Thank the gods for my ability to read!

Television is a seriously disappointing medium. Just think of all the possibilities available when one combines audio & visual elements.... then consider the swill that network & cable television presents us with. *sigh* Here's my list of the most heinous bullshit the TV Gods are currently sending to our sets:

* The History Channel: Most of the programing aired on THC is fucking pointless, inaccurate, incomplete, or not even related to History at all. Examples include the plethora of military-minded shows like Mail Call, Battle 360, or Dogfights; the fear mongering What-If programs like Mega Disasters, Monsterquest, or UFO Hunters; the stupid (not to mention boring) chronicles of Masculine Professions like Ice Road Truckers, Tougher in Alaska, and Ax Men; or the completely unnecessary crap like Gangland or Modern Marvels. With millennia of human history behind us, you'd think they'd have something to base a show on every once in awhile.

* Reruns of the same played out shows: There are thousands of by-gone TV shows that could be thrown in the mix (like Nickelodeon's Are You Afraid of the Dark, Eerie Indiana, My So Called Life, Ab Fab, or EVEN Buffy the Vampire Slayer), instead of the terminal re-runs of Roseanne, The Golden Girls, Home Improvement, Saved by the Bell, or Angel. Give us a break!

* American Idol: WTF? Plenty of people can sing well. I am not impressed by a bunch of young bucks slaughtering classic songs & withstanding shit talking from a cranky Brit. I'm just not.

* C.S.I. or Law & Order: I'll admit that I used to be a L&O junkie but ,honestly, how many hacked up prostitutes & wealthy child molesters can one person handle? Besides, these investigators are always camera-ready (even when they've spent 16 hours at a crime scene) & they totally curtail constitutional rights like it ain't no thing. Propaganda much?

* E!, Vh1, and MTv celebrity "reality" shows: Who the fuck wants to keep up with the Kardashians? Or why should I care that Denise Richard's life is complicated? Why would anyone compete to fuck Flava Flav (or New York for that matter)?

* The Real World: This show was fucking Gold during the first N.Y. season. Also, the L.A., S.F., Miami, Boston, New Orleans & Seattle houses were entertaining (& bore some resemblance to the real world). Now, the show is basically a summer camp for beautiful co-eds, specifically chosen for their sexual appetites & taste for dramatics.

* Poker: I am bored to death when I watch LIVE poker tournaments between people I know (when I at least have the benefit of giving a damn about the drama between players), why the hell would I want to watch strangers bet more money than I make in a year on a game of chance? The only televised competition that is more yawn-inducing is Golf.

* Mind of Mencia: Common Stereotype + Predictable Punch Line - any attempt at originality = Carlos Mencia on Comedy Central. Just because he throws political correctness out the door doesn't make the show edgy, especially when his humor is similar to the shit we used to laugh at on the playground.

My fame precedes me

I wrote a shitty Letter to the Editor of my local paper & they actually printed it without the usual amount of edits & omissions! Read my sarcastic blurb HERE. ( under Leaving No Child Untested). Take that, Record editorial staff! That'll teach you to fuck with SUSD!

I’d like to introduce myself…

I am always annoyed by the implication that sexism is no longer a threat to women's equality. Just because Women's Lib reached it's peak in the '70s, businesswomen entered the boardroom (shoulder pads and all) in the '80s, and "Girl Power!" gained popularity in the '90s, it does not mean that modern women are free from the misogyny that plagued generations before us! The Spice Girls don't make for a revolution, God Damn It. Millennia of oppression can't exactly be undone with 30+ years of progressive activism! Shit, most people my age (late 20's) still can't self-identify as feminists without explaining that they Do Shave, they Are Straight, and they Want To Have Children. As if "feminist" was synonymous with "hairy, ugly, barren lesbian". At this point in human history, those of us willing to let go of cultural norms and traditional gender roles have realized that not all women are the Mommy-type, a penis does not automatically make a person superior, and just about the only skill that men possess but women do not is the ability to write their names in the snow.

That being said, studies and reports that aim to decode the reasons behind our current social shortcomings had better come up with something better than our lack of ambition, our biological inadequacies, or our Mother-ing instinct because (in case the researchers didn't notice) women are allowed to be literate these days. The study that lit my fuse on the subject is discussed HERE 

and is supposed to shine some light on the subject of women & political representation. According to Richard L. Fox of Loyola Marymount University and Jennifer L. Lawless of Brown University, the fundamental reason that women are under-represented in American political institutions is because (*drum roll, please*) women don't run for office since they lack the political ambition that men have!

This cop-out conclusion is just about disproved by the "factors" they attribute the gender gap in "ambition" to! According to the study, women have less political ambition because of the following five factors (my commentary is confined to the parentheses):

1. Women are less likely to be willing to endure the rigors of a political campaign. ("rigors" of political campaigning? Like what? Surviving slanderous attacks? Being constantly on display & subject to the opinions of the public? Sounds like A Day In The Life, to me)

2. Women are less likely than men to be recruited to run for office. (I'm unsure how this effects "ambition". This factor suggests to me that women are blocked from political positions because of sexism within the political parties. Right?)

