Such a wonderful day today - the weather was glorious. Wow. Up and over to Debby's for a study session, then met David for lunch, then we went out to look at the new car. Then, back to meet with Tom to talk about the websites, and home. I was gone from 9 this morning until 6:30. Got home, and I was too pooped to pop.
I don't think I've moved from the sofa since I got home.
My dad's fax machine showed up today. That's good, since mine is about as reliable as a man who's agreed to go out on a date. I haven't opened up the box yet, but it looks as if they were using it for a 1970's Samsonite commercial.
This movie I've rented is very cute - Mark Ruffalo is the male star. He's just so dreamy.
Talked to Tom tonight about cutting back all of the overhead costs for the reunion so as to bring the cost down. I think that I need to start marketing those reunion web templates next week, and set up my first date to hold a mortgage broker class and start marketing it. Something for Babs to do on Monday. Well, all next week.
I was telling David today that either this non-profit job needs to work out soon, or I need to start working a lot harder.. I guess it's b.) for now.
Seeing that car today gave me a real sense of happiness. I'm wrestling with CP's having told me last night that I don't do anything fun. Of course, he was drunk (as he is always) when he was slagging me. But, still - I listened to Jeffrey talking about going to COS this weekend, and HNL and OGG this fall, and .. they're always off somewhere. I had lunch with Chuck on Thursday, and he was again wearing amazing clothes, with yet another ste of braces I've never seen.
I'd like to have that kind of life. That kind of closet.
I don't know what has to change to have that. I've dreamed it, and I'm ready for it. Being in this house (or something like it) would be that. Driving this new car would be that.
The woman I had lunch with (Chuck, Thursday, remember? It was only a few lines ago) is a certified mediator - she and I were talking about that there are few mediators who are skilled in business issues - especially financial issues, the kind of things that I do - forensic accounting, contract evaluation, investment tracking, sorting out what happened in an ill-documented situation. I checked into mediator training, a few more places to call. I think that it's the way to integrate my practitioner training with business, and gives me something to do that's law related.
Hm. Lots to ponder.
DJHJD
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Friday, May 12, 2006
Friday evening nonsense
So, I've discovered that using Goof Off (tm) inside your home is much like uncorking a barrel of turpentine. Great for clearing out the sinuses.
Got the giant (and amazingly cheaply built) dresser out of the dining room tonight. And the 1983 motel pictures.
Tomorrow will be the day that I hang up the curio cases, and put up the 20th Century Limited china and the Continental glassware &c. All put up, up and away.
YAY!
I found a really cool tv stand and matching stereo rack today at Target. Cheap, too.
Mitch the twitch keeps threatening to pick up this TV. Which would suck. But, there are other TVs to be sure.
Got the giant (and amazingly cheaply built) dresser out of the dining room tonight. And the 1983 motel pictures.
Tomorrow will be the day that I hang up the curio cases, and put up the 20th Century Limited china and the Continental glassware &c. All put up, up and away.
YAY!
I found a really cool tv stand and matching stereo rack today at Target. Cheap, too.
Mitch the twitch keeps threatening to pick up this TV. Which would suck. But, there are other TVs to be sure.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
FINALLY
the inter-asian, cross-cultural raw land deal has finally CLOSED. No more calls from people who speak broken English asking me if we're closing today. After fifteen months of work, I'm making about .. $10/hour. Probably.
Next up, a purchase deal for a guy with good credit scores, but no credit .. he's trying to buy a house with NO money down. Zero. I found him 5% down, and he's disappointed.
I was talking with a realtor friend today, and asking him if the client he referred me was going to go somewhere else for financing since I told him that his rate was going to be about 8.5% with 20% down. I asked him if I was going to be the honest one who told him what he could expect, and he rejects that information only to go to someone else and get .. the same deal.
He told me that it's tough being truth tellers.
I found a car at a Dallas dealership last night that gave me a momentary thrill of desire - check it out here.
Barney's being idiotic in the backyard again. I put bricks and rocks in the ivy beds so that he couldn't lay in the wet dirt and make himself more disgusting. That's frustrating him. I think that the woman who "found" him (she lives about ten houses up the street) thought she had some Disney like rescue on her hands, and when she discovered that Barney was from just dwon the street and that I wasn't leaping through the phone with joy at him being "found," I think the wind went out of her balloon.
The pool was so beautiful this morning that I just had to take pictures of it. That led to taking pictures of the entire house, which I guess I'll have developed tomorrow.
Skipped class tonight due to Ruby issues.
Only one more Thursday night. Then, I'm done with these classes for good. Amazing.
I think that the next thing will be me taking mediation training classes. Calling about that tomorrow. That's my idea for using my practitioner credential with business.
We'll see where it goes.
Next up, a purchase deal for a guy with good credit scores, but no credit .. he's trying to buy a house with NO money down. Zero. I found him 5% down, and he's disappointed.
I was talking with a realtor friend today, and asking him if the client he referred me was going to go somewhere else for financing since I told him that his rate was going to be about 8.5% with 20% down. I asked him if I was going to be the honest one who told him what he could expect, and he rejects that information only to go to someone else and get .. the same deal.
