Category Archive

Statement of Senator Christopher J. Dodd on the Windfall Profits Rebate Legislation

"This amendment says to the large integrated oil companies, if you don't invest your excess profits in technologies or infrastructure to enhance energy supply, then these companies will be required to give some of those profits, just some, back to the consumers."

Because, you know, it's the consumers' money.  Just because they let you borrow it for a little while in exchange for some of your gasoline doesn't mean they wanted you to keep it forever.  Geez!

 I'm rather distressed today because my local talk radio station stopped carrying Larry Elder live and put him in the 9 p.m.-12 midnight slot.  He's been replaced by some local cat, who I'm sure is very nice, but I went through six years of Larry Elder withdrawal, waiting patiently for the day when he would get syndicated and picked up by a Portland station.  I've been listening faithfully, too, and this is how they repay me!  (Whoever "they" are.)  It's almost as bad as when the station that carried Dennis Prager went all Spanish-speaking and the Christian station that picked him up put him on between 1 and 4 in the morning.  Stupid Christians.  No offense to them.

 

You all have to forgive me, but I've only been back on the Zoloft for a couple days and it hasn't reached a therapeutic level yet.  That's why this is the worst time in the world to take away my afternoons with Larry.  I don't know how I'm supposed to drive or clean my kitchen or anything now–I'll have to start talking to my kids or something.

Roberts denies that he has any ideology, any "overarching judicial philosophy," and is nothing more than an ad hoc, bottom-up type of guy.

Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't. But he knows that if he dares to say otherwise, he gets Borked. If, on the other hand, he pretends to have a mind so scrubbed of theory that he is at a loss to explain gravitation itself, he gets to be chief justice of the United States for 40 years.–Charles Krauthammer

 

 

 

——————————————————————————–

 

 

It seems obvious that the only way to protect the rights of women and minorities–indeed, to protect the rights of any American who isn't a rich, white, Christian male–is to adopt the following amendment to the Constitution:

 

I.  No Supreme Court justice may retire while a Republican president is in office.

 

II.  In the event a Supreme Court justice dies during a Republican administration, a new justice shall be nominated by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), or a blood relative thereunto, with the advice and consent of the Democratic Senate majority.  Or minority.  Whichever.

 

III.  For the purpose of ratification, this amendment shall require the approval of 3/4 of the major metropolitan areas on the East and

West
Coasts and in the
Great Lakes region.  (Except for
Ohio.  Stupid
Ohio.)

 

 

 

——————————————————————————–

 

 

As a general rule, I don't follow Supreme Court confirmation hearings.  Because I think they're stupid.  Just give me the bottom line, kids.  Thumbs up or down.  I don't really care how you got there.  I don't think this is ideological disgust with the process.  I recall that as a young, liberal, feminist college student, I was pretty frustrated with the circus that was the Clarence Thomas hearings.  Don't we have bigger fish to fry than this? I thought.  But I suspect I'll always be interested in bigger fish than the Senate is currently frying, regardless of what's in the pan or who started the fire.

 

Anyway, where was I?  Right, the confirmation hearings.  I didn't pay very close attention because that would just irritate me, but I did start to get a little nostalgic and wonder what sort of questions Republicans asked of Justice Ginsberg during her confirmation hearing.  She worked for the ACLU for a while, and no offense to the ACLU, but let's be grown-ups and acknowledge that that suggests a certain ideological bent–at least as much as a tenuous connection to the Federalist Society would (cue Psycho theme music here).  And what Republican in his right mind wants that on the Supreme Court?  Eh? 

 

So how did the elephants in the room go about addressing the elephant in the room, so to speak.  I've done some research and found one rather dull article from the Federalist Society (cue Psycho music) that was more informative than most; it just wasn't enlightening in the way I'd hoped. 

 

But the other day there was a light-hearted article in the Oregonian that mentioned Orrin Hatch asking Justice-to-be Ginsberg if the right to privacy included prostitution.  Ah, there we go!  That's an interesting question, isn't it?  In a silly, academic sense, that is, but that's what these hearings are really about, right?  We're not trying to get all specific about any actual legal issues, are we?  I hope not!  Anyway, it didn't say what her answer was, which I thought was pretty lame of the person writing the article.  Probably he didn't want to sift through any more of the boring document he lifted the info from.  So I guess I shouldn't be too harsh with him.

 

So I tried to imagine for myself what an appropriate response would be.  If John Roberts got such a softball question, what would I want him to say?  Ummm….hm.  You know, the more I think about it, the less interesting the question becomes.  Never mind.

 

 

 

 

 

——————————————————————————–

 

 

So if you, like I, missed most of the confirmation hearing for Roberts, you can still get a recap on ThinkSink, starting Sept. 13 and working backward–er, forward.  Not as good as the MADTV version of the 2004 Presidential Debates, but close.

