SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

  • teleologist: Thanks you for the opportunity to express our opinions with the time that we had. Tongues will cease,...
  • Orthodoxdj: As Tolkien said to Lewis as they parted on that fateful night in Oxford, “Goodbye.”
  • Livingston Dell: I didn’t always comment as frequently as I had liked to on these articles, but I always...
  • Nikolai Volk: You know, we had a hell of a run in these comment sections. I’ve had many a great discussion with...
  • David Strunk: Hey Joe, I also appreciated what you guys did here, and always had this blog on my RSS feed to see the...
  • Amy K. Hall: Thanks for starting the blog, Joe. It was an honor to be included.
  • Archives

    Categories

    Monthly


    « Previous  |Home|  Next »         

    Monday, March 15, 2010, 4:37 PM

    David:

    Michael New, a political scientist specializing in abortion statistics, explains why T.R. Reid’s “analysis is superficial and unconvincing.”

    Ramesh Ponnuru calls Reid’s op-ed “absurd,” says that Professor New’s critique is “too kind,” and shows that the only two pieces of evidence offered in support of this view are both “pathetically weak.”

    Follow the links to see their counter-arguments.

    3 Comments

      Frank Turk
      March 15th, 2010 | 4:56 pm | #1

      Ramesh Ponnuru is my homeboy.

      Collin Brendemuehl
      March 15th, 2010 | 5:06 pm | #2

      Frank,
      Do you have a man-crush on him, too?

      Greg
      March 15th, 2010 | 10:22 pm | #3

      Sorry….I couldn’t even finish reading the summaries above because my eyes hurt from the faithdome.org ad on the right side of the page. I didn’t think the prosperity gospel was welcome in these parts ;)

    Links

    Blogs

    Find Us

    Contact