The NY Times delivers a takes a blast at pregnancy centers, which offer an alternative to the Times vision of abortions for all. Sadly, they can't (or don't want to) quote a single prominent liberal in favor of this implementation of "safe, legal and rare":
Pregnancy Centers Gain Influence in Anti-Abortion Arena
By PAM BELLUCK
WACO, Tex. — With free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, along with diapers, parenting classes and even temporary housing, pregnancy centers are playing an increasingly influential role in the anti-abortion movement. While most attention has focused on scores of new state laws restricting abortion, the centers have been growing in numbers and gaining state financing and support.
Largely run by conservative Christians, the centers say they offer what Roland Warren, head of Care Net, one of the largest pregnancy center organizations, described as “a compassionate approach to this issue.”
As they expand, they are adding on-call or on-site medical personnel and employing sophisticated strategies to attract women, including Internet search optimization and mobile units near Planned Parenthood clinics.
Internet search optimization? What's next, using Hollywood doctors in ads? Ooops.
The story is totally one-sided in its finding of flaws. For example:
Abortion rights advocates have long called some of their approaches deceptive or manipulative. Medical and other experts say some dispense scientifically flawed information, exaggerating abortion’s risks.
Jean Schroedel, a Claremont Graduate University politics professor, said that “there are some positive aspects” to centers, but that “things pregnant women are told at many of these centers, some of it is really factually suspect.”
I suspect that somewhere a pro-life advocate has criticized abortion providers for presenting slanted information. That suspicion is not addressed by the Times. However, if we flash back to an Emily Bazelon contribution to the Times from 2010, we learn that abortion providers are embattled victims of the pro-life movement who are fighting back heroically. A bit of flavor:
In many ways, the clinics were a rebel-sister success story. Instead of a sterile and expensive hospital operating room, patients could go to a low-cost clinic with pastel walls and sympathetic staff members. At a Planned Parenthood I visited recently in Rochester, while women were having abortions, they could look at photos of a Caribbean beach, taped above them on the ceiling.
Nearly heaven!
And here is a Times classic:
Other claims include long-term psychological effects. The Care Net brochure says that “many women experience initial relief,” but that “women should be informed that abortion significantly increases risk for” clinical depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, post-traumatic stress disorder and other problems. An American Psychological Association report found no increased risk from one abortion.
Do tell. The Guttmacher Institute, a credible pro-choice operation, summarized the APA as follows:
There is no credible evidence that abortion, in and of itself, causes subsequent mental health problems for most women, according to a major report released August 12, 2008, by a task force of the American Psychological Association (APA).
...
The task force draws no conclusions with respect to the mental health of teenagers following abortion, observing that the few studies on that subject suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample sizes, high attrition rates or exclusion of certain groups of teens in a way that could bias the results. It suggests that positive associations between multiple abortions and poorer mental health "may be linked to co-occurring risks that predispose a woman to both multiple unwanted pregnancies and mental health problems."
I can't guess how the Times missed the qualifications about teenagers and multiple abortions. They were careful enough to write "no increased risk from one abortion", but the mathematically-minded will note that having one abortion greatly increases the risk (in fact, it is a pre-condition) for having multiple abortions.
In the interest of fairness and balance the Times does include this in their final paragraph:
All Waco clients [at the pregnancy center] receive nonreligious “options counseling” from volunteers, staff or a licensed counselor who had an abortion.
Planned Parenthood’s building looks like the medical clinic it is. It distributes information on prenatal care and adoption, among other things, but does not offer emotional counseling. “We’re our patients’ medical provider,” said Katie Wolfe, the health educator, “not their emotional support.”
Amanda Hall met Care Net’s definition of “abortion-vulnerable.” Twenty-five, pregnant with her second child, her husband in jail, she was facing eviction.
Although uncomfortable about abortion, she checked “undecided,” saying, “I can’t support two kids.”
Care Net let her stay in a house Ms. McGregor owns, found her a job, negotiated debt payment plans, offered Bible study and other classes. She gave birth in March.
“Everybody here,” she said, was “like a different family.”
The Times covers this as though it is a bad thing. Well, I am sure they think it is.
MORE: Deception in the court room, from the pro-choice side.
The only anti abortion link ever needed.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/01/03/photo-baby-reaches-out-from-the-womb/
-----------------------------------------
: some of it is really factually suspect.”
