NPR: Family Research Council Still Backs Rep. Akin

[Crossroads Inc.]

On an interview on NPR this morning "Connie Mackey," head of the Family Research Council's political action committees spoke out on why she and others still support Akin.

The interview is audio only so you will have to click on the link, but perhaps the most telling line comes after the interviewer asked her about the "science" behind Akin's statment. She says "There are many Doctors coming to support Akin, and I do not know anything about the Science myself"

In other words she won't say she actually disputes the claim that women who are raped can not get pregnant, apparently knowing that is just too much "Science" for her poor mind...

Toward the end of the interview, after challenged about "Why someone on a board of Science should not know such basic science" Mackey shot back that Obama had said recently "men have no business passing legislation on behalf of women"
Steve seemed surprised by this and was asked to "check up on it" he said he would... And it turned out to be a false quote, surprise surprise...

[Flagg]

I don't understand why people in media have on those who belong to hate groups (according to the impeccable Southern Poverty Law Center) like the FRC. Even MSNBC has these hate group assholes on regularly.

[General Zod]

I don't understand why people in media have on those who belong to hate groups (according to the impeccable Southern Poverty Law Center) like the FRC. Even MSNBC has these hate group assholes on regularly.

That's an easy one, controversy gets ratings, and ratings get advertising dollars.

[Flagg]

Yeah, but you don't see the fucking KKK or Neo Nazi organizations getting air time on these channels.

[Purple]

That's because these groups are too far out of the frame of normal hate groups and therefore would pose a risk of causing negative publicity on the network. Remember, if your channel regularly shows hate groups shouting hate and fundiesthan its upholding freedom of speechTM . But if it shows Nazis than it's immediately a Nazi network. Double standards and all that.

[Mr Bean]

That's because these groups are too far out of the frame of normal hate groups and therefore would pose a risk of causing negative publicity on the network. Remember, if your channel regularly shows hate groups shouting hate and fundiesthan its upholding freedom of speechTM . But if it shows Nazis than it's immediately a Nazi network. Double standards and all that.

Let be fair, when exactly would there be a proper time to have a Nazi on even if the topic was Nazis?

[Flagg]

That's because these groups are too far out of the frame of normal hate groups and therefore would pose a risk of causing negative publicity on the network. Remember, if your channel regularly shows hate groups shouting hate and fundiesthan its upholding freedom of speechTM . But if it shows Nazis than it's immediately a Nazi network. Double standards and all that.

Let be fair, when exactly would there be a proper time to have a Nazi on even if the topic was Nazis?

A hate group is a hate group is a hate group. Just because they are the "God Hates F**s" variety rather than the "Kill the Jews and Blacks and everyone else we don't like" variety doesn't mean a fuck to me.

[Rogue 9]

Because like it or not, they're influential, where the Nazis are not. Also, it's a prime opportunity to get them to make fools of themselves, as she did. The transcript:

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

In Tampa, where Republicans are gathering for their convention, Todd Akin has been meeting with supporters, including the Family Research Council, which, like Akin, opposes abortion rights. Connie Mackey heads the council's political action committees.

Mr. Akin, as I'm sure you know very well, as he defended his action, he said he misspoke, but then he said that he had said one word in one sentence on one day that was wrong. Is that all he got wrong?

CONNIE MACKEY: Unfortunately, no. The statement was wrong, plain and simple, and he unfortunately, I think, tried to defend some language that had been given to him some years ago. And I mean it doesn't change is pro-life stance and concern for the unborn as well as the woman, but the statement was wrong.

INSKEEP: And let's be clear on this. It seems that he was talking about the fact that he referred to a woman who was a victim of legitimate rape. That seemed to be the one word, legitimate, that he regretted, but there was this other bit of fake science about women shutting that whole thing down.

MACKEY: Yeah. Well, you know, since he's made that statement, I have gotten calls from doctors wanting to defend him. I don't know the science on this, so I'm not going into those weeds. I can tell you that the statement as far as we can see was wrong. It's probably, I think, statements that were given to him some time ago, and I'm sure he regrets having referenced them now.

