From now on, Republican male candidates are going to have to learn about the reproductive biology of human females.
Any others you can think of?
One lesson from this election
November 7, 2012 • 11:22 am
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Another thing they’re going to have to learn is that their likeliest supporters are dying off, and a generation that’s come up being fine with gays and women’s equality and what not are now voting. Oh yeah, and not very religious if I’m to believe the polls on that topic.
One thing I’ve been wondering about Akin’s (Rapist-Missouri) comment: what, exactly, did he mean by, “legitimate”?
Normally, “legitimate” in the context of pregnancy means that the couple is married at the time of conception (or, perhaps, birth).
So, if a female body shuts down legitimate rapes but not illegitimate ones, does that mean that women don’g get pregnant when their husbands rape them but only when they’re not married?
I still can’t figure out what bizarre hypothesis the fucknuts was spewing.
b&
It’s a “legitimate” rape if the woman didn’t secretly want to have sex. You know, chicks often cry “rape” when deep down inside they really wanted to have sex with the guy (even if they didn’t know it themselves). If they’re “legitimately” raped, then they get all stressed out, and that prevents pregnancy.
The logic is similar to dunking a suspected witch in a lake…
So…if an unmarried witch gets raped by the rightful king while below sea level, she won’t get pregnant if she’s aroused by watching a mallard drake have his way with the corpse of his same-sex rival? Do I have that right?
Man…Aikin really has some seriously twisted fantasies. Where the fuck does this shit come from, and can I please not have any of what he’s smoking?
b&
Stop confusin’ us with all that-thar republican logic!
She turned me into a newt…….I got better
well played.
Logic? Out of the mouth of a Republican from Missouri? Surely you jest.
(And to think that Missouri was once known as the “Show me” state, the denizens of which were famed for not taking much of anybody’s word for much of anything without hard evidence. O, how the mighty have fallen!)
Stop calling me Shirley!
From what I understand based on a select few of my family members trying to further argue Akin’s point for him – they’re trying to contrast rape and sexual assualt with statutory rape. Akin’s coming from the (wrong) idea that since a 15 year old girl might have willingly had sex with a 19 year old man, if pregnancy results it’s because it wasn’t really real rape like sexual assualt. (Apparently the concept of “age of consent” has no meaning to some people.)
So that’ll teach that 15 year old a lesson, cause the idea of any kind of sex without consequences (to the woman at least) makes baby jebus cry.
And the idea that the more plain-ole rape and assualt can’t result in pregnancy is from some fringe far-right group from the 80’s passing along pseudo-science to try to justify criminalizing all forms of abortion in all cases.
And on top of that, there’s a bit of slut-shaming thrown in (since if she’s preggo from a rape then she really wanted it, and it’s not rape, and no abortion for you) along with fostering a culture where it’s tougher for women to improve their situation educationally, financially, etc… Lots of reason why far-right d00ds might spout this brand of crazy.
I suspect that the idea that violent rape can’t result in a pregnancy may come from a more benign source: “common sense.”
One of the staple “pregnancy stories” which makes the rounds among people who like to talk about such things is that of the couple who tried and tried to have kids, but couldn’t. And then, they relaxed — and did! Maybe they adopted, or just decided to adopt. Maybe they “gave up” the hope to have children. Maybe their mom or some therapist or a doctor gave them some good advice about taking a vacation or taking a warm bath or just taking “your mind off of it.” Whatever it was, did the trick.
The stories differ. Some are urban legends, some may be truthful. But the overwhelming theme is “a woman can’t get pregnant if she’s tense.” It comes from the left, it comes from the right, it comes from the religious and spiritual and even some atheists. They usually connect it a purported Mind-body connection, a powerful component of health and what happens to you.
You take the folk truth “a woman can’t get pregnant if she’s tense” and apply it to rape — you’ve got Akin and other Republicans. But the mind-body connection idea and the myths surrounding pregnancy can be eerily similar among the crunchy granola crowd. In a different context, they might actually say something stupid like “rape seldom results in pregnancy,” putting it out there like the spiritual wisdom of the woman’s body.
I don’t know. I have no doubt there’s the misogyny and slut-shaming and authoritarianism and other evils behind this trope about rape and pregnancy, too. I agree. But it still seems to echo something a lot of people think is “common sense” true, just in general.
Surprised you missed the other side of the coin.
When a couple who want a child are having problems conceiving, it’s the woman’s fault for being too hysterical.
b&
But with a similar theme: she wasn’t “relaxed.”
Yes, exactly.
…and whose fault is it? Anyone?
b&
The man’s?
I won’t say you’re wrong, because I think you’re on to something.
But I think some of it comes from another cognitive error – wishful thinking, specifically the belief that the world is fair and everything happens for a good reason, which is related to belief in a benevolent God.
