Four things...

The were a couple of items today on Media Matters that really got me thinking. I was tied up all day at work and didn't have the time to comment on them, but I'd like to do so here, because I think they are very indicative of how Conservatives thynk and what they prynciples are.

(See what I did there?)

The first was this item about the Federal ICE and Secure Communities Programs.  There's a lot of the same old bullshit... (They're not racists, they're just saying that every Mexican is a criminal!)  They lie about they're affect on our economy, and our tax base, and the job market.  But there's a sub-text buried in there, almost like an afterthought, that I found to be almost laughably profound:  They focus on California, and the fact that in opting out of these programs, they also want to opt out of federal cross-checks.  Or, at least... not perform them, per federal immigration law.

Now... they were hardly praising this move.  In fact, as I read it, they seemed to take rather serious issue with California's bucking federal law here.  Which got me thinking:

Aren't these guys supposed to be all about State's Rights and limiting the power of the Federal Government and letting States decide for themselves what laws to have and how to enforce them?

Well... They certainly TALK a good game there.  But it's clear that this principle only matters if those States choose to resits LIBERAL Laws (non-discrimination laws, hate-crime legislation, industrial and environmental regulations) and replace them with CONSERVATIVE ones (anti-abortion measure, union-busting, prayer in school, etc...)  Which means this whole, "States Rights" thing? Isn't a PRINCIPLE at all.  It only comes into play when  it serves their overall agenda - Which has nothing to do with States Rights.  In this case? It's just more blatant racism, using propaganda to refute reality.

The second thing, was this.  In their effort to vilify Planned Parenthood as nothing more than an abortion mill, dedicated to some kind of genocide, the National Review's Rich Lowry, when presented with actual, factual data on how much of PP's business is abortion services (3%) and how much of its revenue was represented by those services (15%) and the fact that no federal money was ever used to pay or or subsidize those services, he simply waved his hands and called the data, "Fake And Bogus."

I've said it before folks: The biggest different between how Liberals think and how Conservatives thynk is that Liberals evaluate the evidence and then form their position accordingly, whilst Conservatives form their position and then evaluate the evidence accordingly.

I've always known that to be true, but I'd never thought I'd see it proven so... clumsily!

The third was RW micro-hack Hugh Hewitt's advice for Sarah Palin to not participate in presidential debates that are organized by "traditional media" outlets, claiming that they were overwhelming opposed to the election of GOP candidates, and that she should expect them to ask the "gotcha" questions.  Like...

"[The] standard stunt questions on abortion in the event of rape or incest, weapons of mass destruction, evolution, global warming, or any of a dozen other dog whistles to the left designed to create the moment that replicates across the Web."

Anyone see anything wrong with this kind of thynking? 

Calling out the fact that they are so far to the right on abortion that they no longer support exceptions for rape victims (or as Keith Olbermann more aptly put it: supporting the rapist's Bill of Rights) is something bad, journalistically speaking?

Pointing out either the continued, absurd belief that Saddam had WMD's, or the utterly psychotic viewpoint that the war was even remotely justified without them (hell - it wasn't necessarily justified WITH them!) is information that the American People shouldn't have access to?

Teaching evolution in the classroom?  Believing in long and thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, and wanting to TEACH that to our children?  We shouldn't know (or care?) about that?!

Global Warming?!  Again with the thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, only this time they get to make money off of it, while slowly dooming humanity to a planet that can no longer support them?  This isn't something we should know about the candidate?!

Hugh... I've got a question for you: If you're so ashamed of you viewpoints, WHY DO YOU HAVE THEM?  If your positions on these issues make you so unpalatable to the American people that you can't even defend them in a simple interview, then WHY SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTE FOR YOU['RE CANDIDATE]? 

Again... I always knew they only cared about winning, and about power, and couldn't give two shits about what's important to a super-majortiy of the American people, but still... 

They're usually better about hiding it!

Though... I still wonder why any politician, any Representative of the People, should hold a position that such an anathema to the people he represents, that he doesn't want anyone to know about it! That ALONE should disqualify ANYONE from holding a public office, no?

And the LAST THING, well... if you REALLY want to read some shit... ;)

Prop H8TE

*phew*

If it's OK with everyone else, I'd like to get away from debating the philosophy of religion for a while - at least until the comment to my last post start rolling in.  But I've been writing for the last week or so on the topic, and even I'M getting tired of hearing what I have to say about it. LOL.  In all seriousness, I do look forward to reading your comments, but for now I'm going to take up some current events.

