The Caterpillars Are Winning
I’ve written before about the “Republican War on Women”. It’s a meme, to be sure, but one that seems to have some stickiness or even truthiness to it, because key Republicans keep doing things that are so gloriously tone-deaf.
Instead of concentrating on jobs, the Republicans in the House concentrated on sex. House committees investigating the conflict between women’s previously established right to contraceptive services and the desires of the Catholic Church refused to hear testimony from women. When Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi held shadow committee meeting with Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke testifying, de facto Republican spokesman Rush Limbaugh called Fluke a “slut”.
Faced with the ensuing controversy, Republican National Committee chairman called the idea of a “Republican War on Women” a false and pervasive meme, likening it to a mythical “War on Caterpillars”. Regardless of what he meant, the caterpillars were enraged.
Even a Nixon-appointed Federal judge failed to see the sense in a suit filed by several states’ Republican Attorneys General which advanced the argument of Federal “coercion” to drive women towards contraception that they did not want and were morally opposed to. I’ve written before how the provision of contraceptive services is required by The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, not by some imagined special feature of Obamacare. Yet, that hasn’t stopped Congressional Republicans from wrapping themselves in the flag and carrying the cross before them. Sometimes their religious zeal has outstripped their common sense.
Freshman Representative Kevin Yoder (R-Overland Park, KS) went on an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-sponsored trip (supposedly for Congressional fact-finding). I’ve never been compelled to disrobe when visiting the holiest religious sites on Earth. That’s why I find it hard to explain why Yoder apparently thinks that mixed-gender skinny-dipping in the Sea of Galilee is a damn fine idea. He has a 100 percent solid voting record from National Right to Life, including votes against Planned Parenthood funding. His moral rectitude was evident for all to see, along with his primary sexual characteristics. By current standards, Yoder is also more fiscally conservative than the average Republican; his fiscal combined DW-NOMINATE is +0.574, significantly to the right of the average +0.478.
(Note that the DW-NOMINATE scores listed in this article are combined, meaning they use the scale designed to be used between the House and Senate; these numbers appear to be more moderate than the separate DW-NOMINATE scores used with just the House, but it’s just a different scale, and they are therefore not comparable to the scores we have used in previous articles. Why do we use the combined scale here? Because the separate-scale numbers have yet to be published for the 112th Congress.)
Republican Vice-Presidential candidate and House Budget Committee chair Paul Ryan (R-Janesville, WI) voted for a Federal-level “personhood” amendment. (I’ve written before about these amendments, which would ban any contraceptive medication or procedure that acts after conception, and may well make each miscarriage a potential homicide to be investigated.) Like Yoder, he voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Like Yoder, Ryan is more fiscally conservative than the average Republican; his combined fiscal DW-NOMINATE is +0.567.
Women’s advocacy groups, such as Emily’s List, reacted to Ryan’s candidacy with predictable outrage.
Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg shot back:
This is a desperate attempt by President Obama’s allies to distract from his failed economic policies, which have been particularly devastating to women. Hundreds of thousands of women have lost their jobs; poverty among women is highest in nearly two decades; and half of recent graduates can’t find a good job. Middle-class families have struggled in the Obama economy, and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have a plan to strengthen the middle class and get our country back on the right track.
Now cometh Missouri Representative Todd Akin (R-Wildwood, MO), who (at least until yesterday) was favored to win over incumbent Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, with a five-point Akin advantage in the Real Clear Politics average (with the usual sparse polling data). For example, in Michael’s latest Senate Watch, he rates the Missouri Senate race as “Leans Republican”. Akin is an engineer and a member of the House Science Committee. He’s leveraged that position to invent a new system of human reproductive biology, claiming that women who are raped release Magic Unicorn Dust from their ovaries which stops conception in its tracks:
It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, [conception from rape is] really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.
Confronted with the rank stupidity of this remark, Akin’s campaign website tried to walk back the quote but failed to follow The First Rule of Holes. His campaign released a statement, which reads in full:
As a member of Congress, I believe that working to protect the most vulnerable in our society is one of my most important responsibilities, and that includes protecting both the unborn and victims of sexual assault. In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year. Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve.
I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election.
But I also believe that this election is about a wide-range of very important issues, starting with the economy and the type of country we will be leaving our children and grandchildren. We’ve had 42 straight months of unacceptably high unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, and Democratic leaders in Washington who are focused on growing government, instead of jobs. That is my primary focus in this campaign and while there are those who want to distract from that, knowing they cannot defend the Democrats’ failed economic record of the last four years, that will continue to be my focus in the months ahead.
Instead of admitting he just Made Stuff Up, he claims he merely failed to capture his empathetic spirit in his remarks.
Akin’s combined DW-NOMINATE is +0.623, to the right of Reps. Ryan and Yoder.

DW-NOMINATE scores for the 112th Congress. I’ve also left in Poole’s original plot of the numerical locations of Rep. Pelosi, Pres. Obama, Vice-Pres. Biden, and Vice-Pres. candidate Rep. Paul Ryan. Source: voteview.com
To give the reader an idea of where these three Republican House members stand relative to their colleagues, here’s a graph by DW-NOMINATE developer Keith Poole which he posted on his blog. All three of these caterpillar-hating Representatives lie well to the right of the mean Republican House member, which puts them amongst the most conservative politicians in the country. It would seem, based on this evidence, that hating caterpillars is highly correlated with DW-NOMINATE.
President Obama has a 14-point lead among women in Virginia, a 23-point lead among women in Wisconsin, and an eight-point lead among women in Colorado, according to an August 8 Quinnipiac/CBS/New York Times poll. I don’t know what the President’s lead among caterpillars in swing states is. But based on what I’m seeing here, I’m thinking Reince Priebus might want to take another look at that caterpillar problem he’s having.