IMO,There is one fact involved in an abortion.
It will kill a human being.
Posted by: pagar | January 05, 2013 at 10:13 AM
No, TM, the Guttmacher institute, is Planned Parenthood's marketing arm, they are still more then the Times.
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2013 at 10:30 AM
Margaret Sanger's twisted offspring are not interested in alternatives. Eugenics and weeding out the wrong kind of people are what it's all about.
Posted by: matt | January 05, 2013 at 10:42 AM
This was an early essay, covering some of the same ground, you are charting rse;
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/stuter-quiet-revolution.htm
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2013 at 10:47 AM
Even Guttmacher's blurb admits the actual data are much less black and white than the spin they put on it;
And of course the study only says that about a single first trimester abortion in adults.
My wife and I both know several women who still carry unresolved guilt and/or sadness over one or more abortions early in life. Is there any doubt there are millions more who don't count as having suffered psychological problems sufficient to cross the threshold of the studies but whose lives have been and still are negatively effected by their regrets?
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 05, 2013 at 11:10 AM
with the morning after pill freely available why are we still enmeshed in this stuff? One has to assume that unintended or unwanted sexual intercourse would prompt any sensible person to head to the pharmacy in the morning.
OTOH I do agree for the NYT it is eugenics.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 11:22 AM
If you've been paying attention to the Al-TV business you might be amused to read today's WaPo to see how they've gilded Al's lily.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 11:23 AM
--If you've been paying attention to the Al-TV business you might be amused to read today's WaPo to see how they've gilded Al's lily.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 11:23 AM--
I'm a little worried about Hit. I'm guessing Jenny Granholm probably won't be the star around whom Al Jazeera builds its network and even if she is she'll probably be wearing a burkha which pretty much defeats the only reason Hit watches.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 05, 2013 at 11:27 AM
I can imagine Gore calling and asking for "the gilded lily."
Posted by: Stephanie | January 05, 2013 at 11:31 AM
It's very simple, Clarice, like a jilted bridesmaid, the Post feels left out of the deal.
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Clarice, the morning after pill is an abortifacient. It kills a fertilized embryo. It is not an alternative to abortion. It is simply a very early abortion.
Posted by: Buford Gooch | January 05, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Here is an interesting article about the lengths the pro-abortion gang will go to stamp out pro-life pregnancy centers.
Notice especially the characteristics of the so-called "misleading" pregnancy center advertisement, which the author of the linked article has taken the time to provide.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | January 05, 2013 at 12:22 PM
Yes, it is so early that the fertilized egg has not yet attached to the uterus--down't bother me at all.YMMV. If so, don't use it.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 12:37 PM
**doesn't bother me*
Steph, you are a very bad girl.Also I don't know what you are talking about.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 12:38 PM
I expect that those who don't wish to have a baby and don't use the morning after pill or mostly too stupid or too drugged up to care and would make horrible parents.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 12:40 PM
**ARE mostly too*
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 12:40 PM
Clarice, 99.99 percent of the time for these women it is not unwanted sex. These are people mostly too lazy or insufficiently worried about the consequences to use birth control. Obviously less than 24 hours later they have not changed their tune enough to go out and get the morning after pill, or use it if they had it.
How anyone could argue against pregnancy centers and for abortion centers is beyond me.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 05, 2013 at 12:50 PM
I expect that those who don't wish to have a baby and don't use the morning after pill or mostly too stupid or too drugged up to care and would make horrible parents.
Many are young women in high school or college who then go on to have families later in life. I have personally known at least two dozen such women.
That is part of why the Dems capture women's votes by making abortion such a big plank - women who have had an abortion don't want to feel guilty about what they did in college.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 05, 2013 at 12:57 PM
I, too, know a lot of people who in college had abortions but that was before the morning after pill was available.
But i don't argue with your other points at all.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 01:02 PM
That is part of why the Dems capture women's votes by making abortion such a big plank - women who have had an abortion don't want to feel guilty about what they did in college.
