Well, I have to say that I am satisfied with the results of the elections yesterday. The day after election day in 2004, I was ashamed of my country and my state for the poor decisions that were made. This morning, I am quite pleased.

There is a real sense of turning a corner here -- a real sense of change. Obama has an opportunity to repair the damage done by George W Bush in many ways that McCain could not, particularly in the areas of civil rights and our standing in world opinion. America broke through a barrier yesterday that many thought would stand for a very long time.

Personally, I still think Hillary Clinton would have made a better president than either of the final candidates, but Barack Obama is going to be good for this country, and I look forward to having some real leadership for a change.

One again, I am boggled as to the reason why Congress is spending any of my money investigating a professional baseball player.

Now, I fully understand that the use of steroids and human growth hormone by a professional baseball player is a very bad idea. I understand that it is against the rules. I understand it is dangerous. I understand that it is cheating. But, to the best of my knowledge, the use or abuse of steroids and HGH in this country is not illegal.

Given that, why is Roger Clemens sitting in Washington, DC, this week defending himself? (And looking guilty as hell, but that's another story.) What is Congress going to do? Even if he is guilty, what then? They can't put him in jail. They can't even ban him from the Hall of Fame. What are they going to do? "Bad boy, let's break for lunch and get back to fund-raising."

I plan to vote for the so-called "Healthy Kids Initiative", Measure 50, more accurately known as the "cigarette tax". However, there is something I don't understand.

I don't understand why this was floated as a constitutional amendment instead of a legislative act. If you are one of the two people who have read my past blog entries, then you know I set a higher bar for constitutional amendment initiatives than I do for legislative initiatives. It seems to me that a specific tax like this is not something that belongs in a constitution.

Now, I do understand their incentive; by putting it in the constitution, the Legislature can't tweak it on its own. It requires another constitutional amendment to change it later. However, that's a sucky reason to make something a constitutional amendment.

The ads from the cigarette companies trying to kill this measure are slimy and filled with misdirection and falsehoods, but if we're going to criticize them for it, I think we should demand a similar level of honesty from those in favor.

OK, I'll admit it. I like Harry Potter. I've read all of the books, and I've seen all of the movies.

I enjoyed the 7th book. I thought Rowling did an admirable job of tying up the enormous number of loose ends that had been left around throughout the series. A lot of things were made clear, and many people got exactly what they deserved. It was a satisfying conclusion.

The 5th movie, Order of the Phoenix, was OK. This was not my favorite book in the series. Harry spends much of the book feeling sorry for himself, and that doesn't really come out in the movie. The movie was really quite different from the book in many ways, mostly because it would have taken 4 hours long to fit in all of the action. I also find the whole Umbridge thing a bit difficult to swallow. She would not have been allowed to mutilate and mercilessly interrogate children with impunity. I know parents!

I received a spam email this morning from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, as I do on a weekly basis.  I haven't canceled it, because it isn't terribly annoying, and I find it moderately interesting.  Each week's spam is supposedly authored by a different democratic senator, and it's kind of fun to get an email from Ted Kennedy.

This week's issue expressed outrage over the president's commutation of Scooter Libby's jail sentence in the CIA outing case.  I wrote them the following reply, some of which duplicates my last blog entry.

I am not convinced that "outrage" is quite the right emotion here.  We need to be very careful to cast this in the proper light.

The president is, in fact, perfectly within his rights to commute Libby's sentence, or even pardon him outright.  Even we in the opposition party cannot deny that this is one of the privileges granted to the president by the Constitution, and he doesn't have to justify it to anyone.  The issue here, it seems to me, is that Bush has chosen once again to try to cast the blame elsewhere.  If he had said, for example, "Libby is a good friend and was a faithful servant to this administration, and because of that I don't want him to go to jail," we would have been irritated, but I think we would have been able to respect his honesty.  But instead, Bush's announcement tried to spin the facts to justify the commutation. That is where he crossed the line, in my opinion.

It's exactly the same situation as in the Alberto Gonzales case.  The Attorney General has the legal power to fire US Attorneys.  They serve at his whim.  He can fire them for whatever reasons he wants -- legal missteps, ethics violations, bad choice of clothes, wrong hair color. It doesn't matter.  If the administration had said "yes, we fired those attorneys because we didn't like their political leanings," again we would have been irritated, but it would have been perfectly legal.  Instead, the administration had to spin up a false story to justify the firings, and it is that spin that got Gonzales in trouble.

Oddly enough, this is the same thing that got to Clinton.  Regardless of the morals, it is perfectly legal to have an intern provide sexual favors at the workplace, even in the White House.  Had Clinton simply been honest, instead of trying to spin things, he would not have been impeached.

Honesty.  It's quite a concept.  When did it stop being a necessary part of American politics?

The Alberto Gonzales situation is just one more piece of evidence of the utter stupidity rampant in the Bush administration. Consider.

It is not against the law for the Attorney General to fire US Attorneys. It is in his job description. They serve at his pleasure, which means he can fire them for whatever reasons he wants. Bad breath, poor dresser, incompatible political leanings, wrong eye color, doesn't matter. He can tell them to pack up and go. Had he done so, and just said "we didn't like their political affiliation", it would have ended there.

