Mississippi

As we celebrate Women on this "International Women's Day" we still need to acknowledge the injustice that's being done in the State of Mississippi to Women's rights. The state is fighting very hard to implement TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws to close its only remaining abortion clinic. This type of behavior is a systematic destruction to a federal law that is been in place for over 40 years to protect women and their choice. Mississippi, your behavior is a racket. 

At Least It Was A Woman This Time

I think as the rest of the country moves on without them we are going to see increasingly erratic behavior from conservatives. With this, they have taken "Do it again, only harder" to a whole new level.

New Mexico GOP Repesentative Cathrynn Brown has introduced a bill in the State’s House of Representatives that would prohibit women who have been raped from obtaining an abortion—or face a sentence of up to three years in prison as punishment for committing the offending act. The legal theory behind the proposed legislation? Tampering with evidence of a crime…seriously.

Part of me has to wonder if these people are secret Democratic plants that will the left win election after election. The alternative is that they really are this disgusting and, if that's the case, they can never be allowed to be in charge of anything significant. People that are this mentally unbalanced should simply retire quietly to Shady Meadows, be given their soup, and left alone to spout their insanity.

No wonder Bobby Jindal is calling Republicans the stupid party.

Musings and Perceptions

I went to the club to work out on Monday and ran in to my ol' buddies Reverend Ed and Doctor Sean. They couldn't wait to start screaming at me about liberals and how they are going to destroy our country. They repeated, verbatim, many of the same arguments I see in comments on here. In fact, Reverend Ed used the same style as well as theme that my regulars here deploy  (e.g. a weasel question framed in such a way that the only response is a "win" for them).

For example, Ed asked me, "Where in the Constitution does it say anything about abortion?" When I informed him that I don't answer weasel questions, he huffed and puffed and said that I couldn't answer because that would mean I would be proved wrong and Roe v Wade should be overturned. I then explained to him that if he really wanted to reduced abortions in this country, he'd stop talking about the evils of fornication and and start educating people on family planning and making more emotionally intelligent decisions with their lives. In essence, work together to reduce unwanted pregnancies and take away the demand.

Sadly, he did not agree and I realized, like everything else with the Right, they don't want to actually solve problems. They just want to argue about them, "win" said argument, and implement policy in EXACTLY the way they dictate, never wavering or compromising in any way. Of course, this is never going to happen with the abortion issue. That topic, like gay marriage and climate change, has evolved to the point where it is no longer an issue. Guns aren't far behind.

This was evident when I asked each of them about the election and why conservatives lost. "People are stupid" they both replied. "Any reflection on your own party or perhaps some things that you might want to change? Immigration policy, perhaps?"

"Nope. Nothing."
"So, do it again, only harder?" I asked, chuckling to myself of course.
"Yep."

I then asked them if they cared if they lost election after election as it's pretty clear that the country is moving on without them.

"Nope."

As long as they are ideologically pure, continue to see compromise as a weakness, are unmoved by facts, intolerant of dissent, and are undeterred by new information, all is well in wingnut land, I guess. I told them they should find some more old white guys with 2 dollar haircuts to talk about rape some more. That seemed to work out well for them last year:)

Pastor Ed informed me that he would be home schooling his child. I applauded him for taking such a proactive effort in his child's life. He then went on to say that the reasons why he was doing it were: he wants to teach his child Hebrew and Greek  so he can know what the Bible really says (out of the bubble translation: so he can win the argument by claiming superiority over those who don't know Greek and Hebrew and thus say that HIS interpretation of the Bible is the RIGHT one); he wants to teach him logic (out of the bubble translation: so he can sound intelligent while lying in order to win the argument and claim superiority); he wants to teach him science (out of the bubble translation: so he can learn how evolution and climate change are myths perpetrated by liberals who are striving to achieve world domination); and, of course, civics, meaning an "accurate" interpretation of the Constitution. I almost laughed out loud at the science remark but politeness go the better of me.

Before Ed left to go home, I noticed how every time I countered what he said, he would go and try to find someone else to back him up. The other patrons at the gym would usually laugh or shrug and say they didn't want to get involved. Like my regulars here, he couldn't stand alone and discuss a particular issue. Bullies always need a gang, I suppose.

