This Week in Crazy Stupid Conservatives
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 11:37AM Well, you can tell a lot about me by the friends I keep. All but a couple of these are just items that my Facebook friends posted on their walls and appeared in my news feed.
-It's pretty interesting that Obama gives more to charity than Mitt Romney, considering that Obama does not belong to a Mormon church that requires a payment of 10% of his income plus monthly "generous" offerings in order to attend children's weddings in the temple, or in order to maintain good standing in the social community, by way of a Temple Recommend.
But don't for a second think that I believe this is any good evidence that Obama is not:
- the Devil, or working for him
- Muslim
- wanting to destroy America
His donations could all be a clever ploy to appear good. After all, look at how well he hides the fact that he's white! Sneaky bastard.
-Indiana Republican Rep says that Girl Scouts are "bent on promoting communism, lesbianism, and subverting traditional American family values". Yes, because studies show that the sophisticated flavour of a box (no pun intended) of chocolate mint cookies is best appreciated with the chaser of vulva-licking, and who eats more boxes of Girl Scouts cookies than Girl Scouts themselves? If Girl Scouts sold Salty Oyster Cookies, I'd say that you have a very compelling (and yummy) theory, Bob Morris. Unless you're thinking of all the porn-watching, Marx-reading, Pill-popping slumber parties the Girl Scouts organise, but I still wouldn't be quick to quash these long-standing hallowed events because every girl who attends is guaranteed eighteen new badges to sew on her sash! That's a lot for just one night!
-Hey, you're better safe than sorry. I mean, what if that man threw his stick and you felt inexplicably drawn to running after it and picking it up with your mouth, to return it to him, AND THEN HE KILLED YOU? Or, what if that man watching the aerobics class looked at your bum and then THOUGHT ABOUT IT LATER WHILE HE ATE A BIG MAC? Or what if that suspicious car that was so brazenly stationary CONTAINED PEOPLE READING SCRIPTURES?
Man, Brigham Young University/Provo is a scary place.
-Apparently, Rep. Walsh's ex-wife has been suing him for the last nine years for over $117,000 in child support payments. I find this guy to be skeevy. In this video, in this discussion, he ignores all of the most important points about this issue of health insurance vs. religious rights.
This whole contraception thing is this simple:
1. Contraception is a health issue.
- Not all women's bodies can handle having nine children. Not all women's bodies can handle having one child.
- Some women use contraception to eliminate their periods so they can stop experiencing severe PMS or PMDD symptoms.
- Some women use contraception so that they are not buckled over in excruciating pain and vomiting for a week every month.
- Some use it because it's been shown to reduce some female cancer risks and they have a strong history of those cancers in their families.
- Not all women using contraception are single whores. Some of those sex-having whores are married.
- It is not the business of any employer, religious or not, to know why a woman is using contraception. Religious freedoms do not ever trump freedom of privacy of an individual or protection of an individual.
- By the way, THE SAME APPLIES FOR ABORTION.
2. Health benefits are a form of pay for work.
- Employees consider health benefits when they are considering where to work.
- Just as an employer does not have the right to dictate how an employee spends her pay cheque, or to withhold pay because he doesn't agree with how she spends it, he doesn't have the right to dictate how she uses her health insurance.
- Health insurers are ethically required to provide the best insurance for the individual paying for it.
- Who is paying for it? The employee, with their labour. Without the employee, the employer doesn't have to pay for anything. It's the labour that requires the insurance as form of payment to the employee.
- An employeer should have the right to not offer ANY health benefits at all. If you have a problem with health insurance paying for contraception, don't offer any health coverage. Then see how many people are willing to work for you. (Can someone confirm whether or not it's legal for a company to opt out of providing benefits altogether?) And if you don't like the consequences of not having people willing to work for you, because they'd rather work for the other company that does offer them health benefits, take comfort in the fact that at least you're a morally righteous little company/hospital/school, now aren't you? Cootchie cootchie coo!
- If it's illegal for companies to opt out of providing health insurance, then that is what they should be arguing against. Let them cease co-paying for health insurance altogether. Let's see if they have the balls to actually follow through on that. THEY WON'T. I'd bet you Texas they won't. UNLESS, they start paying people a lot more money to make up for the lack of health insurance benefits.