He told me that it's tough being truth tellers.
I found a car at a Dallas dealership last night that gave me a momentary thrill of desire - check it out here.
Barney's being idiotic in the backyard again. I put bricks and rocks in the ivy beds so that he couldn't lay in the wet dirt and make himself more disgusting. That's frustrating him. I think that the woman who "found" him (she lives about ten houses up the street) thought she had some Disney like rescue on her hands, and when she discovered that Barney was from just dwon the street and that I wasn't leaping through the phone with joy at him being "found," I think the wind went out of her balloon.
The pool was so beautiful this morning that I just had to take pictures of it. That led to taking pictures of the entire house, which I guess I'll have developed tomorrow.
Skipped class tonight due to Ruby issues.
Only one more Thursday night. Then, I'm done with these classes for good. Amazing.
I think that the next thing will be me taking mediation training classes. Calling about that tomorrow. That's my idea for using my practitioner credential with business.
We'll see where it goes.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Wednesday evening stuff
Whoops! An empty post. I think that I was hating men utterly this night. Probably.
Thunderstorms a'rumblin
a CLOSING on the FSBO I've been working on for fifteen months! We actually have a CLOSING set for tomorrow! We have a HUD-1 and EVERYTHING! WOW. Scar-y.
I have a date tonight with Anthony; he seems nice enough - a bit of a gay train wreck, to be sure. We seem to be experiencing a little late afternoon thundershower, and that's a nice thing. Hopefully, it will bring down the temperature a lot. I brought Jackie indoors, let's see if she STAYS indoors long enough to avoid getting wet.
I need to buy some clippers for them and shave them down to the nub. Oh, Barney's been "found." I have to pick him up later today.
Here's another little smack-down for the day:
*
I have a date tonight with Anthony; he seems nice enough - a bit of a gay train wreck, to be sure. We seem to be experiencing a little late afternoon thundershower, and that's a nice thing. Hopefully, it will bring down the temperature a lot. I brought Jackie indoors, let's see if she STAYS indoors long enough to avoid getting wet.
I need to buy some clippers for them and shave them down to the nub. Oh, Barney's been "found." I have to pick him up later today.
Here's another little smack-down for the day:
*
Leftists? Hokum. But "Anti-War" is a Pretty Good Thing to Be
By Hunter on anti-war
We've certainly been treated to our fair share of opinions of late that Daily Kossians and assorted others are terribly, terribly out there on the fringes of far-left thought. And all told, it's been pretty funny to see put-upon darlings of the media avail themselves of the Hugh Hewitt show to complain about those bitterly partisan folks over there, or members of the establishment with the most connections to cash-by-the-bucketful corporate politics be the quickest to titter the talking point.
In a world where we're having honest-to-God media discussions about what aspects of the Constitution the president does or doesn't actually have to follow, and where "Minutemen" culled from hate groups make a show of patrolling the US-Mexican border with the explicit praise of Republican congressmen and senators, I'd say the entry requirements for supposed leftism are pretty darn slack, these days. It includes things like "bribing congressmen is still illegal" and "don't torture potentially innocent people", for starters, and works its way up to truly radical concepts like "deficits are bad" and "the Constitution is not optional law", which I suppose in the minds of the right, given their outcry, are astonishing, heretical notions.
We're also told ad nauseam we have no interest in issues; that's pretty darn wrong, actually, and I'm not sure how anyone could seriously skim the stories and diaries here, for example, and come to that conclusion. (I guess the key word in that sentence was "seriously."
It's asserted that we're anti-war in all cases; sorry, but while that's a noble bumper-sticker thought, there are certainly extraordinary occasions where self-defense is quite warranted, and liberal and pacifist are not the same thing. I'd say that the Republican party is pro-war to an astonishingly homogeneous degree, but opinions in the center and on the left are decidedly more nuanced. You won't find too many in those days who argued against a military response to 9/11, though you will find large numbers who warned against an ineffective military response.
Drat and Blast - Hump Day
Source article from TruthOut
An Open Letter to Richard Cohen
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 09 May 2006
Greetings! I was inspired to write you after reading your missive in today's Post regarding all the nasty emails you have received of late. Personally, I found Colbert's performance hilarious and timely, the kind of satirical backhand so desperately needed these days. I don't begrudge you your opinion that he wasn't funny, and I agree with your belief that it wasn't your opinion on his performance that motivated such an angry response.
It wasn't. You yourself nailed the reason: "Institution after institution failed America - the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have."
The fact that your Colbert commentary became the flint against this rock doesn't mean that Colbert, or your opinion of him, is to blame for the resulting firestorm. The fact is that people are angry - brain-boilingly, apoplectically, mind-bendingly so - at what has happened to this great country. I am, quite often, so angry that my hands shake. Yes, a former high school teacher from New England here, so filled with bile and rage that I sometimes don't recognize my face in the mirror.
