Pierre, SD (Rotters) – One day after signing into law the nation’s toughest ban on abortion Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota announced a public relations campaign to fight the expected boycott from national pro-choice organizations. The legislation is widely viewed as merely a blatant attempt at forcing the issue of gradually overthrowing Roe versus Wade in what is now considered an ideologically sympathetic Supreme Court. The law forbids any abortion, even in cases of rape or incest and threatens physicians performing them with five years in prison.
A spokesperson for the governor stated that the new campaign will offer no apologies for the governor and the state’s position, and will instead embrace and promote what they view as a sweeping national trend.
President George W. Bush registered his opposition to the planned legislation earlier in January, stating that he favored exceptions for abortion in cases of rape or incest. “With the president’s poll numbers continuing to plummet, we feel like we’ve got a real shot at this,” stated a spokesperson for the governor. “It’s really sad to see the president abandoning the Conservative Republican values and issues which got him elected.”
A representative for the public relations firm that South Dakota has hired stated that the campaign would basically be a reworking of a previously successful tourism campaign which is already in place, thus saving the state from an excessive expenditure. The slogan will be, “South Burkhota: Hiding Faces. Straight Laces.” The public relations representative stated, “Our advance marketing indicates that this has real appeal to 50% of America and would likely increase tourism and possibly relocation to the state. It makes a real values statement about what Republicans and South Dakotans are all about and sends a strong message of safety and security in the global war on terror.”
Future plans for the campaign will include bright blue souvenir burkhas for sale at all highway state welcome centers. They will be emblazoned with the new campaign slogan and an artist’s rendition of Mount Rushmore, one of the state’s main tourist attractions.
OMG. This brilliant, Bood. May it be broadcast far and wide.
South Dakota: Where Men Are Men, and Women Aren’t Much of Anything.
I’d like to offer myself here for target practice, if anybody wants to take aim.
After I made the above comment, I walked away and then suddenly thought, “Wait a minute. I objected when SusanHu posted that cartoon of the Muslim man in the turban with the missile in it, and I especially objected to what seemed to be support for the idea of broadcasting it far and wide. Have I done the very thing to which I objected?”
I’m going to track down Ductape and ManEegee to see what they think about this, but I would really welcome anybody else’s evaluation, too.
Here was my thinking, in both cases:
In the case of the cartoon, it reminded me of anti-Jewish cartoons the Nazis posted and of how Germans didn’t object to those. I was worried about the potential of the cartoons to make the lives of innocent Muslims harder and more dangerous. (I’m not saying I was right or wrong, I’m just telling you my thought and feeling process. I understand that free speech absolutists have a different take on it.)
In the case of Bood’s billboard, my thought was that it was attacking our own homegrown hypocrisy, not somebody else’s. It is us making fun of ourselves, was my feeling, and it is showing that we endanger our own women. And yet. . .the situation seems uncomfortably familiar.
I don’t blame anybody who doesn’t want to get into this, but I respect the opinions of an awfully lot of people here, and so I would be interested to know what you think. IS there a difference between the two pieces of artwork, and the idea of broadcasting them far and wide, and if so, what do you think that difference is? And if not, why not?
Thank you.
This is just the Jeckyl and Hyde nature of the left.
In one moment we can rail against religious fundamentalists in South Dakota and in the next we can get offended at people that rail against religious fundamentalists in the Middle East.
Bood puts it together and you recognize the dissonance.
We can recognize that some women like their burkas without agreeing that women should be forced to wear them. We can recognize the legitimacy of modesty as a way of preserving dignity without insisting you have to be modest to have dignity.
And we can make fun of those we disagree with without hand-wringing guilt. That’s my take on it.
Thanks, Boo.
Coupla differences, IMNSHO.
🙂
bood, I like the commentary you’ve added with your images, they have gotten consistently better throughout the year that I’ve read your stuff. I voted for your Wizard of Oil post as Most Humorous in the Koufax Awards, good luck!
i went back and forth with the Wiz of Oil and Bob Johnson’s squirrel worship. They both deserve awards, as have a number of Bob and Bood’s efforts.
squirrel worship was hilarious, reminded me of my years as a long-time Farkster before the blogs arrived.
I hear ya. 🙂
“Not on the frontpage” was something I hadn’t thought of, so thanks for adding that.
Bood’s image is in context with the forced birth law just signed in So. Dakota.
Story A friend of mine here in the SF area is Pakistani. She travels home regularly and when she is there she wears various head scarves in the city. When she travels she has apparel that can be adapted when her flights land in either Saudi Arabia or UAE on the trip to Pakistan.
We will be travelling with her and her husband in the next year or so. And her mother (a dress maker) is making me appropriate clothes for travel in-country. It is appropriate to reasonably accept another person’s culture when in their country.
Summation
It is a Muslim tradition/oppression to have women wear Burkhas – not a wing nut quasi-Christian tradition. Perhaps it would be better to portray the women with old fashioned, button to the top, victorian dresses and head scarves. The picture is still ‘importing’ negative aspects of Islam for purposes of satire.
Just my .02 – now I think I’ll work on some really big spreadsheets for a while….
Let me come out as a particularly humor-impaired, self-righteous pc person. (Damn! I wanted to keep that hidden!)
When I first read the post I thoroughly appreciated the humor and the wit, but there was a slight tinge of unease. And that unease is due to what SallyCat has said above–why must the awfulness of what the wing-nut Christians are doing be presented via a detour through Islam?
In the current conditions of course it is funny to see that comparison, given the Christian fundies demonization of Islam and vice-versa.
But, if the ultimate of all evil is Islamic fundamentalism, and all other evils are represented as being more or less close to that nadir, we just re-inforce anti-Islamic sentiment. This comparison works insidiously to inoculate other evils, those that do not arise either from Islam, or the middle-east, or the third world, from their rightful criticism.
The response this joke elicits is “Of course, we are not those benighted people, we are better than them and can’t the South Dakotan fundies understand that?”
Does this joke really deserve this sort of commentary–no of course not! My only excuse is that Kansas asked and I thought I’ll respond.
I’m sorry! 🙂 And I especially apologize to poor Dood whose diary I hijacked. But I hate being a hypocrite and I knew I could trust my pals here to tell me if I was being one.
And sorry, poco, you may claim to be humorless but your previous posts prove that to be a lie, do you hear me, a vile lie.
I’ve got it, Bood! South Dakota’s next step is going to be that women who come to the Annual Stugis Motorcycle gathering are going to have to ride sidesaddle!
(And Mom, if you are reading this, NO, I have not taken up riding on motorcycles, sidesaddle or otherwise. Not to worry. )