…don’t have one.

I’ve found myself repeating this line a lot lately, so often that it’s becoming almost like a personal philosophy or perhaps even a tagline. And it seems like a pretty good philosophy to live by; I wish others would follow it, because it would make everyone’s life a great deal simpler.

When I was a small child (or perhaps not that small), my father and I were invited to some friends of his for dinner. They weren’t very familiar with children, not having any of their own, and I think they invited me mainly as a courtesy, not really realizing the full implications of the decision. They had just returned from some exotic locale, so they made food from the region they had just visited.

Being a child faced with the unknown, I promptly kicked up a huge fuss, and undoubtedly ruined the event for everyone. (Faced with the same scene now, of course, I would dive headlong into the spread and relish every bite, but I guess that illustrates how people grow and change.) On the way home from the spoiled dinner party, my father pointed out that my behaviour wasn’t really very appropriate or called-for.

“If you don’t like it,” he said, “don’t eat any.”

That lesson stuck in my head, and it became one of the watchwords for my personal system of ethics and manners. His words pop up into my mind when I read bigoted comments about gay marriage from people who rail against “infertile godless atheists.” If you don’t like gay marriage, I want to say, then don’t have one. No one’s forcing you into anything. And, furthermore, I want to argue, I know plenty of straight married couples without children; should they not be married because they don’t have children? When two ladies marry, how does this concern anyone but the ladies themselves?

And then I see abortion protesters holding up horrid signs of dismembered babies, and I want to say “hey, I support your personal dislike of abortion. If you don’t like one, then don’t have one. No one is ever going to force you to have an abortion, because it’s an intensely personal decision.” I can see plenty of good reasons to be opposed to abortion, and I am totally ok with the choice to not have one; I’m even willing to put my money where my mouth is and pay higher taxes to ensure that all those children that are born have a fighting chance at life, which is more than most anti-abortion people are willing to do.

I don’t like marriage. So I’m not having one. But I know plenty of other people who do like marriage, so I’m happy for them when they accomplish their goals. I certainly don’t need to picket their weddings or tell them that they are horrible people for getting married. I also, personally, don’t like pickled pig’s feet, so I don’t eat them. But I adore sea urchin roe, and I would fight for the death to defend it against anyone who tried to take it from me because they didn’t like it. I think you see where I am going with this; all of the above activities are essentially victimless (except for the pigs and the urchins), so the thought of banning any of them starts to seem a little ludicrous, doesn’t it?

There are a few things which we can agree on collectively as a society as being generally bad things. Like, say, rape and child molestation. While some people obviously do like these things, because they do them, my “don’t like it…don’t have one” rule simply doesn’t apply here, because these things involve, inherently, a violation of the victim. Unlike, say, gay marriage, which has no victims.The abortion issue, I admit, is a bit stickier; I believe that it has no victims, but other people, just as fervently, believe that life begins at conception. And I respect that view, although I disagree with it, and it cuts to the heart of the abortion argument.

I know that we all have to draw a line somewhere, and that this line seems to be highly flexible, depending on personal beliefs, but I wish to Pete that people would stop interfering with things that don’t concern them, like other people’s bodies and relationships, and that they would start focusing on more serious problems, like the vilification of Michelle Obama by the media, or the fact that the rate of sex crime in the United States is rising, or that the idiots someone else elected to government want to DRILL FOR OIL off pristine coastlines, all for the sake of cheaper gas in 30 or 40 years. These things do have victims, and they do matter, and they are way more important than what Adam and Steve or Eve and Eva or Adam and Eve or Adam, Eve, and Steve or whoever want to do in their bedrooms, with their bodies, or in their kitchens.

My father once called gay marriage a “fringe issue,” which is something I disagree with. For the numerous gays and lesbians I know and love, it is not a fringe issue, and it’s insulting to say that it is. But it is definitely being utilized as a distraction while far more nefarious things are going on. So, I say, I again: if you don’t like it, don’t have it, and for Pete’s sake, shut up about it already.

There are a lot of things about this war that I am definitely not ok with, but one of the things which irritates me most of all is the rampant abuse of veterans and service members at the hands of the government. As I’ve said on numerous occasions, I really do feel like the DOD has an obligation to take care of people who enlist in the military, not least because they are contractually obligated to do so. I don’t think that we should be having armed forces in Iraq, but as long as they’re going to be there, I think that they should be cared for appropriately.

Numerous reports are seeping out about improperly equipped soldiers who lack the basic tools they need to do their jobs, let alone niceties like showers and food. Thanks to the proliferation of IEDs in Iraq, needs like body armor and properly armored vehicles have been brought to public attention, but combat personnel are also lacking things ranging from gun lubricant to uniforms. I happen to think that’s pretty poopy, myself.

