?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Fuck South Dakota

In all honesty, I don't think I've really gotten much use out of South Dakota anyway, but as of today, I'll be going out of my way to try to avoid sending any money there. I'll never visit Mt. Rushmore, and I'll never go to Sturgis, two things I'd actually hoped to do some time in my life. I'll never buy anything from Gateway Computer or Iams Pet Food. I'll be looking further in to what other companies whose products I may purchase are based in that state.

It's time to take a stand. If this happened in my state, I'd be in Sacramento rioting over it. One might argue that with police as edgy as they are these days, it's a great risk to personal freedom to riot in the streets over a cause, but personal freedom is meaning less and less these days, especially to those who govern it, so what's the point, really?

This really just feels so awful. Why would this be allowed to happen? It's someone's body, for crying out loud. It's their health. It's their LIFE. You don't believe it's right, fine... don't get one yourself. Why can't people learn to confine their fucking morals to their own fucking lives? Where does it end? Women become property again? Ban interracial marriage again?? Ban all medical procedures because illnesses, like everything else, are GOD'S WILL? Can we please grow in to our century now?

I'm so fucking frustrated with the way things are going in this country. We're in a state of reversal... reverting to the "olden days" when repressed prudish old white men made all the rules. No sex, no drugs, no staying up late, no profanity, no self-expression, no art, no nothing except God and Patriotism.

Honestly, I'm sort of not proud to be American anymore. America is not a "leader", like they taught us in grade school. We're not the symbol of strength and tolerance they told us we were. We're not a melting pot and we don't welcome your tired and your poor. We're a puritan nation that flexes its muscle on anyone who doesn't conform, and oppresses our citizens with Christian fundamentalism, whether they like it or not, regardless of what the founding fathers said about religious freedom being key. We're not a land of opportunity. Not for everyone, anyway. We're a land of opportunity for some, I guess. We're a land of unimaginable opportunity for those who've already been deluged with it, and for those in their good ol' boys' club.

Yeah yeah... I know... Love it or leave it. Well, fuck that. It's my home and there are as many things I love about it as I hate. That balance shifts towards the negative every day, though, and maybe someday I will leave it, but for now I'm gonna stay right here and bitch.

No wonder Uncle Rico wants to go back.

Comments

( 11 comments — Leave a comment )
cookieguggelman
Mar. 6th, 2006 11:55 pm (UTC)
I concur 100%.
corpus_juris
Mar. 7th, 2006 12:12 am (UTC)
I understand the frustration, but be thankful that we live in a federal system, where south dakota can go ahead and try to shut down abortion in their own state, but would never touch California. Anyways, as a strong supporter of reproductive rights (and with a girlfriend who's been employed by planned parenthood) I'm growing increasingly weary of court battles settling this. There's been a lot of interesting and compelling talk lately about letting Roe go up before the high court again and allowing it to be struck down, letting the right to determine these matters go back to the states. I live in Washington, where abortion rights are in our state constitution, and I believe California is pretty close to that model, too. And then the debate just ends in those states. Period. Finito.
In most of Western Europe, they don't have these abortion debates, and not because of a less-religious society, but because the rights to reproductive freedom were decided by legistlatures and the people, not the courts, so opponents know they're in the minority, and it's not worth making a stink about it. I kind of like that idea for here, too. Plus, pragmatically, whichever side tends to be 'losing' the abortion battle gets massive draws in the polls, so if it were overturned, you'd see the (young) left start to get more active and involved.

That's just my two cents. I've been wanting somebody on my 'flist' to say something about this so I could spout off. Also, this prevents me from working. Sweet.
vespa59
Mar. 7th, 2006 12:49 am (UTC)
Thanks for spouting off. You're definitely more optimistic than I am. I'd love to see the younger, more left-leaning, voters come out. I really thought we'd see them in the last election, since so many of their lives were threatened by G.W., but they didn't really materialize then. My best hope is to just age out the traditionalists and hope their kids learn to think for themselves by then.
corpus_juris
Mar. 7th, 2006 02:21 am (UTC)
I would hesitate to call myself optomistic: I see our rights crumbling all over the place, and I see people in many cases willing offering them up to the chopping block.
I would call myself faithful, though, in the system having so many built-in checks and balances that it can all work out in the end -- eg, Roe being overturned but Washington instantly protects it within the state as a fundamental right.
Although, yeah, I probably am being optomistic about young voter turnout, but I won't blame them for staying home on Nov. 2; the daily show put it best as the 'thrilla in vanilla'. I really have to hand it to Kerry for putting the nation to sleep. That all said, the kids, we've never voted. There's no historical showing of the youth vote, ever (not even in '72, when the voting age was dropped down to 18), and I don't really think anything will change that, since elections tend to only be determined by those who feel they truly have something 'at stake'. Outside of 1) college kids with tution bills or 2) a jonesin' for a PoliSci degree (count me both), we get stoned on election day and wonder why the simpsons is being pre-empted.