3. Women are less likely than men to have the freedom to reconcile work and family obligations with a political career. (Once again, how is this "ambition" and not circumstance related to gender roles?)

4. Women are less likely than men to think they are "qualified" to run for office. (Here is an adequate reason for why women might lack political ambition! But it also suggests that women internalize the message that they are inferior, which would be a product of society's sexism)

5. Women are less likely than men to perceive a fair political environment. (See 2. Gee, I wonder why they would perceive things that way?)

Anyhow, the definition of the word "ambition" is 'an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power' & (aside from 4) none of these factors would necessarily effect the Desire to hold political office, as much as it would impact the belief that such a feat was possible. 

Governments are gross! And I’ve heard they have cooties too!

- Disgusting world events shrouded by a veil of Good Will and Progress make me want to scream. A perfect example of this type of information distortion is an article from BBC News titled "Cluster bomb ban treaty approved". According to the BBC, ten days of debate in Dublin resulted in an international ban on cluster bombs supported by 100+ countries. Of course, the treaty was not OKed by the United States, Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel, or China. At first glance, this article seems to suggest progress is being made toward promoting peace worldwide. Yeah! No Cluster Bombs! That's a good thing! Further thought on the matter suggests otherwise. Now, I'm all for getting rid of cluster bombs but if the U.S. isn't agreeing with an anti- weapons treaty, the treaty means squat. America is one of the largest stock-pilers of this kind of weaponry, not to mention the greatest producer of the bombs! If the U.S. isn't going to comply with international suggestion treaties (which is essentially what this is), you can bet your ass that Russia & China ain't fucking with it either! Israel is the United State's lapdog nation, so they'll never get on board with something opposed by the American government. Pakistan and India like to keep tight relations with Washington, especially where weapons & armorments are concerned, so they shouldn't be expected to flip-flop on the issue either. So, basically the point of the story is that the international community isn't yet ready to demand American compliance to international law or to call us out on our bully role in diplomacy. Everyone else thinks we're dicks, but they're still trying to convince us to change our ways (even if it has become clear that we have no intention of doing so). *sigh*

- I tipped off the ladies at feministing again (such a watchdog, I am). See post on the most ridiculous MySpace application HERE 

- Mother Jones' interactive Iraqi War timeline has been updated HERE. Stay informed & pissed; That's my motto!

Howard Zinn makes my brain tingle in a good way

<\/param><\/param><\/embed><\/object><\/div>";" alt="">
"What the Classroom Didn't Teach Me about the American Empire" by Howard Zinn

Not to perpetuate fear, but…

After refueling @ a 7-11 in Orlando, Fl, 18-year old Mildred Beaubrun & her friends were harassed by a carload of dudes. She didn't respond to their requests for her digits, so they threw a T-shirt & a battery at the young woman & followed their car for some distance, even attempting to run it off the road at one point. A shot was fired from the boy's car & it pierced the rear door of the girl's vehicle, striking Mildred in the backseat. It is not clear if she will live or if she does, whether or not the teen will walk again. Unbelievable. This is a big reason why I'm not always quick to rebuff annoying men - because fear is quite a prison cell. Read more @ Racialicious.

Poor Little Rich Girl & Korea’s beef with Beef

- Un-fucking-believable. Hillary actually suggested that sexism is the "single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world". She was implying that the sexism faced by her candidacy was a greater problem than the racism faced by Obama's campaign. Honestly, Hill? I am all for acknowledging the issue of sexism & I believe it's repercussions are greatly underestimated, BUT to assume that sexism is a greater problem than racism is ridiculous, not to mention arrogant coming from a relatively privileged woman! The issue of Class is much broader than that of gender discrimination and the Holy Trinity of Oppression (class, gender, and race) is so interwoven that accurate analysis of one is not possible without the others. It is clear to me that Hillary is trying to get some guilt-trip female votes in the last days of her campaign. That is why so many of us won't vote for her - She obviously is banking on her popularity with "She's Got A Vagina Too!" voters.

- 3000+ South Korean protesters in Seoul demonstrated against the recent relaxation of beef import regulations earlier today. Fear of U.S. beef being tainted with Mad Cow Disease (or BSE) prompted the protest. Since 2003, American beef has been banned in S. Korea (after a rash of Mad Cow cases), but during negotiations between the U.S. and S. Korea regarding a free trade agreement, American lawmakers made it clear that the agreement was No Go until concessions were made on beef exports. I sure am glad that American politicians have the time & energy to negotiate trade deals on behalf of the beef industry! Too bad they can't use that time to regulate the industry to protect U.S. consumers! Doing so might improve Korean attitudes towards U.S. beef imports as well, but common sense ain't so common & apparently politicians give a fuck less about the common good.