Assuming one makes it out of Iraq after multiple return tours courtesy of the backdoor draft, the situation at home isn’t always better, thanks to routine denials of VA benefits for things like brain injuries and PTSD. Now the government is trying to dismantle the GI bill, attacking reservists’ benefits first, because they are viewed as a soft target. Given the historically strong support for the military in this country, I don’t know how the government thinks that it is going to get away with this.

I think that all of these issues are starting to come to the attention of the public, and most people, like me, think that this is not acceptable. Some people (like me) are even taking the additional step of making their displeasure known to elected officials; my Congressman is on the Armed Services Committee, and he knows exactly what I think about the current condition of the American military. If you’re feeling especially motivated, you can also volunteer to assist veterans as they navigate the VA system, and in rural areas, veterans often need drivers to get to VA service centers.

The Isthmus published a great article last week about brain injuries, which are being called the “signature injury” of the Iraq War. Anyone who’s been reading anything resembling a newspaper is probably aware of the fact that brain injuries are a growing problem, and the VA is even sinking some serious funding into researching brain injuries. The bulk of such injuries, incidentally, are caused by being in close proximity to IED explosions, so they are pretty clearly combat-related, no matter how one chooses to define that sort of thing.

The thing is, when soldiers die in Iraq or in military hospitals as a result of brain injuries, they are hailed as heroes. But when a soldier dies months or even years after discharge as a result of what is very obviously a brain injury, the death is basically written off. In fact, the military is making a conscious effort to pretend that men and women in their 20s drop dead mysteriously all the time, rather than facing the fact that these deaths are the result of complications associated with brain injuries acquired in combat.

The thing is, when you die from a combat injury, your family is entitled to certain benefits. So the VA has a very clear reason for trying to minimize the official reporting of such injuries. In addition, they probably think it’s bad for PR when returning vets drop dead six months after their tours, because people are already riled up about the casualty rate as it is.

Maybe if the DOD would perform recommended screenings for returning veterans, people wouldn’t be dying from brain injuries months after their service in Iraq. This is perhaps one of the most depressing things of all about the brain injury issue, because with screening, some of these deaths could have been entirely preventable. Instead, soldiers are being given a clean bill of health and allowed to return to normal life, despite the fact that many are very obviously not healthy, since healthy people don’t generally die in their living rooms bleeding from the mouth, ears, and nose at 25.

What the Isthmus article pointed out was that aside from the obvious crappiness of missing out on benefits, surviving family members are also really frustrated by the refusal to acknowledge brain injuries. For parents especially, this unstated policy can feel like a slap in the face. While having a child die is probably unimaginably shitty, knowing that your kid died for a cause must make the situation marginally better, and to deny that a death is combat-related is to deny that someone was a hero. Giving your life for your country, even in a shitty war that everyone including you hates, is markedly different from mysteriously dropping dead for no known reason.

And it sounds like parents are starting to fight back, trying to force the military to reclassify such deaths, which is good to hear. I would really like to see some serious pressure in general on the DOD and the VA to deal with returning service members more effectively, because I see no reason to let them fall through the cracks, no matter how expensive it is.

Ok, can I just say how awesome it is that the Republican dominated California supreme court gave the thumbs up to gay marriage? Sure, it was four to three, but still, I am excited beyond words that the court affirmed the constitutional right to marry for California gays and lesbians. It is not every day that the stodgy halls of the legal community strike a blow for civil rights, after all.

I was going to write about it yesterday, but I was too hot to move, let alone use the keyboard. I don’t know what the deal was, but it was seriously, seriously hot yesterday. I had all these grand plans of doing the laundry and going to the library, but instead I lay around the house in a desperate torpor, pushing cats away when they got too close because they were like little furry furnaces. And even the cats seemed to lack the will to move; Loki stayed in one position for nine hours, which may be a Loki world record.

One thing in the 172 page decision that I was really pleased about was the comparison of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. The fact of the matter is that interracial marriage was one illegal in California, not that long ago, and as the decision rightly pointed out, history is not always the best measurement to use when considering whether or not something is constitutional. Overturning the ban on interracial marriage was a good thing for California to do, and I believe that overturning the ban on same-sex marriage is also a very good thing for us to do.

I also loved the repeated mentions in the decision about the right to have one’s relationship recognized and respected, and I especially enjoyed the little gibe which suggested that we should ban all marriage in the interests of equality. Perhaps I’m just a California hippie, but I seriously do believe that families come in a wide variety of configurations, and I would never presume to dictate which configuration is acceptable and which isn’t.