If we assume that God disapproves of abortion, and we assume that God disapproves of rape, then we are apt to conclude that God wouldn’t create reality in such a way that rape could result in pregnancy. The fact that rape can result in pregnancy suggests one of two uncomfortable conclusions: that God doesn’t care about our feelings, or there is no God.
It’s similar to the false belief that birth control, when used properly, always works. We’d like to believe that people who are responsible and use birth control would never have unplanned pregnancies.
But that’s pretty much just the Problem of Evil in a specific case.
Before the Roe v. Wade decision, a doctor wrote up some arguments that included a concentration camp study where the Nazi doctors tracked the ovulation cycles of women and just before their next ovulation, they would terrorize them with a fake execution. The stress hormones tended to prevent ovulation.
Another docotr-turned-anti-abortionist used this as an argument in the 80’s and 90’s. Not being clear on the definition of “ovulation”, religion-addled-thinkers naturally reasoned that if a woman doesn’t ovulate, she can’t get pregnant, so if she is stressed during rape, she won’t ovulate and, therefore, can’t get pregnant. (If a rape isn’t stressful, it’s not a “legitimate rape”.) They couldn’t “conceive” that if she had already ovulated, “the whole thing does not get shut down”.
Can’t we just abort that rape of rational thought?
The ancient Romans had a better grip on the issue of infertile couples. They recognized that, for whatever reason, some couples are simply not fertile jointly, but the individual partners were often fertile with another partner. Hence Roman divorces and remarriages in the case of infertility.
Also, in the Republican mind, there are women out there who consensually get pregnant. Many of these women will then seek an abortion. But — because of legal, social, or cultural barriers — abortion may not be available to them. These women will cry “rape” to take advantage of a legal or cultural loophole that will allow them access to abortion. This would be another kind of “illegitimate rape.”
The fact that this type of “rape” exists only in the tortured minds of the far right is inconsequential.
I can’t remember who — some republican during the defund Planned Parenthood debacle — said that the “rape loophole was big enough to drive a truck through.” I’m pretty sure the illegitimate rape I just described is what he was referring to.
On this subject–abortion, rape, and “fetal personhood,” this essay by a practicing prosecutor is excellent. It really deserves to be passed around.
http://thedeadauthorsclub.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/fetal-personhood-and-criminalizing-abortion-a-prosecutors-perspective/
Excellent article. Thank you for sharing it.
To the end of that article I would add:
If personhood is passed, not only are women (and their partners) who have abortions guilty of murder, but so too every miscarriage becomes a “possible crime” and the uteri involved “possible crime scenes.”
How will our judicial system determine whose miscarriage was a “legitimate miscarriage” as opposed to a home abortion attempt, and thus guilty of murder?
There are more far-reaching consequences than that — even if unintended, a miscarriage could be considered manslaughter, or child abuse, if the woman acted in a way that risked the pregnancy.
And what of women who have medical conditions that make miscarriage likely? If they intentionally get pregnant and then lose the pregnancy, today we think that’s sad, but if the fetus is a person, getting pregnant knowing such risks could be criminal.
Which is one reason why a “fetus=person” law will never happen. It’s political rhetoric to energize the base, not a serious possibility.
Indeed, this has already happened. I don’t have the link handy, but a woman who was allegedly using drugs before she had a miscarriage was prosecuted for endangering the fetus.
link here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges
“Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby’s death – they charged her with the ‘depraved-heart murder’ of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence.”
Indeed, this has already happened.
State legislators sometimes pass laws that are clearly unconstitutional under established constitutional law. Since abortion is a constitutional right, there’s no way this prosecution will survive judicial review unless the Supreme Court uses the case to overturn Roe v. Wade.
I can’t remember who … said that the “rape loophole was big enough to drive a truck through.”
Lucky for us he didn’t become vice president.
Oh gods! It’s amazing how your mind blocks out the truly horrible things.
Those crafty women are always looking for ways to have an abortion. Gotta stay one step ahead of them!
Or they don’t learn and get weeded out by Darwinian Natural Selection 🙂
Backing Rapists Turns Out to be a Terrible Idea
That and they need to learn how to keep their mouths shut!
Fortunately for the Dems, there will always be the Akin and Mourdoch types who are either too dumb or too zealous to keep their mouths shut.
Yup true that!
But if politician learn to keep their traps shut until they’ve thought out a response, how will we get to know what douche-bags they really are? (Until they’re in power, and we can judge them by their actions rather than their rhetoric.)
Actions speak louder than words. We can know if they are douche-bags if they are Republicans.
I’d much rather they keep their mouths open and babble their true opinions than keep them secret.
From David Ploum (sp?) GOP advisor, this morning on NPR:
“The GOP has to realize it’s just been handed a huge defeat.”