You, sir, should not be asking why so many of your email friends are so angry. You should be asking why you yourself are not with them in their rage. I have admired a number of your articles over these last years, and know that you are no fool regarding our situation in Iraq and here at home. It isn't your grasp of the issues that concerns me, but the absence of outrage. Do you really care about the things you write about, or is all this merely grist for the mill that provides you a paycheck?
"I have seen this anger before," you wrote, "back in the Vietnam War era." No, sir, you have not.
You hearken back to rock-throwing days in Vietnam, and lament hatred and rage. But you do not see that those days are quaint by comparison given our current geopolitical situation. Johnson and Nixon, whatever else their faults may have been, were internationalists who understood the need for connection to the wider world. The war in Vietnam, barbaric as it was, did not inspire tens of thousands of Vietnamese to join martyr's brigades. It did not threaten to unleash chaos in a part of the world that holds the economic lifeblood of our whole existence. It did not threaten to shake loose nuclear weapons from quasi-rogue states like Pakistan.
You speak of the angry mob because you got slapped around via email, but your characterization of the anti-war crowd tells me you have not spent a single moment out in the streets with them. I have. I have covered dozens of protests, large and small, in cities all across this country before and after the invasion of Iraq. Millions upon millions of Americans participated in these, and never once, not one time, was a rock thrown.
No violence was offered anywhere, unless it was violence offered to old ladies by riot-garbed police, as was evidenced in Portland several years ago. I have the photographs to prove it. If you want to see anger, enjoy this picture of a 60-year-old woman holding an anti-war sign while being placed in a hammer-lock by a riot cop:
"The hatred is back," you say, as if such hatred is beyond justification. It is interesting that you make so many allusions to Vietnam; the comparison is apt, yet not on point. This is not a situation of "Then" and "Now," but "Then" and "Again." The two issues are joined by a common theme: official malfeasance, presidential lies, administrative fear-mongering and horrific body counts in a faraway land. The lesson of Vietnam was so searing, many believed, that it would never have to be learned again.
Why the anger? Because that lesson didn't take, at least with this crowd. Why the anger? Because millions of people are staggered by the idea that, yes Virginia, we have to go through this again. We have to watch soldiers slaughter and be slaughtered for reasons that bear no markings of truth. We have to watch the reputation of this great nation be savaged. We have to watch as our leaders lie to us with their bare faces hanging out.
Why the anger? It can be summed up in one run-on sentence: We have lost two towers in New York, a part of the Pentagon, an important American city called New Orleans, our economic solvency, our global reputation, our moral authority, our children's future, we have lost tens of thousands of American soldiers to death and grievous injury, we must endure the Abramoffs and the Cunninghams and the Libbys and the whores and the bribes and the utter corruption, we must contemplate the staggering depth of the hole we have been hurled down into, and we expect little to no help from the mainstream DC press, whose lazy go-along-to-get-along cocktail-circuit mentality allowed so much of this to happen because they failed comprehensively to do their job.
George W. Bush and his pals used September 11th against the American people, used perhaps the most horrific day in our collective history, deliberately and with intent, to foster a war of choice that has killed untold tens of thousands of human beings and basically bankrupted our country. They lied about the threat posed by Iraq. They destroyed the career of a CIA agent who was tasked to keep an eye on Iran's nuclear ambitions, and did so to exact petty political revenge against a critic. They tortured people, and spied on American civilians.
You cannot fathom anger arising from this?
I wrote a book called "War on Iraq" in the summer of 2002. That book stated there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no al Qaeda connections in Iraq, no connections to 9/11 in Iraq, and thus no reason for the invasion of Iraq. It is now almost the summer of 2006. That book was right then, and is right now, and the millions of Americans who agree with the facts contained therein have shared these four years with me in a state of disbelief, shock, sorrow and yes, anger. None of this had to happen, and the fact that it was allowed to happen inspires the kind of vitriol you got a taste of via email.
If you want anger, you should try reading some of the emails I get on a weekly basis. The mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, husbands and children of American soldiers killed in Iraq write to me asking why it happened, what can be done, how this is possible. They write to me because I wrote that book, because somehow they think I have an answer to that bottomless question.
I am sorry you were so wounded by the messages you received. I wish that hadn't happened; I am personally from the more-flies-with-honey school of journalistic correspondence. But in the end, truth be told, I don't feel too badly for you. It isn't an excess of outrage that plagues this nation today, but an abject lack of it. Instead of castigating those who take an interest, who have gotten justifiably furious over all that has happened, I suggest you take a moment within yourself and ask why you don't share their feelings.
This isn't Vietnam, Mr. Cohen. This is a whole new ballgame, and the stakes are higher by orders of magnitude. It took almost ten years of Vietnam for people to reach the boiling point you are so apparently horrified by (and worthy of note, that rage may have elected Nixon, but also served to stop the killing in Southeast Asia). Should those of us who are angry today wait until 2013 to raise hell?
At a minimum, I suggest you head down to your local hardware store and buy a few sheets of 40-grit sandpaper. Apply it liberally - pardon the pun - to any and all parts of your body that may be exposed to the scary anger of the anti-war Left. Toughen up that hide of yours, and greet the coming days with a leathery mien impervious to a few angry emails.
