Bobby ‘Disgrace’ Jindal Lands Book Deal

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a disgrace to the Indian-American community, has gotten himself a book deal, according to the Times Picayune.

Due out in 2010, the book will be ghost written by Peter Schweizer and focus on Bobby’s ‘life and policy ideas,’ the paper reports.

A Republican, Right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist, Jindal is an outspoken opponent of basic rights for women.

As we wrote in 2007,  Bobby is opposed to abortion without exception. This means even if the woman’s health is at risk or the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest, Bobby Jindal would not condone abortion.

Bobby Jindal is also a votary of the nonsensical theory of Intelligent Design,  the infantile notion of Christian fundamentalists that Darwin’s theory of Evolution is wrong.

10 Responses to "Bobby ‘Disgrace’ Jindal Lands Book Deal"

  1. the gora   April 12, 2009 at 10:30 pm

    You mean he landed a book deal, just like Barack Obama. Responds:

    God, please.

    Unlike Bobby Jindal, Obama is not anti-Women.
    Unlike Bobby Jindal, Obama is not a believer in the Intelligent Design nonsense.
    Unlike Bobby Jindal, Obama is not against Gay Rights.

  2. the gora   April 13, 2009 at 1:06 am

    If abortion was legalized that means it would be legal for women who don’t want a baby because it would ruin their sex life, or because she doesn’t want to ruin her figure, or eat for two for nine months, or have to stop going to school, or because she just isn’t ready, or because she doesn’t want another one after seeing how annoying the first few are, or because she found out the baby’s dick wasn’t big enough in the ultrasound, or because the baby had a dick and she wanted a baby that didn’t have a dick, or vice versa, or because she isn’t sure who the father is, especially if it’s not her current boyfriend or husband, or because her boyfriend is not a desi and her desi parents would disown her if she brought a half-caste baby into the world, let alone if she married the non-desi, or if she already has six kids and only wanted one but not eight more (the anti-Nadya Suleman), or because she could afford to raise one baby but not twins, or because when the baby was conceived the husband was alive but in the month since he was shot and killed in Iraq while on duty, or because she is 15, or because she is 51, or because she just got into a fight with her husband or boyfriend and she figures this is a good way to get revenge on him and to piss him off, or because she is living in Cuba at the moment and wants to wait until she gets on the raft and lands in Miami because having a baby on the raft would put everyone else in jeopardy, or because the father is an alcoholic and she doesn’t want to bring someone with that alcoholic gene into the world, or because she is training for the Olympics in 2010 in Vancouver and this would disrupt her preparations but she can get pregnant in April of 2010 after the Olympics are over and that will be okay.

    Just about all of these situations do not take into account one of the biggest farces of a “woman’s choice” in that it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child and in all reasonable circumstances she alone should not have the sole decision on whether or not to play God in deciding whether she wants to keep a baby or kill it. While allowing for abortions in the case of rape, incest and when the woman’s health is in danger appear to be legitimate and noble reasons, the fact is that legalizing abortion would open up the floodgates for a deluge of not so legitimate reasons. Say it was to be legalized for rape, incest, and when a woman’s health is in danger, how would the abortion clinic prove that the woman was really there for one of these reasons. What if the woman says she was raped, but now it’s a month later and she never went to a hospital to be examined by a rape nurse with a rape exam kit to document it? Or if she never goes to the police and so there is no police report to back her up either? So the clinic says, “Sorry, but we don’t believe you and legally we can’t perform an abortion unless there is proof you were raped.” Or it could go the opposite way and no proof is needed, so a woman could just be in a normal, happy relationship with her husband, but lies and tells the doctor she was raped by another man and the doctor has to accept her word, no questions asked, even though it is a total lie and she just doesn’t want to tell her husband she is pregnant because she is 45 and in the middle of starting her career again after already having two kids, which she feels is the amount of kids she only planned on having. As far as I’m concerned, the abortion issue is black and white, kind of like being pregnant. You are either pregnant or not pregnant. There is no such thing as being kinda pregnant. If abortion is to be legalized, then it must be legalized full stop with no stipulations. But I believe that would be 100% wrong, which is why I am against abortion period.