This is the Military Industrial Complex

In President Eisenhower's famous Farewell Address, he warned the nation of the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex. The MIC describes the economic dependency on war, the vast weapons & defense budgets, and the interests of those that stand to profit from military action. Ike told the nation: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex.The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together." Truer words were never spoken by a Republican!

Fast forward to the modern era & our current war in Iraq for a clear example of what Ike was concerned about. Here we have a war that was not instigated by the native citizenry or our own population, that is unpopular with both groups, that has undefined goals & undisclosed civilian casualties, YET continues to generate profits for the only thriving sector of the U.S. economy - The Defense Industry.

In fact, they ain't even trying to hide the bullshit! According to an audit (conducted by the defense department's inspector general) of the $8 billion paid to American & Iraqi contractors between 2001 and 2006, nearly every payment made failed to comply with U.S. laws intended to prevent fraud. The BBC News article about the enormous mismanagement of funds says that the audit uncovered a $11 million payment to a U.S. company that did not even include any information about the goods or services that were provided!

This is what war means to those wealthy demigods on Capitol Hill. People die in combat, social services are cut back at home, the nation of Iraq is thrown into chaos, untold numbers of innocent civilians are slaughtered / raped / robbed / assaulted, and our boys at the Pentagon can't even keep accurate records of where our tax dollars are going! There's a Memorial Day thought for you! "This Memorial Day, the United States government would like to thank all you poor souls killed in combat for helping to line the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex! God Bless You."

CNN: Clearly Not News

* By the way, CNN U.S. did not have a piece on the Iraq War fund debacle listed on it's homepage. What was important to include on the first page of the CNN site? The following retarded shit:

-"Why Israel is Talking to those Bush will not": A 'No Shit' article about why Israeli leaders talk to those nations that pose terrorist risks (like Lebanon, Iran, Egypt) instead of proceeding with unilateral warfare against the dissenters (a la Bush).

- Obama criticized over Auschwitz claim Another stupid attempt to discredit the Democratic forerunner by 'blasting' him for saying that his uncle helped to liberate the captives at the Nazi concentration camp. Auschwitz was liberated by Soviet soldiers and Obama meant to refer to the Buchenwald camp, but the Republican National Committee jumped at the chance to sully Barack's record on matters of defense. Not only did he incorrectly name the wrong camp, the RNC wants you to know that Obama's uncle didn't serve in WWII. It was his great uncle! Fucking Liar!

- Bush 'troubled' by activist's detainment But not by the 300+ detainees at Gitmo, huh? The article is referring to the 5-year detention of Myanmar's pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Dubya called on Myanmar to release all it's political prisoners and to open dialogue with Suu Kyi (*stifled laugh*). He actually called on "Burma" to do this, but the nation of Myanmar hasn't been known as "Burma" since the military coup of 1988. Excuse me for my presumptuousness, but shouldn't the leader of our nation be knowledgeable about the NAMES of countries he intends on giving advice? And shouldn't someone be responsible for making sure Dubya's hypocrisy is a little less obvious?

Remember what I said about not ignoring main stream media? Disregard that statement.

Focus on the Future

In my mind, the Democratic primaries have been over since I voted way back in February. It's been pretty clear to me that Barack Obama has had the nomination in his pocket since Super Tuesday & I've done all I can to avoid the pointless Blah-Blah-Blah of the media mouthpieces for the last three months. Now that Hillary is clearly defeated (not dead, just pathetic), let us focus on the upcoming Presidential election versus John McCain (Hillary, I am talking to you!). Republicans are great at winning elections through fear mongering, smear campaigning, and appealing to the nationalistic and religious values of many Americans. Democrats are great at losing elections because they waste time defending themselves from Republican attacks instead of hitting the G.O.P. with a harsh dose of their own medicine. I am not affiliated with the Democratic Party (not since they opted to run John Kerry against Bush in '04 & convinced me that they had no intentions of winning the election), but I usually vote that way out of fear of the G.O.P. & I'll be damned if I watch the Dems throw away another election that was practically gift wrapped for them! To prepare for the arduous months ahead that will undoubtedly be full of stupid accusations & cheap shots, here are a few "I know you are, but what am I?" comebacks for the slander I see in the future:

*** Reverend Jeremiah Wright: The news just won't let this one go, but they seem to forget the wacko Christians McCain is aligned with! John Hagee (wants American & Israeli military action in the Middle East because he thinks it will bring about the end of times & Christ's Second Coming), Pat Robertson (of 700 Club fame), and Rod Parsley (believes that the U.S. was "in part" founded to destroy Islam). Next time someone brings up Obama's angry minister; remind them of the racist, paranoid, sexist, Right Wing lunatics that back Johnny Boy. (Or don't. Read Katha Pollitt's Op-Ed from The Nation, titled Preachers & Politics, HERE. 