Looks like it's time to be stocking up on Sugar Daddy's beloved Ny- and DayQuil, before the Oregon Senate passes the prescription-only pseudoephedrine bill.  I haven't been too emotionally invested in this particular controversy, though I suppose my inner libertarian might have something to say about it, if she weren't already too busy fuming about property rights and the interstate commerce clause.  (Don't disturb her; she's not in a good mood these days.)  Personally, I don't use pseudoephedrine, even when I'm not pregnant or breastfeeding (in other words, eight years ago–just kidding).  Not because I have some wild notion that it's bad for me.  I just think cold medicines are useless.  I know, because I used to use them, and they never gave me any relief whatsoever, and I started feeling like a real chump, popping all these pills for nothing.  Now I do my head-cold suffering drug-free.  I get the exact same results, but I feel much more empowered.  (Which is the female version of feeling rugged and manly, in case that makes any more sense to you.)

 

SD feels differently, however, which is funny because ordinarily the man shuns medicine.  He gets a splitting headache, but he won't take anything for it.  He has really bad hay fever, but he won't take his Claritin.  He can be suffering incredible muscle pain (because he spent the day trying to take apart our ancient metal-of-unknown-origin planter with a hacksaw, or something equally stupid), but when I suggest he take some freaking Motrin already, he shrugs and grunts and shuffles off to some other part of the house where he can whine in peace.  (Like I asked him to stick a needle in his eye or something.  What he has against ibuprofen, I don't know.  Personally, I love ibuprofen.  Oh, ibuprofen, how I miss you.  But I'm getting off topic.)  He'll sometimes take Tylenol, which is ultra-safe for a very good reason (it doesn't do diddly-squat unless you have a fever, or it's laced with codeine), but in general, he really, really hates taking drugs of any kind.  Except NyQuil.  He swears by NyQuil.  It's a magic elixir for him.  As is DayQuil, for some strange reason.  I say "strange" because as far as I'm concerned, NyQuil is good for only one thing, and that's knocking you out cold, and if you're not being knocked out cold, you're wasting your time.  But to each his own.

 

Anyway, this new legislation distresses me only because when SD gets his next cold and has to see a freaking doctor to get his NyQuil, well, that's just never going to happen.  He's just going to rant and rave and whimper and moan until the darn virus runs its course–which, in the hotbed of disease that is
Oregon, could take months.  So I have to stock up now.  The problem is, I don't want to look like some crazy meth lab operator, so I gotta stay below the radar–you know, picking up a box here and there at different stores, taking advantage of all the loopholes in the current legislation.  But that's so much work.  I'm wondering, however, if meth dealers aren't at some point going to find it more profitable to deal in black-market Sudafed for men who are too rugged and manly to go to a doctor.  Maybe this bill is a good idea after all.

In honor of Nina, I offer you the Bill of Rights, which you should peruse thoughtfully before you dig into your potato salad:

 Amendment I

 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

 Amendment II

 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

 

 Amendment III

 No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

 Amendment IV

 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

 Amendment V

 No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

 Amendment VI

 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

 Amendment VII

 In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the
United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

 

 Amendment VIII

 Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

 Amendment IX

 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

 Amendment X

 The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

 

 

 

Watch out for that last one–it's a lulu! Okay, now torch the neighborhood with some illegal fireworks.  (Just don't post the Ten Commandments!)

 

 This story about pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception is getting on my nerves.  I know it's old, but it's not going away, so I'm still annoyed by it.  Here's what annoys me:

 

1.  People think they have a constitutional right to buy any sort of medication at any pharmacy they want.  You don't!

 

2.  People think they have a constitutional right to hold a job even when they can't perform all the necessary functions of that job.  You don't!

 

If the owner of a pharmacy doesn't want to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception–or birth control, or Viagra, or Prozac, or pseudoephedrine–they don't have to.  It's their freaking pharmacy.

 

If you work for a pharmacy that DOES fill prescriptions for emergency contraception but you decide not to fill those prescriptions, your employer can fire you.  It's their freaking pharmacy.

 

IT SHOULD NOT BE NECESSARY FOR A PHARMACY TO RELY ON THE GOVERNMENT TO FORCE THEIR EMPLOYEES TO FILL PRESCRIPTIONS.  ARE YOU IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL BUSINESS, OR ARE YOU NOT, ECKERDS?  MAKE UP YOUR FREAKING MINDS!!!

 

And for the record, no, I don't care if it's the only pharmacy in town.  Not my inner libertarian, not my inner pragmatist, not my inner puritan.  My inner hippie might be sympathetic to a protest against the corporate goons, but she wouldn't be willing to get arrested for it.  (The inner hippie is weak, what can I say?)

 

**************************************************

 

The other thing that's annoying me right now is the same-sex marriage debate, which is back in the news because the Oregon Supreme Court just ruled that the 3,000-something marriages performed in

Multnomah
County in March 2004 are null and void.  Ordinarily I like to stay out of issues like this because I think no good can come from discussing it, but I feel up to no good today, so here I go.