But instead, the Bush adminstration has grown so accustomed to spinning a story to justify all of their screw-ups, that they did the same thing here. They tried to tell the country that these attorneys were all fired for cause. Why would they do that? They didn't NEED cause. But for the AG to lie about it, that makes it a scandal. It is so utterly stupid, it is hard to believe.

Has it occurred to anyone that this is exactly the same thing that resulted in only the second presidential impeachment in our history? It's not illegal to get a blow job, even under your desk at work. But Clinton lied about it, and that got him impeached.

Why shouldn't the same fate await Alberto Gonzales?

I'm told that some college kids have a tradition of "suicide night", where they rent and view a whole series of very depressing movies.  The usual list includes such gems as "1984", "A Clockwork Orange", and "Brazil".

After this weekend, I feel confident that the new Disney flick "Bridge to Terabithia" could be added to this list.  For God's sake, don't take children to this movie!

It's not enough just to have a couple of sad scenes, followed by a cheerful and cleansing resolution.  Instead, this movie just keeps on bashing you with the sad stick.  (Whack) Look, this boy's home life sucks.  (Whack) Look, his school life is utter torture.  (Whack) Look, all the kids hate him.  (Whack) Look, his mother likes his sisters better. (Whack) Look, his dad doesn't like him either.  (Whack) Look, he lost a foot race to a girl.  (Whack) Look, he gets blamed for things he didn't do.  (Whack) Look, he betrays his only friend in the world.  (Whack) Just when he finally does make a friend, she dies.

Holy moly.  If there were any redeeming aspects to this movie, I must have missed them.  It was a complete downer from beginning to end.  They should have therapists on call standing outside the theater.

No stars from me.

Measure 48 is a constitutional amendment which will severely limit increases in state spending.  Oregon does its budgeting in two-year cycles.  Currently, the budget for the upcoming two-year period is limited to 8% of the projected personal income in the state over that period.  This measure would cap the increase in spending from one biennium to the next, to the sum of inflation plus the increase in state population over the last biennium.

The worst thing about this measure, in my opinion, is the way proponents are cheerfully describing it as the "Rainy Day Amendment".  The amendment does not stop the state from collecting 8% of projected personal income, it merely prevents the state from spending it.  The excess would, supposedly, go into a "rainy day fund".

Can you imagine anything more stupid than having the state collect money that it is constitutionally prevented from spending?

The biggest problem is that the limited increase is simply not enough to fund the services that Oregonians demand.  If this measure passes, the state would have to eliminate $2.2 billion in spending by June of 2007, and almost $5 billion from the 2007-2009 biennium.  We simply cannot afford that.  Key public services will have to be shut down.  Similar measures have crippled other states.

Please, people.  Do not let yourself be soothed by the deceitful and cheery ads for the "Rainy Day Amendment."  READ the measure, READ the financial impact statement, READ the arguments.  Then, vote NO on Measure 48.

Measure 47 is the second of two measures on the ballot this fall designed to limit campaign contributions.  This is an act, not a constitutional amendment, and so has to measure up to a lower bar.

However, there is a problem here.  As written, this measure is unconstitutional.  It violates Oregon's free speech guarantees, which are among the strongest such guarantees in the nation.  The authors of the measure know this.  That's why they have also proffered Measure 46, which is a constitutional amendment to curtail free speech rights regarding campaign contributions.

The big problem here is that no one knows quite what will happen if 46 fails and 47 passes.  In that case, the state Supreme Court will strike down several sections of Measure 47, and the sections which are left will have consequences that cannot be foreseen at this time. That's foolhardy and dangerous.

Indeed, at least one of the authors of Measure 47 has realized the danger and is now campaigning against the measure.  His is one of the paid arguments against in the voter's pamphlet.

No unintended consequences.  Vote no on Measure 47.

Measure 46 is one of two measures on the ballot this fall intended to limit campaign contributions.  This one is a constitutional amendment, and as I have said in the past, proposed amendments need to meet a very high bar. This one does not do so.

Personally, I haven't made up my own mind on whether campaign contributions need more limitations than they currently have.  I hate the rash of negative advertising, but limiting contributions just means that only the rich could afford to run.

The key problem with this proposed amendment is that it is way too broad. It authorizes the legislature to enact laws prohibiting contributions and expenditures of ANY TYPE OR DESCRIPTION intended to influence the outcome of ANY election.  That doesn't mention money.  This could very easily be used, for example, to prohibit candidate endorsements in newspaper editorials.  It could easily be used to prohibit me from making these very blog postings.

No.  Constitutional amendments must be specific, carefully worded, and clearly beneficial to the state as a whole.  This one is NOT.

Vote no on Measure 46.

Measure 45 would institute term limits for state legislators.  Representatives would be limited to six years, senators would be limited to eight years, and no one could serve a combined total of more than 14 years.

I don't know who came up with the bright idea that fresh faces make better legislation, but it is patently false.  Oregon had a term limit law in the 1990s until the state Supreme Court invalidated it, and it was an unmitigated disaster.

Politics is not a game where you bring in a new shooter to try his hand at manipulating the lives of millions.  Politics is a job, and it's a job where you get better at it as time goes on.  I want someone who has had the time to observe the workings of the legislature, and knows how to wrangle a compromise to get something done.  Bulls in China shops don't do that.

This is a Bad Idea.  Vote NO on Measure 45.