Afterwards, you could perhaps figure out why the anger of those who see this war as a crime and this administration as a disaster is so terribly threatening to you. Anger is a gift, after all, one that inspires change. If you don't think we need a change, real change, I can only shake my head.
P.S. Another reason for the anger you have absorbed can be laid, frankly, at your own feet. There are enough of us around who can still remember your words from November of 2000: "Given the present bitterness, given the angry irresponsible charges being hurled by both camps, the nation will be in dire need of a conciliator, a likable guy who will make things better and not worse. That man is not Al Gore. That man is George W. Bush."
Locate a mirror, Mr. Cohen. Stare deep within it. Know full well that today, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, will recast all your yesterdays as having passed like a comforting dream. Your ability to remain within the safe bubble of the beltway clubhouse, drifting this way and that in some meandering, rudderless fog, has ended. Al Gore invented the internet, or so we are told, and some bright-eyed editor decided to staple your email address to the bottom of your works. Welcome to the age of electronic accountability.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.
-------
An Open Letter to Richard Cohen
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 09 May 2006
Greetings! I was inspired to write you after reading your missive in today's Post regarding all the nasty emails you have received of late. Personally, I found Colbert's performance hilarious and timely, the kind of satirical backhand so desperately needed these days. I don't begrudge you your opinion that he wasn't funny, and I agree with your belief that it wasn't your opinion on his performance that motivated such an angry response.
It wasn't. You yourself nailed the reason: "Institution after institution failed America - the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have."
The fact that your Colbert commentary became the flint against this rock doesn't mean that Colbert, or your opinion of him, is to blame for the resulting firestorm. The fact is that people are angry - brain-boilingly, apoplectically, mind-bendingly so - at what has happened to this great country. I am, quite often, so angry that my hands shake. Yes, a former high school teacher from New England here, so filled with bile and rage that I sometimes don't recognize my face in the mirror.
You, sir, should not be asking why so many of your email friends are so angry. You should be asking why you yourself are not with them in their rage. I have admired a number of your articles over these last years, and know that you are no fool regarding our situation in Iraq and here at home. It isn't your grasp of the issues that concerns me, but the absence of outrage. Do you really care about the things you write about, or is all this merely grist for the mill that provides you a paycheck?
"I have seen this anger before," you wrote, "back in the Vietnam War era." No, sir, you have not.
You hearken back to rock-throwing days in Vietnam, and lament hatred and rage. But you do not see that those days are quaint by comparison given our current geopolitical situation. Johnson and Nixon, whatever else their faults may have been, were internationalists who understood the need for connection to the wider world. The war in Vietnam, barbaric as it was, did not inspire tens of thousands of Vietnamese to join martyr's brigades. It did not threaten to unleash chaos in a part of the world that holds the economic lifeblood of our whole existence. It did not threaten to shake loose nuclear weapons from quasi-rogue states like Pakistan.
You speak of the angry mob because you got slapped around via email, but your characterization of the anti-war crowd tells me you have not spent a single moment out in the streets with them. I have. I have covered dozens of protests, large and small, in cities all across this country before and after the invasion of Iraq. Millions upon millions of Americans participated in these, and never once, not one time, was a rock thrown.
No violence was offered anywhere, unless it was violence offered to old ladies by riot-garbed police, as was evidenced in Portland several years ago. I have the photographs to prove it. If you want to see anger, enjoy this picture of a 60-year-old woman holding an anti-war sign while being placed in a hammer-lock by a riot cop:
"The hatred is back," you say, as if such hatred is beyond justification. It is interesting that you make so many allusions to Vietnam; the comparison is apt, yet not on point. This is not a situation of "Then" and "Now," but "Then" and "Again." The two issues are joined by a common theme: official malfeasance, presidential lies, administrative fear-mongering and horrific body counts in a faraway land. The lesson of Vietnam was so searing, many believed, that it would never have to be learned again.
Why the anger? Because that lesson didn't take, at least with this crowd. Why the anger? Because millions of people are staggered by the idea that, yes Virginia, we have to go through this again. We have to watch soldiers slaughter and be slaughtered for reasons that bear no markings of truth. We have to watch the reputation of this great nation be savaged. We have to watch as our leaders lie to us with their bare faces hanging out.
Why the anger? It can be summed up in one run-on sentence: We have lost two towers in New York, a part of the Pentagon, an important American city called New Orleans, our economic solvency, our global reputation, our moral authority, our children's future, we have lost tens of thousands of American soldiers to death and grievous injury, we must endure the Abramoffs and the Cunninghams and the Libbys and the whores and the bribes and the utter corruption, we must contemplate the staggering depth of the hole we have been hurled down into, and we expect little to no help from the mainstream DC press, whose lazy go-along-to-get-along cocktail-circuit mentality allowed so much of this to happen because they failed comprehensively to do their job.
