You see, the police are questioning ladies who are frequently walking down 82nd Avenue, just to check and make sure that they are not practicing prostitution.  Recently, all it takes to get accused of this crime is to be seen on the sidewalks of that street, even doing something as innocent as catching a bus.  I presume that if they do that, it would not be too much of a stretch for them to stop all of the men driving down the same street of trying to purchase the services of a prostitute.

Now, I don’t really worry about such things.  After all, I have no interest in picking up a lady on the street and buying anything from her.  You never know what you might catch!  In any case, since that is the case, I also don’t worry about my occasional appearance near that street.  Perhaps I should be more concerned.

The State of Oregon, especially in the proposal by its governor, would like to put a GPS tracker in my car.  This device would, of course, be intended to see how many miles I drive in the State of Oregon so that I can pay the proposed “by the mile” tax that would replace fuel taxes.  Fuel taxes and odometer readings are not good enough, the state wants to be able to track me.  While I am not one to attach myself to conspiracy theories, it really doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch that if law enforcement suspected someone of a crime, then it wouldn’t be too hard for the police to get their hands on the records of where I have driven.

So, do I need to worry?  Well, do I hang out on 82nd Avenue.  No, not for any illicit purpose.  My favorite Chinese restaurant is a few blocks from the place where police interrogated the woman in my last blog post.  There are several retail stores on that street where I shop occasionally.  I have purchased vehicles on 82nd.  My business takes me to points along 82nd Avenue almost every day.  If you looked closely, I am probably stopping in that area many times in a given week.  It is certainly not too much of a stretch to think that someone could become suspicious of me, if the threshold of crime is to simply be walking or driving in the area.

I do understand that our police officers have a difficult job.  I also understand that perhaps they would like to stop problems before they happen.  I am, however, truly opposed to anything that allows police to stop and question us simply because we are present in a particular area or walking down a particular street.  I had always thought that our US Constitution prohibited such things.

Just don’t say that I didn’t warn you.

While there certainly are prostitutes all over the place on 82nd Avenue, and it certainly is the place of the Police Bureau to keep this from happening, I have recently observed that police seem to be approaching people first and asking questions later.  It seems apparent that they are stopping not only those actually plying the trade of the “world’s oldest profession”, but are also questioning a great many folks who happen to be present on the street at the wrong time.

According to the facts presented in the article, Ms Selby’s crimes seems to include wearing of a hooded sweatshirt, standing near a bus stop on 82nd Avenue, and looking at cars as they go by, coming from the same direction that her bus would be coming from.  Selby indicated that she had just come from a trip to a spa, and was on her way home by bus.  Evidence she held that corroborated her version of events was taken by the officer and destroyed.  In other words, if the police officer thinks you look like a whore, then they will treat you like a whore.

No, I am not in favor of allowing people to openly sell sex on our city’s thoroughfares.  I would hope that our police can take the time to keep some of our society’s more unseemly participants out of sight and under control.  I simply hope that this can be accomplished without accusing every woman who chooses to walk down the street with a crime.

It would be nice if this area could be made so that all could feel safe walking down its streets.  One way to do that would indeed be to challenge those who are observed participating openly in the drug trade and in selling sex openly on the street.  On the other hand, I fail to see where we can feel safe when we are stopping people for the crime of being a woman wearing a sweatshirt and standing in the wrong place.  Yes, I don’t know this particular woman from anyone else.  But who is to say that one of our daughters will not be the next to be stopped by law enforcement.  I don’t wish this type of treatment on anyone.

I have seen several instances of police making their stops on 82nd Avenue to question people who are walking there.  In some cases, the manner of their stopping and questioning have appeared to be something less than polite.  No, I don’t know the circumstances of every police stop that I see.  But in what I have seen, I do not doubt the harshness with which Ms Selby might have been treated.

It seems that some people see a woman walking down 82nd Avenue and can only see a prostitute.  Yes, you can find prostitution on that street.  You will also find the Tri-Met “frequent service” bus route with the greatest number of daily passengers of any route in the Portland area.  I would like to see a person walking down the street and presume that they are simply living their daily life.  At the very least, I would like to see them presumed to be innocent until they are actually observed to be committing a crime.

