The Oregon Daily Emerald reported today that the family of a university alumnus, Kerry Lewiecki, who committed suicide with a firearm are now pushing the legislature for a waiting period for handgun purchases. From the article:

“People get the idea that they can’t go on living and they act on that within minutes or even hours of having that thought,” said Lewiecki’s father, E. Michael Lewiecki. “If (Kerry) had not been able to purchase a handgun so easily, I think there’s a good chance it might not have happened.”

I sympathize with the family’s  loss, but I don’t see any logic to the argument that people who decide to kill themselves are regularly purchasing firearms at the time of their decision for the express purpose of doing so, even if Lewiecki did. Sad as it may be, I’m fairly confident that, had he not had access to a firearm, Lewiecki would have found another way to kill himself. Unless we as a society are intent on putting 14-day waiting periods on sleeping pills, too, then let’s be careful to not confuse method with motivation.

The United States Postal Service recently printed a batch of stamps of our fair Lady Liberty. Great idea for a financially hemorrhaging national government agency! Or it least it would have been if they had used the right photo.

The New York Post is reporting that the $880 million in stamps that went to press carried the face of not our proud Statue of Liberty on Ellis Island, but a Las Vegas replica:

Somehow the Postal Service insists that the stamps, introduced last December, have “no error in the artwork.”

“The error was in the description, which we’ve changed to indicate was a replica,” Betts said.

An investigation by Linn’s Stamp News exposed the mistake after proving that the eyes, eyelids and eyebrows on the Lady Liberty replica were more sharply defined than those of the original statue.

The real difference between the two statues should be obvious to anyone: People arrive tired and poor at the New York one — and leave that way from the Las Vegas one.

The true beauty in government agencies is when they try to cover up their mistakes. And this is a pretty big one. To claim that the USPS intentionally used this photo instead of a photo of the original is pretty silly, and likely untrue — especially since it followed an investigation from a journalistic publication proving the image to be of the Vegas replica.

Is it offensive to those whose families braved the long and arduous journey across the Atlantic to find hope and prosperity within the borders of our great nation? As the member of one of those families, I’m going to say no.

But a hilarious embarrassment on the part of the United States Postal Service? You betcha.

This installment of Oregon news briefs is all about nanny bills. Special thanks to the Oregon Legislature for plenty of fodder via their vaguely-sexualized obsession with getting involved in other people’s lives.

Despite the fact that we already have anti-littering laws, cops are complaining of a lack of enforcement when it comes to flicking cigarette butts on the ground. Their plan: make a new crime, and classify “unlawful disposal of a tobacco product” as a separate littering offense that would carry a $90 fine. Current laws do cover cigarette butts, but are seldom enforced, possibly because “offensive littering” carries potential jail time, and is sometimes considered too harsh.

(more…)

Too lazy / perpetually hung over to keep up with what’s going on in our wonderful state over spring break? Let the OC do it for you. Here’s the first installment of news briefs from around the state (that we haven’t covered already).

UO News

– GQ magazine named fans of the Oregon ducks basketball team as being some of the worst in the nation, citing “numerous violations of the ‘Code of ConDUCKt.'” The Ducks came in at number 14, ranked as just slightly more annoying than fans of the LA Lakers.

“With a firm dedication to taking taunts too far, the Oregon Duck faithful have a storied history of degeneracy that can be traced all the way back to the days when someone beaned legendary coach John Wooden with a half-eaten apple.”

Storied history of degeneracy, or promoting healthy dietary choices for our most esteemed visiting members? You decide.

– A group of UO students alerted local media and stormed the beaches of the Jaqua Center yesterday, asserting their right as UO students to use lavish but otherwise unexciting services reserved for student athletes. The end.

– The Oregon Ducks football team has been chosen as grand marshal of the 2011 Spirit Mountain Casino Grand Floral Parade. Organizers cited “has brought unprecedented pride, spirit, and enthusiasm to the state of Oregon and the Northwest.”
(more…)

Oregon Concealed Handgun License holders may have further protections from public records requests, the Oregon State House of Representatives voted yesterday.

