A fitting award for Bill Kristol’s protege:
Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this year, one stood out from the rest.
The claim set political debate afire when it was made in August, raising issues from the role of government in health care to the bounds of acceptable political discussion. In a nod to the way technology has transformed politics, the statement wasn’t made in an interview or a television ad. Sarah Palin posted it on her Facebook page.
Her assertion — that the government would set up boards to determine whether seniors and the disabled were worthy of care — spread through newscasts, talk shows, blogs and town hall meetings. Opponents of health care legislation said it revealed the real goals of the Democratic proposals. Advocates for health reform said it showed the depths to which their opponents would sink. Still others scratched their heads and said, “Death panels? Really?”
The editors of PolitiFact.com, the fact-checking Web site of the St. Petersburg Times, have chosen it as our inaugural “Lie of the Year.”
Congratulations, wingnuts. Your anointed leader is so dishonest, independent fact-checkers are forced to make up new awards to explore the full depth of her deceit. I’m impressed.
Wingnuts number 1! Wingnuts number 1!
This proves that there is a liberal media bias, no?
Just Some Fuckhead
The year is not over yet.
She didn’t really mean it, but she did.
Palin: “I won something? SHOW ME THE MONEY!”
Last night, I decided I wanted to be Sarah Palin. Less self-awareness and more self-confidence. Sure she’s an idiot, but she doesn’t know it, so who cares?
I’m just happy that we’re calling the bullshit LIES now. It took the press a looooooong time to be willing to pull out the L word, but lord, lord, am I glad we’re finally allowed to call a lying motherfucker a lying motherfucker.
@asiangrrlMN: HA! Also. (Can you tell that I’m at my desk “working” this afternoon?)
@ellaesther: Yes, I can tell. I, too, am glad a lie is a lie is finally a goddamn lie.
Palin is currently in the Wilde zone – the only thing worse than people talking about her is if they quite talking about her.
It’s all feed for the victimization machine.
Fixed. Don’t thank me, it’s my job.
General Winfield Stuck
You know who else won an Award?
At least 7.1% of PolitiFact readers are fucking morons, however:
With 7.1 percent of the vote, President Obama’s statement that “preventive care saves money.”
The conservatives have had a hellova week. First getting the John Birchers signed on to sponsor C-PAC, and now this.
All the Dems have delivered is a 60th vote on HCR.
Holy god, Fox News has a new HealthCare Countdown graphic complete with scary intro music.
Oh noes, teh Republicans can’t stop it! Whatever will we do? Good god.
@Corpsicle: The same people who thought inflating your tires was a bad idea.
kommrade reproductive vigor
It blew away St. Ron’s assertion that Medicare would lead to the United Soc ia list States of America and gave us not at all over the top posters comparing health care reform to the Holocaust. Also!
Ten bucks says some fucktard shoots up the local health clinic to protect reaLAMErica.
@General Winfield Stuck: I believe Hitler was Time’s Man of the Year at one point. I can’t wait till Princess Sarah wins it.
I was hoping Sarah had won a Darwin award. Damn,
Well, the first thing we’ll do is make sure that those republicans can get health insurance despite having the pre-existing condition of an exploded head.
Dr. I. F. Stone
There’s nothing, absolutely nothing, “independent” about this newspaper feature. To consider them in that category would be the functional equivalent of considering Joseph Goebbels as a disinterested and neutral observer of Jewish lives during The Third Reich.
@Dr. I. F. Stone:
You just compared Politifact to…Goebbels.
My mind. Boggled it is.
At least he didn’t mention Hitler. Well, by name he didn’t. Small victories, people. Small victories.
She was hoping for a No Bell Piece Prize.
@David: Taco Bell Pizza Prize?
@Fencedude: I’m surprised it took until comment #18 to get a Third Reich comparison. Trolls are having a lazy Sunday, it seems.
@Dr. I. F. Stone: Your initials stand for “I’m Fucking” and the D got moved off the last name, am I right?