George W. Bush and his pals used September 11th against the American people, used perhaps the most horrific day in our collective history, deliberately and with intent, to foster a war of choice that has killed untold tens of thousands of human beings and basically bankrupted our country. They lied about the threat posed by Iraq. They destroyed the career of a CIA agent who was tasked to keep an eye on Iran's nuclear ambitions, and did so to exact petty political revenge against a critic. They tortured people, and spied on American civilians.
You cannot fathom anger arising from this?
I wrote a book called "War on Iraq" in the summer of 2002. That book stated there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no al Qaeda connections in Iraq, no connections to 9/11 in Iraq, and thus no reason for the invasion of Iraq. It is now almost the summer of 2006. That book was right then, and is right now, and the millions of Americans who agree with the facts contained therein have shared these four years with me in a state of disbelief, shock, sorrow and yes, anger. None of this had to happen, and the fact that it was allowed to happen inspires the kind of vitriol you got a taste of via email.
If you want anger, you should try reading some of the emails I get on a weekly basis. The mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, husbands and children of American soldiers killed in Iraq write to me asking why it happened, what can be done, how this is possible. They write to me because I wrote that book, because somehow they think I have an answer to that bottomless question.
I am sorry you were so wounded by the messages you received. I wish that hadn't happened; I am personally from the more-flies-with-honey school of journalistic correspondence. But in the end, truth be told, I don't feel too badly for you. It isn't an excess of outrage that plagues this nation today, but an abject lack of it. Instead of castigating those who take an interest, who have gotten justifiably furious over all that has happened, I suggest you take a moment within yourself and ask why you don't share their feelings.
This isn't Vietnam, Mr. Cohen. This is a whole new ballgame, and the stakes are higher by orders of magnitude. It took almost ten years of Vietnam for people to reach the boiling point you are so apparently horrified by (and worthy of note, that rage may have elected Nixon, but also served to stop the killing in Southeast Asia). Should those of us who are angry today wait until 2013 to raise hell?
At a minimum, I suggest you head down to your local hardware store and buy a few sheets of 40-grit sandpaper. Apply it liberally - pardon the pun - to any and all parts of your body that may be exposed to the scary anger of the anti-war Left. Toughen up that hide of yours, and greet the coming days with a leathery mien impervious to a few angry emails.
Afterwards, you could perhaps figure out why the anger of those who see this war as a crime and this administration as a disaster is so terribly threatening to you. Anger is a gift, after all, one that inspires change. If you don't think we need a change, real change, I can only shake my head.
P.S. Another reason for the anger you have absorbed can be laid, frankly, at your own feet. There are enough of us around who can still remember your words from November of 2000: "Given the present bitterness, given the angry irresponsible charges being hurled by both camps, the nation will be in dire need of a conciliator, a likable guy who will make things better and not worse. That man is not Al Gore. That man is George W. Bush."
Locate a mirror, Mr. Cohen. Stare deep within it. Know full well that today, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, will recast all your yesterdays as having passed like a comforting dream. Your ability to remain within the safe bubble of the beltway clubhouse, drifting this way and that in some meandering, rudderless fog, has ended. Al Gore invented the internet, or so we are told, and some bright-eyed editor decided to staple your email address to the bottom of your works. Welcome to the age of electronic accountability.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.
-------
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Tuesday developments
I'm working to avoid being otiose this afternoon.
I've got to look through a loan file, and re-organize it, and see about supplementing the credit. Then, I must see about the approval that's floating around in the ether, which is on a different file. A few things to do today with all of that.
The yard's cleaned up again, the pool pump was running on its timer this morning (but the polaris was not) and Barney's still AWOL. Jackie's loving the attention she's getting.
We went for a walk yesterday afternoon, which was great. She was very bouncy and excited. In fact, I think I'll go check on her now.
So frustrating to be trying to fully adopt new money consciousness. Any little slip up in external conditions drags me straight back into lack consciousness. Blarg.
A tax client has FINALLY gotten me his stuff. For 1937. Or whatever year that was. Now, he needs to get me his 2005.
I've got to look through a loan file, and re-organize it, and see about supplementing the credit. Then, I must see about the approval that's floating around in the ether, which is on a different file. A few things to do today with all of that.
The yard's cleaned up again, the pool pump was running on its timer this morning (but the polaris was not) and Barney's still AWOL. Jackie's loving the attention she's getting.
We went for a walk yesterday afternoon, which was great. She was very bouncy and excited. In fact, I think I'll go check on her now.
So frustrating to be trying to fully adopt new money consciousness. Any little slip up in external conditions drags me straight back into lack consciousness. Blarg.
A tax client has FINALLY gotten me his stuff. For 1937. Or whatever year that was. Now, he needs to get me his 2005.
Marry your neighbor's ass?
Source article from Daily Kos
What marriage is and why opposing gay marriage is immoral
"Marriage" has several different meanings. It is a religious ritual, a social status, and most importantly for us, a legal status. Marriage is a contractual arrangement between two people to adopt a legal status which confers upon them certain legal rights. In fact, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of the US Congress, issued a report in 2004 that stated that there are 1,138 such rights, privileges, and protections under the law afforded to married couples.
