Bob and Chez Show

The Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show 10/25/12

Richard Mourdock and Rape; Reason for the Rape Talk; The Republican Abortion Strategy; Obama and Debate Bounces; The State of Polling; Romney is a BSer; Undecided Voters; CNN and Hormone Voters; and much more. Brought to you by Bubble Genius!

There's more election talk in this week's After Party -- Friday at Noon eastern time. If you're not a member, subscribe already. Only $6/month, cancel any time.

Listen and subscribe on iTunes (it's FREE!)
Download the mp3 (55 minutes, 23mb)
RSS Feed
Listen on your smartphone via Stitcher.com

Bubble Genius

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Profound apologies in advance to anyone offended.

    Listening to Chez, I was thinking of a really effective (or offensive, depending on how you look at it) slogan that women might be able to use to get their point across to Republican men:

    “If it’s between my tits and my ass, it’s my choice.”

    Sorry.

  • danielle furman

    Hi gents. First off, I’m a long time listener, first time caller and a big fan of the show. HOWEVER. I’m surprised you don’t see the irony of opening your show with a clip of Tina Fey bemoaning yet another man saying more ridiculous shit about rape/pregnancy/abortion–issues that happen specifically and uniquely to a woman and her body, and then proceed to have an extended discussion about these issues all by your male selves. While I certainly prefer your positions on these issues, I’m still troubled by the exclusion of women from these discussions of OUR bodies. Maybe the next time you spend such a large portion of an episode talking about ladyparts, when a fetus becomes a life, and the “logic” of the abortion decision, you can invite a ladyfriend to chime in, eh?

    Thanks! Danielle

  • Thought I’d get more shit for “parasite.” For what it’s worth: “An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host’s expense.”

    • KanaW

      You get no shit from me about it, Bob. Until the fetus can survive outside the host body then it is a parasite.

      It might be a desired parasite, a loved parasite, a hated parasite, or a feared parasite, but it is still a parasite.

      And it is my right as a host body to decide whether or not I wish to continue to provide its nutrients.

  • Chez, you are completely wrong, COMPLETELY, on the abortion thing. Really. Seriously. NO ONE has a right to tell a woman, or anyone for that matter, what she can and can not host in her own body.

    The woman is the primary entity. Period. Unless you’d like to host the fetus that looks like a baby in your body via force (transplantation?), men have NOTHING to say on this topic.

    That said, I probably could not look at a fetus that looks like a baby and make a decision to abort. HOWEVER, the right to choose is mine.

    • Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to say that because I’m a man I have “NOTHING to say on this topic?” Bullshit, Nicole. Look, I’m not going to dredge up every single argument I made in the original post in which I discussed this because I’d be here all day. But if you can admit that what’s growing inside a mother is a baby, a separate life — and I’m not saying that it is or isn’t, merely making a purely existential argument — then you automatically lose the battle when you try to justify termination because that life is theoretically of no less value than anyone else’s. There would be a case to make if the mother’s own life was threatened, but that would be the only logical and moral exception. Inconvenience wouldn’t matter. The mother’s desires wouldn’t matter. Nothing would supersede, as much as I hate using this term, that entity’s right to life. Again, though, that’s only if you consider a fetus a baby. I still, to this day, don’t know how I feel. I thought I made myself clear but maybe I need to say it again: Regardless of what I think one way or the other about what a fetus is and what rights it should have, I’m stridently pro-choice. I do believe that it’s the mother’s choice. It’s left me in a state of moral cognitive dissonance on more than one occasion, but I have no choice but to deal with that.

      • Okay. You’re entitled to your opinion, Chez, and I don’t disagree with everything you said, but I do feel that under no circumstances is it appropriate for a man to say anything except “it’s the choice of the woman”. And I don’t mean that men can’t have an actual opinion, just that they don’t get to legislate their opinion on this, nor do they ever get to say that woman must decide that the entity which looks like a baby comes first, above and beyond how the host-mother feels.

        A baby (see image) looks like a baby at the age of 12 weeks. But that isn’t the whole story, Chez. The fetus can’t survive outside of the host for a great deal longer than 12 weeks. If we go by what you posited, i.e., a “if you can admit that what’s growing inside a mother is a baby, a separate life — and I’m not saying that it is or isn’t, merely making a purely existential argument — then you automatically lose the battle when you try to justify termination because that life is theoretically of no less value than anyone else’s. There would be a case to make if the mother’s own life was threatened, but that would be the only logical and moral exception. Inconvenience wouldn’t matter. The mother’s desires wouldn’t matter. Nothing would supersede, as much as I hate using this term, that entity’s right to life. Again, though, that’s only if you consider a fetus a baby.” it would be a crime to abort at any time after a few weeks.

        A better way of looking at it is to look at when the fetus can survive outside of the host, or the fetus can’t become an individual person outside of the host until a certain point, and it’s at that point that the fetus achieves “personhood”. Until that point, a fetus is simply an entity growing inside the host, and is not a person.

        That is the standard in use today, and that’s the reason I said that men don’t get to tell women what to do with their own body. You did say that “you automatically lose the battle when you try to justify termination because that life is theoretically of no less value than anyone else’s, and this is primarily what I object to. Even if the fetus looks like a baby, until that baby can live outside of the host it is not a person, no matter how many existential arguments you make. And, making those arguments, in light of the right wing penchant for exerting control over women, is not a great idea.