This Walsh guy quotes Thomas Jefferson as saying, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical."
No one is trying to force Catholic-run institutions to give money for the propagation of opinions.
Next argument?
"We do what God says, not what the state says." Right, okay. So, tell me what God says about how to handle women's health problems. What does God say about PMDD? What does God say about period agony and hormonal problems?
-
"It has been my experience that when dealing with females, you need to treat them as though they have a mental disorder… especially those that are constantly seeking equality in the workplace, the military, and in the home. Women need to know their place and need to know when it is okay for them to speak. They were put on this earth for two reasons..., and two reasons alone: taking care of their husband, and giving birth to his children… that is all. Any woman who tells you otherwise is obviously touting the liberal agenda of equality, and they need to be told the truth of their purpose. It is a disorder that can be fixed, but not until they go through several years of therapy to understand that they need to be subservient." - Rick Santorum
This isn't a real quote. It's satire. But, check out these quotes from very recent talks and teachings in the Mormon church.
So, why does the church get Brownie points for teaching such similar principles, only more nicely? Just because the church doesn't say that our ONLY purpose is to be wives and mommies? Why is it just so much better to say that it's our main purpose, our most important and holiest purpose?
-Taken from a conversation from a Facebook group and from people who will go nameless:
"A friend of mine is separated from her husband and very close to divorce. She went to [Latter-day Saint Family Services] for counseling because it is free for her and money is an issue. They told her that if she files for divorce they can't help her any more because they only work with people who are trying to stay together. WTH? What kind of policy is this??"
In response:
"OMH!! I had a horrible experience too!! They will not tell you ever it's ok to get a divorce. Not even if your spouse is beating the crap out of you daily. Our counselor told us that if I filed for divorce I was ruining an eternal family & I would have to explain that to our children. Nevermind the reasons that got us there. My leaving was wrong regardless. She told me I needed to be stronger and less sensitive about the things he said to me without knowing the horrible things he had said. She also said that if my husband needed me to alphabetize the pantry to keep him happy and feeling loved that is what I should do. Never again will I use them for any counseling. Sorry, They do so much damage. I've heard many horror stories from friends as well. END RANT.... :("
Another response:
"we went to lds counselling once here in the uk to get help with our middle childs behavior problems was told to stop bf my youngest at 18 months as it might turn him gay...i carried on till he was 3..."
What is the explanation for all this fear-mongering, prejudice, and attempts to control other people's private behaviours and life choices? Er, "intellectually disabled" people are more likely to be right-wing. Or, to quote the title of this psychology journal article,
Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact
No, that doesn't mean that if you're right-wing that you're stupid; I used to be right-wing and I was never stupid. But if you do have a lower cognitive ability (note: not merely uneducated or inexperienced, but are actually cognitively impaired) you are more likely to be right-wing and to stay away from and hate people who are different than you.
This Wikipedia article explains that conservatives' brains are less able to process conflicting information, and more able to feel fear and perceive threats. Also, a study in 2009 found that among students applying to U.S. universities, conservatism correlated negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores.
And of course, as you've probably heard, Fox News viewers know less about the world than people (like me!) who watch no news. Last year, a study from the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were more likely to believe false information about politics. Shocker.
Sigh. That's all I can handle of This Week in Crazy Stupid Conservatives. I need a break.
Reader Comments (4)
Lotsa great stuff here! I wanted to post most of it to my Facebook. But, since I have those conservative family members reading there, I think I'll pass. I have enough extended family stress!
I love you. Sometimes I think I'm the only one who feels like screaming with frustration because all this stuff makes no sense whatsoever. Obviously I'm not.
Just wanted to pop in and say 1) good for you. I can tell you're keeping to the things you need to be doing, like, oh, you know--- homework and stuff.
2) I miss you.
3) I'm also grateful at the same time because so much is going on here and without new posts from you I'm not feeling compelled to chime in. : )
Loving the first two parts of this. I may think about them later while I'm eating a Big Mac.