Holiday in Wingnuttia

Pencil Nub:

I think I’ve come up with a solution to the controversy over guns that we’re having in this country.

We need to petition the FDA to approve firearms for use as devices to perform abortions.

Of course, there would be risks to the woman undergoing the firearm abortion, but that’s the case with any type of abortion.

The size of the fetus, as well as that of the woman, would determine the caliber of firearm used.…

Since abortion was construed to be a constitutional right in 1973, and virtualy any restrictions on abortion are verboten, approving firearms as a method of performing abortions will most certainly guarantee that the right to own firearms will not be infringed. One would simply need to argue that outlawing guns is tantamount to an outright ban on abortion.

Thank God he didn't suggest that gun owners are bitter, though. That might cause months of breathless debate on CNN. As it is, he's just suggesting that women who don't want to carry their rapists' children, or who don't want to die from medical complications of their pregnancy, should be shot.

Similarly, we can be glad that Dick Cheney's joke about how West Virginian's are all inbred hicks is not at all elitist. Because that could only lead to Cheney's denouncing all white people, and then who would he have left?

Closer to home, East Bay Conservative (who I don't yet know as well as I do the previous two, and who may not be entirely wingnutty) thinks people should just give up:

I feel bad tonight for fellow bloggers such as V Smoothe, who spent many hours campaigning on behalf of Sean Sullivan. Not because these candidates lost, but because my fellow bloggers spent so much time on such a fruitless cause.…

My friends. My fellow bloggers: Oakland does not want your help. And, largely, those you aim to help do not deserve your time and effort.

Oakland has spoken loud and clear: Oakland does not care about changes in leadership and government. Oakland is fine the way it is. Murders, rapes, carjackings and all.

I know that there is a tendency in the face of such defeat to think such things as, “we fought the good fight; we got our message out.”

Let me say this very clearly. By participating in the political process in Oakland, you have wasted your time.

It's sad that this seems to be the state of modern conservatism. Don't talk to our enemies, don't vote, and for God's sake, don't try to make things better.

That attitude was on display prominently in the Senate discussion about the climate change bill (ably live-blogged by Joe Romm). Some GOoPers denied that any problem existed, but others were content to acknowledge that climate change is happening, but then threw up their hands and insisted that nothing could be done anyway.

And speaking of conservatives on holiday from reality, Nitpicker catches this from the minority response to the assessment of political abuse of pre-war intelligence. The committee was surprised that no one in the government tried to "determine the true intentions of the foreign government with regard to interacting with the Iranians or Mr. Ghorbanifar." Republicans are shocked at the suggestion:

We do not understand what this sentence is trying to suggest and do not understand why anyone would be concerned about the "true motives" of the foreign government. Is the suggestion that we need to be concerned that the foreign government had an ulterior or nefarious motive? The foreign government is one of our closest allies, often assisting us with all types of government issues--they even assist us in war. Why would DoD think the foreign government had a mysterious motive?

Indeed. Why should the motives of other countries concern our intelligence services or the DoD? Madness!