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 reduce 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?

Are you folks reporters?

Dear Broadsheet,

Why didn't you include the actual hatred and discrimination expressed towards MTF transexuals by your lovely wonderful feminist friends?

Actually, that's exactly what you are doing.

Don't you have the balls to admit what you are doing?

Let's face it, most men are right handed. We who fight the Patriarchy fight it in every way.

Two left hands I say!

I've noted that for a long time, the Republican elite, the Republican moneyed have made Revenge on the Nerds their campaign strategy. Science is dismissed. The only thing that matters is money, and the strategy is to appeal to the least common denominator and demonize the nerds.

I think this is very exciting science that opens up wonderful possibilities for us all.

If we render all children infertile at birth and make child bearing a right to be won, just think what we can do to society!

We can eliminate violent stupid men, whorish slutty women, short people, fat people, people with genetic disorders. By eliminating either mom or dad we can give children to those people that our science proves will be a good parental unit.

And they will all be blond and blue-eyed and tall.

Woohoo!

This is absolutely right, which is why it is ridiculous for you and so many of your feminist bloggers to make claims that fathers rights groups hate women, don't want to be fathers, and just want lower custody payments.

If the average family has two children, what does statistics tell you about the average father? Amongst fathers with two kids, how many of those fathers have at least one daughter? 75%. Amongst fathers with one kid, how many of those fathers have at least one daughter? 50%.

For fathers that grew up in two child families, how many have sisters? 50%. How many of those fathers have mothers? And how many have had one or more serious relations with women?

Now, what is the average age of most fathers of kids 0-18? And how many of those fathers grew up in a family where both mom and dad worked? And how many fathers of young kids grew up after Title IX?

So how can you support irrational arguments that claim that fathers and divorced fathers hate girls and women?

How can you support feminists and bloggers that ignore the claims that divorced fathers want to be parents and state as a matter of fact that they know better, divorced fathers want to abandon their children, beat up on women, and just reduce child support?

And yet, that's what the feminists that you print say. And the feminists on Broadsheet's blogroll. Pandagon, Feministing, etc.

It's an illogical argument that defies the facts, and one you folks and the folks you support roll out on a daily basis. Why is that?

how Broadsheet can continue to link to them or blogroll them? Would Broadsheet feel comfortable blogrolling conspiracy theorists? Would Broadsheet feel comfortable blogrolling bigots?

Then why blogroll such a fringe group that clearly has issues with men, and white men in particular?

Broadsheet? Joan?

Are there no feminist websites out there that aren't bigoted? Conspiracy nuts?

What about TalkLeft? Or Cathy Young? Or ifeminists? Or Amy Alkon?

It's very interesting to see the handwringing about Imus and then read that post at feministing. It's interesting to compare the feminist blogosphere's reaction to Kos today and then read that post at feministing.