*** Casting Obama as an Elitist: I can't believe how many people actually believe the GOP when they suggest their opponents are "elitists". Their economic & foreign policies are the definition of Elitist Behavior! Just because Obama can deliver a speech like an intelligent educated person does not mean that he is part of some elitist conspiracy to smash the Common Man. His voting record illustrates his commitment to equality and liberty, so this argument is only an attempt to sway Every Day Joe voters to McCain.

*** Inexperience: McCain will trumpet his military service & Congressional experience as reason to elect him & he will undoubtedly point out how Barack has only served in Congress for a short time. To this, I would say: Hallelujah! Someone without lifelong connections to Washington lobbyists? YEAH! Experience don't mean shit since it's just another word that describes Commitments to The Status Quo.

*** Obama/Osama: Slap the next person that implies a fucking connection based on the fact that their names rhyme. It's ignorant.

*** Obama never served in the Military!: When John McCain's Vietnam torture experience is brought up to show how patriotic the man is, remind folks that he has flip-flopped on the torture issue, has signed off on huge reductions in Vet's benefits, and was down with the fucked up policy that has forced our military personnel into serving three or four terms in Iraq & Afghanistan illegally. Yeah, he served in the military but doesn't give a fuck about our current men & women overseas. That's just fucked.

Women’s News = Fluff, Fat, and Fashion!

I never bother to read any section of a newspaper directed specifically to women, because it's usually celebrity oriented swill, diet advice, fashion tips, recipes, and etiquette or advice from Ann Landers, Ms Manners, or Dear Abby. Not only do I find this boring & condescending, I also think it's inaccurate to label these topics as "women's" reading. The only person I knew that ever read Dear Abby was my ex-boyfriend. My former roommate was a male that couldn't get enough of celebrity gossip. The fashion and culinary worlds are dominated by male moguls (think Ralph Lauren, Wolfgang Puck, etc.). And to be entirely honest, why is a Women Only section necessary, unless a newspaper or periodical is aware of the fact that their editors don't approach women's issues as worthy of space in the rest of their pages? Recently, my hometown newspaper announced it's new weekly insert, San Joaquin Woman, and (as you may have guessed) I "missed" it's debut issue. For some reason, I can't even find reference to it on the paper's website & I think that says a whole lot about how important it's content must have been. The Wall Street Journal has also announced a female-specific section of it's publication. "Journal Women" has it's own webpage & (Surprise!) it's more of the same crap-o-la I mentioned above. It's headline Health & Wellness article is about suggested alternatives to the gym (as opposed to a piece on heart disease, the 1 killer of American women, or breast/cervical/uterine cancers), followed by a reminder that "mindless munching" isn't healthy (OMG! Really? I never knew that!). It's Style and Dress section has a particularly obnoxious article about showing too much cleavage at work related dinners (ANY female that has ever had boobs is well aware of the ruckus they can cause & we hardly need the Wall Street Journal to reiterate it to us. Fuck y'all, it ain't like we can leave them at home! My opinion about cleavage? The only reason it is cast as derogatory is because straight men are sexually aroused by boobs. It isn't our responsibility to make sure dudes are focused on work instead of our chests, so the WSJ can fuck off with their titty advice.). Journal Women also includes a blog titled "The Juggle", an obvious reference to the "juggling act" that working mothers struggle with. Apparently, the WSJ still buys into the mythology that working fathers aren't strapped with parenting duties that conflict with their work schedules. Working while parenting is difficult for everybody & perpetuating the notion that women have to perform a "juggling act" that men don't only backs up the stupid idea that men aren't (or shouldn't) be involved in child rearing like mothers or that women aren't competent enough to approach both tasks like men do.

People (usually guys) ask me why we need Women's History Month or magazines like Ms and this is exactly why! Because the "real" news or history excludes us. Bullshit inserts & separate sections for women only perpetuate the idea that we are somehow separate from the rest of society and our concerns or achievements aren't important to anyone but ourselves. To that I say: Penis envy, my ass! We suffer from spotlight envy, if anything! 