House Bill 2787, proposed by Reps. Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer, Newberg, St. Paul) and Jeff Barker (D-Aloha) by request of the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association, will only allow the names and registration information of CHL holders to be released for criminal justice purposes or pursuant to court order. The vote passed the Oregon House 42-18, with all but one of the nay votes from Democrats.

Under current law, a CHL holder’s application [link courtesy Oregonian] is open to public scrutiny. The application includes information on previous criminal activity, drug use and military history.

Some representatives are not pleased about the impending legislation, including our favorite Portland representative Mitch Greenlick. From the Oregonian:

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, voted against the bill, saying later that he thought it too restrictive. The proposal allows disclosure only by court order, license holder consent, or for criminal justice purposes.

“Handguns are what people use to kill people. I want to make sure citizens have a right to know if there is a threat,” Greenlick said.

According to a press release from Rep. Thatcher, however, the bill has support from the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association, the Oregon Firearms Federation and the National Rifle Association’s Oregon consultant. And, you know, 42 of the 60 members of the Oregon House of Representatives, including 13 Democrats.

From Rep. Thatcher’s press release:

“The Oregon House has just taken the first step in protecting the safety and privacy of the Oregon men and women who hold Concealed Handgun Licenses,” note Rod Harder, National Rifle Association Oregon Consultant. “We sincerely hope that the Oregon Senate and the Governor will make the same commitment to our law abiding citizens.

Kevin Starrett, Executive Director of the Oregon Firearms Federation added, “while this is just a step towards correcting a serious breach of privacy for Oregon’s most law abiding gun owners, it is an important advance in the process.”

From here, the bill moves on to the Oregon Senate, where, if passed, must be signed into law by Governor Kitzhaber.

Here’s how the Eugene/Springfield Representatives voted:
Terry Beyer (D-Springfield 12): YES
Val Hoyle (D-Eugene 14): YES
Nancy Nathanson (D-Eugene 13): YES
Phil Barnhart (D-Eugene 11): NO
Paul Holvey (D-Eugene 8): NO

Peter Wong of the Statesman-Journal writes about possible amendments being made to the state constitution allowing law enforcement officials to set up roadblocks and the measure that would call checkpoints to a vote :

It was law enforcement against civil libertarians Monday on the issue of whether voters should be asked to change the Oregon Constitution to enable police to set up checkpoints to deter drunken drivers.

Along with Washington and Idaho, Oregon is among the dozen states that do not allow such roadblocks. The state Supreme Court, by a 5-2 vote in 1987, disallowed them as a violation of the state constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures without “probable cause.” The other 38 states do allow them.

House Joint Resolution 25, sponsored by Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany — a retired state police lieutenant — and others, would put the issue to the voters. Previous attempts to do so have not made it past the Legislature.

Drivers in Oregon wanting to drink on the road may have to become more clever than popping breath mints to evade DUII citation and arrest.  State voters have not wanted checkpoints in the past, but the latest bill announcement of House Joint 25 not only calls personal liberty into question but also driver protection.  Rep. Andy Olson is presenting the proposal  along with House Bill 3133 (HJ’s sister bill), which would change Oregon constitution to allow sobriety checkpoints throughout the state.

(more…)

On Wednesday February 16th, 2011, University President Richard Lariviere did an interview with Professor Laufer’s J483: Journalistic Interview class. The Commentator‘s very own Melissa Haskin was in attendance and, like a good reporter, asked him why he has refused to do an interview with the Oregon Commentator.

