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

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?

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)