INSKEEP: I suppose one of the things that outraged so many people across the country was the suggestion, or the implication, the idea that there may be women who just wanted it, that perhaps that wasn't a real rape. Is that part of...

MACKEY: That's horrible. I think you're right. I think that was perceived that way, and it's horrific. It's just horrific. The images, and I mean, we talked about this in the car coming over, we know what the images are. We know the horror of it all, and they're very obvious, and that's, I think, part of why this thing blew up so quickly and so easily. When you try to go into the weeds politically, it's a disaster, as we just saw.

INSKEEP: Why support him then?

MACKEY: Oh, I support him because he's totally pro-life. The man has been elected six times by his community because he's a good and decent man. He served in the Army. He's got two sons that are serving the country as Marines. He's done legislatively everything, you know, that you could ask for. He understands the economic issues. He beat two other people in a three-way primary. You're going to walk away from a candidate who's done everything right except for this gaffe, that he should never have gone into the weeds, is his biggest - his biggest sin.

INSKEEP: It seems that some people think these are weeds that he should have known. I mean, he's now acknowledged that he made a statement that was based on no science that he's willing to support. How did he not know better, given that he's a legislature who's actually been involved in these issues?

MACKEY: Well, all right. We've got a president - we've got a president who just said men should have no business getting in - doing any legislation on women's issues. That's a horrendous statement.

INSKEEP: When did he say that?

MACKEY: He said that about last week. And you can look up all - you can look these things up. It shows that the press does not follow the other side of these issues.

INSKEEP: We'll go and look up some of these things.

MACKEY: Absolutely. I hope you will, and I hope you'll report on it.

INSKEEP: Let me back to political practicalities here for a second, because you run a political action committee. Todd Akin is a situation where he intends to stay in the race, he says. Leading Republican organizations have said that they're going to stop supporting him.

MACKEY: Mm-hmm.

INSKEEP: It takes millions of dollars to run a Senate race.

MACKEY: Mm-hmm.

INSKEEP: Are you going to be able to help Akin stay in the race financially?

MACKEY: Look, we're going to support him, but we can't support him to the degree that Karl Rove's PAC, or the Republican's PAC, could have supported him. So we will support him as a pro-life champion on Capitol Hill that's been true to his country, and he's been true to the legislature and he's been a good and decent, ethical moral man, and we're not walking away from him.

INSKEEP: You must know the Republican donor landscape pretty well. Do you think that there are enough Republican or conservative or pro-life donors out there that some could be found to pump millions of dollars into that race?

MACKEY: That's a tough question, and I think probably answer is - might be no.

INSKEEP: Well, Connie Mackey, thanks very much for taking the time. I appreciate it.

MACKEY: All right. Thank you.

INSKEEP: She is president of the Family Research Council's political action committees. Now, as you heard, Ms. Mackey challenged us to look up a statement she attributed to President Obama that men should have no business doing any legislation on women's issues. We did look it up. Here's what the president actually said about Todd Akin.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: What I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making healthcare decisions on behalf of women.

INSKEEP: The president's actual words during a short news conference on Monday, part of a remarkable week of political news, and there are remarkable weeks to come. The Republican convention begins on Monday in Tampa, Florida, the Democratic convention the week after that. We'll cover it all on NPR News.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Thanks for posting the Text on the Rogue, Finally have the full quote I was talking about;

MACKEY: Yeah. Well, you know, since he's made that statement, I have gotten calls from doctors wanting to defend him. I don't know the science on this, so I'm not going into those weeds.

Thats the part that really stuck out for me, that first she makes a vieled attempt at deffending the guy "doctors wanting to defend him" indeed, and then goes on to say "I don't know the science on this" Which as far as I can tell means that she isn't sure that if a Women gets raped, that they can stop from getting pregnant...

Really I think networks like NPR have these people on to showcase how crazy they are... They don't provoke them, they don't try and bully them, they just let them talk... And really hearing them talk is very effective at knowing just how crazy they really are.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Thanks for posting the Text on the Rogue, Finally have the full quote I was talking about;

MACKEY: Yeah. Well, you know, since he's made that statement, I have gotten calls from doctors wanting to defend him. I don't know the science on this, so I'm not going into those weeds.