Related articles
- Concerned Women For America Mocks Sandra Fluke (huffingtonpost.com)
- State Drops All Charges Against Planned Parenthood (huffingtonpost.com)
- How Not to Figure Out Republicans (esquire.com)
- GOP Senate nominee: Women don’t get pregnant from ‘legitimate’ rapes (rawstory.com)
- Missouri Republican: ‘Legitimate rape’ rarely causes pregnancy (firstread.nbcnews.com)
- What Happens Next on Akin (thepage.time.com)
- Is Todd Akin Toast In Missouri? (decoded.nationaljournal.com)

This entry was posted by Monotreme on August 20, 2012 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Uncategorized. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
Lowering taxes on the rich while cutting entitlements certainly
doesn’t sound like it’s a plan to strengthen the middle class.Sure it is. Giving tax breaks to billionaires means they will create jobs in gratitude for being thus worshiped. And cutting entitlements means that them lazy people who aren’t entitled to my money don’t get any of it. See how that works?
-
And so another delicious phrase is introduced to the public discourse by a Republican politician: “Legitimate rape.” Good grief.
Of course the really horrendous thing about this is the counterweight: the fact that many Republican men (and based on my reading this morning, a lot of Republican women, too) believe there is such a thing as “illegitimate rape”.… wherein, of course, the slut was asking for it.
And, of course, if you’ve been “legitimately” raped, you have no right to seek an abortion.
-
#4 written by dawolf 8 months ago
filistro, my best guess is that the “legitimate rape” he was talking about is something like stranger rape or real rape, and “illegitimate rape”, by exclusion is rape that isn’t really rape, rape in a relationship or something like that.
note: that’s not what I believe, but I suspect he was going down that line.
-
dawolf… I’d like to believe what you say (though if that truly was Akin’s intent, even that is of course incredibly offensive.)
But I strongly suspect his definition of “illegitimate rape” also includes, for instance, a woman wearing provocative clothing or behaving flirtatiously who is raped by a stranger. Because “that sort of woman” would not have a virtuous uterus that would shut down and refuse to admit the invading sperm. So if she gets pregnant, she can damn well shut up and bear the baby, because she was “asking for it.”
-
dawolf, I think you’re correct. I think Akin was trying to draw a distinction between “false accusations of rape” (that is, when a woman “changes her mind afterwards”) and “actual” rape. Not that I’m defending him, mind you. His point is one of the most outlandish pieces of crap I’ve ever heard, and the distinction he’s trying to draw is one of the many offensive parts of it. It’s the way rapists have tried to excuse their actions since the invention of sex, that is, “She wanted it at the time.”
So maybe that’s why the right-wing blogs are full of the sort of thing that filistro described. They are perhaps taking Akin’s words to mean that most of the women who claim to have been “raped” are actually just slutty sluts, and you know they wanted it by the fact that some of them get pregnant, and a woman only gets pregnant if she wants to. After all, there’s all that welfare money to be had. [/parody]
-
#8 written by rgbact 8 months ago
What would political blogs do without politician gaffes? Maybe Obama is right to just stick with Entertainment Tonite and local top 40 radio stations. No landmines to dodge there.
Anyway,GOP politicians should avoid women’s health or black issues much like Democrats should avoid economic or military issues. Its a land mine. This dude should resign just because he got lured into debating an obscure women;s issue when there are far bigger issues.
-
#9 written by shortchain 8 months ago
DC,
filistro has captured the real idea a lot closer. After all, Akin (and Paul Ryan) co-sponsored legislation to redefine “rape”, remember? -
rgb… What would political blogs do without politician gaffes?
Swimming naked in the Sea of Galilee after a night of celebratory drinking is a gaffe.
What Akin said is a deeply revealing glimpse into the Republican mindset, for people who don’t ordinarily travel in that exotic realm. It shows that many, many ultra-conservative men view women as seductive, slutty bimbos who use their sexuality to entrap men and then charge them with rape because they want to kill their babies.
Akin’s statement reveals a narrow, offensive, juvenile attitude and it explains a lot of the the things Republican men do and say on women’s issues.
It is politically lethal. It is, as my favorite politician would say, a BFD.
-
#11 written by shortchain 8 months ago
rgbact,
I’ll remind you again that “political gaffe” is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. In this case, the politician simply revealed his inner 17th-century religious extremism.By the way — on the theory that this will make him unelectable — he’s been in office, in the House, for more than a decade. Missouri is, after all, just next door to Kansas.
-
@rgb… obscure woman’s issue.
Let’s pretend for a minute, okay? Let’s pretend you, rgb, were biologically constructed so that a stranger could at any time attack you violently on a darkened street or parking lot, force himself on you and implant you with an organism that would grow inside your body for 9 months, doubling the fluid volume in your body, increasing the load on your liver, kidneys and heart, and permanently changing the alignment of all your internal organs. After the 9 month period that organism would erupt from your body in excruciating pain, tearing your soft tissue and bringing you, for a few perilous moments, very close to death. And after that traumatic event, the child of your attacker would remain your responsibility for the rest of your natural life.
And let’s say this gruesome event could happen to you at any time, and was actually happening to literally thousands upon thousands of men, every single year.
And let’s say your government would, for religious reasons, seek to deny you and all other men the right to easily remove that invading organism from your body within hours or days of its implantation.
Would you, I wonder, consider that an “obscure men’s issue”?
-
#13 written by rgbact 8 months ago
I’ll remind you again that “political gaffe” is when a politician accidentally tells the truth
Yep.I still haven’t figure out if monitoring gaffes gives real insight or its just blog entertainment.
