[Thursday, 02.16.2012] on Capitol Hill, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform assembled a panel to discuss the birth control mandate in President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The panel consisted of eight male anti-choice, anti-contraception religious leaders and one female anti-choice witness. None had health credentials. . . .
California [Reactionary] Darrell Issa chaired the panel, and because [Reactionaries] hold a majority in the House, he was able to choreograph the entire proceedings. He thoughtfully assembled a diverse group of men who don’t necessarily have any real, fact-based reason to oppose birth control except for the fact that it made them feel icky. Invited to testify were five men. And no women. The whole thing was, to put it as succinctly as possible, depressing as fuck.
Category Archives: Reactionism
The Testimony Reactionary Chairman Issa’s All-Male, White-Wing Led Birth-Control Panel Doesn’t Want You to Hear
Rick Santorum’s Sugar-Daddy Super Pac Funder Foster Friess Says, ‘Gals’ Used To Put Bayer Aspirin Between Their Knees For Contraception
—————>HERE<—————
Bill Moyers: Freedom of and From Religion
In politics, the concrete usually wins over the abstract [Because thinking is hard!]
. . . [M]ost people value [Christian privilege] as an abstract principle, they don’t make decisions based on abstractions. They tend to look at the concrete manifestations of those abstractions. . . . So while many people will say they support [Christian privilege], they are going to be angry if [women workers] access to their contraceptive services are taken away. The situation is similar to those older Tea [Bagee] supporters who say they support getting government out of health care as an abstract principle but will fight tooth and nail to retain their Medicare.
Reactionary Tea Bagee Governor Rick Scott Cost Florida Taxpayers $178 Million After 98% of Welfare Applicants Pass Drug Test
Graphic: MoveOn.org
Data: TheRoot.com
Paul Krugman: Severe [Reactionary] Syndrome
How did American [reactionism] end up so detached from, indeed at odds with, facts and rationality? For it was not always thus. . . .
The point is that today’s dismal [White-Wing Party] field — is there anyone who doesn’t consider it dismal? — is no accident. Economic [reactionaries] played a cynical game, and now they’re facing the blowback, a party that suffers from “severe” [reactionism] in the worst way. . . .
Conservatism [Reactionism] Thrives on Low Intelligence and Poor Information
. . . It feels crude, illiberal to point out that the other side is, on average, more stupid than our own. But this, the study suggests, is not unfounded generalisation but empirical fact.
It is by no means the first such paper. There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood. Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly “different” others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking. . .
Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to “rightwing ideologies that promote coherence and order” and “emphasise the maintenance of the status quo”. Even for someone not yet renowned for liberal reticence, this feels hard to write. . .
. . . [Former Republican ideologue], Mike Lofgren complains that “the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital centre today“. The Republican party, with its “prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science” is appealing to what he calls the “low-information voter”, or the “misinformation voter”. While most office holders probably don’t believe the “reactionary and paranoid claptrap” they peddle, “they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base”.
Words You Don’t See in the Media: ‘A Self-Proclaimed Christian’
[There is an] obvious double standard in how the news media talks about atheists versus religion people. For example, atheists tend to be described with adjectives… “self-proclaimed,” “self-identified,” “avowed,” etc.
Can you imagine what would happen if some of these qualifiers were applied to Christians? . . . There would [be] considerable outrage, and for good reason. But that isn’t going to happen because we do not see these qualifiers applied to Christians. . .[T]his is an example of Christian privilege at work.