The first is simply that I am wondering why it should make any difference at all to me as to whether Governor Palin’s family contains a pregnant daughter or any other family members of any particular persuasion.  Should it matter to me that her husband has extremist political views?  No.  That’s her husband.  Should it matter to me that her daughter is pregnant?  No, why should it?

Unfortunately, it only matters because the Republicans run for office on a platform of catering only to “traditional” families.  That is, only families whose makeup is similat to that in television sitcoms of the 1950′s.  Since this represents a minority of the US population of families, this makes the Republican Party the minority from the get go.  Of course, this is also the party that sought to impeach a Democratic president essentially for having consensual sex with someone who was not their spouse.  So she does have an artificial standard to uphold.

More important was the initial reaction to the media’s disclosure that Bristol Palin was pregnant.  First, this disclosure was made in a response to a rumor that Sarah Palin’s 5-month-old child was her daughter’s child.  Is governor Palin already susceptible to possible blackmail?

No, the initial response was to say that her family’s business was a personal thing.  I agree, we really should not have heard a lot about Palin’s daughter in the first place.  Initial reports did not identify the father of the child beyond the fact that his name was Levi.

Two days later, we were graced with the information that Levi was actually the fiancee of Bristol Palin.  It just seems that if this were really the case two days ago, that it would have been a simple matter to announce up front that she was pregnant with the child of herself and her fiancee.  However, the evidence would show that Governor Palin had not really thought to mention that the two children were getting married until, well, the next day when Levi was informed that he was getting married to Bristol or else.

I agree with Barak Obama when he said, “I think people’s families are off limits and people’s children are especially off limits.”  We should really have never heard about this issue at this point in time, and then, perhaps later, but only as a curiosity.

I think we are finding that the party that claims to have only people with impossibly high values will need to change if they truly want to become a party that connects with the rest of us.

I was thumbing through articles on the Internet and ran into a recent piece by Jerry Large, a Seattle Times columnist.  I think he summed up so well just what I was thinking all along.

I am not a real fan of marijuana.  Sure, I tried it on about three different occasions in my early 20′s.  So has almost a third of all Americans.  However, for a number of reasons, I believe that we spend way too many resources on banning it and making its mere possession a much greater crime than it deserves to be.  It needs to be legal, but controlled in much the same way we control alcohol or tobacco in this country.

In fact, by imposing a prohibition on marijuana, we are actually causing ourselves more grief than if we just sold it at the liquor store.  The main problem here is that most mainstream politicians and media don’t want to be the first to say that “the Emperor has no clothes” and challenge our drug laws.  We also have a lot of “law and order” folks in our society who are more than willing to demonize marijuana users with arguments that are just ridiculous.

Is pot smoking good for you?  Of course not.  Neither is alcohol drinking or cigarette smoking.  But some of us do those things all the time, albeit with some age and other limitations.  One issue is that by saying that marijuana use deserves the same level of penalties as possession and use of clearly more harmful drugs, we are undermining the effectiveness of all of our drug laws.  A typical pot user is much more likely to be a drinker or a tobacco user than a user of, say, cocaine or heroin.

Some marijuana opponents will argue that legalizing marijuana use will encourage some people to use the drug, and that it would also serve as a “gateway drug” to the more serious substances.  I think that anyone who really wants to get some pot is figuring out how to do it.  If we want to send a message to these users, saying that it is a horrible drug that will do many harmful things to you, when a great many of us have tried it with no lasting ill effects, is to cause people to distrust anything our government leaders might say.  Besides, if someone does try pot smoking and finds it to not kill them or cause serious effects, that is as big a message as any to then that the same government might be lying to us about the other drugs, too.

What to we really want to accomplish with our law enforcement resources?  We are having a difficult time keeping our streets clear of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other scourges.  In this day and age where we want to limit our expenditures, wouldn’t it truly be better to concentrate on those substances which truly pose a threat to us?  If we could concentrate our “drug war” resources on stopping the import and sale of these more vicious drugs, we would be much better off.

So what if we did start selling marijuana cigarettes behind the counter at the liquor store?  What kind of things would happen?