I think you have something there, Porch.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | January 05, 2013 at 01:15 PM
I see what you're saying but the women I'm talking about had easy access to birth control at the time and chose not to bother. So I'm not convinced that they would have used the morning after pill even if they'd had it available.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 05, 2013 at 01:16 PM
I'm ahem from the pre pill era when even diaphragms required a doctor's order and weren't available readily to unmarried women, Porch.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 01:20 PM
I suspect many do feel guilty anyway, Porch. As they look at their children today, and feel the power of the love they have for them now, it must hurt on some level to reflect on this other child (or children) of theirs who's life they snuffed out through a deliberate act of their own. They want society as a whole to affirm the choice they made back then (it was my right to kill my child--the constitution says so), because in their hearts they wonder about what that child would have been, and regret the forever loss of this child of theirs whose life they took.
Posted by: derwill | January 05, 2013 at 01:23 PM
Thanks narciso. I had not read her before but was familiar with everybody in her gang of statist predators.
In Winston Salem recently when Senge became too hot because of undisputable beliefs from reading his books, the Waters Foundation tried to argue the systems thinking work was based on Forester. That particular MIT crowd to which I would add a few more want people to behave like their models. With education haven displaced personally chosen plans and preferences. Ed will supply new values and then habituate the emotions as the drivers of decisions. All of a sudden many will behave consistent with the models. That cultivated false belief system about economics and history and even who is threatening control over reproduction also serve as drivers.
Lewin is really important because U-Michigan pilots all teacher ed initiatives and that's where he ended up. B=STEP was really putting Lewin's vision into national play.
I am reading Brink Lindsey's The Dead Hand today to reenforce with more facts where all this is going.
Problem is as I think your link was driving towards you really cannot eliminate uncertainty. You can foreclose most people's ability to react to it at all or see it coming.
Posted by: rse | January 05, 2013 at 01:23 PM
From the Portland Press Herald: Yesterday,a group of pro-choice protesters rallied against pro-lifers who have been picketing Planned Parenthood in Portland.A nearby business owner organized the protest because he claimed the pro-lifers were "disruptive". He also "thinks" they contribute to violence by extremists.Portland police said there were no confrontations or legal violations.
Posted by: marlene | January 05, 2013 at 01:26 PM
Scarlett women the lot of them . in more ways than one .
I'll think about pregnancy tomorrow . After all tomorrow he won't be around. and my Trojan turbo is out of batteries .
/any resemblance to Amanda Marcotte is incidental
Posted by: Stephanie | January 05, 2013 at 01:28 PM
Clarice, so you're saying that abortion was more readily available to those women at that time than birth control?
Posted by: Porchlight | January 05, 2013 at 01:28 PM
Iggy:
I'm a little worried about Hit. I'm guessing Jenny Granholm probably won't be the star around whom Al Jazeera builds its network
Jenny has already told them that she will finish her current (Current) contract and then skeedaddle.
Posted by: hit and run | January 05, 2013 at 01:30 PM
--Jenny has already told them that she will finish her current (Current) contract and then skeedaddle.
Posted by: hit and run | January 05, 2013 at 01:30 PM --
Hit, does this mean you have suspended your Sylvia stalking operations for now and it is Jenny now looking over her shoulder nervously?
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 05, 2013 at 01:45 PM
It was illegal but it was just as illegal to get a diaphragm and there were no b.c. pills or morning after pills.
An Aunt who had 5 kids and 1 miscarriage had to go before a medical panel to get permission to have her tubes tied.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 01:46 PM
I know it was more difficult then to get birth control, but I have a hard time believing it was more difficult/expensive than getting an abortion.
At any rate, at least since the pill, access to birth control has very little impact on abortion rates. You can give bc away for free and some women will never use it. Those are the women most likely to end up at an abortion clinic.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 05, 2013 at 01:51 PM
And maybe they should cause they lack the brains to be a parent, porch.
I didn't say it was MORE difficult to get BC, only that it was also illegal.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 01:58 PM
I can honestly say I don't know anyone who has had an abortion. Key to that sentence is "I don't know."
Maybe some women I have known did have an abortion, but they certainly never stated that they did.
Posted by: centralcal | January 05, 2013 at 02:20 PM
I know people who have had abortions - it was pretty routine in the70's and 80's. I remember people going to NY to get abortions before they were legal here.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 05, 2013 at 02:27 PM
Jean Schroedel, a Claremont Graduate University politics professor, said that “there are some positive aspects” to centers, but that “things pregnant women are told at many of these centers, some of it is really factually suspect.”
