Coverage of the border situation would be improved if the children were referred to accurately as “refugees,” for they seek refuge, though they are met with refusal.
. . . is an oxymoron, as Colbert points out (video below the fold because it autoplays).
Hate sells. Conservatism sells hate, and conservatives eagerly buy it.
For the life of me, I do not understand how hate became a “Republican family value.”
Werner Herzog’s Bear, writing at Notes from the Ironbound, sees echoes of the past in the current wingnut hysteria about an influx of brown children at the border. A nugget–follow the link for the rest:
When I hear the screaming mobs spewing hatred clothed in the fig leaf of “protecting the border” I hear the echoes of the 1850s and the Know-Nothings, the first major anti-immigrant group in American history. It came in response the massive waves of migrant from Germany and Ireland, mostly directed against Irish Catholics. . . . If those children in Murrieta today did not have protection I fear that the blood would flow.
The Republican Party has become a vile and loathsome thing. (Ask me nicely, I’ll tell you what I really think.)
Image via Balloon Juice.
Rekha Basu considers the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision to green-light theocracy.
Let’s say that I’m an observant Hindu who keeps a strict vegetarian diet because my religion frowns on killing animals. And let’s say I own a software company that employs only vegetarians, because I don’t believe I should be forced to subsidize meat-eating with the money I pay in salaries. Could I get away with that that sort of discrimination?
Apparently I could, if you follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s logic in a ruling Monday that a company should not be forced to subsidize an activity that offends its owners’ religious beliefs.
Do read the rest.
What we do have is a country of muddled asses.
For Republicans, it’s not a quotation from the Bible. It’s a policy.
. . . or does it?
The definition of “consent” in Norfolk State University’s sexual misconduct policy consists of 166 words. The College of William & Mary uses 257 words to spell it out. It takes 438 at Virginia Wesleyan College.
Most of the verbiage appears to be about persons who are unconscious or (intimidated into being) silent and on how much struggling is “struggling enough.’
Words fail me.
The Booman nails the reason for wingnut joy over the Hobby Lobotomy (emphasis added).
. . . we need to look at this not from the perspective of whether or not the decision to have an abortion is moral or legal, but from the perspective that Republicans want women to get pregnant if they have sex because that will take away their autonomy and make them reliant on their families again. If they can’t risk pregnancy because of their economic insecurity, they will have to marry to have sexual relations. If they can’t get decent pay in the workplace, they can’t overcome their economic insecurity on their own.
This battle isn’t really over abortion. It’s over female equality.