What Was That About Jobs, Again...?

[filkertom]

The House GOP has voted for redefining rape and having the IRS conduct "rape audits".

As John Aravosis at AmericaBlog puts it:

After all, that is what the American people voted for last November, rape audits.

In all fairness, it is what they voted for. Anyone who voted Republican, and didn't think they were putting the abortion police into office, is an idiot.

You vote Republican, you're gonna get a lot of legislation about gays, guns, God and abortion, tax cuts for rich people and rich corporations, and increases in defense spending. They have nothing else.

I've realized for a long time that the Republican theory of government goes something like this:

1. government is bad
2. therefore, elect us to government under the pretense of fixing it
3. we will screw things up even worse
4. thereby proving government is bad
5. repeat

But this is just ludicrous.

The American people need jobs. They need health care. They need someone to stand up for their rights to organize, to vote without intimidation, to not have their votes effing overruled by overzealous all-business-all-the-time governors with Emergency Financial Managers. (Yeah, that one's kinda close to home.)

What do we get from the GOP? Rape isn't necessarily rape, and we're gonna have the IRS question you about your "rape". Not to mention that, effectively, no insurance anywhere can pay for abortion services, because women are evil and must be controlled. And, as a throwaway, Washington, D.C. is no longer a local government, it's part of the federal government.

The party of "smaller government" is the one that keeps doing this shit.

This has no chance of becoming law. It will not pass the Senate, it will not get past Obama's desk. But the fact that they brought it to a vote at all is both beyond insane and demonstrative of what the true Republican agenda is.

They don't give a shit for your well-being.

They want to control you.

And they will bludgeon you with ever larger and more powerful arms of the government they purport to hate.

Comments

[jeffreycwells.livejournal.com]

Yup. As a public employee in Madison, I keep occasionally thinking, hey, maybe I'm just bitter because my personal ox is getting a bit gored here, and if I were to step back from the situation I would see that there's some good in all these government cuts, but then I think of Brian Deschane and the feeling passes. Ultimately there is no "small government" party with major national representation -- there are two big government parties, one which gives to the rich and one which gives to the poor. A gross oversimplification, perhaps, but if you ask me to choose between those two options, I know which one I'm picking.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Playing advocatus diaboli for a moment, it's also possible that this "statutory rape isn't REALLY rape" business was done purely to appease their more lunatic base elements, and that House Republicans knew going in that it'd never make it past both Senate and POTUS.

Hmm...actually, I'm not sure "okay, we'll screw underage women to placate the loonies, but it probably won't ever be law, we can just say we TRIED" is really all that much better.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Also, there's this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNESFVKULME). Though I prefer the original, which includes the line "Government is the problem...vote for us, and we'll prove it".

[alverant.livejournal.com]

I know what you're saying. Someone who is 1 month away from reaching the age of consent has about the same amount of maturity when it comes to sex as someone who reached the same age a month ago. The problem is that the law has to apply equally to everyone. Since there is now empirical way to measure an individual's maturity, we set a culturally-acceptable age.

So yes, it does mean some people get screwed, but the alternative is to loose the clear cut definitions of what is acceptable that we need from the law.

Need to go to work now or I would have written more.

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

"Women are evil, and must be controlled."

This. Forever. They hate women. They want to remove us from the picture, to reduce us to gibbering minors without rights, slaves to our endocrine systems and our biblical 'weakness'.

Thing is, it's the men who are the weak ones, when they must gin up such utter horrors to 'protect' us.

Well of the Republicans I'm speaking to

[capplor.livejournal.com]

2 are post-menopausal, 1 is "fixed" (medical issues), most are male. Trying to tell them they should give a hoot about women's rights is hopeless. I really wonder about the post-menopausal divorcee; I guess it's a matter of keeping the alimony.

(R)

[kilbia.livejournal.com]

This is the conclusion I reached after wondering how the same culture that vilified Eve as the reason for mankind's fall would then turn around and say that women needed to stay home and raise the kids because they were "more moral" than men.

Clearly, the problem is that (heterosexual) men are the ones vulnerable to this lustful sinning and they resent women for it. This also explains why they hate gay men (gays are immune to women), and love lesbians (who are vulnerable to women, like them).

[dysprog.livejournal.com]

On the gripping hand, even BRINGING UP the idea that some rapes aren't "real rapes" in a serious manor is harmful. Even if this gets vetoed, the idea that some rape is not a serious as other rape has been debated with a straight face on the floor of congress. And that in itself is harmful

It is enough to make me wish I had been planing to vote republican, so that I could switch to democrat for this reason.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

That's fine. Maybe they were "required to do it to appease their base." Whoop-de-do.