“The GOP has to return to being the party of the middle class”
Me:
The GOP can’t win by appealing only to white males.
The Teaparty is a cold, damp used bag in the rubbish bin.
* * * *
In my state (MN) the GOP tried to use an anti-gay-marriage amendment and a voter-suppression (ID) amendment to boost their turn-out. It backfired on them; those amendments turned out the Dems to defeat them. And I’m proud to say we did defeat them, decisively. And we took back both houses of the MN legislature. My “faith” in Minnesotan’s came back.
In the anti-gay-marriage fight in the US, IMO, the tide turned last night. Look at Minnesota, Washington (state), Maine, and Maryland: A sweep for gay rights after a long string of initiative/referendum/amendment defeats.
“My “faith” in Minnesotans came back.”
Mine did, too. But because of some other ballot initiatives, I’m thinking of moving from Minnesota to either Washington or Colorado in the near future.
Well, if you’re doing so in order to smoke pot, you may not want to get your hopes up. There is still the problem of federal policy to contend with in both states. And in Washington, there’s the small issue of testing for marijuana in DUI cases. I’m still not clear on how law enforcement intends to deal with that–will they do blood tests in every alleged case of DUI? And if trace amounts of THC are discovered, does that constitute DUI? That could be from a joint you smoked a week ago.
I’m hoping they have that sorted out before I retire to WA!
By then, you should have many more options of states to retire to….
b&
Yes, but my personal pied a terre happens to be in WA (with wonderful mountain views)! I’m proud of what the WA citizens did yesterday, mostly (I’ve only looked at the intiative results, which look like a mixed bag; and they did re-elect Cantwell.)
WA is very similar to MN (and probably AZ, though I don’t know): Divided between a liberal urban center/strip and a vast conservative rural area.
Our patch is in a pretty conservative area, generally (we get the local paper mailed to us, here in MN and the letters to the editor are often scary) but it is fortunately leavened with a good mixture of liberals and ex-hippies, etc. which makes it OK. And we are only about 1.5 hours from Portland.
No argument from me: Washington is gorgeous.
Arizona is sorta like what you describe, but it’s rather complex. Maricopa County (where Phoenix is) is the most populous county and it leans red. Pinal County (where Tucson is) is next biggest and it’s rather blue. Latinos statewide are very blue and getting bluer by the election.
b&
Either would be a good choice, and I would suspect you would enjoy Planet Boulder.
My “faith” in Minnesotan’s came back.
So did Michele Bachmann.
Yeah, we did fumble that one. However, she had her closest election yet, even after redistricting made her district even more republican than it was before.
She, unfortunately, really does fit her district:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/11/02/the-battle-for-bachmanns-seat/
(from 4 years ago)
Shirley the Republicans will realise that they have to move back to the centre, in the same way that Labour did after the 1983 election.
The replublicans will never realise that, and don’t call me Shirley
Obama is going to work his fingers to the bone to rescue the economy, homes and health, only to have it undone in a single evening by global warming pollutants he decided to ignore.
Might he have ignored them in the election, Amelie, so that he could address them in the future? I hope so.
I know what you’re saying, but carbon dioxide isn’t listening to good intentions. He acknowledged global warming last night. Wonderful. Welcome to 1978. In reality we’ve waited so long to do anything we might have to do an Apollo 13; turn everything off and hope like hell it’s not too late.
Obama is also a master at making people think he holds the exact opposite position from what he actually does, and then getting people to think that it’s the fault of the Republican Congress that he held true to his belief.
Look at all the people who thought that he would restore civil liberties once he was in office who had forgotten his support of CALEA and his vote for the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act while he was a Senator.
His record as President is a remarkable match for his voting record as a Senator, and that includes all the things that progressives are upset with him over caving to the Republicans over.
b&
You forgot about his vote for the FISA amendments as well.
Yes, thanks — and I’m sure there’s more that my sleep-deprived drammaged Bain is forgetting.
I forget…how did he vote on the war authorization stuff?
b&
He wasn’t in the US Senate yet; and he vocally opposed the Iraq War as an IL State Senator. He thought (and thinks) that Afghanistan was the “right” fight after 9/11/2001.
I just read The Finish by Mark Bowden (Blackhawk Down, Killing Pablo). It’s an excellent read. It’s clear that Obama is whole-heartedly behind all actions against Al Qaeda and like-minded organizations and fully approves of drone strikes to kill (he’s approved far more of them than Bush II did). He would have approved going into Afghanistan in 2001/2002, IMO, had he been in a position to do so. He’s been clear about that.
You’d think a guy as ostensibly smart and educated as Obama would have known better about invading Afghanistan, of all places. What, did he fall asleep every time in history and politics classes the subject turned to land wars in Asia?
b&
Ben,
My guess is, were the decision taken now, now he might not invade, given the advances in intel, drones, etc.; but maybe he would have anyway.