Would you, I wonder, consider that an “obscure men’s issue”?
Depends. How often does it happen? And given Roe v.Wade is in effect, what the heck can a MO senator even do about it?
-
-
-
What’s really funny about HR3 (the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”) is that it’s already illegal for taxpayer funds to be used for abortions. It’s just one more example of Republicans wasting taxpayer dollars by making Congress do irrational things (like voting 33 times to repeal the ACA).
-
#17 written by dawolf 8 months ago
@rgbact
“Depends. How often does it happen? And given Roe v.Wade is in effect, what the heck can a MO senator even do about it?”
Well, given that Roe v Wade was decided (and could be re-decided) by the Supreme Court, which is decided by individual justices, who are selected by.…the Senate…clearly a Senator from MO can do a lot more about it than most.
As to how often it happens, no idea. You’ll be looking at some very fuzzy numbers to work it out.
-
-
#19 written by shortchain 8 months ago
Michael,
That’s because, after the uproar, it was eventually modified. See the original text (see section 309, I believe) of the bill. -
How often does it happen? 32,000 times a year!
******************************************************
Abs. Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Aug;175(2):320–4; discussion 324–5.Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women.Holmes MM, Resnick HS, Kilpatrick DG, Best CL.Source
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston 29425–2233, USA.
AbstractOBJECTIVE:
We
attempted to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and
provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from
rape.STUDY DESIGN:
A national probability sample of 4008
adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that
assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and
mental health outcomes.RESULTS:
The national
rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of
reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101
pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related
pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from
assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these
victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and
47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4%
of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had
already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant
whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption;
an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion.CONCLUSIONS:
Rape-related
pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many
unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic
violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the
United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at
preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual
victimization. -
MCCASKILL WARNS GOP: DON’T PUSH AKIN OUT
“Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) warned top Republican officials on Monday that any efforts to push Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) out of the Senate race against her, following his galling remarks about “legitimate” rape victims not getting pregnant, would backfire.
“I think for Washington party insiders to come in and try to invalidate the votes of Missourians would be radical,” McCaskill said in a phone interview with The Huffington Post. “I think that would be a very radical thing to have happen, and I can’t imagine how the Republican primary voters would think about that in Missouri.”
“I think there would be a significant backlash,” she added. “I’m not sure that would have a good ending for the Republican Party.”
>
Oh what a tangled web rgbact’s extreme conservative wingnuts weave …
-
#22 written by mclever 8 months ago
@filistro
Even more disturbing is that pregnancy after rape is actually more likely than pregnancy after consensual sex. The likelihood of pregnancy after a single instance of rape is ~5%. You can find studies that say rape results in pregnancy about 5.3% of the time for teens and 4.7% for women 18–45. In looking for statistics, I’ve seen several sites all citing numbers in the range of 5%.
It should be noted that 5% is the approximate likelihood of pregnancy after a single sexual encounter under ideal conditions during the woman’s peak fertility with optimal male sperm production. Most consensual sex isn’t quite so…optimal. Under normal circumstances, the likelihood of pregnancy after a single (unprotected) consensual encounter is about 3%. I think there’s a 2001 Wilcox study of couples attempting to conceive that pegged the odds at 3.1%. Clearly, 3% is less than 5%.
So, in other words, there’s no magic shield that protects a woman from conceiving when she’s raped. On the contrary, her body may betray her and increase the likelihood of conception due to the way her body’s hormones react. And our dear Representative from Missouri would want to do further emotional damage to those victims by suggesting that it couldn’t be “legitimate” rape if they ended up pregnant.
The whole notion of “legitimate” rape disgusts me.
-
#23 written by dawolf 8 months ago
-
Imagine people of this mindset sitting on a jury during a rape trial. If the victim is/was pregnant as a result of the rape, these jurors are already convinced it wasn’t REALLY a rape.. because if it had been a “legitimate rape,” she would not have become pregnant.
But what I find most troubling of all was this sentence from the SC study… Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator.
So in an ideal Republican world, (the one Paul Ryan dreams of) all these young girls… impregnated by their fathers, uncles, older brothers or Mom’s boyfriends… would be forced to carry their pregnancies to term.That is absolutely barbaric. There is no other word for it.
-
#25 written by mclever 8 months ago
it blames the woman “your body COULD have stopped the pregnancy and it didn’t. Therefore it’s your choice to have the baby”
Absolutely, dawolf. Absolutely. If you’re pregnant after rape, then you must’ve really wanted it, in defiance of all known laws of basic biology.
Not to mention the backhanded slam on women who really do want to get pregnant. Might as well also be saying, “Lookee here, little lady, if you really wanted a baby, then your magic vagina wall would let the man’s sperm through. So, the fact that you are having trouble conceiving means that you must not really want a baby.”
Yeah, tell that to my cousin who spent ten years going to dozens of doctors trying to figure out why she and her husband couldn’t conceive. Somehow, it’s always the woman’s fault, right?
-
I’m growing increasingly interested in the sociological and psychological aspects of this. For instance, I’m really starting to wonder why it is Republican MEN who are the loudest and most radical on the subject of abortion and reproductive rights. You almost never hear Republican women politicians taking the absolutist stand, i.e. no abortion even in the case of rape or incest. (That’s why it was really quite startling when Sharron Angle said that publicly.) And many high profile Republican women, including the ladies of the Bush family, are openly pro-choice.
It’s the MEN who wax the loudest and most furious on this issue. Why is that, I wonder? Are Republican men secretly afraid their women might be inclined to stray sexually, and a rigid stance on abortion and contraception helps to keep the ladies in line?