• We could control who could purchase pot, much in the same way we restrict the sale of alcohol to minors.  Does that mean a child would never get their hands on the stuff?  Of course not, but a lot of our kids somehow find liquor to drink, too.  In fact, kids find a way to get pot now.  But this would help parents and police to keep it away from kids, without demonizing the parents for having it in their possession.  I would propose setting the level at whatever the drinking age is.
• Want to raise some money to help law enforcement stop the bigger drug problem?  Or perhaps raise some money for drug use rehabilitation, which we need to do anyway?  Then just tax the stuff the same way we tax liquor or tobacco.
• Want to stop people from smuggling marijuana over the Mexican or Canadian borders?  Grow the stuff here?  As an extra added bonus, we eliminate the issues of the pot being laced with poisons or other drugs if we can control the purity of the supply.
• Legalization would cut way down on those “street deals” that we all don’t want in our neighborhood.  There’s something more dignified about buying it in a store than on the sidewalk in front of your kid’s school, and if something does happen on the street, we know it is something more serious that we need to stop.

Finally, I know someone is going to say that if we legalize marijuana, then more people are going to be driving under the influence of this drug.  We already have laws to prohibit this in the books, and there are already folks driving around under the influence of pot anyway.  If your only issue is that of driving while a person is high, rest assured, it is already happening.  There is a big difference between “drinking” and “driving while drinking or drunk.”  Likewise, there is a difference between “smoking pot” and “driving under the influence of pot.”  I understand the difference, most of us understand this difference, the spokesperson from MADD will throw a fit in public and not understand.  Even if legalization slightly increases the number of pot smokers, it will not necessarily increase the number of those choosing to drive under the influence.

During the 1930′s our US Constitution prohibited the possession, sale, transport, or use of alcohol.  That period was famous for the rise in crime and alcohol-related problems that it caused for people.  This prohibition is not working any better.

I believe we will take some pressure off of law enforcement and save ourselves some tax dollars if we legalize pot.  Many people believe that.  But it is doubtful that any amount of writing your congressperson will get the issue into the mainstream radar in the next year or so.  However, now is the time to start discussing the issue civilly in public so that our legislators are not afraid to bring the subject forward in the future.  More information is available at Marijuana Conversation.org and at more and more places online.

If marijuana were legal tomorrow, it’s highly unlikely that I would go out and start using it anytime soon.  However, I am pro-legalization because it will free up our resources for more important problems, and sends a message that our government only passes laws it expects can and will be obeyed by reasonable people.

An article from The Olympian this weekend reveals that a bus driver and some riders of Intercity Transit in Olympia are complaining about an advertisement on the bus that features a picture of a marijuana leaf.  The advertisement is for an event occurring in Olympia on August 23 and 24 called Olympia Hempfest 2008.

The Olympia Hempfest ad accepted by Intercity Transit has an image of a marijuana leaf and the slogan, “Equal Rights are for Everybody.”  It seems that a number of people believe the ads will encourage people to smoke pot.  Others believe that the ad will be seen as a political statement for the legalization of marijuana.

Yes, the advertised event appears to be not only an opportunity for a weekend of summer entertainment, but also a forum for speakers who will discuss a variety of pro-hemp subjects.  No, there likely will not be a coalition of speakers present speaking on the subject of “saying no” to marijuana use.

This article is not really going to be on whether pot possession should be legal or not.  At the moment, it is not legal to possess, except possibly for certain medical uses in the Oregon province of Cascadia.  Marijuana may or may not be the “gateway to harder drugs” though I see how that argument could be made in either direction.  As to whether the substance is “bad” or not, there are certainly possible harmful effects that could come from it’s overuse.  Of course, there are also possible medical problems with overuse of alcohol or tobacco that are similar to those of pot, so there is certainly some inequity in the law.  I’ll leave all of that for another day, though.

No, there are certain people who have seen this advertisement and believe it to be an encouragement for adults and children to start using marijuana.  As if the presence of a picture of a leaf from the cannabis plant will miraculously convince some of our population to give it a try.  After all, if it is advertised on the side of a bus, it must be good!

Have we really become such a bunch of sheep that the mere presence of a picture of a cannabis leaf will convince us to take up pot smoking?  Sure, why not!  When McDonalds suggests that a couple of Big Mac Sandwiches constitutes a wholesome lunch, we believe that.  All it takes is an advertisement from the State Lottery on the same but to turn us into a community of problem gamblers.  Pity anyone who has seen a public-service poster encouraging children not to use drugs.  Certainly the photo of a syringe and an unidentified powder has done more to get these same kids to use the drugs than it has done to stop it.  If the marijuana leaf is causing this harm, so must be some of the other images that have appeared on the same bus over the years.

