After a long weekend off the RNC stumbled into the work week by accidentally sending copies of its Sotomayor talking points to members of the media. They are phenomenally uninteresting. Except for one part. Here it is:

"Justice Souter's retirement could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for:

• Further eroding the rights of the unborn and property owners;
• Imposing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage;
• [etc.]"

So there it is. The RNC would like to communicate that there are two groups of Americans whose rights concern them:

1. the unborn
2. property owners

Then there are groups of Americans who should have their rights restricted:

1. gay people

I reflected on these two very short lists. I thought about how these two concern-worthy groups of Americans perfectly reflect the contemporary Republican Party's marriage of the religious right and libertarian capitalists. And then I thought about what kind of national party baldly claims to only support the rights of their interest groups (presumably at the expense of concern for the rights of any American in general).

After that I thought about the absurdity of the GOP's high level of concern for not-yet-people and active desire to limit the rights of some actual people. I then had a side thought regarding how ridiculous it is that restricting individual rights actually has any traction in this day and age. I mean, who's the target audience for statements like "I think that we should make sure that rights enjoyed by some Americans don't bleed over for groups that are currently denied those rights." Opponents of gay marriage rarely talk like this, but I wonder how tenable their position would be if they did?

And what about "property owners"? How absurd would it be if the GOP always took the side of the party that owned a house in a sexual harassment case? But what if they both own houses? ("Sorry folks, can't really be bothered to be concerned with the rights of that guy getting beat up over there. I am primarily concerned with the rights of fetuses and property owners. See, that fella is already born and we don't really know whether he owns a house. Plus, he might be gay.") Of course this is not what the phrase means at all. When Republicans say they are concerned with the rights of "property owners" they really just mean "property." So into this group fall things like "not wanting to raise taxes," "all corporate interests trump all individual interests," "intellectual property," "eminent domain," etc. More broadly, it means that one of the chief concerns of today's Republicans is making sure that those who have a lot of money can hold on to it. But that's cool. I mean, I thought there was something about people getting wronged and something about justice, but apparently not: money.

But who makes a list like this anyway? For homework tonight: "Please list all groups whose rights you are interested in protecting. Extra credit: List at least one group whose rights you'd like to deny." And then because it's hard to come up with a question like that without immediately trying to answer it, I thought about what my own list of "morally relevant" concern groups would look like. But even thinking about this gave me a headache. I mean, you can't put like "Estonian immigrants, but not Canadian immigrants." Or "cat lovers, not bird lovers." Thinking about the wide spectrum of progressive pet legal issues (gender and race discrimination, workplace and union issues, queer rights, animal welfare, environmental issues, privacy issues, media consolidation issues, drug issues, disability issues, immigration issues, separation of church and state, human rights, and ending the death penalty), a theme might emerge: "interest in things and people that are likely to be exploited by those with power." But what ideology unites fetuses and property owners? I can't even come up with something funny to say about this because there is literally nothing that ties these two interests together besides "they are both things that some people who make up the modern Republican party are interested in." Which I guess was my whole point. Today's Republican Party: no unified ideology besides religion and capitalism. Everyone else (especially gay people!): go to hell.