The conversation:

Melissa Haskin: How come you turned down a face to face interview with the Oregon Commentator?
Richard Lariviere: I don’t see that that’s going to be of any use to the university in any way.
MH: How so?
RL: Well, I make my decisions about how to spend my time on the basis, almost all my time, on the basis of whether or not it’s going to be contributing in some manner to the fundamental mission of the university and that can take a whole range of activities with a whole range of groups, but I have to be able to take the group seriously.
MH: And why do you not take the group seriously?
Mr. Eddy (another student): Why not the Commentator, why this particular publication?
RL: Because when they asked me, I went and looked at their previous issue.
Mr. Eddy: And?
RL: And it was sophomoric and an embarrassment.
MH: How was it an embarrassment when the majority of the articles where academic? For instance, there was a several page article on why we need net neutrality.  So, how is that sophomoric? Would you like to see it?
RL: You asked me why I didn’t do it, that’s why I didn’t do it.

The audio of the full interview can be downloaded here. The part above occurs around 27:20. (The conversation continues to some ridiculousness, as I will mention in a moment.)

The best part about Lariviere’s explanation of his interview refusal is that there was no warrant. He gave no specific reasons as to why the Commentator is not worth his time. The president of the University of Oregon told a group of students involved in an extracurricular activity that their time was not only worthless, but an embarrassment, and seemingly didn’t think it was important to explain why, or how, or to empower these students in any way.

One problem here is how the Unviersity president is treating student programs. Could you imagine if he were to call any other student group an embarrassment? The LGBTQA? The Women’s Center? I love Jennifer Busby, but she walks around in a giant vagina costume and sings a medley of pop songs on behalf of the ASUO Women’s Center. As compared to the Commentator, is that not sophomoric? (Editor’s note: For the record, in my opinion, neither the vagina costume nor the Commentator is an embarrassment. Just illustrating a point.) If Lariviere had made this sort of comment about almost any other student group, the whole campus would be up in arms.

There are ~24,000 students at the University of Oregon, and only around 1 percent of them are involved with student programs. What business does the University president have demonizing those who care about their collegiate experience enough to try at something, anything?

Additionally, Lariviere is refusing to communicate with a student publication, a very clear way to communicate with the greater student population. (Yes, believe it or not, people actually read the Oregon Commentator.) Later in the interview, when asked how he intended to communicate with students, Lariviere mentioned how he was impressed with the Oregon Daily Emerald, how Higher Education Reporter Stefan Verbano is doing a great job, and how he would be happy to speak with him.

When I talked to Stefan later that evening, he mentioned the fact that he had been trying to interview President Lariviere in person for about a month regarding the Riverfront Research Project, and had that day received this email from UO Media Relations Director Julie Brown:

Hi Stefan,

I checked with the president about talking with you for the Riverfront Research Park story. He’s unavailable and recommended that Rich Linton can provide the administration’s point of view on the project. Rich is traveling quite a bit and would prefer if you contact him by email. You can reach him directly at [email protected].

Let me know if you don’t hear back from him promptly and I will follow up on your behalf.

Thanks,
Julie

Just to point out, this is going from an in-person interview with the president of the university to an email Q & A with the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies — a significant step down. Stefan came back to Ms. Brown to clarify that he still wished to speak with Lariviere in person, and asked if there was another time he would have time to talk to the Emerald (he also scheduled an interview to talk to VP for Finance and Administration Frances Dyke, just to explain the top part of the email). Brown’s response [emphasis mine]:

Hi Stefan,

I have you scheduled to interview Frances Dyke next Friday, Feb. 25 at 1 p.m. She has up to 30 minutes available in her office.

For the Riverfront Research Park story, the president isn’t available and doesn’t have additional information to provide. Because the RRP is within Rich Linton’s research portfolio, he is the most appropriate source for you from administration.

Thanks,

Julie

First of all, the administration should not be directing traffic for journalists. But the problem, here, is that if the president doesn’t talk to us, he is not accountable to us. President Lariviere’s constant reluctance to be accountable to the body that he was made representative of is nauseating and makes us consider what it is that he is hiding.

