I've always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created— in the sense of rape—but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you.
We don't know, so we had to imagine. Rick is still seen by some as a promising candidate, supportable by right wing fundamentalist leaders. This enthusiasm is only dampened by the fact that nobody outside of right wing fundamentalist leaders particularly gives a flying fuck about Rick Santorum.
But as his campaign flounders awkwardly along like—Oh, I dunno—a man-on-dog sexual pairing trying to jog mid-tryst, it's a good time to be reminded: There are piggish elements within our body politic who will always, always, always abuse women's rights for political gain. And that Rick Santorum's "google problem" was never just Dan Savage's brilliant gag, it has always been the things that he actually says and does.
Frothy lube may stain your futon, but Santorum stains the American political landscape—until such time as his well-established inability to win actual votes brings the Santorum slide to a messy end.
Digby wrote about this last week from this PBS show. It's always much more powerful listening and seeing the people who promote these draconian positions. Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT (David Edwards)
BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.
When you hear Napoli's little monologue, he sounds like a man from one of those Satanic cult movies.
"I got a track-back from the blog "Responding To the Left" to the post below, specifically the story of the woman who had an abortion because she already had two small children and couldn't afford another. I think it is an eloquent and honest representation of the way that many in the pro-life movement feel and it's great to see it out in the open so we can begin to debate this thing honestly:...read on
mcjoan over at Kos looks at John McCain's (having it both ways) view of SD's abortion ban:
"Well, Senator, the problem is that the South Dakota bill specifically ruled out exceptions for rape or incest, allowing only an exception for the health life of the mother, and by golly, the women of South Dakota were damned lucky to get that. I guess it's small comfort to know that their own lives rate just a little bit higher than a fertilized egg...read on"
(Update):Gov. Mike Rounds on Monday signed legislation banning almost all abortions in South Dakota....read on
On a scale of 1 to 10 for loathsome traits and comments, Justice Scalia rated about an 8 on mine. Chief Justice Roberts scored a 9. But two things happened which boosted Scalia to a 10 and come quite close to me thinking he should just be impeached because he's clearly not an objective or clear thinker.
First, let's remember that he will be teaching all the new teabagger freshmen their Constitution 101 course, courtesy of Michele Bachmann. That would be just great if he actually understood the Constitution.
Q: In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
SCALIA:Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.
Scalia's comments, to be fair, have to be taken inside his frame, which is that the Constitution is an original document and not a living document. Therefore, if it was not an issue at the time of its writing, the fact that it is an issue now does not mean the 14th amendment applies. If the 14th amendment were to be interpreted in the frame of a living Constitution, then it would surely apply to gender and sexual orientation.
Still, what he's saying here is that women do not enjoy protections under the 14th amendment. He's also quite clearly signalling which way he would rule on the Proposition 8 case and other rulings with regard to same-sex marriage, since they've been declared unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.
I have major difficulties with his interpretation. Exactly who would be considered a "person" under the 14th amendment? If his remarks are to be taken literally, then what he's saying is that women are not to be considered persons or citizens (the two words used in that clause). Who does that leave? Men and corporations, evidently. Does that mean that gay men can marry but lesbians can't? What if someone married a corporation? Would they have spinoffs as children?
Okay, those questions are ridiculous but then, so is Scalia. This man is one vote of NINE deciding whether our democracy lives or dies, and he routinely rules for its death, while bragging that he doesn't even need to read the briefs because the issues are so clear. Yes, really.
That clip at the top was from a forum conducted on March 23, 2010. It will give you a sense of his arrogance and his flippant attitude toward those who dare to challenge his interpretation of the Constitution's meaning, particularly with regard to the 14th amendment.
I know having an opinion isn't grounds for impeachment, but is utter disrespect for the country and over half the population grounds? If so, let's do it.
A postscript directly to Justice Scalia: Thanks for not showing up for the State of the Union address. It's good that you're skipping it, because it proves just how deep your disrespect for the voters of this country really is. Stay away. Far away.
The memos are extraordinary. They are written by JAGs from the Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines. As Senator Graham put it on Monday, these folks "are not from the ACLU. These are not from people who are soft on terrorism, who want to coddle foreign terrorists. These are all professional military lawyers who have dedicated their lives, with 20-plus year careers, to serving the men and women in uniform and protecting their Nation. They were giving a warning shot across the bow of the policymakers that there are certain corners you cannot afford to cut because you will wind up meeting yourself."
It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...
In particular, these memos eloquently warn of the grave harms that could result from such a radical shift in policies and legal understandings--harms not only to the prospects for nation's efforts to stop terrorism, but also to military interrogators and officers who could face domestic and international prosecution for engaging in such conduct, and, most importantly, to U.S. forces who are themselves detained in this and future conflicts.
It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...
In particular, these memos eloquently warn of the grave harms that could result from such a radical shift in policies and legal understandings--harms not only to the prospects for nation's efforts to stop terrorism, but also to military interrogators and officers who could face domestic and international prosecution for engaging in such conduct, and, most importantly, to U.S. forces who are themselves detained in this and future conflicts.