Well, I guess this politics professor would be a big expert on "things pregnant women are told at many of these centers"
what things?
which center said the "things"?
how does this politics professor know what is said at these centers?
Posted by: Janet | January 05, 2013 at 02:35 PM
Remarkable part of a piece in the New Yorker:
Larry and Betty describe the birth of their son as “a miracle of the Lord.” As they tell it, Betty’s doctors discovered tumors in her uterus and warned that she would probably die giving birth, and that the child, if it survived, would likely be crippled and brain damaged. The doctors urged an abortion, but Larry and Betty refused. Larry told me, “I realized that God had a special purpose for my son.”
Robbins was born with fine and gross motor-skill deficits. His legs bowed outward, and his feet twisted in. The doctors predicted that he would never walk normally or have full use of his hands.
That's from the story linked by PJM about the great pickpocket.
Posted by: bgates | January 05, 2013 at 02:36 PM
cc:
I also don't know any women who have had abortions. I know many who struggled to have children and some who have adopted foreign babies.
Posted by: maryrose | January 05, 2013 at 02:37 PM
Janet:'
She doesn't know squat but it looks good in her article to give the impression that something suspect is going on. What we know for sure is that the majority of abortions are performed at Planned Parenthood.
Posted by: maryrose | January 05, 2013 at 02:40 PM
I may have read you wrong, Clarice. You seemed to be implying that bc was nearly impossible to get and the morning after pill didn't exist, and that's the main reason why the women you knew ended up pregnant. My only point was that bc is always easier to get than an abortion, and especially so when abortion was illegal, and yet these women managed to procure abortions when they wanted them.
I don't think the dynamics have changed much. Birth control is totally abundant and cheap, but women still get pregnant when they don't want to. Clearly this must be (on the whole) attributable to poor judgment, not to lack of "access" to anything. It turns out our mothers, grandmothers, great-grandmothers were right - keep your legs together and you're a lot less likely to get into trouble. Who knew.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 05, 2013 at 02:45 PM
...& all the continued abortions & STDs kinda shows that the graphic sex ed from K-12 is pretty much a big fail.
Did the NYT cover the horrors at Gosnell's butcher shop? Perhaps Jean Schroedel would like to comment on the "things" told to those women & the reality of what happened.
Posted by: Janet | January 05, 2013 at 02:45 PM
Kermit Gosnell's "clinic"
"Gosnell killed "hundreds" of babies and at least two women during abortions from 1979 to last year at his Women's Medical Society at 38th Street and Lancaster Avenue, according to the grand jury. Further, he and his unlicensed, unskilled staff overdosed patients with drugs, perforated their wombs and bowels, and spread venereal disease by using unsterilized equipment, the report said."
let's see THAT NYT article.
Posted by: Janet | January 05, 2013 at 02:52 PM
Great article bgates!
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 02:56 PM
I didn't say it was MORE difficult to get BC, only that it was also illegal.
I'm not sure what time period you're speaking of Clarice. It wasn't illegal in the mid-50s when I wed, but it wasn't widely available either. I had to bring a notarized permission slip from my parents to be fitted for a diaphragm at Planned Parenthood, and a copy of my engagement announcement from the newspaper. That's because my wedding was to take place a couple of weeks prior to my 21st birthday so I was not yet an adult, by law. Seems laughable in these times, but a letter from your mommy was necessary even for young brides.
But haven't condoms been available at U.S. pharmacies all of the last century? (not counting MA) Weren't displayed, of course, but I thought they were under the counter and had only to be requested.
Posted by: (A) nuther Bub | January 05, 2013 at 03:06 PM
Yes, condoms were available, but women really had to take charge of this themselves to be sure. The rule may have been 21 or engaged now that I think of it, but the point remains, women have so many choices now, including the morning after pill that only the most feckless under normal circumstances need to consider the abortion alternative and the constant debates on this seem utterly pointless in light of new developments.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 03:11 PM
I had this discussion with a neighbor whose daughter has friends, all with expensive college degrees and living in big cities, who have had 4 or 5 known abortions by their mid-20s. I find that unfathomable. As if it's not promiscuous as long as they are not taking the Pill. Just spontaneous.
It also suggests complete misunderstanding of cause and effect and impulse control.