A Mom Anon
The Husband and I took the teenager to see Avatar today in 3-D. Wow. Very cool. I’m glad we went to the theater to see it. I usually hold out for DVD so I can avoid the theater crowds,but I made an exception for this one. It’s kinda long,but worth it,if you like special effects and the like.
Let me see if I can translate from the wingnut for you fencedude, you see Politifact is almost identical to Factcheck.org (cause they both contain the word “fact”) and Factcheck is run by the Annenberg Foundation which once had someone serving on a totally unrelated board by the name of Bill Ayers and also Obama served on the same board at the same time Ayers did which really means that Politifact is just a Bill Ayers run Obot organization. (I hope I got that right cause you know the pretzel logic is hard to unravel sometimes).
Did someone mention pretzel logic?
Yes I’m dying to be a star and make them laugh
Sound just like a record on the phonograph
Those days are gone forever
Over a long time ago, oh yeah
EDIT: Ack! Fixed link, although Rikki could be appropriate, too.
In any case, it doesn’t matter what nefarious forces are behind Politifact. The “death panel” meme was one of the poisonous lies in the whole HCR debate. Except Princess Sarah wasn’t its creator. Let’s give credit where credit is due.
So pointing out blatant lies about health care reform makes Polifact like Goebbels? I wonder how many holocaust survivors would agree with that. I suppose a right-winger is as qualified as anyone to make such a statement, though… You’re a War on Christmas veteran, right?
Did “palling around with terrorists” win last year? Does the woman spout anything but lies?
No death panels, in case you weren’t sure.
Edit – Bill Kristol should get the 2009 Still Always Wrong Award, also too.
Death takes a Holiday
Death Panels – aka as “Health Insurance Companies”. Since they spent millions to keep us from getting ANY kind of meaningful health care reform so be it. I would like to see their lives get as miserable as any of the 45,000 people that die each year from not having any kind of health care insurance. It’s not going to come from the congress (even though they are the best that money can buy). Maybe it needs to start at a state level.
they need to get slapped down BIG time. How many uninsured is enough? 75 million, 100 million. Otherwise we’ll just be back here five years from now and see more of this:
Because the editors of the St. Petersburg Times wants to put Sarah Palin in a gas chamber and then incinerate her corpse.
Right. It all makes sense with Tea Bagger logic.
@Sly: that had to be Doug cuz no one is truly that inane. Sorry B.O.B.
Tech question for all you puter savvy peeps out there. I keep getting Yahoo e-mail alerts telling me I have to confirm my account or face deletion of my account. However, the reply links to a Hong Kong yahoo address ( [email protected]) and there are numerous mispellings etc., in the e-mails themselves (ie just hit the reply botton) . I am assuming these are phishing. Please confirm my suspicions for me thanks!
If there were ever a more perfect set up for my mood, and my previous link for JSF in previous thread. That would be this, Mary.
The CD is one of my all time faves and can be purchased here, via the BJ amazon link.
New York Rock & Soul Revue: Live At The Beacon
Politifact won a Pulitzer for their fact-checking of the Presidential election.
That just proves they’re biased. Conservatives are too stupid and lazy to run a prestigious competition, so it is always left to the left.
Obviously. The teabagger response pretty much writes itself: “Oh, we’re supposed to care that some far-left outfit is so blinded by hatred for Sarah Palin because she’s one of us and not part of the biased liberal elite?”
The Lying Time is Over
The following should all receive an award for complete and utter bullshit spewed regarding the health care debate:
There was a debate and there was a corporate funded lie fest that was funded and given coverage in our insane excuse for a media.
To hell with them all.
You are indeed being phished.
Fan chew, fan chew very much. Hitting delete.
Speaking of LOTY, why the vote at 1am tonight, er, tomorrow? The Right is lying that the vote is in the dead of night to “hide it”. Yeah, right, like no one is paying attention to it. So, why give them the ammunition?
There’s a rule specifying a 30-hour period between the final agreement and the vote. One am Monday is 30 hours after the late-Friday-night agreement. If the Lying Fvcktard Party didn’t want to stay over the weekend, they could’ve stopped tantruming any time since last August.
