January 25, 2013

The right continues to head over the cliff to crazy land

First, this, given that we have been discussing gun control.  Daily Kos: Fox News 'psychiatrist' says Obama wants gun control because of 'abandonment' issues.  The insanity that is Fox News just continues to amaze.  These are the people who read Orwell as a manual.

And speaking of ruthless and racist bastards, they are trying to rig the future elections for President while they are at it.  This plan would reconfigure electoral college votes in Democratic leaning states to associate with congressional districts, not with the popular vote.  As Josh and every one looking at this has noted, this is an intensely racist approach.  The GOP, having lost every group except older white males has decided that instead of appealing to blacks, hispanics, women or Asians, they will simply disenfranchise them.

It worked very well for the segregated South.  Just when I think the GOP has hit rock bottom, they decide to just cheat openly.  This, mind you, from the group that was angling and even hoping that Romney would win the popular vote so they could declare Obama's presidency illegitimate (not that his victory changed that for so many of these fuckers), and were grousing about that even back in 08.  Now, they want to make it a very high likelihood that future Presidents would be Republicans who lost the popular vote.  And they don't care one bit.  Winning is everything.  How you do that--well, except for waving the Bible when you feel like it--is completely up to the crazy Republican.

One more from idiot land, and I will turn my attention to work.  In New Mexico, a Republican lawmaker has proposed a bill that would require a pregnant rape victim to carry the pregnancy to term to secure the evidence.  That's right, getting an abortion would constitute "destroying evidence," and the sponsor swears that the purpose is only to go after rapists.
"Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.  New Mexico needs to strengthen its laws to deter sex offenders,” said Brown. “By adding this law in New Mexico, we can help to protect women across our state.”
One of the things I have observed in the abortion debate is how often the mother or future mother disappears.  Her needs, her health, her desires, or even her body--they simply disappear.  It is as if these conservatives only see a little tiny fetus hovering in the air.  They will use her to justify their actions and say that it is about "protecting women," but as in the Orwellian Republicans trying to protect forests and clean air, it really means that they don't care one bit about the woman involved.

I noted this to a pro-life friend, and pointed out how I could understand the basic opposition to a women who is (theoretically) promiscuous and careless and gets an abortion because she can't be bothered to take responsibility for herself.  In pro-life talk, she had the freedom to not have unprotected sex or to abstain all together, and now that she is "knocked up" that ship has sailed.

But with rape, all the pretense of choice and freedom disappear.  For some pro lifers (and polls suggest this is a small, but very vocal and very well represented in the GOP part of the population), since God ordains life at conception, then even the rape pregnancy is a "gift."  The fact that she had no choice at any stage of the process doesn't matter one bit.  How dare she raise an objection?  So what if she has to be reminded every day of her ordeal--that doesn't matter.

Sigh.

6 comments:

steves said...

It is reassuring to see that the Koskids haven't bothered to seek out people that can actually write a logical argument. Middle school kids need jobs, too.

That being said, I do cringe when I see some "professional" try and diagnose some prominent political figure based on some observations. Remember when Bill Clinton was "diagnosed" with some personality disorder back in the 90's. Any ethical professional would say that they just don't have enough information to say. or at least say it is just some wild-assed guess.

Streak said...

Again, funny that you jump to the ad hominem so quickly. I think you are unfair to Hunter--he is the only Kos person I read with any regularity. But then again, he writes, as do I most of the time, with a touch of anger and frustration. Perhaps you think the same of my writing. Not that I care.

steves said...

I think that style is a bit over the top and I will admit that it is hard to take seriously. It works on a forum or in something like Youtube comments, but as part of a credible news site, no. That is just my opinion. I agree with the point he makes, FWIW, so it is not really an ad hominem. I dislike when people I agree with 100% utilize the same style.

I don't think the same of your writing. If I did, I wouldn't bother to read it. I visit plenty of sites that disagree with me, but are written in a persuasive and logical fashion. My other problem with Kos is that they have a history of publishing stuff that is not true and not bothering to retract it when it is proven that they are lying. IMO, this hurts their credibility.

Streak said...

Ok. I don't read Kos's main stuff. Hunter is just a blogger like me. Pretty sure he isn't on staff.

Smitty said...

The "tampering with evidence" ploy is *the worst* thing I have seen as a lobbyist. I see ethical violations and bad ideas regularly. But this? This is the lowest form of bad policy I can think of.

That they veil it under "ohhh, nooo, we aren't punishing the *woman*; this makes sure some batterer isn't coercing her. We're *protecting* her" is as cynical as I can imagine.

This plays right into rape myth; that somehow, the rape victim was "asking for it." And as much as they insist they're not punishing the woman...we all know they are. She has to carry the rape to full term. Have it. In the name of evidence?? It further reinforces the other big rape myth: that the accusation is a lie based on the regret of a one night stand or bad relationship.

Sick and inexcusable.

Streak said...

To be fair to the state senator (perhaps), today she is saying that she genuinely was not trying to force rape victims to go to term, but were trying to prosecute people like stepfathers who force the victim to get an abortion.

Perhaps. Smitty, I think you are right, and in fact, we know that the pro-life movement has decided to frame their opposition to abortion as trying to "protect women." That means in Mississippi forcing abortion clinic doctors to have hospital privileges, and in other places forcing them to reconfigure facilities with wider hallways and rooms. Or, forcing them to have a transvaginal ultrasound regardless of the situation. All promised to help women, but clearly, in reality, trying to reduce access to abortion. Even in the case of rape, incest, or serious health issues.