 

For those of you unfamiliar with the greusome details of the Oregon same-sex marriage debacle, it started when four of the five Multnomah County Commissioners had a behind-closed-doors meeting in which they decided that they couldn't let San Francisco have all the fun, so they would decide to take the state constitution into their own hands and start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.  They deliberately cut their conservative colleague, Lonnie Roberts, out of the decision.  They deliberately cut the public out of the decision.  Then they felt all put upon when people criticized them for it.  Here's a news flash, ladies:  it is not your job to decide who can be legally wed in the state of
Oregon.  If you think the marriage statute is unfair or unconstitutional, you have to talk to the state legislature about that.  It's called a representative government.  You should have learned about it in the eighth grade.  At the very least you should have encouraged some nice, respectable lesbian couple to bring suit, Massachusetts-style, against the people of Oregon for trampling their rights, rather than usurping authority that you did not have.

 

Were you really surprised, Multnomah County Commissioners, when your decision was overturned, and thousands of couples were denied the privileges you had no right to bestow on them?  Somehow I doubt it.  It's not a big secret that the majority of Americans, even Oregonian Americans, are not prepared to accept same-sex marriage as the law of the land.  It's never been a big secret.  I don't believe for a minute that you did this because you care so much about gay rights.  I think you cared about looking progressive and revolutionary–it's the only explanation I can come up with for why you would authorize marriages that were clearly illegal, cruelly raising the hopes of homosexual couples by selling them marriage licenses that weren't worth the paper they were printed on.  Well, at least they'll get their money back.  Something tells me that'll be poor compensation for what they've been through–a roller coaster ride through the courts, a contentious election which served as a referendum on their life choices, and the ensuing public backlash.  Was it worth it for you?  You say you have no regrets, so I guess it was.

 

Historically, particularly in my Big Government-lovin' days, I had no problem with same-sex marriage.  Is it fair that one type of family is afforded privileges that are denied to different types of families?  Of course not.  But that's the theoretical world.  In the real world, government policies have consequences and costs, and if we're going to be absolutely fair to everyone, we have to give issues like this more consideration than they get in closed-door meetings among four liberal-minded
Portland women. 

 

First of all, what is marriage?  Really.  If you're going to throw out the definition that every civilization since the dawn of time has used, you have to replace it with something, and it had darn well better be specific.  Most same-sex marriage supporters, when confronted with this question, say something warm and fuzzy, like "it's a union between two people who are committed to each other and want to share their lives together."  That's a nice greeting card, kids, but as a legal definition, it doesn't work so well.

 

I groan deeply every time a social conservative posits that once you allow two people of the same sex to marry, you may as well start allowing incest and bestiality, and where does it all end?  It's no wonder the opposing side doesn't want to engage you when you come out swingin with the twin plagues of incest and bestiality.  Kids, I don't foresee a long line of siblings waiting to get married in any event.  I can foresee a fair number of single women deciding to marry their pets, but I think their reasons would be decidedly non-prurient.  But I digress.  Where was I?  Oh, yes.  Like I said, I think that's the wrong way to phrase the question, to say the least.  The real question social conservatives should be asking is, "If a heterosexual relationship between two people is not essentially different from all other relationships and has no unique properties to justify affording such a couple special privileges, then what makes homosexual relationships worthy of the same privileges, when other relationships are not?"  That's a very complex way to ask why couples are more important than single people, why monogamy is better than polygamy, and why sexual relationships are more important than platonic ones. 

 

It's probably my Mormon background, but I've watched with great intellectual curiosity to see what arguments are made against polygamy in this context.  I'm not a big fan of polygamy, believe it or not, but there are some facts you can't dispute.  It's possible to have a polygamous relationship that doesn't involve incest or bestiality or child abuse–just three or more consenting adults who want to share a household and probably raise a (very large) family.  Actually, there's no law that says married people must live together, so forget that part.  It's possible that three or more people would willingly form a family of this sort, regardless of the real estate or sleeping arrangements.  People do it, you know, all over the world.  Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints do it here in the

Rocky
Mountain region and certain parts of
British Columbia and
Mexico.  (Though not in
Wisconsin, regardless of what you might have seen on Picket Fences.)  They're not exactly the poster children for functional relationships, though, so they're probably best left out of the discussion.

 

If you're going to argue against legalizing polygamy at the same time you're arguing for same-sex marriage, you have to leave tradition, statistics, and the "ick" factor out of the equation.  Can you do it, strictly on philosophical grounds?  I can't, and let me tell you, I find same-sex relationships a lot less weird than the other.  This is my point–it may be unfair that married heterosexual couples are treated differently than other couples.  It is unfair.  Their type of relationship is elevated over all other types of relationships.  Why should only same-sex relationships join them there at the top?  What criteria are we going to use?  Must the union be monogamous?  If so, why?  Must the union be sexual in nature?  If so, why?  Wouldn't it be nice if two widows could form their own household, pooling their resources and getting the same tax breaks and other automatic benefits that married heterosexual couples get?  What if a bisexual woman who honestly loved her husband and her female partner equally wanted to marry each of them?  Why shouldn't she?  It would certainly make some things less complicated.  And other things more so, of course.  But that's my point.  On what basis do you grant privileges to one type of family and exclude other types of families who could benefit from those same privileges?  I, for one, do not know, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on the subject.