Posted by: rse | January 05, 2013 at 03:15 PM
Clarice-Red was telling me yesterday that many sites are trumpeting that states like Texas are coming after the morning after pill. She asked me about it. I said I hoped the states were not so stupid as to realize that was just asking to keep too many young female voters permanently estranged.
But then I was also surprised last week to have 2 different people, very sophisticated and well traveled, ask if I could look into fracking to see if it would destroy fresh water supply.
Posted by: rse | January 05, 2013 at 03:19 PM
It also suggest they aren't good parent material, rse.
The anti-frackers got a big jump on things..It would have been better if the pro-frackers had got in there first. Stupidity is hard to undo.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 03:31 PM
It also suggests complete misunderstanding of cause and effect and impulse control.
And the efficacy of all the safe-sex education the state provided through the indoctrination centers.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 05, 2013 at 03:37 PM
That was a really great article, bgates - thanks. Any story in which Penn Jillette gets taken down a peg is aces in my book, but it is much better than just that.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 05, 2013 at 03:42 PM
Clearly this must be (on the whole) attributable to poor judgment, not to lack of "access" to anything.
Perhaps judgement is now considered too judgemental. Seems to me people are hard wired to reproduce whether they intend to or not and what they need to counter that is discipline for planning and thinking.
Posted by: boris | January 05, 2013 at 03:56 PM
I've had my purse picked twice..both times I saw the perp and it was some time later that I realized what had happened. Shows you how inattentive I am,
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 03:59 PM
But haven't condoms been available at U.S. pharmacies all of the last century? (not counting MA)
We didn't have condoms in MA? Really?
I graduated from High SChool in 1970. I knew of only one person in the entire HS who had sex while in HS. It wasn't the norm. Having sex meant you could get pregnant and getting pregnant pretty much meant your life was over.
I don't recall any discussion about birth control or condoms.
BY 1973 you could get BC on any college campus - well at least the one I was at.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 05, 2013 at 03:59 PM
I think that's always been true, boris. Prior to the sexual revolution and easy birth control, it was countered with not only discipline/abstinence but also plentiful shame for those who erred. But that horse left the barn a long time ago.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 05, 2013 at 04:02 PM
I know you've had your reservations about her, rse, but doesn't this seem awfully convenient after the old guard was put back in charge;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/documentary-examines-michelle-rhees-legacy-in-dc/2013/01/04/ae86e8a6-55f7-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html?tid=pm_pop
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2013 at 04:06 PM
"I think that's always been true"
But if people had the same discipline as before BC would be an adequate substitute for abstinance. The difference might be (1) people don't think they need it anymore ... or (2) collective society doesn't think they need it anymore and would just as soon they not have it.
Posted by: boris | January 05, 2013 at 04:07 PM
That is the same fundamental problem with the drug issue, the societal guidelines that once existed, no longer do, so we end up moving to legislation and regulation, which is in itself
a blunt instrument,
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2013 at 04:12 PM
People don't have the same discipline as before. That's the problem.
They actually didn't have it then either - it had to be taught and especially, society had to disapprove of the behavior. Neither of those things are still happening.
You can teach kids about birth control in sex ed but that isn't the same thing as teaching them the discipline to use it, and since they are not also being scared out of their wits regarding the consequences of screwing up, there's no motivation.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 05, 2013 at 04:13 PM
Great story, bgates.
Posted by: Frau Taschendieb | January 05, 2013 at 04:17 PM
OT but its time the jerks at the DOJ VOting Rights Section were canned. I'm sick of paying both sides for their zealotry.http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/01/05/federal-court-doj-must-reimburse-south-carolina-for-voter-id-folly/
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 04:19 PM
"the consequences of screwing up"
Entendre alert ...
Certainly part of it is that abortion or welfare is seen as a lesser consequence than older options.
Young women may not get pregnant to get welfare but I have read some use welfare as s shortcut to getting a baby they want.
Posted by: boris | January 05, 2013 at 04:19 PM
Young women may not get pregnant to get welfare
Oh I think they do. Hate living at home? Wanna get out? Get pregnant and the state pays for everything.
Hell around here they have billboards advertising the free stuff.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 05, 2013 at 04:27 PM
Not surprising, considering the background of one of the figures;
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/opia/2012/04/10/matthew-colangelo-02-keynote-speaker-for-harvard-law-schools-annual-kaufman-dinner/
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2013 at 04:30 PM
There's a problem with these new low-dose birth control pills---and alcohol, or not taking them at the same time of the day--they fail.