People wonder why our deficit is so huge?:
1. Afghanistan
2. Iraq
3. The financial deregulation engineered by Phil Gramm (et al.) in the late 1990s, resulting in the credit implosion in 2008.
It was one thing to support going into Afghanistan to get bin Laden, but quite another to support an invasion with the goal of toppling the Taliban and creating a stable, modern country. The latter was the height of foolishness, but very profitable for some people.
No, the lesson about climate change from this election is that it’s just not a very important issue. Half the country doesn’t really believe it’s happening, and among the other half there’s no consensus about what, if anything, we should be doing about it. I doubt this situation is going to change much during Obama’s second term, and I think it’s very unlikely that he’ll pursue any kind of aggressive policy to reduce carbon emissions, especially given the still-fragile state of the economy.
@GaryW you’re not serious, are you? If you think the “other half” meaning scientists, don’t have a clear vision on what to do, I suggest you turn off your 24-hour junk news and read some climatology journals instead. Pronto.
The “other half” I referred to is not “scientists.” It’s the half of the country that believes in climate change.
As for “what to do” about climate change, that is ultimately a political question, not a scientific one. The answer will depend at least as much on economics as on climate science. There is no consensus even among scientists on “what to do” about climate change anyway. If you think otherwise, you’re the one who’s been watching too much junk news.
so, you’ve read climatology journals then?
no, wait, obviously you haven’t, since you’re talking out of your ass.
like Amelie said, get ye hence to a uni library and actually read some of the journals.
spend a few hours familiarizing yourself with what the science actually IS saying, IS in consensus about both what is happening and what can be done to mitigate it, before you spew ignorance at us and expect us not to laugh.
thanks.
No need to be rude!
“No need to be rude!”
Aye, Matey, I agree. That particular need does not seem reside in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Nevertheless, there does seem to be a “need” – an enjoyment – of being rude.
Gary should provide for a laugh when and if he chooses to respond.
so, you’ve read climatology journals then?
no, wait, obviously you haven’t, since you’re talking out of your ass.
Do please produce these “climatology journals” that allegedly show a consensus of opinion among scientists on climate change policy.
Scientists are not policymakers. The job of the scientists is to do scientific research and present their findings. Not to make policy. That’s why the IPCC reports end with a section titled “Summary for Policymakers” that summarizes the science. It’s up to policymakers (i.e., the government) to decide what, if anything, to do in response to the scientific findings. Policy is a political matter, not a scientific one. This confusion of science and policy seems to be common among climate change alarmists.
Ah, I get it, Gary. I offered to show you the science, so I’m an “alarmist”.
If the solutions aren’t based in science, Gary, what are they based on? You think climatologists should diagnose the problem but not prescribe the medicine?
I think you need to take a high-school Biology class.
If you seriously believe there is a consensus among scientists on climate change POLICY, then show us this alleged consensus.
But before you do that, you ought to explain why you think climate change POLICY is a scientific question and not a political one.
Ok Gary, if you want to talk science then I’m happy to. I’ll provide scientific journal links to prove what I’m saying as long as you promise to read AND comment on each of them.
Take note folks, this is the best way to make a denier disappear.
See my reply to Ichthyic above.
By the way I’m still happy to post links to scientific studies which demonstrate evidence for specific SOLUTIONS to global warming. If you abide by my rules. But it sounds like you’re anti-science so I won’t hold my breath.
By the way I’m still happy to post links to scientific studies which demonstrate evidence for specific SOLUTIONS to global warming.
This again confuses a scientific question with a political one. What counts as a “solution” to global warming? No further warming beyond today’s average global temperature? Reducing the temperature to the pre-industrial average? Limiting further warming to X degrees over a period of Y years? What values should we use for X and Y? These are not scientific questions. They’re not questions that can be answered empirically. They rest on economic and political judgments about how to evaluate and trade off different kinds of costs and benefits.
I see what you’re saying Gary, so you’re not disputing any of the science, you’re just saying the solution’s based in policy.
However thst’s not entirely true. People could also enact the solutions voluntarily. People have legs. If every person decided to ride bikes or at least take the train, this would greatly reduce fossil fuel use with no policy needed.
This would still be based in science because as you can see, realistically there is still time, fuels and the amount of reduction to calculate.
There is also the possilility of massive disasters, which could wipe out so many people that fossil fuel use goes down. Still based in science how long it would take and the effect it would have.
Also missing from the puzzle here Gary is Ruddiman’s hypothesis that Earth began warming long before the Industrial Age. It probably began during early agriculture with all the deforestation.
Therefore, agriculture use, modern changes, home growing etc all factors into CO2 emissions and carbon stores.