 

I'm not sure why a gay person would want to put themselves in the position of having to publicly defend his or her orientation or lifestyle.  Some people were baffled (if not appalled) by the gay couple from
Eugene who did a campaign commercial in favor of Measure 36 (defining marriage as between one man and one woman).  Their message, basically, was that they had already taken legal measures to protect their family and ensure that they had rights like hospital visitation, inheritance and so forth.  (Presumably they didn't care about Social Security benefits, but to be perfectly honest, neither do I.)  Were these men self-loathing?  Were they just middle-class types insensitive to the frustrations of lower-income gay people who can't afford fancy attorneys?  They struck me as empowered–people who didn't wait around for the government to solve their problems, nor did they allow the level of their family's protection and privacy to be dependent on public opinion.  You may think they're sell-outs, but at least they're in a position to say, "My family is none of your effing business."  Maybe we should all be there.

This weekend I read this column by Matthew Miller that just made my inner libertarian seethe with anger.  That sounds really extreme.  I don't usually get worked up about this political stuff, and from an objective standpoint, I'm sure Miller's column is just not that inherently offensive, and yet it really irritated me.  Probably because I'm not objective.  My inner libertarian is especially narrow-minded, not to mention cranky.  The column, incidentally, is about private charity vs. government aid in the wake of the recent tsunami disaster.  I've calmed down enough to tell you that I understand Miller isn't against charity per se.  He just thinks it's cute, like a 9-year-old kid breaking open his piggy bank and giving all the money he earned selling lemonade for the last three summers to people suffering on the other side of the world.  Isn't that sweet, he thinks he can make a difference.  What a sad commentary on our society it is when a 9-year-old kid thinks it's his responsibility to care for the less fortunate.  He should really wait until he's old enough to pay taxes; then his compassion might actually be useful.  Sigh.  What a waste.

You see what I mean about the crankiness?  Gosh, that inner libertarian can be so sarcastic.

It was enough to make my inner-hippie sit up from her Zoloft-induced haze and ask, "Dude, what is your problem?"  That's when I realized that it was that time of the month.  I should really say that half of the month, since between the PMS and the main event, I'm only working at 50 percent efficiency over the course of a year.  Stop wincing, male readers, I'm sparing you the details.  Suffice it to say I've become one of those women who blames all her character flaws on her hormones.  I'm really looking forward to the post-menopausal era.  I think I will be a really nice, productive person. 

Which brings me to my January 2005 resolutions update.  I have installed a total of three Tot Loks in my home, of which only two work (my fault entirely, no offense to Safety 1st–Tot Loks ROCK!), and neither of which prevented Elvis from drinking Aqua Velva the other day.  Well, what can I say?  It never occurred to me to keep the Aqua Velva in the knife drawer or in the cabinet with the food processors.    So I was going to install some in the bathroom, but I couldn't find my remaining locks.  I looked everywhere for them, and all I came up with were a few loose screws.  (No, literally.)  So I did what any red-blooded, middle-class American woman would do; I went shopping and ordered some more.  They should be here by the end of the week.  It was easier to do it online and pay the shipping and handling than it was to drag my cranky, PMS-addled body down to the obscure suburb of Tigard, where Babies R Us is located.  Okay, I wasn't cranky or PMS-addled at the time.  I just never want to pack my sons in the car and drive them down to Tigard just so I can buy a freaking pack of Tot Loks.  Make that two.  I was feeling flush that day.

I haven't hung up my pictures yet.  I'm beginning to doubt that I ever will.  I haven't started exercising again yet.  Yes, I know it will help my PMS and my crankiness.  Just get off my back, all right?  And toilet-training Mister Bubby has officially been put off until February.  Yes, of this year.  Sheesh.

On the plus side, I did clean my bathroom on Saturday.  I cleaned my whole upstairs.  I even dragged the vacuum up here.  And vacuumed, yes.  I even vacuumed the stairs on the way up.  One amendment–I didn't clean the kids' bathroom because, well, it's already been cleaned once this year, and they're just going to mess it up again.  Just kidding.  I ran out of time.  I'll clean it again.  Someday. 

Now I have to feed Elvis breakfast before he helps himself to the rest of our toiletries.  I just wanted to end on a happy note, so I'll share this quote, which I dedicate respectfully to sxuldv8, for no particular reason:

"In biology they made me dissect a fetal pig–a skill I have never needed since.  However, if they had made the class dissect a whole chicken–now there's a life skill."–"Good Eats" host
Alton Brown

I could not agree more.