@Litlebritdifrnt: They’re phishes. Never respond to any “confirm your information” message. I can’t think of any legitimate service that sends them, and it’s too difficult for many people to determine whether the supplied URL really goes to the correct domain and, even if it does, that it doesn’t do something (e.g., delete your account, mail your personal info to a phisher-selected email address,etc.) that you don’t want.
@The Dangerman: Because of the Republicans delays, this is the only way that the Senate can approve the bill and go home for Xmas. Each step that they take causes a 30 hour delay. They could just say the hell with it but they are determined to get it done. After the summer of tea baggers, I can’t blame them.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
Speaking of “Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”, Al Franken decided to post a diary at Kos. He actually got troll rated by one member and there is a donnybrook of stupidity interlaced throughout the generally overall positive comments.
I guess that for some there Al ain’t the great liberal that he was when he won his race. A random sampling of the negative comments:
Which got this great response:
And so it goes…lol! Nucking Futz.
Whiny assed kitteh babies
Congress was set to take a Christmas recess on December 18. They have to do it this way because of their own arcane parliamentary rules.
But it’s good raw meat for their constituents for GOP lawmakers to whine about not having time to read the bill and votes in the dead of night.
Just Some Fuckhead
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal): I appreciate you trolling through comments looking for stuff to smear the other side with but the same shit is happening on your side. Didn’t you read any of the shit directed at Howard Dean? Hell, Bernie Sanders got a little heat for speaking up about the bills flaws.
So let’s just both agree that “your side sucks”. Howz that?
(Edit: and none of us knows what side pseudonymous comments are really on anyway)
@A Mom Anon:
“Avatar” in five panels. :)
For my money, St. Pete Times is one of the best newspapers in America, due in no little part to the fact that they are, I believe, one of only two newspapers in the country published by non-profit entities. Husband and I just got back to the midwest today from St. Pete Beach, and I miss that paper as much as I do beach and weather.
So does “Lie of the Year” mean the most egregious lie of the year or the most successful lie of the year?
Or are they now the same thing?
Are they going to have some sort of ceremony to bestow the award? That might make for fun TV! Call them the “Lie-eez” or something. Statue could be of Pinocchio.
I think the award should be renamed the “Richard M. Nixon Lie of the Year Award” just to tart it up a little. Of course, Nixon was so much smarter than Palin that he’s practically in another galaxy, but they do share a common sociopathic personality.
joe from Lowell
60 votes, baby.
Clearly not the most successful.
I still can’t believe this woman is more than likely going to be trotted out to do “battle” with Obama in four years.
The GOP really has no one better suited than “The Thrilla From Wasillia”?
I think it should be renamed the “Richard M. Nixon Lie of the Year Award just to tart it up a little. Of course Nixon was so much smarter than Palin he’s practically in another galaxy. But they do share those delightful sociopathic inclinations.
I wish. She’s in it for the money. She might make a token run, which would stir up of the faithful. And could make for quite a convention. But I have a feeling she’ll beg off, claiming her family needs her as she drags the two littlest ones around the country while she flings meat to troo beleevers
“I wish. She’s in it for the money. She might make a token run, which would stir up of the faithful. And could make for quite a convention. But I have a feeling she’ll beg off, claiming her family needs her as she drags the two littlest ones around the country while she flings meat to troo beleevers”
I just think of how much Clinton rakes in now having done his eight years. Hell, she could run and lose, and still do a whirlwind signing tour for her new book: “The Tea Party Revolution: Why the Liberal Media and Obama Hate the Baby Jesus”.
I can has a Tina Fey SNL sketch of Bible Spice doing just that please?
Now that she was won the Lie-of-The-Year award, does that mean she’s quit lying halfway through?
@YankeeApologist: Except, you know, being the prez is haaaaaard. Why the hell would she want to be prez when she can get all this grift for doing no work at all?
If there’s one thing Sarah Palin doesn’t like, it’s work. Especially hard work. She quits most things before she has to do any of that.
