A "New" STD

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/sex-doctor/2009/10/issue-of-the-week-beware-of-a.html


Beware of a new STI on the block
BY CATHERINE HOOD ON OCT 11, 09 12:38 AM IN STIS


You've probably heard of chlamydia, may know about gonorrhoea and must be aware of HIV, but here is an STI you probably haven't heard of: mycoplasma genitalium.

What is it?

Mycoplasma genitalium (MG) is a bacteria that can be passed between sexual partners.

It was only discovered in 1980 and nobody knows how many people are infected but the bacteria has been linked to symptoms in men and women.

In men

MG is often noticed most in men. It causes inflammation of the urethra (tube through the penis) and results in pain passing urine, penile irritation and discharge.

These symptoms are similar to chlamydia - MG could be the cause when a man has symptoms but his chlamydia test is negative.

In women

It has been found to cause inflammation of the cervix (neck of the womb) and urethra in women.

It's also been found in women with pelvic inflammatory disease and may be another cause of blocked tubes and infertility.

Symptoms include a discharge, abdominal pain and pain having sex.

Testing

Little is still known about the extent of MG infection, mainly because there is no widely available test for the bacteria.

However, this is set to change over the next few years as good sensitive tests are developed for clinics to use.

Until then, MG infection has to be high on the list of things to check for men who have persistent symptoms of non-specific urethritis where the chlamydia test is negative.

Treatment

MG can be successfully treated with antibiotics. If you've been treated for an infection but your symptoms haven't settled then ask your doctor about MG.

Changing your antibiotics could make all the difference.

Pink Brain, Blue Brain

Everyone of my Regular Readers should know by now that one of my pet peeves is the perpetuation of the myth that men and women are inherently different.

Of course there are some obvious physical differences, even aside from the genitalia. But study after study after study have shown that the differences among men and the differences among women are far greater, but a HUGE margin, than the differences between men and women.

I have also posed the probability, backed up again by study after study, that when we *do* see gender differences, it is because we are trained from birth to be different. Our brains are really good at adapting to the situation, so if you are encouraged to play with cars and get dirty, and discouraged from cooking, those are the skills that will appear to be "natural" to you when you are an adult. Since most of us have no real, clear memories of being 18 months old and trying to reach for the toy truck but having our mothers push a doll in our hands instead, only those of us who had *really* strong desires for the opposite of what we were being trained for have any sense of this cognitive dissonance.

Well, here's a book (that I haven't read) that makes all those points that I rant about. It's called Pink Brain, Blue Brain and it shows side-by-side graphs of the bell curves of different sex-related traits, such as height, and also *perceived* sex-related traits like math skills. I love the example that the review talks about here:

In one of the eye-opening studies cited in Lise Eliot's masterful new book on gender and the brain, mothers brought their 11-month-olds to a lab so the babies could crawl down a carpeted slope. The moms pushed a button to change the slope's angle based on what they thought their children could handle. And then the babies were tested to see how steep a slope they could navigate.

The results?

Girls and boys proved equally adept at crawling and risk-taking: On their own, they tried and conquered the same slopes. But the mothers of the girls -- unlike the mothers of the boys -- underestimated their daughters' aptitude by a significant margin.

"Sex differences in the brain are sexy," Eliot writes. And so we tend to notice them everywhere. "But there's enormous danger," she says, in our exaggeration. It leads us to see gender, beginning at an early age, only in terms of what we expect to see, and to assume that sex differences are innate and immutable. We forget that the differences within each sex -- among girls and among boys -- are usually greater than the gaps between the two.

Our assumptions "crystallize into children's self-perceptions and self-fulfilling prophecies." Girls' slightly lesser interest in puzzles and building toys is reinforced instead of challenged, and it turns into a gap in spatial skills and map reading. Parents and teachers see a boy lagging in reading and verbal skills and shrug it off with, "But of course, he's a boy."

I'm planning on picking up a copy of this book and I recommend everyone else do the same.  I'm also going to buy a copy of this book for my sister, who just had her second son, and my parents, who are helping to raise my nephews.  I also recommend the book Same Difference.  Thanks to may_dryad for the recommendation.

Fox "News" Admits It's Opinion, Not News

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2009/10/12/fox-admits-it-traffics-in-propaganda-not-news/

Fox Admits on CNN That It Traffics in Opinion Not News
Jon Ponder | Oct. 12, 2009

After a brief but concerted challenge by the White House to the credibility of Fox News Channel as a legitimate news organization — including a detailed takedown by Communications Director Anita Dunn on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” on Sunday — a spokesman for Fox responded with a de facto admission that the channel is nothing more than a propaganda arm of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

CNN described Fox’s statement this way: “In a written statement given to CNN, Fox News said its programming was comparable to the editorial page of a newspaper.”