Now HERE is the one great idea in this year's batch of initiative measures.

Oregon has a prescription drug program which allows participants in the Oregon medical program (usually low income folks) to get prescription drugs at a significant discount. The discount comes by having the state do the purchasing in bulk; pharmacies are always willing to give a discount to group buyers.

Measure 44 would open this opportunity up to any Oregonian without medical insurance. There is no cost to the state, no bureaucratic impact, no additional employees. More people means more buying power, which means more opportunities for discount. It is a win-win like we don't usually see on election day.

Vote YES on Measure 44.

Measure 43 would require that a medical provider give 48-hour written notice to the parents of a 15- to 17-year-old before performing an abortion. Violations would be punishable by discipline or lawsuit.

This is one of the most controversial measures on our ballot. I am against this proposal. Proponents make heart-string-tugging arguments about how no minor should be alone when making the decision to have an abortion, and how parents have a right to know.

However, they make those arguments as if 15-to-17-year-olds were somehow PREVENTED from contacting their parents in this situation right now. That's just not true. I would be surprised if abortion providers did not ask "have you talked with your parents about this?" If the girl is consciously going through such an important procedure without the advice of her parent, then it's quite likely that she has very good reasons to exclude them. I don't see that it is the state's responsibility to second guess this, and possibly make an already bad situation even worse.

Let us make no mistake about it. This is not about protecting kids. This is just the pro-lifers pushing the envelope one more step towards a total ban on abortions. Eat it away a little bit at a time until we don't realize that the right has been completely eliminated.

No on measure 43.

Measure 42 would prohibit insurance companies from using your credit score as a criterion in determining your premiums.

I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the consumer in me sees it an invasion of privacy.

On the other hand, I can see why the insurance companies do this; there is a certain intuitive sense in asserting that people with good credit ratings tend to be better insurance risks. The whole point of insurance is that people who are higher risk pay a higher premium.

There are already certain protections in place in Oregon. The insurance company must tell you that they are going to get a credit score, and there are strong restrictions on what they can do with that information.

Based on that, this measure does not pass my "really good idea" criterion. No on measure 42.

Measure 41 would change the way personal tax exemptions are handled on Oregon's income tax form. Today, you get a fixed tax credit per dependent. With Measure 41, we would take a deduction equal to the Federal tax deduction.

This is nothing but pure greed. It's just a way to give the state less money to do the things we expect it to do. Our individual state tax bills would be less, but our Federal tax would go up because of it.

There is just no good reason for this. No on measure 41.

Measure 40 would change the way Oregon elects its Supreme Court and Court of Appeals justices. Today, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court positions are elected statewide. If 40 passes, these positions would be elected on a district basis, and there would be a residency requirements to run in a specific district.

The theory, apparently, is that the current system ends up electing judges mostly from the most populous (and hence urban) parts of the state, in the Willamette Valley, and folks in the rural areas are supposed to be upset about it. Frankly, I find that argument insulting. Unlike legislators, judges are supposed to be basing their opinions on the law, not on what "the folks back home" talk about over eggs and bacon down at the diner. Theoretically, a judge from Lakeview would make the same basic decisions as a judge from Eugene.

Why should it be a surprise that most judges come from the most populous areas? Statistically speaking, that is exactly what you would expect. Further, most judges are lawyers, and most attorney jobs are going to be in the urban areas.

By enforcing these district restrictions, we are effectively saying that we don't want the best candidates for these positions if they happen to live in the wrong spot. This is a Bad Idea.

No on measure 40.

Measure 39 would prohibit a public body from condemning private property if it intends to convey all or part of the land to a private party.

On the face of it, this seems like a good thing. However, this is attempting to solve a problem that does not exist. Unlike the east coast, where a certain amount of corruption is accepted as a part of life, even the proponents of Measure 39 have not been able to identify a single instance of abuse of condemnation in Oregon that this measure would have prevented. The Oregon constitution already requires fair compensation to landowners when land is condemned, and this process has worked for us.

Further, as it is written, this measure could make it more difficult and more expensive for cities and counties to acquire land for their normal business activities.

Those unintended consequences are a danger in any measure like this, which is one reason why I say that a measure must pass a rather high standard. This measure does not pass that standard.

No on measure 39.

Oregonians have 10 statewide initiative measures on their ballot this fall, almost all of which should be allowed to slink back into obscurity.

Initiative measures should need to pass a high standard in order to be enacted by the populace. A measure needs to be more than just a fairly good idea. It needs to be a REALLY good idea. Constitutional amendments need to pass an even higher standard; the constitution is the fundamental document that governs the way our lives are run in this state.

After reading through the statewide measures, the Committee for Rational Thinking urges a "no" vote across the board, except for the prescription drug plan, Measure 44. Over the next few days, I hope to write essays documenting my objections to each measure one by one.

I especially despise the advertisements in which slick marketing campaigns to try to convince you that the measure is something it is not, in order to sway those voters who do not pay attention. The worst of the crowd this time is Measure 48, the State Financial Straightjacket amendment, which proponents are cheerfully casting as the "Rainy Day Amendment". The only reason that name is applicable is because of the rain of tears that will fall because of the severe cutbacks that will be required should this amendment pass, but I'll get to that later.