Running for President is hard work. She’ll never do it. She might make a stab at it, but will quit early when the going gets tough.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Awww, you jealous that someone is treading on your turf JSF? Isn’t that special. ;)
Regarding crazies on both sides: Duh Ralph.
@Violet: Exactly. When she realizes she has to do more than pose for a few photo ops and spout word salad, she’ll quit.
Thanks for venturing there, so we don’t have to.
It’s been freeper-like city.
Just Some Fuckhead
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal): Sorry, I meant “Trolling” in the traditional sense of the term, like “fishing”, not in the “trollish” sense. Shoulda chosen my words more carefully.
Wondering what people think of this story?
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
I think it is getting a bit better there in the comments lately though I have been watching some good people just give up and leave the place. I really enjoyed the picture diaries of the Obama administration that two posters used to make but they have quit Kos because of the negative atmosphere there.
They sure welcomed Obama there when he posted way back when. He was so welcomed over there that he never bothered returning. Smart guy.
How in the hell does Pittsburgh give up 22pts in the 4th quarter?
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@Just Some Fuckhead:
It’s called “nutpicking” JSF. Sadly it is clear that you are not aware of all internet traditions.
Shame on you… ;)
Has anyone called 911 for Cole yet?
Grumpy Old Man
Wow. The Steelers play long ball.
@Carwin: Holy shit. Cole! Is this normal for the military?
And, I can haz Vikings open thread?
P.S. And, my usual futile request for a pic of Tunchie.
Mister Colorful Analogy
For. The. Win.
Thanks for the big laugh; hope I didn’t scare the neighbors.
I know Tomlin will get a lot of shit for that onside but if the guy who got penalized for the illegal touch had hit Matthews instead, his teammate had a clear shot at recovering the ball after it traveled 10 yards.
Great end to the game though.
Except, you know, being the prez is haaaaaard. Why the hell would she want to be prez when she can get all this grift for doing no work at all?
Matt Taibbi seems to agree with you: http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/11/23/yes-sarah-there-is-a-media-conspiracy/
There is actually some good-faith controversy over whether preventive care saves money. I think it probably does but I don’t think believing otherwise is stupid.
Regarding your OT story on women being marginalized by the US Army, in other news, the sun came up today. My cousin is an Air Force mechanic is having this happen to her right now. She’s being essentially stalked by another dude from the base, and she can’t get anyone to do anything about it.
I wish there was something a civilian could do about it, because I know Uncle Sam doesn’t give a fuck.
No it is not but I believe it is absolutely correct. Women in the military can be a menace (speaking as a former woman in the military), some of them use their gender to their advantage, don’t want to stay at sea? Get pregnant. Don’t want to stay in Iraq? Get pregnant. They are an utter disgrace and I believe that Courts Martial is the appropriate punishment. I am absolutely disgusted by the birth announcements from Camp Lejeune here in the local paper, there are a boat load of single women marines having children out of wedlock. Personally (yeah call me a right wing nut) I think if you are in the military and you have a child out of wedlock, male or female, you should be discharged. There was a Staff Sergeant in my husband’s command who had been in the USMC for 14 years, she had 5 children and 4 miscarriages. She had basically been on sick leave for 14 years and yet she got promoted on a regular basis and was able to retire eventually, having achieved the square root of nothing during her career, due to either being pregnant or recovering from a pregnancy or a miscarriage. It is utterly pointless.
Yes, god damn those women, willfully miscarrying so they can achieve a mid-level enlisted rank in 14 years. Parasites, I tell you.
Why is that story about women being marginalized? It is a story about women who don’t want to fulfil their committment and earn their paychecks and get pregnant to dodge out of their duty, thereby causing their male brethren (who have no such ability) to step into their shoes, sometimes at very short notice. Birth control isn’t rocket science, I have somehow managed to get to the age of 50 (almost) without having ever been pregnant. Except in very unusual circumstances, a woman doesn’t get pregnant these days unless she wants to. They should be held accountable for their actions. Up until now they have not been.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Come and talk to me when you are responsible for paying someone to do a job for 14 years when said person has been physically incapable of doing said job for the entire 14 years, I am sure you will have a wonderful take on that when it is coming out of your pocket (a clue – it is). There is a reason that pregnancy used to be grounds for immediate discharge in the military. Pity political correctness got rid of that.