A neighbor's daughter has three friends with unplanned pregnancies as recent college graduates, starting out in their careers, all of whom thought they were using effective birth control.
As I told my sons--don't have sex with anybody you don't want to raise a child with...
Posted by: anonamom | January 05, 2013 at 04:48 PM
OT
Russia TV says that Brigitte Bardot is threatening to follow Gerard Depardieu in dumping her French citizenship and leaving France. They just ran a big segment explaining that Bardot is incensed about Animal Rights stuff, and saying that she wants to become a Russian because Vladimir Putin has been more wonderful to animals than all the French Prime Ministers put together. Then they show video of Putin walking around with his shirt off cuddling tigers that have been tranquilized.
They also say that Russia has offered Depardieu citizenship and that he is considering accepting their offer.
Don't know why I ever had the idea that French movie stars were good looking:
Posted by: daddy | January 05, 2013 at 04:52 PM
We didn't have condoms in MA? Really?
I think MA was the last state to legalize contraception and it happened fairly recently (to me "recently" is defined as within the past 40 years or so)
Posted by: (A) nuther Bub | January 05, 2013 at 04:54 PM
Any question, daddy, in the LUN, I know you were being rhetorical;
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2013 at 04:56 PM
A funny bit from bgates 2:16 New Yorker Mag link:
"He is probably best known for an encounter with Jimmy Carter’s Secret Service detail in 2001. While Carter was at dinner, Robbins struck up a conversation with several of his Secret Service men. Within a few minutes, he had emptied the agents’ pockets of pretty much everything but their guns. Robbins brandished a copy of Carter’s itinerary, and when an agent snatched it back he said, “You don’t have the authorization to see that!” When the agent felt for his badge, Robbins produced it and handed it back. Then he turned to the head of the detail and handed him his watch, his badge, and the keys to the Carter motorcade."
No wonder Obama avoided Las Vegas. LOL.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | January 05, 2013 at 05:01 PM
narciso,
But....."Before law school Matthew worked as a management consultant at Bain & Company in Boston"
How come he is not in jail?
Posted by: Jim Eagle | January 05, 2013 at 05:04 PM
In her prime Bardot was gorgeous, daddy.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 05:24 PM
ICYMI. Time lapse video of Space Shuttle Endeavor moving through Los Angeles from LAX to its final resting place.
Pangs of nostalgia
Well done America.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | January 05, 2013 at 05:35 PM
Just caught up with Clarice's link from a few threads back about the Hippie Terrorist from Harvard actually being not from Harvard and having served time previously for an attempted murder using an 11 inch kitchen knife. Oh if only the authorities had banned all knives longer than 10 inches!
The article makes me wonder if he'll get seriously prosecuted or instead get the Norman Mailer "Belly of the Beast" treatment. In this day and age of "see no evil" amongst the OWSer's, who knows.
Posted by: daddy | January 05, 2013 at 05:39 PM
You notice, in that link, their real anger is reserved for the Post, not the terrorist,
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2013 at 05:41 PM
He wasn't an OWSer either, daddy. Just a rich, spoiled brat.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2013 at 05:44 PM
Did anyone see this display of GovMo's efficiency;
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/business/2013-01/05/c_124184154.htm
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2013 at 05:46 PM
In my opinion Brigitte Bardot was never actually beautiful, and I say that as a lad who had a pronounced crush on her.
She was a sex kitten, and they, unfortunately, often age into plump and shabby old tabbies.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 05, 2013 at 05:51 PM
He wasn't an OWSer either
I didn't know that Clarice. The story is another good example of how far off the facts are from the initial reporting.
their real anger is reserved for the Post, not the terrorist,
I noticed that also Narciso.
And as for Brigitte, looking thru photos trying to find one that typifies her, like a Grace Kelly or an Audrey Hepburn, I can't find one that works, so I'm sort of in the Iggy thinking at 05:51 on Ms Bardot. Maybe I was just too young when she was hot.
