I’ve stated before that Rick Santorum is the political version of Nick at Nite: His views all come from the 1960s. In an especially dated episode, Santorum says that insurance shouldn’t cover birth control at all.
“This has nothing to do with access,” he said. “This is having someone pay for it, pay for something that shouldn’t be in an insurance plan anyway because it is not, really an insurable item. This is something that is affordable, available. You don’t need insurance for these types of relatively small expenditures. This is simply someone trying to impose their values on somebody else, with the arm of the government doing so. That should offend everybody, people of faith and no faith that the government could get on a roll that is that aggressive.”
Yes, this is the same guy who has won 4 out of 8 GOP presidential contests so far.
Let’s examine what he says here: He makes the case that insurance is essentially requiring someone else to pay for something they find morally objectionable. He tortures logic like it’s a Gitmo inmate and claims that providing a “choice” is “imposing” values on others. I wonder if I can get a refund for all the money I spent on insurance premiums during my vegetarian years that went to treat ailments resulting from eating meat.
I thought freedom of choice meant that we respect the rights of people to choose to do things that don’t personally affect us. Guess not. No, it just means that we are free to do whatever is agreeable to other people.
Santorum ignores the fact that birth control such as the pill can have uses beyond turning women into Catherine Tramell from Basic Instinct. He also argues, based on his extensive experience as a woman, that birth control isn’t really an “insurable” item because it is “affordable, available.” The availability argument is interesting. I see car lots all over town. Guess I shouldn’t bother insuring mine. Is he correct about the affordability?
I popped over to Planned Parenthood’s Web site, where I received an e-abortion, to get a rough estimate on birth control pills. Looks like they range from $15 to $50 a month. Santorum probably also thinks comic books still cost a dime.
Let’s see: That’s $150 to $600 a year; $5400 to $18,000 over 30 years. Maybe I shouldn’t insure my car.
Not surprisingly, GOP presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum made dumb, bigoted comments about the overturning of Prop 8, but let’s focus on Mitt Romney’s reaction, as he’s frequently presented as the least horrific of the bunch.
“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage,” Romney said following the decision. “This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own policies and prejudices.”
This loving couple has lowered the value of my 2-carat traditional marriage to that of cubic zirconia
“Unelected judges” is a conservative catchphrase. It is supposed to get your dander up: These “unelected” (that’s not Democratic!) judges just do whatever they want without listening to the will of the people! This misses the fact that judges are tasked with protecting the Constitution. The majority of citizens cannot all agree to deprive rights from the minority. Otherwise, there would be states in which you couldn’t own a gun.
Romney describes marriage equality as a “fight.” How is it a fight exactly? Generally, in a battle, both sides have something to gain or lose. Homosexuals want to enter into a legal contract with a consenting adult. Some heterosexuals want to forbid it. This isn’t a fight. It’s bullying — an unwarranted intrusion into other people’s lives.
“Traditional marriage” is another conservative catchphrase. Fifty years ago, that definition would not have included my own marriage. The use of “protect” implies that strangers marrying will somehow harm your marriage. It’s as if they think all heterosexuals have stock in the marriage corporation, and allow gays to marry will dilute the value of your shares.
Romney then implies that fighting marriage equality is a critical matter in the upcoming election, as if the housing crisis was directly related to interior decorators deciding to get hitched. He vows to appoints judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written. Of course, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about marriage, which is probably why Romney also supports a Constitutional ban against gay marriage.
“There’s been an assault on marriage,” Romney said in the Faith and Freedom teleconference. “I think he [Obama] is very aggressively trying to pave the path to same-sex marriage. I would unlike this president defend the Defense of Marriage Act. I would also propose and promote once again an amendment to the constitution to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.”
Where’s the “assault”? The overt implication is that gays marrying each other weakens “traditional” marriage. How? Shouldn’t conservatives opposed to marriage equality provide some modicum of data backing up this assertion? Something I couldn’t counter with the sordid past of Newt “Henry VIII” Gingrich and The Bachelor?
