Dear Rachel Maddow,

Hugo Chávez was not a dictator. He was a popular, democratically elected president of Venezuela. You imperil Venezuelan democracy and empower the Right in Venezuela and the US when you repeat such bogus characterizations. There are very real forces working diligently to overthrow South American democracies and to (re)establish US-dominated corporatocracies, real dictatorships, and your carelessness has helped their cause. Millions of lives are at stake. I hope you’ll be more responsible in the future, and correct this error from tonight’s broadcast.

Update: This goes for you, too, Bernie Sanders.

Dear Petco: Bring back the old sponge ball cat toys!

One of the cats used to love playing with the old two-color soft balls. He would drop them down the stairs and chase them, carrying them back up in his mouth. If you threw one against a wall, he would jump up and catch it in the air on the rebound. When he was happily exhausted, he would drop the ball he'd been playing with in a shoe or bag. He played with them until they were falling apart, and it was always fun to get him a new set of four.

The new ones that you've been selling for the past several months are terrible. They're far too big and too hard for him to carry, and he's not interested in playing with them. They're also, incidentally, quite ugly. I don't know why you'd discontinue a great product and replace it with such a ridiculous one. I read the reviews on the Petco site, and every one I read says basically the same thing: "My cat loved the old ones and doesn't play with the new ones." I can't imagine any research was done before introducing the new version.

Please bring back the old ones!

A note to those who say they oppose sexism and misogyny in the atheist-skeptical movement

If you say

I think sexism, misogyny, and harassment of women, including in this community, are real problems that need to be addressed,

you should stop there and consider what you’re actually doing and could be doing to counter them and how you might be contributing to them. If you then say

…BUT feminists really shouldn’t talk publicly about their experiences, shouldn’t write blog posts about the subject, shouldn’t object to slurs, shouldn’t take sexually violent language seriously, shouldn’t be angry, should name names, shouldn’t name names, shouldn’t call out any man who’s ever done anything to support women, shouldn’t call out any man who considers himself their ally, shouldn’t call out prominent men, should only discuss prominent men, shouldn’t call out women who say misogynistic things, shouldn’t call out young people, shouldn’t organize events focusing on women, should mute their criticisms to protect skeptical organizations or events, shouldn’t talk about what’s said on Facebook, shouldn’t talk about what’s said on Twitter, shouldn’t talk about what’s said on YouTube, shouldn’t turn a skeptical eye to sexist “science,” should let their experiences go unexpressed because other women have it worse, should be more polite, should be less polite, should painstakingly qualify their every statement to make it less likely to be misconstrued by those with hostile intent, should calmly describe the entire history of the arguments to everyone who jumps into them ignorant of the context, should give the benefit of the doubt to every guy who’s done or said something sexist, should frame the issues in this or that way, shouldn’t talk about patriarchy, shouldn’t talk about privilege, shouldn’t talk about rape culture, should constantly and patiently explain sociological concepts to their interlocutors, should only discuss problems that affect them personally, shouldn’t work to change official policies, should only work through official organizational channels, should only focus on this or that part of the problem, should never analogize their situation or women’s oppression to anything else, should be more aggressive, should be less aggressive, shouldn’t insult people, shouldn’t ban commenters from their blogs, shouldn’t strenuously object to mischaracterizations of their statements,…,

you should realize that this belies your claim to caring about the problems and wanting to help address them, and recognize that you are contributing to the problem. If you insist on your preconditions for listening to and supporting feminists in their struggles against sexism and misogyny, you’re acting in a way that is harmful to the cause you claim to support.

An open letter to Ascena Retail Group, Inc./Dress Barn/Tween Brands/Justice clothing stores

Dear Justice Stores and corporate owners:

I was in one of your stores today shopping with a friend for her daughter, and noticed a disturbing display. As we approached the counter, I found that what I had thought a brightly colored accessory rack was in fact CANDY. CANDY. In a CLOTHING store. FOR CHILDREN. Let's leave aside for the moment the question of whether candy belongs at the registers in any store aside from...a candy store. I cannot entertain the notion that anyone would think this a good idea in any sense other than the cynical quest for profits. Nor can I entertain the notion that any adult, let alone any adult with children, would need the problems with CANDY AT THE REGISTERS IN A CHILDREN'S CLOTHING STORE explained to them, so I won't. This is appalling, and the candy should be removed from your stores immediately.

SC

An open letter to ERV

Dear Abbie,

From a thread at ERV:

2921

Finally it's loaded for me!
Abbie, have you seen Salty [Current - ed.]'s accusation that you've been lying to us, "*I feel it necessary to mention one more time that her recent claims that the HPV vaccine is 100% effective against cervical cancer are FALSE"

The 'her' here is you.

