Doonesbury's transvaginal ultrasound/Republican state house strips

Discuss

49 Responses to “Doonesbury's transvaginal ultrasound/Republican state house strips”

  1. awjt says:

    The only way we’re going ever, *someday* get past this kind of thing is to recognize that we are in the era of doublespeak and keep reporting it, keep fighting for what’s right.  Republicans are for “small government” but want to kill health care for all, keep fat cats rich, surveil the public and invade women’s vaginas in God’s name.  Democrats are for “peace and freedom and more responsive government” but want to retain the right to tax you heavily, engage in drone warfare and unchecked domestic surveillance.  It’s doublespeak.  To get around it, all we can do is keep exposing these weirdoes and don’t let up.  Things are better than they were 10 years ago, even, because we can see the stuff on the Internet and diligent souls are digging it up.  In 10 years from now, maybe we will be even another increment along.

    • hi-endian says:

      For the record, wanting “small government” and to “kill health care for all” are actually not ideologically opposed; and are Democrats are for “peace and freedom”… sort of?

    • TooGoodToCheck says:

       There’s a lot of things I don’t like about the Democrats these days – drone warfare and domestic surveillance are prime examples of badness.

      But “tax you heavily”?  I don’t think you can be for universal health care and against some increase in taxes. Or massive slashing of other programs.

      I don’t think anyone, even Democrats, favor taxation for the sake of taxation.  If you think money is being wasted, then by all means campaign against that waste.  But generally taxation is a symptom of spending, often on things that seem good.

      • fivetonsflax says:

        I can make a coherent argument for “taxation for the sake of taxation”.  It comes from systems dynamics theory. Here goes.

        The U.S./global economic system is in a runaway condition, a positive feedback loop: the ultra-wealthy keep getting richer, which increases their influence, which helps make them richer … and it’s well past the point where anyone could credibly claim that these gains are not made at the expense of the rest of us.

        Increasing their taxes would apply negative feedback, which could help the system exit its runaway state.

        • awjt says:

          It’s a good analysis, but if it’s in a runaway state, what is the mathematical limit?  Do you think there is no limit to the amount of taxation?  Could they conceivably take it all?  If they did, wouldn’t people resort to not working and go back to barter for survival?  I think there is a practical limit on the equation, but I don’t know where it is.  50% of my gross pay?  60? 70? 90?  How would we find out the line in the sand demarcating Revolution?

          • fivetonsflax says:

            Some of your questions make no sense to me, so I think you’ve misunderstood my comment. I’m suggesting that by acting as a brake on the concentration of wealth, taxation can be a public good in and of itself.  The details of an actual policy — thresholds, rates, exemptions — might be interesting, but they’re not really relevant to the thought experiment.

          • awjt says:

             I’m suggesting an optimal cost/benefit ratio, and questioning how we’d figure that out?

          • IronEdithKidd says:

            Instead of reinventing the taxation wheel, just reimplement tax tables that were in place during the 1950′s, and adjust for inflation.  The high tax rates encouraged the rich to invest in their own businesses, and paid US war debt and for the infrastructure that is crumbling today.  I’d be all for tougher penalties for humans and corporations that get caught hiding money overseas, too.

      • VThadince71 says:

        The
        only way we’re going ever, *someday* get past this kind of thing is to
        recognize that we are in the era of doublespeak and keep reporting it,
        keep fighting for what’s right.  Republicans are for “small government”
        but want to kill health care for all, keep fat cats rich, surveil the
        public and invade women’s vaginas in God’s name.  Democrats are for
        “peace and freedom and more responsive government” but want to retain
        the right to tax you heavily, engage in drone warfare and unchecked
        domestic surveillance.  It’s doublespeak.  To get around it, all we can
        do is keep exposing these weirdoes and don’t let up.  Things are better
        than they were 10 years ago, even, because we can see the stuff on the
        Internet and diligent souls are digging it up.  In 10 years from now,
        maybe we will be even another increment along.

        Type your comment here.

    • Navin_Johnson says:

      Not sure how collecting revenue conflicts with freedom.

