Friday, August 24, 2012

Republican Kitty Out of the Bag, Todd Akin Part 3

Legitimate Rape Song

 "Recently some of you have been paying attention to the commentary about the senator from Missouri, Mr. Akin, who … the interesting thing here is that this is an individual who sits on the House Committee on Science and Technology but somehow missed science class."
"And it's representative of the desire to go backwards instead of forwards and fight fights that we thought were settled 20 or 30 years ago." -President Barack Obama, 8-22-2012

"My dear brethren, do not ever forget, when you hear the progress of lights praised, that the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!" -Charles Baudelaire, "The Generous Gambler" 1864

   It's true you know. Todd Akin is on The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
   Let's continue to examine the statement that got Missouri U.S. Rep. Akin into so much hot water. Just two more items of concern.
   For the record as of this writing Akin has refused to end his bid for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Claire McCaskill, despite calls from almost every Republican politician that's out there, including Mitt (Mitt) Romney and his running mate... Ayn Ryan (, and all the republican fund raisers, like the arch traitor Karl Rove, so on and so forth. On the other hand all democrats want him to stay in the race, including McCaskill and myself. Akin passed a deadline a few days ago to leave the campaign without there being a penalty for whoever replaced him.
   So it looks like he's in the race for the long run.
   Alright, we have the "legitimate rape" problem as well as the child inference. Which first?
   "You know I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment outta be on the rapist, and, and not attacking the child."
   This is a problematic statement considering a fertilized egg, or even an embryo or fetus, is not a child.
   Biologically a child is generally a human between the stages of birth and puberty, who lives independently outside of it's mother. Sometimes a fetus is referred to an "unborn child," but that is more of a buzz phrase designed to infer childhood status to the fetus.
   Well I guess now is a good as time as any to look at the whole Republican stance toward the abortion issue that Akin is championing through his statement, and which is shared by significant percentage of his party.
   Even as they attempt to distance themselves from the comments about rape made by Akin, Republicans reaffirmed that they agree with him and other extremists when it comes to women’s health issues.
   Just last Tuesday, at the height of this controversy, the committee drafting the Republican Party’s official policy platform underscored the fact that Republicans believe the country needs a constitutional ban on abortion in all circumstances — no exceptions for victims of rape or incest or to protect the life of the woman, not to mention any of the numerous other reasons a woman may need an abortion (the Republican platform committee is chaired by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, who received national condemnation for his support of a bill mandating that women seeking abortions receive costly transvaginal ultrasounds regardless of medical need, which many consider a form of rape in and of itself and which earned the Governor the title, "Governor Vaginal Probe," which was probably the major factor causing him to lose to Ryan the Vice Presidential  nomination).
   Cecile Richards, President of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund said this after the platform was announced:
    "The Republican Party platform approved today is Mitt Romney’s agenda every bit as much as it’s Todd Akin’s agenda. It shows a fundamental disregard for women and women’s health."
   Spokespeople for the Romney campaign disagreed, stating the Governor Romney has his  platform and the Republican Party has theirs without attempting to distinguish one from the other.
   I saw our friend the lovely Tamron Hall  of MSNBC interview a Republican representative just yesterday in preparation for next week's love fest called the Republican National Convention (and as radio host Stephanie Miller and myself point out, isn't it interesting  (and fitting) that the convention's theme "We Built It" is based on a lie... a distortion of what Obama said in a speech concerning the nation's infrastructure taken out of context (Romney says during his speeches "The President says he's been taken out of context. Go ahead and look at his whole speech..." Okay. I looked at the whole speech Mittens and... you've taken him out of context!) suggesting the president does not respect the work individuals put into their businesses, which of course he wasn't saying at all. In an ironic turn we've come to learn that the very building that the convention is being held in, the Tampa Bay Times Forum, was majority financed by the public; the arena is owned by local government; and the Republican convention has received tens of millions in government funds to help with costs and security. Hypocrisy though rarely concerns Republicans). She asked this representative how the Republican's platform differs from that of Romney's, and of course she obfuscated her answer saying something about how the platform statement was meant just as a "visionary" document, suggesting that... well, I don't know what she was suggesting. A visionary document that envisions the platform of the Republican Party is all I can come up with, and by association is strongly linked to the Republican nominee for President and Vice President. The representative then went on to tell Tamron she must be mistaken when confronted with the fact that Paul Ryan's Medicare plan also takes out 700 billion plus from Medicare. Tamron calmly replied, "With all due respect, no I'm not mistaken you stupid bitch." She didn't really say that, but she should have. When Tamron asked the rep why it was that 29 percent of registered voters said they had "very negative" impressions of the Republican Party (according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll). The representative's reply was tantamount to this: those who feel that way should watch more Fox News.