So… maybe liberal men are more confident sexually, and less inclined to have cause to fret about the behavior of their women.
Very interesting to speculate about. Theories, anybody?
-
#27 written by rgbact 8 months ago
“Theories, anybody?”
Judging by alot of liberal women I see on TV, I think their hubands rely on the general unlikeability of their wives rather than abortion to keep them from straying. Pretty sure Bill Clinton wasn’t too worried about someone snatching Hillary away from him..
“You almost never hear Republican women politicians taking the absolutist stand”
Women politicians don’t take absolutist (or strong) stances in general, which might be why they aren’t as successful. Bachmann and Palin are 2 new women that are more strident overall.….and obviously despised by the left.
-
#28 written by dawolf 8 months ago
filistro — I’d say it points to a lack of compassion, arising from a lack of empathy amongst the right wing. You can see signs of this lack of empathy/compassion in things like “every man for himself”
I also suspect that the right-wing in general find it harder to look at things from a different perspective.
Put the two together, and you have republican women (not having the different perspective issue as strongly in this case, as it’s about women) having a slightly different viewpoint than republican men (lack of empathy, and not able to see from the other viewpoint).
I am certain I will be flamed for this viewpoint from the right-wingers on here. But then, a couple of them tend to flame anything they disagree with even slightly: because they can’t look at it from the other persons viewpoint.…
-
#29 written by dawolf 8 months ago
I’d point out — being “individualistic” makes you less likely to be compassionate or empathetic: being “socialistic” means you are thinking of others as well as yourself, so are more likely to be empathetic.
This is not to say that either is a wrong viewpoint. I suspect Christopher Columbus was strongly individualistic and didn’t care much for the men on his ship, and he was wildly successful. Many businessmen are extremely successful whilst being happy to fire shedloads of their employees in a downturn with no regard for how they will survive: Romney has just been nominated and no-one should consider him an empathetic person in the slightest, so clearly a lack of empathy is not a disqualifying characteristic for many people.
-
#30 written by dawolf 8 months ago
-
#31 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“What Akin said is a deeply revealing glimpse into the Republican mindset…”
What Akin said was a deeply revealing glimpse into Akin’s mindset, not anyone else’s. And your response provides us a deeply revealing glimpse into your mindset and your absolute addiction to all-but-slanderous broadstroke generalizations.
“Missouri is, after all, just next door to Kansas.”
Another example of the kind of condescension that makes people from the Heartland view militant leftist thugs like shortchain as little more than feral hogs or cockroaches.
-
#32 written by shortchain 8 months ago
Mule,
You seem to believe that the people of Missouri, who have elected this troglodyte to the House repeatedly, are stupid, because — although you seem to think they don’t share his backward and misogynistic ideas, they’ve elected him to the House several times.Look, either a person agrees with him — in which case they are ignorant, either as a result of being uneducated or through religious fanaticism, or they’re stupid. Take your pick, sir.
Which is it in your case?
-
#33 written by Max 8 months ago
Judging by alot of liberal women I see on TV, I think their hubands rely on the general unlikeability of their wives rather than abortion to keep them from straying. Pretty sure Bill Clinton wasn’t too worried about someone snatching Hillary away from him..
Oh, yeah, rgbact, THAT’s just fuckin’ Hilarious!!!! Women you find “unlikeable” won’t get raped! You just sank to the same abysmal depths as Akin, even if, PARTICULARLY if, you actually thought you were joking! Disgusting!!!!
It’s the MEN who wax the loudest and most furious on this issue. Why is that, I wonder?
fili,
I see more and more the startling correlation between those right wing GOP males and those they claim to most detest: the conservative fundamentalist Islamist males. The ones who want women in burkahs all the time and who will commit “honor” killings of sisters and daughters who have been raped. They see themselves in the mirror, perhaps? -
#34 written by Max 8 months ago
-
#35 written by mostlyilurk 8 months ago
-
dawolf… that’s interesting, the concept of empathy (or lack thereof.) I hadn’t really thought of that. Maybe Republican men are just simply unable to imagine how much THEY would hate it if soembody else were to tell them they are not allowed to make the most private and intimate decisions about their own bodies. So… a basic inability to empathize. Interesting. You may be onto something.
Max… startling correlation between those right wing GOP males and those
they claim to most detest: the conservative fundamentalist
Islamist males
You know, I’ve been thinking about that, too. For men who seek to control people’s lives by religious precepts, the first step seems to be… gain brutal control over women and the rest will fall into place. -
#38 written by shortchain 8 months ago
-
@shortchain.… Hey, MR’s right! I’m just like them!
LOL.. smelly, omnivorous, and ineradicable.… and cute as a button.…
Okay, here’s mine:
Q: What do feral hogs and cockroaches have in common?
A: I’m not sure, but if Muley can’t tell the difference, I’d hate to peek inside his kitchen cabinets…
-
I heard a fascinating thought on the radio today. I can’t take credit for it, but I would if I could.
Consider the Castle Doctrine — that your home is your castle, and if there is someone who comes into your home, you have the right to defend it. You even have the right to kill that person if he or she won’t leave. That person may have been in your home innocently — it doesn’t matter. If they invade your home without permission, you may eject them or even kill them.
Consider that right wingers insist a fetus is a person. An unwanted pregnancy is then a person invading your body without your permission. For some reason, right wingers insist the Castle Doctrine does not apply.
Personally, I think the Castle Doctrine is a horrendous and inhumane concept (leading directly to Stand your Ground and other license-to-kill laws). But it isn’t my opinion that’s important here. If someone is going to say you can defend your home from unwanted invasion, how dare they say a woman may not defend her own body?
