This is the cover for a mix that I made for my niece, whose birthday was about a week ago. She just turned 17. My whole family, mom, two sisters, two teenagers, and assorted pets (three dogs! ferrrets!) are leaving tomorrow on a Beverly-Hillbillies trip to the shallow south to look at colleges for her. We're going as far as Charleston, which I'm really excited to see. I'll try to check in if I can and let y'all know how it's goin'. Here is the mix list of feel-good teeny bopper songs I will also be listening to on our trip:

1. ragtime interlude/ i’m really hot- missy elliot
2. take me out- franz ferdinand
3. kissability- sonic youth
4. an open letter to NYC- beastie boys
5. bullet and a target- citizen cope
6. buffalos- homelife
7. rich- yeah yeah yeahs
8. good fortune- pj harvey
9. extraordinary- liz phair
10. turn a square- shins
11. gabe’s new joint- antibalas
12. birthday- the sugarcubes
13. the dress looks nice on you- sufjan stevens
14. griot village- mali music

Sooo cute! what's weird is that he isn't even albino, he's genuinely white. But is it a sign of the end of the world? "And lo, the white bear of Tidioute did appear in the final ages of man..." Tidioute by the way is a very rustic part of Pennsyltucky near the teeming metropoli of Warren and Pleasantville. Fun fact: “Tidioute� (pronounced tiddy-oot) is an Iroquois (Seneca) Indian word meaning 'protrusion of land'. Enjoy your Apocalypse!

Okay, so follow me on this metaphor. The United States of America, our noble motherland, has borne 50 screaming offspring in the form of our federated states (each one bears some resemblance to its mommy, but each has its own unique attitude too. Some state brothers resemble each other about as much as Cain and Abel, doncha think?)

So now my question is, is it too late to abort Texas? I mean, it's not nearly in the third-trimester of American history like Massachusettes say, or even New York. Texas was only conceived as a state in 1845. And that whole independent republic thing... doesn't that make them a bit of a test tube baby, trying to gestate outside their mother's tummy? I say, git rid of 'em. Like any sensible teenage would-be mom who wakes up three weeks later to realize she's bearing a baby the world doesn't want, we should make an appointment at Planned Nationhood, and vaccuum that offending fetus right out of us.

So what's the point of this belabored (heh heh) metaphor. Oh, only that today I heard a report on the radio that Texas, a state that spends millions on abstinence "education" and regularly purges information about contraception from school books has, you guessed it, the nation's highest rate of teeanage pregnancies, and thus, the highest rate of abortions. Put that in your Bible totin', Job quotin', God smotin' pipe and fucking smoke it. Oh, and in doing a little research about Texas, I also found out that, for the same blaringly obvious reasons, they also have the fourth highest rate of new HIV cases. So much for preserving the sanctity of human life.

Any fool who can read a UNICEF report knows that contraception information and honest sex education indeed lower the rates of teenage pregnancies and STD transmission. For instance: Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, those cesspools of human depravity, where they readily inform kids about the consequences of sex, have about between 5 and 10 births per thousand teenagers. And in the US, where we tell them to trust in Jesus and just don't do "it", well, we're at about 53 births per thousand. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1213875,00.html) Study after study proves this, while the BU(ll)SH(it) administration keeps putting funding pressure on US government offices, non-profits and even international NGO's to stress abstinence over the logic and scientifically sound research behind contraceptive programs.

So why do conservatives, who abhor abortion so much they're willing to use terrorist tactics to prevent it, not get the connection? I mean, let's clear up a stereotype here, they're not all ignorant inbred rednecks! In fact some of them are very intelligent, if maleficent, manipulators who dupe and deny the low-income masses that make up most of their constituency (and most of the victims of teenage pregnancy as well).

So here's my conspiracy theory. The conservative don't give two shits about the sanctity of human life, the welfare of young mothers, or even their own souls for that matter. The whole thing is a red herring to motivate and mobilize the masses, whip them into a frenzy, as it were. I mean, what sounds nobler than the innocent untouched soul of a parasitic lump of proteiny goo?

