When good polls go bad

One can only wonder where the freepers were 3 weeks ago when this Angus Reid poll was done. It's bad news all around for fetus fetishists as the Sun reports, "Canada a pro-choice country: Poll":

"An overwhelming majority of Canadians continue to support women's right to abort pregnancies, but a recent national survey found the country is split when asked who should foot the bill. The online Angus-Reid poll -- conducted June 4 and 5 of 1,000 adult Canadians -- found 91% of respondents supported abortions under certain circumstances, and only 5% would outlaw it altogether." (emphasis -- hahahaha! -- mine)

91% Pro-Choice! That certainly got the propellers spinning on a few "FD" beanies:

"Online polls are notoriously stacked by organizations that spam them to get the desired result": NOOOOO! Outrageous! Who knew!? But when poll numbers don't go your way, what do you do? Give the messenger two behind the ear, that's what! Bang! Bang!:

While the Sun article could hardly be characterized as a "flat-out lie", I absolutely agree with the sentiment -- dishonesty, manipulation and all manner of odious and squalid lies and distortions should be retracted forthwith and the perpetrators beaten like junkyard dogs.

And yeah, what he said.

Oh man, in my excited delirium at the thought of kicking some fetus fetishist arse yesterday, when I mentioned SUZANNE's post back here I forgot to harp on an irksome side issue -- her use of the disingenuous term "pro-abort" to describe pro-choicers. (Thanks to CC for the reminder.)

The term "pro-abortion" is hyperbole of the highest order. I don't know any pro-choice person who thinks of themselves as "pro-abortion". "Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! Let's all go get pregnant so we can have abortions! Yeah!" -- sound reasonable? Abortion is just one of many reproductive choices pro-choicers support (including pregnancy); that's why we are pro-choice. "Pro-abortion" is high-pressure anti-choice hysteria, out-bullshitted only by the toe-curling, pearl-clutching, pants-pissing "Culture Of Death" that they claim pro-choicers propagate. Right, and our refrigerators are well-stocked with "fetus, the other white meat":

Maybe it's the fire-breathing, bible-thumping, god-bothering bullshit they wallow in, but anti-choicers seem to take orgasmic pleasure in disseminating myths and misinformation. Another one of their favourites is the myth that Planned Parenthood has to "promote" more more more! abortion because without it they'd go broke. Then *RIIINNNNGG*! Reality calls and leaves a message for the fetus fetishists: abortion is only 3% of PP's business. No matter how they try to twist pro-choice into "pro-abortion", it just doesn't work.

Interestingly (if you're a Word Geek like me), even the chronology of the lexicon is on our side. The term "pro-choice" came first -- it first appeared in the Wall Street Journal (March 20, 1975) in an article by Alan L. Otten. Anti-abortionists, anxious to disassociate themselves from the negative "anti" and adopt a slogan as upbeat as "pro-choice", later came up with "pro-life". The term first appeared in the New York Times in an article by William Safire (January 18, 1976). In 1989, Safire presciently wrote:

"In the coming political struggles in state legislatures, watch the anti-abortion forces belatedly try to change the terms of the debate from >pro-choice v. pro-life to the starker >pro-abortion v. anti-abortion. Watch the pro-choice forces resist this mightily. Words count."

But in any war of words, the winner will always be the one that best describes the reality, and it ain't "pro-abort".

Strawman Fetishists

Talking to some people is like talking to a wall. Except a wall might be more open-minded and responsive.

Along with about 80% of the blogosphere, a couple of days ago I had a snarky laugh at the expense of the infamous Duggars of the 17 (and counting) kids. For this I received some flack from SUZANNE of BigBlueWave, who postulated that my opinion -- "it's just not cool" -- makes me "anti-choice" because I didn't "support" Mrs. Duggar's choice (to crank out kids ad infinitum). In SUZANNE's comment section, I politely(!) and handily dismantled this little straw man by clarifying the distinctions between supporting the right of "choice" in principle and agreeing with individual choices. Just because I'm pro-choice, it doesn't automatically follow that I must agree with all the choices; just the right to make them. That's where it ends for me. The actual choices people make, well... heh... some of them are good snark-fodder, but that's it.

As I said in SUZANNE's comment section, there's a vast difference between supporting the right of personal "choice" and agreeing with the individual choices made. Mrs. Duggar has a right to choose 17 or 70 kids, or none -- I support her right to choose, whether I agree with her actual choice is a non-issue. She has sovereignty over herself and can make her own choices; beyond supporting her right to do so, it's nobody's business. (However, when people choose to shine a public light on their private lives as the Duggars have, as others such as Cindy Sheehan have, they invite commentary, positive and negative. And snark. Mustn't forget snark.)

To make things really, really simple: someone working in his garden has the right to choose to leave his rake anywhere he wants. Maybe he then chooses to leave it standing up with the rake end on the bottom. Not the choice I'd make, and I'd even characterize it as a Bad Choice, because... Later he walks by, steps on the rake and the handle whacks him in the noggoon. Me: amazed and amused, but not ready to take away the guy's right to decide how to deal with his gardening implements. See how this works?

It's telling that SUZANNE et al can't grasp the concept of supporting the right to make a choice they don't agree with. SUZANNE isn't a stupid woman -- there's something else at work here, the anti-choice movement's fundamental lack of respect for the sovereignty of self.

I do think it's ironic that people who can make sense of a concept like "Love the sinner, hate the sin" find it so difficult to conceive of the idea that supporting choice in principle doesn't mean supporting all the choices. I unequivocally support the right to choose, but reserve my own right to be amazed, amused and even a bit appalled by some of the choices made.

UPDATE: More so-con pap. Leonard here seems to think I should be thanking my lucky stars for those bigass families because they'll be supporting my retirement. Newsflash, pally: 40 years of busting my ass working and paying CPP premiums, and making smart investments in property, RRSPs, mutual funds etc. will be paying for MY retirement. Those kids will be paying for YOURS.

Republicans and their memories

Why is it that these guys seem to be perpetually overdrawn at the memory bank? Everyone remembers Alberto Gonzales' compelling testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

"I can't remember... I don't recall... I don't remember... I can't recall..."
Now GOP presidential hopeful Fred Thompson has joined the ranks of the memory-impaired with regard to the lobbying work he did for an abortion rights group:

"WASHINGTON - Fred Thompson says he "has no recollection" of lobbying on behalf of a family planning group.

The Los Angeles times reports that back in 1991 Thompson lobbied then President George Bush to relax a regulation that prevents federally funded clinics from offering abortion counseling."

Let's review. On Friday the LA Times (and since then, others) revealed Thompson lobbied for a pro-choice organization in the early 90's. The lobbying alone, regardless of the client, is probably enough to cast suspicion on him in authoritarian circles. One does not question a Republican administration! But when the client is a Planned Parenthood-type pro-choice organization, and the lobbying is for abortion rights... oh, the pearl-clutching and swooning and... quick! to the fainting couch!

On the weekend, "Blogs for Fred" was calling it a "swing and miss" hit piece by the LA Times. Today they're calling it "sloppy", a smear campaign by the left, probably Clinton's campaign. (When in doubt, "Clinton" out.) The latest Rasmussen poll shows that in a Clinton/Thompson match-up, they'd be head-to-head, so this possibility might almost be believable. Except that three days after the story broke, Thompson's campaign should be able to deliver a more substantial rebuttal to the allegation than memory deficit. That's the Answer of Last Resort.

It's actually reassuring to know that Thompson isn't really anti-choice, but not so reassuring that he's willing to lie to make people think he is. And if he became president and had to act that way, then there's really no difference. But come to think of it, if he lied about this his campaign's probably over anyway.