——
By the way, the point of this “legitimate rape” crap is to prevent a woman (and we know they all do this, right?) from going to her doctor and claiming rape simply because she wants an abortion. She has to have filed a complaint with the police and gone through all that implies first.
-
I am saddened that this is a “women’s issue.” When the rights of any person or group are infringed, it becomes that much easier to stomp on the rights of someone else.
The “Personhood Amendment” and attempts to de-fund Planned Parenthood, and Akin’s offensive comment are all of a piece, all part of the wish to control other people. Part of that is divide-and-conquer, so let’s define this as a “woman’s issue” and pretend that men are (or should be) on the other side of it (or at least, that they shouldn’t care so much).
It’s not a woman’s issue, and it’s not a “war on women”. It is a war on humanity. It is a war on human rights. It is a war on us all.
-
Daily Riddle… What do feral hogs and cockroaches have in common?
A feral hog is actually a rather noble beast. They are truly frightening when enraged, and almost impossible to kill without really heavy armament. They are smart and sociable — a herd of feral hogs could take down a squad of marines armed with anything less than a full load of AK47’s, and even then it would be close.
The only reason feral hogs don’t rule the world is that they don’t have thumbs.
And maybe that is the main thing feral hogs have in common with cockroaches. No thumbs.
-
@DC… They are smart and sociable — a herd of feral hogs could take down a
squad of marines armed with anything less than a full load of AK47’s,
and even then it would be close.So you’re saying that feral hogs are highly intelligent, socialist, and anti-military?
Muley was right… there IS a lot of similarity to shortchain!
-
#44 written by Max 8 months ago
-
I think this whole “legitimate rape” brouhaha is going to effect a permanent change in the entire abortion debate going forward.
Because even Republicans are now massively outraged at Akin’s statement, to the point of major GOP organizations demanding his ouster, threatening to pull funding if he doesn’t quit, etc. So the consensus seems to be that impregnation through rape is a different category somehow and is a case where abortion is permissible. But if abortion any time after fertilization is “murder”… the “killing of a baby”… then how could it be permissible because of the sin of the father?
And… following the logical bouncing ball… if the “murder” of a “baby” is permissible under any circumstance… i.e if there is a situational ethic in play… then the whole anti-abortion argument breaks down, and Republicans are back to the same stance as Democrats… that abortion needs to be safe, legal and rare.
But then of course we knew that all along, didn’t we? Republicans don’t REALLY want to outlaw abortion… they just want to keep the issue around to fire up the outrage machine and help with fundraising.
-
#46 written by shortchain 8 months ago
filistro,
No, what most of the Republicans are upset about is that it’s hurting their chances of getting elected. From their standpoint, this is a gaffe — they all secretly agree with Akin, or at least don’t disagree — and they don’t want it to harm their power. Expect to see a lot of angst about how this is such a “minor” thing, when there are so many more important issues, like “jobs” (by which they mean their jobs), the economy (by which they mean defeating any attempt to make the wealthy pay their fair share to support our society) and so on. -
#47 written by shortchain 8 months ago
-
-
#50 written by Max 8 months ago
-
-
-
#53 written by shortchain 8 months ago
-
From cnn.com:
A Republican National Committee member from a critical swing state predicted that a likely win in the Missouri Senate contest was now in jeopardy. As for the presidential campaign, the RNC member noted that Akin’s remarks have caused an unnecessary distraction for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.
“It is a terrible distraction in a Senate race that we were poised to win,” said the RNC member, who spoke candidly on the condition of anonymity. “Akin needs to do the right thing and quietly leave the ballot.
“It has also changed the national conversation back to this supposed Republican faux war on women. That is not where Gov. Romney and his ticket want to spend their time on between now and November 6.”
-
#55 written by Max 8 months ago
MW,
I hardly believe that. I’m sure many (perhaps even most) true socons would fall under that category, but that’s as far as you can credibly go with it.
Please offer evidence of that position. Because, based on the empirical data, the deafening silence, dc’s and shortchain’s statements have the preponderance of evidence in their favor. Now “most” can even mean only “one” that disagrees, but such would be, although technically true, politically, a 99% majority, for all practical purposes, is “all”.
-
Michael, I’m not sure which portion or portions of Akin’s statement would be objected to by “most” current Republican members of Congress (state or federal). Can you elaborate?
No Republican has objected to the substance of his statement. I’ve seen them calling it “reprehensible and inexcusable.” Romney said “Congressman Akin’s comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable and, frankly, wrong,” but I don’t know if “wrong” means factually or inconveniently. Megan McCain complained about how unproductive the statement was. None of them (as far as I’ve heard — I could be wrong) has said that there is any factual problem with it.
I’ve seen enough “personhood” amendments and laws. A majority of state legislatures have considered further restrictions on abortion, and in several states, it is now, for all intents, impossible. Paul Ryan tried to redefine “rape” in saying that federal funding can’t be used for abortions in cases of “rape” (it had to be “forcible rape”) in a bill he co-sponsored with Akins.
I think it can indeed be credibly said that most secretly agree — or at least, they would be willing to “agree” if they thought it would give them political power. I don’t see a problem and I see no evidence whatever against this possibility.
I will be most happy to be proven wrong. I am waiting for Republicans to come out in force to condemn the political position Akins actually took.
-
@DC… I think it can indeed be credibly said that most secretly agree — or
at least, they would be willing to “agree” if they thought it would
give them political power.I simply can’t believe that. To me, it defies credulity. I do think, like you, that many GOP pols would indeed give lip service to the “no exceptions” stance in order to score political points among the religious right.… but as a empathetic person (and a mother of girls) I simply CANNOT believe that more than a tiny handful of Republican politicians would, for instance, deny an abortion to their own 14 year-old daughter if she was impregnated by a rapist.
