Yesterday I read an article about the controversy brewing over the vaccine for Human Papilloma Virus. HPV causes as many as 70% of the cases of cervical cancer. World-wide, cervical cancer kills over 200,000 women each year. In this country, however, thanks to routine HPV screening, the death toll is far lower. But even so, immunizing women against a virus so strongly linked to a potentially deadly cancer is a no-brainer. Right?
Wrong. It seems that at least twenty states are considering making the vaccine mandatory. WTF? Already? Gardasil just came out! I haven't even finished discussing with my wife whether our daughter should get the vaccine. It turns out that Merck, the drug's manufacturer, is among those behind the push for mandatory immunization for pre-teen and teenage girls. This creepy synergy between corporate interests and paternalistic legislators makes me uneasy.
Generally speaking, I am strongly in favor of fighting diseases and protecting public health through immunizations and other measures. But it's hard to know whether the public is served by mandatory HPV vaccinations. Let's face it: HPV is not like chicken pox or measles. It is spread by bumpin' uglies. So though many people are eventually exposed to the virus, it's not as if one can catch it by sharing a coke in the lunchroom.
Forcing a brand new medicine of unknown long-term efficacy for a disease not easily spread among pre-teens strikes me as overzealous. And GlaxoSmithKline, Merck's competitor, is scrambling to bring their own HPV vaccine to market. So maybe there is more going on to this push for compulsory immunization than just good preventative health care and good public policy.
The pressure to legislate HPV immunization has given common cause to strange bedfellows. Advocates for civil liberties and conservative Christians find themselves working side-by-side: one group is concerned about corporate power in medicine and intrusion of privacy, the other with stamping out promiscuity and premarital sex. Sheesh, get a room you two!
Lost in the controversy is that although HPV affects both women and men, the call is to vaccinate only girls. Why is that? Is that cashing in on fear? Is it sexism for the 21st century? I mean, a dick gets the genital warts just as much as a puss. But gunk on your junk that could kill your female sex partner apparently doesn't warrant consideration: since only girl parts actually get the cancer, only the girls gotta deal with it. Limp.
So here we are: the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry that has a drug that could really help women on the one hand, and the anti-sex zealots who have a very good argument about freedom of choice on the other. It's left me wondering: what is good science, what is good medicine, what is good for the public, what is good for my daughter?
I need a drink.
Update 2/21/2007: The New York Times reported yesterday that Merck is dropping their support of legislation to mandate this immunization. Apparently they fear some kind of backlash. While discussing the topic this morning, a friend said bluntly that drug companies and the medical industry have got us by the balls. Too true. To which I would add, the public doesn't like to be shown that fact. I think Merck realized that.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
News of the Weird
I watch the Today Show on NBC while drinking my morning coffee and pulling on my clothes. Now, I'm not one to put a lot of faith in the quality of television news. But I get the headlines and the weather while attending to my essential morning duties. These magazine shows are sort of like eating a doughnut in the morning. You know you probably shouldn't, but that big, soft, fluffy pastry is just so tempting and delicious... Wait a minute. It's nothing like a doughnut. Scratch that.
Anyway, this morning's show was beyond belief. In one whirlwind sequence, I was treated to a dad who picked up and threw his son's wrestling opponent, the sordid struggle for Anna Nicole's corpse, a girl who's had the hiccups for three weeks, and an interview with a family who was stuck in winter traffic.
What was that about Nero fiddling while Rome burns?
Anyway, this morning's show was beyond belief. In one whirlwind sequence, I was treated to a dad who picked up and threw his son's wrestling opponent, the sordid struggle for Anna Nicole's corpse, a girl who's had the hiccups for three weeks, and an interview with a family who was stuck in winter traffic.
What was that about Nero fiddling while Rome burns?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Suckomatic
Wow, that last post has got to be the nadir of my blog thus far. Oh well, it's not like I've got many readers that I am abusing with this rubbish. One might even go so far as to say this blog is merely self-abuse. But readers, if you're out there, keep checking back! I'm fairly certain that I can stoop lower.
The list of movies on my to-review list hasn't gotten much shorter since I lamented that I was behind by six films. I wrote about two movies this week, but dammat if I don't still have four more to go. So here's two capsules to to cut it down to size.