I think the Republicans may have to relearn what they used to stand for, and abandoned for a specifically religious point of view. They had abandoned the Grand Old Party credentials, and it shows. Lincoln, it is sometimes hard to remember, was a Republican. Some of the news media may have it right: Reaganism is now truly dead. (The Tea Party was not drinking tea — could it have been Kool Aid laced with arsenic?) I also think that they may learn that gridlocking the administration, so that it cannot act, is not a great way to win support. Obama’s ratings were pretty low to start with, and it should have been a cake walk for the Republicans. They must realise by now that they simply are no longer in step with the American people.
Indeed. The Republicans need to focus on fiscal conservatism and jettison the religious right. Otherwise they risk losing support from anyone who isn’t either ignorant or mean spirited.
If Romney and Obama are really the best two candidates that were available, this country is doomed.
What the US desperately needs is a good 5¢ fiscally conservative but socially progressive party. And one that expels would-be candidates if they bring up religion.
fiscal conservatism works fine when you’re in an inflationary period, terribly when in a recession.
so, there really is no point to looking for a “consistently” fiscal OR liberal economic strategy; it depends on the circumstances whether it is better for the economy to encourage growth or create contraction.
people get it into their heads that simply reducing the deficit will cure all ills, but it ain’t so, Jo. much more important than reducing a deficit during a recession is to pump money into low interest loans for small businesses to expand, for example.
one of the reasons the rebound from 2008 has been so slow, is that there has been tremendous pressure on governments to reduce their deficits, but it’s little more than irrational pressure from constituents that don’t really know better. They just *think* deficit reduction is what is needed, but it’s not. Both in Europe and in the US, there is an abnormal economic contraction that really needs to be dealt with by investing MORE capital into infrastructure, small business loans, etc.
For example, Obama’s investment in the automotive industry in Ohio was tremendously successful. The global economy needs MORE of that right now, not less.
Quoted for truth. This isn’t some fringe view – almost any economist will tell you that, and give you evidence to back it up.
Of course, even the Republicans who claim to be about fiscal conservatism really aren’t, they just want to borrow the money rather than raise it through taxes, and they want to spend it on military boondoggles instead of social programs.
Whom would you recommend?
We tried it in MN in 2000 and got Jesse Ventura. He looked great on paper but turned out to be a petulant child. Not saying someone else might not have done fine; but we got burned. Once bitten …
Yea, but the Republicans/Conservatives are not particularly good at being fiscally conservative. Fiscally conservative is largely grounded in the notion that if you simply got the government out of people’s lives and got the government smaller so that people could have very low taxes and keep more of their money, everything would be wonderful and fine. How do you cut the budget, by cutting government services. Namely services that are actually important and people use, but in the name of minimal government they want the services cut. (Talk about the mean spirited, that’s what fiscal conservatism is!) Moreover, the fiscal conservatives realistically speaking aren’t going to cut big spending items like entitlements, that would risk reelection. (Though with more younger voters and more concern over the deficit that could change… eventually.)
The Republicans need to realize that given the demographics of where the country is headed and the problems that the country is worried most about, their entirely political ideology is out of touch. That’s not just the religious social conservatism, fiscal conservatism is out of touch too.
I should note that Republicans being “fiscally conservative” tends to mean cutting taxes, mostly to the rich, without sufficiently cutting government spending (again, they avoid military spending and entitlements) though perhaps minor spending cuts in small programs we need, which results in raising the deficit. As I said, they aren’t good at being “fiscal conservative” in the sense of cutting deficit spending.
Ah, but instead of raising money through tax revenue, they borrow it by selling bonds. To rich investors. So their taxes are still low, AND they’re making money off the government bonds they bought. It’s a win-win – for them, not for the country.
Unfortunately, all they really need to learn is to keep their mouths shut. Perhaps not the easiest task for a loon, but easier than learning human biology.
I wish Republicans would learn a lesson about not telling people God revealed the results — and here they are!
But they never learn that. Failed prophesies either disappear down the memory hole or are re-worked into being accurate, but in a different way than you thought.
One of my cousins fits your explanation to a tee – since God ordained the outcome of Obama [to quote “the godless, socialist, Jew-hating, foreign-born Muslim] being elected to a second term, it is simply the prelude to the coming Rapture, Tribulation, etc….
When you incorrectly attribute my support for a candidate to my seeing him as Jesus or Santa Claus or some other perfect being, able to walk on water or create jobs with a wave of his hand or put a sports car under every Christmas tree, you will incorrectly assume that my disappointment in some of his decisions is a total rejection of him and prepare for a landslide victory that will never come.
Idiots.
Republicans sold themselves on the idea that Obama supporters believed in his utter perfection. It was the only way they could understand why blacks were so motivated to get to the polls or why whites supported a black man AT ALL.