This is basically what I wrote to him in my interview request later that day, which I also sent to Senior Assistant to the President Dave Hubin and Vice President of Student Affairs Robin Holmes:

From: Lyzi Diamond
To: Richard Lariviere
CC: Dave Hubin , Robin Holmes
Date: Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:10 PM
Subject: Oregon Commentator Interview Request

Dear President Lariviere,

I have just spoken with one of my staff writers, Melissa Haskin, about an interview you did with her journalism class this afternoon. She told me that when she asked about you declining an interview with the Oregon Commentator, you called our magazine a “sophomoric publication” that wasn’t worth your time.

As I wrote in my last letter to you, it is my opinion (and, I believe, your opinion) that every student in the University community benefits from being involved in extracurricular activities. I feel it was unprofessional of you to speak about a group of students who are involved in an extracurricular activity in such a flippant manner, especially when that activity has been continuously recognized and funded by the ASUO throughout its decades-long existence.

As I mentioned before, the Oregon Commentator exists to provide an alternative viewpoint to campus politics and discussion, and has done so for nigh on 28 years. Our blog has won multiple awards, and being involved in the magazine has provided amazing opportunities both for current students and OC alumni. To speak of an activity that is so important to so many students in such a negative manner is shocking, especially coming from a university president.

I would like to sit down with you and talk about the state of student affairs in the University of Oregon community. I am available at any time that is convenient for your schedule. We believe an interview with you is definitely worth our time, and that of our readers — and that talking with students should be worth your time, too.

Sincerely,

Lyzi Diamond
Editor-in-Chief, Oregon Commentator

As of 3:00pm on Friday, February 18th, I have heard no response from Hubin, Holmes or Lariviere. As I said in my email, his conduct was incredibly unprofessional, and to speak of a student group in such a manner is abhorrent. It’s outrageous. It should outrage you. Any university administrator that does not even put up the veil of trying to communicate with students is probably not a student administrator you can trust.

Editor’s note: Melissa Haskin will be posting a longer piece on the full range of answers Lariviere gave during his interview in a few days.

Tonight, the UO’s esteemed Public Records Officer Liz Denecke spoke at the ASUO Senate meeting about public records requests and how they relate to the Senate.

As some of you may remember, I submitted a public records request to the ASUO Senate for correspondence over the Senate listserv. That request was referred to Miss Denecke and, according to her testimony at tonight’s meeting, that was the appropriate avenue to take.

At the meeting, Denecke made it clear that the ASUO is an entity of the University, and all public records requests should be forwarded to her. She also expressed that the emails sent between senators discussing the business of the Senate or governance are a part of the public record.

It is with interest, now, that I take you to a recent request that was made for records on the ASUO Senate listserv. The request was not made by me — it was made by Oregon Commentator Editor Emeritus CJ Ciaramella. Below the jump is a series of emails between Ciaramella and Denecke. Read on if government transparency is important to you.

(more…)

I know somebody commented on this under Rockne’s post, but I feel that it deserves a little front page space. From yesterday’s Emerald, page 4, the continuation of the OSPIRG article:

ASUO President Amelie Rousseau told the Emerald, in response to the events of the Wednesday hearing, that she would veto any ACFC budget that did not include at least some funding for OSPIRG.

I can understand voicing one’s opinions on a matter and stating that one would be unlikely to vote in favor of a budget with no OSPIRG funding, but isn’t strict “we do things my way or else” behavior the sort of thing people tried to stamp out in, like, kindergarten? No room for compromise, no contingencies, just “if there’s no OSPIRG funding then I’m telling?”

The theory behind government is that it represents the interests of the governed, and we have Rousseau kissing OSPIRG’s boo-boos after a fairly obvious display of opinion from some senators. I’m not saying she has to mindlessly cow-tow to the majority opinion, but to completely disregard a 4-1 ruling of your peers is a little… yeah.