I think I had too much coffee today.
vespaden
Mar. 7th, 2006 12:16 am (UTC)
One thing you can do... Most major credit card companies are based in South Dakota. Yup. Mainly because they have the laxest rules on how much interest you can charge. So you can also blame them for that 21% interest charge. Fuckers. So, cancel your major credit card, and get one from a local credit union.

Also, avoid Mt. Rushmore.
vespa59
Mar. 7th, 2006 12:46 am (UTC)
My only major credit card is from a credit union in Arizona.
vespaden
Mar. 7th, 2006 12:59 am (UTC)
sweet! You can still boycott Mt. Rushmore though. I know I will...
beatnikside
Mar. 7th, 2006 01:39 am (UTC)
Iams is dead to me.
(Anonymous)
Mar. 7th, 2006 10:36 pm (UTC)
south dakota redux
Given your tirade about South Dakota and the obvious passion you have on the sub ject. I thought I'd share with you the following email that I received after reading your post.

Your father

---------

Boycott South Dakota? Nope. Let's Take It Over


AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, a very harsh anti-abortion measure just passed in South Dakota (no abortions, not even in cases of rape, incest, or danger to mother). It's easy to do a knee-jerk response and encourage progressives to boycott the state in the hope that we'll teach them a lesson. But don't do it. There's a better, easier, and faster way.


As I began this note, I had thought the solution would be to encourage people to emigrate to South Dakota, because we could easily take the state over. Here was my thinking:




REASONS TO CONSIDER MOVING
1. South Dakota is a beautiful but absurdly empty state with only 754,844 people of all ages. Its population levels have pretty much stagnated. Despite this, the state still  gets two US senators under the Constitution and a disproportionate number of electoral votes.


2. Land is cheap.


3. Fewer than 400,000 people voted in 2004. We can assume that not all of them are boneheads. After all, "only" about 60%--232,545--voted for GWB. 149,225 voted for Kerry. A recent senatorial race was lost by the democrats by only about 500 votes.  At least 90,000 of Californians, New Yorkers, and other Blue Staters grouse every day about overcrowding and high living costs. If we could convince them to move there, we could make a huge impact on national politics.




THE PROBLEM
Only one problem, though--it's unlikely we could trigger a mass migration quickly enough.  Could we convince 90,000 progressives to move to a strange and hostile territory before the elections later this year? Not likely.




BUT WAIT! THERE'S A WAY TO TAKE OVER SOUTH DAKOTA WITHOUT MOVING
In doing some more research, I discovered this amazing article from Minnesota Public Radio:
[ http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/10/27_steilm_sodakrvvoters/ ]http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/10/27_steilm_sodakrvvoters/


 Here are the salient points. Pardon me for shouting, but if I understand correctly, this is exciting:


1. YOU DON'T HAVE TO MOVE TO SOUTH DAKOTA TO REGISTER. YOU JUST HAVE TO VACATION THERE LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE A TEMPORARY ADDRESS AT A CAMPGROUND, MOTEL, OR RV PARK.  "In Hanson County, population 3100, more than 800 RV'ers are registered. Most have never stayed in South Dakota for more than a few weeks."


2. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE IN THE STATE WHEN THE VOTE TAKES PLACE.  "In South Dakota about 70 percent of the RV'ers registered to vote have requested absentee ballots."


3. IT'S LEGAL. The law was deliberately written to make "RV Voters" possible. It's a law apparently designed to help the Republicans, but we can make it blow up in their faces.


4. THE TACTIC I'M SUGGESTING IS ALREADY BEING USED ON A SMALLER SCALE BY THE REPUBLICANS. In Minnehaha County, says county auditor Sue Roust, "there's a slight Democratic edge in registration. Whereas with the RV'ers, it's Republicans 46 percent, Democrats 27 percent.")




VISIT BEAUTIFUL SOUTH DAKOTA THIS YEAR
Think about it. South Dakota has a lot of charming places to visit: Mount Rushmore, for instance. The amazing Badlands. The bizarre Corn Palace and surreal Wall Drug Store. The Black Hills. Herds of bison. It's a beautiful state. While you're there, head down to the voter registration office. Register to vote. Then come home and as election time draws near, request an absentee ballot from the comfort of your own home.




