Coturnix points out that the following video of Dan Abrams speaking with two women about sex among teenagers is a good example of reporting about a scientific issue mired in a political quagmire.
Keywords and phrases:
Well, what that study actually reveals is...
Well, in a number of cases....
The study said it didn't work. So we need to do more of it to make it work.
I say, if the legislation doesn't work, screw it.
More like this
The other night, while ranting to Kate between my posted rants about Virginia Tech (have I mentioned that she's way too good to me?), I mentioned in passing that the gun control debate is one of the two great brain-sucking quagmire arguments of American politics, where even a passing mention ends
Sure, it's nice outside, but wouldn't you rather be reading good posts? Science:
Google Books: A Metadata Train Wreck
Genes and Income
tags: Iraq War, Dick Cheney, streaming video
Bruce Chapman writes about "
I wouldn't call it "reporting" - it is a well-deserved public ridicule and exposure of dishonesty. After all, there is not much here to report: the jury's been out on this for quite a while and one of the "sides" is clearly wrong, hypocritical and dishonest. Sorta like creationist who also only deserve ridicule.
The jury's been IN... not out.
In... out... in... out.... sounds sexual to me. ;-)
I was a little confused by her point. How can an abstinence-only program provide all the correct information about contraceptives, STDs, etc, providing teens with all they need to make an educated choice about their health, and still be called "abstinence-only"?
It's kind of like a Creationist saying micro-evolution is real, but macro-evolution is imaginary. *sputter* Wha?
Huber is a bitch, plain and simple. Someone ought to walk up and give her a vicious slap in the face for spouting that abstinence covers contraception. Yeah, right. If only to point out failure modes.
I recall my sex education classes told us how to correctly use a condom, and yes it did mention the failure rates but concluded that usage was better than nothing at all. This was a Catholic school mind you.
This reminded me of videos I've seen of all sorts of religion-as-science peddlers. She just quotes her facts ignoring what is actually said and completely disregarding the fact that their disproving her facts right in front of her. I giggled when she claimed that a study done by a Abstinence group was less biased than a study done by the very congress who supports abstinence.