I am at a loss to expand on the nauseating quality of the following passage, from an obituary about a woman molested by ex-Oregon governor and ex-ASUO President Neil Goldschmidt as a teenager, which appeared in the Oregonian today:

Word of the rape eventually reached Goldschmidt. “I subsequently learned she was just brutally assaulted,” Neil Goldschmidt told The Oregonian in May 2004, “and bad things happened up there for which she’s probably blameless, in the sense that she didn’t invite it — I mean literally ask for it. But she was always putting herself in circumstances like that.”

That was in reference not to Goldschmidt’s molesting her, but to this:

But just three months after she began her job at the law firm, a man named Jeffrey L. Jacobsen kidnapped and brutally raped her. He was convicted and is now in prison.

Thanks to UO Matters for the link.

Yesterday’s town hall meeting regarding the new partnership proposal — which some people know as the “OMG I hear Phil Knight is gonna buy UO” proposal — featured President Lariviere, Professor John Chalmers (from the college of business, finance is his deal), as well as a veritable mob of students and other faculty. The meeting began with an overview of the proposal, what it hoped to accomplish and what changes would be made, aided by many pretty graphs.

Lariviere stated that this proposal has three main goals: governance reform, increased accountability, and a new funding agreement with the state. The governance reform would come in the form of a new board that would feature government-appointed members as well as a student and a faculty seat, all with voting powers. This is also alleged to be at least as accountable as the current system, with hopes it will improve accountability.

While those aspects will have some impact, I am willing to bet the key question here that the majority of people who care are asking is, “How will the change in funding affect the UO?” I have heard a good deal of speculation on the subject, although most of it has been from people who heard the words “private funding” and began screeching about how some company will bankroll the UO on the condition it becomes, “Phil Knight’s Football-Tossing Learnatorium” and all non-athletes will be forced to study in the rain while they bulldoze the residence halls to make room for more stadiums. While I suppose that is technically possible, come on; it’s not like that sort of thing can’t kind of happen now, especially if the school receives less and less funding from the state due to budget cuts. According to the figures presented at the meeting, UO has about the same level of funding as it did 20 years ago, which adjusting for inflation means roughly 43% less. Allegedly the tuition hikes as of late are because of this level of state funding, and if this trend continues, similar increases are on the way.

The new proposal would have the state take the money they would normally give as funding to the University and instead use it to fund bonds that the University would match with private donations, and all of these proceeds would go to an endowment estimated at $1.6 billion. The University would use the interest on this endowment to fund its operations in addition to further state funding, the end goal being reduced reliance on state funding. The state would not hand its money over until the University produced matching funds from private donors, and there would be no impact on state funds until 2013 at the very earliest.

The main reasoning behind this is aside from private donations, what the University does not receive from the state it must gain through tuition costs. This proposal would, in theory, alleviate what Lariviere called, “an unfair burden on our students and their families,” and allow the University to more accurately predict its funding each year. Based on fancy presentations from aforementioned finance professor, predictions show that with this proposal, even a good amount from the expected mean would be slightly above expected state contributions. Basically, if this goes as planned, it would almost certainly be at least a minor improvement, with the expectation being roughly twice the state funding UO would receive.

The proposal going as planned will involve two bills passing — Senate Bill 559 and Senate Joint Resolution 20 — as well as fundraising going well. The one concern that surfaces repeatedly is that private fundraising would indenture the UO to some corporation, and indeed, our beloved Cimmeron Gillespie raised this question during Q&A, asking if there had been, “any thought put to the ethics [of fundraising]?” Lariviere pointed out that many public institutions, even without proposals such as these, are presented deals that are not in their best interests, and so they simply turn them down.

Seriously, guys, think about this for a minute: if the University was going to sell itself into some faceless corporation’s arms it probably would have done so by now. The whole reason for this partnership is to generate more funds. The school has had to jack up tuition to pay for things, and if there had been an unscrupulous way to get tons of funding before they would have taken it. They haven’t before, it’s not like the proposal presents some new opportunity to do so. The only question is how much more will the new partnership would generate compared to staying with the current method of funding, and all of the numbers seem hopeful.

