Time for my favorite Halloween story. Every Halloween for my entire childhood, after trick or treating, my dad would take my brother and me to the dining-room table and have us pour all of our candy out in front of us.
My dad would then proceed to separate about a third of the candy out and pull it toward himself, saying, “This is for your federal taxes.” He slowly did the same, in smaller amounts, for state and local tax.
Carefully surveying the candy amassed in front of him, he’d tell my brother and me solemnly, “And this is why we’re conservatives.” My politics has gotten a little more nuanced over the years, but the basic lesson stuck.
Lest anyone think I’m exaggerating or making things up over here, this @nytimes op-ed calls conservative women gender traitors in the second paragraph and indulges in some really pleasant bigotry against white women throughout. nytimes.com/2018/10/06/opi…
Seriously, can we reflect for a moment on the fact that this was published in earnest in the opinion pages of what I am told is our nation’s leading journalistic outlet? This is some of the most offensive, racist trash I’ve read in my life.
Like, what is this even supposed to mean? Can someone find me an intellectually honest liberal anywhere willing to admit that some women — white or otherwise — actually support Kavanaugh for reasons other than, I don’t know, *a blood pact with white men*?!
The idea that Kavanaugh was angry yesterday out of a sense of male privilege or entitlement is patently absurd. The fact that many in the press have made this argument reveals how their bias makes it nearly impossible for them to understand the things they cover.
I guess only a sense of white male privilege would cause one to despise being tarred and feathered in front of the entire nation by the unverified and salacious claim that he *led a gang-rape ring*?
Only a sense of entitlement could explain a man’s rage that his daughters would be exposed to nasty stories about their father published in the New Yorker with little corroboration?
Remember when Dianne Feinstein suggested that Amy Coney Barrett wasn’t fit to be a judge because she’s Catholic? Her tactics here shouldn’t be surprising. Ford’s allegation could be true, but Feinstein can be dismissed going forward. She’s a manipulator, not a serious politician.
Oh, forgot about when Feinstein referred Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh to the FBI *with her name redacted.* Clearly we are not dealing with a serious person here.
Once again, Ford’s allegation could very well be true, or partly true. But if Feinstein’s foremost concern was getting justice for the victim of an assault, this type of political gamesmanship would not be her approach.
You *must* be joking, @nytimes. This paper's obvious bias and total disregard for the facts somehow never cease to astonish me.
Seriously, what kind of crackpot reporter reads Archbishop Viganò's testimony and thinks "yeah, you know what, the essential issue here is how those nutty right-wing Catholics hate the pope"?
idk how many times faithful Catholics are going to have to say this, so I'll just try again: Unless you, as a mainstream reporter, are trying to determine *whether the allegations are true or false* we are not interested in your work. I've got zero time for NYT hot takes rn
Following on the heels of @FiveThirtyEight's series, the @nytimes has published its own report on Catholic hospitals. It'll come as no surprise, I'm sure, that the story shares many of the deficiencies of the earlier reporting. nytimes.com/2018/08/10/hea…
The unstated premise of the article is that "reproductive services" — abortion, contraception, sterilization — are obviously necessary health care, and thus that the limitations at Catholic hospitals are a violation of rights, not just an inconvenience.
Here, @nytimes points out that Catholic hospitals provide health care to underserved Americans. Of course, this is immediately portrayed as a problem, because they aren't "transparent" about what services they *don't* provide. (Anyone else having deja vu?)
As should be fairly obvious to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty, it’s a bit inconsistent to demand someone be fired for expressing a view you consider unacceptable but then defend someone when they direct racist remarks at people you don’t like.
Politico magazine has an interesting cover story today on pro-life Democrats. For the most part, it strikes me as pretty accurate, and it's got some spots of really great reporting. politico.com/magazine/story…
I was especially glad to see that the author said 7 out of 10 Americans support Roe *but also* noted that the stat doesn't account for Americans' inaccurate understandings of what would happen if Roe were overturned.
I'd quibble a little with her characterization of public opinion. For one thing, she suggests that only 6% of Dems are pro-life. But the poll she cites in fact shows that only 6% of Dems would more likely to vote against a Dem who supports abortion. That's different.
The Catholic Church has done more for health care than pretty much any institution in history, but sure, let's slam 'em for refusing to provide about four procedures that Catholics believe are morally wrong.
One would think that @FiveThirtyEight might at least be able to deduce that the dignity of human life is not a solely theological concept, but no.
Here we have the section where @FiveThirtyEight notes that several parts of the U.S. would have no hospital access if not for the Catholic Church — then spends the rest of the piece lamenting that these hospitals exist.
I can't be rewriting this thread every single day from now 'til judicial confirmation, so once and for all: Do not trust the spin that any opinion (or even reporting) piece puts on abortion polling w/r/t support for Roe. Read Gallup/Pew/GSS/Marist polling on abortion views.
Of course, there's the separate issue of how incredibly daft it is to continually cite public support for Roe (i.e. democracy) in defense of SCOTUS (not the people/law) continuing to set abortion policy for the entire country...
I know I said I was taking a break from the abortion tweeting today, but this is out of control. For one thing, most Americans don't know that overturning Roe would return abortion policy to the states. They think it would outlaw abortion at the national level.
Any survey worth its salt would ask a follow-up question about whether respondents favor states setting their own abortion policy, or even somehow measure what people think overturning Roe would do.
Abortion-rights activists—both in South Bend & nationally—are still coming out, guns blazing, to stop a pregnancy-resource center from opening a new location. A few quick thoughts on how intensely revealing this is.
The new PRC is an initiative of the Women's Care Center, founded in South Bend in 1984, which currently operates several other PRCS in the city. Their primary opponent in opening the new location is Whole Women's Health, an abortion group that wants to open a South Bend clinic.
In other words, an abortion group that does not even have a physical clinic in the city is attempting to prevent a pregnancy-resource center from offering South Bend women resources to continue their pregnancies.
It has become even clearer to me today that a whole lot of pro-choice people sincerely believe late-term abortions only happen to save a mother's life. Sadly, this is not true.
This subject really merits a longer article, and I've written about it a little in relation to the 20-week abortion ban Congress considered this term. But a few quick points.
"Mother's health" exemptions are often invoked to argue that late-term abortions are always medically necessary. But ever since abortion was legalized, abortion-rights jurisprudence has defined "mother's health" incredibly expansively.