Anything that comes out of Romney’s mouth is as honest as what men tell women in a bar at closing time. He’ll say whatever is necessary for voters to take him to the White House. The tragedy is that he knows that a sizable portion of the United States is irrationally homophobic. Romney can talk about American “exceptionalism” all he wants but most civilized nations already have gay marriage. What makes America so great again? Arrogance and iPods? And the former is the only one we actually make here.
President Obama recently addressed the charges made against him of waging “class warfare” and managed to inadvertently illustrate the growing sickness in American culture.
“This is one of the biggest things I’m going to be pushing back on this year, this notion that this is somehow class warfare, that we’re trying to stir up envy,” Obama said. “Nobody envies rich people, everybody wants to be rich. Everybody aspires to be rich, and everybody understands you’ve got work hard to be successful. That’s the American way.”
The president states that the “American way” is the desire to be “rich.” This in itself is an empty pursuit. I could give Obama the benefit of the doubt and interpret his statement as shorthand for what money can provide — security, health, education, leisure. However, Americans in the Blackberry Age have sacrificed leisure and health for money and status. Education in America is viewed as merely a means to an end to achieve wealth. This is the Trade Schooling of the U.S. from journalism to law. The critical thinking skills learned in school is denigrated as “leftist indoctrination.” The Darwinian nature of the U.S. economy fuels the fear that keeps Americans running on their hamster wheels: We must stockpile enough money to cover our medical expenses if we get ill, and we need enough to maintain our dignity when we get old. We are just as scared and frightened as we were prior to discovering fire. The only difference is we have iPods.
Collectively, how rich are we? We aren’t very rich in the ways that matter, but how do we do on paper at least? The median household income in the United States in 2010 was $49,445. Charles M. Blow of The New York Times recently described the American sleight of hand involved when defining what it means to be “rich.”
…according to a December Gallup report, Americans set the rich threshold at $150,000 in annual income. And according to the U.S. Census Bureau 8.4 percent of households had an income of $150,000 or more in 2010.
…according to a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted last month, nearly a fifth of families making less than $15,000 said that they were middle class and nearly two-fifths of those making more than $100,000 said that they were middle class.
In certain ways, no one wants to be rich or poor. Denying the latter makes sense. It’s why bald men still buy Rogaine. However, I think no one wants to consider themselves “rich” because America views itself as the land of the middle class. The rich are the “elites” in New York, D.C., and California. “Rich” also has the connotation of unearned money. This is why you’ll often hear, “We’re not rich. We worked hard for what we have.”
On an emotional level, though, I think many Americans don’t feel “rich” because they don’t feel secure. The politicians who want to keep Americans on their hamster wheels find it increasingly necessary to knock other countries whose citizens do feel more secure. Canada took a rhetorical beating during the initial debates regarding the Affordable Health Care Act. Mitt Romney frequently derides Europe when warning voters about what Obama plans to do the U.S. This is interesting upon reflection — the Kenyan Muslim wants to make America more like the land of our (well, not really mine) forefathers. It’s almost flattering: Conservatives would never have accused Jesse Jackson of Eurocentrism 30 years ago.
Let’s examine this “European socialist welfare state” of Romney’s nightmares: The average salary in the European Union is 38,000 Euros, which based on the exchange rate roughly equals the U.S. average. Europe has economic woes — as does the U.S. The conservative spin is that Europe’s social programs are to blame, but the trail of blood leads to the same butler who killed the U.S. economy — shady banks and toxic assets. Romney can’t be bothered to explain how that relates to how the government uses its tax dollars. Most Europeans enjoy universal health care and free education. These are two areas that cause Americans a great deal of concern. As both grow more expensive, Americans continue to burn rubber on their hamster wheels.
The misinformation that Romney and others spread about Europe compared to the U.S. probably serves its purpose. My own admittedly biased experience is that people seem far happier there than here, where the resentment and fear produce the malignant growth known as FOX News. Europeans are less contentious about religion and value education. They do lack the “American dream,” which as a conservative acquaintance explained is the lack of a “new car” or “vacation home.” Even if this were true, when did the American dream no longer mean freedom but instead meaningless status symbols?
Keep those hamster wheels running. Don’t you feel richer all ready?