@YankeeApologist: Huh. Don’t think that’s the point he was trying to make. I stand by it, though. She’s a lazy-ass grifter, through and through.
@Litlebritdifrnt: You actually think anyone who gets pregnant, including married service people should be discharged if they get pregnant? I don’t think that’s fair or right. In addition, just because you haven’t gotten pregnant doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I know women who have been responsible and have gotten pregnant. I disagree with you. There will always be people gaming the system.
Is it really that difficult for you to understand that women (like men!) should have complete, unquestioned control over their reproductive systems? Even women in the military?
And yes, you are a right wing wing nut. Maybe Red State would be a better place for you to post.
a) You know absolutely nothing about me, ergo you have no clue about my political leanings (here’s a clue idiot, I worked for the Obama campaign)
b) I absolutely agree that women should have control over their reproductive rights, which is why I believe that any woman who CHOOSES to get pregnant while serving in Iraq is doing so to get out of her committment of serving in Iraq.
c) I am a 14 year veteran of the WRNS, I know of which I speak.
Thanks for playing.
The military is a slightly different situation from your average nine-to-five job. Your hours are whatever is required and/or ordered, your boss has unquestioned (and almost complete) authority over you, including putting you in life-threatening situations, and you can’t just give two weeks’ notice and resign if you decide you don’t want to do it any more. You signed up for the whole tour. So, in that context, yeah, women are looking at a situation in which they might have to modulate their complete, unquestioned control over their reproductive systems.
Stupid double post. I swear I didn’t click twice.
No I think if you are married it is a different situation entirely. However you have no idea the problems that unmarried parents have on the military (and cause themselves) I would point out that single parents as a result of a divorce or death do not fit into this scenario, they are for the most part situations not of their own choosing. I am talking about single people who deliberately choose to have children out of wedlock. They cause tremendous headaches for the military, particularly when it comes to overseas deployments. If a single mother is set to deploy and there are simply no family members to take care of the child, then what do they do? They have to cancel the orders and send a married (usually) guy in their stead. It is not fair. If you are accepting the paycheck then you should be able to do the job. Period. I will not give a woman a pass simply because she is a woman.
Mike in NC
Presumably the general got this no-pregnancy policy decision blessed by the higher-ups in his chain of command (Petraeus et al) and called in the JAG types to verify the legality. Otherwise he’ll be laughed out of the next room he enters.
I couldn’t give less of a shit who you volunteer for. If you think people should be kicked out of the military for unplanned pregnancies, and if you think women like the one you mentioned are literally causing themselves to miscarry to get out of duty, then yes, you’re a wingnut.
I did no such thing, idiot. I stated that said Staff Sergeant had NINE pregnancies in the course of a 14 year “career”, I never suggested for a moment that anyone, let alone her was causing themselves to miscarry. You might need to take a speed “reading comprehension” course. Like I said, thanks for playing.
I don’t recall anyone asserting this.
I understand all that. The point is that men are under no such obligation. A situation where men serve under one expectation and women serve under another is what I object to. And there is no way that an organization like the American military would enforce a “no unplanned pregnancy” rule with anything resembling fairness.
So we can blow up the idea of an gender-integrated military over a few suspiciously-sourced anecdotes of lazy women getting pregnant just to get out of duty (and to move up a grand total of five ranks in 14 years), or we can, you know, preserve the already unfair status quo for women in the military.
Except under the most extreme of circumstances these days, there is rarely such a thing as “an unplanned pregnancy” that is like saying that you have “an unplanned aids infection”.
It’s unavoidable. Men can’t get pregnant.