The contradictions are there for anyone to see. Firstly, abstinence education leads to more abortions. That's right, Texas, my little lad, abstinence causes abortion. Ironic, isn't it? Also, I've never understood how you can be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time. Bring the kids into a life where their mother is poor, underage, and under educated, and then turn murderously sanctimonious when, gasp! he becomes a criminal. The right to life doesn't mean much in Texas then, even if you're mentally retarded or wrongly convicted.

There are about 850,000 abortions performed in the entire country per year, and the number has actually been falling o
ve
r the past thirty years of "sexual immorality" and Planned Parenthood that conservatives are so ready to decry. At the same time, over 6 million people are killed each year in car wrecks. Surely not all of them are evil people? Surely they have a right to life? But you don't see conservatives chaining themselves to the front steps of Ford Motors, or expunging drivers ed from the curriculum, or lobbying for more commuter trains. No. Why? Because its not about life stupid, its about the moral frenzy. What about the santicity of other surely innocent lives that are lost to depraved circumstances? Like the 2,500 left-handed people who die each year from using right-handed products, or the 100 people who choke on ball point pen caps? Dear God won't someone give them a pencil!

So the long and the short of it is, that the pro-life movement isn't about the preciousness of human life. Not at all. It's about religious "ethics" concealing a fascist rhetoric that seeks to condemn and control those factions of life that fascist always go after first: the weak. People who get abortions are obviously women, but are also predominantly people of color, people who are poor, and a quarter of them are people who are under 20 and who maybe honest-to-God just didn't know what would happen when they had sex, because no one told them. The anti-abortion movement, once you clear away all it's irrational rhetoric, isn't about life, it's about sexism, racism, and power.

And what's scariest of all, do you know how fascist in power always go after their victims, how they prey on the weakest and most vulnerable segments of society? By claiming that they're their victims, or that they are standing up for the rights of the victims (in this case, the unborn child). Take a look at Theodor Adorno's case for this-- he very clearly lays out how the Nazi justified their crimes against the Jews by blaming all of Germany's problems on them. And so all our budget woes and social disintergration is not free market capitalism run-amok, or disingenuios politicians who serve only their coporate pantheons of gods, but poor high-school girls who don't know how to keep their pants on, and a morally bereft liberal media... oh wait, the morally bereft liberal media is owned by conservatives. Sometimes I just can't cobble the "logic" together the way they can...

One last note: some of you out there may know I'm a Christian, and may be shocked, yes shocked, by the revelation (heh heh again). But I am, and that's why murderous hate-filled fear-mongers who hurt people and ruin lives in the name of Christ so royally piss me off. I'd like to advise them to actually read about the God they say they worship. He hung out most of the time with prostitutes and convicts and yes, even that scum of human existence, tax-collectors. Why? Because they were the ones who needed Him the most. So I'm going to get some bumper stickers printed up if anyone wants them: "Just 'cause I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm an Ignorant Bigot" and "Pro-Choice and Pro-Christ". How's that for contradiction.

Oh, one more thing: In honor of the Venus Divine Gillete razor campaign, who kindly gave me a coupon at the Taste of Buffalo (I can take a hint!), I would like to invite you all first to go to their rilly cool site and find your goddess name (mine's Highly Original Leader who Loves Youthfully) and play some super fun games!! Like trivia about which is the right way to shave your bikini line! I mean is there a wrong way!? FUN!

Then I would like you all to suggest your own favorite goddess in response. Mine's Kali, the consort of Krishna, upon whom she steps. Take a look at this great article: . A quote about Kali:

"Kali's four arms represent the complete circle of creation and destruction, which is contained within her. She represents the inherent creative and destructive rhythms of the cosmos. Her right hands, making the mudras of "fear not" and conferring boons, represent the creative aspect of Kali, while the left hands, holding a bloodied sword and a severed head represent her destructive aspect. The bloodied sword and severed head symbolize the destruction of ignorance and the dawning of knowledge. The sword is the sword of knowledge, that cuts the knots of ignorance and destroys false consciousness (the severed head). Kali opens the gates of freedom with this sword, having cut the eight bonds that bind human beings. Finally her three eyes represent the sun, moon, and fire, with which she is able to observe the three modes of time: past, present and future. This attribute is also the origin of the name Kali, which is the feminine form of 'Kala', the Sanskrit term for Time. "

A recent CNN/Gallup poll suggests that voters view presumptive Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry as having a larger package to offer than President Bush. Many pundits are suggesting that in such a close election year, every inch counts.