Flyboys sucked. I mean it was really. really. dumb. I rented it for the bi-plane dogfights, which looked pretty nifty in the trailers, but they could not redeem this film. It was one gigantic cliché, floating over history like a bloated zeppelin. Here's the dashing James Franco, crash landing in the remote French countryside. And oh look, he's rescued by brothel girls - lots of demand for high-class French courtesans out among the villagers. But wait, the cutest, most innocent girl in this den-of-sin is no harlot; she's just visiting the whore-house. Do you think romance will ensue? Meanwhile, the grizzled wing commander broods in the officer's club. You know how I know he's a badass? He's got a pet lion.
Good thing the stern flight instructor can keep the peace between the world-weary veteran and the plucky recruits. They are one motley bunch. I mean, do you think the black pilot will teach the aristocratic dandy a lesson about the dangers of prejudice? I hope he can do it in time for the climactic confrontation with the sneering German pilot who impolitely shoots at people on the ground. The nerve! What does he think this is, a war?
Mike Judge's Idiocracy is a goofy satire with a high concept: after five hundred years in suspended animation, an average Joe wakes up to find that he is the smartest man alive. The silk-zubaz-wearing populace has grown so agonizingly dull-witted that they are unable to solve the most basic of humanity's problems. Like how to water the grass, or where to put that anal probe.
The single funniest moment in the film comes during the introduction of the President, easily the funniest character in the movie. Terry Crews immersed himself in the role with balls-out glee, delivering the best lines with frenetic zest.
The movie probably could have used another rewrite to streamline some of the sagging areas and sharpen its satirical edge. The jokes in this film have the subtlety of a jackhammer, but therein lies the real zinger: you laugh twice. Once because the humor appeals to one's more primitive self, and a second time because America has already come eerily close to realizing some of the stupitopian horrors.
Next up - "serious films." I'd better do a separate post for those. This post is suckomatic!
The list of movies on my to-review list hasn't gotten much shorter since I lamented that I was behind by six films. I wrote about two movies this week, but dammat if I don't still have four more to go. So here's two capsules to to cut it down to size.
Flyboys sucked. I mean it was really. really. dumb. I rented it for the bi-plane dogfights, which looked pretty nifty in the trailers, but they could not redeem this film. It was one gigantic cliché, floating over history like a bloated zeppelin. Here's the dashing James Franco, crash landing in the remote French countryside. And oh look, he's rescued by brothel girls - lots of demand for high-class French courtesans out among the villagers. But wait, the cutest, most innocent girl in this den-of-sin is no harlot; she's just visiting the whore-house. Do you think romance will ensue? Meanwhile, the grizzled wing commander broods in the officer's club. You know how I know he's a badass? He's got a pet lion.
Good thing the stern flight instructor can keep the peace between the world-weary veteran and the plucky recruits. They are one motley bunch. I mean, do you think the black pilot will teach the aristocratic dandy a lesson about the dangers of prejudice? I hope he can do it in time for the climactic confrontation with the sneering German pilot who impolitely shoots at people on the ground. The nerve! What does he think this is, a war?
Mike Judge's Idiocracy is a goofy satire with a high concept: after five hundred years in suspended animation, an average Joe wakes up to find that he is the smartest man alive. The silk-zubaz-wearing populace has grown so agonizingly dull-witted that they are unable to solve the most basic of humanity's problems. Like how to water the grass, or where to put that anal probe.
The single funniest moment in the film comes during the introduction of the President, easily the funniest character in the movie. Terry Crews immersed himself in the role with balls-out glee, delivering the best lines with frenetic zest.
The movie probably could have used another rewrite to streamline some of the sagging areas and sharpen its satirical edge. The jokes in this film have the subtlety of a jackhammer, but therein lies the real zinger: you laugh twice. Once because the humor appeals to one's more primitive self, and a second time because America has already come eerily close to realizing some of the stupitopian horrors.
Next up - "serious films." I'd better do a separate post for those. This post is suckomatic!
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Do You Like VD?
Some people ignore VD, others hate VD, but many people enjoy VD and can't wait until it comes around again. In my opinion, VD is for everyone to share. If you love VD like I do, tell everyone you know. Spread VD far and wide.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Fairly Unbalanced
My wife says I get crabby when I watch documentaries about what's wrong with the world. WTF! I am not crabby! It's perfectly rational to shout expletives at an inanimate object and fume about what I'm seeing on television and sulk for the rest of the evening! Ok, maybe she's right. Dammat!