"[The] feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." (Fundraising letter from Pat Robertson that was an in-kind contribution to the Iowa Committee to Stop ERA, as reported in The Washington Post, August 23, 1993)

Don't take everything you read on the internet at face value.  I'm in an offensive mood today.  Consider yourselves forewarned.

One of the unfortunate by-products of participating in a two-party political system is the distasteful task of owning your wackos.  When I was in college, one of my religion professors related a story about the perils of being an uncloseted Democrat in the South.  He was in a store and happened to still be wearing a nametag from a conference he'd just attended.  Another customer approached him and asked if that was his car in the parking lot with the Clinton-Gore bumper sticker.  The professor said it was.  The man then inquired about the origins of the professor's last name.  When the professor told him it was Greek, the man replied, "I figured as much.  When I saw that bumper sticker, I knew it could only belong to a foreigner or a n*****."  The professor concluded his anecdote by saying, "And once again I was reminded of why I'm voting the way I am in this election."

I, a proud uncloseted Democrat myself at the time, related this story to a Republican friend, who was quite offended by it, and reasonably so.  The implication that a vote for the Democratic ticket was a vote against all the stupid bigots hanging out at the 7-11 really wasn't a fair characterization of the Republican party on the whole–nor was the implication that a vote for the Republican ticket was a vote against those communist lesbian witches hanging out at the I Hate Jesus rally a fair characterization of the Democratic party.  My friend was loath to carry the Republicans' David Duke baggage, just as I was loath to carry the Democrats' Maxine Waters baggage, but as members of our respective parties we were sort of stuck with it anyway.  Price you pay for wanting to affect the outcomes of national elections.

So I'm not tempted to switch parties again, as embarrassed as I am by people like Gerald Allen, a Republican member of the Alabama state legislature, who wants to prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle."  (Thank you, feministmama, for this link to a story in the
UK Guardian.)  When I read this story, my first thought was, "Why are people such morons?"  My second thought was, "Do social conservatives really have no bigger fish to fry than convincing
America's youth that gay people aren't real human beings?"  I really don't have anything against social conservatives.  I probably qualify as one, given my opinions on certain issues, but I categorically reject the notion that supporting what we euphimistically call "traditional values" must entail censorship, narrow-mindedness and encouraging an us vs. them mentality–things both political parties are very good at, incidentally, but it isn't palatable to me in either flavor.

Ordinarily I wouldn't find a scheme like Rep. Allen's worthy of comment because, despite his five meetings with the President that he likes to brag about, I just don't think he and his ilk are all that influential on the national political scene.  I'm not a fan of the slippery slope argument–not as it's put forth by people who claim same-sex marriage will lead to state-sanctioned polygamy and incest and good-grief-why-not-bestiality-while-we're-at-it, and not as it's put forth by people who claim that keeping same-sex marriage illegal will necessarily lead to gay men being rounded up and placed in concentration camps, lesbians forcibly wed to Promise Keepers and impregnated with human embryos that would otherwise be used for stem-cell research, and all of their children becoming wards of the state or afflicted with polio because they had no health insurance benefits and didn't get their shots.  For right-wing lunatics and their leftist fringe counterparts, I have two words:  Calm.  Down.

Unlike some people–on both ends of the political spectrum–I don't believe the
U.S. is turning into Nazi
Germany anytime soon.  I actually think censorship is an overused word, but it's appropriate in Allen's case.  Maybe you don't like the book Daddy's Roommate (I've heard the plot is thin and the characters are one-dimensional), but what Allen is proposing goes beyond the argument about what's appropriate or inappropriate for grade-school students.  He proposes banning from public libraries, schools and universities any literary material containing positive depictions of homosexuality.  Positive being broadly defined as "not resulting in immediate, ignominious death or a swift thrust down to hell."  As the Guardian article points out, that covers a lot of ground. 

You may take the libertarian copout, as I'm often tempted to do, and say, well, government has no business running schools or local theaters, but let's spend a few minutes in reality just for the sake of this blog.  Government does have a role in education, like it or not (and for the record, I do support publicly-funded education), and I don't believe censorship serves educational interests.

This issue strikes me particularly right now because I'm in the middle of Reading Lolita in
Tehran, Azar Nafisi's fascinating memoir of the years she spent as a professor of literature in
Iran.  Many of her devout Muslim students objected to certain books because they were "immoral"–meaning that they did not condemn adultery, immodesty and other no-no's.  These students were uncomfortable with ambiguity and with being asked to identify with characters they disapproved of.

