Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
ガガ ガガ ガガ
Published Letters: 152 Editor's Choice: 7
I think this is going to be great!
Nonetheless, female college graduates who were full-time wage and salary workers had median earnings of $809 a week, compared with $1,089 for men."
809 divided by 1089 = 74%. That's among FULL TIME WORKERS, not all women. So, the fact that 9 million women don't work is not relevant, because we're comparing apples to apples here, full time workers, to full time workers. Non-working women are not included in the data, as you allege.
Apples and oranges. Non-comparable jobs. Not my fault that women want to take stupid jobs.
Associated Press: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has made an about face -- he now says he will veto the state bill that would have required that all sixth grade girls receive an HPV vaccination. He'd previously said that he would sign the bill, but ultimately decided it was premature. "While everyone recognizes the benefits of this vaccine, there is insufficient time to educate parents, schools and health care providers," Richardson said. To his credit, he has already signed a bill requiring that health insurance companies cover the vaccine for girls.
Why doesn't Salon do some real investigative reporting.
Why was Gardasil fasttracked? Was it because it really was the best drug available, or did it have to do with Merck's lobbying and fear of competition.
Who wrote the bill? In other states, it was Merck that wrote the bill.
Why doesn't Salon do some real investigative reporting.
Were there flaws in the tests? It's been reported that the "control" was contaminated with elements from the experimental drug. This would artificially bring the numbers of problems associated only with the drug.
Who was tested? Is it true that almost no one in the targeted age group was tested?
How was it tested? Is it true there were no long term longitudinal studies of the drug used to detect long term problems caused by the drug?
What were the results? Is it true that the test did not prove conclusive in the targeted age group, but conclusions had to be inferred from older age groups?
How does it compare? Is it true that Gardasil would be the most expensive mandatory vaccine? (If not the most expensive vaccine?)
What are the other uses of the money? Is it true that women that get Gardasil still need an annual pap smear? Is it true that with annual pap smears, most of the occurrences of cervical cancer are detectable at an early state to make them much more treatable? What has been happening to the rates of cervical cancer of the years? Would a better use of the money be to buy Gardasil, or to make low cost annual women's health clinics available to all populations?
When will the target age group get cervical cancer? Is it true that the targed age group is 10 year old girls that will probably not get cervical cancer for 25-40 years?
What will happen to medicine and cervical cancer in the next 25-40 years? Will this vaccine be obsoleted by new treatments in the 25-40 years these girls will have before they come down with cervical cancer?
Who is really upset? Is it religious nutjobs that don't want to think of their children having sex? Or it is Doctors AND Parents that are upset with their children being used as as guinea pigs to test a drug that was poorly tested with contaminated controls promoted by lobbyists for a disease that will not effect these girls for 25 years when medical advances probably will obsolete this vaccine and that this vaccine will not eliminate the best current treatment for this disease which is an annual pap smear?
Could these people be upset because it is a danger to their children? An infringement of the parent/child relationship? A massive taxpayer giveaway to Merck?
Or are we all religious nutjobs that hate our daughters as Amanda Marcotte would have you dictate?
I expect intelligence from Salon. I expect not to see knee-jerk feminism or knee-jerk liberalism.
I used to have 50/50 joint physical and legal custody of my kids.
In a secret hearing "emergency hearing" a judge heard from my ex-wife's lawyer, but not from my ex-wife, that I was abusing the kids and had abandoned them.
The emergency order took my kids away and set a trial date three months later.
No evidence was presented. No testimony. Nothing for neighbors, teachers, police, or hospitals. All based on an affidavit from my ex-wife.
Before the hearing, all the accusations were dropped. I hadn't seen the kids except for a few court ordered supervised occasions in three months, and the judge did not give me back the complete visitation I had had before.
My ex was never brought up in court to be asked to defend her charges or asked why she made these false charges.
Apparently, your maryland lawmaker is a defense attorney, and he believes, "Asked about the comments yesterday, Vallario said: "It was a way to bring the committee into the history of that [instruction to juries] to members who had not been familiar with it," he said. "The Lord Hale law is no longer the law in the state. That's why I voted to repeal it." Vallario said yesterday that he would support the paternity bill if it is amended to give fathers adequate notice of a hearing in which their paternal rights could be taken away."
Why I hadn't seen them for three months.
And of course, I was forbidden by the courts to make any reference to mom, lawyers, courts, judges, or anything.
I basically had to apologize to them and pretend that it had been my decision.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