What is at issue in the gay marriage question is nothing but the legal status. The issue at hand is whether hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney, being able to file joint tax returns, and all of the other legal protections ought to be denied to people because some folk's religion doesn't like the way that these people -- many of whom are not in their religion -- make love.
Marriage exists to eliminate ambiguities in law that arise from the fact that we do tend to couple up. We arrange our lives in such a fashion that it makes it impossible under the social contract which organizes society to give rights and responsibilities to individuals whose lives are completely intertwined. There is not my money and my wife's money, there are our assets. There is not my house and my wife's house, there is our home. There are not my children and my wife's children, there is our family. When talking about tax liabilities, child welfare decisions, and life choices in general, the responsibilities and benefits are ours together. We are what Thomas Hobbes called an "artificial individual, it makes no sense to think of us as two completely different people in some legal circumstances because we decide and act as a single entity and the law must account for that. If one of us were in an accident that caused that person to be incapacitated, the decision making rights for that person immediately go to the other partner. If one should pass away, all assets and liabilities, all responsibility for the children immediately go to the survivor. Questions about these sorts of thing need to be completely unambiguous to avoid problems like the Terri Schaivo fiasco where different family members were trying to wrest control from each other to further their own agendas. Marriage exists to make perfectly clear who has what rights and responsibilities and who shares what rights and responsibilities.
This has nothing to do with churches, synagogues, mosques, or temples. If a religion wants or doesn't want to perform a ceremony binding any given couple together in they eyes of their god(s), they may choose to or not to at their own discretion. It's your club, run it how you will. But this is a question of whether we deny rights, privileges, and protections under the law to honest, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens.
To oppose this equal treatment under the law is nothing but bigotry. They may try to wrap that bigotry in the cloak of religious righteousness, they may try to argue that their immoral stance comes from family or other values, they may feign concern for the children, but these are all red herrings designed to pull your eye away from the fact that all they are really trying to do is deprive innocent citizens of rights because they find the way they have sex to be yucky. Gay and lesbian couples are every bit the same in terms of commitment and acting as a unit, and therefore, there is no reason to exclude them from the disambiguating legal status of being married.
But what about polygamy?
But doesn't this start us down the slippery slope to hell? No. Consider first the case of polygamy. People are capable and some desire lives intertwined with more than one person. Couldn't three people make decisions as a unit and wouldn't this argument require affording the legal status to all of them?
No. The purpose of civil marriage is to make sure that the location of rights and responsibilities is perfectly clear. Polygamy would not only not make these issues unambiguous, it would entrench further ambiguity into the law. It would do the opposite of what civil marriage is meant to do. When Groucho proposed marrying two women, one said to him, "But that is bigamy," to which Groucho retorted, "It's big of me, too. It's big of us all. Let's be big for a change. What do you say?" The problem with polygamy is that we cannot always count on everyone to be big. Squabbles will occur and the point of marriage is to make sure that there is a clear legal way to resolve them. If we allowed Terri Schaivo to have two husbands and they disagreed on her care, then who gets the final word? This is exactly the sort of question marriage exists to answer. Polygamy not only wouldn't answer it, it would make it unanswerable. Gay marriage does not entail the necessity to legalize polygamy any more than, say, interracial or interfaith marriages do, that is to say, not at all.
How about marrying children?
Dobson and the others argue that gay marriage requires being able to marry minors. No. The idea is to make clear where there are joint rights and responsibilities and where those rights and responsibilities lay when one partner is incapable of exercising them. Minors cannot possess all the rights and responsibilities of adults. Hence, they could not enter into relationships wherein they would be asked to fulfill obligations that they cannot have. Whether this should also hold for adults who act like children...we can consider that later.
Ok, but what about the dogs, box turtles, and donkeys?
Same line of reasoning, of course. Animals may or may not have moral rights, but under our social contract they do not have legal rights. Since animals cannot be held legally responsible and cannot participate in making decisions, they cannot be married. If children do not rise to the standard, then clearly neither do box turtles. As for Dobson's donkeys, I have known many people who married jackasses, but that is a different question.
One might object that Lassie was quite capable of making life or death decisions for little Timmy, so "shouldn't they be allowed to get married?" I don't think it is a real concern because while Lassie seemed gentle and caring on screen, everyone knows that off-camera she was just a little bitch.
Civil marriage is a legal status that has good reason to exist and there is no reason not to extend it to couples of the same sex. At the same time, the function of that status means that the slippery slope that the right claims to exist is complete and utter nonsense.
What marriage is and why opposing gay marriage is immoral
"Marriage" has several different meanings. It is a religious ritual, a social status, and most importantly for us, a legal status. Marriage is a contractual arrangement between two people to adopt a legal status which confers upon them certain legal rights. In fact, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of the US Congress, issued a report in 2004 that stated that there are 1,138 such rights, privileges, and protections under the law afforded to married couples.