Fear of Fucking

Cat asked me once: "If you had a daughter, what beliefs would you want to instill in her?". I responded: "I would want her to think she was cool". My reasoning was that if a young girl believes that she is cool as she is, she is likely to have a healthier self image, more self esteem, and be more confident during the gauntlet of high school than her peers. She would be less subject to peer pressure, more sure of her academic abilities, and wouldn't feel the need to engage in sexual activities before she was ready to prove her worth. This last part came to mind earlier while I was browsing my favorite feminist news site and came across a link to the article located HERE. It's another ridiculous tale of wigged out parents, sex ed curriculum, and the hymens they think are endangered by truth. Parents in Schenectady (X-B-Aladocious), NY have beef with the school district because sex education taught to seventh and eighth graders relies on materials developed by Planned Parenthood. The instructor was never permitted to discuss abortion or abortion rights, so that is not the issue here. Instead, the problem that these dipshit caretakers have with the curriculum is the suggestion that "masturbation is a source of pleasure." An equally dipshit-esque doctor, Michael Rochet, warned that the suggestion would facilitate curiosity among students & would lead to more sexual activity. This particular county in New York has the state's second highest teen pregnancy rate and I'll bet it has more than a little bit to do with the fucked up approach of parents & educators to sexual matters. First off, masturbation is a source of pleasure and by 7th or 8th grade most of these kids already figured that out. Second, a sex ed course is supposed to educate the class about sex, not force feed them a bunch of moralistic bullshit, so that the teens will have the tools to approach sex (or not approach sex) with accurate information. Censoring subjects that the teens are already up on game about will only give them reason to doubt the accuracy of the rest of the shit they're taught & that won't help reduce the pregnancy rate, now would it? Instead of trusting in what they learn from the instructor, they will turn to the "wisdom" of peers & we all know how much bullshit boys tell girls in order to get in their pants ("You won't get pregnant if you jump up & down afterwards!", "You can't get pregnant in a pool!", or the ever popular "...if I pull out" line). Third, wouldn't casting masturbation in a favorable light be advantageous to the goal of reducing teen pregnancy? After all, if your "going it alone" there is no chance of becoming knocked up. This relates to my theory of child-rearing mentioned above because if these parents & that moronic doctor understood the motivations of many sexually active teens, the sex ed curriculum wouldn't be the villain here. Many teens have sex before they are ready to because they are looking for acceptance or approval during the time that their self esteem's are in the toilet. If a youngster has faith in their coolness, if they believe they are loved and they are worth something regardless of what their peers say or do to them, they aren't going to need the approval or acceptance of a would-be statutory rapist. When you pair that with an accurate dose of sex ed, you are more likely to have teenagers that abstain from sex until they are ready to get down like mature folks. And that's real talk!

Bitches ain't shit, but Hoes & Tricks

Really, Dude? Sexism didn't play a role in the anti-Hillary campaign because deserves to be labeled a bitch since she's "tough", "aggressive", and "abrasive"? This guy is for real? Somebody needs to define "sexism" for the guy before they allow him to speak on it.

The War on Drugs and the Prison Industrial Complex

The War on Drugs was first declared by President Nixon in 1972 (the "war" part was intended to mirror LBJ's War on Poverty, which used militarized language to suggest hard core commitment to the eradication of poverty. By the way, how's that war coming along anyhow?). Nixon's plan was to reduce the supply & demand for illegal drugs that the feds had deemed harmful to the American populace. The "schedules" used to classify drugs according to their perceived usefulness was born with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 & the DEA was established shortly there after to enforce federal drug policy. The cry for drug & narcotics regulation stemmed from reports about the unusually high rates of heroin usage amongst American military men serving in Vietnam and the belief that the social upheaval of the 1960's & 70's was fueled by a drug culture that was intent on destroying "America's values". In 1988, Reagan's administration created the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the position of U.S. Drug Czar to head up the ONDCP, after which the criminalization of small time drug users & dealers was a matter of national policy.

Since the declaration of war was made, the United States has enlisted the help, cooperation, and/or subservience of various foreign nations to carry out military actions & influence policy under the guise of eradicating drug abuse, thus encroaching on the sovereign rights of nations and expanding the role of America in international politics. We've used the War on Drugs to justify invading Panama, financing Columbia's internal military conflict with the FARC, and placing DEA agents all over the world to investigate drug trafficking outside our borders (which, by the way, isn't our right to do).

Probably the most disastrous aspect of the War on Drugs is it's effects on the civil liberties of the American people. Freedom from illegal search and seizure, guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, is often disregarded in drug enforcement cases & sometimes legislation validates this violation. Forced sterilization of drug addicted mothers was (and is) imposed. Millions are incarcerated for decades for non-violent drug crimes; their possessions are confiscated, their children are shuffled into the social services system, their rights are trampled; all in the name of Drug Policy.

The National Research Council commissioned the Committee .. and Research for Policy on Illegal Drugs to look into the effects of the War on Drugs in 1998. In 2001, their findings were published. The NRC committee statement read: "It is unconscionable for this country to continue to carry out a public policy of this magnitude and cost without any way of knowing whether and to what extent it is having the desired effect." Essentially, we have no substantial results to justify U.S. drug policy or the hundreds of billions of dollars we throw at the problem annually.

It is my opinion (and that of scores of intellectuals, law enforcement personnel, policy analysts, activists, and average Joe's nationwide) that the War on Drugs is a failed endeavor that only serves to feed the bloated Prison System and subject the American people to life in a police state. My reasoning is as follows:

The War on Drugs hasn't reduced drug use, drug abuse, or drug traffic & has, therefore, failed. Do you know anyone that hasn't smoked weed? I pretty much assume anyone I come across smokes pot or at least they used to before they had to quit for a job, a drug test, pregnancy, or paranoia. Most of the chicks I know have been into meth at one point or another. I have a mother, three uncle(types), two aunt(types), and have had at least two close personal friends that were heroin addicts. Everyone sees the dozens of crack heads that prowl the corner of Harding & Pacific. With a little effort, I'm sure I could get my hands on any Schedule I or II narcotic I could think of. Just my own personal experience proves to me that prohibition ain't working! Cocaine & opiates have to be imported here, so their continued presence proves the inadequacy of anti-trafficking measures. As long as there is money to be made & good times to be had, I doubt that the illegal drug trade can ever be eradicated.

