Month: February 2013

Asymmetrical opposition: Anti-immigrant GOP to engage in gay bashing to kill reforms

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The nativist and racist base of the GOP that is anti-immigrant and opposed to any immigration reforms that would create a pathway to citizenship has settled upon asymmetrical opposition: it will engage in gay bashing to kill any immigration reform legislation. "We're not against immigrants based upon their nationality or race — but no gays!"

This is a strategy to divide the religious community between those who support humane treatment for immigrants, and those who are fundamentally opposed to marriage equality based upon religious doctrine. These are often one and the same groups, e.g., the Catholic Church, so this asymmetrical strategy forces religious groups to choose between competing values.

Tea-Publicans are on the wrong side of public polling on both issues with majorities of Americans favoring both marriage equality and immigration reforms with a pathway to citizenship.

It remains to be seen whether the U.S. Supreme Court will derail this asymmetrical opposition with a landmark decision on marriage equality this year before the immigration reforms come up for a final vote in Congress.

The Washington Post reports, In immigration debate, same-sex marriage comes to the fore:

President Obama is aiming to grant same-sex couples. . . equal immigration rights as their
heterosexual counterparts.

But the measure has inspired fierce pushback from congressional
Republicans and some religious groups, who say it could sink hopes for a
comprehensive agreement aimed at providing a path to citizenship for 11
million undocumented immigrants.

Arizona Legislature: The coming week…

by

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

As usual, all committee agendas, floor calendars, and event schedules are subject to change without notice.  Call ahead to confirm plans before travelling to the Capitol based on an agenda, calendar, or schedule cited here.

Notes:

If an agenda is summarized with "looks harmless so far" that only means that nothing on the agenda set of bat-shit crazy alarm bells; if the committee in question covers an area of interest to you, check out the full agenda yourself.  And if I missed something significant, please leave a comment letting me know.

A hearing room designation of "SHR" means it is a hearing room in the Senate building;  "HHR" means that the hearing room is in the House building.

Lastly, this summary is not, nor is it intended to be, comprehensive.  Many bills have been covered, but not all of them.  Again, if a committee covers an area of interest to you, check out the full agenda yourself.

Floor activity:

Oh If They Only Were Barefoot and Pregnant Again

by

Posted by Bob Lord

The Wall Street Journal ran this piece by Jonathan Last, a writer at the Weekly Standard, who explains why most of America's ills are attributable to those evil college-educated women who aren't popping out enough pups. You have to read the piece in its entirety to appreciate Last's depravity, but he actually argues that women attending college is a bad thing:

College. Higher education dampens fertility in all sorts of ways. It delays marriage, incurs debt, increases the opportunity costs of childbearing and significantly increases the expense of raising a child. If you doubt that the economics of the university system are broken, consider this: Since 1960, the real cost of goods in nearly every other sector of American life has dropped. Meanwhile, the real cost of college has increased by more than 1,000%.

Get that, women? Don't attend college, because the opportunities a degree will present might cause you not to spend your life raising kids.

No, guns do not make women ‘safer’ – just the opposite is true

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I watched the replay of the congressional hearing this past week on "what should we do about gun violence," and I was dumbfounded by the utterly bizarre testimony from a Gayle Trotter, who represents an organization called Independent Women’s Forum. Where do I know her name from? Oh, that's right. She is a wingnut blogger over at Tucker Carlson's The Daily Caller. (Yes, that nasty little troll Tucker is still being propped up by his wealthy friends).

But I had forgotten the background of this Independent Women’s Forum. Amanda Marcotte at Slate has the background of this far-right astroturf organization. Gayle Trotter's Ideas Will Not Keep Women Safe:

The Independent Women's Forum was founded in 1992
out of a coalition of conservative women organized to support Clarence
Thomas in the face of allegations that he sexually harassed Anita Hill.
True to those roots, one of their primary functions since then has been
to undermine efforts to end sexual abuse and violence against women.
Their long-standing opposition to the Violence Against Women Act no
doubt contributed to the GOP finding excuses to avoid reauthorizing it.
They've organized protests of campus fundraising
for anti-violence organizations. So who else would you turn to if
you're the gun industry and wanting someone to testify in favor of guns,
with an eye towards trying to get women to buy more of your product?

* * *

IWF's Gayle Trotter testified at today's Senate hearing on gun safety, and unsurprisingly claimed that guns make women safer. She apparently seems to believe most violence against women resembles Buffy the Vampire Slayer facing down a gang of vampires: 

“Guns make women safer,” Trotter argued, because they
eliminate the advantage violent criminals might have in size and
strength. “Using a firearm with a magazine holding more than 10 rounds
of ammunition, a woman would have a fighting chance even against
multiple attackers.”