What is at issue in the gay marriage question is nothing but the legal status. The issue at hand is whether hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney, being able to file joint tax returns, and all of the other legal protections ought to be denied to people because some folk's religion doesn't like the way that these people -- many of whom are not in their religion -- make love.
Marriage exists to eliminate ambiguities in law that arise from the fact that we do tend to couple up. We arrange our lives in such a fashion that it makes it impossible under the social contract which organizes society to give rights and responsibilities to individuals whose lives are completely intertwined. There is not my money and my wife's money, there are our assets. There is not my house and my wife's house, there is our home. There are not my children and my wife's children, there is our family. When talking about tax liabilities, child welfare decisions, and life choices in general, the responsibilities and benefits are ours together. We are what Thomas Hobbes called an "artificial individual, it makes no sense to think of us as two completely different people in some legal circumstances because we decide and act as a single entity and the law must account for that. If one of us were in an accident that caused that person to be incapacitated, the decision making rights for that person immediately go to the other partner. If one should pass away, all assets and liabilities, all responsibility for the children immediately go to the survivor. Questions about these sorts of thing need to be completely unambiguous to avoid problems like the Terri Schaivo fiasco where different family members were trying to wrest control from each other to further their own agendas. Marriage exists to make perfectly clear who has what rights and responsibilities and who shares what rights and responsibilities.
This has nothing to do with churches, synagogues, mosques, or temples. If a religion wants or doesn't want to perform a ceremony binding any given couple together in they eyes of their god(s), they may choose to or not to at their own discretion. It's your club, run it how you will. But this is a question of whether we deny rights, privileges, and protections under the law to honest, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens.
To oppose this equal treatment under the law is nothing but bigotry. They may try to wrap that bigotry in the cloak of religious righteousness, they may try to argue that their immoral stance comes from family or other values, they may feign concern for the children, but these are all red herrings designed to pull your eye away from the fact that all they are really trying to do is deprive innocent citizens of rights because they find the way they have sex to be yucky. Gay and lesbian couples are every bit the same in terms of commitment and acting as a unit, and therefore, there is no reason to exclude them from the disambiguating legal status of being married.
But what about polygamy?
But doesn't this start us down the slippery slope to hell? No. Consider first the case of polygamy. People are capable and some desire lives intertwined with more than one person. Couldn't three people make decisions as a unit and wouldn't this argument require affording the legal status to all of them?
No. The purpose of civil marriage is to make sure that the location of rights and responsibilities is perfectly clear. Polygamy would not only not make these issues unambiguous, it would entrench further ambiguity into the law. It would do the opposite of what civil marriage is meant to do. When Groucho proposed marrying two women, one said to him, "But that is bigamy," to which Groucho retorted, "It's big of me, too. It's big of us all. Let's be big for a change. What do you say?" The problem with polygamy is that we cannot always count on everyone to be big. Squabbles will occur and the point of marriage is to make sure that there is a clear legal way to resolve them. If we allowed Terri Schaivo to have two husbands and they disagreed on her care, then who gets the final word? This is exactly the sort of question marriage exists to answer. Polygamy not only wouldn't answer it, it would make it unanswerable. Gay marriage does not entail the necessity to legalize polygamy any more than, say, interracial or interfaith marriages do, that is to say, not at all.
How about marrying children?
Dobson and the others argue that gay marriage requires being able to marry minors. No. The idea is to make clear where there are joint rights and responsibilities and where those rights and responsibilities lay when one partner is incapable of exercising them. Minors cannot possess all the rights and responsibilities of adults. Hence, they could not enter into relationships wherein they would be asked to fulfill obligations that they cannot have. Whether this should also hold for adults who act like children...we can consider that later.
Ok, but what about the dogs, box turtles, and donkeys?
Same line of reasoning, of course. Animals may or may not have moral rights, but under our social contract they do not have legal rights. Since animals cannot be held legally responsible and cannot participate in making decisions, they cannot be married. If children do not rise to the standard, then clearly neither do box turtles. As for Dobson's donkeys, I have known many people who married jackasses, but that is a different question.
One might object that Lassie was quite capable of making life or death decisions for little Timmy, so "shouldn't they be allowed to get married?" I don't think it is a real concern because while Lassie seemed gentle and caring on screen, everyone knows that off-camera she was just a little bitch.
Civil marriage is a legal status that has good reason to exist and there is no reason not to extend it to couples of the same sex. At the same time, the function of that status means that the slippery slope that the right claims to exist is complete and utter nonsense.
Study now! Voter qualification quiz!
Source article from Daily Kos
VOTER QUALIFICATION EXAM
Multiple Choice:
1. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution places the following limitations on protections against search and seizure:
a. Warrants are required, and can be be issued by any qualified executive branch officer
b. Warrants are required and must be based on probable cause
c. Warrants are nice, but the President may unilaterally authorize search and seizures in questions of national security
2. The Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms was included by the founders to ensure that citizens would:
a. Be free to hunt, both for food and as a sport
b. Have the wherewithal to collectively defend themselves against disturbances to the peace
c. Be able to protect themselves against robbers, inconsiderate neighbors and invasive rodents
3. When a President disagrees with a law passed by Congress, he or she may:
a. Sign it with a stipulation that s/he will ignore certain parts; if Congress objects, they must submit a new law to override this so called signing statement.
b. Sign the law, and then ensure enforcement by the executive branch of controversial provisions, pending review of Constitutionality by the courts
c. Veto the entire bill, which Congress may subsequently override with a two-thirds majority.
d. Either B or C.
