Bush Choice for Family-Planning Post Criticized – washingtonpost.com
No, I'm not happy about this choice – I don't think someone whose stance appears to be not just anti-choice, but anti-contraception, for everyone, and repeats the canard that since condoms can't protect against all STD's ("the infected area is often not covered by a condom"), sex should be avoided entirely unless with one, faithful, uninfected partner.
Gosh, how stunningly clear, everyone will easily be able to adapt to this standard. It's very real-world, don't you think?
It appears that some other of my childfree sistren and brethren are a little more than bothered by this appointment; I'll probably write a letter to a Congressman, but as this isn't a position requiring hearings or Congressional approval, only a cataclysm of public disapproval would stop this guy from being in charge of something he shouldn't ought to be running, in my opinion.
Hey, Ginny — are you actually accepting trackbacks? Autodiscovery doesn’t seem to be working, and though a “trackback” link shows above, it doesn’t seem to resolve to anything.
Hmm. It resolves to this post when I click it, we’ll tinker around here.
Conclusion: it works from WordPress, and I had a trackback from your friend Boulder Dude the other day. And he’s running Movable Type…:-?
Huh. Okay, I’ll doublecheck it again (I’m on MT, too, and, in fact, I host BD, so if it works for him …)
Turns out it wasn’t a trackback from BD, it was another kind of link.
In other news, we’ve often been saddled with Big Energy/Big Development guys running Interior, or putting people in charge of the National Parks who are in favor of putting roads everywhere and letting logging and mining companies into National Forest land.
In the words of every press secretary or pundit that defends the indefensible for this administration, “this is nothing new.”
Oh, but we also need someone running the VA that had a deferment. That’ll get those shirkers and bellyachers out of the hospitals so they can be closed down quicker.