There was also a nice little bit about the fact that same-sex marriage in no way detracts from opposite-sex marriage, and that no religious organizations or officials are going to be forced to adjust their beliefs; if you don’t want to officiate at a gay marriage, then don’t, basically. The goal is not to cheapen opposite-sex marriage, and I’m sorry that some people feel that way, because the goal is to recognize and respect partnerships between couples of the same sex.

Of course, this means that there is now going to be a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage on the November ballot; and good on the governor for coming out strongly in opposition to any such thing. I’m hoping that this ends up backfiring on the conservatives, because I suspect we’re going to see record liberal turnout at this election, with voters fired up by the prolonged popularity contest and pissed at the conservatives. I swear to Pete, if that amendment gets on the ballot and passes, I am going to be seriously disappointed in my fellow Californians.

Apparently, the 2004 weddings in San Francisco were a major factor in the decision to support same-sex marriage in California, which is awesome. I think that as an act of protest, the decision to offer marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples in San Francisco was brilliant, and I hope to see a lot more of the same happening in the near future. Nice of them to overturn the ban just in time for a stack of June weddings.

As Andrew Sullivan pointed out in The Daily Dish, if thousands of same-sex couples marry in California between 15 June (when the decision takes effect) and November, any proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage would result in the simultaneous annulment of thousands of marriages. For those who claim to value the sanctity of marriage, I hope this creates room for pause; I imagine that straights would be pretty infuriated if their marriages were annulled at the polls, don’t you think?

Yesterday, I mailed off my absentee ballot, and my election guide arrived in the mail. You’d think they would send out election guides and absentee ballots together, rather than separately. Fortunately, I am capable of researching ballot measures and candidates without the election guide, and it was a pretty easy ballot to vote.

(Incidentally, California voters, I support “no” votes on 98/99, because I think that they are poorly written. While I do think that we need more protection from eminent domain seizure, these propositions are not the answer, and I believe that we need to tell Sacramento to try again, and to cram less garbage into the propositions next time.)

County-wide, there’s only one initiative, and that’s Measure B. It’s attracted quite a bit of attention lately, so I thought I’d take a moment to articulate my reasoning for voting no on it.

Before I do that, however, I suppose I should explain what Measure B is. Measure B is designed to repeal Measure G, Mendocino County’s medical marijuana law. Under Measure G, people who have a medical reason to use marijuana may grow up to 25 plants without reprisal. People who have prescriptions for medical marijuana can also basically contract the work out to other growers, which seems pretty sensible when a lot of people use medical marijuana because they are severely disabled.

However, marijuana is still illegal. While County officials do not prosecute small operations under Measure G, the Feds are more than welcome to do so, and you can still be arrested for cultivation, possession, and sale of marijuana. It’s a pretty classic example of a conflict between state’s rights and federal law, and that kind of thing gets me all tingly inside.

Measure B wants to end all that.

Now, I’m pretty ambivalent about medical marijuana. Honestly, I think it’s kind of a load of hooey, and that most people who use medical marijuana really just want an excuse to use recreational marijuana. However, there are some circumstances in which marijuana usage has clearly been beneficial to patients, suggesting that more serious research would be a good idea. There’s a lot of stigma around marijuana and its usage, and I suspect that I buy into some of that stigma, especially since I know a fair number of people with medical marijuana cards who are definitely not in need of therapeutic marijuana.

That aside, I think there are some good reasons for supporting medical marijuana initiatives.

For one thing, it sends a clear message to state and federal government that people in Mendocino County support the use of marijuana for certain medical conditions, which could in turn encourage actual, serious, empirical research on the topic. I’ve always said that if you don’t like a law, you should change it, and I think that initiatives like Measure G were a good way to start that change.

For another thing, prosecution of growers takes up a lot of energy. Measure G freed up county law enforcement like sheriff’s deputies to go after actual criminals, like people who brew meth in state parks. County, state, and federal officials continued to go after big-time grow operations under G, because these operations exceeded the amount permitted under measure G. But they weren’t going after grandmothers with a couple of plants in the back garden. And I think that’s a good thing. I think that we need to prioritize our law enforcement’s efforts, and in my mind meth is a far more serious problem than marijuana.