   So the Republicans want a Constitutional ban on abortion with no exceptions regarding rape, incest, or the health of the mother, which seems to be a tad extreme. Republicans are always wanting Constitutional bans on things. They know they'll never get them because Constitutional amendments were designed by our founders to be very hard to ratify because changing the Constitution is a very serious thing. They want a balanced budget amendment that relieves Congress of it's responsibility to produce a budget, and would make it against the law for the country to spend more in case of a national emergency. They're not going to get a balanced budget amendment, but it's good politics for them (looking good to their extreme base) to waste time and money asking for one, just like it is asking for an amendment banning abortions. Might as well ask for a Constitutional amendment banning little baby kittens from interacting with little baby puppies, because who knows what would happen if that were to ever occur. Not going to get it, so might as well ask for it if your political base happens to be staunch kitten and puppy  segregationists.
   But why does the Republican Party take this extreme position when they must know it will not be well received by the majority of American people, and expecially in an important election year?
   It's because they are insane (Reagan appointed federal judge Richard Posner prefers the term "goofy"). They live within their own little fantasy world that is as self reinforcing as the scientific method is self correcting.
   The Republicans are acting as the political arm for a relatively small section of our population that share extreme religious views that the Republicans have to placate in order to stay in power so they can continue to serve their real masters, the ultra wealthy and large business interests. Now when your power base is essentially insane and it's your job to satisfy their needs, if you do it long enough you became insane as well, and your base's position becomes your own. That's what we're seeing now, what Todd Akin has opened up for the world to see. The Republicans embrace these extreme positions, make them their own, take possession of them, then pretend to the sane, rational world that they don't really feel that way, which is what we're seeing with Romney and Ryan now, trying to distance themselves from Akin's position, when they have both embraced it in the past. They are insane, psychotic if you will, opportunistic, clever, sick people, that have no business being near positions of national power.
   And oh yes, even if they could the Republicans would never, ever, really accept a Constitutional amendment banning abortions because it's one of the best fundraisers they have, and will ever have.
   They aren't that crazy.
   Now as for the base's position, or their stance for being pro life, well it's almost laughable. As a matter of fact I'm chuckling to myself right now as I type this.
   There is no such thing as a right to life, nor has there ever been a right to life.
   The term "right" implies it has been granted by a higher authority, and I'm sure the conservatives would claim the right is granted through God, or some other religious entity.
   Well as we've previously discussed, to be taken seriously in an adult conversation regarding this subject, if your argument requires this God then it's your responsibility to prove this God's existence.
   I understand my position will be belittled by those who maintain that God has provided this right to life. That's okay, I don't mind. I get belittled all of the time. I was belittled the other day as a matter of fact.
   However my belittlement does not negate my position or advance theirs.
   I have a whole bunch of questions regarding God giving this right to life.
   For example:
   It seems to apply only to humans. Why would that be? All of the creatures alive on this planet, supposedly, are creatures of God. Why don't they have a right to life as well (I keep seeing this television commercial lately celebrating the good things in life and one visual example is that of a recreational fisherman holding up this large, beautiful fresh water bass or something. The man is really happy and smiling at his having caught it. The audience is supposed to be happy that he caught it. All the while this magnificent creature of God is gasping for breath, suffocating, dying a slow and excruciating painful death. It literally makes me sick).
   The Bible does not mention abortion. Not at all.
   One of the Old Testament's Commandments is "Thou Shall Not Kill,"  but Republicans, and everybody else ignore this one whenever it is convenient for them to do so. Why are fetus's so special?
   Where does life begin. Some say at conception. Some say before conception. Clearly an egg cell and a sperm cell are both "alive," so is the act of menstruating or male masturbation an act of mass murder?
   The majority of fertilized eggs spontaneously miscarry. Does this make God a murderer?
   Why would God create a world in which living things have to kill and eat each other to survive if there was a right to life?
   Why do the Republican audiences applaud and cheer when Texas Governor Perry was confronted during this year's primary with the fact that he's executed more prisoners than any other governor. Where does the prisoner's right to life end, and if it's a God given right how can conservatives justify taking life whenever it chooses?
   Why do these same audiences cheer when it is suggested that sick people die when they lack health insurance?
   Where's the right to life when we begin unnecessary wars that decimate our own troops and the local population these wars are fought in?
   Where's the right to life for seniors who have to choose between food and medication because Republicans want to decrease their benefits?
   Why does the Republican/conservative, Tea Party/Evangelical right to life seem to end after the child is born?
   On and on and on and on and on...
   There is no right to life. There never has been.
   What always has been though is a right to choose.
   And given the circumstances that we've been examining in these three posts, and given that those who read this will tend to be sane, the choice in November should be a simple one.
   As far as Rep Akin's premise that there may indeed exist such a thing as illegitimate rape...
   Well I'm going to let my lovely new friend Taylor Ferrera clarify our position once more:

No comments:

Post a Comment