a note of thanks

originally posted April 19, 2007

Sometimes one witnesses a display of discourse that is just so magnificent that one must sit down and compose a letter to said discourser. Here is that display of discourse:

1=9246">http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=B0E84C7C-606F-4544-B30F-601C97DC9700&t=s3&f=06/64&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks&fg=>1=9246

and here is that letter:

Dear Sari Locker,

I was just sitting here thinking about how glad I am that you were available to be interviewed on MSNBC, and I had to write you this letter. It was really important that you could be there to speak in response to the recently released federal study that is providing support to the claim that abstinence-only education isn't effective. I know, you're a "sexpert" (your words, not mine!) with a busy schedule of appearing on Montel Williams and hosting television shows and giving sex advice in an internet column and all, but it was really great that you could take the time to show up to the MSNBC interview. I understand that you are known for demonstrating how to put a condom on by way of a banana, and I applaud you for that. I see from your website that you also have a master's in human sexuality, and that guys like to tell you their problems (although plenty want to sleep with you because they think you'll be really wild in bed!). I've seen your press. I haven't seen your vitae, though. You know, that thing where you identify what you've contributed in terms of research and scholarly efforts and stuff. Oh well. I can tell you're qualified though by the way you responded to Libby Mackie of the Abstinence Clearinghouse. After that simpering twit told us about how the study was flawed because the control group was selected from the same school as the intervention group, and how common sense tells us that we should teach our kids to not take drugs, drink alcohol, or have sex, I liked the way you handled yourself. It was good the way you didn't make the point that Ms. Mackie was incorrect in her appraisal of the validity of the study, and that such designs allow a researcher to control for other extraneous variables that have the potential to be more problematic (remember, that was in that quasi-experimental design class you took. Come on, you must have taken it because you were introduced in the interview as a psychologist, right?) And you didn't waste time with the point that it is a bad idea for us to consider the risks associated with drugs and alcohol to be equivalent to those posed by sexual activity, and that adopting a tactic of education that relies on the premise of "just say no" is unrealistic given the fact that we are creatures who have sex. And no one needed to be reminded that a person can potentially avoid drugs and alcohol their entire lives, but for few people can the same be said about sex. And thank you for skipping over the whole fallacy-of-common-sense-thing, and about how we can't ignore data just because it contradicts what common sense tells us should be true. Oh, and the part where you didn't bother to point out how the exchange had thus far focused on consequences of adolescent sexual activity in terms of unwanted pregnancy, but that no mention had been made of sexually transmitted diseases. That was a good move on your part – no one wanted to hear again that young women who sign virginity pledges engage in unprotected anal sex at significantly higher rates than women who don't (remember that whole concept of statistical significance? They talked a lot about it in those statistics courses you took? Is this ringing a bell? Do you remember that study about the virginity pledges? Of course you do – you're the sexpert here!) Really, Sari, thank you for all of that. But most of all, thank you for losing your shit seconds into your part of the interview just because that stupid twat of a "reporter" interjected with a statistic from the study that you felt – I guess – was not representative. I can't say for sure what you felt, because you called her a liar, and then all hell broke loose. You were talking and she was talking and then – I can barely write this – the interview was ended. Ended. And what little you did manage to say? Thank you for making it pro-sex, rather than pro-education.

Well, I'm off to write a letter to MSNBC reporter Amy Robach to commend her on her stellar interviewing techniques – I really felt she handled herself with great aplomb. Keep up the good work!

Your fan,

Qwanty