« Happy Dia De Los Muertos, Mateys | Home | Electionating »
11.03.08
Proper Opposition
posted by Absinthe | 11:54 AM
I haven’t said one word this election season. I don’t think I have, anyway. Please don’t try to prove me wrong, no matter how easy it would be – my output hasn’t been much.
I care deeply about the results of the polls tomorrow, but I think enough of them are clinched right now that the pre-election sense of dread that’s been the hallmark of the present millennium is, for me, nicely tamped down. The only thing I’m really sweating is a particularly bigoted initiative on the California ballot known as Proposition 8.
Most of you probably know what Prop 8 is. For those of you who don’t, I’ll try to explain it in a way that makes as little sense as possible, since that’s the appropriate level of ridicule. I’ll do this by bringing in a little-known mathematical concept known as the Infinite Ham Corollary.
Let’s suppose there were a law on the books dictating that only heterosexuals were allowed to own and eat ham. This, in addition to being the 83rd-most stupid bit of legislation ever passed, would clearly be state-sponsored bigotry. Why should sexual orientation affect the right to consume deliciously cured pig flesh? I like ham. It’s okay for you to like ham too. I don’t really give a flying fuck what you do with your ham so long as my right to enjoy ham in the manner of my choosing remains unabridged. Personally I like to score the outside in a hash pattern, pin whole cloves into the intersections, coat the whole thing in brown sugar and Coke and get a nice sweet glaze going – that way you’ve got enough power in the sauce to stand up to even the saltiest ham.
’scuse me while I kiss this ham.
Okay. So the point is that your right to keep and bear hams regardless of race, gender, creed or sexual preference ought to be near inviolate, right? You can do what you want to with your ham over there, I’ve got my ham over here, never the hams shall meet. Unless that’s what we want. To deny someone their desired form of ham is unreasonable, and should be unconstitutional.
But some people just can’t stand the thought of any ham but their own, such that it makes them go bugfuck crazy and donate massive amounts of money to a proposition that enshrines a certain kind of ham-denial in the California state constitution. Never mind that a great many of the donors don’t actually live in California and are clearly acting at the behest of a church that’s begging to have its tax-exempt status unhammed.
Is the ham getting away from me here? Maybe. But it’s all in service to a grand thesis borne from the following points of data:
1. Denying ham to a class of citizens for no good reason is both silly and bigoted;
2. Said ham-abridgement would actually have more effect on your average hamterosexual’s life than Proposition 8 has on your garden-variety diehard fundamentalist marriage.
Because hams are a limited resource subject to the whims of the market, vote to restrict ham ownership and they’d conceivably get a little cheaper for those still allowed to buy ham. I think that’s what my economics professor was yammering about – it was early, okay? – when he drew those squiggles on the chalkboard and muttered about “felp swoops”, and no, I’m not making that up.
But there’s no market for love and lifelong commitment. These hams are in infinite supply, and any restrictions on them are artificial. They are a fuck-you to anyone who would really like a ham but can’t have one because it makes your tiny malformed heart and demented lizard brain uncomfortable. There’s no other legitimate reason.
I have no idea how my son, when he gets older, is going to like his ham. The odds are he’ll like it more or less the same way I and his mother do, though maybe he’ll like to cook it with the twine still on or throw a bunch of apples into the mix somehow. I don’t know, and I’m not going to care. All I care about is that he retain the right to enjoy ham in whatever fashion he chooses. That’s why tomorrow I’m going to vote no on Proposition 8.
Hamly yours,
Absinthe
P.S. This was written in an early-morning fog. I reserve the right to retract any particularly unhamly statements if and when they are pointed out to me. Still voting no, though, and you should too.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Topics: Human Interests, I Heart LA, Random Thoughts | 6 Comments »
November 3, 2008 at 9:37 PM
November 3, 2008 at 7:58 PM
November 3, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Me, I prefer hickory smoked bacon to ham.
And I’ll definitely be voting NO on 8. I want to wear a bridesmaid’s dress but once in my life and Lord willing, it’ll be at Showcase’s wedding.
November 3, 2008 at 1:44 PM
I find it funny that you used pokr as an analogy because this clearly is a sausage issue.
November 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM
LOVED this entry..great job.
Its a shame it didn’t pass.
November 12, 2008 at 7:42 AM
Does the fact that there’s a not insignificant couple of religions that look unfavorably upon the consumption of pork make this a more accurate comparison than you perhaps intended?
There’s a lot of people that may have walked into the voting booth and said, “I read in a book (or have been told repeatedly) that Ham is an abomination unto the Lord”. You can make an effort to separate church and state in your government, but it’s awfully tough to keep out of a curtained voting booth.
You’re also ignoring the militant vegetarians. Sure, I would have walked in and thought “Bacon? Not for me, but whatever.” Some people would probably be inclined to say “No food with a face! MEAT IS MURDER!” and voted in line with their fervent moral standards.