The policy Sen Ihara describes is fairly common across state legislatures around the U.S. - in most cases it upholds a tradition of access, if not influence, over legislative affairs, and allows participation by minority or unpopular points of view. Remember the saying, I oppose what you say, but will fight to the death for the right for you to say it. This is a hopefully less violent variant of the same. Politics - tis the season. The corollary to the quip that all that is necessary for evil to win is for good men to do nothing is that all that is necessary for bad legislation to die is for good men to do as little as possible. Good men tend to respond to bills going no where with dignity and rationality. Don't let your outrage get out of whack, or focus on the messenger - the senator is doing his job, representing his constituents but also signalling his dissent from his own bill by a common practice. Spend an hour or two on your local legislature's website where bills are introduced and tracked, you'll find lots of stuff there going no where, bound to enrage somebody.

I'm reminded of an old boss of mine, who with his wife had to bury two sons - one died of an illness, the other was mugged and died of his stab wounds under an overpass in Portland. Burying two sons - it was hard, you don't expect to do that in life. He never did, but if he wanted to introduce by request legislation and try to convince people to outlaw knives, I for one wouldn't have the heart to say no. I couldn't vote for it, and would work the courts to reverse it if ever passed, but you let some folks have their lead.

I'm also reminded of the line from Charlie Wilson's War, "$5,000 a year earns you the right to call me Charlie once a year. $10,000 earns you the right to call me Mary Lou and have me come over and clean out your gutters."