Friday, August 21, 2009

"Under no ... circumstances will I give the government control over my body."

That's what Michele Bachmann, Republican Representative of Minnesota, said this week. She's asking her supporters to call members of Congress and tell them the same thing.

Got that? Under no circumstances.

If that's the new Republican position on whether the government can control what women do with their bodies, that's fine with me!

16 comments:

Meade said...

Republicans don't even like government standing too close and acting all friendly.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Yeah -- with the minor exceptions of social issues, economic issues, and foreign policy.

Meade said...

I can't think of a good example of one of those minor exceptions unless you mean, in foreign policy, the Republican position of supporting democracy movements and opposing Islamist abuse of the human rights of women and girls.

Or perhaps you were alluding to the most recent Republican president's tripling of direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent, Africa.

downtownlad said...

Can't think of one example?

Hmmm - how about Federal Laws that prevent gay people from marrying someone of the same sex. Supported overwhelmingly by Republicans.

Sodomy laws are still on the books in 13 states - and they are overwhelmingly supported by Republicans. Only Lawrence V Texas prevents them from being enforced, which is why conservatives list that Supreme Court decision as one of the most important supreme court decisions to be overturned. Sodomy laws are still on the books AND enforced by the US military.

How about the prosecution against pornography undertaken by the Bush Justice Department?

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1125318960389

How about the US government monitoring our phone conversations without a warrant in the name of "protecting" us? Again - overwhelmingly supported by Republicans.

Or how about laws against, not only recreational drug use, but laws against medical marijuana as well. Again - supported by Republicans.

I can go on and on and on. Schools that refuse to teach evolution (intelligent design anybody?) Faith based federal funding. The right to abortion. Not allowing gay people to adopt children. Not allowing gays to teach in public schools. "Innocent until proven guilty" being replaced by "torture first - no trial ever."

Etc, etc. etc.

John Althouse Cohen said...

I can't think of a good example of one of those minor exceptions unless you mean, in foreign policy, the Republican position of supporting democracy movements and opposing Islamist abuse of the human rights of women and girls.

How about Afghanistan and Iraq?

Social conservatism itself is based on the idea that the government should have an active role in interfering with people's personal lives.

As for economic policy, I go by Republicans' actions, not their stated philosophy. Conservative pundits have been complaining for years that the party isn't truly conservative, that they need to return to their small-government roots, etc. In other words, they should dramatically cut government benefits and spending. The pundits' problem is that they don't stop to ask why the Republicans haven't done so. The answer is because minimal government simply isn't very popular. It hasn't happened, and won't happen, because it's not what the people want. The Republicans know it would be political suicide to actually put their ideology into practice.

Meade said...

None of those are good examples, downtownlad.

And your "Etc, etc. etc." belies your "I can go on and on and on." But thanks anyway for your reply.

Democrats now control Congress and the White House. Which one of your grievances there do you expect to get relief from?

Same sex marriage?
Access to pornography?
Freedom to sodomize?
Freedom to talk on the phone with terrorists?
To use reefer and maybe a little blow?

President Obama opposes all of those things and he is no Republican.

John Althouse Cohen said...

To use reefer and maybe a little blow?

To do something in the neighborhood that I won't say what he was doing but he said it in his book...

Meade said...

I know.

I said opposes - present tense.

Ann Althouse said...

"Reefer"? Who says "reefer"? And who wrote the screenplay for "Reefer Madness"?

John Althouse Cohen said...

"I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though—Mickey, my potentional intiator had been just a little too eager for me to go through with that. Said he could do it blindfolded, but he was shaking like a faulty engine when he said it. Maybe he was just cold; we were standing in a meat freezer in the back of the deli where he worked, and it couldn't have been more than twenty degrees in there. But he didn't look like he was sweating, his face shiny and tight. He had pulled out the needle and the tubing, and I'd looked at him standing there, surrounded by big slabs of salami and roast beef, and right then an image popped into my head of an air bubble, shiny and round like a pearl, rolling quietly through a vein and stopping my heart... Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd be headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. Except the highs hadn't been about that, me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then anyway. I got just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory. I had discovered that it didn't make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmmate's sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you'd met at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl." - Barack Obama

Ann Althouse said...

"Maybe he was just cold; we were standing in a meat freezer..."

Maybe he was cold. He was standing in a meat freezer.

And what the hell is a potentional intiator?

John Althouse Cohen said...

And what the hell is a potentional intiator?

Someone who could have introduced him to heroin if he had wanted.

Ann Althouse said...

"And what the hell is a potentional intiator?"

"Someone who could have introduced him to heroin if he had wanted."

Potentional intiator? I am afraid I lack potentional as a reader.

Ann Althouse said...

"the young would-be black man"?

So... he was trying to be a black man?

Apparently, yes. He was trying to live up to his stereotype of a black man -- "trying to prove what a down brother I was." He both had the stereotype and he rejected it. Interesting that he wasn't raked over the coals for that... or his drug use.

downtownlad said...

Actually they are all good examples Meade. You obviously couldn't give a fuck about anti-gay laws, because shocker - you're not gay. And those laws will never affect you. But trust me - I don't appreciate it when the government tells me that I can't have sex with somebody. And that EXACTLY the same as the government standing too close and acting all friendly.

I don't appreciate it when the government tells me I can't marry the person I love.

I don't appreciate it when the government teaches children that they should remain abstinent until marriage - which for gay people is a message of "You should never ever have sex". Great message to send to an insecure gay teenager who is already the target of harassment by his classmates.

You've tried to change the subject by pointing it towards Democrats, but all of these laws I mentioned were initiated by Republicans. Of course there are bigoted Democrats - but that wasn't what you stated. You said Republicans don't stand too close and act all friendly. Bullshit. Again - you're not a woman - so you don't have to worry about abortion. You're not gay so you don't have to worry about anti-gay laws. You're not Muslim, so you don't have to worry about racial and ethnic profiling. How convenient for you.

But the fact is that Republicans frequently stand too close and act all friendly, i.e. like wheh they tell me "Yo faggot - don't be immoral - marry someone of the opposite sex".

Just because you choose to pretend that these laws don't exist, doesn't mean Republicans aren't responsible for them.

As for your statements about Obama - wrong.

Same sex marriage? Obama opposed Proposition 8 and favors full civil unions for gay people. BETTER than Republicans.

Access to pornography? Obama moved the Bush case from Montana to New Jersey in order to facilitate a judgment more in favor of free speech. And his Justice Department has stopped pursuing new cases. BETTER than Republicans.

Freedom to sodomize? Obama favors Lawrence V Texas and appoints justices who will likely uphold this. The exact OPPOSITE of Repubicans, who want to overturn Lawrence V. Texas - it is an even higher priority for them than Roe. V. Wade.

Freedom to talk on the phone with terrorists? Yes, Obama sucks here.

To use reefer and maybe a little blow? Yes, Obama sucks here, but this is more of a state issue.

Meade said...

"I don't appreciate it when the government tells me I can't marry the person I love. "

I agree.

But for the record, it was a Democratic president (Clinton) who signed into law an act denying federal recognition of gay marriage and giving states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

And now it's another Democrat, having campaigned on the promise to repeal the law, who last week, as President, had his lawyers file new papers asking the court to throw out a lawsuit brought by a gay couple challenging Clinton's 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.