TL;DR: This is probably a kinda good to really good thing to happen, and tuition will get really shitty if things stay the way they are. Unless somebody really screws something up, we can probably put faith in the fact that if Lariviere is telling us things rather than clamming up, he’s telling the truth.

From the Oregonian:

Oregon Attorney General John Kroger announced today that he will draft legislation that will make it illegal under state law to look at child pornography on the Internet.

Kroger plans to propose his draft to state lawmakers some time after their latest session starts in February. Kroger’s announcement comes one day after the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that state law doesn’t make it a crime to look at child pornography while surfing the Internet if the viewer doesn’t purposefully download the images, print them out or pay for them.

Most obviously, the explanation for this is that one of Attorney General Kroger’s interns/assistants “misplaced” all forms of current news for amusement purposes- you sir, I applaud.

From the Oregonian:

House Bill 2228 introduced by Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland), would amend an Oregon statute that bans unlawful passengers on a bike by making it illegal to carry a child younger than 6 either on the bike or in a trailer. The bill includes a fine of $90. […]

A former director of public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Greenlick said the bill was prompted by an OHSU study on injuries among serious bikers.

“It indicated that about 30 percent on average had a traumatic injury each year and about 8 percent had one serious enough to get medical attention,” Greenlick said, “so it really got me thinking about what happens if there’s a 4-year-old on the back of that bike when a biker goes down.”

He knows of no studies about the risks of carrying children in cargo trailers or on the back of a bike. But he said he wants to fire up a conversation in the Legislature.

“This is how the process starts,” he said. “We have hearings. People start testifying. You start getting the information to find out whether there is a problem or not.”

But, of course, Portland loves its bicycles and bike-friendly residents. Naturally, people are pissed, including the good folks at BikePortland.org:

“The bill itself is just ridiculous,” said Jonathan Maus, editor of the popular blog, bikeportland.org.

Other avid bikers got more personal, calling Greenlick “an idiot” in angry emails.

“I’ve got about 100 emails this morning,” Greenlick said. […]

Maus said the bill is misguided.

“We have massive transportation safety problems,” Maus said. “Transporting a child on a bicycle is no where near the top of anyone’s priority.

“I think it is a terrible miscalculation to start a debate with something so one-sided that prohibits the use of a transportation option by a large segment of the population,” Maus said.

He and his wife have raised their two daughters — now 8 and 5 years old — on bikes, carting them around the city in baby slings when they were tiny and then putting them in a cargo trailer at 3 months.

“We never had a problem,” Maus said.

In fact, he says drivers take more care when they see a kid on a bike or trailer, giving the bicyclist extra room.

“Everybody’s really careful,” Maus said.

He worries that the bill could curtail family biking — a popular activity in Portland and elsewhere — and hurt businesses in the state.

Here’s the thing: every activity is associated with risks. Literally every single activity. It is the job of the general public to identify those risks and make decisions about how to proceed. If bicyclists feel uncomfortable biking with children knowing the risks of doing so, they shouldn’t. If they feel comfortable knowing the risks, it is up to them to decide if it’s something they want to do.

It’s that simple.

Extra credit: Mia Birk’s letter to Greenlick asking him to withdraw the bill, saying he misinterpreted the study.

Jeff Mapes at the Oregonian writes about the Local Community Radio Act of 2009 and how the National Association of Broadcasters and former U.S. Senator from Oregon Gordon Smith are trying to halt its passage in Senate:

Smith is now president of the National Association Broadcasters, which is fighting legislation that would allow the creation of hundreds of low-power, non-commercial radio stations around the country.

The Local Community Radio Act passed the House and has strong support in the Senate, thanks in part to the unusual coalition behind it ranging from the Christian Coalition to the Prometheus Radio Project (which says it is devoted to “freeing the airwaves from corporate control”).

