Thankfully the Democrats in the House Science Committee took care of dismembering this forward, so I don’t have to.

OUT OF FOCUS: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SENATE REPORT, “THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION: UNDER THE MICROSCOPE”

The issue of reliable news sources is another major problem, but at least this email goes beyond the usual “my cousin Jim heard about how Obama isn’t an American citizen…”, giving the reader a chance to verify the reliability of the information.

On to the email!

It might seem hyperbolic to say that Republicans have declared a war on women. Sadly, it’s not.

Just take a look at the top 10 shocking, crazy things Republicans have proposed in recent weeks. If you think this constitutes a war on women, please share this email far and wide—forward it, and post it on Facebook and Twitter.

I wish I could say these were the only examples of the Republican war on women. But it’s just a sampling, and more is sure to come—unless we raise a ruckus and call them out. So please, share this email today.

Thanks,

Kat

Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP War on Women

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women’s access to abortion care, they’re actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven’t.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to “accuser.” But victims of other less gendered crimes, like, burglary, would remain “victims.”

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

5) In Congress, Republicans have proposed a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids’ preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8.) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9) Congress voted yesterday on a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10) And if that wasn’t enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can’t make this stuff up).

Please share this email today. Just click the links to post on Facebook and Twitter.

Sources:
1. “‘Forcible Rape’ Language Remains In Bill To Restrict Abortion Funding,” The Huffington Post, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206084&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=6

“Extreme Abortion Coverage Ban Introduced,” Center for American Progress, January 20, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205961&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=7

2. “Georgia State Lawmaker Seeks To Redefine Rape Victims As ‘Accusers,’” The Huffington Post, February 4, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206007&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=8

3. “South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortion doctors,” Salon, February 15, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206102&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=9

4. “House GOP Proposes Cuts to Scores of Sacred Cows,” National Journal, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206103&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=10

5. “New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion,” Talking Points Memo, February 4, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205974&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=11

6. “Republican Officials Cut Head Start Funding, Saying Women Should be Married and Home with Kids,” Think Progress, February 16, 2011
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/16/gop-women-kids/

7. “Bye Bye, Big Bird. Hello, E. Coli,” The New Republic, Feburary 12, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206104&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=12

8. “House GOP spending cuts will devastate women, families and economy,” The Hill, February 16, 2011
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/144585-house-gop-spending-cuts-will-devastate-women-families-and-economy-

9. “House passes measure stripping Planned Parenthood funding,” MSNBC, February 18,2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206122&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=13

“GOP Spending Plan: X-ing Out Title X Family Planning Funds,” Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206105&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=14

10. Ibid.

Birth Control for Horses, Not for Women,” Blog for Choice, February 17, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206106&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=15

What I found frustrating is that the other person in the discussion was extremely forceful and aggressive in conversation. When she asked a question that was simple in its wording, but far-reaching in its implications, I would start to answer, and would immediately be attacked with another question. If you have political discussions on any sort of semi-regular basis, you’ve probably been in a similar situation.

I use the word attacked very specifically. Throughout this conversation, because I believe that people do have obligations to one another, that the social welfare state is actually a good model, and that (therefore) taxation (with representation) is legitimate; because my PhD research is funded by DARPA, my father was in the military, and I have connections to the military,  I was accused of being an advocate of violence. The word murderer even came up.

I’ve had discussions with people who straddle the line between libertarianism and anarchism in the past, and they have generally managed to be polite. We don’t yell at each other, and we don’t get in each others’ faces. We do interrupt each other at times, and certainly we’re condescending to each other, but we are not aggressive.

My point here is always be polite in political discussion. It’s difficult, but that’s what this blog is about– cases in which people lose their self-control, and debate breaks down into violence. The second point is that violence is not merely physical. Violence can be created with words just as easily as with fists. Calling someone a murderer and an advocate of violence is an act of violence in itself, especially when accompanied with volume and questions meant not to guide discussion, but to attack the beliefs of another.

I do not know if the person I was arguing with counts herself as a pacifist. I suspect she may, because of her emphasis on the invalidity of the use of force. If you are to call yourself a pacifist though, and object to the use of force, I believe you’re directly contravening your own principles when you make use of an aggressive style of argument.

My response to her aggressive style was not to yell back, or make accusations, or resort to personal attacks– I finally, frustrated with not being able to fully respond, said one word: “Hush”. This ended the conversation, as she refused to speak to me because I was disrespectful.

I respect her opinions, and upon some googling, I respect that she is involved in her local community in trying to make her ideas take form. I disagree with her, of course, but I’m not opposed to the idea that I could learn something from her approach. She completely shut down that possibility in discussion by her approach.

Political debate that turns aggressive and verbally violent only generates further animosity. Politics is about compromise; it’s about persuasion. It’s about finding the place where we agree, and figuring out what violations of our principles we can live with for the sake of living with other people. If you want to teach people, or help them understand why your way is better, you should never resort to verbal violence.

The first two articles address the estimate of frequency of guns being used in self-defense; the third addresses churchgoing numbers.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2006/07/counting_church.html

* The first article strengthens my position on this. I generally find the defense against home-invasion case uncompelling, or self-defense while strolling around the city. I do find it a more compelling argument for women, especially for women who frequently travel alone or live alone.  Women do, unfortunately, still face situations that men do not. Please note that I do not advocate blanket bans on firearms, or excessive restriction, but I am in favor of reasonable levels of regulation. I do not think that the self-defense argument forces a higher bar for justification of regulation.

These posts are a two part response to a Jonah Goldberg piece. Goldberg is a clown; he pointed to Swarthmore as a hotbed of liberal fascism a couple years ago, which, well… Sort of isn’t worth responding to. Anyway, Goldberg is, surprise, complaining that those taxes the liberals inflict are just awful and fascist and so forth. So the first post breaks down tax burden by GDP, and also by the different types of tax:

Jonah Goldberg, Quarter Slave (Conceptually)

The second article is more interesting, in my opinion. It looks at the GINI coefficient, which represents income distribution, and compares the US to other developed nations, both before and after taxes:

Jonah Goldberg, Anti-Maldistributionist

I found these articles pretty fascinating, and it provides something to think about as the tax deadline approaches.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-cuts-thomas-jefferson-out-of-its-textbooks/

http://tfninsider.org/2010/03/13/the-list-of-shame-in-texas/

I want to come back to this, but I’ll have to pick just a few items to deal with, given the scale of the politically-motivated wrongness of all of these decisions. The changes covered include a whole range of massive historical revisions from the merely stupid to the utterly absurd. If you read through these and want any in particular covered, leave a comment, and I’ll pick a few to research in depth.

Occasionally Jon Stewart has made the comment that it’s sad that the major media outlets are getting things wrong, and it takes a comedian to call bullshit. I’m actually not convinced by that; political humor has often been a check on politicians, and it’s not unreasonable that it should also be a check on media. Comedy is good at that.

(Hat tip to Nick for sending this along to me)

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/leftvright_world.html

It’s simplifying, etc. but still interesting.