Sunday, 19 April 2009

Hypocrisy and the Fetus Fetishists

SHE says I don't understand what hypocrisy is. I wonder if the object of HER girl-lust, Sarah Palin does.

Poor Sarah is having a rough week. While she was being celebrated by fetus fetishists for CHOOSING not to abort her fifth child, back in Alaska the legislators were restive.

First, they rejected her 'controversial' nominee for attorney general, Wayne Anthony Ross.
According to Legislative Research Services, it was the first time in state history a head of a state agency has failed to be confirmed by the Legislature. All the Democrats in the Legislature voted against Ross and were joined by nine Republicans, including the Senate president and House speaker.

Controversial? Boy howdy.

In addition to being a gun-nut, a racist, and a 'men's rights' advocate, Ross is apparently cool with marital rape:
According to Burton, who detailed the allegations for me, Ross allegedly declared during a speech before a 1991 gathering of the “father’s rights” group Dads Against Discrimination, “If a guy can’t rape his wife, who’s he gonna rape?”

So, how did Palin take this rebuff?

Not well. Oh, looky, she's accusing legislators of hypocrisy.
Palin said the "hypocrisy" is that the state House last year unanimously passed a citation praising Ross as a distinguished Alaskan and a vocal proponent of free speech whose career has been dedicated to defending individual rights.

"The hypocrisy there is quite glaring. I believe they need to be called out on that," Palin said. The legislature passed the citation to honor Ross' 65 birthday.

Well, Sarah, the legislators don't appear to see hypocrisy in giving some nutbar a phony honour while refusing to put him in charge of the state's legal system.

(You can read more about Ross, who sports his initials, WAR, on the vanity plate of his Hummer here.)

But wait, the bad news continues. 'A top priority' of Palin's also failed last week.
The Legislature dealt another blow to Gov. Sarah Palin on Friday when a bill requiring girls under 17 to tell their parents they're about to have an abortion failed to move from committee, effectively ending its chance of passage this year.
. . .
Controversies surrounding the bill include its requirement a teen must wait 48 hours after telling a parent before having the abortion, and the fact it forbids coercing a minor to have an abortion but is silent on forcing a minor to have a baby.
. . .
She was particularly public about her desire to get an abortion bill passed, holding a press conference in February announcing that she was behind it. What Palin really wanted was a law saying parents not only must be told about an impending abortion but also give permission before a teen could undergo the procedure.
. . .
It was clear the state Senate wouldn't pass a consent bill, so Coghill and Palin said they'd settle for parental notification.

Ah, hypocrisy as it is practised by fetish fetishists. Forbid coercing a minor to have an abortion but totally OK with forcing her to be pregnant.

Am I getting this right, SUZY?

1 comment:

Rev Dave said...

"“If a guy can’t rape his wife, who’s he gonna rape?”"

An invaluable contribution to the national debate. By the way, making "Dads Against Discrimination" a forum for spouting off misogynistic screeds probably isn't the best way to advocate father's rights. (I assume that's what the organization is for, anyways.)

Ironically, the good Sarah is right: a racist, sexist windbag should never have been voted the honours. But her argument is still absurd: basically she's saying that because he wasn't called on his BS last year, he shouldn't be called on it this year either.

Post a Comment

Post a Comment