The editorial “Off Course in Iraq," published in the New York Times on July 20 was particularly disheartening. After being disillusioned about the invasion of Iraq and U.S. failures at efforts to reconstruct and bring peace to the country, I thought that at least my efforts working with Iraqi women in the new political system may prove to be a one bright spot in the otherwise dark and dangerous days of the post-Saddam era.
It seems now that even the hollow justification for the intervention in Iraq—to free people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, and in particular the women of Iraq—is just an excuse reminiscent of invading because of the Saddam’s nuclear arsenal. In question is the insertion of sharia law into the new constitution. Although there are supposed to be separate provisions depending on your religion, women would be stripped of their right to choose their own husbands, inherit property on the same basis as men and seek court protection if their husbands tire of them and decide to declare them divorced.
It's always interesting to check out the latest e-mail forwards. Some are funny, some are retreads of decades-old urban legends. But there's another big category: right-wing propaganda. In some cases, the groups overlap-- like the still circulating claim that sinister liberals are trying to ban religious broadcasting. That was a chain letter before the Internet, and it still gets passed around, even though it's nonsense.
But a recent posting on the above site demonstrates another means by which some over-wrought rightie spreads fictitious stories about prominent Democrats. The latest: Hillary Clinton snubbed the mothers of veterans. The tip-off this time is that the e-mail cites Newsmax as the source of its info. Newsmax, of course, is a far-right website that specializes in attacking progressives. Usually without justification.
From the forward:
"Gold Star Mothers is an organization made up of women who sons were killed in military combat during service in the United States armed forces. Recently a delegation of New York Gold Star Mothers made a trip to Washington, DC to discuss various concerns with their elected representatives. According to NewsMax.com there was only one politician in DC who refused to meet with these ladies. . .
. . . You got it! None other than the Queen herself, The Hildebeast, Hillary Clinton. She refused repeated requests to meet with the Gold Star Mothers."
It's a timely claim, in a way, since the right is outraged that she might be running for president. It's also completely false. Here's what the Gold Star Mothers themselves had to say about the "incident" on their official site:
"With regard to the NewsMax article concerning our organization, the American Gold Star Mothers, Inc., deeply regret the misunderstanding about Senator Hillary Clinton. The two mothers who visited Washington did not have an appointment with the Senator and she was not in her office on that day. We would appreciate it if the e-mails and negative comments about Senator Clinton would cease."
Case closed. Sadly, the rabid righties aren't the type to let the proverbial facts get in the way of a story.
"Gold Star Mothers is an organization made up of women who sons were killed in military combat during service in the United States armed forces. Recently a delegation of New York Gold Star Mothers made a trip to Washington, DC to discuss various concerns with their elected representatives. According to NewsMax.com there was only one politician in DC who refused to meet with these ladies. . .
. . . You got it! None other than the Queen herself, The Hildebeast, Hillary Clinton. She refused repeated requests to meet with the Gold Star Mothers."
It's a timely claim, in a way, since the right is outraged that she might be running for president. It's also completely false. Here's what the Gold Star Mothers themselves had to say about the "incident" on their official site:
"With regard to the NewsMax article concerning our organization, the American Gold Star Mothers, Inc., deeply regret the misunderstanding about Senator Hillary Clinton. The two mothers who visited Washington did not have an appointment with the Senator and she was not in her office on that day. We would appreciate it if the e-mails and negative comments about Senator Clinton would cease."
Case closed. Sadly, the rabid righties aren't the type to let the proverbial facts get in the way of a story.
Hannity starts another Mantra-the "anti-Christian" bias.
The other night on "Hannity and Colmes", Dr. James Dobson was a guest from the Focus on the Family Group. I never pay much attention to the "Fox News Ticker" that scroll below the interviews but this really caught my eye.
Hannity: Now this election has become the bigoted, Christian, redneck, and you’ve heard a lot of these criticisms in the voting and everything and this red America, Jesus Land. What are your thoughts on the way people reacted in this election?
While Mr. Dobson was giving his answer, the Fox News Ticker said: Christians in Iraq report incidents of intolerance toward them including attacks on churches.
Hannity: There's an anti-Christian bias here, am I reading this right?
Fox News Ticker: Other people have been told, if they' don't convert they'll lose their homes.--and A women in KY pleaded guilty to kidnapping a newborn from a hospital.
Bush won Ohio by 136,483 votes. Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of votes cast are voided—known as “spoilage” in election jargon—because the ballots cast are inconclusive. Palast’s investigation suggests that if Ohio’s discarded ballots were counted, Kerry would have won the state. That's assumingToday the Cleveland Plain Dealerreports there are a total of 247,672 votes not counted in Ohio, if you add the 92,672 discarded votes plus the 155,000 provisional ballots.
Kerry won. Here's the facts.
I know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry.
Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.
So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. [See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten," November 1.] read on
