is clearly Mr. Kirk's objective, like ethnic cleansing in advance. But his rationale for providing birth control services to other countries is, well, repugnant, with the ugly undercurrent of genocide lurking below the surface: "we don't need any more little brown brothers, thank you, so let's stop it at the source."

The unfortunate truth is, overpopulation is a major, undiscussed world problem. It is at the root of many of our wars, environmental degradation, and poverty. Giving women control over their own reproduction is opposed by the religious fundamentalists of every stripe. Yet, when done, the economic well being and the improvement of the lives of families instantly occurs, and the nation benefits.  The Bush regime opposes any such endeavor across the board, at home and overseas.

I wonder if Mr. Kirk's party leaders have already chastized him?  Or does their concern about immigration override their concern about contraception? What a dilemma for the misogynist little bigots. 

Kirk may not be the nut being portrayed.

According to http://www.issues200...

- Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

- Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.

- Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record

Mark, in fact, attended college in Mexico.

The actual quote from him via http://www.alertnet....
is "A slower rate of growth of Mexico's population would improve the economy of Mexico. It would also reduce the environmental pressure on Mexico's ecosystem. But a slower rate of growth would also reduce the long-term illegal immigration pressure on America's borders"

Also from the article : Kirk, an Illinois Republican, made the argument on Thursday during a heated debate in the House of Representatives over whether the U.S. government should be allowed to donate condoms and other contraceptives to family planning agencies abroad that also engage in abortion. The proposal was narrowly approved by the House, over the protests of anti-abortion lawmakers who prefer sex abstinence education. The measure faces a veto threat from the White House.

Kirk has a mixed record on many issues; but that he is an anti-brownist, mysoginist, Republithug is not terribly clear.

in this matter is indeed that of an old-time, Rockefeller-type Republican. I did say out that his points were good, and do apply to others, in fact, to the world, so I agree that it may have been unfair to give the impression that he was in favor of a sort of eugenics, suppressing the number of births in Mexico because that would, long-term, help to "solve" the immigration problem.

That attitude, however, is that of most other Republicans, who fear the cultural changes which will occur as more and more non-Caucasians flood in, and who do think birth control would be just fine for those brown folks--- I know, because I've heard them say it. What struck me was the irony of the obvious conflict between that attitude and the so-called pro-life dogma of the GOP. Condoms for those folks in Mexico maybe, but no contraceptives at home or as a help in fighting AIDs, abstinence alone will do.