Drug prohibition is unconstitutional: The founding document of our country explicitly outlines the powers of the federal government, because our Founders were understandably wary of an over bearing central government. Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant federal oversight of drug policy, but Washington has erroneously claimed the right anyhow. According to the tenth amendment in the Bill of Rights, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Additionally, the liberty granted to the people in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is illegally denied by prohibition.

Far too much money is wasted on Drug War policies: In 2006, the U.S. allocated $30 billion for the drug war campaign's annual budget. This figure does not include the cost of housing non-violent drug offenders in prison or providing for the orphaned children of prisoners.

Personal freedom is an American value: That somehow is completely ignored when policy makers talk about drug use! It baffles me that the mighty American government concerns themselves with what people choose to do in their free time! How is it a federal concern that Joe Schmo gets high or Suzy Homemaker get wired? Frankly, it's not. They aren't terribly concerned with whether or not we have food on our tables, whether we receive an adequate education, or have access to healthcare, so personal drug use shouldn't be a political talking point either.

Incarceration rates are astronomical & ridiculous: Using mandatory minimum sentences, no-knock raids, and plea bargain informants, the feds have managed to lock up more of our population for bullshit than any other nation. The sentences for black men charged with drug crimes are on average 49% longer than for white men. The number of women incarcerated for drug offenses has risen 421% since 1986, with 70-75% of those being non-violent offenders.

I've got more to say, but I'm strapped for time at the moment, so I'll leave you with these words of wisdom:

"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."

- Hunter S. Thompson

"Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs."

- Lily Tomlin

"Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice"

- Arcesilaus

Ill Doctrine is just that

I've watched one or two of ill docrine's video blogs before (might have even re-posted them here), but today I spent some time browsing his posts over HERE. & I must say "The boy is an insightful one". This video was particularly on point & his analogy of politicians being similar to plumbers is worth listening to.

I Love California

Most of us are familiar with the United States Constitution and it's amendments, but what many folks don't remember is that as a state, California has it's own Constitution that specifically protects us coastal folk from the tyranny of the few. Our state constitution was ratified in 1879 & has since been amended over 500 times! We have a much broader selection of inalienable rights as Californians, such as:

-Article 1, Section 1 defines our rights as "enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.". Unlike the U.S. Constitution, privacy is explicitly protected in California. No if's, and's, or but's about it. That is why abortion is constitutionally protected in California, regardless of the federal opinion!

- Article 1, Section 3 reads: "The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.". In California, you have the right to know what they're doing in Sacramento & the whole secrecy-for-security bullshit they pull in Washington ain't legal in these parts.

- Article 1, Section 8 reads: "A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin." The Equal Rights Amendment that failed to be tacked on to the federal constitution is alive & well in Cali.

- Article1, Section 14 reads: " A person unable to understand English who is charged with a crime has a right to an interpreter throughout the proceedings.". That is why they get to go first at the courthouse, it is a constitutional right!

- Article 1, Section 20 says: "Non-citizens have the same property rights as citizens.". We have compelled ourselves to treat non-citizens as human beings too! How novel!

- Article 1, Section 21: "Property owned before marriage or acquired during marriage by gift, will, or inheritance is separate property.". Give me my dowry back, motherfucker.

Women Hating Women (and the University that loves them)

- Phyllis Schlafly sucks. Here's a CNN piece on the Washington University hoopla.

Trans Toddlers, Bratty Babies, and my Sexist Self Image

This NPR piece about youngsters whose biological sex is at odds with their gender identities & the "treatment" sought by their parentals is terribly interesting. In the case of Bradley (the biological male that identified as female by age 3), I found it worth pondering that the mother was only compelled to seek "treatment" when she realized how dangerous such gender non-conformity would be for Bradley (other boys would surely beat him up & torment him for being a Barbie-loving, girly-boy!). This is very similar to the way parents come down on their daughter's behavior to protect them from the boys that might victimize them (teaching us to 'act like a girl', be quiet & let the boys lead, how to avoid dressing like a slut, run to Daddy for help rather than handle your own business, etc.). Poor kid! Identifying with us females wins him the same oppressive bullshit every teen girl is well aware of! He's better off getting used to the privilege that comes with a penis, if you ask me! Seriously though, I started thinking about how I would approach such a situation if I were the parent of a transgendered toddler & I would like to think that I would be all balls-out (pun intended) like the parents of Jonah/Jona, but I doubt that would be the case. I can empathize with the concerns of Bradley's parents & I remember how fucking mean kids can be to each other. Can you imagine how scary it must be to fear for your kid's safety because who he or she is, how he or she chooses to act or play or dress, how your kid chooses to express their identity is so offensive to other people that violence is an ever-present danger? The stress must be overwhelming. The parents want their kid to be happy, but on the other hand they want their kid safe. That is a fucking quandary. Thoughts?