Rick Santorum wants to make voters realize Mitt Romney isn’t the only candidate in the presidential race with a glaring lack of empathy for the poor.
Santorum, in a discussion with a mother and her sick child, bravely stood up for the defenseless drug companies and said demand would determine the cost of medical therapies.
“People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad,” Santorum said, “but paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with — it keeps you alive. Why? Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.”
Uh, Rick, poor people have a problem paying $900 for an iPad because they don’t have $900 and thus don’t have an iPad. They have an issue with $900 for a life-saving drug because they don’t have $900 nor even the $400 it would cost for their child’s funeral.
An iPad is a luxury item. You can live without it. Your children are not luxury items. If times are tight, you can’t simply put little Susie up on eBay.
Santorum said drugs take years to develop and cost millions of dollars to produce, and manufacturers need to turn a profit or they would stop developing new drugs.
“You have that drug, and maybe you’re alive today because people have a profit motive to make that drug,” Santorum said. “There are many people sick today who, 10 years from now, are going to be alive because of some drug invented in the next 10 years. If we say: ‘You drug companies are greedy and bad, you can’t make a return on your money,’ then we will freeze innovation.”
Santorum believes that people are only motivated to develop life-saving drugs out of profit. I’m not religious but just what are they teaching him in that building with the cross on top that he goes to every Sunday? Is it an Ayn Rand book club? Couldn’t the motive to develop drugs that save children’s lives be to… save children’s lives?
However, as Santorum points out, drug manufacturers have to turn a profit or they couldn’t stay in business. Then no drugs would be developed. I’m sure the cost of producing a $900 drug breaks down as follows:
Ingredients: $898.25
Labor: 75 cents
Overhead (rent, electricity, Flavia coffee machine in break room): $1
Abilify, the drug the child takes for schizophrenia, is produced by Bristol-Myers Squibb, which last year saw its first quarter profits increase 5% to $3.3 billion. Maybe this Mom and Pop can afford to spring for two Flavia machines in the break room.
Santorum told a large Tea Party crowd here that he sympathized with the boy’s case, but he also believed in the marketplace.
“He’s alive today because drug companies provide care,” Santorum said. “And if they didn’t think they could make money providing that drug, that drug wouldn’t be here. I sympathize with these compassionate cases. … I want your son to stay alive on much-needed drugs. Fact is, we need companies to have incentives to make drugs. If they don’t have incentives, they won’t make those drugs. We either believe in markets or we don’t.”
If Bristol-Myers Squibb made just $1 billion in the first quarter of 2011, its employees might have to get by on that nasty instant coffee and no drugs would get produced. Basically, if you don’t believe in the markets and global biopharmaceutical companies preying on the sick and desperate, you want children to die.
This Dr Pepper commercial does several things that annoy me:
The ad doesn’t bother detailing the virtues of the product because it has none. Its second ingredient is high fructose corn syrup, which will keep you on track for diabetes and gout. It also contains phosphoric acid that will strip away the enamel from your teeth. And its primary purpose is to serve as a delivery system for a psychoactic drug.
There is enough wrong with soda that you wonder why their commercials don’t look like a pharmaceutical ad.
Maybe in 30 years or so we’ll view today’s soda ads with the same disbelief we have for cigarette ads from the 1960s.
Odd that the pharmaceutical ad is the most honest of the bunch. Like the cigarette ads of yesterday, the Dr Pepper ad pushes a lifestyle and worse endeavors to make the consumption of its product somehow admirable. It’s even generous enough to ask that you go on Twitter and use its focus-group crafted hashtag to help spread the word.
Selling consumerism as individualism is not new. Apple did it in 1984 with its famous Super Bowl ad inspired by the George Orwell novel. There’s no information about the actual product and how its superior to the competition. No, all you need to know is that the competition offers conformity and Apple offers freedom and individuality. Not too much individuality, of course, as the company wants to sell some computers but popular individuality, which is what every American teen desires.
Watching this ad again, the dystopian society depicted resembles an Apple factory in China but with breaks for organized TV viewing.