The fact that Fox says its programming is based on opinions not facts would likely come as a shock to Fox viewers — but, of course, they’ll never know about it. Fox will protect them from this harsh reality the same way it deals with all news that makes conservatives look badly: by not covering it.

Here’s the statement by Fox to CNN:

“An increasing number of viewers are relying on Fox News for both news and opinion,” Fox News Senior VP Michael Clemente said in the statement, “and the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A-section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents.

“So with all due respect to anyone who might still be confused about the difference between news reporting and vibrant opinion, my suggestion would be to talk about the stories and the facts rather than the [sic] attack the messenger . . . which over time has never worked.”

Not surprisingly, this statement from Fox was carefully crafted to obfuscate the truth from busy or hapless readers. Like the classic non-denial denial, it is a non-admission admission.

For example, it is true that “an increasing number of viewers are relying on Fox News for both news and opinion.” Only wrestling has a bigger cable audience than Fox, but its viewers are typical conservatives. They have been trained to distrust the mythical “liberal media,” so their only reference for what is news is the very same right-wing propaganda they have grown accustomed to on Fox.

Fortunately, only a minority of Americans are fooled by Fox’s chicanery. A poll in August found that among all Americans, Fox was considered trustworthy by just 35 percent, while 41 percent felt it was untrustworthy. Among Southerners, however, 46 percent believed Fox was trustworthy, compared with 27 percent in the Northeast and 33 percent in both the Midwest and the West.

It is also true, as the Fox VP says, that “the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A-section of the newspaper and the editorial page.” What he doesn’t say but surely knows is that Fox viewers are below-average news consumers. For one thing, Fox viewers appear not to have noticed that in its 13 years on the air, no reporter in Fox’s employ has ever broken a story.

In addition to be self-identified as conservative and therefore proudly ignorant, Fox viewers are predominantly elderly. A recent study by Magna Global that was reported in Variety found that “[among] ad-supported cable nets, the news nets (along with older-skewing Hallmark Channel, Golf Channel and GSN’s daytime sked) sport the most gray, withFox News Channel’s daytime and primetime skeds the absolute oldest, clocking in with a median age above 65.” (Emphasis added.)

While there are certainly millions of senior Americans who are average and above-average news consumers, these discerning older viewers are, by definition, more likely to agree that Fox is not trustworthy. Elderly Fox viewers came up in the era when the three broadcast networks dominated the news, and are arguably more likely to be taken in. Fox calls itself a “news channel” and the sets and graphics look like a news broadcast, so what they are broadcasting must be news.

The Fox exec’s final assertion is particularly rich. He suggests that the White House should quit attacking Fox and “talk about the stories and the facts” — meaning: Fox would prefer it if the White House would get off the offensive and return to defending itself against Fox’s lies, spin and propaganda.

Can you say, “Uncle?”

How is this not Fox caving to the White House? Fox’s statement admitting that it is propaganda outlet came just hours after Anita Dunn from the White House made “>these assertions on CNN:

“If we went back a year ago to the fall of 2008, to the campaign, that was a time this country was in two wars that we had a financial collapse probably more significant than any financial collapse since the Great Depression. If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election what you would have seen were that the biggest stories and the biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and a something called ACORN.”
“The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological… what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party.”
“Obviously [the President] will go on Fox because he engages with ideological opponents. He has done that before and he will do it again… when he goes on Fox he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point. He is going on it to debate the opposition.”
“[Fox is] widely viewed as a part of the Republican Party: take their talking points and put them on the air, take their opposition research and put it on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news organization like CNN is.”
And Dunn’s smackdown of Fox is a follow-up of the White House’s slap at Fox three weeks ago when the president chose to do all the Sunday political shows except Fox’s. When Fox complained, the White Houseresponded:

“We figured Fox would rather show ‘So You Think You Can Dance’ than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform,” a White House deputy press secretary told ABC News on Saturday. “Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again; not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon.”

The White House is winning this battle. Let’s just hope they don’t back down.

On the other hand, don’t be surprised if Fox’s admission that it is a broadcast version of newspapers’ opinion pages is the most un-reported story of 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AEt180Wnls&feature=player_embedded