30 April, 2010

Dumbfuckery du Jour

Apologies for missing yesterday, my darlings.  I've been waylaid by gawdawful PMS hormones.  Between the constant hunger, hot flashes, supreme irritation and terminal exhaustion, it's been an interesting week.  Last night, it seemed rather more sensible just to watch a Nova episode on bonobos and go to bed with Richard Dawkins.

Hormones haven't improved, and neither has the Con mentality.  I'd say "mind," only there's really nothing one could call a mind in what passes for their thinking.  The endless parade of dumbshittery has been, well, endless.  It gets numbing at times.  But then one dumbfuck rises above the background hum of abject stupidity and comes up with a really outrageous - well, one could hardly call something so idiotic an idea - and outrage trumps ovaries.  Besides, Mythbusters just proved women can tolerate more pain than men, and so I feel empowered to take up the Smack-o-Matic and give it a good workout.

The reason for my burst of energy: Rep. Duncan Hunter has decided the answer to all our immigration woes is to axe the Fourteenth Amendment and deport the kiddies:
The Los Angeles Times reports that, at a tea party rally in the San Diego County city of Ramona , Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) stated that U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants should get deported along with their parents to save the state of California money:
QUESTION: Would you support deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens?
HUNTER: I would have to, yes. [...] We simply cannot afford what we’re doing right now. California is going under. How much in debt are we? Twenty billion dollars? [...] And we’re not being mean, we’re just saying it takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It’s what’s in our souls.
Apparently, what's in Duncan Hunter's soul is small-minded, loathsome, xenophobic, merciless and extreme assholery combined with a stunning contempt for the Constitution.  Oh, and if one plans to sift him for human decency, don't bother - I don't think even a HEPA filter's fine enough to find it.

Now, most politicians would be wise enough to walk such an outrageous statement right back, given the chance.  But, like Sue "Chickens for Checkups" Lowden, he has decided to go for broke:
I just had long and spirited interview with GOP Rep Duncan Hunter of California, and in it, he strongly defended his controversial suggestion earlier this week that children born in the U.S. should be deported if their parents are illegal immigrants.

[snip]
In an interview, he clarified, amplified and strongly defended the claim — and said he stuck by it even though the 14th Amendment stipulates that people born here are American citizens.

Hunter clarified his original claim by saying he only supported deporting kids if their illegal parents were deported. “The policy should be, the kids follow the parents,” Hunter said. “You’re not gonna break up the family. If you have illegal parents, who are deported, what do you do with the kids?”

Oh, I dunno, Duncan... mebbe talk to the parents about it?  Hand them off to legal relatives, or afford them some other chance at a decent American life rather than sending them back to the shithole their parents were desperate enough to become undocumented American residents to escape?  Put it like this: while family's important, so is the chance at growing up happy, healthy, and not terrorized by poverty, political repression, or religious violence.  And, y'know, there's always the humane option of giving parents a path to legalizing their immigration status. 

But that's a bridge too far for a man who thinks the Constitution is a mere inconvenience:

Asked to comment on the fact that the 14th Amendment affords those born here the rights of citizens, Hunter allowed that this was the case. But he said that it was trumped by the need to avoid breaking up families in the event of the deportation of parents.

Hunter’s staff has tried to clarify his comments by pointing out that he’s supporting legislation that would solve this problem by making citizenship no longer automatic for children of illegal immigrants born here.

But, asked directly whether he still would advocate for deporting under-aged citizens even if this bill never sees the light of day, he confirmed he would. I asked whether this meant he supported empowering the government to deport those whose rights are enshrined by the 14th Amendment.

“We should empower the government to forcibly maintain that family unit, and send them with the parents back home,” Hunter said.
So, Dunky thinks mere legislation can amend the Constitution so that pesky 14th Amendment no longer applies.  Failing that, he thinks we should simply ignore it since he doesn't like what it says.  And a man who is ostensibly for small government thinks the government should be very large indeed when it comes to forcing kiddies to leave the country. 

As Digby pointed out, the tune Cons carried was rather different when a gun was getting shoved in Elian Gonzalez's case.  But nevermind.  Apparently, the situation's different when the kiddies are born in the US and thus actual American citizens rather than simply landing here carried by Flipper.

You may wonder how Cons could be so damned inconsistent on their own fucking principles (small guvmint!  Protect the Constitution!), but that's ably explained by this post, which explores How To Believe Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast.  It's an education.  Alas, it won't learn Cons nuthin', cuz of the fact they've shut off their brains entirely.

