Plan B Bullshit

Posted by Nathan Kilbert at 3:37PM | Comments (0) |

There is barely a single paragraph in this article that doesn't make me absolutely furious.

But allow me to pick out a few particularly pungent pieces of prose.

A staunch Catholic -- and therefore, she says, automatically pro-life...

"Emergency contraception makes it so, so easy to end a life," Lloyd said.

That's some serious theology and biology, there, Lloyd. Possibly 30 million pro-women Catholics will want to have a word with you at some point.

CLAY activists will continue to pray -- peacefully, Lloyd said; "it's nothing like what you see in the movies" -- outside Planned Parenthood clinics and talk to women entering and leaving about their other options.

I haven't seen CLAY's protests, but is it possible to have an abortion clinic protest (even one that doesn't have bloody posters) that is in any way helpful to the women you're trying to "save"?

Family Institute of Connecticut and the Archdiocese of Hartford arguing that Plan B is understudied, terminates a human life and discourages women from establishing a relationship with a health care provider who can assess their risk for other side effects of unprotected sex.

Honestly, the Family Institute's concern is touching. Except their vision of the relationship of a woman and her physician is one that denies women agency in their own health. Apparently they need some wise older man to tell them to keep their legs closed.

Also, this is probably the first time the church has ever called for more scientific study on any topic ever in the history of the world. "Well, Galileo, your theories are interesting but we think they need more thorough review. Perhaps our Inquisitors here could act as your lab assistants. You know, take notes, adjust the telescope, that sort of thing..."

Cancer Center Agreement

Posted by Nathan Kilbert at 8:49PM | Comments (4) |

How about that! Looks like everybody got what they wanted. Except cancer -- he's screwed.

Feingold pulls away from the pack

Posted by Nathan Kilbert at 5:48PM | Comments (0) |

Over at Dailykos, Markos has been putting up a 2008 Straw Poll every month since June. Here's the current one, and here are the past results.

It's all very interesting. Hillary's online support has dwindled from 10% to 2% (although only about half the probable total votes have been cast in the current poll). Warner shot up to the low double digits after Kaine won, and has now leveled off at 12%. Clark's once-formidable online presence has eroded considerably (at 15% down from a high of 35). Kerry, predictably, gets almost no support. Other also-rans include Richardson, Bayh, Biden, and Vilsack. Nobody likes them.

But the big news of this latest poll is that Feingold is now way out in front. He jumped from 19% to 30% last month, but in the current standings he's at a whopping 48%, with Clark about four miles back. I don't think there's been any organized attempt to freep the poll either. There's a genuine groundswell of support for Feingold among the netroots.

What could the senator from Wisconsin have done recently to warrant such a dramatic upsurge in his love meter?

Oh, by the way....

Posted by Dara Lind at 1:53PM | Comments (3) |

One of my favorite things about spring break is that I can spend a leisurely morning leafing through the New York Times without having to get to the dining halls at 8am.

So I was looking through the Op-Ed section today, and noticed that David Brooks, of all people, off-handedly endorsed the Earned Income Tax Credit as a way to "relieve stress from low-income families."

TimesSelect subscribers can get the full column here. I don't have TimesSelect, so if a subscriber would like to copy and paste the column as a comment, I'd be much obliged.

Stalin more popular than Cheney

Posted by Kevin Bock at 8:53PM | Comments (0) |

Yes, you read that correctly. Right now, a greater percentage Russians have a favorable view of mass-murdered Josef Stalin than Americans do of our sitting Vice President:

In 2003, fully 20 percent said Stalin, blamed for millions of deaths in the former Soviet Union during the 1930s and 1940s, was a "wise and humane" leader. Thirty-one percent also said they wouldn't object if Uncle Joe came back to rule again, according to surveys conducted by Russian pollsters.

Cheney is at 18%.

Source.

Spring Break

Posted by Nathan Kilbert at 4:14PM | Comments (5) |

Alright!

Posting forecast: Light

A Rebuttal to Marshall Shaffer's Pro-Lieberman Op-ed

Posted by Ben Simon at 7:43PM | Comments (3) |

This past Monday, I wrote a column for the Yale Daily News, which was linked to by Kos and on MyDD, as well as elsewhere. In it, I laid out the case for Lamont and against Lieberman. Today, the YDN published a rebuttal piece, written by the student who is leading Lieberman’s (minimal) efforts on campus. There are numerous problems with the piece. I will address the specific, point-by-point ones below.

There are also broader problems with it. Mr. Shaffer failed to address several major points. The first is Lieberman’s consistent support of Iraq and criticism of any war criticism or protest. Shaffer also did not address Lieberman’s propensity to undermine Democratic ideas and reinforce Republican talking points.

He also seemed to continue this canard that Lamont’s challenge is about this issue, or that issue. IT ISN’T. While Lieberman’s many wrong-headed votes obviously play a key role, it is also about Lieberman’s constant willingness to make Democrats look bad and speak out against them on conservative media and his failure to be the leader of the Democratic party that he should be.