    On a slightly related topic, the University of Notre Dame should be ashamed of themselves. As a Catholic University, their fallback excuse of “we always invite the standing President to speak at commencement” is as lame as it gets. Why have your school represent a certain set of principles for your student body if you are not going to follow through on them? All it does is demonstrate a spineless administration. I would have no issue if Obama wants to go ahead and speak at Arizona State, because they are a state school. But it is completely hypocritical of Notre Dame to say that they espouse Catholic teaching when they are inviting someone in to speak, President or no President, who contradicts one of the core values of Catholicism. Events like this are why I no longer practice religion, because so many leaders from different faiths, including Catholicism, present a “Do as I say, not as I do” mentality.

    As for the other issues (anti-women, Intelligent Design, Gay Rights), I have yet to find a Utopian candidate in any form of politics that I agreed with on every single stance they took on every single issue. I certainly did not agree with everything John McCain and Sarah Palin had to say, but I did not hesitate to vote for them over Barack Obama and Joe Biden. For as much as everyone claims that this election proved that Obama being named president makes all things possible now that a black man is in the White House, I have never seen an instance where class distinction seemed to be the great unspoken deciding factor. The election was not decided on the issue of race vs. gender as so many people in the media tried to talk about: voting a black man into the White House vs. voting in the first woman as a VP. Rather it hinged on the perceived class distinction between the people on each ticket. People such as Bill Maher were making outrageous comments on the late night talk show circuit to slag McCain and Palin as much as possible. Maher at one point, I believe on the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, asked Americans who they would rather vote for: A ticket featuring a young, handsome, Harvard-educated gentleman who rose up through Chicago (possibly the most corrupt city political system in the country, but that’s a whole other topic) big city politics, or a ticket featuring an old man and an Alaskan white trash woman who rose up by being the mayor of a town of less than 10,000? By that logic, the only people qualified to govern in any city or town are those who have Ivy-league degrees AND have experience in a big city, which would eliminate about 99% of the population. While Bill Maher sounded smart in telling everyone that we should vote for a Harvard degree over “white trash,” he basically insulted the quality of education and lifestyle of every person in America, and perhaps the world, who never was smart enough to go to Harvard, or rich enough to live in the big city or the big city suburbs and therefore is of a lower class and nobility than those of the Obama ilk. So this election was not about race or gender. Instead, it was more about class. People like Maher went on the airwaves to try and stress how foolish it would be to vote for a white trash/low class candidate, instead of a Harvard educated/upper class candidate. Funny how Maher thought it was perfectly acceptable to call Palin white trash but seemed to make no derogatory statement of the fact that Obama’s black father abandoned his mother in stereotypical fashion and left her to raise him with his grandma.

    By Maher’s logic, Warren Buffett is way less qualified to run for President than say David Rockefeller because Rockefeller was born into a distinguished family, got his undergraduate degree from Harvard, went on to further study at the London School of Economics and also got a Ph.D from the University of Chicago, whereas Buffett grew up humbly in Omaha, and while he started at the Wharton School at Penn, left there and wound up graduating from a measly white trash state school, the University of Nebraska, and got his Masters at Columbia University, which is not as holy as Harvard. Funny how Maher was encouraging citizens to vote for Obama on the platform that he is a Harvard educated gentleman, while he chose to abstain from mentioning that your favorite whipping boy, George W. Bush, got his undergraduate degree from Yale… AND an MBA from Harvard, the first president to have an MBA. Responds:

    1. You write above: If abortion is to be legalized, then it must be legalized full stop with no stipulations

    Agree that abortion should be allowed under any and all circumstances.

    2. You write: While allowing for abortions in the case of rape, incest and when the woman’s health is in danger appear to be legitimate and noble reasons, the fact is that legalizing abortion would open up the floodgates for a deluge of not so legitimate reasons

    Who are we to decide what’s a legitimate reason and what’s not a legitimate reason. Let the woman decide.