I don't give a ripe turd what their motives are. At this point, someone who used to have "moderate Republican" credibility is no different in my mind from the full-throated wackdoodle, if their vote is the same.

Who cares if they secretly respect women (or gays, or dusky-skinned people, or global warming, or the theory of natural selection, or freedom to read, or whatever), if they're required to vote lock step against those things, either because the party leadership demands it or the GOP primary voters demand it. THEY VOTE AGAINST IT, therefore they are enemies of those things.

That's why, until the party platform changes, I consider the choice to run for office with an (R) after one's name, ipso facto a moral disqualification for the office.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

I don't accept that "required to do it to appease their base" stuff. A lawmaker is elected to represent their district, but that assumes their district is always correct. If their supports want their representative to support a law that won't pass Constitutional muster, the rep should say, "This is a bad law and we should not support it." If it matters that much to those who elected him/her, then can elect someone else. A representative should be one of the best they have to offer, not a guy from a mob.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

I think we should recognize that, under the legal definition of rape, that some are more serious than others. Remember, I'm talking legal definition.

For example if the only reason why it's rape is because he reaches the age of consent (AoC) next week and she reached it last year, then legally she is a rapist and should do prison time and have to register as a sex offender. Even if what she and her boyfriend did was completely consentual.

That's not as serious as a woman waking up with a hangover with a man she never met before who also has a hangover.

That's not as serious as a woman waking up and discovering she was slipped some GHB and used by three men.

That's not as serious as a burgular who broke into a dozen houses and raped everyone at knifepoint.

But that's all beside the point, what's going on here is someone else evaluating a woman's rape to determine if she should be allowed an abortion. That itself is harmful. But we should recognize that not all rapes are equally bad. Some are much worse if only by the number of people involved.

[wayward-va.livejournal.com]

The Republicans have always treated DC as their playtoy/test-lab. Democrats, unfortunately, are not much better. At best they practice benign neglect and let DC go about it's business.

Say what you will about DC's city government (and I could say a lot), self-government is a fundamental human right. District residents should have just as much opportunity to make a mess of it as anybody else. Until they get statehood they will continue to be toss around and bent over to the whims of whomever happens to be running Congress at the time.

[chaotic-nipple.livejournal.com]

That's not as serious as a woman waking up with a hangover with a man she never met before who also has a hangover.

Would that one even be illegal at all? If so, how to determine who's the rapist, if they were both drunk?

[alverant.livejournal.com]

That's my point. Neither could give consent. But in the real world who do you think will be blamed? It was one reason I never got drunk at college parties.

(The way some people act, it's like unless a man has a breathilizer and a signed concent form it's rape. Even then.)

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

Playing advocatus diaboli for a moment, it's also possible that this "statutory rape isn't REALLY rape" business was done purely to appease their more lunatic base elements,

Should I especially care what their reasons for pushing this kind of legislation are?

[melchar.livejournal.com]

Aaaaaaaaaaaargh! Tho I think the wingnuts and flapdoodles in office as Republicans are hurting the political process AND our national integrity AND the US public in general, several of the posts prior to mine are EXPLAINING WHY IT'S HAPPENING!

Complaints against the elected knuckle-dragging troglodytes - and then a flounce about how this is why they will never be Republican/vote Rep. If everyone with ethics, morals, intelligence and understanding leaves the GoP, then the lowest slime-mold denominator will end up a Republican office holder.

The way to commit change is from -within-. Register Republican! Be seditious. It lets you to vote against the worst of the morons in primary elections - and then vote for the best candidate of any party in the general. At the absolute LEAST it makes the GoP spend money sending you campaign literature - funding they can't use for other purposes. LIE to pollsters when they call. It leads to overconfidence and a greater chance for the opposing party to pull out a win in a tight race.

Come on guys! Be sneaky! Fight the good fight from within.

[joecoustic.livejournal.com]

Just UGH. *sigh*

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

No, the lowests slime-mold denominator will be a Republican nominee who should handily lose the general election to a democrat...or even to the Free Beer Party candidate.

The point is that not enough people have fled the Republican party in disgust. By rights they should be unelectable at any level.

[cscottd.livejournal.com]

We're rapidly running out of room for this ever-expanding "small government" of theirs.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Required by ethics? No.