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism blasts Fox News for its calculated distribution of misinformation. I suppose the film should be filed under "P" for "preaching to the choir": the kind of person who sees it isn't likely to be a Fox News viewer, and from the title and the opening sequence of the film, it makes no apology for its portrayal of the network as a wrongheaded, polemical institution. But I think that's a shame. If the filmmakers had tempered their own approach with more analysis and dropped the alarmist commentators and cartoonish transitions, Outfoxed might have reached a wider audience and had a greater impact.
Despite its shortcomings, this film has a must-see sequence. It depicts the Jerry Springer-like way in which an interview spirals out of hand, and the fallout from that interview. I must confess that in my first draft about this sequence, I fell into hyperbole: I wanted to cite the interview and its aftermath as one of the worst examples of journalism ever. But that goes too far. Labeling a shouting match as political discourse overflows with stupidity, but to do so is hardly new. So what is this Case Study? The O'Reilly Factor, circa March 2003.
Now I know Bill O'Reilly's shtick: make up "facts" to support his point of view and shout down anyone who dares to defy him, all in order to dominate the opinions expressed on his program. Some might question his overweening desire for total control. But it's political theater for the sake of ratings: a tawdry morality play in which he casts himself as the angry voice of the people, supposedly arguing on behalf of the common man.
This guest was different, however. He was a young man, not a politician or a professional pundit. Jeremy Glick is a victim of September 11th; his father worked for the Port Authority, and was killed in the attacks. Jeremy had signed a statement against going to war in Iraq, and Bill O'Reilly could not accept that. So he invited him to be on his show; clearly he wanted to make an example out of this kid. How dare Glick have a political opinion that did not match O'Reilly's own conception of what a 9/11 victim should think and believe?
O'Reilly got more than he bargained for. Glick short-circuited the interview by rehearsing the points he wanted to make and then sticking to his message. As they spoke, O'Reilly repeatedly put words into Glick's mouth, trying to paint him as a fringe lunatic. While this tactic muddled Glick's argument, O'Reilly himself became unglued, unable to cope with a guest prepared for his usual vitriol.
Glick recounted the event and added some colorful details, such as that the producers ushered him out of the building after the interview for fear that O'Reilly would be arrested for assaulting him. In the days, weeks, and even months after the interview, O'Reilly began a campaign of wildly misrepresenting Glick's positions to his viewers. In fact, Glick wondered whether he could sue O'Reilly for slander. His lawyer acknowledged the falsehoods, but told him that it was very difficult to prove that someone is intentionally lying. O'Reilly had convinced himself to believe his own lies.
In this part of the film, Fox News's philosophy is laid bare. Their news is not just infotainment crafted in a cynical grab for television ratings. Dissent must be destroyed, political difference must be silenced. Facts have no place in an argument, because facts cannot be disputed rationally. One must cut off the discussion in order to hide from the offending information. But make no mistake: In the eyes of Fox, an angry bombast bullying a fatherless son is great entertainment.
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism blasts Fox News for its calculated distribution of misinformation. I suppose the film should be filed under "P" for "preaching to the choir": the kind of person who sees it isn't likely to be a Fox News viewer, and from the title and the opening sequence of the film, it makes no apology for its portrayal of the network as a wrongheaded, polemical institution. But I think that's a shame. If the filmmakers had tempered their own approach with more analysis and dropped the alarmist commentators and cartoonish transitions, Outfoxed might have reached a wider audience and had a greater impact.
Despite its shortcomings, this film has a must-see sequence. It depicts the Jerry Springer-like way in which an interview spirals out of hand, and the fallout from that interview. I must confess that in my first draft about this sequence, I fell into hyperbole: I wanted to cite the interview and its aftermath as one of the worst examples of journalism ever. But that goes too far. Labeling a shouting match as political discourse overflows with stupidity, but to do so is hardly new. So what is this Case Study? The O'Reilly Factor, circa March 2003.
Now I know Bill O'Reilly's shtick: make up "facts" to support his point of view and shout down anyone who dares to defy him, all in order to dominate the opinions expressed on his program. Some might question his overweening desire for total control. But it's political theater for the sake of ratings: a tawdry morality play in which he casts himself as the angry voice of the people, supposedly arguing on behalf of the common man.
This guest was different, however. He was a young man, not a politician or a professional pundit. Jeremy Glick is a victim of September 11th; his father worked for the Port Authority, and was killed in the attacks. Jeremy had signed a statement against going to war in Iraq, and Bill O'Reilly could not accept that. So he invited him to be on his show; clearly he wanted to make an example out of this kid. How dare Glick have a political opinion that did not match O'Reilly's own conception of what a 9/11 victim should think and believe?
