Short: Rand Paul's stupid logic

Let me try to understand this. Rand Paul is saying there's no GOP "War on Women" (a slogan that exaggerates) because Clinton had an affair. That's his argument? What an incredibly lame and stupid argument that is.

Here's why: That's not a defense of GOP policies. If he wants to defend GOP policies with regard to women, he should defend those policies. Bringing Bill Clinton's personal behavior from 15 years ago has NOTHING TO DO with GOP policies. Rand Paul, your argument is a giant logical FAIL.

He forgot to bring the sense this time.

Image: thedailysheeple.com

Denying Contraceptive Coverage is Slut-Shaming

First, I'm sorry that this topic is getting so many posts, but there is a good reason. This is one of the few issues where it's possible to nail down the logic and see it for what it is.

People who argue against contraceptive coverage fall into three categories:

1. Those who are against ALL drug coverage, but make the mistake of focusing on contraceptives. 
2. Those who don't want any of their money to go to subsidized contraceptives for parasites who are probably irresponsible sluts.
3. Those who follow religious tenets against the use of contraceptives. 

I'm giving category #1 people the benefit of the doubt. It's easy to identify them. If you ask, why should contraceptives be any different from, say anti-cholesterol drugs, they readily agree that they shouldn't.

For category #3 people, I have to argue that their church's tenets are misguided and/or outdated in this age where we have over 7 billion people thronging the Earth. Also, they cannot and should not force their church teachings on employees. Do they make their employees swear religious oaths? No. So keep religion out of healthcare also.

But a lot of religion tenets come down to category #2, which is disapproval of sex. Often it's clothed as disapproval of wanton, irresponsible sex, but when you scratch the surface, it's a general disapproval of sex.

Image: politicalfun.blogspot.com

However, it makes no sense for this disapproval of wanton sex to apply also to contraceptives. These are used mostly by very responsible people for responsible purposes. Just because prostitutes and sexually adventurous people also use contraceptives, that doesn't make contraceptives evil. Prostitutes and the unchaste also drink water for the same reasons the rest of us do, but we don't have religious prohibitions against water.

So there's no logical reason to deny contraceptive coverage--unless I've missed some other argument. If that's the case, I apologize. However, I really doubt that there is any other argument.

Slut or responsible person?

Image: thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu

Update 1/31/14. Answer to O'Reilly's questions above: No, Bill, I want you to shove that money so far up your ass that it comes out your foul mouth. Plus, I hear you're quite a slut yourself.

The GOP in their contraceptive corner

OK folks, I hope this is the last thing I'll say about the GOP and contraceptives. These guys have really been idiots about contraception. Contraception is a good thing. It lets you have sex with your spouse (something you looked forward to for all or most of your adolescence) without fear of having way too many children that you can't afford. If you're not married, it lets you have sex without fear that you'll have to rush into marriage due to pregnancy or have that awkward child-sharing relationship fraught with disagreements, resentment, and discomfort, which will deeply harm your kid. Or you won't have to make that painful decision to have an abortion because you're not a selfless saint who can deal with pregnancy and giving up the kid. (Aside--who is the patron saint of unwed mothers? Was she an unwed mother, or is he or she another figure to make them feel ashamed.)

Image: east2west.org

So, that's the short version of my case for why CONTRACEPTION = GOOD.

Now, how did the GOP ever embrace the idea that contraception isn't good? I don't know, so I'm going to speculate. Contraception was traditionally outlawed because of some arcane reasons probably having to do with male control and women being in subservient positions. So maybe the GOP, being the party of traditional values, doesn't like the modernity of contraception.

They probably don't like that it gives people more freedom for sexual experimentation, though anyone who's realistic should still appreciate its usefulness for married couples. So perhaps the prudish side of the GOP has won out, and they disapprove of contraception because sluts use it.

Perhaps the GOP has decided to hate everything connected with Planned Parenthood, and that would include contraception. In the same vein, they may have decided to be against everything that the Democrats are for, thus they're against both contraception and Planned Parenthood.

Whatever the bizarre reason that the GOP became the party against contraception, they really need to stop this nonsense. Romney helped when he stated in a debate: "I don't know any state that wants to ban contraception, George." Unfortunately, that was the high point of GOP support for contraception. Weak sauce.

What the GOP needs to do now is to turn the tide and get a lot of prominent Republicans to say that they have indeed used contraception and it's great--it worked really well and they're happy with the results and they had the children when they wanted. Maybe that would remind the loony Republicans to just shut up. Furthermore, perhaps someone will take the loony Republicans into some back room and explain that slut-shaming over contraception might make them feel haughty and superior, but that it's downright stupid as elections go.