After Ed left, the best part of my time there occurred. Doctor Sean's son was hanging out with us off and on as he had the day off as well. After a long mouth foam and stomp off that included many topics, among them how bullshit it was that Martin Luther King day is a national holiday (and people think he's prejudiced...go figure!), how we are going to become like Greece (an oldie but a goodie:)), how China was going to overtake the world, and how Barack Obama is a communist, Doctor Sean's son, a freshmen in high school, turned to me and said,

"I'm sorry."

I smiled and saw in him what I see in my students: the future. More specifically, progress. Sean's son recognized how his old man was not really well in the head, politically speaking, and felt rather embarrassed. Obviously, somewhere along the line, he had some good teachers. Of course, Sean sends all four of his kids to a prestigious private school in the area which, according to him, is really, really liberal. When I asked him why, if he and his wife were so conservative, they send their children there, he shrugged and said, "It's the best school in the Twin Cities."

Hmm...perhaps the only way to cut through that ideological blockage is the perceptual framework of "status." Cool...

More Moderate Mitt

There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda--- (Mitt Romney, October 9, 2012, Iowa)

OK, now this is just getting ridiculous...

Oh....No...

Some folks aren't going to like the answer to this question.

Which presidential candidate is truly pro-life?

No Shit

Oopsies!

John Flemming, Republican Representative from Louisisana, posted a link from the Onion as his status update recently thinking that it was a real story. The story, entitled “Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex”, was completely fake (obviously) and Flemming falling for it is a darn fine example of what happens when the froth from the mouth foamers get's extra thick.

The Onion’s editor, Joe Randazzo, said the publication is proud to count Fleming as a reader. “We’re delighted to hear that Rep. Fleming is a regular reader of America’s Finest News Source and doesn’t bother himself with The New York Times, Washington Post, the mediums of television and radio, or any other lesser journalism outlets,” he said in a statement.

Hee Hee...:)

What Are You Good At and Why?

Starting today, I'm going to ask two questions. These questions will continue to be asked for quite some time I imagine because I'm fairly certain the responses will be childishly dishonest.

For those of you who are Republican, what exactly are you good at and why are you a Republican? As the clip below demonstrates, I think the people of America deserve an answer. Now, I know that some of my regular readers are not Republicans and loathe them as much as they loathe Democrats (although they still vote Republican which makes me question their integrity). I'm not necessarily asking you. I'm asking the card carrying members of the GOP. If your two main strengths are fiscal responsibility and national security and you have demonstrated incompetence in both, why should people vote Republican?

My initial thought was abortion but the GOP had the presidency and both houses of Congress from 2003-2007 and did nothing except pass a law protecting Teri Schiavo. I suppose the GOP is doing a great job of restraining us from moving forward on alternative forms of energy so, if you are a big oil person, that would be a reason. And, as Bill says below, paranoia, greed and racism are all fun so there's that...

But really, I don't get it. Seriously. I'm not trying to be obnoxious. In looking at what the GOP has done for the last ten years, can one truly say that they even been competent? Bill Clinton left office with a budget surplus. The spending and tax cuts of the Bush years coupled with the lack of attention to Wall Street nearly brought us to fiscal ruin. It's the reason why our debt is so high today. Related to that is their failure on issues of national security which not only cost us trillions of dollars but ultimately didn't really do the job.

So, watch this clip and try to help me understand what Republicans are good at and why people are still Republicans.

State-Sanctioned Terrorism in South Dakota

A committee in the South Dakota legislature recently approved a bill that would have defined the killing of an abortion doctor as justifiable homicide. The bill has since been shelved, but anti-abortion activists have praised it because it would scare away abortion doctors. In essence, the bill is state-sanctioned terrorism.

And in the House of Representatives the new Republican majority started attacking abortion rights straight out of the gate by introducing a bill allowing abortions only in cases of "forcible rape." So, if you get date-raped by some loser who puts rufies in your drink or a horny step-father, tough luck.

What's behind these perennial attacks on abortion rights? It's obviously not an overweening concern for human life. A law that declares open season on doctors performing a legal medical procedure can hardly be considered pro-life.

And it's not about responsibility. If you get pregnant, and you know can't take care of the kid, or don't have the money for the proper prenatal care, or can't afford to take time off during the last part of the pregnancy, or don't have money for the actual delivery, or don't have the money to raise the kid, the responsible thing to do is to end the pregnancy immediately, before you put another burden on society.