I have news for you, there is a huge difference between men and women, men can’t get pregnant. They can do all the impregnating they want, six days a week and twice on sundays, but they do not have to suffer the consequences. Women do, and more’s the point, THEY KNOW IT.
Are you saying that it is completely and utterly acceptable for a very heavily pregnant female (wearing her specially adapted cammies) charging ahead on the front line carrying a gun and engaging the enemy all the while wondering when her water is going to break? I would like to explore this scenario with you.
The good effect that came out of all this lying is that once any government involvement was purged from the bill, Republicans lined up to support it.
Maybe you didn’t say that specifically. But the wingnuts in my life would have mentioned the miscarriages as if those wily women were simply deploying their reproductive systems to get out of the duty they signed up for.
But disregard the specific case you mention here. Your post is a classic example of wingnut thinking – take an anecdote, pile a lot of outrageous bullshit on (like your assertion that “political correctness” is at fault for this one example, assuming it’s even true, of a woman achieving something she may not have totally deserved – although SSgt in 14 years isn’t exactly a blinding promotion rate), and use the anecdote to justify sexist and/or racist political ideas.
It’s the same process as the countless people you’ve surely heard asserting that they’ve seen Lexuses at welfare offices, or people buying filet mignon with food stamps, and using bullshit stories like these to complain about the lazy blacks or whatever minority is currently the target, and then to assert we should abolish welfare, food stamps, and WIC.
What’s missing, of course, is any sober and reasoned analysis of what the military’s current policy on women means, you know, for the military. Let’s say your worst assumption about the SSgt under your husband’s command is true – that she repeatedly got pregnant so as to avoid her military duties. Great, that’s one example. How many qualified and talented women, on the other hand, joined the military because they knew that they didn’t have to choose between having a family and serving their country – even those that haven’t had kids yet? What’s the cost/benefit of the “politically-correct” rules regarding pregnancy?
I’d suspect that for every third-hand story of evil military women defrauding the government with endless pregnancies there are several qualified and talented women who are serving in the first place because they don’t have to make that choice.
The Moar You Know
@Corey: Have you served? If the answer is anything but “yes”, then shut the fuck up.
If the answer somehow happens to be “yes”, then I am simply gobsmacked at the idea that a current or former service member might somehow be under the misapprehension that the armed forces, who have the complete and unquestioned ability and legal authority to (literally) tell you when and how you are to die somehow doesn’t have the right to tell you that you can’t get pregnant without suffering some fairly mild consequences for it.
I would also have to conclude that a person possessing such an ethereal grasp of the reality of military life would almost certainly have to be a former US Air Force officer, but even most of them seem to understand, albeit in a very dim way, that their actions have consequences for their careers.
One more thing; just to pile on and be a dick by pointing out a further example of your idiocy, I might also point out that Lilbrit is a BRITISH veteran, not American, and that the rank of Staff Sergeant means something entirely different in their system than ours.
Thank you, I could not agree with you more. I absolutely and completely agree with every word in that last post. I am simply saying that there has to be some sort of checks and balances when it comes to women serving in the military. We choose to serve, and as such we have to accept that there are some things that we cannot do without adversely affecting our brothers in arms, and getting pregnant is one of them. I do not expect to be paid for a job that I am physically incapable of doing. While I understand that there are scenarios where a married female active duty person will get pregnant (cause that’s what married ladies tend to do), I do not expect a single female serving in Iraq to do the same. A single female in Iraq getting pregnant has only one motive, and it isn’t having a baby.
@Litlebritdifrnt: Yeah they do.
Life would be a bit more fair if anybody who got a servicewoman pregnant would be sent out in her place–civilians and workers in artificial insemination clinics not excepted. I bet we’d see some people be a hell of a lot more careful where they spread their seed. ;)
Yes, I get that men are unable to get pregnant. But men and women alike are expected to maintain their “fitness to serve,” and they can get booted for not doing that. Presumably women know going in that the military is not a regular job and that they might have to temporarily moderate their complete and unquestioned control over their reproductive system.
@The Moar You Know:
Wingnut thinking really does run deep around these parts. It doesn’t matter whether I’ve served or not. In this country, civilians get to criticize the military. Welcome to America.