So for these two reasons, I am voting no on B, because I don’t want to repeal measure G. And I suspect that a lot of people in the county feel the same, including the sheriff, who has pretty much said that he is going to continue ignoring small grow operations to focus on more important issues. Now, he can’t come out and explicitly spell that out, of course, but it’s pretty obvious that he’s with me on this whole “prioritizing our efforts” thing. This county doesn’t have enough sheriff’s deputies as it is, and if we were to start going after everyone with weed in their gardens, it would turn into a nightmare.

Proponents of Measure B want us to think that the crime rate has gone up since G passed, and maybe it has. Honestly, I had some trouble tracking down good statistics, so I’ll take it at the word of the Measure B people that crime has, in fact, gone up.

However, correlation is not causation.

Since Measure G passed, Mendocino’s population has increased, which tends to lead to an increase in crime. Meth production and use has skyrocketed, and I think that’s a pretty big factor in crime statistics. The rate of untreated mental illness has also gone up, as has the rate of homelessness. All of these things are pretty major factors. Furthermore, there is a fomenting class war in Mendocino County, and anyone who doesn’t see that is a flaming idiot. I think that things are going to get ugly here, and soon, especially if the economy keeps going downhill, because there is some dramatic economic disparity going on here.

I have a pretty personal take on crime in Mendocino County, since my car was broken into and stripped in 2005. And what did the police say when they finally responded to my call? “Probably meth-heads.” When all the gas was siphoned from all the cars along my block a week later, it was also attributed to meth-heads. When one of my neighbors here had his garage broken into a few months ago, it turned out to be kids. (Not very bright ones, either, they ditched the loot in a neighbor’s yard.) Strangely enough, the topic of marijuana never came up.

Marijuana is related to crime, but not the small-potatoes, few plants in the garden marijuana that Measure G protects. The issue with marijuana is big league growers who trash state parks, deal huge amounts of the drug, and get into turf wars with each other, and, believe me, the sheriff is just as eager to get those guys as we are. But, as he points out, Measure B “would be a burden on law enforcement” which would ensure that the sheriff’s department “will not be able to focus on any other public safety issue.” Prosecution of small operations is just a waste of public resources, and given that this county doesn’t have enough money as it is, it makes me boiling mad to think of the things we need so much more than a few measly dope growers in jail. Like a fully staffed police force. Like new buildings for our schools. Like facilities to handle the homeless and mentally ill.

Passing Measure B is not going to make the crime rate decline. In fact, the crime rate will probably go up, because cultivation of small-scale gardens will get a lot more dangerous. If the sheriff is pressured into prosecuting such cases, the drug-related crime statistics in the county are going to skyrocket. And while he and his deputies are off chasing decrepit cancer patients, the meth-heads will be able to rule supreme in this County. Measure B is going to distract us from the very real issues we need to deal with, which makes it a pretty neat trick, if you ask me.

Personally, I’d rather have a few legitimate patients using medical marijuana, along with a large number of pretenders who just want a free license to smoke a doobie now and then. I think that the passage of Measure B could in fact create a situation where criminal elements like meth producers and dealers will perceive Mendocino County as a soft, easy target, because the sheriff’s energy will be focused on a relatively minor issue. I also suspect that Measure B is spearheaded by the same out-of-towners who are destroying every other aspect of this county and its character because they don’t like the reality of Mendocino County, they like the fictional wonderland they have constructed. And to them, I say: “go home or grow up.”

Note: On 13 May, the Mendocino County Sheriff announced that he was actually endorsing Measure B, claiming that it was “the right thing for the County.”

One thing that the Iraq War has really underscored is the dramatic cultural differences between the Middle East and the United States. I have long felt that a lack of cultural understanding about Iraq and the Middle East is what would lose the war, and I still feel that way. Cultural values are an extremely important consideration when one is waging war, and they are ignored only at great peril. To fail to recognize that different cultures do things differently is to suggest that your own culture is better, and that is probably not the smartest of moves.

Many people like to say that the war is as much about winning hearts and minds as it is about winning territory, or toppling Saddam Hussein. Yet, we’re pretty much losing there, as anti-American sentiment in the Middle East clearly illustrates. The question is why we’re not adapting our style to respond to an obvious lack of success. After all, military campaigns are routinely altered and adjusted to deal with changing terrain and shifting enemies, so why aren’t we recognizing that our attempts at public relations are failing?

In the article I linked to above, there’s a discussion of monetary compensation for the victims of a Blackwater shooting which took place in Iraq. The article points out that the State Department is missing a fundamental part of Iraqi culture: the idea that honor is extremely important.

Throughout the Middle East, people have rigid systems of honor which must be adhered to, and there are formulas for dealing with things like murdered family members. By tradition, when someone is killed, representatives of the two tribes, families, or groups sit down together to talk it out. The murderer admits culpability and regret, and agrees to compensate the family of the victim for medical expenses, suffering, and so forth.

