By Ray Stern
By Ray Stern
By New Times
By Amy Silverman
By Stephen Lemons
By Stephen Lemons
By Monica Alonzo
By Chris Parker
Until it saw some stupid cow with her left tit hanging out in the middle of a Target parking lot, The Bird was squawking with glee about the new, just-passed Chandler ordinance allowing mothers to breast-feed in public.
This avian thought, "Why shouldn't moms of every stripe -- even ugly, brainless broads with too many kids and nonexistent fashion sense -- be allowed out of the house from time to time? That is, not tethered by the tit to some squalling yap back at home?"
Here's the skinny on what's going on now: These whole-milk advocates vow they are headed to the Arizona Legislature in hopes of churning the new Chandler ordinance into a cheesy statewide law that will allow nursing moms to feed their kids au naturel anywhere they please, leaving the rest of us to find a place to rest our eyes.
Um, if the mom doing the milking is a skank.
All this because a Chandler mother -- lead lactivist Amy "Got Milk?" Milliron -- was busted for feeding her infant at an East Valley public pool earlier this year. Now Milliron and her burn-yer-bra friends want more nursing rights as well as immunity from indecent-exposure laws.
"We're asking that the state put an exemption into the existing indecent-exposure law," Milliron told The Bird, "so it won't include breast-feeding mothers. We want them to be able to breast-feed in any location, not just in Chandler. Because no mother should be criminalized for feeding her baby."
Milliron claimed there's "bipartisan support" in the Legislature for the idea, but she wouldn't divulge just who on the public tit's actually aboard.
Now, The Bird doesn't disagree with Milliron; it would just like to suggest an alteration to the proposed new law, which would be this: Only mothers with round, firm, nicely shaped bosoms can be exempted from any and all indecent-exposure charges, while nursing moms with dugs (or droopy jugs) would be sent straight to Tent City.
Because, let's face it, as Janet Jackson's Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction proved, not all breasts are created equal. Formerly perky chi-chis become less so once they're asked to feed something other than adolescent sexual fantasies. The Bird's sure that guys and gals alike would be less annoyed to discover a curvy hooter crammed into the mouth of a rug-rat in the soup aisle at Trader Joe's than a droopy dirty-pillow dangling from some hoary hillbilly's peasant blouse.
The new law could allow moms with still-bodacious ta-tas to nurse full-frontal wherever they want without fear of reprisal. MILFs like Pamela Anderson, Jenny McCarthy, Claudia Schiffer, Liv Tyler and Anna Nicole Smith could feel free to pop out a pink-nosed puppy or two when they're hitting the Scottsdale shopping scene. And if Britney Spears were caught at Arby's jugging just-born Baby Sean, the worst she could hope for from Snottsdale's finest would be a smattering of applause.
All current twentysomething supermodels would be exempt from protection because their eating disorders would've long ago rendered them as flat as that vacant lot across from Johnny Chu's Fate restaurant in downtown Phoenix, and because women with heroin addictions don't usually get to keep their bambinos.
To help things along, what The Bird thinks the lactivists should do is put their best funbag forward. Stage a rally on the steps of the state Capitol led by this feathered fiend's favorite boobalicious local celebrity, Jenna Jameson. She's nobody's mama, mind you, but The Bird bets the porn queen/entrepreneur would feign motherhood and expose herself royally for such a cause! Senator Ken Cheuvront wouldn't be impressed, but even the mainstream Mormons who run the place wouldn't be able to resist hooters that fine calling for quick legislative action.
Brilliant? This middle finger's mom may have had the kind of breasts that wind up in a bucket of Colonel Sanders, but it's certainly no bird brain!
For the record, The Bird doesn't care for cigarette smoke. It prefers perching on the roofs of non-smoking establishments, and avoids all closely confined areas where a quick escape from tobacco fumes is difficult. There's nothing worse than mistaking a Benson and Hedges butt for a worm!
But you'd have to be a moron not to find smoking bans evil and excessive.
The Bird's saying, if a being who eats bugs and whose bathroom is the hood of a parked car can see that smoking bans violate property rights and are forced on the public by anti-tobacco buttheads, then . . . come on, does no one else find the Smoke Free Arizona initiative an odious scheme designed to reduce us to schoolyard tattletales?
Should this initiative become law, would-be moles and brown-nosers alike can rat out any shop owner or office manager who doesn't remove ashtrays or post those "No Smoking" signs. Finking on your fellow man for daring to light up a Doral will be as easy as e-mailing or telephoning the folks at Smoke Free.
The Bird predicts that this will lead to lots of score-settling between competitive bars and businesses, since fines for flicking your Bic in a no-smoking zone are up to $500 a pop.