In 1987, Nike co-opted The Beatles’ “Revolution,” a song about non-violent social change, to sell high-priced sneakers — as if there is something revolutionary about spending lots of money on articles of clothing. This was basically the Reagan era telling the 1960s counter culture: “We won.” Kids bought into it, though. Some died, as a result.
The Super Bowl annually combines two of my least favorite things — professional sports and conspicuous consumerism. Three, if you count the ritual humiliation of once-great musical acts. At some point, people started paying more attention to the ads that aired during the game than the game itself. I watched these professionally for 10 years. There’s not one legitimate emotion revealed or original idea explored. It is a collection of lies and untruths with one common theme — buy.
The big ad this year is a Honda spot featuring Matthew Broderick in a parody of his role in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” Yeah, Broderick’s almost 50 now but so was Alan Ruck when he played Cameron.
This has upset some people on the Internets. MaryAnn Johanson at Flick Filosopher laments that the ad is just Broderick hawking cars while the 1986 movie was “about nonconformity, breaking out, being a rebel.” I respectfully disagree. These “rebels” used their freedom to drive through posh Chicago in a sports car and dine at an exclusive restaurant the film’s antagonist Ed Rooney could never afford. Is it bold and individualistic to skip school? And to face no repercussions for your actions? Rooney doesn’t pursue Ferris for unjust reasons — it’s not like he’s a poor kid Rooney unfairly resents at the magnet school. Ferris is actually guilty.
I suppose it doesn’t matter because the presentation of the movie is designed so that you’ll ignore the actual substance. It’s a feature length commercial, which is why it’s impossible for the Honda ad to “sell out” what Ferris Bueller represents. Ferris is commercial culture. Now go buy a Dr Pepper.
One constant during the GOP primary is the misrepresentation of welfare and how it works.
Rick Santorum said the following:
It doesn’t matter if he said “black” people or “blah” people. He still presented the notion that welfare amounts to taking money from hard-working people and giving it to non-working people.
However, tax dollars fund social programs. Everyone pays taxes. Even those so poor that they pay no federal taxes still pay payroll and sales tax. Unemployment is funded through payroll taxes, but yet many Americans incorrectly view that as a “hand-out,” as well. Do we think that executives who leave companies with million-dollar payouts are living on “hand-outs”?
The goal of this misinformation is to convince Americans that there is a permanent underclass that is constantly siphoning resources from the permanent overclass. Imagine the poor as not just a minority group but a slightly sinister, parasitic one, as well. Sort of like the Morlocks from H.G. Wells’s The Time Machine.
The reality is that anyone could wind up in need of assistance. Poverty is like what foolish people wanted to consider AIDS back in the 1980s — an affliction only certain people suffered from who lived a certain type of lifestyle. It was easier to judge than to help. Our biggest shame is that we had to realize that wasn’t the case before we started taking the matter seriously. Although GOP candidates like to invoke Ronald Reagan with awe, we should not forget the thousands who died because of his inaction.
It’s more accurate to view welfare as a form of insurance. I have paid thousands of dollars for health insurance over the course of my working life. I have been fortunate that I’ve never had a serious injury or illness. I don’t begrudge those who aren’t so fortunate. I also know that the system only works because healthy people participate and help spread the risk. Welfare is not a “hand-out.” It does not promote laziness anymore than health insurance promotes a poor diet.
It astounds me that we would even ascribe sloth to the people who collectively enjoy the least amount of leisure in the country. These are more often the people who stand on their feet all day, who work out in the elements, who risk life and limb either to protect us or to construct the things we need. If these people are Morlocks, then we are the Eloi, who live easy thanks to their efforts.
If you’ve read The Time Machine, you know that the Eloi become a dissolute race over time, so dependent upon the Morlocks that their relationship has evolved into a symbiotic one: The Eloi are fatted cattle, and the Morlocks are the farmers. Let’s hope it doesn’t get to that, as I taste terrible without a good vinegar dry rub.
The results of the Iowa caucus appear to have reversed themselves. John Nichols of the Nation writes the following about that shameful circus.