To me that would be contrary to everything I know about people and parenthood. And these people, though they may hold some strange and wacky ideas, cannot possibly be that different from the people I know and interact with in my daily life.
-
I simply CANNOT believe that more than a tiny handful of Republican
politicians would, for instance, deny an abortion to their own
14 year-old daughter if she was impregnated by a rapist.They may likely convince themselves their own daughters are pure and/or made an error. (Some of them, anyway.) Or at least that, being privileged, the rules don’t apply to them. Other people’s daughters, however, not so much, and that is what concerns me, for their view of other people’s daughters is what will determine the law. So I really don’t care what they would say about their own daughters, because that would do nothing more than add hypocrisy to their other sins.
These are the people who want to enact “personhood” laws, that would put both the raped woman and her doctor on trial for murder. Whether they “actually” believe the nonsense Akin said or not is irrelevant, for the effect on the law is the same either way. They might as well believe it, and if pushing them to admit they don’t would help to reveal the emptiness in their position, I’m more than willing to do that. As I said, I’d be overjoyed to have them prove me wrong.
I can certainly believe many of these people think God does not allow victims of “actual” rape to get pregnant. I would be happy to be proven wrong on that, as well.
The total and inexcusable insanity of the Republican Congressional delegation for the last three years leads me to put no off-the-deep-end irrationality beyond them, unless I have solid evidence otherwise. These people are caught in the grip of something far beyond their control (the Norquist Demon perhaps? — something much like Demon Rum) and they keep just going farther. I honestly cannot yet see the end to their madness.
-
Max,
Please offer evidence of that position.
Something closer to home. You may recall filistro observing that we have an easier time around here shooting at the other party, and don’t do as much to correct those on the “same side”, even when we disagree with them. I make an effort to counter this (such as in this discussion), but not as often as I could.
You’re taking absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
And, given that the claim I was refuting was absolute (“all”), you even agreed that it’s highly unlikely that shortchain’s statement is true. Mine was relative (“perhaps even most”). Additionally, given that fiscons tend not to care that much about the socon issues (watch how they squirm when they have to toe the socon line), it’s highly unlikely to hit the “99% majority” either.
-
-
Here is the ethical problem for me. Which is worst?
1) That Republican politicians actually believe that a four-day-old microscopic collection of cells is a person (or, for some of them, that it became a person several days before impregnation), and so a raped woman and her doctor need to be charged with the crime of murder.
2) That they don’t actually believe this, but are willing to lie about it in order to manipulate gullible but devout Christians to vote for them.
3) That they not only don’t believe it, and would use the lie to obtain political power, but they would also follow through on their threats to pass such a law, and so send women and their doctors to prison on murder charges.
All three of these are not only affronts to our political discourse, and to religious freedom, and to civil rights, but also to the whole concept of religion. I am offended to my bones.
The first of the three possibilities is at least honest. If Akin’s insanity is typical, at least Republican politicians are honest in their insanity. But their reaction to him, running away from his statements, tells me that not one of them is being honest with us, for anyone who supports the overturn of Roe v. Wade — and is not a hypocritical bastard — would at least be trying to make excuses for Akins (as rgbact did). “Yeah, the way he said it is kinda crazy, but his heart’s in the right place, let’s go back to talking about jobs,” or something like that.
I have no problem with giving them the choice of being as insane as Akins, or revealing their stunningly cynical hypocrisy. If pushing the issue can make them tell their own base that they support “personhood” only because they are all panderers and sycophants, I’m okay with that. Until then, I’m going with taking them at their word — and none of them has objected to the substance — only the manner — of Akin’s statement, or with the effect it is having on the race.
-
Michael,
Then I’ll amend my statement. You said,
I’m sure many (perhaps even most) true socons
would fall under that category, but that’s as far as you can
credibly go with it.Saying “many” or “most” agree with it, rather than “all,” is probably safer. I’m fine with that change. It’s a fair catch. Most of the rest seem to be hypocrites, which isn’t any better.
-
#63 written by Max 8 months ago
-
#64 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
-
A snap poll tonight by PPP shows Akin still leading McCaskill by one point… unchanged from before he made his “legitimate rape” comments.
So maybe he’ll read this as a reason to defy the Establishment and hang on? He has to get out by 5:00 tomorrow if he’s going.
-
#66 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
Bravo, just bravo. You guys have really outdone yourselves lately. You’ve managed to sully the conversation here so badly that the KosKids and FireDogLakers actually look like the sane ones trying to “govern through reason.“
I’m literally laughing out loud at this sad and pathetic display being put on by what are supposedly members of the human race. It’s an absolute embarrassment. But thanks for the laughs. I’m always up for a few howlers.
-
Mule,
I’m honestly curious. I really enjoy when you and I have respectful conversations.
Do you agree with Akin? Or do you disagree, but perhaps think his opinions have some merit, perhaps some merit that is not particularly obvious?
What are your views of the pro-personhood politicians who are running away from Akin? Are they betraying their convictions, or is there some aspect of it I’m missing?
-
A snap poll tonight by PPP shows Akin still leading McCaskill by one point… unchanged from before he made his “legitimate rape” comments.
As shortchain pointed out in #32, Akin’s constituents probably either knew how he believed, or didn’t care. This anti-reason anti-humanitarian view really is the lowest common denominator that Republicans are reaching for these days. This has become the tea bag on which the base of the party rests.
-
#70 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
No, I don’t agree with his views. He is loathesome. Period.