One can read Nafisi's book and think, man, those Iranians are sure messed up.  I would say the Iranian government is definitely messed up, but what this story really reminded me of was my own high school experience.  I recall that several of my LDS classmates were appalled that they were being forced to read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, a book that offended their moral sensibilities because it depicted a society in which drug use, promiscuity and the sexualization of young children were not only condoned but actively encouraged by the government.  As far as these students were concerned, it was immoral to read and write about such things, period, regardless of context.  Which is ironic, because as an anti-Utopian novel, Brave New World makes far better ammunition for social conservatives than it does for libertines.  By refusing to engage the novel philosophically, these students were missing the whole point.  Nafisi's Muslim students who condemned The Great Gatsby for its sympathetic portrayal of an "adulterer" and a "thief" similarly missed the point.  People who want to ban The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because they don't like the N-word also miss the point.

I will come right out and say that I oppose drug use, promiscuity, adultery, thievery, and use of the N-word, but I endorse Brave New World, The Great Gatsby and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn as worthwhile literary works.  I have no objection to them being taught in schools.  I'm not crazy about the F-word, either, but I have no problem with students reading The Catcher in the
Rye.  Heck, I have no problem with them reading the Bible, complete with its tales or rape and dismemberment and the occasional message of salvation.  Bring it on.  I don't subscribe to Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, but I think The Fountainhead is an important, provocative book that deserves to be read and discussed.  (It's also a sexy page-turner, kids!)  Disagreeing with an author's message does not take away from the value of understanding it.  Understanding what you disagree with forces you to examine your own opinions more thoroughly and thoughtfully; sometimes your opinions change, and sometimes they are strengthened, but either way, it's a growing experience.

I confess that I find much of this discussion quaint, since I don't consider censorship to be a major epidemic in our culture.  I don't feel a Third Reich coming on, not even in
Alabama.  Perhaps I'm naive.  ("First they came for Debbie Does
Dallas, but I didn't speak out because I don't watch porno flicks.  Then they came for Ulysses, but I didn't speak out because I could never make heads or tails of the darn thing anyway.  Then they came for my beloved Left Behind series, but there were no ACLU lawyers to plead my case and my fellow Mormons just rolled their eyes at me.")  But my purpose in writing this was not to warn you all that there's a gay book ban coming soon to your local library.  My purpose is to remind people once again that ideologies don't come in packages.  You can be personally opposed to homosexuality and still appreciate
Tennessee Williams.  You can favor legal abortion in the first trimester but not in the third.  You can be against abortion but in favor of women's suffrage.  You can be for same-sex marriage and against polygamy.  You can care for the poor and indigent in your community and oppose tax increases, even for people making more than $200,000 a year.  You can think Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant and the world's better off without him but oppose the war in
Iraq.  You can even probably vote for the war before you vote against it.  The world's a complicated place.

Some of us are uncomfortable with the fine lines that have to be drawn when we're outlining our personal opinions–or public policy.  We'd much rather construct solid brick walls, clearly marking the boundaries beyond which decent people may not tread.  You can call this consistency, idealism, or philosophical purity, but the fact is, few of us dwell in such neat and tidy places.  We all know that politics is like sausage-making, and some people are against sausage on principle.  That's a valid opinion, but not very useful for making sausage.  For people of diverse opinions to live together and get along, they have to acknowledge that there is more than one way to see the same issue.  That doesn't mean that all opinions are created equal, or that everyone's right just so long as they really believe they're right.  It means that you can't persuade a person to your point of view if you don't address the issues and experiences that led that person to his point of view.  I'm not asking you to consider the possibility that you're wrong and you're opponent is right.  Your opponent could be as wrong as sin on Sunday, but if you can't follow the path that led him to his conclusion, you'll never show him the error of his ways.  You might not anyway, but what you learn from the exercise could be useful in persuading others to your side. 

You can say that same-sex marriage is bad for society because of what's written in Leviticus all you want, but it won't matter because you aren't addressing any issue that concerns same-sex couples who want to marry.  You can say that opposing same-sex marriage is bigotry pure and simple all you want, but it won't matter if you can't talk about what marriage really is and what the institution has to do with society.  I refer to this issue specifically not to inflame people or make them uncomfortable but because Gary Taylor (author of the Guardian piece) would have you believe that same-sex marriage bans are part of a larger conspiracy to oppress homosexuals and anyone who doesn't subscribe to a narrowly-defined religious ethic–and because Gerald Allen would have you believe that same-sex marriage is part of a larger conspiracy to turn the whole world gay.  One of those opinions is ridiculous, of course–but so is the other one.  It's this kind of thinking that prevents meaningful discourse between opposing parties.  It also prevents progress.  In any direction you want to pick.

1.  No more political ads

2.  No more political ads

3.  No more political ads

Sugar Daddy and I have agreed that we will not have the TV or radio on tonight.  We just can't stand the suspense.  Plus, we find election coverage annoying.  Wake me up when it's over, kids.  Which reminds me, Doonesbury is funny today. 