And it's not about the sanctity of human life. Most anti-abortion activists oppose abortion in any of its forms, including the morning after pill. A fertilized ovum is still a one-celled blastocyte. It is not a living, breathing person in any sense. At all. Nor is a two-cell, four-cell, eight-cell, sixteen-cell blastocyte a human being. A five-week-old fetus is not a living, breathing, thinking human. It looks like a tadpole.

And functionally speaking, it's not a human being either. There's an old saw in biology, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Basically, this says that fetuses sort of descend down the evolutionary ladder as they develop. Human and chick embryos have gill slits and tails. Though much of this theory has been discredited, you can tell just by looking that early-stage fetuses of salamanders, frogs, fish, rabbits, cows and humans bear much more similarity to each other than to their full-grown counterparts.

All animal fetuses start out with pretty much the same body plan. As the fetus develops certain changes are triggered. Males are identical to females until testosterone is released, and the ovaries transform into testes. Certain body parts come and go: for example, in manatees (legless sea mammals) the fetus has leg buds like all mammals, but they disappear at one point. And the thing that makes humans truly human -- the big cerebrum-- doesn't start forming until very late in the process.

So, prior to a particular point in development a fetus isn't really human. It's proto-human, yes, and might become human one day. The approach taken by the courts acknowledges this fact, positing a date of fetal viability. That's basically the point at which the fetus can breathe outside the womb, but that date could conceivably be moved earlier, to the point where all the major structures of a human being are present in the fetus. As technology and science improve we will undoubtedly revisit this issue, and rightly so. Whatever the number is, there's some point where a fetus is not really human, and after that point it is.

The question of what is human is at the core of this. We have decided that certain types of brain-injury patients have no potential to recover are no longer human, and can be terminated out of mercy. A fetus without the higher brain functions is in pretty much the same boat. I would rather err on the side of caution and make the standard of proof for euthanasia extremely high. But a fetus without a cerebrum has never been a living, breathing human being, so there's not much of a slippery slope here.

And hatred of abortion is not about potential. "You can't abort that baby. It might be another Einstein!" Many abortion foes are staunch supporters of the death penalty. While your average clod on death row will never become an Einstein, they certainly might be "born again" or experience some other spiritual rebirth and do something positive with their lives, helping others. This idea of forgiveness and rebirth is core to Christian theology; it's strange that so many so-called Christians are so adamant about killing people (this is one area where the Catholic Church is way ahead of and most American protestant denominations).

And many abortion foes support war, and some even support pre-emptive wars like the war in Iraq. One of our soldiers, or an Iraqi soldier, or an Iraqi civilian, or an Iraqi child could have potentially made an Einsteinian contribution to the world. So how could anyone calling themselves pro-life have condoned W's pre-emptive fling in Iraq?

And it's not about innocence. We condone the deaths of innocents all the time. We have killed thousands of innocent Afghan and Iraqi citizens. Thousands of innocent people die in this country every year because they don't have adequate health insurance. We allow guys like Jared Loughner to buy high-capacity semiautomatic weapons on demand, and then are shocked when they use them to kill innocent people. Thousands of asthma and emphysema sufferers die each year from high ozone and particulate levels in the air. We drink and then drive (everyone who drinks has a funny story about driving drunk) and then have accidents that kill innocent people on the highways by the thousands every year. But that's all collateral damage because of our "rights" and "freedoms."

And it's not even about dead fetuses. Estimates of the percentage of pregnancies that end spontaneous abortions ("miscarriages") are all over the map, from 10 to 25 to 75%. Yes, you read that right: some experts think that as many as 75% of all fertilized ova fail to implant and just slide on through. If the latter number is correct, that would make God the biggest abortionist of all.

So why do people really oppose abortion? Do they want to keep women under their thumbs? Is it about vengeance and retribution? Do they want to make women pay for having had sex? Is about saving souls?

I don't know. But does it really make sense to punish a woman by forcing them to bear a child they don't want or can't afford? Aren't the pain and shame of going through an abortion punishment enough? Does it make sense for the government to interfere with the personal decisions of a woman over her own body and inflict unwanted children on that woman and on society?