Better to use formula than risk preventing your next pregnancy by breastfeedingWilliam Saletan wrote a tongue-in-cheek letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt. In it, he commends HHS's proposal to allow pharmacists and other health workers to refuse to "facilitate any abortifacient chemical or activity." Saletan writes, "I commend the language of the draft, which would define abortion as 'any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.'" But he suggests that the proposal doesn't go far enough. Why not add breastfeeding, which "like oral contraception ... alters a woman's hormonal balance, thereby suppressing ovulation, fertilization, and, theoretically, implantation." He adds, "As research uncovers additional causes of miscarriage or preimplantation embryo loss, I look forward to further legislation against caffeine consumption, exercise, and other abortifacient activities among premenopausal women."

With polls showing increased public support for more U.S. offshore oil drilling, John Wihbey cautions, "the framing" of poll questions "is paramount and the media's interpretation crucial." For example, when asked, "Do you prefer more drilling or more investment in alternative energy?," most people choose the latter. But some polls cited in support of increased drilling didn't offer alternatives; one simply asked if respondents would support drilling to "attempt to reduce the price of gasoline." While the trend is clear -- high gas prices have increased support for drilling -- "it remains unclear what mix of remedies the public actually wants." The assumption that new drilling would reduce gas prices is also questionable, meaning that some poll questions may be "built on false premises, a pipe dream held out to a desperate and cash-strapped public." Wall Street Journal blogger Keith Johnson admitted that new drilling "is unlikely to have a near-term 'practical' impact on oil flow, though it could have a 'psychological' one on trading. 'Crude is priced in the futures market, and future price expectations are what moves the market,'" he explained.

Image from the Lincoln Group's websiteWondering what the Lincoln Group, the public relations firm that planted U.S. military-written propaganda in Iraqi newspapers, is up to now? It recently won a six month, $14.3 million U.S. Army contract, to promote the Army's "Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization campaign" in Afghanistan. The campaign is designed to separate the "bomb makers and users from the support of the populace," and to encourage Afghans to "take responsibility for their communities and report suspicious activities." The firm will develop "a broad-based information campaign about IEDs using billboards, radio messages, hour-long TV programming, video compact discs, posters, flyers and newspaper ads." An Afghanistan-based firm, CentenaGroup, received higher marks for its proposal, but Lincoln Group won the contract because it bid in at a lower price.

The British government's media regulator, Ofcom, issued a split ruling on "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a film commissioned and broadcast by Channel 4. Ofcom found that Channel 4 broke impartiality guidelines and the film misrepresented statements by former British government scientist David King, in a scene with global warming skeptic Fred Singer. Ofcom also found that the film unfairly treated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and MIT professor Carl Wunsch. However, Ofcom ruled that the program did not "cause harm or offence" by "materially" misleading viewers. Ironically, Ofcom said that its impartiality rules did not apply to the majority of the film, because the rules require balance on "matters of political or industrial controversy" and human-induced climate change has "been almost universally accepted by governments around the world." Ofcom received 265 complaints about the film, including "a detailed 'group complaint' from scientists and concerned individuals that ran to 176 pages and accused Channel 4 of seriously misleading viewers."