  2. crenquis says:

    The Avenging Uterus will save us…

    Avenging Uterus | Matt Bors

    Take heed political dinosaurs… Prepare to be pummeled by her fallopian fists of fury!

  3. anon0mouse says:

    “But I don’t get up in the morning and scheme about how to antagonise editors.”

    Rub it in, why don’t ya.  I suppose some folks are just gifted that way.

  4. Mordicai says:

    Right, as we all know, DOING a thing is not NEARLY as bad as TALKING about a thing.  If women would just be quieter all these problems would just disappear!

    • crenquis says:

      Repub theory:  If women would just be quieter barefoot and pregnant all these problems would just disappear!

      • Mordicai says:

        Exactly! “Know their place.” This was all so much easier back before women could vote, you know? You never saw these kinds of problems then!

        • crenquis says:

          I hear ya, brother.
          Just look at this chart that displays the amount of “bad stuff” that has happened since the ratification of the 19th amendment — just look at it.

  5. OldBrownSquirrel says:

    I’ve been giving thought to the question of when rape jokes (and this strip is arguably a rape joke) are appropriate.  The conclusion I’ve come to is that, in the context of rape, Juvenalian satire, which doesn’t so much make light of horrible things as it ridicules attitudes that trivialize horrible things, can be appropriate, whereas schadenfreude, which portrays horrible things happening to other people as innately amusing, is generally inappropriate.  This strip clearly falls into the former category.

  6. Navin_Johnson says:

    some newspapers refused to run

    But the media’s so “liberal”. They should have been clamoring for stuff like this…

  7. Stefan Jones says:

    If we’re going to require transvaginal ultrasounds, I think we need to be damn sure the probes are properly functioning.

    I suggest each one be calibrated by being jammed up the ass of every legislature who voted for them.

    This act would not, of course, simply be to give these unconscionable patriarchal fucks a chance to experience the shame and discomfort they are mandating. While they’re up yonder the probes can be used to check the lawmaker’s prostate for incipient tumors, and see if having their head crammed up there is causing any issues.

    • rocketpj says:

       Indeed.  Transrectal ultrasounds should be mandatory for anyone who imposes something like that on anyone else.

      • Christopher says:

        You’re overlooking the possibility that some of the legislators who’ve pushed transvaginal ultrasounds might actually enjoy that sort of rectal stimulation.

        Not that I’m knocking it if that’s their thing, but, if it is, these legislators need to understand that there’s a difference between consenting to have something shoved into an orifice because you enjoy it and requiring others to have a similar procedure because you’re a sick, twisted fuck whose only pleasure comes from humiliating others.

    • Gyrofrog says:

      C’mon,  They need to be jammed up the urethras (urethrae?) of the legislators who voted for them.

  8. vendorx says:

    Part and parcel to why newspapers are dying. Honestly, reading Doonesbury was the last and final reason I kept reading the local paper, Then I realized I could just read Doonesbury online… 

  9. sdmikev says:

    And the conservatives can’t figure out why they’re losing the “youth vote”.
    Christ, the only reason anyone with an IQ over 75 would vote for a conservative politician is that they (mistakenly for the most part) think that it will benefit them financially. 
    Combine that with the ones self-applying the 2nd grade level ideas called “Libertarianism” and it will probably spell doom for the lot of them for quite some time.
    Which, in reality is not a good thing because we need a functioning push and pull republic with people working and compromising for the greater good.

  10. TheMudshark says:

    In my opinion, any doctor that actually complies with such legislation is a scumbag.

    • IronEdithKidd says:

      Any physician that complies with such laws should be stripped of his or her license for gross violation of ethics.

  11. addalled says:

    A woman in Colorado had to go to the emergency room after a Planned Parenthood “doctor” left body parts inside her.

    Yes…Body parts.

    “Lawsuit: Planned Parenthood Forced, Then Botched Abortion”
    http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/lawsuit-planned-parenthood-left-dismembered-baby-in-woman.html

    So apparently they really do believe the BS that an ulrasound isn’t “medically necessary”.

Leave a Reply