Even before (Mitt Romney’s) New Hampshire win—which was always pretty much a given for the New England candidate who essentially lives in the Granite State—no less a GOP commentator than former White House political czar Karl Rove was suggesting that the Iowa caucus results represented a huge coup for the unloved front-runner. Rove wrote in the Wall Street Journal on January 5 about “A Big Win for Romney in Iowa.”
Some of us questioned at the time whether an eight-vote advantage (out of 123,503 cast) qualified for the “big win” title. But because of the way that the Iowa results produce a headline that tends to define the next stages of the nominating process, the fact that Romney came out on top—even by the narrowest of margins—was a big deal.
The Iowa Republican Party has released the “final, certified totals of the January 3 Iowa Caucus presidential preference vote,” and they show Rick Santorum with 29,839 votes to 29,805 for Romney.
Now, some will say that a thirty-four-vote lead is not exactly a landslide.
But Santorum’s “certified”lead is four times as substantial as Romney’s preliminary “big win.”
I’m not your standard-issue tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy nut (my tin-foil hat was misplaced during my recent move), but I found Rove’s involvement in the caucus results suspicious. I was following the vote count on January 3. Santorum was consistently ahead with most precincts reporting until a “source” told Rove that Romney would win.
Oh well. Guess that wasn’t the case.
Unfortunately, due to the 24-hour-news cycle, these contests aren’t like a sporting event where the winner is whoever scored the most points. It’s a game of perception. Calling victory for a candidate prematurely can have a permanent impact on the direction of a primary, especially one in which the frontrunner’s entire campaign is based on “inevitability.” No one can claim Romney inspires passion in the electorate. He’s a bandwagon candidate. It’s believed he’s the best equipped to defeat Barack Obama in November so voters are jumping on that bandwagon. But if that isn’t the case — if he can’t even beat a former senator who lost his last election by 18 points — maybe he’s not the guy. Maybe it’s time to look at candidates you actually like.
I don’t think the Iowa screw-up affected the New Hampshire primary results all that much. However, if I were Santorum, I might think that my chances in South Carolina were derailed. Electability is often cited as a reason for voting for Romney. If Santorum had entered South Carolina with a win under his belt, it’s possible he could be in the position Newt Gingrich is in now.
Speaking of Newt Gingrich’s positions, his ex-wife Marianne Gingrich has gone public with information about their marriage that puts him in a bad light, and we’re talking about a guy who says this in public:
According to Mrs. Gingrich, Newt “offered (her) a choice of an open marriage or a divorce when he revealed to her he was having an affair with the woman (Callista Gingrich) he later made his third wife.”
A day after he told his wife about his affair with Callista Bisek in May 1999, the former House speaker delivered a speech titled “The Demise of American Culture” to a group of Republican women in Pennsylvania, The Washington Post reported Thursday.
“How could he ask me for a divorce on Monday and within 48 hours give a speech on family values and talk about how people treat people?” Marianne Gingrich said in her interview with the Post.
Pretty easily apparently. Maybe it tormented him as much as Reverend Dimmesdale’s hypocrisy ate at him in The Scarlet Letter. By the way, Marianne Gingrich is Newt’s second ex-wife, which reminds me of this exchange from Manhattan:
“I said to him ‘Newt, we’ve been married a long time,’ and he said ‘Yes, but you want me all to yourself. Callista doesn’t care what I do,'” Marianne Gingrich said in the clip released by ABC, describing the couple’s conversation near the end of their 18-year marriage.
Her husband, who had already left Congress, was asking “that I accept the fact that he has somebody else in his life,” Marianne Gingrich said.
“Oh, he was asking to have an open marriage and I refused,” she said.
Gingrich has already admitted to past adultery — apparently because he loves America so much. Conservative voters still embrace him because of his commitment to breaking up gay families as effectively as he did his own. Gingrich has criticized Obama for not enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act. Gingrich insists that as president, he would not only enforce the law but pursue a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Given his background, his stance is hypocritical, but South Carolina primary voters have historical precedence for overlooking this sort of thing. When he was 22, future South Carolina Governor and Senator Strom Thurmond had an affair with his 16-year-old black maid. The union produced a daughter, and Thurmond spent much of his career making every effort to ensure that the United States was as inhospitable for her as possible. Some fathers go with a trust fund, but parenting styles differ.