Like HOW ABOUT that Prop H8TE ruling out in California, huh?

The courts are finally starting to get it RIGHT!  Hopefully that will continue and Justice Kennedy won't balls it all up when it inevitably makes it way to the SCOTUS.

But, needless to say, I am very glad to see it ruled such.  And to me this issue is a no-brainer.  (And go figure that those who support banning gay marriage and Prop H8TE have no brains.)  Between Rush Limbaugh wetting his pants about how we're living in Tyranny, and how we're weakening the constitution and these idiots who think the judge should have recused himself or that he's out of the mainstream and the bed-wetter on NPR this morning crying about "his vote doesn't count" and how "it's like a dictatorship..." 

My God, even if I didn't care about the ruling, you've got love ANYTHING that pisses of the Right Wingers and Religious Conservatives that much. LOL

OK, one at a time...

"We're living in Tyranny" or "It's like a dictatorship."

Give me a freaking break.  This is not "like a dictatorship."  THIS is like a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY.  See... in a dictatorship, you don't GET to challenge the law.  And the rights of people get taken away without recourse.  So... please explain to me how guaranteeing people equal protection under the law and protecting their LIBERTY is tantamount to "tyranny."  It's absurd.  All this judge did was to tell one group of people that the don;t have the right to DICTATE the behavior of another group.  PERIOD.

And last time I checked, "Freedom to take away someone else's freedom" was not it the Constitution!

"Out of the mainstream"

Posters T.Boone Slickens and Highlighter seemed to think that because 7 Million people voted for it, that makes Prop H8TE, the MAINSTREAM school of thought. 

What they fail to grasp is that if a law is unconstitutional, kit doesn't matter HOW MUCH popular support it has!  Segregation was pretty popular in the states that had it.  (Remember - prop h8te was just a California thing, just a STATE thing!)  And the courts saw the insanity and stuck those laws down - that's why we HAVE THEM.  That's was "limited government" is all about! PROTECTING PEOPLE'S RIGHTS!  And that will ALWAYS be in the "mainstream" of Constitutional thought, because that's what the Constitution DOES! 

It's an inherently Liberal document today, and was a FLAMINGLY liberal document when it was written!

What's more, I don't use the segregation issue lightly.  I choose it because the arguments being presented in opposition to gay marriage are almost word for word the same arguments used a generation ago in support of anti-miscengeny laws!  Replace racial bigotry with sexualist bigotry and you're saying the SAME. DAMN. THING!

"The judge (who's gay) should have recused himself."

MMFA does a pretty good job, shooting this one down, but to me it's even more simple.  If we are to assume that a gay judge can't be objective about gay issues, we must also assume that a CHRISTIAN judge cannot be objective on church-state issues!  Like, say...  for example...

GAY MARRIAGE!

The law got shot down because you don't take away people's liberty and deny them equal protection under the law without a compelling state interest.  And the supporters of Prop h8te, and all opponents of gay marriage for that matter, have never come CLOSE to demonstrating one.  Not. Even. Close.

EVER.

[some nonsense about the] "Traditional Definition of Marriage"

This might be the single dumbest line of reasoning of all.  Look... marriage CHANGES.  The TRADITIONS of marriage CHANGE.  If they didn't?  If we stuck to the REAL "traditional definition of marriage?"  Well... that's a father marrying of his daughter to a young man of his choosing, in exchange for a dowry.  So it seems to me that the "traditional definition of marriage" is closer to what we call "PIMPING" today.

And if you're worried about the institution of marriage being threatened, outlaw DIVORCE.  (Something that was also illegal at some point!  See? THINGS CHANGE!)

[some nonsense about] Our "Christian Values"

If your argument against gay marriage has the word "bible" ANYWHERE in it, SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.

The first amendment states very clearly that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  That's word for word, CRYSTAL CLEAR.  So ANY argument made on the basis of religion is 100% irrelevant.  When our elected officials take their oath of office, they put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution - not the other way around!

I enthusiastically applaud this ruling, and I see it as the beginning of the end of ACTUAL Religious Tyranny on this issue. And I say, "Good riddance."

There will no doubt be more to come.  Gay Marriage is INEVITABLE.  There may be set backs, but - just as with Marijuana - the genie is out of the bottle.  Why conservatives insist on constantly trying to pull the juggernaught backwards I'll never understand.