Speaking of kids, I fucking hate breeders that bring their spawn to restaurants & allow the lil' bastards to trash the place (Cheerios all over the floor & shit...), then ditch the server with the mess & a shitty tip. I understand that toddlers are quick & in to everything so cups will be knocked over, food will be left in the booths, and whining (sometimes downright tantrums) will occur from time to time. BUT the parent is responsible for the kid, therefore the parent is also responsible for the inconvenience they may cause. If you expect the wait staff to deal with Hurricane Baby, tip them accordingly & apologize profusely. It's only common decency, people!

A study of 600 racially & socio-economically diverse teen girls from California & Georgia suggests that how a girl perceives sexism & sexual harassment is largely influenced by cultural factors. According to the researchers; Asst. Professor of Psychology Christia Brown from the University of Kentucky College of Arts and Sciences and Psychology Professor Campbell Leaper of the University of California Santa Cruz; exposure to feminist ideas and less pressure from family members to conform to gender stereotypes resulted in teens that were more likely to identify & report sexual harassment or sexism. Girls brought up without such exposure were more likely to attribute negative sexual attention as the product of their own shortcomings. I can totally buy into this line of reasoning, based on my own girlhood experience. I was the first of three daughters that my Dad, in all his sexist glory, was unprepared to raise. He had very set ideas about what a "girl" was & my vocal aggressive manner was not what he had in mind. I was indirectly taught that my loudmouth & the fact that I refused to be a wilting violet was the reason boys harassed me about my boobs, why they made sexual advances I didn't want, and why they treated me the way they did. As a youngster, I thought that boys harassed me because I brought the attention on myself. Never did it occur to me that they were wrong for grabbing my boobs! I was at fault for wearing too tight of a T-shirt! Fucking sexist parental units are suckier than I thought!

Along the same vein, here's a retarded article about street harassment entitled:Catcalling: creepy or a compliment? Gee, I'll bet the reason gals, myself included, see the absence of cat-callers as an indication that they look bad has more than a little bit to do with the above mentioned cultural conditioning!

Dark Days & Drunken Nights

I've not been in the best of moods lately, as some of y'all may have noticed. Being sad is not one of my strong suits (I think it makes my ass look fat). I've managed to get past the worst of it (I think) & have found my way back to the happy medium I prefer (the "angry" place, as I call it). My goals for the next week, include: turning my phone back on, staying out of the bottom of a bottle, attending my scheduled work shifts, and getting around to cleaning up the scattered shards from my birthday (when I said "scattered shards", I wasn't talking in the figurative "my life sucks" way, I literally mean that my basement is carpeted with glass shards & I gotta' deal with that shit!). Until then, here's my commentary and/or complaints:

*** Phyllis "Gender Traitor" Schlafly got dissed in a big way at Washington University's commencement ceremony, where the Evil One was scheduled to receive an honorary doctorate on Friday. According to a WU professor, approximately 75% of the 2800 graduates and 2/3 of the remaining audience (est. 14,000) turned their backs on Schlafly during her introduction & speech in protest. A few faculty members even left the stage to join the in the show of disapproval. Schlafly's response? The dissenters were "bitter women" and "a bunch of losers" that had been mislead by women's studies courses and the protest was "juvenile". According to the Ultimate Hypocrite, the protesters had little respect for the stay-at-home wife/homemaker, female ideal she champions as a mold for us all. Funny how the lady thinks you & I should be prepping for our future Donna Reed roles (or should be already living the "dream" in my case), but she has made a career traveling the nation on speaking tours, writing books, & heading up organizations in complete opposition to that very ideal... I promise as soon as she shuts the fuck up & abides by her own advice, I will stop referring to her as my own personal Anti Christ! Anyhow, here's the link to a video of the event, courtesy of FOX. Can we stop calling her "conservative" and just start calling her "crazy"?

*** The latest issue to arise relating to the stupid fence that Homeland Security is building along the Mexican border has spawned a class-action lawsuit, filed yesterday in Texas. According to The Record, Texas mayors and business owners have filed the suit alleging that HLS Secretary Michael Chertoff cheated landowners out of their due compensation & failed to adequately inform them of their property rights. The suit seeks to suspend work on the fence & force Homeland Security to renegotiate all contracts with landowners. Of course, HLS mouthpieces called the suit a "delaying tactic" & refused to comment on the validity of it's charges.