    3. You write: On a slightly related topic, the University of Notre Dame should be ashamed of themselves. As a Catholic University, their fallback excuse of….

    The Catholic church, its benefactors and supporters have bigger issues to worry about – their biggest problem is the crisis of credibility since the disclosures of the last few years that the Catholic priests have been buggering altar boys and other young kids for decades with impunity as the Church looked the other way or transferred them to other parishes where the priests continued their reckless and wanton behavior.

    Inviting Obama to speak would perhaps give these clowns some credibility.

    As we’ve said countless times, all religion is nonsense and often provides a cover for conduct of nefarious activities. Hindus in India use the cloak of religion to kill Muslims, Catholics in U.S. have used the shelter of religion to bugger altar boys, the Muslims in the Middle East rely on religion as the excuse for their daily bombing parties and for the Jews in Israel, religion is the basis for making life hell for Palestinians.

    4. Our fear is by taking on too many issues (the latest being immigration reform), Obama will end up achieving little.

    5. You use the term ‘class distinction’ when you mean classy.

    Class distinction is more of an economic construct like who has more money. McCain (with his wife) would probably end up winner in the class contest.

  3. SRINIVAS   April 13, 2009 at 2:15 am

    that guy converted to Christianity from Hinduism and see what’s happened to him ?? …Anyway even if you dont like somebody ….they have a right to write a book….

  4. the gora   April 13, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    “Who are we to decide what’s a legitimate reason and what’s not a legitimate reason. Let the woman decide.”

    If you are going to go with that argument, then that would mean that it is the woman’s responsibility 100%. That means that the woman is the only one responsible for birth control. So if a guy doesn’t wear a condom, or if it breaks, and the resulting pregnancy is unplanned, the man should be absolved of any responsibility whatsoever because she should have been on the pill. That would also mean that women would have no right to ask for child support payments from the father if they do decide to have the baby.

    It’s completely wrong for women to be able to have 100% decision making power in whether or not to keep the baby. If the woman wants that “right” or “choice” and she decides to keep it, then the woman should also be 100% responsible for child support instead of taking the man to court for it. That is the problem with gynocentric thinking. Some women want all the power and responsibility, but only when it suits them and is advantageous. Responds:

    The problem with extending responsibility for the abortion decision beyond the woman is that tomorrow the state, church and other entities will want to get involved and ultimately impose restrictions on her decision.

    That’s why a pro-choice decision should be left to the woman.

  5. babyface   April 13, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    Gora, have you lived with a pregnant woman/girl? have you witnessed her delivering a baby? Woman carries the baby for 9.5 grueling months. So she has 95% say in the decision.. and to keep things simple, leave the pro-choice decision to her.. 100%. Responds:

    Off-topic: It’s Monday. Free RedBox day…we was (black enough?) watching Chris Rock: Kill the Messenger. Hence the delay in processing this comment and the previous one (Kreacher).

  6. the gora   April 13, 2009 at 10:57 pm


    Yes, I have lived with a pregnant woman. In fact, I have lived inside a pregnant woman, my mother.

    There is a choice to have sex (or in this day and age, there is a choice to have IVF). Sex is between TWO people, and when a baby is created that sex happens between a man AND woman. That is one of the consequences of the choice that is made to have sex, and people have to realize and accept the consequences of their actions. I have never bought into this whole “woman carries the baby so it’s her ‘choice'” argument. Apparently the whole concept of a family with a man AND woman sharing equal responsibility for creating and raising a child is lost on too many people nowadays.

    @ SI: Go watch Sophie’s Choice with your darling Meryl Streep. To me there is no difference between the “choice” of abortion and the choice she makes at the end of the movie. Responds:

    Yes, we’ll watch Sophie’s Choice (hopefully soon).

