Thelma and Louise (Jane and Gloria)

Posted on March 12, 2012

3


As a follow up to my recent post, the ‘On / Off Switch’, I noticed that Gloria Allred wants the  Palm Beach County Attorney’s Office to order the arrest and prosecution of Rush Limbaugh on the premise of a violation of an archaic County Civil code.   She characterized Rush’s on air comments as “outrageous, tasteless and damaging”.   The obscure Florida State code, enacted in 1883, states, ‘Whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.’

A couple of things here.  Number 1 – which jumps out at me like an angry Bobcat, is the fact that if someone should be prosecuted under this statute, it should be Sandra Fluke!  Did she not out her self as an enthusiastic and committed consumer of birth control pills?   Her testimony to a Congressional committee:

I should have warned you about the nausea factor inherent in that testimony.  It sounds like the sing- songy recitation of a barely post-adolescent 17 year old reading her campaign speech for High School Class President.   There’s that and maybe Jan Brady reading her class project to her favorite teacher (Lugosi, errr – Pelosi).   But seriously, if you make yourself the poster girl for unfettered ‘access’ to any and all forms of contraception, aren’t you proclaiming that you mix in some extracurricular activities along with your Law studies?   Or as Rush put it:

‘What does it say about the college coed … who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.’

The other aspect here, and perhaps the more significant.  Sandra Fluke (she pronounces it ‘F-look’), is a feminist activist.  If she isn’t, she sure has Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem bamboozled – more about them later.  Doesn’t the whole Feminist manifesto essentially distill down to the ideal of women being independent?  Not being subsidized by men or other figures or institutions of authority or needing such to validate this independence?   Apparently the values and ideals of statism and all pervasive governmental authority trump that of feminist independence.

The hyper fanatical rhetoric is breathtaking as well.   “Financially, emotionally, medically…struggled, powerless, policing her body, interrogated”, etc.   You’d think she was describing a gut wrenching moral dilemma like the train scene from Schindler’s List.

Let’s be candid, shall we?  Something tells me that if I sent a film crew over to Georgetown to do a ‘Georgetown Girls Gone Wild’ video, they’d come back with footage for three volumes.  You mean to tell me that the girls who are using the B.C. pills don’t also have a party allowance to go out and find the guys that are the reason they’re taking them to begin with?  Make the guy pay for the B.C. pills!  It would have been worth it to get thrown out of that hearing to just shout that out in the middle of her tear-jerking recitation.

I’m also dubious about the anecdotes she sites for the extreme cases of dire need of the pills for medical reasons.  I guess I’m just insensitive, but the one case where her friend won’t be able to conceive, is rather theoretical – the woman is a Lesbian.  Other than as depicted in every other television drama or sitcom, there are not a truckload of Lesbians picking out designer sperm at the ‘Bank’ with which to start a family.

I’m not even sure that I support such a concept to begin with.  “Oh, don’t feel bad that you don’t have a dad like the other kids – you have two mommies.  And our gay friend, Dan Savage is like an Uncle, right?”  

This is the type of thing that is always concocted by Liberals when they get caught with their pants down.  They trot out these statistical non-entities and portray them as manifest examples of the gross injustices they are decrying.   The example we’re all familiar with is abortion.   Liberals know that abortion is marginally tolerated in opinion surveys.   Realizing this, they center their argument for its continued practice on rape and incest.  Rape and incest account for less than 2 percent of the procedures and certainly don’t provide a reasonable basis for the incredible number of babies murdered in the 2nd half of the Second Trimester (21 through 27 weeks).

Likewise, you would think, listening to Ms. Fluke’s testimony, that there is a crisis of restricted access of contraceptives at religious governed Colleges and Universities.   I ask you in all honesty – is $9.00 a month for B.C. pills, a travesty of deprivation?   Let’s do the math here.  $9 a month is mmmmmmmmmmmm, .30 cents a DAY!  OMG, OMG, OMG, OMG, OMG!  Follow any of these hard cases around and show me one that doesn’t order a Starbucks ‘Caramel Machiatto’ or ‘Mocha Valencia’ Grande at least 3 or 4 days a week.

That’s about $55 a month, or approximately 6 times more than the B.C. pills cost.   I don’t even get them 3 times a month – so I definitely don’t bust my contraceptive budget.   But for all the fun you can have and the added piece of – pardon me, peace of mind you can have – $9 bucks is the best entertainment bargain out there.  You can’t even get into a movie theater (unless you go to the kid’s matinee) for $9 anymore.  Please tell me, is there anything here that I’m just not getting past my common sense filter?    Gloria Allred babbles on:

“I’m sure he has an army of highly paid attorneys in his entourage to advise him about how he should defend himself,’ she said. ‘I’m concerned about the impact that he has had and that he wished to have had on women who choose to speak out and exercise their free speech.’

Excuse me, but where does Ms. Allred come off speaking of ‘highly paid attorneys’ in such a pejorative context?  Has she forgotten what she does for a living?  She mixes in more than enough tort lawsuits against deep-pocket defendants to maintain her lifestyle and afford her the opportunity to insert herself in one lurid, farcical news epic after another.

Interestingly, in the context of ‘contraceptive justice’ crusader Sandra Fluke, Ms. Allred herself got a free ride in Law school at Loyola U.  Her ex-husband, whom she cleaned out to the tune of $4 million dollars in divorce proceedings, paid her way through college.  No good deed goes unpunished.  Of course, the other way of looking at it – getting rid of that woman would probably be a bargain at half the price.

Going back to the Florida statute from 1883, I’m intrigued by the contradiction involved in Gloria Allred dredging that up.  That statute doesn’t say a word about a man’s reputation being publicly impeached.  Doesn’t that go against the tenets of Feminism?  Equal treatment, equal protection?   Do feminists really want the legal system to  protect their reputation from the imputation of  ‘a want of chastity’?  Was that what the bra-burnings were about?

As far as ‘tasteless’ goes – are we going to arrest and prosecute every example of tastelessness?  Better get cracking on a lot of new jails.  ‘Damaging’ women’s free speech rights.  I can think of a lot of women that will never have free speech rights, because of Ms. Allred’s persistent support of abortion.

Finally, Jane Fonda.  You were wondering when I was going to get to her, weren’t you?  Hanoi Jane Fonda – the indisputable cause of much physical and emotional suffering consequent to her aiding and abetting and giving comfort to our enemies in the Vietnam War.  Is that just a tiny bit more serious than Mr. Limbaugh, the meany, calling Ms. Fluke a bad name on the radio?

It’s fascinating that they (Fonda, Steinem and Morgan) bring up Joseph Goebbels in connection with Rush Limbaugh.  You’ll remember that Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of (dis) Information, presided over the infamous book burnings in Nazi Germany.  Bullying Clear Channel to remove Rush is the 21st Century equivalent of the censorship of the Third Reich.

And they’re  going to throw stones at Rush Limbaugh?  Rush should take them as badges of pride.

Advertisements