Many conservative families will be unsure of how to explain the presence of a picture of a leaf to their children.  As they have attempted to shield their children from the sight of these leaves, their children would never have known of their existence unless they were posted on the bus for all to see.  Certainly we could restrict our Freedom of Speech for such a noble cause.  I do have a suggestion, though.  Perhaps these parents could use this as a learning opportunity.  Perhaps they could alert their children to the existence of certain plants that they should not roll up, set on fire, and inhale the smoke thereof.  This could be done in the same matter-of-fact way that I hope they are instructing their children not to pick the poison oak and rub it’s oils over their body.

In fact, I would encourage these same parents to use these same techniques to encourage other, positive behaviors.  If a marijuana leaf will get folks using drugs, certainly a spiritual picture of two will convert most of the population to the religion of your choosing.  I would encourage these same people to utilize the same rights of Freedom of Speech.  Use it to encourage others to develop habits that you consider to be positive.  Who among us has not seen an ad from one or another of the large medical insurance providers encouraging us to lead healthy lives.   This seems proof to me that this powerful “Freedom of Speech” stuff could catch on for all of our region’s people.

The beauty of the system is that there is something for everyone out there.  The same weekend that Hempfest 2008 is in Olympia, Portland will be hosting Portland Cityfest, a Christian themed event at Waterfront Park.  There will be events all over Cascadia that same weekend and others that will cater to people with a variety of beliefs.

Rather than complain that someone is sending out a message that you don’t approve of, explain to your kids to distinguish right from wrong, as you see it.  Then use that same energy to send out your own message.  That is what the united States is all about!

===================================================================

Example of the Advertisement as seen on Intercity Transit Buses.

Articles here and here and elsewhere tell us the story of a woman hiking with a friend in one of our National Forests, minding her own business and enjoying herself.   When she stopped on the trail to put something in her backpack, she was shot dead by a father and son also enjoying the forest by attempting to shoot and kill it’s living creatures.  Imagine the horror of this poor woman’s friend and hiking companion.

The child who committed this act did so with the approval of his father who was present.  I would love to hear that conversation.  “Go ahead and shoot it.  It’s moving and in the forest, so it must be a bear.”  Jail is not a good enough punishment for this father and son.  The state and the judge should seriously consider inpatient mental health care for them.

Please let me sum up our society in this way:

• If we shoot and kill the neighbor’s dog, we are sick and perverted psychopaths.
• If we shoot and kill farm animals, we are either also mentally ill, or we are liable to damages to the farmer.
• But if we shoot at wildlife in a forest, it is celebrated as sport.
• If we shoot and kill hikers in a forest, it is simply an accident.

I say that if we go out shooting hikers in the forest, or for that matter bears in the forest, that the people who do it should be treated with the same contempt as if they went out and shot at the neighbor’s cat or dog.  It only makes sense.

First of all, while this incident occurred during the Super Bowl broadcast, the most widely viewed program in the United States all year, it baffles the imagination that too many people would have been watching the halftime entertainment show so intently that they would have noticed a 9/16 second display of a female nipple.  And if they were?  Then I am somewhat confused as to the harm this could have done to anyone.

It certainly cannot be the view of the female breast itself that regulators consider offensive.  Any viewer of prime-time network television are going to witness women in swimsuits, women in lingerie, women with a lot of gratuitous clevage — in general, over time, just about every part of the female breast except the nipple.  So it is that frightening nipple that we must avoid.

I would not be comfortable with sexual displays on network television.  I do have a sense of morals.  But i fail to see just what happened that might have compelled our government to assess a half-million-dollar fine on the broadcaster.  Indeed, a fine on a broadcaster presenting a live event where they had little or no control over the content.  Even if this were a deliberate act by the performer, it was still on the screen for such a short period of time that there couldn’t have been a great amount of harm done.  It seems a reasonable network, upon seeing something so horrible, would be expected to take a second or two to detect it and take it off the air anyway.