This is a system which is radically different than that used in America. In America, a third party presses charges on behalf of the dead victim, hearings are held in court, the murderer is punished, and so forth. The State Department is attempting to use this system in the Middle East, and it’s not working.

Why?

Because the Iraqis believe in the power of atonement. For the families of murder victims, the apology is more important than any financial sum; the value of life is such that no amount of money could compensate for it. What is important is an admission of culpability and wrongdoing, a face to face conversation. The American system of justice is not perceived as just in Iraqi culture, which has been dealing with things like murders in its own way for hundreds of years.

In fact, given a preference, I would say that I like the Iraqi system better, not just because I am big on redemption and atonement right now. It recognizes that the pain of having a loved one taken from you cannot be assuaged by court hearings and promises of justice, that the only way to begin to heal is to meet face to face and to hear an apology directly from the murderer. No amount of money can compensate for the loss of a life, and the sterile world of the American court room is not the place for personal justice, although it may satisfy the needs of society at large.

This is so at odds with the American system of “justice” that we are running into big problems in Iraq. This situation only illustrates one of many fundamental differences between Iraq and the United States, but it’s a big difference, and it needs to be dealt with. Middle Eastern culture is so radically alien from our own that it is somewhat unreasonable to simply transpose our own cultural values over it and hope that things work out. Indeed, this smacks of imperialism to me.

The State Department, of course, doesn’t want to do things Iraqi style, because it fears the consequences of admitting culpability. Iraqis, likewise, don’t want to do things American style, because the passing of envelopes of cash without any discussion is considered an insult. Not only are we failing to atone for our actions, we’re essentially spitting on the faces of the families of murder victims.

And we wonder why we’re having problems.

When I was fairly young, I was very interested in horse racing, thanks to reading the Black Stallion series by Walter Farley, which has a…very idealistic view of the sport. There is something deeply compelling about watching horses which have been bred to run thundering around a track, muscles pumping, and there’s something especially thrilling about watching an underdog entry pull ahead for the win, and following the bloodlines of famous race horses. And, of course, I was especially enthralled by the Derby, which is probably the biggest event in American horse racing.

As I grew older, I learned that racing has a dark side, and I grew less enchanted by the sport, but I still follow the Derby results. I suspect that a lot of Americans are in my position, feeling repulsion for, yet interest in racing.

This year’s Derby was marred by the collapse of filly Seven Belles at the end of the race; while she came in second, she shattered her front ankles doing it, and she was euthanized on the track. Hearing that news, my heart ached not only for the filly, but for all the horses in the racing industry, which is swift, demanding, and brutal.

I heard on NPR that all of the horses running in this year’s Derby were descendants of Native Dancer, which just goes to underscore how inbred the industry is becoming. Horses are being overbred for racing, with breeders attempting to produce horses which mature quickly, so they can start racing at two, while developing strong bodies which are capable of immense speed and stamina. I can’t help but wonder if the Thoroughbred breed is declining as a result of single-minded focus on a few bloodlines.

I couldn’t find any statistics on injuries at the track, known as breakdowns, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they are up. Not only because of inbreeding, but because horses are being driven further and harder than they were in the past. Most three year old horses are simply not equipped for the grueling work of the Derby, filly or not.

A commentary in the New York Times pointed out that racing seems to get a free pass from animal activists, and while this is not strictly true, it does bear some thinking. It is a brutal sport. Of the horses bred for racing, some make it to the track, while others are sold at auction, and often picked up by people in dressage, jumping, and other equestrian sports. Of the horses that hit the track, only a fraction of those really succeed. Most are brutally worked until they are no longer useful, and then they are killed, because their bloodlines aren’t good enough for breeding.

I read a justification of the racing industry which said that if football injuries and basketball injuries and so forth were as heavily covered and televised as horse racing injuries, those sports would have critics too. But I think that’s a faulty argument. For one thing, most breakdowns are not covered and televised, and we never hear about them. For another, the people who participate in those sports choose to do so, knowing the risks. Thoroughbreds aren’t given a choice; we force them to compete, and therefore we are responsible for what happens to them.

I think people have this image that when a horse “retires,” it gets to go live on a happy farm with other horses. In fact, when racehorses retire, they have a couple of options. They can be slaughtered, they can be sold to people who don’t mind retraining them for other tasks, or they can be relocated to breeding farms.