OK, yes, I want to be the person who tells the loony Republicans how stupid they are. Rant over... I hope.

(Not an actual quote.)

Image:  suyts.wordpress.com

Extra. Even when intelligent conservatives talk about this, they still end up getting it wrong. Many are against the landmark decision Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court told states to stay out of people's bedrooms. To many conservatives, this was a bad decision because it opened the door to legalization of abortion, gay sex, oral sex and other forms of sex previously called sodomy, and cohabitation. But Griswold v. Connecticut was decided rightly--the state should stay out of your bedroom. I think the majority of Americans strongly agree with that. 

The Controversy in My Medicine Cabinet

There shouldn't be a controversy in my medicine cabinet. It's my medicine cabinet. It's between me and my doctor what goes in there. There are all these HIPAA regulations that are supposed to protect the privacy of my medical information, presumably including what my doctor prescribes.

So why would anyone care if I have an anti-cholesterol drug in my medicine cabinet? Why should my employer care? Why the hell would my employer go out of his way to complain about me getting this drug, and that some tiny bit might be paid for by him. It's OK if I use my salary to pay for it, but horrible if it's part of my benefits package. Does that make any bloody sense? No, it doesn't.

I am so tired of some people thinking I'm a freeloader because my anti-cholesterol drug is covered in my health plan. Limbaugh thinks I'm some sort of slut because of it, and he demands I upload porno to him.

Now Mike Huckabee is saying something too. He seems to think that I should be offended that my health plan covers my anti-cholesterol drug, because that means they don't think I'm mature enough to handle it on my own, or some such nonsense. Hell, no, I'm glad that they cover the drug, like the rest of my medical needs. Why should I be 'outraged' as Huckabee suggests?

I'm supposed to be outraged at the Democrats for supporting coverage for this medicine, but that doesn't wash either. I don't see how Huckabee can contend that my health plan and the Dems think I'm sort of slut. All they're doing is supporting me when I say "I'm glad my health plan covers this medication."

It seems to me that it's the Republicans who think it's kind of slutty or dirty that I might have anti-cholesterol medication. It's certainly a pretty common med--lots of people use it. Since when did it become slutty?

So to all the Republicans and their dittohead army, would you please shut up about my anti-cholesterol med? You sound very creepy when you get that involved in my medicine cabinet.

Stay out of my medicine cabinet.

Image: laprogressive.com

Extras. Huckabee is raising funds based on this. Some pundit thinks the big problem is that Huckabee is hypocritical about the issue, not how intrusive he is. I disagree. And then there are the idiots who think Huckabee nailed it--that Dems do think I'm a slut. Wrong!

The nightmare future vision of the GOP

"American liberal strategists know that in five to eight years the post-1968 culture and its stances which they have long championed will attain absolute majority among American adults and voters. Very simply, the Silent Generationers and Boomers who form the bulk of the resistance to this in the electorate are dying off. Around 2020 the country will have tipped and begin to change very greatly." -- comment in The American Conservative

This explains why the establishment in the GOP (the GOPe) wants to stop with the culture wars and pass an emigration bill. They want to have some hope of pulling away some of the more conservative voters among Latinos and gay-friendly voters.

If they can't, they will be overwhelmed by rote Democratic voters. Elections will be decided by the smaller, hard-core primary voters, so the Democrats might become even more leftist. This certainly holds no appeal for me--I've depended on competition and obstruction to prevent the worst on both sides.

However, if this change is inevitable, does it matter what the GOP does now or in the next few years? Perhaps they can only hold off the Dem surge and all the changes it entails for a couple years, but that's only a delay. The ultimate outcome will be the same.

This catastrophic outlook assumes that American voters won't be able to see if or when the Democratic agenda starts doing real harm. I worry about this myself. Our electorate is pretty stupid, uninformed, and unquestioning. When swing voters no longer matter, politicians won't have to craft the best policies based on good analysis. Instead, they can follow the party line, which unfortunately so many are doing already. What happens when there are no independent voices, only partisan ones? Maybe we become just another banana republic. This isn't just a nightmare for the GOP. It should be a nightmare for all of us.

Welfare (party) line

Image: thekitchencabinet.us

Harry Reid blew unemployment extensions and won't admit it

Dems have painted the Republicans in Congress as obstructionist, and that view certainly has a lot of facts behind it. However, there's no iron-clad law that says Dems can't or won't be obstructionist on some issues. The extension of unemployment benefits is a perfect example.