As to the substance of your post – read my long one above. Can you tell me how many women in the US armed services are getting pregnant? What’s the percentage? Can you tell me how many of those pregnancies are unplanned and/or out of wedlock? How many of them pose serious operational challenges to the service member’s unit?
Now, can you tell me how many women are serving in the first place because of the military’s ability to handle planned pregnancies? Let’s say you’re female, you’re 22, you’ve graduated college at the top of your class and you’re going to OCS. But you’ve got a fiance too, or even if you don’t, you’d like to get married and have a family at some point. Do we want to turn that young woman away because she’ll be penalized if she does what most young, straight people want to do? What’s more important – the 20 year career that young woman might have, or the five months of leave she’ll get if she gets pregnant?
I’m extremely uncomfortable with the idea of penalizing pregnancy in any way, especially when it seems so goddamn unnecessary and punitive. No one has posted a coherent policy reason, beyond a few anecdotes, of why this should happen.
I do not expect to be paid for a job that I am physically incapable of doing.
This is the entire basis of family leave in the private sector. I don’t expect everyone to be staunch feminists. But jeez, this is liberalism 101.
A single female in Iraq getting pregnant has only one motive, and it isn’t having a baby.
You assume a lot – that everyone has perfect knowledge about birth control (a study out this week showed that something like 20% of men believed that having sex standing up was an effective method of birth control), that birth control is available in the first place (can you get condoms on base in Iraq?). Also you neglect the fact that sometimes, shit happens. Men and women have sex, and it’s naive to think that it won’t happen, even in a war zone.
Actually it is more likely to happen in a war zone, you tend to do stupid things when you are facing death. However, a woman’s ability to control her fertility is not the result of “do you have protection” while fumbling about in the dark. It is a long term process whereby one makes an appointment with a doctor,one fills out a prescription, and one takes a pill (or a shot) on a regular basis. A woman serving in Iraq who gets pregnant while serving in Iraq is not the “victim” of an unplanned pregnancy, she is using her body to get out of a combat zone.
Failure rates of birth control methods (per year of use).
birth control perfect use actual use
No Method 85 85
Spermicides 18 29
Male Condoms 2 15
Female Condoms 5 21
Diaphragm 6 16
Cervical FemCap w/o prior pregnancy 4 14
Sponge w/o prior pregnancy 9 16
Sponge w/ prior pregnancy 20 32
Ovulation Method 3 22
Sympto-Thermal 2.5 16
Standard Days Method 5 12
Calendar Method 5 13-20
Lactation (LAM) 0.5 6
Withdrawal 4 27
Oral Contraceptives 0.3 8
Ortho Evra Patch 0.3 8
Nuva Ring 0.3 8
Shot (Depo-Provera) 0.3 3
Shot (Lunelle) 0.05 3
IUD (ParaGard Copper) 0.8 0.6
IUD (Mirena) 0.1 0.1
Abstinence 0 0
I think it is safe to say that a lot of women get pregnant even though they are being entirely responsible about using birth control.
Uhm, not quite. Check out the failure rate for any method of birth control, short of complete removal of the ovaries. And the failure rates are worst for young, healthy women — nature really really wants us to propagate, whether or not we can physically afford to do so. Lots of us weren’t as lucky as you’ve been.
Doesn’t mean I think soldiers, especially soldiers on active duty, should be “allowed” to use pregnancy as a get-out-of-Iraq-free card. But a lot of people, including many with military experience, are not impressed with the gender-blind enforcement of no-fraternization codes. When we see as many men as women arrested for “illegal” pregnancies, I’ll agree it’s a good rule. When we see condoms / spermicides distributed as part of the standard boot camp kit, and Plan B available at every PX, even better. When mid-rank arseholes like Charles Graner are punished for taking advantage of their female subordinates, then I’ll join your cheering squad, okay?
Grrr. the numbers got all screwed up – and I went into moderation when I tried to edit.