Certainly, some race horses do have ok lives, especially after their racing careers end and they aren’t spending hours in a stall every day. But the vast majority of them have pretty crappy lives, and I think that’s a great pity. “Animals are not ours for entertainment,” says PETA, and I think they’re right. I can’t quite fathom racing as a “noble sport” anymore, and I don’t see the death of Seven Belles as noble either; I see it as evidence of an endemic problem within our culture and the racing community.

Jane Smiley wrote a piece for the New York Times about racing, arguing that the problem is more with American racing than racing in general, and she may well be right. Americans have a tendency to take things to the next level, and we run our horses fast and hard on dirt, a far cry from the more gentle races on turf in Europe. European horses are champions in their own right, and they are far less likely to break down, perhaps because of a culture which values them intrinsically, in addition to idolizing their speed and grace.

I’m not saying that American trainers, jockeys, breeders, and others in the industry don’t value horses. Obviously, they do, and many people in the industry are quite passionate about Thoroughbreds, because they are remarkable horses. But behind it all, there’s a bottom line.

Win. At any cost.

You know that saying that goes “if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”? It seems a bit simplistic, but sometimes it seems like it’s really true. I also feel like we need an updated version, like “if you’re part of the problem, you’re still part of the problem, even if you call attention to the problem” or maybe “calling attention to the problem doesn’t give you an exemption when you are the problem.”

I started thinking about this when I noticed an article in the Times about the “Dark Side of America’s Thirst for Energy,” as the article title so handily put it. At first glance, I thought it was going to be an article about oil and gas fields in Wyoming, making readers more aware of the fact that once pristine landscapes in the United States are being ruined because their community’s lack California’s clout when it comes to opposing the exploitation of natural resources.

Instead, it’s a tragic sob story about author Alexandra Fuller and her two homes in Wyoming.

I mean, I don’t know about you, but I really feel for someone who has a 2,500 square foot home, and then builds a cabin 60 miles away. Because there’s something about that which just screams “sacrifice” to me. Thank Pete Alexandra Fuller was able to build that little retreat cabin so that she could sit in it and write a book about how terrible the oil and gas industry in Wyoming is.

Seriously?

The book is all about the “vast differences between her two homes and the land they occupy,” according to the Times. Yeah, I’m sure. Maybe there’s even a bit about her angst at having to own such a gigantic home, and her moral dilemma about whether or not she should own it. In fact, maybe she’s even going to give her house to a teen shelter, so that she can do some good in the world. (And before you tell me that I should take pity on her because she has children, take a look at Walter Jeffries’ tiny cottage, built for him and his family in Vermont, and tell me again that parents need huge houses.)

I think it’s been established that I am not impressed by big houses, and that in fact I think they are pretty vile. I’m also an extremely judgmental person, so I have no problem calling bullshit on Alexandra Fuller and her disgustingly huge house. If she really cares about the environment in Wyoming, maybe she shouldn’t be part of the problem. Maybe she should have one house, instead of two, so that she doesn’t commute. Maybe she should be active in her community (and in all fairness maybe she is) and perhaps she should help organize sustainable alternatives for the use of the land around her, rather than whining to the New York Times about it.

But I have to say, I have a really hard time taking any criticism of the American lifestyle from someone who is living it. I’m a utilitarian, and I believe that we all need to make sacrifices if we want to live in a better world. The truth of the matter is that if I was living in my dream house, it wouldn’t be that much larger than my house is now, and it would be a lot more energy efficient. Not because it’s trendy, but because that’s the kind of house I like, and because that’s the tradeoff I make. I live in a small house so that future generations will be able to enjoy some of the things I have, like swimming in the ocean and walking in the woods.

“It is critical, Ms. Fuller said, that people know who to blame,” says the New York Times. And she’s right. We do need to know who to blame, and it’s people like her. People with giant trophy houses who lack the understanding to realize that to make a difference in this world, you have to sacrifice a little.

“It’s something we’re all doing,” says Fuller at the end of the article, but she’s wrong. It’s something she’s doing, and something the people like her are doing. Being enough of a celebrity to get the word out doesn’t excuse you. I’m a firm believer that if you don’t vote and you’re eligible, you don’t get to bitch about politics, and the same holds true for the environment. If you don’t vote for the environment with your lifestyle, then you don’t get to have a say.

Sorry, but that’s how the cookie crumbles.

If there’s one thing in this world I universally loathe, it’s dog owners who can’t be bothered to control their animals, or take care of them. Now, we all know that there are a lot of things I’m not very fond of, but this particular pet peeve (ha ha) of mine has been exacerbated of late, so I’m going to take a moment to rant about it, because I can.

