Hey, Cathy Ruse, you are a parent

Cathy Ruse is angry because the government is calling her a parent.

I mean, she is a parent. She has children. It is not an inaccurate term. But what she's bugging out about is the fact that on federal government forms they eliminated the terms "mother" and "father" for "parent 1" and "parent 2".

As a mother, I find that deeply offensive. I carried my children for 9 months in my womb, I endured the pain (and joy) of birth, I nursed them for many months after they were born, and every morning they jump into my bed screaming, “Mommy!”
But the federal government says I’m Mommy no more.
I am Parent 1.
Or maybe Parent 2.
Kind of like Thing One and Thing Two. But Dr. Seuss was being ironic.
Mr. President, I dare you to tell my daughters I’m not their mother.

For the love of Batman.

Look.This is clearly one of the dumbest rants ever. Just because you are called a parent on a form instead of mother it does not mean that your daughters are not allowed to call you Mommy. Is this a thing you actually believe? That a change on federal forms means that you no longer can have that title? I am serious,because if this is what you really think this will lead to then there is no point in arguing about it. It's like trying to convince the homeless guy in the park that he doesn't have a CIA implant in his head. You can't argue with crazy.

But I somehow doubt that Ruse believed this. She is expressing the righteous indignation of how terrible it is that the world is changing. You can file this in the same folder with people who bitch about how they shouldn't have to press one for English. It doesn't really make a difference for you and makes life easier for other people.

And that, really, is the problem. It isn't that Ruse cares about being parent instead of Mother. It's that this will make life better for same sex couples who have two Moms or two Dads. Or when a Grandparent is raising a child. Or those other many types of families that now exist where it is Dad and Step-Dad or Mom and Step-Dad or Jo and Mary instead of Mom and Dad.

When she sees Parent 1 instead of Mother it reminds Ruse that there are other types of families in the world. and those families are just as legitimate as her family. That's what pisses her off. Not that she is a parent (because, technically speaking, she was always a parent, Mother is just what we call the female parent) but that her status as parent is no greater than a same-sex parent or any other non-traditional parent.

I'm appalled at how many rants against GBLT issues come down to someone being upset that the fact they were born straight and cisgendered will no longer gain them some type of special place in society.

Gosnell is about Medicine not Morals

The National Review has a click bait article about how the truly harrowing of Kermit Gosnell is the expected results of a land where abortion is legal.

Gosnell’s human abattoir is the logical endpoint of our morally fraudulent national approach to abortion, the proponents of which maintain that they wish the procedure to remain “safe, legal, and rare,” in Bill Clinton’s cynically triangulating formulation, while at the same time resisting any and all restrictions upon the procedure. Gosnell’s murders are not an aberrant abuse of the abortion license but an inevitable result of it...

 His crimes differed from the usual practice of abortion in that his practices made them more visible. That we recoil in horror from the images of Gosnell’s crimes is evidence that the casual practice of abortion, and all of the political rhetoric deployed on its behalf, have not yet entirely extinguished the moral sense of those who are confronted with these bloody scenes.

This is a fundemental misunderstanding of what the abortion decisions really mean. It isn't about the right to kill an unborn child, but the right to gain medical care. Abortion is, at the core, a medical procedure.

If I take a saw and chop off your arm I have clearly committed a crime. If I am a doctor and I do it within an operating room then it isn't. Do you think that the National Review will start complaining about how the fact that we allow amputation in a hospital setting is the cause of people cutting off others limbs?  Of course not. But the National Review wants you the believe that is abortion was illegal then Gosnell could not exist.

In reality, Gosnell's exist not because abortion is legal but because it is hard to obtain. If abortion was easily available to women early in pregnancy (with no waiting periods and covered by federal funds) then they wouldn't go to a Gosnell. In the same way you wouldn't choose Dr. Nick Riviera from The Simpsons if you can get Dr. Hibbert.

Look, abortion was outlawed for many years. And Gosnell's existed in back allys. The illegality didn't stop the practice, it just made it unsafe. It created places like Gosnell's.


               

And Then There's This Asshole

Newt Gingrich said something either stupid or disingenuous on a Sunday news show!

You know, when he ran for President, my Dad asked me who would be running for his seat if he won.

"Dad, he hasn't been in office since I was in size 6 jeans."

My father was confused because why would all the news programs invite on a guy who failed at politics 15 years ago? He must be someone important because they kept putting him on TV.

Oh, if only the TV was filled with important people.

Anyway, Newt was on Meet the Press where he said this stupid thing (memorialized by Crooks and Liars).

"But what I'm struck with is the one-sidedness of the desire for rights," Gingrich continued. "There are no rights for Catholics to have adoption services in Massachusetts, they're outlawed. There are no rights in D.C. for Catholics to have adoption services, they're outlawed. This passing reference to religion -- 'We sort of respect religion.' Well, sure. As long as you don't practice it."
"I think it will be good to have a debate over -- beyond this question of are you able to be gay in America, what does it mean? Does it mean that you actually have to affirmatively eliminate any institution which does not automatically accept that?"

Catholics can't adopt in Massachusetts? That is terrible. That is a total violation of equal protection. I'm offended by that. Or I would be if it was true.

It isn't.

Catholic Charities ceased adoption services in Massachusetts because of anti-discrimination laws. Given the option of allowing gays to adopt (something they had done before but which the Vatican had told them to stop doing) or shutting down shop, they picked the latter.

Catholics can continue to adopt. In fact the same anti-discrimination law that protects gay couples also means that a Catholic couple can't be denied the opportunity to adopt by an Evangelical or Atheist adoption agency.

So, do you all think that Newt didn't know that fact? Or that he intentionally misrepresented the truth because he is just a hamster on the wingnut welfare wheel?

Niall Ferguson's Thoughts on Keynes are Telling

Harvard economic historian and conservative quote machine Niall Ferguson told a conference that the reason that Keynes' economic theories don't work is because he was gay.

He's since apologized for the remark, but what is interesting is what it means that he said it in the first place. Ferguson isn't a dumb man. This wasn't Jeremy Irons suddenly discussing incest and gay marriage because some guy with a camera asked an actor his views on the topic. This is a guy who was scheduled to talk and did so. He was asked a question and came out with a statement that one witness said seemed thought out and not off the cuff.

But what is interesting is what this means for the larger austerity movement (Keynes believed that in times of economic downturn large spending by the government could kickstart recovery). After the Excel Error heard round the world showed that the one large study supporting austerity was wrong, it seems like there is no science left to support the idea.


So,what do you turn to when you don't have numbers on your side? Name calling and false dichotomies. Keynes didn't understand about why debt is bad because he didn't have kids since he was gay. And gay people can't care about the future of the world.

Even better is the banker in the audience who agreed with the sentiment because his outlook on the world changed when he had a kid.

Seriously. You didn't care about the future until you had some genetic skin in the game? I'm pretty sure that makes you a sociopath. The fact you work for an investment bank is supporting evidence.

I don't have kids. I do have a nephew I love. And the friends of my children who I adore. I care about their futures. I cut out the boxtops for their schools. I vote to have more funding for school because my life is better when I live in a place with well educated people.

In fact, maybe I'm better because I don't have kids. I can support a future where everyone can benefit instead of just my kid.

Ferguson's statements go to show how little he has on his side. It also shows that people aren't going to accept that type of gay bashing anymore. 10 years ago his comments might have gotten attention on some social justice blogs, but this was everywhere. And Ferguson did a real apology. Not a "I'm sorry that you want me to be sorry" thing. So, that's good.

But seriously, when your strongest argument is "but he's gay" then you don't have any argument at all.