Thats the part that really stuck out for me, that first she makes a vieled attempt at deffending the guy "doctors wanting to defend him" indeed, and then goes on to say "I don't know the science on this" Which as far as I can tell means that she isn't sure that if a Women gets raped, that they can stop from getting pregnant...

Really I think networks like NPR have these people on to showcase how crazy they are... They don't provoke them, they don't try and bully them, they just let them talk... And really hearing them talk is very effective at knowing just how crazy they really are.

Physicians are not actually the people you want to talk too on the subject anyway. Physicians are Squishy Mechanics. They are not usually trained in the hows, the whys etc, just "I know the mechanics of this complicated system really really well and know how to fix it when it is broken".

You want to talk to the academic scientists. Namely, the people who study sperm competition, mate-poaching, and reproductive behavior in humans and apes.

Commence Human Ethological Linguistic Protocols in 3...2...1...

Rape is a male reproductive strategy. Yes it is about power and dominance psychologically, but it also bypasses female mate-choice and thus serves to increase the reproductive success of the male. It is used both as a supplementary strategy by alread-successful males, and a fringe strategy by males with poor social traits (for the purposes of raising offspring), but who are often good genetic specimens in terms of physical health etc (this will be important later). For example: the ability to commit in a long-term relationship has a large degree of its variation accounted for by a single gene that regulates the density of vasopressin receptors. If a male is homozygous recessive, good luck ever having a relationship that lasts more than a few weeks. He might even want a relationship, he just cannot ever feel the long-term pair bond and thus any relationship is doomed, because it has no emotional underpinning on his part other than short term oxytocin release. For a social creature, that is not even a fun way to live, I imagine, but Evolution and Loss-of-Function mutations dont care how one feels, provided reproduction happens.

But it does the same thing for the female. Human females shop around for genes. They actively attempt to find the best tradeoff between genetic and social traits--which due to negative genetic and phenotypic correlations often cannot be found optimally in the same person. There are both conscious mechanisms for this--is the male nice, is he good looking, how does he treat pre-extant children; and subconscious mechanisms--do chemical markers in his body odor indicate an immune system of sufficient dissimilarity to her own to give any offspring a well rounded immune portfollio.

Then shit gets weird. I am of course talking about cryptic female choice, which is important in discussion of rape.

Orgasm in human females is half about clitoral stimulation, and half about attraction. They orgasm more easily with males they find particularly physically attractive, because doing so makes the mucous in their cervex less viscious and permits more sperm passage. They are also more likely to orgasm within the time-window to ovulation, and an orgasm can trigger ovulation within that window. Females are more likely to engage in extra-pair copulation when within the ovulatory window, and to do so with a male who is more physically attractive than their current mate (if any). After orgasm however, mucous viscosity increases, making passage for future sperm more difficult for several hours afterward. This is why females will often have intercourse with their regular partner right after an extra-pair copulation. If she gets pregnant without the two mating, the ever-present male worry about false paternity will be aroused. She mates with someone she finds physically attractive, then tricks the one who will actually be good at raising any resultant offspring into doing so, by way of biased sperm competition.

So... rape. The ability of a male to bypass female choice by physically overpowering her is, ironically, a good indicator of his physical health, strength, stamina etc. Some organisms use forced copulation as the primary means of courting. Ducks do it this way--the male who gets to mate is the one who can chase the female, force her to land, and then forcibly navigate the twisty labyrinth of her vagina. Mink will not ovulate unless they are raped. In human females, it is the same thing. Rape, like orgasm, will induce ovulation if the female is within her ovulatory window, making it more likely that a female who is forcibly copulated will become pregnant as a result. The catch 22 is that, for forced copulation to be a reliable measure of male physical quality, the female has to not want to mate. Evolution does not care if someone is emotionally traumatized, so long as they reproduce. In the days before birth control or chemical abortificents, a female had no choice but to carry her rapists offspring to term and by the time that happens, maternal instinct kicks in and she is unlikely to simply expose the unwanted offspring to the elements. She might abuse it, but that only creates a child with emotional trauma who is more likely themselves to be a sexual predator (how closely tied in with genetics the propensity to rape is, I am not sure).

Ceasing Human Ethological Linguistic Protocols.