In part, the community radio movement has been driven by the sweeping consolidation of the radio industry, which in many cases has led smaller communities to lose local programming.

Not surprising, the National Association of Broadcasters opposes the bill, saying it’s concerned the bill would lead to interference with with stations owned by commercial broadcasters.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought the National Association of Broadcasters was supposed to be “the voice for the nation’s radio and television broadcasters.” I didn’t know that meant only commercial stations. Indeed, I know many non-commercial and low-power radio people, including the general manager at KWVA (UO campus radio), who are NAB members.

Radio is one of the premier mediums for dissemination of information around the world. In many places, it’s the only medium. There are multiple organizations — Radio Free Europe, for one — that work to provide unbiased information to individuals living in nations without free media. And it’s no coincidence that one of the things you’re supposed to have with you in an emergency situation is a battery-powered radio.

And I’m not the only one who feels this way.

“Gordon Smith is silencing voices across the country by opposing the expansion of community radio,” said Pete Tridish of the Prometheus Project, which had demonstrators juggling and whirling hula hoops.” So we’re here to say: Gordon Smith, don’t make a circus of our democracy – stop making us jump through hoops; work with Congress to pass this bill.”

Non-commercial radio, in addition to its immediate importance in emergency situations, provides opportunities that commercial radio does not — for example, the ability to play or talk about whatever you damn well please. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to be fighting for? A free and independent media is guaranteed to Americans, and the best way to do it is to fucking do it. So let them fucking do it.

A little while back we posted about the huge affect that political redistricting can have on the political process. Around the country right now, we’re seeing seats lost and gained, which will have an unknown affect on the already-turbulent balance of power in congress. One effect we’re seeing already though is that several-time Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich might lose his Senate seat, as the NY Times outlines here.

Along with for having a really hot wife (proposed image caption: Damn, it feels good to be a gangster!), Kucinich has been known as a hardline progressive populist since the country learned how to pronounce his name during his 2004 Presidential bid. Maybe it’s because he’s seemed to mellow out a little bit since he got married (just an observation), but he seems to be taking the possible loss in stride so far:

With Ohio losing two seats, political analysts expect the Republicans to eliminate a Democratic seat from the Cleveland area — possibly the one now held by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich.

“My Aunt Betty called me after the news report, and she says, ‘Dennis, what are we going to do — are they putting you out of Congress?’ ” Mr. Kucinich said in an interview, explaining that he would try not to worry about it right now, since it is beyond his control. But he added that “the fundamental rule of politics is you have to have a district to run.”

Truth be told, it’s unlikely we’ll see the end of him even if his seat is eliminated. He’s got a lot of followers around the country, and perhaps the pluckiest little goldfish in all of history was named after him.

Dennis Kucinich entered our lives several Christmases ago when a roommate won him and this brother, Ron Paul, at a carnival (or something).

For several months they shared equal power in their fishbowl, and were an inspiration to all of us. Then one day we woke up to find Ron Paul dead. We were sure it was him because he was floating on the right hand side of the tank. We just assumed it was because he couldn’t stomach the political climate in his little fishbowl, but I always suspected it had something to do with his habit of eating his own poop.

In the face of such adversity, a lesser goldfish would have gone belly up. But not Dennis Kucinich. For almost four years, he was the only one in the fishbowl talking about the issues that matter.  People would stop by the house and marvel that he was still alive, despite the inadequate short-term memories of his owners.

For a while we had dream of buying him bigger and bigger fishbowls to see if we could try to grow him bigger than his human counterpart, it wouldn’t last long. His maker and other plans for him, and one day, as mysteriously as he came in to our lives, he shed his mortal coil, and we were left with nothing but memories.

So here’s to you, Dennis Kucinich. Jesus loves you more than you will know.

P.S. Merry Christmas, everyone. Remember that Sudsy O’Sullivan is always there for you to help you through the holidays with your families.