Republican Reasoning In A (Wing) Nutshell

Or...

How To Broadcast Your Stupidity To Everyone

Today, President Obama did a very intelligent thing, but the reason as to WHY he had to do it was absolutely ludicrous. The President's video below was emailed to millions of Americans in support of SCOTUS nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. For the last eight years, the President has had the power to use the internet to make announcements, pronouncements, explanations, etc. To my knowledge, however, this is the first time the internet has been used by a president in this way.

Now THAT'S smart!

However, the reason he felt compelled to present this visual "resume" was because of cluelessness on the part of some Republicans who have vowed to block his nomination, no matter how qualified that nominee might be.

Now THAT'S stupid!

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's qualifications:

• Graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton
• Received Princeton's highest undergraduate award, the M.Taylor Pyne Prize
• Served as editor of the Yale Law Journal
• Became managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order
• Spent 5 years as a prosecutor for the Manhattan District Attorney
• 12 years on the Board for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (pro bono)
• On the Board of the State of New York Mortgage Agency, providing mortgage insurance coverage to AIDS hospices (pro bono)
• Helped found the New York City Campaign Finance Board (pro bono)
  

This morning on WTOP, Curt Levey, executive director of the right-wing Committee for Justice, compared Sotomayor to ...Harriet Miers (?!?):

I would point you to the Harriet Miers nomination under the second President Bush. She was also many people felt and (sic) intellectual lightweight, picked because she was a woman, people felt. And even though Republicans controlled the senate, she ultimately had to withdraw. And that could happen here. This is someone who clearly was picked because she’s a woman and Hispanic, not because she was the best qualified. I could certainly see red and purple state Democrats gawking at it and she may very well have to withdraw her nomination. (Emphasis my own)

HT: Think Progress

Is there any logic to the above statement? A comparison to Harriet Miers is dumb enough, then to show bigotry on top of that is horrendous idiocy. But being a far right Republican, Levey has to reiterate his stupidity by saying that a judge appointed TWICE by former presidents, and one who brings more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any other judge in the past 100 years, is UNQUALIFIED?

Of course, Rush Limbaugh also chimed in with incredible insults, daring Republicans to oppose the nomination:

But here is why -- even though she may not be able to be stopped -- here is why Sonia Sotomayor needs to be opposed by the Republicans as far as they can take it. Because the American people need to know who Barack Obama really is and his choice of Sonia Sotomayor tells everybody, if we will tell the story of her, who he is. He got up in his announcement and said everything about her that isn't true: that she's great constitutionalist, that she doesn't use personal opinion, that she understands what her role is and the oath is of a Supreme Court justice. She has done just the opposite of that. She is a hack like he is a hack in the sense that the court is a place to be used to make policy, not to adjudicate cases, not to adjudicate constitutional law but to make policy. She's even admitted it.

But he didn't say what REALLY makes her unqualified: she uses (gasp!) empathy!

THEY CAME FROM OUTER SPACE: Those "Protect Marriage" Monsters!

Take A Deep Breath, Calm Down
...And Let The Stupidity Unfold

Hatred is man's dumbest emotion. It's useless. It's anti-survival. It never really accomplishes anything (especially by itself). But some people are addicted to hatred. It may be difficult to feel sorry for them, but living a life fueled by hatred is living a useless life. And a pretty dumb one too. Yesterday, the California Supreme Court overwhelmingly supported the legality of a statewide proposition to amend the state's constitution. They also supported the legality of the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed before the proposition passed. The PM ("Protect Marriage") people are not satisfied. They were hoping for a complete bloodbath: they wanted 18,000 demonspawn to suffer and suffer big time.

From Capitol Resource Institute:

“The court placed our state in this untenable situation by allowing almost 18,000 homosexual couples to marry last summer, before Proposition 8 was approved by voters,” stated England. “Legally, these marriages cannot be valid. The constitution clearly states that only man-woman marriage is valid or recognized in California. The court has undermined its own authority by allowing these faux marriages to stand.”

"Faux Marriages." Kinda like the "Faux News" from Rupert Murdoch that gets piped into them intravenously (actually through the eyes and ears - very painful).

To some people, the court really DID put the Christofascists in a weird position: in their decision, they stripped the proposition down to the word "marriage" and expressly said that Prop 8 does not deny gays any of their rights protected by the State of California. Several respondents to Andrew Sullivan's blog may have worded their sentiments oddly, but many people see this as a victory for gay rights. The Court basically said: "BFD, you can pass an amendment defining the word "marriage", but you can't take away legal rights. And those marriages performed before the passing of Prop 8 were legal.