So, from my perspective, the Tea Party was born out of frustration that 60 million people would actually elect a black man to office.
That they tapped into a lot of fear and not-too-thinly veiled bigotry is not surprising given the inception of the “movement”.
And then others jumped on that band wagon with their hyper-religiousity dog-whistle issues.
And for an election cycle, they were able to channel that anger (and fear) into concrete results.
But now, their nuttery caught up with them.
The lesson for the Republican Party is to not let it get hijacked by tiny-brained bigots.
I actually wonder if this will finally result in the fragmentation of the Republicans into two separate parties. The Tea Party folks and the non-brain-dead.
Probably not. But that would be the best possible outcome. Two more cycles and the Tea Party’s gets as many votes as the Libertarians.
I don’t think history bears this out. The Tea Party started from basic fiscal conservatism: (T)axed (E)bough (A)lready. They were far too rapidly coopted by the evangelicals and related bigots.
That, combined with the execrable treatment of Ron Paul and his supporters has shown that the Republican party is no friend to those who just want government out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
Needless to say, the Democrats are no better. Obama’s economic policies are as ignorant as one expects from the Democrats; his record on civil liberties is appalling.
Neither major party candidate deserved to win. Both major parties need to change or die.
Something similar happened in Canada, thirty years or so ago. A new party, the National Party, arose in Alberta. Though with good intentions, it was rapidly co-opted by various fringe elements and fell apart after only one election.
The Tea party claims of being about taxes is a demonstrable lie, Obama lowered taxes, this is a fact. Its also a fact they wont admit it. The only real conclusion is that all the anger is not really about taxes.
Exactly. You gotta speak the code.
To Tea Partiers, “tax” is code for “OMG, HE’S TOTALLY BLACK!!!!!”
Taxation was the excuse, not the reason.
Needless to say, the Democrats are no better. Obama’s economic policies are as ignorant as one expects from the Democrats;
ignorant?
prove it. show how the things Obama did to try to improve the economy failed.
start with the bailout of the auto industry, and work your way backwards and forwards from there.
you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Correct. Trickle down has been proved to not work by the US economy on the last 30 years. There is no correlation between tax rates on the wealthy (top marginal rate) and employment. None. No one should be surprised by this. In fact, the data for the last 50 years indicate a direct relationship: Lower the taxes on the top, lower employment (unemployment rate goes up.) But I doubt this is really significant.
Look at the income data from the BLS for the last 50 years. Everyone shareed in the economy until 1981, when Reagan took control. Since then, only the top 20% have gained economically. They have taken all the conomic gains of the last 30 years. Everyone else has gone DOWN. Yes, Mr. Romney, there has been income redistribution in the last 30 years: From the bottom 80% (not just the bottom 47%) to the top 20%.
It’s clear: If cutting taxes on the most wealthy “created” jobs, we’d be swimming in jobs. The rich have never had lower taxes at least since the 1930s. (See also the Buffett Rule.)
Making the people at the top feel (even) more wealthy does not create jobs. If it did, we’d be swimming in jobs. The rich have never had it better, probably since the late 1800s.
Businesses hire for only one reason: Demand for their product or service. No business person hires someone because they feel rich or got a tax cut. (They pocket the extra profit in those cases.) They hire people because of demand. And in the US economy, more than 60% of the demand comes from US consumers. Squeeze the middle class to enrich the wealthy and you put the economy into a death-spiral.
Trickle-down economics is like abstinence-only sex education. There’s abundant evidence it doesn’t work, but ideology trumps evidence.
Everyone shareed in the economy until 1981, when Reagan took control. Since then, only the top 20% have gained economically.
Census Bureau income data contradicts this assertion. It indicates that mean real household income has increased in all income quintiles since 1981.
In addition, non-income forms of economic benefit — non-cash government benefits such as Medicare, Medicaid, subsidized housing, food stamps, etc,; employer-provided health care benefits, employer-provided retirement benefits, etc. — have also increased.
If it had not been for TARP, the auto bailout, propping up the insurers (AIG, etc.), we’d be in a second great depression right now.
We MADE MONEY for Hank’s sake on the auto bailout. Remember: Buy low, sell high.
The conservative economic fantasy (I can’t really call it a model) is completely bankrupt.
If it had not been for TARP, the auto bailout, propping up the insurers (AIG, etc.), we’d be in a second great depression right now.
And you know this, how?
I am constantly amazed at how certain people who seem to understand the importance of skepticism in other contexts (religion) start jumping to wild conclusions and making dogmatic claims of fact without proof when the issue is politics.
How exactly are Obama’s economic policies “ignorant”?
We know cutting spending during a recession will make the recession worse.
We know deregulating banks leads to bankrupt banks.
They can no longer pretend it’s 1950.