Beyond that, I have no interest in psycho-analyzing him or his views and spending hours creatively thinking of ways that such analysis might provide me a rarely seen glimpse into the minds of people in which I vehemently disagree and openly despise so I can make broad generalizations of their character because they share the same self-identified political label as that one man.
-
The New York Times analyzes Rep. Akin’s claim.
Bottom line: there is a strong school of magical thought whose adherents believe that forcible rape causes a woman to release hormones that prevent pregnancy. -
-
#73 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
Michael and Monotreme,
I actually pity you two.…how tragically embarrassing and pathetic to have your good names sullied by your associations here. Your inability to distance yourself with this never-ending parade of drivel has proved to be the death knell for any chance you two had to be considered respected and credible logicians.
This site has clearly moved so far to the extreme left that there’s no doubt in my mind that a hypothetical right-wing group that existed at an equal distance away from “the center” as this one would be considered a “hate group” by the government and under surveillance.
-
Mule,
The question of (as you put it) “psycho-analyzing” Akin and others like him is relevant, as it has to do with what these people are going to do next year. If Republicans win the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, do you think they will actually enact laws based on (what you see as) Akin’s “loathesome” views (which Ryan has claimed to share)? Or do you think they are being cynically hypocritical in expressing views they don’t believe, in order to get elected? It does matter.
-
Rachel Maddow this evening documented lots of Republican politicians and lots of anti-abortion activists who have claimed that women who are “truly” raped can’t get pregnant. Therefore, if a woman gets pregnant, she was not raped. Therefore, there should be no exception for rape victims.
Seriously. This is not just Akin. This is becoming Republican mainstream.
-
#77 written by rgbact 8 months ago
-
#78 written by dawolf 8 months ago
-
And on military matters, the leader of which party got us into Iraq and ten years of wandering around Afghanistan? And the leader of which party arranged to take out bin Laden?
Could it be that it is Republicans who are clueless on the military?
These memes — that the party of the Great Recession and of the Iraq’s WMDs know the first thing about economic or military matters — have got to die.
-
#80 written by Max 8 months ago
Mule,
When you have something to contribute, please do so. Otherwise, your “psychoanalysis” is cheap, bothersome and lacks credibility.
rgbact,
“ It’d be nice if everyone would stop talking about stuff they are clueless about.”
Interesting you would say such a thing, particularly since you are so OFTEN proven incorrect in your pronouncements with a simple Google keystroke. Just as when you think a referral to Marines carrying AK’s in a discussion of feral hogs has any argumentative value vs hyperbole, and think you could make a point of such.
And BTW, your earlier remark still sit in the middle of the room looking and smelling like the pile of shit it is.
-
#81 written by Max 8 months ago
Mule,
“Beyond that, I have no interest in psycho-analyzing him or his views and spending hours creatively thinking of ways that such analysis might provide me a rarely seen glimpse into the minds of people in which I vehemently disagree and openly despise so I can make broad generalizations of their character ”
Except! That is what YOU DO CONSTANTLY, is your usual first response here before you, if you ever do, get around to making whatever valid point you may have.
You chose the path on which we walk.
-
As expected, the Republican Party doubles down on the crazy.
Personally, I believe that any American citizen has the Constitutional right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances regardless of the topic. I wouldn’t want to restrict anyone’s ability to comment on any topic. I do, however, think that those who comment should expect their comments to be subjected to critical analysis. -
#83 written by Max 8 months ago
“
And on military matters, the leader of which party got us into Iraq and ten years of wandering around Afghanistan? “And so starved the VA that wounded warriors returning from those wars have had the WORST overall service from that agency since it’s inception. That there are MORE private agencies and organizations trying to make up the difference than EVER.
And the leader of what party has restored funding to the VA in increasing amounts since taking office.
-
Shawn Otto’s blog has a nice rundown of the 18th century “science” behind Rep. Akin’s remarks, and those who would endeavour to defend him.
Next up: the House Science, Space & Technology Committee looks into the urgent phlogiston shortage. -
#85 written by DrFunguy 8 months ago
Were it not from Mule, I would find irony in the accusation of logarchism being a ‘hate group’ coming from one of two participants who has on more than one occasion threatened physical violence.
Having followed this blog since the 538 days, I have no doubt that the most hateful bile posted here spews from Mule’s keys. Which is sad because, when he is not in scorched earth mode, he is among the more interesting participants…
-
#86 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“Yes, those liberal Nobel Prize winners in economics like Krugman & Stiglitz don’t know anything about economics.…they’re just clueless.”
Krugman doesn’t carry the respect you think he does, even with that Nobel Prize attached to his name.
“one of two participants who has on more than one occasion threatened physical violence.”
Could you please document the last time that was? Thanks in advance.
“Having followed this blog since the 538 days, I have no doubt that the most hateful bile posted here spews from Mule’s keys.”
No doubt this fallacy comes from your myopic and biased point of view. I see a website that spews hate, vitriol, and anti-conservative propaganda practically 24⁄7. I come on from time to time and call it out, and I don’t mince words in the process, yet the spin is somehow that the ongoing discussions that bring a response from me are somehow valid, thoughtful, and full of reason and discernment whereas my rebuke is the only thing that is abrasive, hateful, and over-the-top.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
-
#87 written by dawolf 8 months ago
Mule, from my perspective, I echo the statement “I have no doubt that the most hateful bile posted here spews from Mule’s keys.”
This is from your first post on this thread “Another example of the kind of condescension that makes people from the Heartland view militant leftist thugs like shortchain as little more than feral hogs or cockroaches. ”
You seem to go for personal insults as your first step. It’s very sad.