I really don’t understand what is so hard about keeping dogs under control. I think it’s pretty obvious that no one likes loose dogs, because dogs can be dangerous and unpredictable, and even if your dog is nice, your dog can still scare people, or knock children over, or, hey, run out into the street and get hit by a car. It’s really not just a generic distaste for dogs that makes me loathe loose dogs, it’s a concern for animals who are allowed to roam free in situations which could be dangerous for them and others.

Yesterday afternoon, I was nearly savaged by some idiot’s dog which was just roaming about, willy nilly, because their yard doesn’t even have a fence. As it turns out, the dog was also obviously nursing, and new mothers tend to be testy no matter what the species, so there were a few minutes there where I was actually concerned, especially when the dog started snapping at my bag. The owner, of course, was nowhere in sight as I bellowed and careened around the alley trying to shake the dog off.

And I was struck with a moral conundrum. I feel like if a person came at me like that, I would do whatever was necessary to stop that person, including hitting and kicking. Yet, I felt hesitant to do that to the dog, because, well, dogs aren’t people. It’s not the dog’s fault that her owner is reckless and stupid, and being violent with her would probably make the situation even more agitated. I’m not really sure how to defend myself against a dog which is freaking out, especially when I don’t know the cause, but I was intrigued to find that I was unable to go with my gut reaction, which was to repel the dog in any way that I could. Fortunately for me, her puppies started freaking out, so she ran off before I was forced to do something drastic.

Most of the time, loose dogs are just annoying, not dangerous. They poop on bike paths, for example. They bark constantly, which is just obnoxious. Some even growl and snap, but obviously don’t mean to do anything about it. The neighbors down the alley from me have a very young and very sweet dog who jumps out of their yard and tries to follow me whenever I walk past, which is irritating for me, because I feel like I can’t just keep walking, because the dog will follow me, but it’s not like it causes bodily harm. Other loose dogs are just exuberant, with lots of energy, and some people just plain aren’t into that.

Maybe it’s because I grew up on a farm, but controlling dogs is just common sense, to me. I think that the rules of behaviour dictate that you keep your dog on a leash, or in a secured area, because, guess what, not everyone likes dogs, no matter how nice they are. In fact, some people are afraid of dogs. As in really, really afraid, because they were savaged by loose dogs at some point. And dogs chase other animals, like pets, and, say, farm animals. I lost several pets growing up because of irresponsible, reckless, thoughtless dog owners who thought it was perfectly acceptable to let their dogs run loose.

Furthermore, at least in California, it’s the law. You have to keep your dog on a leash or penned, and you can get in trouble if you don’t. And your neighbors will probably hate you a lot less when they’re not dealing with your dog constantly. Pretty much everyone without a dog who lives next door to poorly controlled dogs secretly wishes that their neighbors would slip on banana peels, or receive an IRS audit, or something equally unpleasant. Trust me.

I believe that dog owners who don’t control their animals are stupid, and rude, and reprehensible. Their behaviour exhibits no respect or thought for society, and a profound lack of interest in thinking about other people. It also suggests that they don’t care about their animals that much, given that loose dogs can be rounded up by animal control, and if they make it onto farms, farmers are entitled to shoot them. So think about that the next time you let your dog off the leash “just for a minute,” self righteous dog owners.

There’s a great op-ed in the Times about the Supreme Court’s historical struggles (or lack thereof) with the death penalty, and I think it’s worth reading, because it is fairly short, and I think that it makes some great points.

Basically, the crux of the article is a condemnation of the Supreme Court’s recent approval of Kentucky’s death penalty method, drawing upon a history of the Supreme Court’s previous involvement in death penalty cases. The Supreme Court has been asked to rule on whether various methods of punishment are “cruel and unusual” before, and they’ve also been wrong before.

Death itself is not all that unusual, and I assume that’s why the death penalty is still permitted in this country under the “unusual” part of the clause, although I might argue that an execution is a rather unusual way to die, and I believe that it’s also a cruel one, although apparently the Supreme Court doesn’t share my feelings on the matter. Given that the justices on the Supreme Court are supposed to defend and interpret the Constitution while also dealing with changing social mores and interpretations of the Constitution, I think that the Court’s record on the death penalty is particularly interesting, because the Court tends to reflect social values, albeit about 40 years behind. The last officially recorded lynching in the United States was 40 years ago, incidentally.

In the 19th century, the Supreme Court gave the thumbs up to both death by firing squad and death by electric chair (two methods which are still in use today), despite evidence which suggested that such deaths were hardly humane or usual. I’m curious to see if these methods would be supported today, if the Court was asked to rule on them. The lethal injection is clearly cruel and unusual, as ample people have testified, and it’s odd, to me, that it got the vote of approval; maybe in 40 years, the furor over the lethal injection will finally catch up with the Court?