In a way, the PMs overplayed their hand in demanding that those 18,000 souls suffer. Whatever people thought about them before, they now realize just what a bunch of bloodthirsty fiends the PMs are:

• They imported people and money from out of the state to change the Constitution of the State of California.
• They tried to extort money from "No on Prop 8" donors.
• They attempted to eradicate the rights of all lesbians and gays residing in California.
• They viciously portrayed lesbians and gays as "outcasts" and "perverts" who have the radical agenda of making their children gay.
• Their agenda included ruining the lives of couples who love each other.

So what happens now?

Fasten your seatbelts.

The Bloviating Boss Has Spoken: HATE SOTOMAYOR!

After reading the transcript of Rush Limbaugh's screed against Judge Sonia Sotomayor, I just had to include this video. Part of the actual transcript is HERE. Read it, if you want to read vitriol personified. Thanks so very much to Crooks and Liars for a wonderfully inciteful video!

So How Magnanimous Will The PMs Be Now?

War exposes people for who they really are. All of the Christofascist mean-spirited hatred that has been demonstrated these last months: all the moralizing lies being cast as stones upon the "wicked"; all the fear-mongering by stories more incredible than urban legends; all the stories about the "Christian Right's" waning popularity; all the discoveries about the Mormon Church. Each sides' swords have been sharpened to fine points ready for another round. Money, hard work and tenacity will keep spinning until the chance for repeal comes around. And there will be a battle, to be sure. There has been no form of magnanimity from yesterday's "victors". Ask yourselves: will they ever tell gay marriage proponents that they harbour no ill feelings and that they will be non-discriminatory in all other cases except for the word "marriage"? After all, that would be "the Christian Thing To Do" and looked upon as very noble.

Don't hold your breath!

The Protect Marriage people look upon this small victory as justification for being even more aggressive: they'll feel emboldened to try their Prop 8 tactics in other states and experiment with Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Iowa. They're re-energized. They will never apologize for their extortion attempts. They will never retool their lying advertisments. And they will attempt to scorn, verbally mutilate and violate those 18,000 lesbians and gay men who are LEGALLY married.

And they will make martyrs of them. By feeding these "legitimates" to the proverbial lions of discrimination, the PMs will show the rest of the country just how hollow their claims of "righteousness" are.

Advice: follow the lead of people like Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate and Courage Campaign's new video.

Californians Against Hate

Fred Karger:

We will carefully monitor and take action against those who bully us and spend vast sums of money against us. Individuals and organizations who give millions of dollars to deny our full civil rights will be held accountable.

In response to the court's decision, the Courage Campaign will hit the California airwaves in the next 72 hours with a 60-second TV ad version of "Fidelity" -- the heartbreaking online video viewed by more than 1.2 million people, making it the most-watched video ever in the history of California politics.

Before clicking on to the above TV ad, watch the original one (below). Look at all those faces who almost got "divorced" by the "magnanimous" people of Protect Marriage. Then read a PM's stance HERE. You must see the other side.

After all, "It's the Christian thing to do."

The New Repulsive Republicans: Featuring Cheney's Chamber of Horrors!

Republicans now have another descriptive adjective. In the last 8 months, they've grown: stupid, arrogant, stubborn, bloviating and even weird. Now the newest: repulsive.

Yeah, repulsive. As in bloodthirsty kind of repulsive. Slimy repulsive. Yucky. Worse than "Bill the Cat" repulsive. More and more, they're looking like malicious Gremlins or the creature in Alien breathing, repulsively, on Segourney Weaver. And there are different kinds of Repulsive Republicans. For instance, there's the "we're all just torturers in arms" repulsive: several days ago, conservative commentator Lou Dobbs of CNN ran an accusatory piece on Senator Chuck Shumer running two videos, one where Shumer opposes torture and another (2004) in which he seems to be pro-torture (see below). He then asks viewers a leading question ascertaining if America approves of torture.

Crooks and Liars:

...and asks whether they would "personally employ torture to save American lives and prevent an attack on this country?" And surprise, surprise...the overwhelming answer is...YES! Looks like all that fear mongering is paying off well for you.

This is the same Lou Dobbs, you will recall, who was so enchanted by Obama Waffles during the Values Voters Summit that he bought several boxes.

Overt racism aside, the RNC is now running an ad that targets Nancy Pelosi - literally. This is the "kill them all, God will take care of his kind"* kind of repulsive:

No doubt somebody at the RNC thought it would be a clever idea, since Nancy Pelosi is feuding with the CIA, to run an ad comparing Pelosi to a James Bond villainess up against the superspy -- as in Bond's many screen-credit sequences wherein he blasts away at various villains.