The relief I will feel after this thing is finally settled will rival my post-childbirth euphoria.  Wait–no, it won't.  It will be a distant second, but second all the same.  It isn't just the presidential race I'm sick of.  That's actually been way down on the list of stuff that's nauseating me.  We've had a particularly nasty congressional campaign in my district, and then there are all those infernal state measures.  Here in
Oregon they really try to give you a guilt trip over last-minute voting, but it took me until this weekend to figure out how I wanted to vote on these dumb things. 

Take Measure 35, which puts a cap on non-economic awards in malpractice lawsuits.  My inner libertarian says, "Government screwing around with my fundamental right to sue the pants off anyone who messes with me or my family?  That's messed up!"  My inner pragmatist and my inner hippie have formed an unlikely coalition that says if setting a cap lowers malpractice insurance premiums and keeps doctors from leaving rural
Oregon, maybe it's okay.  The question is, will it lower malpractice insurance premiums?  The answer:  Yes, it will.  No, it won't.  Yes, it will.  No, it won't.  Yes, it will.  No, it won't.  To which my inner pragmatist replies, "Shut up and leave me alone!"  And my inner hippie says, "Can't we go back to talking about medical marijuana?"

But wait–we did talk about medical marijuana this election.  It may not be right, but I actually don't have strong philosophical objections to medical marijuana.  I just want to say that so you have a context for what I'm about to say next, which is that I can't take these pro-Measure 33 (expanding the medical marijuana law) people seriously.  It might be a junior-high mentality, but every time one of these people comes on TV and talks so passionately about needing their marijuana and if we don't give them their marijuana, we're just a bunch of meanies, I think, "Heh.  They said marijuana."  I know, I'm a terrible human being.  It's all those years I spent in
Eugene.

Then there's Measure 38, which abolishes Saif, the state-run worker's compensation insurance company.  Let me tell you, I could not make heads or tails of this measure until about 72 hours ago.  Even then my grip on the issue was a little shaky.  My inner libertarian, of course, said, "State-run insurance company?  That's messed up!"  My inner pragmatist and inner hippie (sort of the Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy of my ideological senate) had a more "nuanced" take on the subject.  In other words, they were totally confused, but on the same side.  I think.

I have a dear friend in McMinnville who was my roommate before we both got married.  Back in the day, we were both Democrats.  I was a fairly liberal Democrat, back in the day, by Republican standards, anyway.  She and I don't usually discuss politics in any depth since I switched political ideologies on her.  It's not that it's a sore point, but really, what are you going to say?  We're good enough friends and know each other well enough to know that our party affiliations signify little in the grand scheme of things.  She knew me before I became a right-wing extremist, and since I used to be one of those tax-and-spend liberals like her, each of us knows that the other one is not evil or stupid.  (Incidentally, please don't get on my back about those epithets, kids.  It's called diffusing a highly emotional situation with humor.  It may be sick, but it's not wrong.  Not very wrong, anyway.) 

Still, she called me on Friday to ask if I really was going to vote for so-and-so, and I replied, yes, are you really going to vote for so-and-so-so, and she replied, yes.  There was this pause and then she said, "How can you vote for so-and-so?"  Given that I'm not evil or stupid, my vote really did not make sense to her.  She did her best to try to influence my decision in the opposite direction, but it didn't work because I'm a closed-minded jerk.  Just kidding!  No, we just see the same issue very differently.  And that's okay.  Because regardless of who "wins" today, the world will keep revolving and we will still be friends. 

Which reminds me of a story, back from the day when I was a left-wing nutjob (see above note about the epithets) and I had a dear, dear friend who was a right-wing wacko (not unlike myself these days).  She was trying to understand why I would support a certain so-and-so for a certain high office (wink wink), and we got into quite a heated discussion in which we just went round and round about the same old crap, which got so utterly tiring for me that I finally said in exasperation, "Let's just stop talking about this.  You just don't understand me and you're never going to, so let's forget it."  There was a very long pause, after which she finally said, "Well.  Thank you so much for your confidence in me."  Ouch.  Ouch and double-ouch.  I do believe–at least I hope–that was the last time I said something so thoughtless to a friend.

Fortunately, since each of us knew that the other was not evil or stupid, we got over it in the next two minutes.  My friend told me a story, which might be apocryphal but who cares, about James Stewart and Henry Fonda, who were very good friends but also had very different political views; one day they got into such a big argument over something political that they ended up in a fistfight.  But after that they were okay.  Whenever political conversations started reaching that boiling point, one of us would suggest having a fistfight, and that would just make us laugh and change the subject.  (That's the way chicks handle their ideological disagreements.  When they're friends.)

At the risk of boring everyone, including myself, I just have to get this election-related blog off my chest. 

So there's an article in this morning's Oregonian about people who are trying to prevent voter fraud by standing over the shoulders of county elections officials whose job it is to verify the signatures on all the mail-in ballots.  (All Oregonians vote by mail now; there are no polling places.)  It started with a group of paranoid Republicans, then the paranoia spread to include a "non-partisan" organization called Every Vote Counts (or something), and eventually Democrats got in on the act as well.  Which means there are a whole bunch of random citizens in the county elections office watching employees verify signatures.  Some people are there just to watch the watchers.  They write down their concerns and submit them later, but they can't say anything during the process itself, which irks them.  Naturally.Call me naive, call me apathetic, but can it get any stupider than this?

