Fewer Abortions?

I'm watching the 506th Democratic debate of 2007. Kucinich (and the others by implication) says he'll work for fewer abortions through birth control, etc.

But if there's nothing wrong with abortions, why work for fewer of them?

New Series: Recycled News

This is my first entry in an attempt to see if I can document a pattern I've noticed in news coverage.

Here's a story that was first reported on a few weeks ago, but is re-reported today (14 Nov) by AP as "news":

Pet massacres carried out in Puerto Rico

TRUJILLO ALTO, Puerto Rico - Back roads, gorges and garbage dumps on this
tropical island are littered with the decaying carcasses of dogs and cats. An
Associated Press investigation reveals why: possibly thousands of unwanted
animals have been tossed off bridges, buried alive and otherwise inhumanely
disposed of by taxpayer-financed animal control programs.

Hmmm, sounds familiar. Oh, wait, here's it is in this Reuters story:

Hundreds protest Puerto Rican "pet
massacre"
Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:50pm EDT

By John Marino

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (Reuters) - Hundreds of people, angered over an
alleged "pet massacre" in Puerto Rico's northwest town of Barceloneta, joined in
a protest march on Sunday from the island's Supreme Court to its
Capitol.

Many in the crowd of about 500 brought dogs and wore T-shirts reading, "I'm a animal lover" or "I love mutts." Others held signs with slogans like "stop animal abuse" and "justice for the pets of Barceloneta."

The October 8 and October 10 raids, in which authorities seized around 80 pets from their owners at three public housing projects in Barceloneta, stirred widespread anger.

There's no news like old news. Or in this case, recycled news. The stories aren't exactly the same: later in today's story it does mention the October story. But there's a pattern here. I've seen it happen with other stories. They resurface after failing to get much traction. That's not earthshaking but I wonder why it happens at certain times.

There seems to be a pattern. So, I'll try to document it here.

The CDC: Spending = American Health

I've just read an article in which the CDC reports that efforts to reduce smoking have "stalled." Why? Because we're not spending enough!

So typical of the CDC. I know. I'm a former employee.

Nearly 21 percent of Americans smoke, a number that has been stalled since 2004, federal researchers reported on Thursday in a study they said means governments must spend more to persuade people to kick the habit. Must-spend-more. Can't-think-beyond-liberal-cliches.

And later in the article, Dr. Matt McKenna, CDC employee, offers this brilliant analysis:

"It is completely commensurate with the stall in resources that have
been going into tobacco control," Dr. Matt McKenna, who directs CDC's Office on Smoking and Health, said in a telephone interview.

What a wholly cynical response. He's complaining about funding for his own program from the federal government. He's aggrandizing the importance of his own program. And he thinks you won't see through that. He thinks you're stupid.

This is so typical of the mindset at CDC, a place enmeshed with self-importance. The only way to save America's health, they suppose, is for the CDC to educate people about the dangers of their health-related behaviors. They think the rest of us are morons. If you read between the lines, it's the same line of argument any arrogant person gives:

If only you could understand what I do, or know what I know, you would agree with me (i.e., because my conclusion is inevitable).

I call that the intellectual fallacy. It's a logical fallacy the equal of any taught in college.

In the future, watch for alarmist stuff about the environment. CDC has officially purchased shares in the global climate change industry and now imagines that the only way forward is for CDC to protect the rest of the world from itself. And dissent is not allowed. Those who don't buy all the human responsibility aspect of it are ostracized, perhaps not officially but certainly as among coworkers.

Does that sound like scientific behavior?

A Problem of Definition

From Slow Deaf Child:

Despite conventional wisdom, Bush never thought nor said this war would be relatively easy. In contrast, he stated several times that the war on terror would NOT even be over in our lifetime and that it would be fought unlike any other war that we have ever fought. He was correct and wise in this prediction.

Conventional wisdom's problem here is one of definition. The War on Terror is not the same as the Iraq War. But the Iraq War IS a battle in the War on Terror.

History will show that the Iraq War WAS already won years ago by the U.S. Ask yourself, what war has ever been fought where the nation's civil and military leaders have been deposed, the army dismantled, yet victory was NOT claimed?

We are now in the midst of a new battle in the War on Terror that is NOT the Iraq War--it just so happens to be in the boundaries of the nation formerly known as Iraq. The enemy is now different and consists of guerilla invaders from throughout the Middle East. This has given us the ability to effectively fight our Great Enemy (Islamo-fascism) since their first attack on us back at our embassy in 1979 (They ran away and hid too quickly in Afghanistan).

The location of Iraq in the heart of the Muslim world, with a transitional government in place, has given us the opportunity to battle an elusive enemy who has not truly had a nation or army until now. Our enemy has been incarnated and can finally be engaged.

We will win this Great Conflict. But remember Bush's prediction, victory will most likely be generations away.

SLOW DEAF CHILD

Valerie Plame

I just watched Charlie Rose interview Valerie Plame. This woman is either a calculating liar or someone who is so enmeshed in the narrative she's developed that she doesn't even know she's lying anymore. Her mention of her twins and their reading about the war later in life was telling. She said she thought about them asking "if you knew the truth, why didn't you do anything," and that she and Wilson want to have a good answer. So they've got their story straight and are trying to make us all believe it.

She also repeated the "imminent danger" myth -- that the president said Iraq was posed an "imminent danger" via WMDs. I think she's stuck on this because that would be the one piece the CIA might have something to do with -- but it's not the only or even the most important piece in the buildup to the war. Neither President Bush, nor Colin Powell at the UN, ever said, as I recall, that Iraq posed an immediate danger to the US homeland. The point was that Saddam acted is if he might have WMDs by violating UN resolutions and defying the UN inspectors.

All along the buildup to the war was discussed as part of a global effort to eradicate terrorism. Admittedly, the Bush administration assumed the whole thing would be far, far easier than it has turned out. But that doesn't mean anyone knowingly lied going in.