My district's state representative is Mark Neumann (district 1 of Wisconsin). This guy is Republican, and startlingly conservative. I don't know much about him, except how he has voted. The ACLU just setup this great thing called the National Scorecard, which is basically a comprehensive record on how all house and senate representatives vote on issues the ACLU deem to be issues of freedom. Very simply, each person gets a percentage rating, telling how "pro-freedom" they are. It's pretty neat, and my house rep is at 7%. He only voted "pro-freedom" on the one thing everyone else _didn't_ vote for. What a goof. At least my state's senators are both up at 86%. It's pretty funny how all democrats are 50% or higher, and all Republicans are 50% or lower.

    Interested in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal? Hrm. Never mind then. Actually, the whole thing is even _more_ silly and insulting when you make an honest attempt to understand it. Having only read the abstract of the Starr report, I read over part of the White House's response and laughed out loud. I found it very easy to lend support to the Starr investigation when I realized how easily I could poke holes in the logic of the White House. After reflecting on it, it is pretty sad. In some places, the White House statement's logic is self-incriminating. I'll give you an example-- the White House statement says that Clinton was not lying by saying he had no sexual relations with Lewinsky because he "in good faith" believed "oral sex" did not constitute sexual relations. For one thing, the expression "oral sex" has sex in the word. For another, to be crude, suggesting that ejaculating in a woman's mouth is not sexual is like suggesting that stealing anything worth less than ten dollars isn't stealing. And to top it all off, I have many friends who believe that oral sex is not sex, as sex is intercourse, but 1) these people are not of the moral fiber I would expect of a President, and 2) not one would say oral sex is not sexual. I can't tell you how hard it is for me to believe that the White House of these Unites States would release a statement arguing that President Clinton did not perjure himself because he in good faith believes that oral sex does not constitute sexual relations. If that was literally true, then he shouldn't have apologized to his wife and family for his "inappropriate relations" because what he did wasn't "sexual."