[	mood	|	bubbly	]
[	music	|	Sheryl Crowe - Every Day is a Winding Road	]

Shut up, I can listen to Sheryl Crow if I damn well please.

Today I want to talk about a very serious subject. Today I want to talk about Kinky Friedman.
Feel free to read on whenever you stop laughing.

Now see, the thing is, as most of you should know, Kinky is running for governor of Texas. Because he is running as an independent, he has to get 45,540 people to sign his petition just to get on the ballot. Guys, seriously, the man is the most politically incorrect thing on the face of the earth, which is exactly what Texas needs right now. I mean hell, even if you aren't active in politics... he made a band called Kinky and the Texas Jewboys. Think of how hilarious it would be if he won. Just think.

So really, at least give him a look. He gave Bill Clinton a Cuban cigar in a crowded room, while Clinton was still in office, and said to think of it not as helping the Cuban economy, but as burning their fields. If nothing else, he's entertaining.

Christ, if I can get off my lazy duff to sign the petition and vote, surely you can! If you're from Nac you don't even have to go out of your way to some silly ol' polling station to sign:

"Live music featuring local talent will be featured at all of the signing events. Flashback Cafe and Java Jack's coffee house are other official signing stations and will hold events on March 22 and 29, respectively."

Source -- The Pine Log Online

Kinky himself is going to be at SFA Monday the 20th from noon until 1:30... I forgot the building, but I'll update when I find out and there are flyers pinned up all over the place (the Ferguson building in particular is swarming with them). I'm skipping history for it, and you should too. Let's help make something hilarious and awesome happen. It'll be like the LED Throwies campaign, only less sparkly, and it could actually make a difference in the way this state is run. The Texas constitution is roughly 10 times as long as the United States constitution... 10 times longer for one single state. Something is wrong, wouldn't you say? It actually used to detail how stationery was to be bought. In the freakin' constitution. Yeah.

[	mood	|	aggravated	]
[	music	|	Apocalyptica - Nothing Else Matters	]

I'm disgusted with South Dakota. Simply disgusted. It's not so much that they are trying to outlaw abortion -- no no, I could write that off as silly conservativism -- they are making it impossible for victims of rape and incest to get an abortion unless their lives are in danger! What kind of heartless bastard had that idea??
"Yes ma'am, I understand that carrying the child of a man who forced himself on you is very traumatic, but let's just forget all that and carry it to 9 months, ok?"

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a 12 year old is raped by her father and becomes pregnant. How sick, just utterly sick, is it to force her to carry that baby to term when it could painlessly be aborted during the first trimester and prevent so much trauma both for the mother and for the child should it find out about the circumstances surrounding its conception in the future? God... that is exactly the kind of situation this law could (and will, should it stay in place for any length of time) lead to. How'd you like to be the one to tell a 12 year old child that she is going to have to have a baby, by no fault of her own? What if she were your daughter?

Fuck right to life for a lump of unfeeling, nonsentient tissue; think about the goddamn mothers who DO feel. It's barbaric not to have an out clause for victims of rape or incest, and for women whose health is at risk. That's right, you heard me. You still get to carry the baby to term at the risk of your own health just so long as you're not going to die before it is delivered. It may shorten your lifespan by a good 10 years, but what the hell, why not? Here's where the 12 year old scenario comes into play once more. The body of a 12 year old isn't made for carrying children, and yet she would be forced to do just that. Appalling.

I pray to God that when this issue makes it to the Supreme Court, they at least have the foresight to include some ground rules instead of just turning the entire matter over to the states (which is what they will do, rest assured.) Currently, states cannot regulate 1st trimester abortions, can only regulate 2nd trimester abortions when the mother's health is not at risk and it was not a case of rape or incest, and can freely regulate 3rd trimester abortions. I'd be fine with having the same rules as for 2nd trimester abortions across the board, since some states would still keep it legal, but being able to regulate it no matter what is just too risky... that's too much power in the hands of states like South Dakota. Of course, I'd hate for states to be able to make 1st trimester abortions illegal because poorer women don't have the option of traveling out of state for an abortion, but if you've gotta make a compromise, the one stated above is better than nothing.

Thank goodness it's so easy to convince a psychiatrist you're suicidal, or there'd be no way out. You do consider that a valid risk to someone's life, right South Dakota?

[	mood	|	amused	]
[	music	|	Tripod - King of the Video Arcade	]

Ever want to know how to perform a dilation and curettage abortion using real medical instruments?? Well today is your lucky day!

Molly Saves the Day

Now you, too, with $2,000 or less, can open a backyard abortion clinic!

[EDIT]
Ok, I read some of the rest of the blog that abortion manual is found on, and let me just say, I hate modern feminists. As Timur put it the other day, it is a lost cause -- quite literally. I mean sure, it was a great idea when women's suffrage and property rights were issues, but what exactly is the movement fighting for now, at least in America, Britain, Australia, and other such countries where the sexes are so equal? Of course, if they overturn Roe v. Wade, then maybe the American ladies will have something legitimate to bitch about during their monthly cycles, but I'm honestly left wondering what the issue is.

It's not so much that women can't do something, it's that they won't. That is nobody's fault but their own. You want to get paid as much as men? Do a good job and demand a raise. You want more women in politics and science? Find some who are interested. The point is that women have the option of equality, it's no sin if they don't choose it. Equal opportunity, not equal results; that's fair. Equal results is a policy advocated in communism, and as we've seen so many times throughout history, that shit just don't fly. The problem is social now, not legal, and maybe it's just the pragmatist in me talking, but being that social ideals and trends are such ethereal things I don't see any clear cut way to combat them. It's like trying to cut through fog. Change comes through individuals setting examples for others, not through bitching and "raging against the machine". The machine is cold and unfeeling, it can't hear you. Luckily, if even a single cog changes direction it can throw a wrench in the whole shebang. I mean, I have a uterus, and yet I'm on my way to becoming a scientist... where's this magical opposition I've been hearing so much about? Maybe it's because I'm only on my second year of college, but you can be damned sure that should that opposition rear it's ugly head, it ain't gonna stop me from doing what I want to do, no sir.

And another thing, what's with the feminist movement's strong opposition to prostitution? What, I thought women were supposed to have options? If they want to be degraded for a quick buck that's their business. Feminists oppose prostitution for the same moral reasons everyone else does, it's just another of the many thinly veiled excuses to make it sound like there's a legitimate reason. And yes, I am saying that I don't think morality is a legitimate reason to oppose something. I think two concenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want, whether or not money is part of the equation.

I think maybe the real purpose of the modern feminist movement is to divert blame. They use society as a scapegoat rather than simply trying harder in the face of opposition. Moreover, they have their own standard of what an ideal woman is and what women should be (very aware and proud of their womanhood,) so in a way it's just another face of social stereotyping. Instead of meek and submissive babymakers, now we're supposed to be career women who are obnoxiously outspoken. Just stop it already. When you learn to ignore the issue of sex and gender altogether, that's when you've really won the battle. When you see a person instead of a man or a woman, that's when you've got true equality.

Now get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich, bitch.