Voter fraud is a problem, and definitely circumstances are ripe for it in
Oregon, where nobody votes in person anymore.  People are right to be concerned about voter fraud, but for crying out loud–it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the fraud is in the registration, not so much the voting itself.  People get ballots who shouldn't have ballots.  People get duplicate ballots.  That's a problem.  But let's consider how many different scenarios there are in which someone is going to get someone else's ballot, vote fraudulently in that person's name, and forge the person's signature.  Someone could steal the ballot out of the person's mailbox.  I guess.  A really civic-minded thief might bypass all the checks and decide to rock the vote instead.  That's possible.  A new resident of a residence could receive the ballot for an old resident.  That's also possible.  A person could get two ballots and decide to give one to his non-documented worker friend or his teenage son.  That's also possible.  But to perpetrate a fraud on the elections office, the illegal voter would still have to successfully forge the signature of the legal voter.  In our first two scenarios, that would be difficult indeed.  If the duplicate-ballot-receiving voter were of a mind to commit a fraud, he could just vote twice, or allow his illegal voter friends to vote and sign his name to their ballot(s).  All of this is unlikely, but possible nevertheless.I should think, or I would hope, with technology being as advanced as it is, that officials could detect multiply-voting voters.  Apparently that's not the case so much, but even so, what does verifying the freaking signature do to prevent that from happening?  The elections office has already said that as long as the signature matches, the vote counts.  They do verify the ballot signature against the signature on the original registration.  If they match, the ballot gets counted.  If they don't match, they go in a pile marked "suspicious," and they deal with them separately.  They don't throw them out.  They deal with them separately. 

So the idea that phony signatures are a big part of voter fraud is, in my mind, just ridiculous.  To believe this you would also have to believe the following:

1)  One or more of the county elections officials in charge of verifying signatures is crooked and highly motivated to break the law.

2)  Someone who works as a county elections official is ambitious enough to break the law and risk prosecution in order to effect the outcome of the election.

3)  All of the people supervising the signature verifiers are of the same party as the crooked signature verifier(s) and they too are also crooked and ambitious enough to break the law and perpetrate a fraud on the entire state.

4)  All of these crooked county elections officials can look inside the sealed ballot envelope (and sealed privacy envelope) with their x-ray vision and know how someone voted so they know whether or not they should keep the ballot or toss it.

Call me an innocent, call me a bureaucrat-lover, but I trust that the people at the county elections office are not all that corrupt.  And I believe they're probably reasonably competent despite the fact that they work for the government.  I also suspect that none of them have super powers.  I hardly think a bunch of busybodies with nothing better to do than sit on trained professionals' laps and second-guess their signature verifications are going to do a single thing to prevent voter fraud during this election. 

This is a classic example of misplaced outrage.  What people should be outraged about is the fact that we're all on the honor system when it comes to registering to vote, at least in
Oregon.  Sure, it's illegal to lie on a voter registration form, but does anyone freaking care?  Apparently not.  A 16-year-old was on the TV news last night showing us that he received a ballot in the mail after illegally registering to vote.  Number one:  How hard is it, really, to verify that a person exists and that he's not 18 years old yet?  Number two:  Did anyone catch the "illegal" part of "illegally registering to vote"?  Is this 16-year-old going to get any of that threatened fine (up to $100,000) and imprisonment (up to five years)?  If he's appearing on the evening news, that means he's either really dumb or elections officials really don't freaking care if you lie on your registration form or not.

The county elections office sends out reminders that people intending to vote in a federal election need to submit identification that shows a current name and address with their registrations.  In the Oregonian article I mentioned earlier, the elections office basically admits that they aren't too persnickety about that one either.  Can someone please explain to me what's wrong with requiring proof of identity, especially when you can send a freaking photocopy in the freaking mail for thirty seven cents?  Why are people in other states, for that matter, so queasy about requiring people to show photo ID at their polling places?  Where's the denial of civil rights, assuming that the person in question is in fact entitled to vote in that state?  I don't get it.  Please help me.

As long as I'm all worked up about elections fraud, someone also tell me why people who can't be bothered to follow the directions on their ballots deserve to have their votes counted.  "Use blue or black ink."  "Fill in the circle completely."  "Vote for one only."  How hard is this?  But I speak as a person who never turned in a ballot with a hanging or pregnant chad, either.  I was geeky enough to take that admonition about making sure one's ballot card was completely punched through seriously.  I understand not everyone is as anal as I am.  Call me an elitist, call me a freaking nazi, but I guess that makes me in favor of disenfranchising the severely non-anal.

Rant over.  Remember to vote Nov. 2.  Early and often.