"I think women voters especially think that Kerry's the man who can really give them what they want," said one unnamed campaign official. "Of course, there are also a lot of men who are worried he will stick it to them," he added.

What remains to be seen, according to many campaign insiders, is whether Kerry will be able to keep it up until the climax of the election. Advisors close to the candidate say he is stiffening his conviction as the Democratic Convention approaches at the end of the month. However, observers fear he may peak too early, and shoot his wad of funds on self-serving advertisements that leave some voters feeling numb.

"What I really want from a candidate," remarked one woman at a rally, "is the sense that my needs come first. I'm tired of doing what it takes to get him elected, while I remain unsatisfied."

(Ahhh... if only actual campaigns were so uncomplicated)

So I will repond to Jessbob, who feels cranky: [inlink]jessbob,30[/inlink]. Jessbob, you can't be that cranky if the only criticism you had about my inflammatory Texas posting was the metaphorical liberties I took with the mother/federal system thing. So thanks for the fact-check and for not pouncing!

And in response I would like to say I did read your article on Intellectual Wastebasket about creating ratings for the radio to reduce obscenity. And I hit it again today to double check some facts. So that's two hits from me.

I've been thinking about what you wrote and have to respectfully disagree with its premise. (This is fun!) The FCC obscenity regulations are already painfully confusing and obscure. While it might be interesting to clarify and codify them so that they rank levels of obscenity to protect the precious virgin ears of the children (a bad metaphor perhaps; what would a not-virgin ear be? Eeeeewww...) I only think it would make an already labrynthine system more contradictory. Besides, aren't conservatives generally for DE-regulation?

Which brings me to what I think is the real cause of widespread obscenity, not only on the radio, but in most media. It's a pretty predictable liberal dodge. Can you guess what it is? That's right, kids! Corporate consolidation and domination!

The reason that the airwaves have become so fouled with smut is that the corporate owners like Clear Channel offer the same narrow margin of content and thus are almost indistinguishable from each other. How then can they stand out from the crowd? Flaming poop, that's how! There's nothing like titillation to keep the listeners tuned in, whether its Stern's scatologia or Limbaugh's hysteria.

If there were more community driven media, I would argue, there would be less obscenity and sexuality on the airwaves because people might talk about things of actual importance, like local politics or cultural events. (Case in point: this here e-strip, only mildly profane.) We wouldn't be constantly bombarded with the same bass-thumping ass-shakin' music from channel to channel, trying shoulder each other off the dial, because every station would be playing its own thang. These facts need checking, but out of like 30,000 albums that get released each year, only about 200 get real air time. And a lot of those 200 records come with parental advisory stickers. Why aren't we hearing the other 29,800 titles? And what about the probably uncountable local acts who can't get airtime anywhere?

So it isn't obscenity that needs to be regulated, it's the corporate behemoths. Reining them in would give us livelier, local-er, more diverse, and yes, cleaner radio, tv, whatever. I mean, when was the last time you saw a Girl Gone Wild on your local PBS station? (Who admittedly are also heavily regulated. I wish I had an example from a community based TV program, but seeing as there are none in Buffalo...)

Here's a quote from the Seattle Statement on Radio from reclaimthemedia.org that I agree with. I can find more sources if anyone is interested:

"The tendency towards vulgar and discriminatory shock-value programming on talk radio is encouraged and amplified by commercial factors, and the desire to attract attention at little cost. The problem is systemic, and should be addressed by systemic transformation rather than by selective fines and making examples out of individual violators. While the FCC should use greater discernment in reviewing license renewal applications, threats of nonrenewal should be linked to a station's commitment to diversity and local accountability, not the selective enforcement of industry-wide problems"

Respectfully,
Girl Gone Mild

There's a funny article in the NY Times today about Bush hedging his anti-gay marriage position now that his amendment got the slap-down in the Senate (Bush Refines His Position on a Measure Banning Gay Marriage ). And they accuse Kerry of calculating his postions based on public opinion and not his "convictions"! Now that he got Bush Whacked, it seems like Bush is a little less "convicted" than he was when he proposed the idea. Not that I think he should stick to his guns on this one! Hah! But I just thought I'd jump on his hypocrisy with my usual venom. Ah, incorrigible liberal me.