In fact, it seems likely that most did not see it live anyway.  It was only when recordings of the event were posted online that most people had the opportunity to see the incident in question.  Of course, the Internet is not network broadcast television.

So what of this incident.  There are those of us who do not want to see such displays.  A number of people will tell you that they do not want to have their children exposed to the sight of female nipples, and ask what they should tell them when they ask.  Well, I will offer you a solution.  We should not be lying to our children by insisting that there is no Santa Claus.  And we should not be trying to teach our children that women have no nipples.  We all have them.  Men and women alike.  I think that it is wrong to tell your child that they do not exist, then let them think they are some sort of mutants when they find these scars growing on themselves.

OK, I should be a bit more serious about this.  Our children should know that they have a variety of body parts: eyes, ears, feet, breasts.  Our children should be taught that there are certain of their body parts that should not be generally exposed in polite company.  But I believe that watching their parents recoil in horror when something unfortunate happens to someone’s clothing should also be handled with a rational explanation.  It seems that watching an otherwise moral parent throwing a fit when something like that happens just passes on the neuroses of that parent.  If you don’t make such a big deal over the problem, the problem will go away soon enough.

I am all for modesty.  So tell your children that what the lady did was an accident.  Or tell them that it was an inappropriate thing to do.  Or get them away from the television.  (Did you really think that a football game was going to be a source of “wholesome” entertainment?)  And if they were actually watching closely enough to see the incident, and if it does concern you or them, learn to be a parent and learn to explain things like this to your child.  They are going to see things like this in life anyway.  “Shielding” them from such things will only make it more difficult to explain when they really do see something horrible.

If this is bad, I would hate to see the level of reaction if somebody ever really did something bad in this country.

Readers of this blog have likely detected that I enjoy watching Hockey over any major sport.  And I will reveal here that I enjoy a good Soccer game much more than either American Football or Basketball.  The latter two sports really rather bore me, despite their general popularity in the United States.

But when July rolls around, I am following the world’s most famous bicycle race from beginning to end.The Tour de France offers a viewer a myriad of stimulating moments.  The teamwork of bike racing teams working together to get their team leader home the fastest.  The exhilaration of individual efforts that defy the imagination, and dwarf the abilities of a recreational cyclist like myself.  The strength of the athletes as they climb some of the highest mountains in Europe, combined with the speed they go down the other side of the hills (speeds in excess of 50 MPH are not uncommon).  In other words, I am mesmerized by the skill, strength, strategy, and teamwork of these athletes.

That being said, it is comparatively difficult to find news stories on this event, other than small articles reiterating the results.  While i am interested in the stories behind these athletes, most of what we see in the North American press is limited to recounting the results.  Still, I follow the proceedings as closely as possible.

So it is alarming when the biggest stories we see in North America revolve around drug use by a few of these athletes.  I do not have my head in the sand: This group of athletes, like those in a myriad of other sports, have taken a variety of performance enhancing drugs over the years.  In bicycling, as well as in football and baseball, in track and field, and in most other sports, it is a relatively recent phenomenon that drug-taking rules have been enforced consistently.

During the last couple of years, many of the long-time offenders were caught and removed from the sport.  There were some difficult times, but much has been done to clean up the competitors.  This is why I am so confused by some of the stories I have seen this year.

To date, three competitors in the Tour de France have been caught using illegal drugs and were removed from competition.  Sanctions are still to be made, since the competition is still taking place.  But the sanctions will be swift and severe.  In at least two of these cases, the individual athletes were targeted since there was some suspicion they were cheating.  That does not explain some of the commentary from the American press.

To date, all of the articles I have seen in the general sports press on this matter have leaned toward the sensational.  While reforms are clearly being made, the articles act as if the problem is still as bad as before.  One article that bothers me suggests that, since a few of the athletes have been caught cheating, that the event should be canceled for a few years.  What?  I defy the same person suggest that we should give baseball a rest for a few years since a few of it’s athletes were caught using illegal drugs. Clearly some people try to be an authority on subjects they know little about.

For myself, I plan to sit back and enjoy the competition, and wonder which of these men will come out the winner.

It continues to fascinate me how our governments, usually our local ones, will spend so much time and effort trying to eradicate prostitution. Sure, it is an unseemly thing to do. But I find it difficult to understand why the government spends so many resources on this when those scarce funds could be spent on many more important things. Besides, I always wonder why our governments want to spend so much time restricting rights rather than allowing us the freedom to act as we will.