        This battle has been fought. Women won [see Roe v. Wade], it’s our choice, and only our choice.

        I thought I made myself clear but maybe I need to say it again: Regardless of what I think one way or the other about what a fetus is and what rights it should have, I’m stridently pro-choice. I do believe that it’s the mother’s choice.“.

        That’s exactly what I wanted to hear, and I didn’t get that from your discussion on the show. So, thank you, Chez.

        • First of all, I appreciate the conversation. I actually did, though, mention the fact that the debate becomes more complicated when the fetus becomes vital enough to be able to live outside the mother. The issue is, who exactly knows when that date is? Medical science has become shockingly good at saving premature babies. It’s a tough call. I also did unequivocally say that I remain pro-choice despite the moral conundrum I feel it might present.

          • Not sure I heard those things, Chez. Probably because the subject itself —due to the undue attention it’s received from the right wing, particularly over the past 2 years—is designed to wreak havoc with emotions.

            In any case, I, too, appreciate the conversation.

  • muselet

    If Richard Mourdock and the rest of Team Rape said that someone with cancer should not be allowed to seek treatment because It Is God’s Will that cancer patients die, their electoral prospects would drop to below zero. Yet Team Rape can say that their—obviously psychopathic—deity wants rape victims to bear and, presumably, raise (presumably without any assistance from the government because that just makes people weak and dependent) their attacker’s child and suffer few electoral consequences. What the frak is wrong with these shit-for-brains politicians and why the frak does anyone vote for them? (Please, I beg of you, don’t tell me. I don’t really want to know. Knowing would just upset me.)

    Roe v. Wade, for all that the fetus fetishists insist otherwise, was a reasonable decision on biological grounds (I can’t speak to legal grounds, not being a lawyer, but I suspect it’s legally reasonable as well). It’s a Solomonic decision and so nobody really likes it, but it’s a reasonable compromise. The proposed Personhood Amendment is entirely unreasonable, which I suspect is the point. Roe was about creating a workable compromise (which, never forget, was a 7-2 decision); the Personhood Amendment is about winning (not winning the argument, not winning the support of a popular majority, but winning in the inane, middle-school sense of “Pro-Life rules, Pro-Choice drools”).

    The next Emoprog who says it doesn’t matter which major-party candidate is elected is likely to get punched in the throat, and I’ve never hit anyone in my life.

    Mitt Romney gets the benefit of the doubt—and wild cries of Mittmentum—in part because our glorious news media is desperate for a tight race (because ratings and income from advertising is so much more important than a mere election). And in part because all too many of our fellow citizens are too dumb to pour pee out of a boot.

    Elections as Musical Chairs. Chez, I really wish I didn’t agree with you.

    It can’t be repeated often enough: national polls are schmuck bait.

    Do hormones affect voting behavior? Marginally, probably. So does the amount of sleep someone gets or gets hold of a bad clam the day before voting. It’s not interesting and it’s not a story.

    Texas is threatening to arresting UN election monitors. Since no one is even suggesting international election monitors, that may well be the safest threat ever made. If I may quote Andy Sipowicz: “You got a lot of morons in your family? ‘Cause that could be genetic.”

    And once again, you’ve chosen a truly creepy photo for this post. *shudders*

    –alopecia

    CORRECTION: On February 16 of this year, the Department of State invited the OSCE, not the UN, to observe US elections. The NYPD Blue quote remains relevant, though.

    The OSCE is not pleased:

    The letter [from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott] provoked a swift response on Wednesday from Janez Lenarcic, the head of the international group’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, who wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing his concern that the threat of prosecution was contrary to the U.S.’s obligations as an OSCE participant.

    “The threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable,” Lenarcic said in a news release about the letter. “The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.”

    Lenarcic added the observers were “required to remain strictly impartial” and they were in the United States “to observe these elections, not to interfere in them.” State Department officials have invited the monitors to observe the process in five elections since 2002.

    • The next Emoprog who says it doesn’t matter which major-party candidate is elected is likely to get punched in the throat, and I’ve never hit anyone in my life.

      …this irritates the piss out of me too, which leads to another one of your points….

      And in part because all too many of our fellow citizens are too dumb to pour pee out of a boot.

      Seconded

      In re: the OSCE observing elections in Texas–the irony is that Texas and many other states are allowing poorly trained Tea Party members (from True the Vote) to “observe” in their elections even though this group has a documented history of interfering at the polls via verbal and physical intimidation. So, don’t allow the OSCE who will actually be a true observer in the best spirit of the concept but DO allow True the Vote so they actually CAN interfere in the election. I swear to the Holy FSM that we live in “upside down, backwards world” now courtesy of the 24/7 RW noise machine.

      • muselet

        Yeah, but True the Vote ain’t made up of no furriners.

        Le sigh.

        –alopecia

  • MrDHalen

    Great show guys!!!

    On abortion, mother’s choice plain and simple. Avoid the slippery slope and stop your feelings at your own feet because all you really control is your own next step.

    Chez, you’re right; Romney after the first debate gave a lot of people the comfort they needed to send the black guy home.