Posted by: daddy | January 05, 2013 at 06:01 PM
Didn't see that one, narciso, but I did see the one linked here:
Cash for Clunkers actually hurt the environment
Posted by: Extraneus | January 05, 2013 at 06:18 PM
Lotta kids like Greene in New York, DC, San Fran, Boston et. al. Parenting is for the religious, the middle class, the suburbs and flyover country. Its really amazing there are not more incidents like this one. Note the article and what Greene's friend tells the bouncer about how Greene is a candidate to off and do a shoot up.
Somehow I think we ain't seen nothing yet. Too much time on our unemployed, spoiled brat's hands.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | January 05, 2013 at 06:24 PM
She was a sex kitten, and they, unfortunately, often age into plump and shabby old tabbies.
Hey, be kind. She's in her late 70s and I like that she has let nature take its course without benefit of lifts, tucks and liposucks.
She and I are near-contemporaries and I was madly jealous of her when we were both in our salad years; my (then) husband was nuts about her. No, not beautiful, exactly, but very sexy and very adorable -- curves and dimples as far as the eye could see. You would have put her on a bicycle seat toot sweet, Iggy.
Posted by: (A) nuther Bub | January 05, 2013 at 06:25 PM
--No, not beautiful, exactly, but very sexy and very adorable -- curves and dimples as far as the eye could see. You would have put her on a bicycle seat toot sweet, Iggy.--
Hey, when I say I had a pronounced crush on her I'm not just whistling Dixie. Even as a mere precocious grade schooler I could see the virtues of spending some time squeezing her baguettes.
Unfortunately for Brigitte I grew up and married a gal who was still getting carded when she was over fifty.
Oh well, Ms Bardot's loss is Mrs Iggy's gain. Hah!
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 05, 2013 at 06:37 PM
Squeezably soft;
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 05, 2013 at 06:45 PM
Up north, Shell Oil is not doing itself any favors publicity wise.
Their Drilling Rig Ship, Kulluk, in the process of being towed south to Seattle for off season maintenance, ran into a winter storm. The boat towing the rig then lost all 4 of it's engines, apparently some of the lines attached the rig also snapped, and now Shell's Drill rig is aground near Kodiak and a big rescue operation is going on.
I don't believe this has hit the MSM yet, but for a Lefty against drilling it is a dream delivered on a silver platter:
A group of 46 House Democrats released a statement Thursday saying they want answers from the Coast Guard and the Interior Department about the rig incident. “This is the latest in a series of alarming blunders,” said the House Sustainable Energy and Environmental Coalition Caucus.
Here's a link to start from, with plenty other links to explain the problems further: Kulluk salvage efforts move ahead as weather cooperates
Posted by: daddy | January 05, 2013 at 06:50 PM
Clarice,
I'm assuming you are back in business - can we have a sneak preview?
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 05, 2013 at 06:52 PM
Thanks for that Iggy. I retract my 06:01.
A(B), you got Brigitte Bardot beat all to heck. And that's a fact!
Posted by: daddy | January 05, 2013 at 06:52 PM
There's a fairly entertaining movie with Jimmy Stewart, Brigitte Bardot and a young Bill Mumy, the last playing a lad in the grip of a mad attraction to the sex kitten not unlike mine except he had the perspicacity to write her and have his pop take him to Paris. Doh!
Dear Brigitte.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 05, 2013 at 07:00 PM
I don't believe this has hit the MSM yet, but for a Lefty against drilling it is a dream delivered on a silver platter:
It has and the left says this seals the deal: no artic drilling.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 05, 2013 at 07:00 PM
Daddy, I agree. A(B) is being unduly modest. I'm sure that when they were both in their prime, our Hawaiian friend had the edge. Now? Bardot is hideous, and A(B) remains beautiful. I remember a movie where Jimmy Stewart was the father of a brood, and Billy Mummy played a son who was smitten with Bardot.
Nasty situation with the grounded drilling rig. Damned sloppy planning. One towing vessel that had all of its diesel fuel tanks vulnerable to water contamination? All four engines going down at once? Spend countless millions on upgrading the rig and then award the towing bid to a shoddy low bidder? Sheesh.
Posted by: Mark Folkestad | January 05, 2013 at 07:02 PM
Great minds think alike, Iggy! But you get the extra points for spelling Mumy's name right.
Posted by: Mark Folkestad | January 05, 2013 at 07:04 PM
"All four engines going down at once?"
Don't suppose they had any leftists working on the project?
Posted by: pagar | January 05, 2013 at 07:06 PM
It has and the left says this seals the deal: no artic drilling.