POTENTIAL DRAWBACKS
1. For one election cycle you won't legally be able to vote in your own state.
However, if you live in an area that votes overwhelmingly Democratic (or for that matter overwhelmingly Republican) you can give your vote much larger impact in South Dakota.


2. The Republicans may expand the program they have going already.
If so, let the best party win. They've got the bucks, but we've got the numbers.




See you this summer in South Dakota!


Jack Mingo & Erin Barrett
[ mailto:jackmingo@gmail.com ]jackmingo@gmail.com
(Anonymous)
Mar. 8th, 2006 10:44 pm (UTC)
more angry stuff
What do you think about THIS one? Pops.

-----
The Return of the Wikitorial! Can South Dakota Handle It?

Media Batted .500 In Libel Trials Last Year

Merrill Says McClatchy Most Likely Knight Ridder Winner

Newspaper Guild Says Its Knight Ridder Plan Still In Play

Hiatt: 'Wash Post' Still Looking for Conservative Blogger

National Headliner Awards, Due Out Today, Will Have Special Hurricane Category

Former Gay Prostitute, Outed by Dallas Paper, Loses State Election Race

Judy Miller Withdraws From Top AP Job, to Stay in Florida

CIA to Fight Libby's Call for Classified Briefings in His Defense

Gallup: More Than Half of Americans Reject Evolution, Back Bible

| This week's top stories
SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | MOST POPULAR | RSS | REPRINTS


Gallup: More Than Half of Americans Reject Evolution, Back Bible

By E&P Staff

Published: March 08, 2006 10:15 AM ET

NEW YORK A Gallup report released today reveals that more than half of all Americans, rejecting evolution theory and scientific evidence, agree with the statement, "God created man exactly how Bible describes it."

Another 31% says that man did evolve, but "God guided." Only 12% back evolution and say "God had no part."

Gallup summarized it this way: "Surveys repeatedly show that a substantial portion of Americans do not believe that the theory of evolution best explains where life came from." They are "not so quick to agree with the preponderance of scientific evidence."

The report was written by the director of the The Gallup Poll, Frank Newport.

Breaking down the numbers, Gallup finds that Republican backing for what it calls "God created human beings in present form" stands at 57% with Democrats at 44%.

Support for this Bible view rises steadily with age: from 43% for those 18 to 29, to 59% for those 65 and older. It declines steadily with education, dropping from 58% for those with high school degrees to a still-substantial 25% with postgraduate degrees.

Newport wraps it up: "Several characteristics correlate with belief in the biblical explanation for the origin of humans. Those with lower levels of education, those who attend church regularly, those who are 65 and older, and those who identify with the Republican Party are more likely to believe that God created humans 'as is,' than are those who do not share these characteristics."

Gallup has asked this question, in different forms, going back to 1982, but has consistently shown support at 45% or higher for the notion that "God created man in present form."

The most recent poll, last September, posed the question this way: "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and devlopment of human beings." This produced the 53% who chose "God created man exactly how Bible describes it."


(Anonymous)
Mar. 8th, 2006 10:46 pm (UTC)
more angry stuff
What do you think about THIS one? Pops.

-----

Gallup: More Than Half of Americans Reject Evolution, Back Bible

By E&P Staff

Published: March 08, 2006 10:15 AM ET

NEW YORK A Gallup report released today reveals that more than half of all Americans, rejecting evolution theory and scientific evidence, agree with the statement, "God created man exactly how Bible describes it."

Another 31% says that man did evolve, but "God guided." Only 12% back evolution and say "God had no part."

Gallup summarized it this way: "Surveys repeatedly show that a substantial portion of Americans do not believe that the theory of evolution best explains where life came from." They are "not so quick to agree with the preponderance of scientific evidence."

The report was written by the director of the The Gallup Poll, Frank Newport.

Breaking down the numbers, Gallup finds that Republican backing for what it calls "God created human beings in present form" stands at 57% with Democrats at 44%.

Support for this Bible view rises steadily with age: from 43% for those 18 to 29, to 59% for those 65 and older. It declines steadily with education, dropping from 58% for those with high school degrees to a still-substantial 25% with postgraduate degrees.

Newport wraps it up: "Several characteristics correlate with belief in the biblical explanation for the origin of humans. Those with lower levels of education, those who attend church regularly, those who are 65 and older, and those who identify with the Republican Party are more likely to believe that God created humans 'as is,' than are those who do not share these characteristics."

Gallup has asked this question, in different forms, going back to 1982, but has consistently shown support at 45% or higher for the notion that "God created man in present form."

The most recent poll, last September, posed the question this way: "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and devlopment of human beings." This produced the 53% who chose "God created man exactly how Bible describes it."


( 11 comments — Leave a comment )