O'Reilly got more than he bargained for. Glick short-circuited the interview by rehearsing the points he wanted to make and then sticking to his message. As they spoke, O'Reilly repeatedly put words into Glick's mouth, trying to paint him as a fringe lunatic. While this tactic muddled Glick's argument, O'Reilly himself became unglued, unable to cope with a guest prepared for his usual vitriol.
Glick recounted the event and added some colorful details, such as that the producers ushered him out of the building after the interview for fear that O'Reilly would be arrested for assaulting him. In the days, weeks, and even months after the interview, O'Reilly began a campaign of wildly misrepresenting Glick's positions to his viewers. In fact, Glick wondered whether he could sue O'Reilly for slander. His lawyer acknowledged the falsehoods, but told him that it was very difficult to prove that someone is intentionally lying. O'Reilly had convinced himself to believe his own lies.
In this part of the film, Fox News's philosophy is laid bare. Their news is not just infotainment crafted in a cynical grab for television ratings. Dissent must be destroyed, political difference must be silenced. Facts have no place in an argument, because facts cannot be disputed rationally. One must cut off the discussion in order to hide from the offending information. But make no mistake: In the eyes of Fox, an angry bombast bullying a fatherless son is great entertainment.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Beyond Good and Evil
A friend wrote an essay a while back discussing the problem of evil. While I did not fully agree with his argument, if one were to make a film supporting the idea that evil is "an impossible notion," one could not do much better than the compelling Beowulf & Grendel. I must revisit the source material; I cannot recall exactly how the original plays out - my memory of high school literature has fallen into a thick haze. That's getting to be a while ago, after all. Eh? What's that you say..?
The original English-language epic is here rendered a rather melancholy tale of decline and loss. Beowulf, played by Gerard Butler, is no glorious hero. He is wary of the hero's mantle, and pursues his quest with a fatalistic sense of duty. Still more, the monster Grendel is no fiend. He is primitive, animal-like; a fearsome yet simple brute who hates the Danes for their cruel murder of his father. He is a force of nature, as capable of gentle humor as of stone-crushing fury. In this incarnation of the beast, I could finally understand and believe the passages from the original story in which Grendel crept silently through the King's hall without raising the alarm.
King Hrothgar of the Danes is a shattered, drunken figure, the hunt for the creature has left him hollow. He is haunted by his own sins against Grendel. Ignorant of this history between Grendel and the Danes, Beowulf and his company puzzle over the monster's unwillingness to confront them. They begin to inflict cruelties upon Grendel, provoking him into a rage.
Beowulf learns more of Grendel and the Danes from the village shaman, a wise woman living on the fringe of tribal society. She understands the delicate balance that has been upset and that may be irreparable. Beowulf faces a sobering reality: the injustice to Grendel cannot be ignored, but neither can Grendel's insatiable, bloody-minded desire for vengeance.
The original English-language epic is here rendered a rather melancholy tale of decline and loss. Beowulf, played by Gerard Butler, is no glorious hero. He is wary of the hero's mantle, and pursues his quest with a fatalistic sense of duty. Still more, the monster Grendel is no fiend. He is primitive, animal-like; a fearsome yet simple brute who hates the Danes for their cruel murder of his father. He is a force of nature, as capable of gentle humor as of stone-crushing fury. In this incarnation of the beast, I could finally understand and believe the passages from the original story in which Grendel crept silently through the King's hall without raising the alarm.
King Hrothgar of the Danes is a shattered, drunken figure, the hunt for the creature has left him hollow. He is haunted by his own sins against Grendel. Ignorant of this history between Grendel and the Danes, Beowulf and his company puzzle over the monster's unwillingness to confront them. They begin to inflict cruelties upon Grendel, provoking him into a rage.
Beowulf learns more of Grendel and the Danes from the village shaman, a wise woman living on the fringe of tribal society. She understands the delicate balance that has been upset and that may be irreparable. Beowulf faces a sobering reality: the injustice to Grendel cannot be ignored, but neither can Grendel's insatiable, bloody-minded desire for vengeance.
In Your Face!
HA! Take that, blogger! I fixed my problem with the label count by editing my template and creating my own label widget. Check it to your right, amigo. Now it doesn't display some meaningless number next to each label. You mess with the bull, you get the horns. How you like me now, beeoitch?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)