Ughh, Jane. There goes our economy up here.
So does Shell get its 5 Billion or so back from the Government if the Feds say they can't drill in the tracts that they purchased from the Government?
Posted by: daddy | January 05, 2013 at 07:09 PM
Ig-
You wouldn't believe what Bill Mumy does in his spare time, now.
(Yes, he's half of the group.)
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 05, 2013 at 07:11 PM
A(B), you got Brigitte Bardot beat all to heck.
At the moment that's probably not a gross exaggeration, daddy mine. In the end, long and lanky gets its revenge over curvy and cuddly, probably. But when it counted?. . . bloody hell!
Posted by: (A) nuther Bub | January 05, 2013 at 07:13 PM
Why does a mishap while towing something through a winter storm mean that drilling is unsafe? That sounds like identity teenager logic.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 05, 2013 at 07:16 PM
CH-
Doritos cause traffic accidents.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 05, 2013 at 07:18 PM
Btw a couple of real turdfest games on NBC sports with the Vike's QB being injured before the game. King Roger cannot be happy.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 05, 2013 at 07:19 PM
As an engineer I would like the left wing enviro eejits to explain to me how a towing mishap affects drilling operations on a static rig? This accident/incident has absolutely nothing to do in terms of operational efficacy of a drilling platform.
But then the left are only as dumb as their media enablers so its a given I guess.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | January 05, 2013 at 07:26 PM
So does Shell get its 5 Billion or so back from the Government if the Feds say they can't drill in the tracts that they purchased from the Government?
Obama needs that money for his spring break.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 05, 2013 at 07:28 PM
pager,
Here's more on the Towing ship's problems from different stories:
KODIAK -- Even for experienced U.S. Coast Guard crews, the situation with the Kulluk was hairy.
The December easterly storm in the Gulf of Alaska was blowing hard. A week into a month-long journey that began Dec. 21 from Dutch Harbor to the Seattle area for off-season maintenance, Royal Dutch Shell's prized oil drilling rig had broken its tow in 20-plus-foot seas and 45-mph winds. The Kulluk was tethered back onto a Shell-contracting towing ship, the massive, brand-new, $200 million Aiviq, with a backup towline.
Then, early on Dec. 28, all four engines on the Aiviq failed.
The Shell-owned Kulluk is a complex contraption to maneuver. It cannot propel itself, so when it breaks from the tow it's a runaway rig at sea. It's round, 266 feet in diameter and weighs just less than 28,000 tons -- more than 50 million pounds
Now the Political Spin:
The vessel that was towing the rig, the Aiviq, is owned and run by the politically connected Louisiana company Edison Chouest Offshore.
Edison Chouest was the top campaign contributor in the most recent election cycle for Hastings as well as Alaska Republicans Rep. Don Young and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.
Then the next paragraph down they slip in this:
The company is also among the top donors to Alaska Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, who also supports Shell’s offshore efforts.
And now there is speculation Shell was hurrying moving the rig to beat Taxes:
the company believed it might avoid millions in state taxes by removing the rig from Alaska before the first of the year, a Shell spokesman told the local newspaper.
Whether tax considerations drove the decision for the rig to leave port when it did -- only to run aground on Dec. 31 in a fierce Gulf of Alaska storm after breaking free from its tow -- has been a subject of speculation and questions this week.
Whatever caused it, it's a hell of a mess, and thankfully no oil has yet spilled.
Posted by: daddy | January 05, 2013 at 07:33 PM
--Ig-
You wouldn't believe what Bill Mumy does in his spare time, now.
(Yes, he's half of the group.)--
I used to know that and forgot, Mel.
Used to listen to that tune on Dr Demento all the time.
My favorite though was wrastlin' legend Freddie Blassie with his immortal Pencil Neck Geek.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 05, 2013 at 07:34 PM
My favorite though was wrastlin' legend Freddie Blassie with his immortal Pencil Neck Geek.
When I used to do college radio programming, there was a guy from the local art institute who had a show before mine where he'd take a request for anything but also honor a request to stop playing something that was currently on. Needless to say, the latter provision used to produce some irate calls from the original requester, to which he'd reply "You know the rules".
For some reason, Pencil Neck Geek was played a lot on his show.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 05, 2013 at 07:44 PM