  7. babyface   April 14, 2009 at 12:36 am

    @the Gora

    living inside doesn’t count.

    woman undergoes 300 days of pregnancy which culminates in this bloody mess..
    You device a new way where men will get pregnant and deliver babies, then we(males) can consider fighting for equal rights.. till then mothers are special.. it’s their choice.

    although you claim not to practice religion, it’s remnants seem to have some influence on your opinions.

  8. SRINIVAS   April 14, 2009 at 1:09 am

    The state has no role to play in two people deciding to have a relationship …whatever be the nature ..marriage or live-in ……..neither does the state have any role to play in thier decision to have or not have a child ……neither is the state going to take care of the child on a day to day basis ….

    The only scenario in which a state /church or community can intervene in personal decisions is if they start affecting the society at large in a very adverse way ……if tomm population starts dwindling ….like Europe …..Lot of Bastards keep roaming around ….and they create problems …..Insitutuion of Marraige collapses …..etc etc …

    Opinions or Ideologies cannot become policies and …enforced on people ……unless there is a strong justification in the form of facts to warrant that Responds:

    You write above: The state has no role to play in two people deciding to have a relationship …whatever be the nature ..marriage or live-in ……..neither does the state have any role to play in thier decision to have or not have a child ……

    Very true.

    But in the U.S., abortion is such a divisive issue, particularly during elections.

    Abortion is the “Ram Temple’ issue of the U.S.

    Anti-abortionists in the U.S. even bomb clinics that offer abortion services and kill doctors..

  9. the gora   April 14, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    The state makes rules on “personal” decisions every day, like deciding when to charge people with heavy fines for spitting or chewing gum in Singapore, or putting people in jail for not paying taxes. Or deciding when there should be heavy taxes, or no taxes (Florida).

    People love to rail on the selfishness and greed of Bernie Madoff, but abortion itself is also a selfish and greedy decision. It is putting a woman’s personal wants and needs, or a man’s wants and needs, or both their wants and needs, ahead of the future and life of someone else. The root of the problem is the selfishness associated with it. If you had a newborn, would you spend $500 on diapers, food and clothes, or would you piss away the $500 on a plasma tv and then say, “Oh, I guess I’d rather have this tv instead of the baby. I’ll just watch the tv instead of taking care of the baby because it can’t fend for itself.” So you could then let the baby shit all over itself and cry and not feed it until it dies while you decide to watch tv, because that is your “personal” decision. When the cop comes to the door and arrests you are you going to say, “Oh but officer, I wanted to buy a tv and spend all day watching it instead of taking care of this baby. That is my personal decision. The state you are representing should not be getting involved in my personal affairs.”

    Bullshit. There is no difference between a child inside vs. outside the uterus. The fact is that we live in society, where people’s responsibilities and actions affect all those around them, not just themselves. That is why the state puts laws in place to make sure people don’t just make up their own rules according to their whims and fancies. After all, Bernie Madoff’s “personal” decisions have affected millions of people, just as George W. Bush’s and Barack Obama’s do. Responds:

    You write: There is no difference between a child inside vs. outside the uterus.

    The problem with your argument is that it takes us back to the basic question: Does life begin at conception or at birth?

    We think life begins at birth not at conception.

  10. SRINIVAS   April 15, 2009 at 3:10 am

    I read that wikepedia link ….all strange things happen in US ….why should Dick decide whether Jack and Jill should have a baby or not ?? ….and to go to such a extent … stop abortion ?

    In India female infanticide is a issue ….Govt / society is tackling it and there has been some improvement ….

    These people instead of trying to stop abortions …should take care of orphans in the society … Responds:

    You write: These people instead of trying to stop abortions …should take care of orphans in the society …

    The problem is behind the troublesome issue of abortion you often have the right-wing Christian nuts (Example: Bobby Jindal) and their followers. Jindal is against abortion even if the mother’s life is at risk.

    Religion is one of the greatest sources of strife in the world, be it India, U.S., Israel, Palestine or Pakistan.

    BTW, is it easy to get an abortion in India?

    Maybe, India should add abortion to the medical tourism package. Buy One Bypass, Get one Abortion Free (for friend or family member).

You must be logged in to post a comment Login