-
#88 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“You seem to go for personal insults as your first step. It’s very sad.”
I guess we’re even, then, because I find the utter lack of introspection on the part of yourself and a few others here to be both sad and embarrassing.
This blog has become a perfect example of how, when deranged thought is allowed to stew and fester in an echo chamber, you wind up with a never-ending sream of hate speech.
-
#90 written by DrFunguy 8 months ago
-
#91 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“Nope, I’m not gonna do your research for you, but I notice that you don’t deny it.”
You’re right, I don’t deny it. But that was the point. I’ve said some incredibly juvenile and offensive stuff interacting with people anonymously on the internet — a regrettable result of letting your emotions get the better of you when trying to prove just how “over-the-top” you can be — but I haven’t said anything “threatening” or even hinting of physical violence to anyone here or anywhere else in at least the past 2–3 years.
So if you wanna keep holding up “gut you like a fish” or some such nonsense as that from a few years ago as an excuse to not engage me in a discussion, then go right ahead, but don’t even pretend like that’s part of my persona now.
But maybe you just can’t help living in the past.
-
#92 written by Max 8 months ago
Mule purposely chooses the path on which he walks.
But absolutely worse is when he then has the rank, audacious hypocrisy to then go all Christian sounding on us!
I agree, Mule can be one of the better voices of conservative/libertarian thinking on here when he actually plays nice. But all his snot-slinging muddies his message and pisses all over his credibility. And he wonders why his previous behavior still haunts him and his current status.
(Repeat the 1st line above)
-
There is such a thing as special privilege conferred by sheer loyalty and longevity. After all these years… more than FOUR now, by my count!… Muley is a valued member of the family. Furthermore, he’s like that ubiquitous member of any family who is especially welcome at family functions because you just never know when that person is going to totally lose it and create a deliciously shocking and fascinating scene.
Long ago I realized that our Muley is like the little girl in the nursery rhyme…
There was a little girl,
Who had a little curl,
Right in the middle of her fore ‘ead.
When she was good,
She was very, very good,
But when she was bad, she was horrid.
-
#95 written by Max 8 months ago
-
Muley is a valued member of the family.
logarchism’s Mother Teresa tries lol, she truly does. And dc has the patience of Job w/his ad nauseam pandering. Anything else I or others would say about shilohbuster would be redundant. But he must thrive on the redunduncy!
Again, his weekly Bible study classes don’t appear to be effective …
but I’m married, have a full-time job, and a host of outside activities and a decently busy travel schedule that make it difficult to sit and stew on the same crap day after day after day.
Trust me, I have much more fun and get much more fulfillment at my weekly softball games, at church, playing golf, etc. than coming in here and having someone like shortchain or Max talk to me as if I’m a mouth-breathing troglodyte (if not call me that or something similar outright) and consider me bereft of any intelligence, worthwhile ideas, etc. or even have you and Michael do it in a much more subtle and “pleasant” fashion.
Lather, rinse, repeat …
-
#97 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“Muley is a valued member of the family. Furthermore, he’s like that ubiquitous member of any family who is especially welcome at family functions because you just never know when that person is going to totally lose it and create a deliciously shocking and fascinating scene.”
LOL! You are a treat, my dear…
“Again, his weekly Bible study classes don’t appear to be effective …”
Been spending a bit of time in the Old Testament lately.…that might help explain the harsher, judging tone.
-
shiloh, you probably don’t remember that a good deal of compassion and inclusion has been shown to you, too, by the site operators here. In fact, I distinctly recall that when this new blog started I had to hike out into the wilderness, find you and bring you back with me.
Why? Because you had been banned by the former site’s owner… for fighting with Muley.
Proving, I guess, that there really is nothing new under the sun…
-
#99 written by Max 8 months ago
I am of the opinion that the ENTIRE reason the national GOP is pissing their pants over the Akin thing is, not that they disagree with him, but because HE LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG! He leaked the party secret.
Remember how, during the 2010 election, how the GOP, nationwide, ran on jobs and economic issues? And how well that worked in a soft economy. But, once they won all those state and nation seats …
They have passed bill after bill, introduced legislation after legislation, nationally and locally, on social issues AND ALMOST NOTHING on jobs and the economy! It why many people are talking about the “war on women” and the GOP is spending inordinate amounts of time denying and defending!
Yeah, they’re all over Akin’s ass not because of his position, but because he proved himself another Rosenberg.
-
fili re: compassion ~ why did you, MW, Mono and dc breakaway from Mr. U. Was the bruhaha soooo irreparable
no other solution could be found?You might want to stop shovelin’ at any time … or not.
Indeed, there’s nothing new under the sun at political blogs and “you” obviously made the wrong decision lol. But thanx for inviting me as it sounds like you were a majority of one.
>
btw, how many times did shilohbuster go out of his way at 538 to say he was done w/Nate’s blog and that he would never follow him to the NYT’s. And he would never follow “you” to refugees and then how many times sayin’ he was totally done w/refugees, etc. etc.
fili has a soft spot for children, god love her …
Again, if this blog keeps shilohbuster out of trouble, we can all be grateful!
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
About Monotreme (241 posts)
Monotreme is an unabashed liberal and dog lover who lives in an almost-square state in the Western U.S. He keeps a second blog related to his work as a scientist and author at 7synapses.com.







Akin: unbelieveable statement, if that doesn’t lose him the election I’ll be surprised.
Question: “Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have a plan to strengthen the middle class and get our country back on the right track.”
What is this plan? Lowering taxes on the rich while cutting entitlements certainly doesn’t sound like it’s a plan to strengthen the middle class.