I think you mean 1850.
Don’t you mean 1150?
Probably just 50.
Another lesson: same sex marriage measures do indeed increase turnout…just not the turnout they want.
Yeah. Look for a complete absence of right-wing sponsored gay marriage initiatives in the next cycle.
Exactly what happened here in MN. In August, the polls were something like 60/40 for the anti-gay-marriage and voter suppression amendments. Both were defeated soundly in the end. It really did help get dems to the polls!
Is it really about biology or science or even facts for them? Personally, I think it’s just a scam. Xenophobia has worked as a money-maker for most of human history. Feeding it keeps people in power. I’d guess Popes are generally atheists and extremist right wingers of other varieties simply mimic a formula that helps them make money very easily. I can’t possibly believe Bachmann understands or even believes what she spouts, she just says it because it works to keep the money coming in.
Well, about her I disagree. She’s not smart enough to be anything other than a self-deluded true believer.
She’s only one, however. Many others, not so much.
Agreed about Bachmann. (I’m only 200 feet from being in her district. Gives me a shudder every time I think about it.)
Political lies work best when you can get politicians to believe them. I think Bush and most of his cronies (although probably not Cheney) really did believe the ridiculous fearmongering about Saddam Hussein. Same with the “threat” from the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but that was on an even larger scale.
The problem is they start making policies to address the fake problems instead of to advance the hidden agenda the fake problems were invented to advance.
Another lesson: Figure out first what God really wants before saying He must have intended it if a raped woman gets pregnant. It gets really awkward trying to answer: If God intended that pregnancy, does that mean the woman was resisting God’s will during the rape?
That’s not just a problem for Republicans, it’s a problem for Christianity and any other religion which posits some version of “whatever happens, it’s really all for the best” (which I think includes most of them.)
While this attitude might, on some occasions, help rally someone’s spirits after the fact, it leads to exactly the sort of problems you point out when it’s used as an explanatory before-the-fact world view. Accept your destiny. It happens for a reason.
I think a lot of conservatives forget that religion doesn’t really make sense. They start spouting it out in public areas where it’s not going to be treated as some sort of sacred clincher to all arguments. It’s going to be analyzed. And attacked.
While Islam is indeed a fatalistic religion where everything that happens, good, bad, or indifferent is the will of Allah, historically Xtianity has been much more in favor of people taking charge of their destinies.
This current wave of fatalistic “it’s Dog’s will” bullshit is something new.
One Lesson:
People are sick of an old white guy telling us how we should live our lives.
And then there’s arithmetic. They have a couple of years’ space to figure out that straight, white doodz never have been the majority, never in the history of the planet.
One day they’ll work that out and stop wasting scarce brain cells trying to prove the opposite. Then they’d have the ability to do Biology 101.
I’m not holding my breath.
I say: GOP, just keep right on doing what you’re doing — and go with god. Right into the dustbin of history.
And that there aren’t enough billionaires to buy an election
If it’s really rape – “If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it”.(Clayton Williams, 1990 gubernatorial campaign, Texas) Sad to say these morons have always been with us.
Though he did lose to Ann Richards.
It’s really fun going back to the right-wing columnists, bloggers, pundits, and whatever to see just how far removed they were from reality.
One guy saw Mittens winning 370 electoral college votes and 65% of the popular.
Not for one moment to give any ammo to those flicktards, is there any grain of truth to the the idea that a woman is less likely to conceive after rape than after consensual sex? Stress hormones, relaxation of the cervix? It would be evolutionarily advantageous (to her) if she was, wouldn’t it? (And disadvantageous to him, so there’d be a battle of the sexes…) Just curious.
Did you really think there was a correspondence between Akin’s brainturd and actual facts? I think I would like to live in your world. =D
The science and statistics of this is really meager as far as I know (which isn’t saying much). But FWIW there is this:
“Rep. Todd Akin caused a public outcry Sunday when he suggested that women who were “legitimately raped” would rarely become pregnant. Study after study has proven that theory false. But one provocative study, published in 2003, went even further: It found that a single act of rape was more than twice as likely to result in pregnancy than an act of consensual sex.” … “The Gottschalls do acknowledge that their study was at odds with previous research, which showed a lower rate of pregnancy among rape victims.”
So best bet IMHO, male-on-female rape makes conception as likely, but in worst case likelier. Hypotheses for why it could be so include:
“As to why rape victims would have a higher rate of pregnancy, the Gottschalls put forward a few theories. They look at previous research, which suggests that men are more attracted to women who are fertile and ovulating. In consensual sex, women can decline sex at a time where there might be a high likelihood of pregnancy. That’s not the case in rape.”
I forgot: The reason this is iffy is, if I understand it correctly, the relatively low rate and the many confounds. (The latter starting with low report rate and taking off from there.)