Romney has expressed his concern for Obama’s imaginary attempts to turn the United States into a “European welfare state,” but Gingrich is successfully turning it into a Swedish sex film — at least based on the conservative reaction to Marianne Gingrich’s statements.
Rush Limbaugh and then Tampa-based radio host Todd Schnitt spent much of their broadcasts dwelling on the Gingrich story, which is essentially old news except for two facts:
1) ex wife Marianne was on TV talking about it (she’ll dish all after the tonight’s CNN debate Nightline),
2) the word “open marriage” became part of the political lexicon.
The conservative hosts blamed the “liberal media” for talking about the smear, which they then promptly talked about all day on conservative radio in South Carolina.
Most of Schnitt’s callers seemed sympathetic to Gingrich.So did many of the callers earlier to Limbaugh.Limbaugh lauded Gingrich for having had the “decency” to ask his former wife if he could see another woman, rather than simply cheat on her without permission. He also suggested that affairs are common, noting that about half of all U.S. marriages end in divorce.‘There’s even a book on how open marriages can be good… I read it in the 70s,” Limbaugh said before dropping a reference to James Joyce’s “Ulysses,” which ends with a cheater’s soliloquy by Molly Bloom.
OK.
Rick Perry, who dropped out of the race today after realizing he hadn’t been in it, endorsed Gingrich and subtly alluded to the allegations.
“Newt’s not perfect, but who among us is?” Perry said. He called the former House speaker a “conservative visionary” best suited to replace Barack Obama in the White House.
Exactly. Let he who has not cheated on his first wife and then left her when she was dying of cancer and then cheated on that wife with a Congressional intern and asked her for an “open marriage” just as she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis cast the first stone. Let’s focus on the true villain here — Barack Obama and his imaginary war on religion and Christmas.
If Gingrich does manage to win the South Carolina primary, it would also be a political black eye for Gov. Nikki Haley, who endorsed Romney.
A potent U.S. weapon that al Qaeda could not hope to overcome.
Actor Mark Wahlberg set the Internets aflame with the following comments that appeared in the February issue of Men’s Journal:
On being scheduled to be on one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center “If I was on that plane with my kids, it wouldn’t have went down like it did. There would have been a lot of blood in that first-class cabin and then me saying, ‘OK, we’re going to land somewhere safely, don’t worry.’”
I was in New York when the towers fell, and I recall thinking, “This never would have happened if an underwear model had been on board.”
If Osama bin Laden had had access to the flight register and had seen Wahlberg’s name, he would have called the whole thing off. His top lieutenants might have respectfully questioned the decision and bin Laden would have calmly — though secretly making every effort not to wet himself — inserted into his cave’s VCR a battered, 10-year-old VHS tape.
“See,” he would’ve said, his voice trembling slightly, “this is when he went by the name ‘Marky Mark’ and traveled with a covert ops group known as ‘The Funky Bunch.'”
“Merciful Allah! Why did we ever doubt you! Of course, we cannot proceed. Though, we are curious — is the woman singing during the chorus also a member of this ‘Funky Bunch’?”
“That is uncertain. Our intelligence can neither confirm nor deny. I would put nothing past the Americans, though. Still, he speaks to our shame — we are not ‘in it to win it,’ so we must ‘get the hell out.'”
Osama bin Laden and his men would have then turned themselves over to Wahlberg’s Funky Bunch agents — at the time stationed in Pakistan — and all the nations of the world (black, white, red, brown) would have thrown Wahlberg a parade.
Or at least that’s how it probably went in one of the 50 dreams he’s had “about what he would have done to fight the airborne terrorists.”
This is one of those misguided statements that elicit a “Carefully Crafted Celebrity Apology.” Wahlberg’s came in short order:
“To speculate about such a situation is ridiculous to begin with, and to suggest I would have done anything differently than the passengers on that plane was irresponsible. I deeply apologize to the families of the victims that my answer came off as insensitive, it was certainly not my intention.”
