topic, so I shall as well.
The big news is that there are some schools not offering to vaccinate young woman (and by that, we largely mean girls) against HPV, the human papillomavirus, aka cervical cancer. There are a number of reasons cited, although there is no information on why schools pulled out, and there is one in particular I want to rail against (go on, see if you can guess which one I take issue with).
One reason is for logistical reasons, that some rural schools might not be able to practically offer it. I'm not sure what the logistical reasons are, and note that in the article the person commenting said "The number could include schools that chose not to take part for logistical reasons, such as small rural schools," thus that there are any schools at all is a guess. There could well be issues in this area, so that cause is fair enough. (As the comment was an off-hand guess, it's not clear if such girls could get the vaccine from their doctor.)
Another collection of reasons is that this vaccine was rushed to market, consent may be an issue, and there have been adverse reactions. And by adverse reactions, this includes reddening/inflamed injection area and worse. The worse is bad, of course, but I've had an inflamed area. It's a vaccination. This happens, including extreme reactions. As for the rushed to market and consent issues, this is more a political issue and gets into an ethical area. The Woman's Health Action Trust is referred to here, and they have linked to more information on this topic.
But then there is this line: "The programme has been controversial, with moral campaigners objecting to vaccinating girls against a cancer they can get only through sexual activity." The only time I have encountered this argument is in the phrasing "if girls get this, it will promote them into sexual activity". This is the same logic as "making abortions available will increase sexual activity". Not to mention "abstinence-only education is the only sexual education young people should get". All from the same source: religious-based morality. Moreover, religious-based morality from men who think they have the right to dictate what happens to women’s bodies.
Nope. Wrong. People will have sex, vaccinated, educated, or not. Putting your fingers in your ears and leaping to tall conclusions from standing starts is... too many degrees of stupid to enumerate.
This vaccine will protect women against a disease they may get. On that ground alone, it is a good thing to do. That this may not be the best vaccine should be a topic that is discussed, but do not refuse treatment because "they will then go out and have sex". As I mentioned, there is no information in the article as to why the schools refused, but I hoped it is not the latter reason.
(And there is some discussion as to why boys don't get it. As far as I am aware (and that isn't far) it isn’t available/suitable for boys. If it is, then I agree they should also get the vaccination.)
[END]
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
No vaccination here
Monday, 4 May 2009
HC Again
Once again, for some reason, I am crazy enough to GM a game. Moreover, I stupidly give the players time before the actual mission to do stuff. Any fears I had about the game not lasting disappeared as they immediately decide to create a massive traffic jam. Right, okay.
Cut to the mission, and don't tell me that "if the players don't know about [plot elements], it never happened". They skip three of the four points I had where they could have gotten information, and it's not until I throw in some neon signs that "something odd is going on" that any notice is played. (Although if they hadn't noticed, I knew what was going to happen.)
There were some timed aspects to the mission, so now I need to develop the next section taking different elements into account than I was thinking would be around. Fun!
Keep on Trucking.
[END]
No ghost of a chance
There are times when you have to comment on something that crops up in the day. For example, these Ghost Photos. (A fuller set here.) Interesting comments too. Not so strangely, I agree with Vicki Hyde.
No, I am not thinking these are evidences of ghosts. Yes, I am thinking Pareidolia.
My quick takes:
Scottish castle - my immediate thought is that someone placed the figure there, and someone else happened upon it and snapped it. No proof of that right this second, of course.
Fire faces - definite pareidolia.
Pub - there's a face? Reflection + pareidolia.
Head in basket - explained in article.
Linwood College - I'd like to see a picture of the area without the people there. Don't quite accept Vicki's "someone mugging" answer. Thinking more of a knotted tree in the background. (Note also that the image is on an angle, which doesn't help interpretation.)
[END]
Quick and Irate
Another $9 ticket, another movie I wouldn't have bothered with, a sequel to a movie that already had two. Still, Vin Diesel knows how to turn in an action movie.
The basic staples of car movies are here: fast car chases, women in skimpy outfits, lots of machismo, and a pretense of a plot. Classic elements, all checked off in this movie. The ostensible plot is that there is some bad guy running drugs who just happens to get himself some drivers that these drivers can get in on. Much hilarity ensues as hero law guy and hero criminal guy alternatively join forces or combat each other in an effort to get to their goals. And at the end... well.. there are car chases.
Acting-wise... there are people in the movie, and the camera is pointed at them, but acting... there are people in the movie. Vin Diesel, Michelle Rodriguez, Paul Walker, Jordana Brewster... there's a reason the tag line is "old model, new parts", lots of old models here.
It's all right if you like action car movies, but nothing incredibly amazing here.
[END]
Sunday, 3 May 2009
Walking down the street
There you are, just walking down the street, minding your own business, when all of the sudden BAM! You realise you just encountered something related to Lawrence Miles. It's not something you expect to come across, and I'm sure something of a shock.
This experience happened to our reporter in London, aka Foo, who found himself on Henrietta Street. As in The Adventuress Of...
(And can you spot the photographer's name in the bottom right hand area? Especially now I've primed you to see it?)
[END]
Saturday, 2 May 2009
Harper's Island... of jerks!
A new series has hit the screens, which goes by the name of Harpers's Island. (Note: the page records who survives, or not, each episode, so is severe spoilers if you haven't seen the episodes.) It follows the vein of Ten Little Niggers (or And Then There Was One, if you are politically correct) of people slowly being killed off. That said, we are now three episodes in, and I have two problems with it.
The first is that no-one is noticing the deaths. Fine if Joe-Bob the nobody gets it, but these are supposedly friends and family members that are getting it, and yet no-one is going 'where's Kate?' or 'what about Bob?' Some of them are covered up, but there are still some killed off that definitely should have been noticed, but nope. It's as if the characters are completely oblivious to what’s going on, which brings me to point two.
None of the main cast is likeable. The non-murder bits revolve around a bunch of rich kids (a la OC… which I have admittedly never seen) involved in a wedding. It's almost soap operatic in the ins and outs that are going on, suddenly Derek turns up, or Victor will suddenly be revealed as Wilma's brother, or... bah, I don't care! Get on with killing them all! Can't happen fast enough for me. (Although, for some reason, I think the core main cast will survive the longest. Weird that.)
Big name wise, I spotted Bobby from Supernatural and the testicular cancer girl from House. Undoubtedly there are others, some look familiar, but no really BIG names.
Despite the two points, I'm still watching. Fortunately, there are only thirteen episodes, so I'm thinking they’ll have to pay attention soon.
[END]
Friday, 1 May 2009
Escape!
Over on Armor Games(*), there have been a bunch of weird, albeit slightly odd, series of games where the point is to escape from a particular room in a house. Some of the puzzles haven't been obvious in their answers, but it's fun and cartoony, so that works.
The Great Kitchen Escape
The Great Living Room Escape
The Great Bathroom Escape
The Great Basement Escape
The Great Bedroom Escape
The Great Attic Escape
But why? One might ask. Why are you continually being trapped in a room?
Well, okay, not sure anyone asked, but there is an answer. To find out, you need to try The Great House Escape! (There's a plot, of sorts. Whoduthunk?)
(Interestingly, these puzzles are six of the nine most popular puzzle and skill games, and the others are fun too, especially Achievement Unlocked.)
(*) Free flash games!
[END]