Also, I don’t think much of Gottschalls first hypothesis. AFAIK most or all rapes are due to asserting power and very little about sex.
Not according to Steven Pinker:
The sex part it not required to show dominance …
Humpf! I think the centrists (which are very much extreme right compared to Sweden) is over the hump.
Because people have humped enough, resulting in migrants et cetera. And because the Mitches were opposed to some people humping and the results of humping.
Hopefully US will draw together and make a more functional (so more secular) society for the next election. I heard US has the first woman homosexual senator voted in. That is twice difficult so twice awesome!
Right on! The tide has turned on gay rights in the US:
1. National polls tipped in favor this year, for the first time, continuing a trend of several decades.
2. Clean sweep of ballot questions, after a 100%, long (> 20) string of defeats.
3. Tammy Baldwin, yay! She’s my neighbor (ing state)! First woman Senator from Wisconsin. First openly gay Senator in US history.
This is big progress folks. We have a LONG way to go; but we’re getting there. Much to celebrate.
Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
And we know what happened to that Sicilian 🙂
Thank you for pointing out this gem, my life had been poorer without it:
“Piers Morgan: “Cheer up Todd Akin: if it’s a legitimate loss, the body has a way of shutting it down.””
What the Republicans should come away from this election is: learn to just keep their mouths shut.
It was supposed to be “it’s all about the economy,” but they just had to weigh-in with their own brand of religious morality. They could have avoided the subject entirely, but no, they are DRIVEN to show that their beliefs are the only true ones and confident that they are right.
I don’t think they can (just stay silent). A significant part of their base cares more about the social issues than the economic ones. If Mitt had stayed silent about abortion etc. in the primary, he would’ve gotten crushed and never made it to the general election.
They can somewhat drive towards the middle of the social spectrum during the general election, because the religious right has enough pragmatic leaders that they can chalk that up gaming the moderates rather than a sincere moderation. But to date, no GOP candidate has been able to make it through the primary process without some kowtowing to the religious right.
The problem with that is their ideas for the economy are terrible. They can probably fool a lot of people with them, but can they fool enough?
Now imagine if Aiken had said “Oh, you mean I was wrong about the medical facts? Then I change my position.” But there is no way that would ever happen. Which shows that it was just rationalization anyway.
Any others you can think of?
– Given the closeness of the popular vote for president and the continuing division of power in congress, major policy initiatives or changes in the law are unlikely unless they have broad bipartisan support.
– The Republicans will have to adopt more liberal positions on social issues to remain competitive, just as the Democrats adopted more conservative positions on economic issues in the Clinton era.
The British online news parody The Daily Mash has plenty of celebratory articles on Mr Romney’s loss today, which are worth looking up:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/god-ignores-idiots-2012110747966
There’s also an article on Richard Dawkin’s conversion to belief in a benevolent creator after viewing photographs of Scalett Johansseon’s shapely behind:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/johansson-photos-change-everything-says-dawkins-201109164314
I learned that Washington is the most progressive place on Planet Earth.
The state of Washington, that is.
With the most regressive tax system in the nation.
Do you mean they tax lower income brackets higher than high income brackets (which is actual regressive tax policy), or are you just using the term ‘regressive’ to indicate you dislike their systems?
I could easily be wrong, but I find the former somewhat hard to believe.
Washington state doesn’t have an income tax at all.
I think Oregon, Vermont, Maine, and a few other states have WA beat, I’m afraid. (Long time, though not current, WA resident.)
Another one: You CAN gett re-elected without starting any new wars.
Interesting fact: Last US president to be re-elected with unemployment this high? Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936. 1936, gang.
The GOP took a thumping on Tuesday. Long overdue.
And don’t forget this one:
Since 1936, the superstition has held that if the Redskins won their last home game before the election, the incumbent party would stay in power. And that rule held until 2004, when both the Redskins and John Kerry lost.
Washington lost, Obama wins – another break in the string, but all things considered it’s better than Fox News!
This beautiful photograph by Spencer Tunick speaks for itself:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=549654681718651&set=a.158585034158953.34815.143499359000854&type=1&relevant_count=1
I love PiersMorgan’s comment:
“Cheer up Todd Akin: if it’s a legitimate loss, the body has a way of shutting it down.#Election #Senate”
And Dr. Biden:
“Richard Mourdock currently losing his Senate race is a gift from God. #Election2012”
Meanwhile, in Georgia, Salon reports that Charles Darwin received 4,000 write-in votes as a protest against the candidacy of Georgia Representative Paul Broun, the man who called evolution and the Big Bang “lies from the pit of hell”.
It is interesting (and significant!) that Mr. Paul Brown includes ’embryology’ as one of the ‘lies from the pit if hell’:
“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” Broun said.