Of course, the multiple-drug method starts with a drug that basically paralyzes the prisoner, so there’s no way to tell if the prisoner is in agony or not during the administration of the subsequent drugs. Rather convenient, isn’t it? I think that the issue might be brought to the forefront of the public mind if execution witnesses saw the truth of the matter, rather than a sanitized version. People seem to have this vision that it’s like putting a dog to sleep, but it’s not quite that simple.

And it’s obviously quite a moral quandary for people other than myself, such as physicians, many of whom (rightly) refuse to participate in executions. In some states, physicians can even be sanctioned for offering their services to executioners. And while one might argue that the presence of a doctor makes the process more humane, I think that taking a stance on the entire procedure as totally foul is pretty important, and it does delay executions, which is good.

It disappoints me that the Supreme Court supports the death penalty, and that a lot of Americans seem to do so as well. It also reminds me of the fundamental divides in this country. Personally, I find the thought of taking another human life unconscionable, no matter what the crime is. Yes, there are people on Death Row who have done terrible, evil things, and I think that they should never be released, but I don’t see how killing them solves anything.

And, honestly, if you’re all about retribution, I think that rotting away in prison is a far more fit punishment than moldering on Death Row for awhile and then snuffing it. I’m pretty well versed in vengeance, if I do say so myself, and I think that people take this whole “eye for an eye” thing way too literally. Why take an eye and have done with it when you can slowly break someone down over the course of years? But I digress.

We already have a fairly clogged, inefficient, and deeply flawed justice system. American prisons are overcrowded, and I suspect that a fair number of people in prison really don’t belong there. It makes me wonder why it is that we continue to waste money on an antiquated and barbarian method of punishment in the 21st century, especially when our government is eager to criticize other nations for using the death penalty. Banning the death penalty seems like a moral imperative, to me.

In Iran, people get executed for being homosexual, which is awful. But in the United States, you get executed for being too black or too poor to defend yourself, and, in a way, that’s more awful, because we pretend that it is justified and reasonable. Defensible, even. After all, it’s justice, right?

I went to public school, which shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise, given my inability to do basic math and the fact that we were extremely poor when I was a kid. I happen to be a big fan of public school, myself. I think that education should be free and accessible to all those who want it, and that we have an obligation as a society to ensure that the quality of public education remains high.

By graduating stronger, more intelligent students, we will build a better society. This is pretty basic, and I don’t think that I really need to spell it out for you. Education is good, and inequality in education is bad.

Which is why I was horrified to read this article in the Los Angeles Times about schools being forced to use private money to pay teacher salaries. The article is complete with a picture of students running a car wash to raise funds for their schools. And I wonder what kind of society we live in when the government borrows money to send out “rebate” checks to taxpayers and students hold bake sales to pay their teachers.

Teachers don’t make enough money as it is, and I’ve been hearing a lot of scuttlebutt from unnamed sources lately about districts which can’t pay their teachers. About paychecks that never arrive, and fighting for pay when timecards “mysteriously” disappear. The fact that the budget crisis has become so severe that we cannot afford to pay teachers in California is, er, awful. I mean there’s really no other word for it.

Now, I am all for getting parents and communities involved in their schools, and I think that private money does have a role in public education. I believe that people respect and value things more when they have to work for them; take the band program here, which almost died before parents and students stepped up to support it. I believe that in communities where more money is available, being able to use that money on education is great.

But I also think that all schools deserve a basic level of funding. Teachers should be paid reasonable salaries for the hours they work, for example, and they should receive benefits. Facilities should be clean and pleasant. Textbooks should be current and useful. Classrooms should be stocked with necessary supplies, libraries should have books in them, and students should have access to the tools they need to learn. These things should not be in jeopardy. Ever. Period.

Students should never have to hold car washes to make sure that their teachers get paid, and teachers should not have to pay out of pocket for basic classroom supplies. Is it any wonder that children become resentful and bitter when their society basically says that they are worthless? I think it’s hard to see the justice in things when your classroom has no art supplies and the government is going into debt to pay for a war and to bribe taxpayers with “rebate” checks.

I think it’s time to get our priorities straight. Math classes, or the war on drugs? Excellence in the sciences, or tax kickbacks for the wealthiest Americans? History, or bailing out financial companies that made risky investments and paid the price? We’ve been spending money that isn’t ours, and it’s time to start paying for it.