The Dems left this out of the budget deal, perhaps thinking that there was enough support among GOP senators from hard-hit states. Immediately with the new year, Dem senators started negotiating with moderate GOP senators and met them part-way: the Senate would consider a 3-month extension and also an 11-month version (the 3-month version having more GOP support). Also, the extra spending would be paid for with savings elsewhere in the budget. With those terms, 5-6 GOP senators joined the Dem caucus to overcome the first 60-vote choke point.

Then the negotiations feel apart. Harry Reid didn't allow these GOP senators to propose amendments, a nasty majority leader trick that isn't new but that Reid uses often. Do you suppose that would piss off the senators who had just helped on the recent vote? No surprise, it did.

The methods for "paying for" the extra spending were also a sticking point. Harry Reid offered mostly future money from 2024 to pay for the benefits--no current spending would be touched. This is a bad habit with the federal government--assuming future savings or economic growth will make budget fudges balance. I don't know if this ever worked.

So with these two big problems, the deal fell apart. What is the official word from the Democrats? According to Chuck Shumer, the second-ranking Dem in the Senate: "The bottom line is our Republican colleagues don’t seem to get it." That bit of drivel falls apart with one follow-up question: What was the sticking point on the deal?

Come on guys. No one is going to give an unconditional surrender. You have to negotiate! I worry that Harry Reid has an angle on this where he doesn't suffer at all, but he certainly should suffer at least a little.

Image: thepeoplescube.com

Extras.  Just a reminder, I'm not for endless extensions. One year is the maximum I support because 1) people have to adapt to the new reality. 2) Business need to have an endpoint on their contributions for laid-off workers if they're to do any new hiring.

• A very biased news report.
• Seven reasons why long-term unemployment is bad, but not why endless extension of payments is good.

I'm tired of America

You should be able to guess from the title that this post will be a rant.

I'm so tired of all the political hate. It's getting harder and harder to have a reasonable online conversation. My favorite political blogger, Jonathan Bernstein, got a new job at Bloomberg. His posts are still good, but the comment sections are overrun with idiotic trolls who can't put together an argument so they live and breathe insults.

Over at National Review I'm attacked and down-voted for not being in lock-step with liberal-bashing when it's done in a petty way. "Thou shalt hate liberals" reigns at National Review.

Common Language - Gone

I also notice that the words conservative commenters use have different meanings from what I'm used to. Take the word 'Marxist.' To me, it means someone who wants to abolish private property, seize all wealth over, say, a few thousand dollars, seize all business assets, and generally do what the Soviets did in Russia. To most commenters over there, a Marxist is anyone who advocated higher tax on the wealthy. Maybe just supporting progressive tax rates, like we already have, makes you a Marxist.

If you talk about inequality, a very squishy topic, you're probably a Marxist. If you say that money should be spread around ... Marxist. If you say the middle class should be stronger and getting more money, maybe you aren't a Marxist, but how is that different from saying that money should be spread around?

Now I'm also having trouble with the word 'confiscation.' It's a favorite term there. To me, it means the government taking a sizable portion of a person's money or property, or taking any portion that it doesn't have a legal right to. To others, it's any taxation. I'm sorry, but I can't call any and all taxation 'confiscation.' It has to be excessive--beyond what has been normal for the past several decades. So I think a 70% income tax rate is confiscation, and taking of saved assets is confiscation, but a 25% to 35% taxation rate on income doesn't fit the definition.

General Respect - Gone

I'm having a hard time at the soft-left sites too. The problem there isn't the meaning of terms, but the idea that anyone intelligent could disagree with the standard leftist platform. To some, it makes no sense that someone would want smaller government instead of bigger government.

The partisanship and the hate is not abating--not with the most recent elections and not with the slight uptick in employment. If anything, it is becoming more entrenched. I suppose I'm glad that we don't have political street demonstrations where people are beaten up and killed, but it's happening metaphorically on the internet. People loathe each other, and don't give a damn what happens to someone on the other side.

Considering Other Viewpoints - LOL

They also loathe any different ideology. We used to have an ideal that this country is a forum where different ideologies can compete and be judged. I guess that is over, and each side thinks its ideology has been proven (yes, proven) superior. Anyone who doesn't agree is either a shill, corrupt, a rentier, a leech, or what-have-you.

Worst of all, I don't see any way that this situation is going to get better. The different political sides show no signs of rapprochement, and a buoyant economy isn't going to rush in and save us. We are stuck with all these people we hate, and nothing is going to fix it.

I wonder what we did last time this happened? Are there any good ideas from the past?

Image: thejimmyzshow.blogspot.com