Posted by: Justicar [link removed] September 30, 2011 1:48 PM

2922

The main efficacy studies of the quadrivalent vaccine were conducted in young women and men (16 through 26 years of age). Among persons not previously exposed to a targeted HPV type, the trials demonstrated nearly 100% vaccine efficacy in preventing cervical precancers, vulvar and vaginal precancers, and genital warts in women caused by the four vaccine types, as well as 90% vaccine efficacy in preventing genital warts and 75% vaccine efficacy in preventing anal precancers in men.

You would think with their PhDs from Google U this crew could figure out how to find this information on their own.

Posted by: ERV September 30, 2011 1:52 PM

Please stop irresponsibly spreading dangerous falsehoods about the HPV vaccine. You and your commenters continue to misunderstand basic facts, and you are misleading people. My sources include the same as yours. Read the CDC information you quoted. Notice the phrase “caused by the four vaccine types.” The two covered strains of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer cause about 70% of cervical cancers.* So even if the vaccine is taken by people prior to any exposure (efficacy declines with age due to greater probability of having been exposed, such that the FDA recently declined GSK Merck’s request to extend approval to women 27-45) and provides lifetime protection (which has not yet been established, of course), it is still not 100% effective against cervical cancer. Under the best conditions and assumptions, it will still only protect against 70% of cervical cancers.

The CDC makes this clear:

The vaccines do not protect against all HPV types— so they will not prevent all cases of cervical cancer. About 30% of cervical cancers will not be prevented by the vaccines, so it will be important for women to continue getting screened for cervical cancer (regular Pap tests).

This information is also readily available on the Gardasil home page:

GARDASIL is the only human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that helps protect against 4 types of HPV. In girls and young women ages 9 to 26, GARDASIL helps protect against 2 types of HPV that cause about 75% of cervical cancer cases [other sources say about 70%],…

…GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone, nor will it protect against diseases caused by other HPV types or against diseases not caused by HPV. GARDASIL does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it’s important for women to continue routine cervical cancer screenings.

When you tell people the vaccine is 100% effective against cervical cancer, you give people a false sense of safety that might lead some later to forego regular Pap tests, which are demonstrably effective in preventing all cervical cancers in all women. Please correct this error.

My doctorate is from a highly respected university. I assume you’ll get your own real PhD in the future, but you fail the entrance exams for Google U.

SC

*Note that this does not mean that all infections with these four strains will lead to cervical cancer.

An open letter to the CHE

Dear Chronicle of Higher Education:

You're a respected academic publication. I cannot understand how you can in good conscience host blog posts like Peter Wood's. Even if it's made clear that you wish to provide a space for the open exchange of views, hosting bloggers who are writing ignorantly on basic science in areas of great public importance and flinging unsubstantiated allegations and Glenn Beckish insinuations, including about scientists, tarnishes your academic credibility and is disappointing to see. Bloggers hosted by you should be held to far higher intellectual standards.

Respectfully,

SC

A short note to Greta Christina on a great post

Greta Christina is someone in the atheist movement I've long admired. I was hoping she'd weigh in on the current dispute, and I'm very pleased she has. I agree with almost everything she's said. But, unsurprisingly, I had a problem with one parenthetical remark, which seems obliquely aimed at, well, me:

(In fact... this is something of a side note, but it has bugged me during this kerfuffle when women have called other women tools of the patriarchy and the like for disagreeing about what is and isn't sexist. As a feminist who defends porn, sex work, sadomasochism, etc., I've been on the receiving end of that "you're just sucking up to sexist men" trope way, way too often. Let's not do it, okay?)

No, not okay. (And I tend, as an adult, to chafe at such a patronizing admonition, particularly when it contains that "Let's" that really means "Hey you, dont.") I would say the same thing to workers who become strikebreakers and beat up other workers for pay. It is not okay with me that men use sexist epithets, host blogs that become misogynistic hatefests, and mock and attack women who stand against sexism. It is not okay with me when women do it, particularly if they consistently make an effort to distance themselves from other women. Not okay. I will call them out on it.

I haven't used the phrase "tools of the patriarchy," but in fact it's applicable. That people can be called this inappropriately does not mean there is no appropriate use. If you say, "I'm a feminist who defends porn, sex work, sadomasochism, etc.," those are positions that can, as implied, be defended. You have defended them, as have I in many ways. The behavior I'm describing cannot be so defended. If it can, those engaging in it can easily enough do it themselves, just as easily as they hyperbolically bash other women. There's no need to patronizingly protect them or to attempt to chastise people for calling damaging, stupid behavior that works against other people like you for what it is.

An open letter to Spanish-language morning television

Dear ¡Levántate! and ¡Despierta América!:

You’re very bossy.

Grumpily,

SC