FDA approves emergency 5-day contraceptive

Good. From ABC:

Federal health officials on Friday approved a new type of morning-after contraceptive that works longer than the current leading drug on the market.

The pill ella from HRA Pharma reduces the chance of pregnancy up to five days after sex. Plan B, the most widely used emergency contraceptive pill, begins losing its ability to prevent pregnancy within three days of sex.

Read More......

Obama backs away from earlier heroic defense of Islamic Center near Ground Zero

I was shocked when I read this morning that President Obama had defended the Islamic Center. I was proud as hell of him, but for the life of me I couldn't understand why he did it. As I wrote to a friend earlier today, "this President doesn't do 'controversial.'" Sadly, I was right. The President has now backed away from his comments of last night, claiming that they weren't intended to show support for the Islamic Center. When they clearly were.

First, we had the President's amazing comments in defense of the Islamic Center, last night:

Now, that's not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -– particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. (Applause.) And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.

Then, this afternoon, we had the President seemingly backing away a bit - claiming that his remarks weren't specifically about the specific Islamic Center in NYC. (Then what were they about?) From today's Pool Report:

Asked about his mosque comments by reporters as he left after his remarks, POTUS said:

"In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion. I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about.

"And I think it's very important as difficult as some of these issues are that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about."

Then we get another clarification from White House spokesman Bill Burton. In this statement, the White House says the President did not intend to back away from his earlier comments, then they say that it's not the President's job to pass judgment on every "local project." Okay, but he just did. And now you're not backing away from it, even though you say it's not his job to do it?:

"Just to be clear, the President is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night. It is not his role as President to pass judgment on every local project.

"But it is his responsibility to stand up for the Constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans.

What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that If a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a Mosque.

"The World Trade Center site is hallowed ground, where 3000 Americans-Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims were the victims of a cold-blooded massacre. We are still at war with the small band of terrorists who planned and executed that attack.

But that does not give government the right to deny law-abiding Americans of one faith the same rights you would accord anyone else."

Sure sounds like he's taking a position on a "local project." Read More......

Judge revokes Ag Dept approval of Franken-beets

I'm normally quite pro-science. But I just have a feeling that all of this genetically-engineering food is going backfire on us at some point. Then again, look how much they've already messed with the food chain. Putting chickens on a less-than-24 hour day schedule so they eat more during a real 24 hours. Lots of creepy stuff.

A federal district court judge revoked the government’s approval of genetically engineered sugar beets Friday, saying that the Agriculture Department had not adequately assessed the environmental consequences before approving them for commercial cultivation.

The decision, by Judge Jeffrey S. White of Federal District Court in San Francisco, appears to effectively ban the planting of the genetically modified sugar beets, which make up about 95 percent of the crop, until the Agriculture Department prepares an environmental impact statement and approves the crop again, a process that might take a couple of years.

Read More......

How much legislation has Ruth Marcus ever written and passed? Zero.

I don't enjoy being lectured to. Especially about politics. And especially from someone who has no political experience whatsoever.

I respect a Harvard Law Degree as much as the next guy. And a Harvard degree, and 26 years at the Washington Post is swell. But it doesn't mean squat about how much you actually know about passing legislation. To wit: Washington Post columnist and editorial board member Ruth Marcus.

How many bills has Ruth Marcus ever written? Zero. How much legislation has she ever helped shepherd through Congress? Zero.

I ask this because Ms. Marcus is the latest Obama apologist to have self-appointed herself queen bee expert on all that is legislating. Obama apologists have a short repertoire of greatest hits. The most common one is that anyone who criticizes their boyfriend-in-chief is a hopeless idealist who is clearly not an expert on politics. Or in the case of Marcus, we're now apparently "deranged" for expecting the President to at least try to keep his promises.

I don't to mean to knock Marcus personally. I'm sure she's a lovely person. And we actually have a few things in common. We both graduated from east coast law schools in the same decade. She's written for the Post. I've written for the Economist. But when it comes to our relative political experience, especially legislating in Congress, she has none, while I've had five years as a legislative attorney in the Senate, and many more years involved in making legislation happen from the outside.