And before the few remaining Conservative intellectuals start handwringing and asking why oh why it came to this, they may want to read John Cole's post, in which he explains just how the Cons came to be the way they are:

I see via DougJ that the epistemic closure wankfest is still in full effect, and while I’m really enjoying laughing at the shock the “conservative intellectuals” are having, part of me just wants to tell them to choke on a hamburger. Who do they think came up with all the bullshit that is coming back to haunt them?

These concerns about the “closing of the conservative mind” are humorous until you realize that it was the conservative intellectuals and elites who spoon-fed the masses bullshit for decades in order win elections.
Do read the whole thing.  It's more than worth the time.

At least all of this has answered a niggling question for me.  Y'see, I was starting to wonder if I was being too hard on these idjits.  I mean, really, could people be this fucking stupid?  Was I missing something?  Was I, perhaps, not giving credit where due?  And the answer is, nope.  It's not just my librul tendencies seeking out the worst.  It's really that bad.  Just ask the former conservatives who have fled screaming from the Cons.

This is why, when November comes, I'll be happy to vote Republican.  I'd much prefer to vote for progressive Dems across the board, but given the choice between a Republican in Democrat's clothing and a frothing insane Con, I'll go Republican (D).  At least that way, a somewhat sane person will end up in Washington.  I know that some of my more progressive friends find that anathema, given their strong desire to punish Dems for not being progressive enough, but I'm not willing to fuck this country over further to prove a point.  Look, if there were actual moderate Republicans running, I might consider switching votes to explain my displeasure to Dems, or at least drum out the ones who fall for the "they'd love me if I were more center-right!" fallacy.  But, alas, their opponents are batshit fucking insane, and I'm not willing to give Cons the idea that such insanity is the ticket to political power.  Other ways will have to be found to push reluctant Dems (and Republicans who can only get elected if they plunk a D after their names) further left.

Anyways.  It only took a week for Sue "Chickens for Checkups" a week to get ridiculed into a lame walk-back.  We'll see if good ol' Duncan "Fuck the Fourteenth, Deport 'em All!" Hunter is forced to do the same.  If not, I'm afraid we'll have just seen the last vestige of sanity trickle down the leg of the Teabagger movement, and should the Cons sweep to power on a wave of short-sighted anti-incumbent fervor, Arizona's draconian immigration law will seem the very model of modest restraint compared to what comes next.

4 comments:

Chris Rhetts said...

This "Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast" links to one of the most cogent observations I've seen come down the pike in a while.

I've said before that the rational expression of conservatism is an important ingredient in sound government. However what we are seeing today is anything but rational.

"Republicanism" is becoming more and more a fantasyland where people base beliefs and opinions, not on facts, but on wants. Don't want to believe in "Darwinism"? No problem - let's just create a sealed circle of third rate, fringe scientists, unscrupulous politicians and crooked pundits. This then becomes what passes for "science" in the modern Republican party. The same thing can be said for health care, financial reform, climate change - you name it.

Some years ago I sat in a church and listened to the minister warn his congregation that they should teach their kids some common sense truths before they sent them off to college and had their heads filled with all sorts of crazy ideas by "some college professor".

Pfah! Who else are we to count on to help us make decisions about complex issues of science than the very people who have devoted their lives to studying these things? The Republican answer is to promote intellectual pin-heads like Michael Behe and Anthony Watts to the status of experts. What a waste!

Cujo359 said...

I think you might need to check that second-last paragraph again. I don't think it says what you mean to say. The first sentence doesn't agree with what follows. I'll say no more for now, for fear that I may not be what I'm arguing about.

Chris Rhetts said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dana Hunter said...

It means exactly what I meant it to say - I'll vote Republican if the choice is between a Republican posing as a Democrat and a Con calling him/herself a "Republican". That's why I put the "D" after Republican, and talked about Conservadems, but apparently wasn't clear enough that this was a tongue-in-cheek way of making my point. Apologies for that.

Basically, the point I'm making is that what we're seeing in the Democratic party is an influx of people who normally would run as moderate Republicans. I can't stand 'em, but Cons are worse. So if the progressive Dem doesn't get the nod, I'll be one of those people holding my nose and voting for the woulda-been-a-Republican, because at least then we have a chance of someone who's somewhat sane ending up in office rather than a batshit insane fucktard.

Hope that clears up the confusion...