Required by the desire to get those people's votes again, and attain reelection? Yes.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Well, when one is prosecuting a crime, motive does come into play ^_^

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

Apparently all that money they keep getting is coming from a mob, so I suppose they're getting along with their donors just fine.

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

Read an interesting essay from a student on my flist who wrote about the changes in women's rights in Ireland from the late 19th Century through the 20th Century. About 1865 the Irish courts treated men and women much more equally than did the British courts. After the turn of the century, basically they were successfully silenced, disenfranchized, and relegated to domestic chores. They lost all organized women's political groups for over fifty years. Nobody spoke up for them and they were made unable to speak before the law for themselves.
This worked because it was imposed by politicians when nobody had the strength to stop them, and it was heavily pushed by bishops of the Catholic Church as a moral issue.
Of course, quite a few of the right wing believe it's happened before, it can happen again, and they'll use that model to push it.
I've posted before my opinion on rigid hierarchies who believe in tightly disciplined enforcement of respect for authority and of joining ranks to keep a pious facade intact while abuses are rampant behind the hypocrisy.
As I commented on annisag's post, I can see way too many alarming parallels.

http://annissag.livejournal.com/346066.html

[batyatoon]

I vehemently disagree that the GHB gang rape isn't as serious as the burglar with the knife.

Unless you're saying it's because the burglar did the same thing in a dozen houses rather than just picking one woman.

[batyatoon]

Bastards.




... yeah that's about all I have to say on the matter.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was pretty much why; quantity. At some point, it becomes the only way to measure what is worse. Even then, it can be subjective.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

But in the real world who do you think will be blamed?

The woman, EVERY DAMNED TIME. Because what was she doing, at a party, drinking, flirting with men, if she didn't want to have sex? Even if 4 guys drugged her and took video of themselves gang-raping and otherwise sexually abusing her. They were acquitted.

If you seriously think otherwise, you're the one not living in the real world.

Explain this then.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Then please explain this!

http://www.suntimes.com/news/5340648-418/prosecutors-victim-assaulted-by-pair-of-cops-so-drunk-she-couldnt-consent.html

Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez said the 22-year-old victim was so intoxicated that she was “unable to give knowing consent” to sex with officers Juan Vasquez and Paul Clavijo.

Two police officers are being charged with raping a drunk woman and the state is NOT blaming her.

Re: Explain this then.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

True, but notice that the defense attorney IS making exactly that argument. Also note that the state brought charges against the rapists in my example, too -- and we don't yet know what the verdict is going to be on this one.

Are you really, seriously trying to claim that fucking a woman who's too drunk (or otherwise drugged) to give consent is NOT rape?

Re: Explain this then.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Defense attorney is slandering the victim: big surprise. That's their job! With respect to your arguement that woman is blamed EVERY TIME (your words), I have disproved it. The verdict doesn't matter with respect to your claim. Blame has been placed, whether or not it sticks is irrevelent.

When did I say anything like "fucking a woman who's too drunk (or otherwise drugged) to give consent is NOT rape"?! I never expressed that statement or anything that approaced that claim. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Re: Explain this then.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Yes, and why do you think the defense attorney does this? Because it WORKS. The verdict DOES matter. Blame has been assigned by the legal system in my example; in yours, it has not been -- and if the officers are convicted, there's a very good chance that it will be because they were on duty at the time, not because the victim was drunk.

You said:
The way some people act, it's like unless a man has a breathalyzer and a signed consent form it's rape.

You also complained of not having been able to get drunk at frat parties for fear of being accused of rape. Taken together, those two things sound a lot like "it's not REALLY rape if she's drunk, or if he is".

Re: Explain this then.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

You are selectively editing what I said. In my example, blame has been assigned. If the officers are acquitted, the DA is not going to turn around and charge the woman.

It's hard to know when a person is drunk. If consent is given, how do you know if they mean it or it's something else talking? What happens if in the morning she suddenly decides she didn't mean it? Are you saying that never happens?

I also said college parties, not frat parties. There is a difference. I also said "accused" of rape, not committing it. I knew someone in high school who was accused of raping a woman at a party. She was SURE it was him. She was drunk. So was he. Except he was in the yard passed out according to the other party goers and she claimed the rape happened indoors. He lost a scholarship because of the accusation. At a high school reunion, she admitted to him that she made it up because he was ugly and was sure people would believe an ugly man would try to rape a pretty woman if given the chance.