When I criticize the President for not being more aggressive with the stimulus, and for not pushing for the amount that he knew was actually needed, I speak from actual legislative experience. And when I write about how the Hill reacts to a weak president versus a strong president on issues like health care reform, I'm writing about what it's actually like to be on the ground, on the Hill, trying to make things happen. Because I was there. I've been in all-night conference committee meetings, whispering in Senators' ears at 4am in order to nail down a legislative deal. I somehow doubt Marcus has done the same.

It's not clear what basis of knowledge Ruth Marcus is using, if any, when she talks about our expectations of the President as being "deranged." She's been a reporter for a few decades, and that's groovy. But observing politics, like some kind of passive, objective academic, is not the same thing as actually working as a politico. (It's a bit like the tale of the blind men and the elephant.)

I will say this. For an editorial board member of the Washington Post, to be found unable to enunciate a more nuanced criticism than simply calling someone "deranged," speaks rather poorly of the Washington Post.

More from Mediaite:

During an appearance on Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie’s Daily Rundown, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus may have one-upped Robert Gibbs‘ “Professional Left” comments. Having already written a column agreeing with Gibbs, she told Chuck, Savannah, and Anita Dunn that the left and the blogosphere are “deranged.”

While it is true that a great many liberals have too-high expectations of President Obama, and little patience, the example that Marcus cites is the worst one possible. On health care, the left has an indisputably valid point. In her column, Marcus wrote “Can these people count to 60?”

As a matter of fact, we can, but apparently, the Democrats can’t. Instead of pressing the advantage while they had that filibuster-proof Senate majority, President Obama went on a pointless consensus-building exercise that resulted in a weaker law that barely passed after Scott Brown upended that 60-seat majority.

Read More......

Extending tax cuts for the rich, in one handy picture

This chart is getting some play, but it deserves to be put everywhere. Obama's $250,000 point is well chosen; that's where the numbers diverge. From Ezra Klein (h/t Joan McCarter at DailyKos):


About that bottom circle, as Groucho once said, "Clip me off a piece of that." As to the chart, pass it on.

GP Read More......

A 'professional' Democrat speaks to Mr. Gibbs

I found this just amazing, and so appropriate as a response to the Gibbs Gaffathon, the gift that keeps on taking. For me, this reply captures the problem in a nutshell.

Rayne at FireDogLake writes about the Michigan primary, and then about not voting for either Dem candidate for governor because "they are both dirtbag DINOs, just slightly different flavors of the same crap, the kind of over-promising spin masters of which we have too many in DC."

A run-of-the-mill contra-Gibbs rant, right? Not quite. Rayne finishes this way (my emphasis):

Come November, I’m absolutely not voting for a Democratic gubernatorial candidate. . . . Before you just roll your eyes and hit the back button, you need to know I’m not merely the base or the “professional left.” I’m an elected party official, a chair of a Democratic committee at local level. I’m a co-founder of a local Democratic organization and I’ve spent days-weeks-months of time and a lot of resources on behalf of Democratic candidates.

In short, I AM the Democratic Party and I am finding it impossible to vote for a Democrat.

Huh. This is the "professional left," and he is not a merry man.

If you're still in your job in November, sir, you and your buds need to figure out how to answer House subpoenas, just in case. There's a train with your name on it headed your way, and it's almost slightly just about maybe too late to not keep standing in the way of it.

Just a suggestion, of course.

GP Read More......

Colbert on tasers

Digby has been writing about police abuse of tasers forever. It looks like a toy and it kills. Now comes Stephen Colbert with his own tale to tell:



What kind of sadist sends 50,000 volts, twice, into an 86-year-old woman glued to an oxygen tank? A sadist with a state-sanctioned right to kill.

I don't think most cops are bad — just some. But even if "just" 20% were corrupt and sadistic, that's still a lot of bad apples, and the odor puts a stink on all the rest.

There are only two ways this will change, and one involves good cops crossing that thin blue line, doing what's right instead of what's fraternal, and putting the "protect" back into Serve and Protect.

I know it's a tough choice — even dangerous — but you didn't join the force for an easy life. Serve and Protect. We need you.

GP Read More......