Over the the (UK) Times A dove's guide: how to be an honest critic of the war by Matthew Parris makes some very good points about possible war with Iraq.
[T]o our doves' hearts' content, we may make sport with the arguments of Bush and Blair. But when the mockery dies away do we not have to ask ourselves one awkward little remaining question? What if the undeclared major premise is true? What if the weaponry is there, just as Washington and London believed all along?
[via Nick]
According to this AP article, Groups Sue NYC Over Rally Permit Refusal, New York City has refused to issue a permit for the anti-war march United for Peace and Justice wants to hold on February 15, 2003.
Chris Dunn, a staff attorney for the New York Civil Liberties Union, who filed the lawsuit for the anti-war group, said the city had refused to permit a parade under any circumstances, citing concerns over congestion and related issues.
The court papers noted that the city routinely issues permits for large-scale marches in midtown Manhattan, including the St. Patrick's Day parade and the Thanksgiving Day parade.
Apparently the City wants a, "stationary rally on a plaza across the street from the United Nations."
The organizers of the The World Says No to War march scheduled for February 15 in New York City say:
With less than two weeks left before Feb. 15, the City of New York has still not granted our request for a permit to march and rally.
Like Tom, I'm still unsure about the necessity of deposing Saddam Hussein right now without a more convincing argument from my government. What I am sure about is our constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Why the heck should a permit for a march even be required? And if it's just a formality, why hasn't it been granted? And if it's not a formality, and it in fact may not be granted, well then I think we have a lot more to be protesting than just the potential war with Iraq. [thanks Jason]
Sunday's New York Times Magazine has a really interesting article, Reagan's Son, the Radical Presidency of George W. Bush. The premise? Bush is no centrist and certainly no idiot. Author Bill Keller draws interesting comparisons between the two presidents. I hope this doesn't portend a 49 state sweep for Bush in 2004…
An article in Fox News a few days ago by David Boaz, Democrats and the Right to Choose – What?, criticizes Democrats for not supporting "choice" more broadly, as if it's hypocritical to support individual freedoms in one instance and support the broader interests of society in the next. Boaz writes,
Whether or not you support the right to choose abortion, surely that is a more difficult issue, involving more lives and more complexities than the right to choose a school for your child, to use marijuana, or to own a gun. And yet many of the supporters of "a woman's right to choose" don't support a woman's right to make those choices.
While we're at it, I'd like the choice to yield to pedestrians when I'm driving and to pay for purchases at the store. Oh what? You say that I can't drive all high on marijuana, shooting off my gun, running down children (on their way to voucher schools of their mother's choosing) in the crosswalk? Drat. I was beginning to like libertarianism. [via Glenn]
I tried to watch the State of the Union last night. I even thought about blogging as it happened, but I realized the post would be a reactionary, emotional tirade short on insight and reflection. So I tried to listen. But eventually I got so disgusted and annoyed that I shut off the television, missing the part I'd tuned in for in the first place — the justification for going to war with Iraq.
The abortion pill RU-486 was approved for use in the United States in 2000 but a University of Oregon study, profiled in this Wired News article, Study: Abortion Pill Under Attack, finds that disinformation and political hurdles are hindering its use.
A study by University of Oregon researchers has found that access to the treatment is limited by anti-abortion campaigns, as well by legal roadblocks physicians must face in order to prescribe the drug.
"The basic issue is that the public lacks awareness of what medical abortion is and how effective and safe it is in early term pregnancies," [Maria] Harvey [director of research at the University of Oregon Center for the Study of Women in Society] said. "Women lack that info; therefore they can't be active consumers."
Harvey's paper finds that anti-abortion groups have perpetrated the notion that RU-486 is associated with serious health risks, and that it was rushed through FDA approval without sufficient study.
France approved RU-486 in 1989. England approved it in 1991. Over 200,000 European women have used RU-486 rather than surgical abortions to safely terminate pregnancies. It's outrageous that disinformation campaigns are keeping women from making informed decisions about their best course of treatment. Knowledge is power. Some people would prefer that women don't have any.
On this day two years ago, I posted a poem by Marge Piercy, "For two women shot to death in Brookline, Massachusetts."
From today's New York Times: In Turn, 6 Presidential Hopefuls Back Abortion Rights.