No, I am not personally interested in prostitutes nor do I think it’s a good idea for anyone to take up the activity. On the other hand, I firmly believe that if a willing buyer and a willing seller want to take part in an activity that will have no detrimental impact on others, then I should not be the one to restrict it.

There are, of course, a number of arguments against the legalization of prostitution. I believe, however, that most of the issues involved revolve about the act not being promoted in public, rather than in the act itself. In other words, prostitution happens every day, and we are none the wiser that it is happening. What we really want is to have it not happen on our city streets, or in a way that could cause harm or inconvenience to others.

I am constantly amused that our elected officials, at any level, believe that they have any power to stop the “world’s oldest profession”. It is not a local issue, it is everywhere. I would think that this is one of those issues where, if we were to legalize it, we could actually help to solve some of the problems it presents by making it more controllable. Let me explain.

What do we hate about prostitution? Let me summarize:

Goodness, why do we want to condone something as distasteful as prostitution? Well, I certainly don’t condone it, and the thought of actually participating turns my stomach. Yuck! It would be best if it disappeared. But it will happen anyway, and it would be better if we prevented it’s problems rather than simply criminalizing it.

We do not want to see ladies “selling their wares” on the streets, where it is unsightly and in a place where we would not want our children to see it. Also, in areas where it is known prostitution is available, ladies walking down the street are harassed and asked if they are selling “services”. The solution? If legal, we could regulate the location that sex is sold. We could confine it to certain places or to the Internet. That would take a lot of prostitution off the streets.

Prostitutes are known to spread sexually transmitted diseases. Also, the men buying the “service” could catch a disease and pass it on to others. Of course they can. We should do what we can to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted disease. If we make prostitution legal, then we can allow prostitutes to get regular medical care without worrying about implicating themselves in a crime. Their customers would be allowed to do the same. If a lady is suspected of prostitution and has a pocket full of condoms, wouldn’t that be evidence of a crime? Lets not make it a crime to protect ones self and others. Also, it is very possible to spread disease through any casual sexual encounter. If we are to argue that we are criminalizing prostitution to prevent the spread of disease, we should also consider criminalizing sexual encounters between singles meeting at a bar. No difference there.

Prostitution breeds drug use and adds to our drug problems. Nope, sorry, wrong cause and effect. The ladies are selling themselves in most cases to earn money to buy the drugs. Stopping the prostitution doesn’t stop the drug problem. It’s the other way around.

Prostitution is exploitive to women. Prostitution does exploit the women who are doing it. But the way I see it, if a willing seller wants to be exploited, and a willing buyer wants to exploit them, who am I to stand in their way.

Prostitution is unsafe for the prostitute. Again, I agree with that statement. Legalizing prostitution allows the lady to make arrangements for her safety: A discrete way to advertise that doesn’t bother the neighbors, a way to arrange safe place to go without worrying about being arrested for taking precautions, ability to work in groups for mutual safety, and availability to get appropriate medical care by freely admitting her situation. Making it legal will make it safer.

Prostitution is unsafe for the customer. Undoubtedly. But legalizing will probably make it safer for him too, though I’m tempted to say here that he might get what he deserves. (Remember, I’m saying here that Spitzer and his kind should not face legal sanctions for what he did. I’m definitely not saying that it’s a good idea or moral.)

What about the spouse of the customer? Is she not a victim here? Sure. In a moral sense, this guy shouldn’t be going out and hiring prostitutes. He shouldn’t be dating other women. This, however, is a personal moral issue between these partners. “Cheating on your wife” is not a crime, and while morally repugnent, has little to do with the issue of whether “the other woman” was a prostitute or the next-door neighbor.

“It’s against the teachings of my God and my religion.” Then follow your own spiritual path. Don’t do it.

So, while what this man did was socially reprehensible and morally corrupt, I do not believe that it should be illegal. Publicly soliciting to provide prostitution should probably be a crime, as we do with many public nuisances. But unless the prostitution is happening in the street, I don’t think we should make a criminal of Mr. Spitzer or others. Let’s get on to more substantial matters, and free our resources to solve problems we can solve.