See? All better. It wasn’t Wahlberg’s intent to imply that the men and women on those hijacked planes were spineless cowards who didn’t love their families as much as he does.
If it seems as if the “Carefully Crafted Celebrity Apology” was written by someone other than the actual celebrity, someone with a more advanced formal education who specializes in public relations, you are probably not mistaken. Generally, the Carefully Crafted Celebrity Apology is preceded by the Panicked Phone Call to a publicist, who usually exclaims, “He/She said what?”
Texas demonstrates the conservative goal of shrinking government to the point it’s small enough to enter a woman’s womb.
A three-judge federal appeals panel ruled Friday that the state of Texas can move ahead with enforcement of a law requiring doctors to provide a sonogram to pregnant women before they get an abortion.
As written, the law would require women seeking an abortion in Texas to view a picture of the embryo or fetus and hear a description of its development before having the procedure.
This is horrific. The most benign interpretation of the law is that it infantilizes women, who it deems too stupid to realize what a fetus has the potential to become. “Oh, wait, it’s like a future version of me conceived through the fertilization of an egg by sperm — to be exact, a developing mammal after the embryonic stage but before birth? See, I thought it was one of those chestburster things from Alien. My friend Mabel has seen all the movies. She’s real excited about the prequel that’s coming out. Anyway, she told me that I’d want to get that taken care of but now that I see this picture and everything. Well, thanks for straightening me out. Do you validate parking, by the way?”
However, the comments from judges who have ruled on the case only reinforce that the law is intended as federally mandated coercion intended to prevent women from having an abortion.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Pennsylvania case “held that the fact that such truthful, accurate information may cause a woman to choose not to abort her pregnancy only reinforces its relevance to an informed decision,” U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham wrote in a concurring opinion. “Insisting that a doctor give this information in his traditional role of securing informed consent is permissible.”
I admit I’m impressed that a man with the name “Higginbotham” was able to overcome childhood bullying and ostracization and rise to the rank of U.S. Circuit judge, but I disagree wholly with his thinking here. “Informed consent” should relate to the woman’s health and include relevant information about any short or long-term effects (e.g. if the procedure could possibly result in sterilization and so on).
Pro-life advocates often claim that since a doctor will advise you of other alternatives to surgery, it’s appropriate for them to do the same regarding abortion. However, adoption is not a medical procedure, and once a woman is pregnant, that’s the only other option aside from keeping the child herself. Once she’s actually gone to the doctor, it should be accepted that she’s made the very difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy. If she wanted help with such a personal decision, she would reach out to friends and family. Her doctor isn’t her rabbi. He’s a physician.
Higginbotham demonstrates a lack of basic compassion that justifies his being born with the name “Higginbotham.” Yes, forcing a pregnant woman to “view a picture of the embryo or fetus and hear a description of its development before having the procedure” is not merely annoying and might cause her to be late for her hair appointment. It is actually incredibly painful and difficult for her. That fact does not justify doing it. Quite the opposite. And even if it’s occasionally effective and some women choose not to go through with the abortion, the law makes no provision for the associated costs of carrying the pregnancy to term or caring for the child once its born. You see, the people close to a woman who provide counsel and input would also be there to help her once she decides to go through with the pregnancy. This a serious decision that the government is sticking its nose into with the apparently clueless belief that it’s all just a minor inconvenience for a pregnant woman:
“Oh, la di dah, I guess I won’t buy that Coach bag and instead devote the next nine months to successfully bringing this pregnancy to term. No biggie. If I’m not able to raise the child myself, I will give it up for adoption at one of those Imaginary Republican Orphanages (as seen on TV) that will find a home for the child regardless of its health or race. Of course, that won’t be traumatic for me at all because I am just a child-growing machine and wouldn’t possibly become connected to my unborn child over the next nine months. And, really, can I please get an answer about the parking validation?”
If the government believes this type of psychological torture is appropriate in order to prevent people from doing things that are otherwise legal, I would propose a similar law requiring potential gun owners to watch news reports of children who died because of guns in the home.