It also frustrates me that every non-incumbent wants to elect them so they can "turn things around" and "enact REAL change" and "combat politics as usual". Those sound like wonderful catchphrases, but is that what we really want? Personally, I think Oregon works pretty well now. Yes, there are some things we need to tweak, and some adjustments we need to make in several key areas, but I'm not sure I want "REAL change". Further, politics is a game of compromise. The only way to get anything done in legislature is to learn how to compromise -- how to play the game of politics. When we elect someone who wants to "combat politics as usual", what we're really electing is someone who doesn't understand how the game is played. That, in turn, means that they won't be able to get anything done.

What I'm asking is that each Oregon really use their heads to understand the issues -- to look through the slogans and catchphrases and find out what each decision really means.

I don't have the ultimate answers to the immigration issue that is now dividing the nation, but I am disturbed by the tenor of many of the arguments in this debate.

Many people argue that all "illegal immigrants" should be arrested or deported, simply because they are in the country in violation of our law. This somewhat self-righteous attitude presupposes that all laws are inherently good and reasonable.

Consider, for a moment, the case of Rosa Parks. Parks was arrested because of her color, for choosing the wrong seat on a public bus. This arrest was in accordance with the laws of the time. And yet, many people at the time, and certainly most people today, would agree that the fault in that dispute was with the law, and not with Mrs. Parks. I wonder if we aren't in the same situation now.

If an immigrant arrives in this country (through whatever path), settles down, finds a job, earns a living wage, pays taxes, puts his children into school, and stays out of trouble, as most do, they are doing one heck of a lot better than a substantial fraction of the native population of this country. Why shouldn't we rush to welcome such a family into the fabric of our society?

In the end, maybe a merit system is one way to solve the problem. Let all immigrants in on a conditional basis. Six months or a year later, if they can demonstrate that they are productively contributing to society, rather than acting as a drain upon it, they may apply for citizenship. If not, deportation awaits.

(Submitted to The Oregonian, May 9)

The Bush administration has shut down all American foreign aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, and is pressuring our European allies to do the same. Now, I understand the desire not to fund terrorism, and the administration certainly had the right to set our policy, but I think this decision is unwise.

Much of our foreign aid goes to corrupt governments, where the majority of the money ends up in the pockets of despots and tyrants, rather than in the hands of the people. In the case of the Palestinian Authority, this does not seem to be the case. There have been no stories of rampant corruption in their government. Further, the BBC reported that fully a third of the Palestinians rely on civil payments for their sustenance. Those people are passing desparate on their way to starvation.

What that tells me is that withholding this money is going to lead directly to Palestinian suffering, which will in turn lead to Palestinian resentment and hatred towards America. The last thing we need right now is more hatred towards America.

Further, I'm not sure what the Bush administration hopes to accomplish with this. Does he expect Hamas to say "sorry, we were just kidding, we'll back out of the government?" It's not like the Palestinian people have the authority to order new elections. Further, it's not clear that a new election would have a different result.

Indeed, one quite likely outcome is that the Palestinian Authority gets weakened to the point where it falls into chaos, leaving an opening for Israel to step in and take over. This will not be a good thing for the world.

I believe we will be sorry in the long run. America should reinstate its foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority.

Oregon's income tax kicker is misguided and counterproductive.

Many of the items that I've read from taxpayers defending the kicker are demands that the state return "their" money. I simply do not understand this thinking. Oregon's income tax rate is 9% (ignoring that this is a marginal tax rate, so no one actually pays anywhere near this rate). That fraction represents our "fair share" -- the cost of providing the services that we, as Oregonians, have demanded over the years, and the dues we pay for not having to live in, say, Alabama or Uzbekistan. Why should anyone expect his "fair share" to go down just because more people paid taxes than expected, or because corporations made more taxable profits than usual? My share is 9% of my income. Your share is 9% of your income. The expectation that your share should somehow be reduced simply because someone else paid more than expected is nothing but personal greed.

Oregon is now gaining about 40,000 new residents each year. If we were to get 50,000 new residents this year, and those 10,000 unexpected immigrants begin paying income taxes, that would raise revenue above projections. However, Oregon still has the responsibility to provide roads, schools, driver's licenses, and police protection for those 10,000 people. It is unreasonable for taxpayers to demand that the taxes from those 10,000 new residents be paid back to them, while still expecting the state to provide services for those new residents.

The American Red Cross got a huge influx of money in 2005, much more than they budgeted at the beginning of the year. Should we demand that they return that money to donors because revenue exceeded their budget? No, of course not. They need that money to pay for services provided during the recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, among other things. And yet, this is exactly what we ask of the State of Oregon.

When a family gets an unexpected windfall above and beyond their expected income, such as an inheritance, or a lottery win, or a juicy raise at work, do we ask them to return money to everyone who paid them? No, of course not. We expect them to invest that windfall in some kind of a savings account, to compensate for the eventual "rainy day", when their income does not cover their expenses. And yet, the "kicker" law prevents the State of Oregon from implementing that kind of common sense savings strategy.

When revenues fall below estimates, we all expect the state to come up with the money to provide the services we demand. And yet, because of the kicker law, we refuse to allow the state to tuck away any unexpected windfall in an account to cover the inevitable downturn.

It has been said that a democracy can only last until its citizens realize that they can vote to write themselves checks from the public treasury. With both Measure 37 and the debate over the kicker law, we're now seeing this kind of thinking permeate Oregon's voters. Don't let greed become the primary driving force in Oregon. Do the right thing -- eliminate the kicker.

(Submitted to The Oregonian, March 13)

With Hamas taking control in Palestine, and Benjamin Netanyahu set to take control in Israel, it won't be very long before things start blowing up in Israel. Both of them prefer violence to dialog.

It is a very frightening time for the Middle East.

In the Jan 15 Oregonian, letter writer Karen Grano ("What's the Problem?") asks "what are we worried about" regarding President Bush's order directing illegal personal surveillance against American citizens, and further asks "are we hiding something?"

That is none of her business. More importantly, it is none of the Government's business, either. The Constitution guarantees this, and that's exactly why Mr. Bush's order is a problem.

Ms. Grano must have been absent for the semester when the history of World War II was taught in her school. The German public rationalized the crimes its government was committing against its own Jewish population by comforting itself with similar platitudes. "I don't have to be worried. I have nothing to hide. What's the problem?"

If President Bush is not afraid to violate the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution in this one case, and if the public encourages him in this violation, what possible disincentive will he have against moving on to other "inconvenient" Constitutional protections? We've already seen issues with the guarantee of a speedy trial in Guantanamo. What's next? Free assembly? Free press? The presidential two-term limitation?

The rules are there to be followed. ALL of them. If Ms. Grano supports the violation of the Constitution in this regard, then she should not whine for redress when police break into her house and rifle through her personal belongings because her last name sounds suspiciously foreign.

(Submitted to The Oregonian, January 15)

President Bush is entirely within his rights to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who has never been a judge. In fact, they need not even be a lawyer, although that would be unusual.

However, I sincerely hope Mr. Bush does not expect his nominee to be rubber stamped into her office-for-life. The fact that there is no record of rulings and opinions makes it even more important that the Senate explore her beliefs and opinions, and critically important that she answer those questions, unlike Judge "Dodge 'Em" Roberts.

This is a job interview. Stonewalling by Ms. Miers should be answered with the same action one would get in a job interview: "no thank you".

The Kansas State Board of Education has decided to change its guidelines for science, allowing "logical arguments" to be presented as explanations for natural phenomenon on an equal footing with observation and experimentation.

The board never mentioned it, but it is clearly understood by both sides that this is a precursor to the introduction of "intelligent design" as a plausible alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution.

Evolution is not just a theory. It has been observed in the laboratory with lower life forms. We have seen natural selection in action. It is quite true that no one has observed evolution in humans, but it requires extreme arrogance to assert that homo sapiens was somehow exempt from the same natural processes that cover all other organisms on the planet.

A good story is not enough to make good science. Personally, I find the "intelligent design" argument to be compelling. I'm a Christian; I believe in God. As I look through my eyes and observe the intricate workings of the muscles and bones in my hands, I find it hard to imagine that these mechanisms evolved at random, even over the geologic time scales that are involved. However, there is absolutely no way to concoct an experiment that would either confirm or deny the presence of a divine intelligence. Absent that, the topic is nothing more than rumor -- a thought experiment -- faith. It is NOT science.

I have no problem with textbooks which say, for example, "there are many people of faith who believe that evolutionary processes are guided by a Divine Creator", but insisting that intelligent design be given the status of "scientific theory" is nothing but religious fundamentalism.

The family went to see The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl today. I thought it might have some redeeming adult features, like the first two Spy Kids movies did.

I was wrong.

It was a complete waste of $25, stupid from front to back. I don't know what their target demographic is, but it must be significantly younger than the 12-year-old stars of the movie. Except for the house and school, I suspect no sets at all were used here. The blending in the use of green screens was just awful.

It's too bad, because the plot concept is not horrible. In fact, the basic plot is quite similar to the wonderful movie, Neverending Story, which succeeded without the gratuitous use of 3D.

I do wonder if Taylor Dooley was chosen for the role of Lava Girl because of her incredibly striking resemblance to Alyssa Milano.

Well, I just got back from watching Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. It is a very powerful movie, although it is quite dark and violent. Lucas did a great job of bringing us back to the beginning, and in that sense it was very satisfying.

I strongly recommend that you read the novelization. There is so much more in the book that makes the action in the movie even more tragic. You get thoughts, emotions, and fears that simply cannot be represented in a movie.

Natalie Portman certainly had a sucky role in this film. She comes across as needy and clingy, and she apparently never gets out of her own apartment. She just sits on her couch and stares out the window. It is impossible to believe this is the same character who ruled as Queen of Naboo at the age of 14. She's still hot, however.

There was one scene in the book that I was looking forward to, but it was not in the movie. It would have been the penultimate scene, with Yoda, having landed on Dagobah, looking around at the desolate swamp where he will have to spent the last decades of his long life.

"When 900 years old YOU reach, look as good, you will not. Hmm?"

Only two more days until the release of the final chapter in the Star Wars saga. Thirty years. Who would have believed it?

Lucas claims that Star Wars fans will have tears in their eyes when the movie ends. Having just read the novelization, I have to agree with him. This is a tragedy, and it reveals what a tragedy the entire six-movie cycle has been. Perhaps the worst part of it is that, unlike previous movies, we all know what has to happen here. We know that all of the Jedi (except two) will die. We know that the Chancellor must become the Emporer. We know that poor, trusting Anakin Skywalker will turn on his closest friends and become the evil and mechanical Darth Vader. We know that Padme will deliver twins and die. We know that their galaxy is about to be thrust into a period of painful oppression. And we know that all of this is happening because of the ambitions of exactly one man.

I consider myself a stoic, and I found myself having surpisingly strong feelings of dread as I picked up the novel.

I'm looking forward to the movie, but it isn't going to be a "feel good" experience.

Farrah Fawcett made another valiant attempt at Late Night With David Letterman last night. For those who haven't been paying attention, her first appearance on Late Night was a fiasco. Many people theorized that she was under the influence of some mind-altering substance; she was distracted, unfocussed, wandering.

I've seen all three appearances, and I no longer think she was on something. I think she's just dumb. They have all been exactly the same. Letterman is just as gentle as he can be, as if he were working with a small child, and yet she interrupts him, talks over the top of him, aplogizes for it, giggles, and loses her train of thought. He asks a question, and there is a long, uncomfortable pause. Is she is trying to understand the question? Is she trying to judge whether her answer will result in more embarrassment? Do we care?

Jessica Simpson has made a successful franchise out of ditziness, although I have a sneaking suspicion that Simpson is a great deal smarter than her television persona. Fawcett actually seems to BE an idiot.

She was on Letterman to promote her upcoming reality show on TV Land, Following Farrah. I can think of few shows that I was rather see LESS than Following Farrah.

My favorite exchange from last night:

Letterman: So what is this TV Land? Where did they come from? I can honestly say that, in 23 years, I have never mentioned TV Land on this show.

Fawcett: Well, keep on doing it, because I get paid every time you say their name.

Can someone explain Ashton Kutcher to me? He is an irritating, unkempt, annoying, obnoxious dweeb, and he certainly isn't good looking. So, why is he the flavor of the month, and how on Earth did he end up with Demi Moore?

Isn't anyone else frightened by the "emergency" action taken by congress and Our President to interfere in the Terry Schiavo case down in Florida? Court after court has ruled that her husband has the right to make her medical decisions, and yet this poor woman "lives" on, fed through a tube and exhibited like a specimen on a slide.

Although I, personally, am terribly frightened of death, I firmly believe that people ought to have a choice. As an Oregonian, I support Oregon's Death With Dignity act. There comes a time when there is no point in going on, if life consists of nothing other than "breathing". If Michael Schiavo says Terry told him she didn't want to be kept alive by machine, who are we to say otherwise? It's been 15 years, for crying out loud! Surely it would be better to release her to finally meet her maker.

Now that the US Court Judge has ruled in favor of the husband, I hope that the idiots in Washington DC who cut short their vacations to grandstand on this topic (and I include George "W" in that set) will have the decency to feel embarrassed about it, at least in private.

I hope none of you in my listening audience are gullible enough to believe that any of the congressional blowhards involved in this scheme actually had the slightest twince of compassion for Terry Schiavo herself. This was not about compassion. This was exploitation of a terrible tragedy for the sole purpose of gathering sound bites.

Tom Delay was quoted as complaining that the US Court Judge did not follow the "will of congress". Darned good thing, too. That's why we have three branches of government. It's a good thing the judicial branch still has the good sense to come to its decisions based on civil rights and constitutional protections, rather than speeches that will look good on the 6 o'clock news when election time comes around.

I am amazed by the number of car owners who cannot grasp the simple concept of Oregon's car registration stickers.

Unlike some states, Oregon issues two license plates per car: one for front, one for back. When you get the plates, you are given four stickers: two month stickers, two year stickers. From then on, at renewal time, all you get are the two new year stickers.

Procedurally, you are supposed to put one month sticker on each plate, in the box labelled "MONTH", and one year sticker on each plate, in the box labelled "YEAR". This seems like an easy procedure to follow. And yet, every parking lot has at least one car that has two year stickers on the back plate, and two month stickers on the front plate. More common yet is the Einstein who gets his renewal stickers and plops them over the month stickers.

I place part of the blame on the Department of Motor Vehicles itself. The year stickers have a two-digit year, and a lengthy serial number. The month stickers are also numeric, with one- or two-digits as required. At the end of the 20th Century, it was easy to see that 98 was a year, and 12 was a month. Today, it takes a bit more reckoning ability to notice that "5" is a month and "05" is a year, although the serial number on the year sticker should be a big clue.

In fact, I sent a letter to the DMV suggesting that they might want to seriously consider either (a) switching to letter abbreviations for the month, or (b) switching to 4-digit years, because the problem is going to get worse late next year, when people starting getting month "10" and year "10".

Oregon native Rachel Scdoris is currently in Alaska, running the Iditarod sled dog race. Just competing in that race is a remarkable enough achievement, but Scdoris faces an additional challenge: she is legally blind.

Now, I don't want to minimize the challenges she has faced and overcome in her life, and I certainly do not think she should be denied any opportunities that would be provided a fully sighted person. However, there is something about this that bothers me.

To help her get through the race, Scdoris is accompanied by a prompter, riding ahead of her on a snowmobile, calling out directions. That's not fair. One of the big obstacles in the Iditarod is the terrible loneliness caused by the complete isolation one feels when surrounded by hundreds and hundreds of miles of absolutely nothing but snow. Most of the mushers experience hallucinations during the race, some of them severe enough to cause breakdowns. Scdoris will not have to face that. She knows there is companionship available -- another human being within a few feet who can help out in any emergency situation.

I don't care if she never talks to the prompter. I don't care if she doesn't even see the prompter for miles at a time. She knows the guy is there. That is an incredibly important advantage that the other mushers will not have.

I understand that the current results have her well down in the pack (something like 70th out of 75), so there is little chance that this advantange will affect the outcome, but the fact remains that she isn't really experiencing this race in the same way as the other mushers.

(Submitted to the Oregonian 1/6/05)

What has happened to common sense in our legislature?

The cynical among us will assert that it has never been present, but the fact is that the laws of the state are supposed to be reasonable and sensible, providing for public safety without imposing an unreasonable or vindictive burden upon our everyday lives. In 2004, at least two new laws violate these guidelines.

The new statutes on school zones are a mixed bag. It has resulted in one significant benefit, in that all school zones must have their active periods clearly marked, either with a time or with flashing lights. The previous method, "when children are present," was dangerously ambiguous. When children are present in the school? When they are visible? When they are in the crosswalk? This was clearly a problem, and the new law has solved that in an unambiguous way.

However, the clause that makes a school zone on a street with a 30 MPH speed limit be a school zone 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, is utter nonsense. There is no plausible justification for treating a 30 MPH street any different form a 35 MPH street. It is nothing but an opportunity for confusion, and confusion breeds accidents and injuries. The only possible beneficiary is the police, with an opportunity to gather additional fines. However, the police have already stated they are not enforcing middle-of-the-night violations of this law. That one statement tells us this is a bad law.

The other law that draws my ire is the change in crosswalk restrictions. Under the previous crosswalk law, I was required to stop if a pedestrian in a crosswalk was in or about to enter my half of the roadway. Under the new crosswalk law, I am required to stop if a pedestrian is in or about to enter my lane, or any adjacent lane. On a two-lane road, where most crosswalks without a traffic signal are, that means I must stop for the entire transition. This change was boneheaded, in two different ways.

First, the new scheme is not intuitive. It is not common sense. When the pedestrian is just stepping off of the opposite curb, or after the pedestrian has passed me, there is no gain in having traffic remain stopped.

Second, this change does nothing to improve public safety. Pedestrian injuries under the old law were not caused because the law was inadequate. They were caused because of accidents, and those accidents will occur with equal frequency under the new law.

One might think that the legislature would surely not have acted unless there was a pandemic of pedestrian deaths caused by crosswalk violations. This is simply not the case. According to statistics from the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, half of all vehicle/pedestrian collisions in Oregon over the past 20 years were determined to be the driver's fault. Of those, the pedestrian was in a crosswalk 3/4 of the time. This has resulted in an average of 2.6 fatalities per year.

Any preventable death is regrettable, of course, but when we compare this figure to the numbers killed in this state every year by drugs, drunk driving, guns, and cigarettes, it seems incredible that the legislature would have wasted any time at all implementing a useless change to the pedestrian statutes. Only by focussing on the relevant and important problems facing this state will the legislature retain the respect of the people.

(Submitted to the Oregonian 1/3)

Writer Judith Barrington, in her Jan 1 letter "Keep religion off editorial pages" claims to be "disgusted" by the Oregonian's printing of a quote from the book of Luke giving the biblical account of the birth of Jesus. What an incredible load of rubbish! Christmas is a major event in this country, affecting nearly every American in some way. It is foolish to suggest that information about the basis of this holiday is not an appropriate topic for a newspaper.

The article was not evangelizing. It was not inviting people to attend church. It was not asking for money. It was not claiming to espouse any one, absolute truth. It was simply, as the title clearly said, "The birth of Jesus according to Luke": an excerpt from one of the most important and influential books in history.

Is Ms. Barrington "disgusted" by the annual series in the Curtis comic strip, currently underway, giving the story of Kwanzaa? Is she "disgusted" by the annual coverage given to local Hannukah celebrations? Is she "disgusted" by the front page mentions of the Islam Ramadan festival? It is hypocrisy to focus one's censorship demands only on the most popular of the religious festivals.

Perhaps the most incredible line in Mr. Barrington's letter is her assertion that "religiosity is escalating in an alarming and inappropriate manner". Ignoring for the moment the fact that this is untrue, only the most extreme members of the lunatic fringe of the athiest community could possibly call an increase in religion "alarming and inappropriate". All of the major world religions teach peace, self-fulfillment, respect for authority, and morality. An escalation in any of these things is of benefit to mankind.

In her closing paragraph, she claims to want the Oregonian to demonstrate "true respect for diversity of belief". It is a sad statement when even an athiest thinks that "diversity" means the same thing as "suppression". If Ms. Barrington would like to submit a guest editorial giving the basis of her athiesm, or describing her celebration of some festival important to her, I am sure the Oregonian would be happy to print it. Celebrating diversity means describing, sharing, and enjoying our differences. I can celebrate her athiesm just as I celebrate my Christianity, or my neighbor celebrates his Judaism, whether or not I agree with the bases of these celebrations. It is bone-headed to suggest that we hide our heads in the sand and simply pretend that these differences do not exist.

I am astonished by the level of polarity in the presidential campaign this year. The people who are FOR President Dubya think that anyone who is not is an anti-American radical communist-lover who ought to leave the country if they don't like him. The people are AGAINST President Dubya rail against the incredible and dangerous stupditiy of his policies. There seems to be no middle position.

Having said that, I guess I should join the fray. I'm in the second camp. I will not be voting for John Kerry as much as I will be voting against "The W".

In just a few short years, George W. Bush and his administration have done (and continue to do) damage to our environment, to our deficit, to intellectualism, to our civil rights, and to our standing in world opinion that will take decades to correct. The man should be tried, not re-elected. He will be remembered in one breath with Hoover, Buchannan, Fillmore, and the other one-term presidents who left the country in worse shape than they found it.

Are the people in the stock trading industry just complete lunatics, or what?

The stock market was down yesterday. The reason given just floors me: indications of good news on the economic front.

Huh?

Apparently, the stock brokers see good news, which means times are improving, which means the Federal Reserve might accidentally one day raise interest rates, which means money gets more expensive, which means corporate earnings go down, which means bad news. Sell, sell, sell.

That is the most incredible pile of bull$hit I've ever heard. Good economic news does NOT make a company less valuable.

Look, here's a secret forward-looking prediction from my always reliable crystal ball: interest rates are going to go up, then down, then up, then down, then up again. Does that mean I should sell, buy, sell, buy, and sell?

What a load of crap.

I am becoming more and more convinced that the stock market is not a positive contributor to the world economy. It is, as near as I can tell, completely indistinguishable from a slot machine in a Las Vegas casino. When I buy stock in Intel, Intel doesn't see any of the money. It's all 3rd- and 4th-hand transfers. It isn't benefitting the corporations, and it isn't benefitting the typical gambler (whoops, I meant "investor"). Who does it benefit? The mutual fund managers scraping their take every month, and the stock brokers taking a chunk out of every trade.

It's a racket, worse than insurance.

Why do we accept so many of life's little abuses without question?

Why do we accept that prices must always go up?

Why do we accept that mail order companies always have to add "shipping and handling"? Aren't they a cost of doing business?

Why do we accept that Windows will crash?

Why do we accept that radio and television programming must include more and more commercials?

Why do we accent that out media must continue to get more permissive and more explicit?

Why do we accept "destination charges"?

Why do we accept $4 sodas at movie theaters? Why do we accept that theater owners are ethically entitled to prohibit us from bringing our own food and beverages into movies?

Why do we accept "origination fees", "documentation fees" and "service charges"?

Why do we accept automatic gratuities?

The more we accept these little insults, the more they will add up.

I'm agog that a circuit court has delayed California's recall election because several counties are still using the "outdated" punch card system. (I do think there are many good reasons why this election should be delayed, but I don't think this is one of them.) The court estimates (apparently using the "pull a fact out of your butt" system of estimating) that up to 40,000 people might have their votes disqualified because they'll do it wrong.

Honestly, folks. If you are too dumb to figure out how to punch a hole correctly in a pre-scored piece of cardboard when you are given a template and a stylus to help you puch that hole, then you are too dumb to have your opinion count, and your vote SHOULD be disqualified. Dumb people make uninformed decisions, which leads to things like President George W. Bush and half-trillion dollar deficits.

We just had a mail-in election here in Oregon. My county (Washington County) still uses the "outdated" punch card system, as do one or two others in Oregon. We managed to make our voices heard, with no fuss and no controversy, and we didn't even have the stylus device; I had to use a ball-point pen.

I heard another commentator say that, with 6 or 7 pages of nominees, some people would vote for one on each page, instead of exactly one. My comment applies to this case, as well. If a voter can't follow the instructions to "vote for one only", then let Darwin take his due and remove the defective voter from the gene pool.

Paul Schaefer was doing his "Great Carnac" routine on Letterman last week. He put the envelope to his head and said, "recall election day". Then, he opened the envelope and read the question: "What does Al Gore most hate to do?"

Israel has once again fired up their "stir the pot" engine by threatening to eject Yassir Arafat from the country. I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, Israel is quite right in stating that Arafat is hurting rather than helping the peace process. I believe tension in the entire Middle East would be greatly relieved if Arafat were to voluntarily leave the country and retire to a sunny beach on the coast of Spain. I don't think he is helping the Palestinean people any longer.

But on the other hand, nothing will turn him into a martyr quicker than a forcible ejection. All that will do is incite Hamas and induce further violence. Plus, with Arafat gone, is there another leader amongst the Palestineans with enough charisma to actually get the nation to follow him, without being a raving loon?

How can this conflict ever come to a rational conclusion? The two sides view things in a completely contradictory way. Israel responds to each act of violence by (A) taking violent action against the suspected attackers, which is a reasonable course of action, and (B) by punishing the entire Palestinean population through shutdowns and curfews and restrictions, which is NOT reasonable. The Palestineans choose to see the Israeli responses as an attack on the nation as a whole, not as revenge against a lunatic terrorist faction within their midst, resulting in more nationwide unrest.

Until we can separate Hamas from Palestine, I don't see that peace is possible. And until Arafat exits stage left, I don't see that it is possible to separate Hamas from Palestine.