PZ Myers does a better job than I ever could of explaining Plan B. Still, I will try to add my own twisted logic to the debate.

Plan B is not an abortion pill. It is a contraceptive, like a condom. It does not interfere with a fertilized egg in any way, if the woman who takes it is already pregnant. If she is not pregnant, it prevents her from getting pregnant.

So it is, in my mind, impossible to construe Plan B as something immoral. As such, it makes no sense that lame pharmacists would have any reason to have moral qualms about giving it to women that request it.

I also think the artificial age limit is ridiculous as well. If a 16-year old girl is afraid she might get pregnant and she doesn’t want to be pregnant, let’s make sure she can remain not-pregnant. You Christians can get right off your moral high-horse about how she shouldn’t have had sex if she didn’t want to get pregnant. That people, including very young adults, have sex is a fact and no amount of praying or illogical legislation is going to change that.

Rational Right Wingers should have no problem with Plan B. The fact that the FDA held this up because of the religious views of the far right is fucking insane. The FDA has no responsibility to enforce ANY ideology except that of science-based public health. Plan B is extremely safe, it does not weigh in on either side of the abortion debate, it helps prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions and it is nuts that the religious right doesn’t understand any of this.

AlterNet has an article called The Long Dive of a Woman’s Sex Drive. It discusses that recent studies show that women in monogamous relationships have a sex drive which decreases over time, whereas mens’ stays constant.

On the one hand, this should be no surprise. Men, in general, are much more obsessed with sex than women at virtually every age, place and time. As a man, though, it is still a disappointing statistic. Even in a committed, long-term, monogamous relationship, where we are having the last sex partners of our lives, women, on average, just aren’t that interested.

In the comments in the articles linked above, one sees a lot of variety. There is one women that wants the foreplay to begin in the morning so that just after dinner or so she “is ready”. Wha..? Nothing like a little 10-hour advance warning spontaneity, huh?

Then there is this moron:

As a couples therapist i am getting more and more cynical about monogamy working (especially for women). Is it my imagination but are men morons? I guess I am jaded but I don’t see much in the way of men who are good at multitasking-(father, husband, human being). Women always seem to get holding every bag there is (work, chores, kids, sex…) Men take responsibility for? moodiness.

Ummm, how is your couples therapy business going? Good thing you are not introducing any bias.

Let me be clear: I’m not saying there is anything “wrong” with women or that they have some duty to be fuck-monkeys their whole life. I’m merely stating that virtually all men wish their women would be interested in being fuck-monkeys their whole life. Sex is one of those things which is easy, not particularly time-consuming, it encourages emotional intimacy, it is good for the blood circulation and it makes men (and women) incredibly happy. It’s not a chore, it’s not work, it’s not some further duty on your already over-burdened life, its relaxing, recreational and a very special part of an intimate relationship. I just don’t get why, it seems at times, that men and women look at this so differently.

I’ll add, gratefully, that my wife does not seem to fit the statistic! I hope yours doesn’t, either.

This sure looks like a great place to work!

OK, you Righties, what is wrong with this? Senator Harry Reid said:

United with one voice, Democratic leaders from Joe Biden to John Murtha sent a clear message to George Bush — it’s time for a New Direction in Iraq. Our plan is straightforward: we believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin by the end of 2006. And our soldiers in the region should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, force protection of U.S. personnel, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces.

The problem with the George W. Bush approach is — how do we know when we are done? When did we win? When Iraq has no insurgents? That may never happen. When they have a government? They have one now. When they have an army? Like the one we decimated? They have an army and apparently half of the solders are insurgents, too.

Tell me, oh wise ones, when we will know when we are done in Iraq?

(I am leaving off the table for now my personal belief that our troops are making the situation worse by their presence and not better.)

From Kung Fu Monkey:

FDR: Oh, I’m sorry, was wiping out our entire Pacific fleet supposed to intimidate us? We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and right now we’re coming to kick your ass with brand new destroyers riveted by waitresses. How’s that going to feel?

CHURCHILL: Yeah, you keep bombing us. We’ll be in the pub, flipping you off. I’m slapping Rolls-Royce engines into untested flying coffins to knock you out of the skies, and then I’m sending angry Welshmen to burn your country from the Rhine to the Polish border.

US. NOW: BE AFRAID!! Oh God, the Brown Bad people could strike any moment! They could strike … NOW!! AHHHH. Okay, how about .. NOW!! AAGAGAHAHAHHAG! Quick, do whatever we tell you, and believe whatever we tell you, or YOU WILL BE KILLED BY BROWN PEOPLE!! PUT DOWN THAT SIPPY CUP!!

President Bush on Monday signed into law a plan to transfer San Diego’s Mount Soledad cross to federal control in an effort to avoid its court-ordered removal.

Yup, that’s our Boy George — in one fell swoop he trashes the separation of church and state and undermines the separation of powers. The fucking U.S. Defense Department now owns a gigantic cross. This completely fucked up logic seems perfectly fitting, somehow, for the theocrats.

Arianna Huffington sums up pretty well what I have been a broken record about for the last few weeks: Israel’s Tactical Catastrophe is pushing Middle East moderates to embrace Hezbollah.

But, as I’ve asked before, does Israel want to be right or does it want to win? And can victory be defined as anything other than the ability of Israel to guarantee the security and safety of its people?

I think the actions of Israel indicate that it would rather be right than win. The hawks who I argue with on blogs around the world like to believe we can “win” through military efforts. All this does is swell the ranks of Hamas and Hezbollah. Unless you kill ’em all, which is immoral and virtually impossible, you will generate enemies faster than you can kill them, just like Israel is doing right now in Lebanon and just like the US is doing in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

5 years after 9/11 George W. Bush has succeeded in making the world far less safe. The Middle East is in far worse shape than the day he took office. Our interests there are less secure. Our allies are less secure. A hundred thousand people are dead so we could put one man in jail. This is an administration of incompetence and failure and apparently one that never learns. No matter how unsuccessful we are, we never change tactics.

<a href="http://www.chank.com/&quot;
Ok, a few things about Chank.

1. Check out his cool fonts.
2. Read his blog.

Chank is the best fontographer I know. And he is a nice, albeit rather odd fellow. If you are a designer you should get Chank’s free fonts and buy his non-free fonts. Just a suggestion. If you are not a designer but still need a cool font every now and then, check out his free fonts.