Texas governor Rick Perry praised the new law, saying, “We will continue to fight any attempt to limit our state’s laws that value and protect the unborn.”
Too bad the effort to “value and protect” them ends once they’re born — especially if they’re women.
Anyone who grew up when rap was the popular music of the day might find it hard to believe there was a time when blacks were expected to be humble, to graciously accept whatever scraps were tossed to them.
Muhammad Ali, born Cassius Clay 70 years ago, was not humble. In a time when calling a black man “uppity” could have lethal implications for him, Ali declared himself “the greatest of all time.” He seized “American exceptionalism” as his own and refused to accept that it was only the province of whites. He wasn’t just handsome. He was “pretty.”
People like to point out the apparent contradiction of a man who made his living beating other men senseless refusing to serve in Vietnam. However, Ali never claimed to be a pacifist. He would fight for his own interests and for the interests of those close to him. But fight for the interests of a nation that barely tolerated his existence, that refused to grant him the rights that should have been his as an American? No, Ali was pretty but he was no fool.
Vietnam, we’re told, was about more than a powerful nation killing poor people. The spread of communism had to be stopped, they said. These are the sorts of big picture, strategic issues that the wealthy and powerful understand far better than the poor and simple. That’s why, even today in Iraq and Afghanistan, I encourage the wealthy and powerful, who understand the reasons for war so well, to go and fight in them.
Of course, even in after World War II, which was as just a war as a war could ever be, black soldiers returned to a country where they were still denied service in restaurants and even beaten and lynched. That was their prize.
Ali was criticized — as was Malcolm X — for his harsh words about whites. Were all whites their enemies? No, but it was hard to dispute that the collective group at the time was either enemy or enabler. It amuses me because American leaders had harsher words to say about the Japanese during World War II, the Soviets during the Cold War, and Muslims today. Martin Luther King preached love, which is admirable, but sometimes true love requires confrontation. Sometimes, the American empire must be told it has no clothes.
Parkinson’s has ravaged Ali, but I won’t dwell on that. Everyone falls hard at the end, even if they never get off the ground. Only a few people ever soar.
serhasacomplaint 
The Many Loves of Rick Santorum…
I’ve stated before that Rick Santorum is the political version of Nick at Nite: His views all come from the 1960s. In an especially dated episode, Santorum says that insurance shouldn’t cover birth control at all.
“This has nothing to do with access,” he said. “This is having someone pay for it, pay for something that shouldn’t be in an insurance plan anyway because it is not, really an insurable item. This is something that is affordable, available. You don’t need insurance for these types of relatively small expenditures. This is simply someone trying to impose their values on somebody else, with the arm of the government doing so. That should offend everybody, people of faith and no faith that the government could get on a roll that is that aggressive.”
Yes, this is the same guy who has won 4 out of 8 GOP presidential contests so far.
Let’s examine what he says here: He makes the case that insurance is essentially requiring someone else to pay for something they find morally objectionable. He tortures logic like it’s a Gitmo inmate and claims that providing a “choice” is “imposing” values on others. I wonder if I can get a refund for all the money I spent on insurance premiums during my vegetarian years that went to treat ailments resulting from eating meat.
I thought freedom of choice meant that we respect the rights of people to choose to do things that don’t personally affect us. Guess not. No, it just means that we are free to do whatever is agreeable to other people.
Santorum ignores the fact that birth control such as the pill can have uses beyond turning women into Catherine Tramell from Basic Instinct. He also argues, based on his extensive experience as a woman, that birth control isn’t really an “insurable” item because it is “affordable, available.” The availability argument is interesting. I see car lots all over town. Guess I shouldn’t bother insuring mine. Is he correct about the affordability?
I popped over to Planned Parenthood’s Web site, where I received an e-abortion, to get a rough estimate on birth control pills. Looks like they range from $15 to $50 a month. Santorum probably also thinks comic books still cost a dime.
Let’s see: That’s $150 to $600 a year; $5400 to $18,000 over 30 years. Maybe I shouldn’t insure my car.
Posted by Stephen Robinson on February 10, 2012 in Capitalism, Political Theatre, Social Commentary
Tags: birth control, Rick Santorum