*** The ladies at feministing.com (whom I admire & have much respect for) recently posted a bit dissing Obama for calling a reporter "sweetie". While I get the point that his comment is, by definition, sexist, I can't entirely agree that it was wrong. As a waitress that barely holds it together when folks bark orders & requests at me from all directions, I find myself referring to customers as "hon", "dear", "doll", etc. as a way to show them that I mean no disrespect when I ignore them because I'm busy. I'll fly by a table a few times on an errand or what not, but when I finally do get around to taking their order, I say things like "what can I do for you, hon?" just to prove that it wasn't anything personal. Watching the video of Barack's faux pas (below), I found myself relating to his usage of the word "sweetie". It seems to me that he is trying to get through the throng of reporters & isn't trying to ignore the woman's question, so he throws out the term of endearment to let her know heard her but can't respond just yet. Thoughts?

Is a married gay guy a “Mrs.” too?

After all, "Mrs" stands for "Mister's" when it is used to define a married female and a married gay guy would also be his "Mister's" husband, so...

It's things like this that make me glad to be a Californian! The state's Supreme Court shot down legislation that prohibited marriage between same sex couples because it was deemed to be unconstitutional. The ban was approved by state voters in 2000, with 61.4% of the vote, but the court's 4-to-3 ruling nullified the prohibition on Friday. Honestly, I can't understand the legal basis for same sex marriage bans in the first place. What argument, other than homophobic ramblings, can one give to defend such legislation? In my opinion, marriage isn't much more than officially laying claim to an individual's sexual services, cashing in on a bunch of tax/insurance/financial benefits, legitimizing your relationship in the eyes of conservative friends & family members, all preceded by a kick-ass party. Who the fuck are we to deny anyone this kind of stuff based on sexual orientation? If we can't do it based on criminal record, IQ, or marital history, why should who somebody fucks matter?

Birthday in a Basement: Re-Cap

Thanks to all those folks that showed up last night; I had a fucking blast! Quite possibly the funniest birthday party I've had in years! No drama, more than enough alcohol, entertaining companions, and (besides the lack of sexual interaction) an all over kick ass night! A few things we learned last night were: 1. My Me First & the Gimmie Gimmies Take A Break CD is totally fucking scratched, making 'Nothing Compares 2 U' unplayable. 2. The Date Rape bed is freaky as hell now, especially with all the references to that Belgian molester guy, Thanks a lot 3. Breaking glass is so much fun when nobody gets in trouble for it! I knew that indoor window served a purpose 4. I've got to get some decent colored paint or the basement is gonna’ look like a murder scene 5. When in doubt, The Clash always works. On a individual personal note:

- Little: I loved the fact that you & Ray came through, but I hate the fact that we smokers had to segregate because of our shitty habit. I love you, my bro-in-law, and the currently incubating niece your carrying around. Mi familia por vida, bitches.

- Cat: As always, the in-it-for-the-long-haul homegirl & official party photographer, Ms Cat (soon to be Mrs Cat?) kept the atmosphere upbeat & the party crackin'. You know how indispensable you are, Girl!

- Buster: I am so fucking glad you were down to party like a rock star even though my whip-cracking sister scheduled you to work in the am. "Nostalgia" is right! (P.S. As I was writing this, I changed my shirt...again).

- Dustin: Understand that I'm a drunk, an asshole, and completely full of shit. Except where that shiny shirt is concerned. Thanks for using your nose as a paint print on the mural & putting up with my quasi-abusive antics.

- Kelly & Anthony: I love you guys! Next time, I'll just lock you downstairs & prohibit you from attending work the next day. Funny how Ant left me his keys, just as y'all brought mine back.

- Shannon: Thank you so much for coming over! Cat, Buster, & I were chuggin' on that bottle of Malibu all night! Much Love, my fellow history buff!

- Casey: I'm an asshole, huh? Still love your crippled ass though. Sorry I sucker punched you.

- Aaron & Sarah: Too bad y'all couldn't stay longer, but let me tell y'all "I Love Free Birthday Pills".

- Jessica: Dude, I was like waiting for y'all to get there all night & then y'all ditch me for Silas & Stokely? Your forgiven because those make-up bags you got me are fucking cute (& the Bare Essentials lotion set kicks ass too)!

- Katie: Having responsibilities, like jobs that make you show up before noon, sucks. BUT the kitty crack accessories you gave me are greatly appreciated! Sorry I was too whacked out to pay attention! Love you!

- Sarah: Dude! Long time no see! Now you know where I'm at, feel free to come through dude!

- OT: Your tits look great. Good thing our sexual preferences differ or I might have to start seeing you as competition!

- Becca: I haven't been cooking because there isn't anyone to eat the leftovers anymore! Miss you! Hey, We're having a baby!

- Melissa & Jen: Thanks for coming by & I'm sorry I was two sheets to the wind by that point! I'm sorta amusing though, so 'your welcome'!

- Sam & Amanda: Thank you for participating the debauchery that was last night! Cha cha cha.

- Everyone Else: Dudes & Dudettes, thank you and Goddess Bless.

To the people that couldn't make it, no biggie baby! Elaine has the flu & understandably was bed ridden. Tosh loves his Mommy & that is all good. Brittany was on a rat hunting safari & her PETA-esque commitment is commendable. No hard feelings y'all. You just owe me a beer or two.