Mystic Metals Body Jewelry
Missy Irvin And I Should Have A Talk
I haven't written a blog in quite a while. I have been insanely busy. I wrote a play, started a new band, and am mired in an uncomfortable yet necessary exploration of how I think and the benefits and detriments therein. It's been a rough couple of weeks. So, I haven't abandoned you cats and kittens; I've just been busy. Anyway, this shit is free so if I wanted to abandon you, I suppose I could without needing to explain. That would be a poopy thing to do, however.
The reason I am writing now is because something has come to my attention that we ought to have a dialog about. Thanks to Steph Vicious sending me a link, I have learned about more government overreach into the modification community. We should talk about it. But before we get into the nuts and bolts and screws and other construction euphemisms for sex and sex organs, let me explain something that may put some of you cats and kittens off my train. I am a conservative libertarian. I'm a small government, leave me alone I can figure it out by myself, failure is a part of business, not everything that hurts your feeling is racist kind of guy. I don't believe in traffic light cameras, or seatbelt laws, or illegalization (which isn't a word) of earth born drugs, or mandated drink sizes, or smoking bans, or sin tax, or universal health care, or the European model. I believe that the government exists solely to serve the people and not command them. I believe in limited entitlement programs, drug testing for those who are on it, term limits, and more closed borders. I believe in foreign policy that serves my country first and the other second. I believe in strict sanctions and a ratcheting down of world policing. Just leave me alone. Obviously there's more to libertarianism than that, which of course in itself is an interpretation. I encourage you to learn about it. Chiefly, I do not support the rampant nanny state banning of things, especially by individuals who do not have the slightest connection to the thing being banned. I'm looking at you, Senator Missy Irvin (R) of Arkansas.
Senator Missy Irvin sponsored a bill (Senate Bill 387) to ban scarification, dermal implantation, and any tattoo or piercing modification defined as "non-traditional." The term 'non-traditional' has yet to be defined, however the bill has already passed the Senate by way of a 26-4 vote, and is now en route to the House for passage. Earlier in the year, the historically small government advocate Missy Irvin sponsored Senate bill 388, which passed the Senate unanimously. That bill sets modification age limits and fines and was drafted in concert with the state's modification association. However, that wasn't enough for Missy Irvin. Now we have SB 387. If you read the Bill, which now is an Act since it is headed to the House (remember School House Rock, kids?), there really isn't that much in it. It defines the terms and says that implantation is banned. There are some interesting notes in this Act, however. Like this:
"Body piercing” shall not include piercing an ear lobe with a presterilized, disposable, single-use stud or solid needle that is applied using a mechanical device to force the needle or stud through the ear lobe."
Man, we all know how ignorant and aggravating that is, don't we. "Using a mechanical device to force" is not considered piercing, which would make it exempt from any laws passed which directly affect 'body piercing.' So those mutilation stations in the center of the disgustingly unsterile mall using plastic force guns which are unable to be autoclaved are exempt from any overreaching law that governs body piercing. I just wanted to make sure we had that clear. Obviously if the focus is to 'protect' people, the lawmakers have yet to understand the damage that these places and machine force guns do. But we'll pass on that for now. Also exempt is 'permanent cosmetics.' So the fine tattoo art of tattooing the tattoos of cosmetics isn't tattooing. Just making that clear as well.
I had difficulty finding specifically reported information about the scarification, branding, and non-traditional tattoo ban, but I'm not a journalist so I'm sure it's out there to find. What I can comment on, however, is this. We live in a society where we selectively choose based on vote totals which civil liberties and personal body rights are governed, regulated, or banned. That has to stop, and what has to begin is that the modification community needs to garner a larger voice at public hearings and at the voting booth. We need to know what lawmakers are making which laws that infringe upon rights that we believe ought to be inalienable, and we need to let them know we are intelligent, educated, and pissed off at the outright banning of things that exist only to peacefully and safely bring us joy and self worth.
I don't want this to read as if I am lobbying for you cats and kittens to share my political views. I couldn't care less if our views are incongruent; debate and difference of opinion is vital to government and I celebrate it. I am, however, trying to let you realize that some lawmakers are doing things and passing laws that are dictating what you believe to be innocent and peaceful behavior. In the name of what? I would very much like to know what the endgame of a modification ban is. Example. I hate Mayor Bloomburg up there in New York City. He's an asshole idiot who thinks he knows better than the people who elected him. He tries to ban large sodas. Ok, fine. It's stupid and probably unconstitutional, but in his defense, he has an endgame. His goal to to increase the overall health of his city. He thinks if sodas are smaller, people will lose weight and not be so fat, thereby promoting a healthier society. I disagree with this notion as I think that you should be allowed to be as fat or as thin as you'd like to be, but at least dude has a plan, an endgame. What's the endgame of Missy Irvin? What societal benefit do we garner from banning modification? Laws protect minors from being modified. I support that. The Board of Health protects consumers against unsanitary modification practices. I support that. But banning a modification practice that is performed in a healthy way and in compliance with all laws pertaining to affects that may be incurred by those outside of the culture seems absurd and devoid of a proper end resolution. Maybe she just doesn't like the way it looks. And that's perfectly fine for her to have that opinion; I celebrate her having an opinion. But is that enough to dictate passing laws to outright ban the modification? I'll let you know what she says if she responds to my email. For now, though, it is unclear what the impetus is for her legislation, and in actuality, I don't care all that much because whatever it is, it's wrong. You can't pick and choose which practices are protected and which aren't solely because you have a strong emotional reaction to them. Equality is equality, it isn't supremacy. I hope Missy Irvin ends her term and is replaced. I don't plan to travel to Arkansas because, well why would anyone want to go there anyway? To go see the birthplace of Terri Utley, Miss USA 1982? (She's from Arkansas, you see.)
Our country is a mess right now in terms of civil liberties. Concurrently, we have an unemployment problem, a gay marriage debate, a healthcare conundrum, and Oprah saying that someone must be racist because she didn't get what she wanted. Is going after the safe and individual practice of body modification the correct and most appropriate use of dollars and calories at this point, Missy Irvin? You can't mandate everything. Unless you're and Orwell fan. Stay beautiful, kids.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad