Let's Talk Storms. And Politics!

It seems that Hurricane Sandy is bearing down on the entire east coast right now, so at my place we're sitting around enjoying our electricity and internet while we can.

It somewhat reminds me of what we decided to call the Best Trip Ever (positive thinking!), when I visited my sister in Jamaica right when Hurricane Dean was coming through. She was in the Peace Corps at the time, and we found ourselves holed up in the US Embassy in Kingston for a couple of days, sleeping on the floor in someone's cubicle, freezing cold because the air conditioner was set way high and we had foolishly not packed warm clothes to visit or live in Jamaica.

Good times.

I don't really anticipate Sandy being quite that exciting once it reaches the Boston area, but you never know. Mainly, I hope lingering power outages don't interfere with the election.

I'm eager to get votin,' not only because of this whole presidency thing we've got going on right now in the United States, but also because we have all kinds of interesting ballot questions in Massachusetts.

Check it out: We've got medical marijuana, assisted dying, and something about requiring car manufacturers to make repair information available to the owner, not just to licensed dealers.

I don't own a car, so I don't really know much about this last one, but as a librarian I guess I pretty much have to vote for freely available information. I should probably try to get a copy for the collection, too.

As for medical marijuana and assisted dying, yeah, if anyone cares about my politics I'm going with yes for both.

The medical marijuana opponents are arguing that medical use is just a wedge, and will lead to looser laws regarding marijuana in general, and I say "not necessarily, but frankly I hope it does." I just think marijuana is a stupid thing for law enforcement to be spending time on and for people to be going to jail for.

And if you're worried about the slippery slope and fear that if we decriminalize marijuana in any way, next thing you know toddlers will be buying crack cocaine out of vending machines in the subway station?

Nah. I think it's possibly to draw a legal line between marijuana and cocaine. As evidence, I will point out that we have maintained a legal line between marijuana (illegal) and alcohol (legal) for many years! And you cannot try to pretend that alcohol is not a drug, frequently abused, with profound consequences for society. Easily as significant, I would argue, as the consequences of marijuana use.

Good people, I don't smoke marijuana, so personally it doesn't even matter to me, but it is my nonsmoker's opinion that we should be decriminalizing marijuana at a rapid pace, and that is my political statement of the day.

Oh, except I also have a second political statement of the day, which is, I would really like the option to be available for me to die at a time of my choosing rather than just waiting around for my body to suffocate me or whatever if I happen to come down with some horrible fatal condition, so I am pro-assisted dying.

And if you're worried about the slippery slope and fear that if we legalize physician-prescribed medication to end life, next thing you know toddlers will be buying suicide pills out of vending machines in the subway station?

Or, more to the point, the toddler's parents will be urging grandma to take the suicide pills so as not to eat into their inheritance with healthcare costs?

OK, I actually don't want to be as flippant about this one, because I think there are legitimate questions about, say, whether death is really the best option in cases of incurable illness, or only the best option given the lousy support systems in place to care for people with incurable illness. I can see having reservations about this.

We certainly don't want suicide to become "the logical choice" that gets pushed on people because it's convenient for other people.

Still, I think that denying all people the option to make that choice because some of them might be constrained by material considerations, and calling it good (rather than, say, working on the systems that might make the material considerations less pressing) is a cop out.

Also, I think it's entirely possible to value one person's choice to die, and another person's choice to live, if both have similar diagnoses. If I have the right to request medication to end life, that doesn't mean I have to take it. And if I decide to take it, while you, with an equally grim prognosis, decide to wait for the end to arrive naturally? I totally support you in that.

Basically it comes down to this: Choice. I am for it.

Also freely available information, the better to allow for educated choice. In car repair, as in life.

That's Politics

I was amused to see, on the Library of Congress Blog, that the origins of the phrase "keep the ball rolling" lie in an 1888 political stunt.

There's even a nice picture of the ball in question, which is revealed to be more than twice as tall as the guy standing next to it, and is covered in campaign slogans lauding the presidential fitness of Benjamin Harrison. Dedicated Harrison supporters apparently rolled it from Maryland to Indiana.

It must have done the trick, because Harrison defeated Grover Cleveland in the Electoral College (although he lost the popular vote, so I guess it only did the trick with electors and failed to impress the common voter).

Cleveland, of course, then won again the next election, to fulfill a perhaps-long-held dream of being the only person (so far) to serve two non-consecutive terms as president.

When I run for president, you can bet that I will encourage my legions of dedicated supporters to roll a giant ball covered with my campaign bumper stickers from Maryland to Indiana. No, wait: TWO giant balls! One starting in Florida, and one in Oregon, converging on Nebraska.

That will be easily twice as effective as Harrison's stunt.

Three times, assuming we can figure out what his color scheme was, and pick a better one.

Ensure Domestic Monster Tranquility

I was intrigued by this Slate article about the monster-fighting activities of various US presidents.

I suspect there's a secret additional line to the presidential oath of office, something like

...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States--from monsters.

I certainly hope so, anyway.

Occupy the Library

I see via Shakesville that the Occupy Wall Street Library (the existence of which is super cool) has a web site.

They're working on a catalog using LibraryThing, and are archiving documents produced by OWS activities for the future as well as accepting donated books and making books available.

Love it!

They obviously also have a Facebook page and a Twitter feed, as well as a YouTube channel. This is the 21st century, after all.

I love the idea that a library is a fundamental enough idea that a group of people gathering for totally non-library-related purposes will spontaneously put one together.

Rock on, everyone.

Tips and Tricks for Politics

This Sociological Images post causes me to ponder the following important question:

Rabble-rousing among the supporters of an opposing party to split the vote: underhanded trick, or just clever politics?

I think we know the answer to that. Both.

Imagine that I support Political Candidate A. Opposing my candidate are two or more candidates of another party. Let us call them Candidate B and Candidate C, because I am creative like that.

Instead of (or perhaps in addition to) producing literature lauding my own preferred Candidate A, I also produce mailed materials attacking one or more of the candidates in the other party(ies) for not living up to the awe-inspiring moral standards of their supporters. 

Let's say I send out a mailer bashing Candidate B.

Now my own candidate may not live up to those awe-inspiring standards either, so I'm not really hoping to get people to vote for A instead of B, I'm just hoping that enough of them will vote for C instead of B that B and C wind up splitting the awe-inspiring standards voters, and there are enough morally reprehensible lowlives voting for Candidate A that he or she can win.

The Sociological Images post is entitled "Politically Expedient Sexism," and the author concludes,

I gotta say, I thought this was repugnant when I first saw it and assumed the group who put it out might actually believe this kind of crap. But to encourage people to vote based on sexist, homophobic values that you presumably don’t even agree with, simply as a political ploy? That is some nasty, nasty business.

I can see that point. It is kind of low.

There's something not truth-in-advertising-y about it that rubs me the wrong way. It feels like such a con, doesn't it? I would probably react negatively if I found out that a political ad was playing me that way.

If I just say "I think Candidate B is despicable, and you should vote for Candidate A," that's one thing, but if I tell you "I don't think Candidate B is despicable enough for you, and by implication I think Candidate C is a better choice," while secretly hoping to benefit Candidate A by diverting your vote from the more dangerous opponent, that's another.

Still, although it's low and nasty, I think it may also be kind of brilliant. A trick to remember once I go into politics.

.

No, I Can't Prove That's Me

Interesting Blog of Rights post on Real ID, the proposed national ID card that's been bandied about for years now.

I was a little fuzzy on the details of this plan (I remember reading about it years ago when it was first bandied, and then, like many of us, I kind of forgot about it when no major changes to my immediate state ID were forthcoming).

For example, I had forgotten that if your state's acceptable forms of identification don't comply with Real ID, you're supposedly not allowed to use said ID when going through airport security. As the post explains, states were not happy about this (there were numerous objections based on privacy concerns, and it would also cost a lot to implement Real ID requirements):

[A]lmost half [of the states] passed statutes or resolutions saying that they would not participate in the program. Every state was supposed to be compliant by May of 2008; none of them were.

This left the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with an unpalatable choice. They could effectively shut down air travel in the U.S., or issue blanket exemptions to all 50 states.

After choosing option B and giving the states exemptions and a new deadline of December 2009, we find that here in December 2009, Real ID is still not in our wallets.

I guess sometimes ignoring things (or, more actively, passing statutes or resolutions against them) is the way to go.

.

Battling With My Blog Feeds

It turns out that paper tickets and not being allowed to check oneself in online are just as annoying for everyone as I expected. Oh well.

I am still trying to recover from some dedicated party-attending over the weekend that involved very limited sleep, but here are some things I liked this evening.

A reminder from Greta Christina that we should be involved in politics (I like the argument that it's a good idea whether you think politicians are honestly trying to do the right thing by their constituents, or are just trying to get re-elected: either way, they have a reason to listen to you!).

This interesting quote from How We Drive:

There are many words for what happens when people texting while driving crash, but “accident” is not one of them.

I could argue about that from a definitional standpoint--it's an accident if you didn't do it on purpose, after all, and presumably very few people crash on purpose--but it makes a telling point that if you choose to divert your attention from the road in order to send a text message, you can't exactly profess shock if you happen to not stay exactly on the road.

And some fascinating excerpts that Navelgazing Midwife has taken from A Nurse's Handbook of Obstetrics (linked copy digitized by Google, 7th edition copyright 1915, and, I deduce, once the possession of a certain Lane Library).

All are interesting, but for some reason I especially note that

When the baby is about two weeks old, the doctor probably will order one teaspoonful of freshly extracted strained orange juice to which an equal amount of boiled water may be added to prevent the baby from "choking."

I know we're into fruits and vegetables, but two weeks? I've never heard of anyone being advised to give food other than milk/formula to a two-week-old baby these days.

Brandy on the gums to soothe teething pains, yes, everyone I know still does that,* but orange juice?

*Note to Child Services on behalf of my child-having friends: this statement is a lie. Why would I make up a lie like that? It is a question that will bedevil the ages.

New Mexico News

From Cogitamus, news of my one-time home state: New Mexico has approved the National Popular Vote. 

So if enough other states also approve it, NM (and those other states) will pledge to their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. I think this is an interesting idea, and I'm all for having votes count for something. 

I confess, though, that I am not all that well-versed in the arguments for and against the Electoral College. 

Also, apparently Val Kilmer is considering a run for governor of New Mexico. I swear, I go away for 14 years and somehow completely lose touch with the goings-on out there.