Palin and Pasties (Or The Lack Thereof)

OK. For those of you who thrill at GGG's rants-n-raves, make yourself a ginormous bowl of popcorn and get a vat of Coke, because I'm ready for a good one today!

First off, let me set the scene. Picture it: Central Texas, 2008. A trim, healthy, active, not-too-bad-looking mom is walking through a local grocery store, selecting fresh fruits and vegetables to take home and lovingly prepare for her two young children. She takes pride in having "gotten her body back," even if she had to do so by force, and is trying to model healthy lifestyles for said children, despite how much people at the bank love to hand out lollypops and grandparents smuggle in root beer and gummi snacks. (Side bar: did I mention that I think Bud has a cavity the size of Tropical Storm Ike in his sweet little molar?!? More on that in two weeks when we see the dentist. Back to your regularly scheduled kvetching session...)

So yes, there we were in the local grocery store. We were really savoring some mommy-and-me time, seeing as Li'l G is already in school and he will begin his foray into official preschool tomorrow. *sniff, sniff* Just as we were unloading the cart, I cast my eyes up to the trashy tabloids and other various rags they sell at the checkout. The next thing I see is a painted nipple, and I wanted to be ill.

You know, I remember the first time I saw a bathing suit that had been, literally, painted on. It was a good 7-10 years ago in an allegded swimsuit magazine that comes out once a year because, you know, lots of women read this particular periodical. On top of that, I'm sure this magazine is marketed to equally as many women as men, and I don't know about you other people lacking penises, but I love gawking at other women whose hobbies are hang gliding and watching Kung-Fu while eating Hooters hotwings.

I couldn't believe that the people who published this magazine had gotten away with putting a little Crayola Tempera paint on this woman's hoo-ha (the scientific name, FYI) and publishing this without plastic wrapping around it! It was one of those moments where you say, "Am I the only one who just saw that?!?" Apparently I wasn't, but apparently I'm the only one who was shocked by it.

There is a fully naked woman on the front of this magazine. Every single woman in it, to include Paris Hilton, are completely nude. There are no pasties on their tender mercies, although I'm sure there's some kind of "artistic saran wrap" on their nether-regions. I reeeeeaaallly don't want to know how they pulled this off. I'm not going to post a link to anywhere on the Internet where you can find it, as I'm sure it's pretty easy to do. Heck, you can be at the Quickie Mart and send your five year old in with $5 to get you a copy of your very own. And THAT, dear readers, is why I'm ranting and raving today.

Go ahead -- I triple dog dare someone to comment using the words "First Amendment Rights" on this blog. What's at stake here is not the First Stinkin' Amendment. I think we've all been drug down the road of speech really meaning expression in general this sad day and age. Actually, I wonder if the founding fathers are rolling in their graves to look at the issues of our day in comparison to the ones of theirs: surviving epidemics, religious persecution, and being under the tyrannical rule of a separate nation. At any rate, we live in a society that we have created. I know that I cannot keep pornographers from being profitable at their chosen profession. But I do know that we have laws that limit its accessibility. If this particular magazine wants to publish this type of magazine, there's nothing legally that can be done about it. I just wish that it would be wrapped up and an ID card presented before purchase. Yes, kids under 18 will still likely get their hands on it, just like booze and cigarettes. We can't keep them from doing it, but if there are deterrents along the way, it might make the hassle not worth it or, heaven forbid, it might cause them to think about what they're doing. The fact that this magazine is sitting at eye level with my three and a half year old, next to other non-pornographic magazines, is unacceptable to me. Plain and simple.

And while we're at it, let's talk about the freedom of speech/expression. We are all free to spew forth whatever comes to our minds without fear of imprisonment or persecution, and that's an amazing gift not to be taken for granted. Our soldiers stand in harm's way 24/7 to ensure that this freedom remains ours to use or not use as we choose. What baffles me is how we deal with the repercussions of said free speech/expression. Maybe this is why our court systems are clogged hopelessly with litigation-happy people who can't resolve their issues without having the law step in like a frazzled, worn out parent, and peel the two fighting siblings off each other. Here's what I think: You have a right to say/express whatever you want. I maintain that I have a right to not have to hear it, experience it, or acknowledge it. There's a reason why strip clubs don't have windows! I just wish there was some legal stance those of us could take that don't want anything to do with a certain activity. Almost like an intellectual restraining order or something. I'm not trying to prohibit this woman's right to be an exhibitionist. I'm just want to be left alone and not be affronted with her colorful, naked mammaries when I'm at the supermarket. If I wanted that, I could gaze at my own any time I wanted. Oh, but if I take out my breasts as I'm writing a check, that's considered public indecency. I could go to jail for that. But if I paint them with the kids' fingerpaints before I leave the house, does that make it legal??? Just some food for thought...

As another side note regarding our civil liberties, something else that really peels my potatoes is when people cry out "freedom of religion" or "separation of church and state." (which, dear readers, IS A PHRASE NOT FOUND IN OUR CONSTITUTION, NOR IS IT FOUND IN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS. Feel free to peruse here.) I cannot think of a single time when this was used on someone of any other religion than Christian. Christians receive verbal lynchings in ways that would make every member of the ACLU suicidal if it were being said of a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, agnostic, or atheist. But the minute Christians form the words, "God," or, "Jesus," on their lips, we get whacked across the nose by Lady Liberty with her spare copy of the Constitution rolled up like Sunday's newspaper. If, indeed, we as Americans feel the need to enforce the laws this way, I'd like to see a little consistency. That's really all I'm asking for.

And speaking of consistency, that leads me to my last rant-n-rave topic of the day. Ever since Sen. McCain announced that Sarah Palin would be his running mate during this election, people have been in a political whirlwind about his choice. Let me say upfront: I don't care what body parts you were born with. If you're going to be a president or vice president of my country, gender and/or race is not something I care at all about. What I care about is this: are you the right human being for the job??? Most of us agree that we don't know much about her. As I learn more about her, I think she's pretty interesting. But I will say this: she has a 17 year old daughter who is pregnant. Again, I'm not going to link to this news, as it is prolific on almost any website you come across. But here's an opportunity to display some character.

Palin professes to be a pro-life candidate. I'm not going to blog about abortion, pro-choice, pro-life, or anything like that. I don't think it's an edifying conversation about which to blog. What impressed me about this situation is this: here is a young woman, going through a life-altering event. Not only is the transition from woman to mother a huge deal, doing it as a 17 year old really ups the ante. Many kids might want to have an abortion; similarly, their parents might be encouraging them to have an abortion for various reasons. To my knowledge, this girl is five months along and sounds like she will not be aborting her baby. Some people are incredibly critical of Gov. Palin about this familial indiscretion; I say BRAVO TO HER FOR BEING CONSISTENT. If she's pro-life, yet encourages her daughter to have an abortion because she's too young to be a mother and would be throwing her life away, that makes her a hypocrite in my eyes, which in turn means I wouldn't be casting a vote for her. This seems to be a case where the family is rallying around one another, the candidate is practicing what is being preached, and the message is consistent. Again, consistency is all I'm asking for.

So who am I voting for? I'm not letting on just yet, but I'm pretty sure I know who I'm not voting for, so the decision seems to be made for me. I still think that we're lacking a truly viable candidate for president, but that's a different blog for a different day. Hope you all will actually read me again after today!! And feel free to sound off if you want -- comments from both sides are welcomed here, even if you want to accuse me of being a bloviating poppinjay. (Big smooches if anyone knows where that came from...)