The RNC is hoping that one of Palin's Rally people will take a tip from it.

And there's the "Dick Cheney's Right" kind of repulsive that even now has some "Republicans" disgusted:

Think Progress:

(McCain on Cheney's "National Security" speech):

And then he got acerbic: Cheney, he says, “believes that waterboarding doesn’t fall under the Geneva Conventions and that it’s not a form of torture. But you know, it goes back to the Spanish Inquisition.”

Of course, no definition of repulsive would be definitive if it did not include "The Boss has spoken" kind of repulsive. This would be portrayed in Rush Limbaugh's off-hand ridiculing of Ted Kennedy's cancer and lifespan (hear it below to believe it).

And lastly, there's the "we're so sanctimonious" kind of repulsive embodied by Mucho Macho Rick Santorum:

SANTORUM: The other thing we have to do is we have to stand up and say, look, America — Conservatives believe in the stewardship of patrimony. In other words, there are things in America that are really good, that work, have worked for 200 years. And we have a guy named Barack Obama who’s trying to fundamentally rewrite everything, change our economy, change our social structure, change our economy to something new.

In other words, screw women - physically and figuratively. This coming from the man who has the weirdest looking family to ever lose a campaign.

I actually feel sorry for the few Republicans who are moderates and want to achieve solutions to the nation's problems by cooperation. The new, Repulsive Republicans are bringing out the worst in liberals. I Googled "Bloodthirsty Republicans" today and there was a link to a pdf file:

Republican Conservative Christian Blood Thirsty Murderring Christian Kills 8 Stupid Republicans in Red State Hillbilly Nebraska, Loser Bush Country...(Irony: sounds more like stupid Republicans than stupid Republicans. The grammar and spelling are just as bad.)

And from Flickr, I received this gem of Walt Whitman's:

There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country - if the people lose their confidence in themselves - and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance.- Walt Whitman

David Giambusso put it well when interpreting the best Democratic strategy:

From The General Pattern:

... Paint all Republicans with the same brush as Limbaugh–the Rush brush–and by so doing, show the American people that the GOP are a bunch of yammering gasbags who would prefer to see America go under if it means paying less taxes.

It is a bold strategy and one that is indicative of the renewed potency of Democratic politics. Many chess gambits involve forcing an opponent’s piece to the front of the field so you can pick him off. Between Emmanuel, David Axelrod and James Carville it would seem probable that they have a big pile of shit to drop on Limbaugh at just the right moment.

Stupid. Arrogant. Stubborn. Bloviating. Weird. Repulsive. The Republican Party is running out of descriptive adjectives.

*Before the Inquisition was even a gleem in Torquemada's eye, a papal legate (representative) was asked by a knight laying siege to a town with both Christians and heretics how he could tell them apart. The response went down in history as one of the most cavalier in human genocide.

Cheney Spoke, but Obama's Audience Listened

Just who was Dick Cheney delivering his speech to?

People were watching the TV screen intently. The saw a man telling the nation his intentions on national security. He did it with aplomb, confidence and determination. The TV audience was parsing every word, every syllable. It was as if they were calculating the words, giving them numerical ratings and hoping that the tally was not too high. But that was to be expected with this audience. They were, after all, the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a right-wing think tank. What wasn't to be expected was that they were calculating the words of President Barack Obama before listening (one hopes as attentively) to the man they actually paid to hear and see: former Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Even though they were pre-disposed to hear Cheney (one supposes, since he seldom gives orations to the public and he has, in these last weeks been as ubiquitous on the airwaves to the American public as ketchup is to Sean Hannity's hamburger), there was no doubt that they wanted to hear Obama's speech in order to bolster the upcoming words of Cheney.

Neither men disappointed them: Obama surprised and Cheney stayed the course.

From Washington Post, Scott Wilson:

Speaking moments after Obama finished, Cheney delivered the most pointed rejoinder of his weeks-long media campaign in defense of the Bush administration's national security record, including its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and its adoption of harsh interrogation tactics and detention policies that have been widely criticized.

He said the "great dividing line in our current debate over national security" is whether that "comprehensive strategy has worked and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever, or whether you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event, coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort."

From the clips on the regular broadcast news channels, Cheney was unusually jovial when he made a speech that restated his dire warnings of being attacked while under the watch of President Obama. So why was he smiling so much? Who knows. Maybe he was glad to feel the freedom of saying what he really wanted to say because...no one was listening. The world had heard versions of his views ad nauseum in the last weeks. If anyone was listening, they were trying to compare the astute Obama to the sly and snide Dick Cheney.