Here's what Bush said on Friday and some of the Times article:

""What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do," Mr. Bush said during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania on Friday, seeking to distinguish between private behavior and giving legal sanction to same-sex marriages. "This is America. It's a free society. But it doesn't mean we have to redefine traditional marriage."

By hedging his position, if only a bit, Mr. Bush may have insulated himself somewhat from the sting of the defeat the proposed amendment suffered in the Senate on Wednesday. But the way in which the proposal went down with a whimper - short of a simple majority, much less the two-thirds of the Senate needed for approval - raised questions about whether the White House had fundamentally misjudged the nation's attitude on the issue. And the vote left even some of Mr. Bush's own advisers wondering if his backing of the amendment did not hurt him politically more than it helped by further stoking opposition to him from the left."

The Bush Admin, at least from my biased perspective, just seems to keep reading the voters wrong. They're falling out of step, shooting themselves in the foot, tripping over their own shoelaces, and other smelly foot metaphors that mean "Bush Stinks"!... pppbbbbbttthhh! (that's a fourth grade tongue-sticking out with blubbery spitty sound, in case anyone can't tell)

eek! in my goddess enthusiasm haste I got krishna and shiva all mixed up... please take a look at ajay's journal [inlink]ajay,54[/inlink] for the fact check. is there like a bengali or punjabi word that's as good as the yiddish word "shiksa", which means something like "white girl cultural tourist who gets it all fucked up?"

kali still rocks though... :)

so i got a elmwoodstrip email from an out-of-town lurker, a ghost that lurks my memories everyday anyway, try as i may to forget. he found me on this, the big book of shit, as it were. the first moment i opened the mail i felt exhilarated, elated, devastated and jaded all at once. baggage, anyone?

have you ever had your life "gutted", e-peepers? like on this old house or something when they completely redo the insides of a house and they rip everything out and start over again? the outside looks the same more or less but the interior is totally changed. only a supporting wall or a firey place might be saved. has that ever happened to anyone out there?

so even republicans are saying that now that kerry has named a running mate he should get as much as a 15 point bump in the polls during the month of july. hopefully now that he's tapped edwards and the DNC is fast approaching, he'll be able to put a less wooden face on things. the good news is that even though kerry has been running such a crummy campaign bush seems to be losing it for him... his approval ratings are at the lowest rate they've ever been, and under the 50 point mark. there are all these cool mojo formulas for predicting presidential races. one of them is that an incumbent with approval ratings under 50% at this point in the race never wins. of course, i've heard some also very credible braiiins say things about in an economy this good, and low interest rates, yadda yadda, the incumbent never loses. oh yeah, except in one instance. bush senior.

so john edwards. i do like him, although he's a little clintonesque in a skeevy way maybe. but he's a populist, and very charistmatic, it's true. maybe he'll help people see the "softer side of kerry". it's strange to me that he's such a good campaigner and great speaker and yet he didn't win but one primary, and that in his home state. what goes on in the minds of these white haired old dems? either way, he's big with undecideds, independents, and swingers, i mean swing voters, who are about the only voters who anybody cares about in this unprecedentedly polarized election. when i heard the announcement on my clock radio this morning, i was so relieved, since all the polls have shown that the kerry/edwards matchup would be the best. although i feel like kerry read those polls too, which is a little calculating (this is one of the criticisms the bush camp is gonna lob at him.) but with edward's politician smile and grassroots style, we could be looking at 16 years of democrats. maybe by then the rebulicon gestation period will be over and their thoraxes will explode or they'll just return to their home friggin planet fer fuck sake!