Anywho – my point still stands – women get pregnant even though they are being entirely responsible about using birth control.
Anne – don’t shoot me I’m on your side. To begin with the new rule includes males who impregnate women in Iraq, not just the women who get pregnant. If a male impregnates a woman while serving in Iraq he is also subject to courts-martial. And yes I know that birth control is not foolproof (I have a friend who tried everything to no avail, she ended up having three kids all while being on the pill, my sister in law had five until she refused to be discharged from the hospital until they tied her tubes they screamed “you are too young” but when she basically threatened to tie herself to the bed until they did it they gave in) I am not talking about the majority of so called “unplanned pregnancies” here, the majority of these women are not immune to birth control, they are just careless or calculating.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@Corey: “Wingnut thinking really does run deep around these parts.”
/falls to floor
Ouch! Now where was I? Oh yeah…
Are you going to be performing here next week?
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal):
Yeah my thoughts exactly.
Yah, it’s the enforcement issue I’m worried about. It’s easy enuf to dump the preggers soldier, but it’s also easy — too easy — to pretend she somehow achieved this status without assistance. Especially when the man responsible for 50% of the fetal DNA is a superior officer… or a Blackwater, excuse me ‘Xe’, contractor. And you know rapists are gonna use the “Let me do what I want, or I’ll do it anyway and you’ll be punished for getting pregnant” threat. Am I a bad person if I want one or two big, highly-publicized “show courts martial” to make it clear that the predators will get punished as well as the victims?
Nope, I think that should be the case, the more it happens, the more it will make the perps think with something other than their dicks.
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal):
Asserting that only people who have served in the military have the right to comment on military affairs is classic wingnut
Asserting that people who have served in the military have a more informed perspective is classic common sense; denying that tells me that I may be dealing with someone lacking it.
Do you have common sense? Because, so far, your arguments are more ideological than reality based.
Not only do they not have complete, unquestioned control over their reproductive systems in the military, but I might point out that they do not have complete, unquestioned control over their reproductive systems in civilian life. As a civilian, you have the right to bitch. In the military, your ass (and all you might want to do with it), IS under the control of someone else.
Perhaps that needs to be a disclaimer on the enlistment form…?
We’ve been going back and forth about this for hours; so far, I haven’t seen a single statistic or other reality-based piece of commentary that a blanket prohibition on pregnancy would be, on net, a good thing for the military. Nor have I seen any evidence beyond one or two anecdotes that this kind of thing is at all problematic.
If you can prove that the current regulations are causing, on net, a productivity loss for the military, then feel free. But you can’t. It sounds like your opposition is more ideological than anyone’s.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
No it isn’t and unless you can link me to a definitive source that you are grounding that statement on then it is clear that you are talking out of your ass in a lame attempt to brand your statements as correct since you think everyone who disagrees with you on this subject must be a “classic wingnut”.
IOW you are trying to shut down discussion by dismissing the opinions of others out of hand and justifying this by positioning yourself as the civilian authority on this matter.
FWIW, I have never served in the military but would have liked to (health issues). When it comes to decisions like this I will defer to the authorities on this subject, those who have to deal with it, unless I believe that it is something outrageous or egregious.
This is not. The military is not the equivalent of civilian life, the military literally owns you until you are released from service (and sometimes even that don’t end it). If someone makes a commitment to a body such as our military then I believe that they should do the best they can to fulfill it.
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal):
So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! Do you ladies understand?
The St. Petersburg Times should send her a case of tomatoes to commemorate the prestigious honor.
My only problem with this whole conversation is that while it IS indeed true that some women use their ovaries to remove themselves from a dangerous situation they agreed to, the article that discusses this links to another article that implicitly states that one out of every three women who serves gets sexually assaulted in some way or another, and the officers asked to comment basically throw their hands up and say “Yeah, we’re working on it.”
“We’re working on it, we’re obviously not where we want to be on this” is nowhere near as strong as “You’re fucking court-martialed if your birth control fails”.
So yeah, I think there’s a little bit of woman-marginalizing happening here.