From The Swamp (Chicago Tribune) Mark Silva:

Most Americans surveyed -- 55 percent -- hold an unfavorable view of the former vice president, with only 37 percent viewing him kindly, a CNN Opinion Research Corp. poll finds. Which is to say he's only slightly less unpopular than he was last summer.

Cheney:

The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I’m not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do.

HUH? WTF?! He didn't say that! "Good wishes" to Obama after he's gone on record as saying that Rush Limbaugh would be better for the Republican Party than Colin Powell? By extension, Cheney wants Obama "to fail." Must be the record for the most disingenuous comment of the decade.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

Trying to kill two birds with one stone: Obama and the New York Times. Granted, they're both enemies of Cheney's Radical Right, but isn't it a bit idiotic to take on both at the same time?

Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised.

Ah, which governments across the world? Cheney's trademark sneer alone has cost us dozens of alliances. "Sensitive joint operations"? That can be interpreted several ways. Iran-Contra was also a "sensitive joint operation."

After his speech, I wonder if they gave Cheney a standing ovation?

I wonder if they noticed that he had stopped speaking at all.

No Wall Between Church and State: Ireland and The Largest Child Abuse Scandal in History

Silence is golden? Sometimes it's just pernicious. Catherine Devene, Unseen Scotland, 10 May, 2009

By the time you read this, it may be 20 hours old (very old in blogger time), but if you've ever read any of my posts on the Magdalene Laundry and Duplessis Orphan scandals, you'll know that I'm fated to write this post.

The (arguably) largest child abuse scandal in history has resurfaced. It came to light about 9 years ago and only the local Irish media carried it. Now, thanks to the rise of information on the internet, it has become headline news: the kind of news that goes beyond scandal, goes beyond belief and goes beyond perspective.

Thousands beaten, raped in Irish reform schools

Shawn Pogatchnik, Associated Press Writer – 6 hrs 11 mins ago

DUBLIN – A fiercely debated, long-delayed investigation into Ireland's Roman Catholic-run institutions says priests and nuns terrorized thousands of boys and girls in workhouse-style schools for decades — and government inspectors failed to stop the chronic beatings, rapes and humiliation.

Nine years in the making, Wednesday's report sides almost completely with the horrific reports of abuse from former students sent to more than 250 church-run, mostly residential institutions. But victims' leaders said it didn't go far enough — particularly because none of their abusers were identified by name.

The [2,600-page] report concluded that church officials always shielded their orders' pedophiles from arrest to protect their own reputations and, according to documents uncovered in the Vatican, knew that many pedophiles were serial attackers..

Thirty thousand children were abused. 30,000. Ten times three thousand. Three times ten thousand.

These institutions were "industrial schools" "reformatories" and "orphanages"; in other words, the children were considered outcasts and, therefore, expendable. It is a stupendous irony that the chief orders committing these crimes were named "Sisters of Mercy" and "Christian Brothers."

For further reading/viewing click HERE...HERE...and HERE. (There is also an old post of mine about the Iraqi Orphan Scandal featuring the Duplessis scandal)

While the public in general will be horrified by the extent of the abuse, let's look at some other key points:

• During the years of abuse, there was literally no "wall of separation between church and state." Government officials turned a deaf ear to complaints and were blind during inspection. Why? Simply because BOTH the inspectors and the institutions were Catholic.
• As with sex abuse cases in America, the Roman Catholic Church hid accounts of such cases by transferring known repeat offenders to other schools.
• Also in hiding: reputations. The title of "Sr.", "Rev." or "Bro." insured that there could be no question about the morals or ethics of a priest, nun. or brother. They were, of course, beyond reproach. To question otherwise was (and is still) "sacrilegious."
• These were government subsidized schools over which the public (taxpayer) had little or no control. In today's terms, think extremely autonomous "faith-based" charities. Legislation of regulations for such schools was considered "insulting" to the Catholic faith.

When the Iraqi orphan scandal broke, people were horrified. Mentally disabled children were starved and abused, after all. The media was notified immediately. But was it considered a singularly Muslim offense? Did religion have any role in the abuse? No.

Abuse like this can be taken further (although now of the media has asked questions): the Magdalene Laundries scandal in England and Ireland were uncovered due to the discovery of GRAVESITES. There are unmarked gravesites as well of the Duplessis Orphanages. Of the 200 insitutions included in the report, have there been any such gravesites reported?

In conclusion: even when religion and government are intertwined to the point of being indistinguishable, one of them must rule over the other. In Ireland, the Roman Catholic Church ruled.

Now think of the kind of rule our own "Social Conservatives" want.

Just a thought.