4. The founding fathers granted Congress the ability to impeach a President:
a. To ensure the survival of a vibrant and profitable media industry.
b. Out of a concern that a future President might place himself above the law to the detriment of the national interests and the system of democracy.
c. To give the nation a form of redress should the President engage in extramarital sexual escapades while in office (this despite the fact that fornication was completely unknown among the founders).
5. The role of the press at the time of the nation's founding was:
a. To vigorously defend the President against foreign agents and scurrilous rumor-mongering by his political enemies.
b. To act as a vehicle for vigorous debates on issues of national and local issues, and to provide a voice to those who held minority opinions.
c. To provide a means to inform the public of dangers to public security (be it terrorism or the disappearance of a white woman).
True or False Questions:
6. The founding fathers gave all states equal number of senators--irrespective of population--to better guard against the "tyranny of the majority over the minority."
7. The founding fathers were concerned with the U.S. becoming encumbered by the opinion of foreign powers, and granted the President the authority to ignore international law and treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
8. The founding fathers granted Congress the responsibility to provide oversight of the executive branch only when they disagreed with the party platform of the President.
9. When the founding fathers granted the Senate the duty to "advise and consent" to executive branch appointments, they expected there would always be a yea or nay vote on all nominees.
Essay Question:
10. Please explain what is meant by the concept of Checks and Balances between the three branches of government.
*Bonus question:
What role did Saddam Hussein play in the 9/11 attacks?
VOTER QUALIFICATION EXAM
Multiple Choice:
1. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution places the following limitations on protections against search and seizure:
a. Warrants are required, and can be be issued by any qualified executive branch officer
b. Warrants are required and must be based on probable cause
c. Warrants are nice, but the President may unilaterally authorize search and seizures in questions of national security
2. The Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms was included by the founders to ensure that citizens would:
a. Be free to hunt, both for food and as a sport
b. Have the wherewithal to collectively defend themselves against disturbances to the peace
c. Be able to protect themselves against robbers, inconsiderate neighbors and invasive rodents
3. When a President disagrees with a law passed by Congress, he or she may:
a. Sign it with a stipulation that s/he will ignore certain parts; if Congress objects, they must submit a new law to override this so called signing statement.
b. Sign the law, and then ensure enforcement by the executive branch of controversial provisions, pending review of Constitutionality by the courts
c. Veto the entire bill, which Congress may subsequently override with a two-thirds majority.
d. Either B or C.
4. The founding fathers granted Congress the ability to impeach a President:
a. To ensure the survival of a vibrant and profitable media industry.
b. Out of a concern that a future President might place himself above the law to the detriment of the national interests and the system of democracy.
c. To give the nation a form of redress should the President engage in extramarital sexual escapades while in office (this despite the fact that fornication was completely unknown among the founders).
5. The role of the press at the time of the nation's founding was:
a. To vigorously defend the President against foreign agents and scurrilous rumor-mongering by his political enemies.
b. To act as a vehicle for vigorous debates on issues of national and local issues, and to provide a voice to those who held minority opinions.
c. To provide a means to inform the public of dangers to public security (be it terrorism or the disappearance of a white woman).
True or False Questions:
6. The founding fathers gave all states equal number of senators--irrespective of population--to better guard against the "tyranny of the majority over the minority."
7. The founding fathers were concerned with the U.S. becoming encumbered by the opinion of foreign powers, and granted the President the authority to ignore international law and treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
8. The founding fathers granted Congress the responsibility to provide oversight of the executive branch only when they disagreed with the party platform of the President.
9. When the founding fathers granted the Senate the duty to "advise and consent" to executive branch appointments, they expected there would always be a yea or nay vote on all nominees.
Essay Question:
10. Please explain what is meant by the concept of Checks and Balances between the three branches of government.
*Bonus question:
What role did Saddam Hussein play in the 9/11 attacks?
Monday, May 08, 2006
Monday, Monday ver. 751.01
It's just after lunch, and I've been working away, rather than diddling away. That's good. My fax machine is still ringing and hanging up a lot, but that could be the best way to deal with telemarketers known to mankind.
Have a list a mile long of things that need doing here. Light fixtures, sheet rock repair, landscaping, pressure washing, painting inside and out, likely roof repair/replacement, pool repairs .. the list is endless. And yet, I love the house and want to keep it.
I’ve been busy with new work, which is great. New loans coming in, realtors referring me business I wasn’t expecting, all kinds of fun stuff.
People are actually returning phone calls, and wanting to move things forward, which is a huge improvement. Yowie.
That’s frequently an issue; people want you to help them with their stuff, then they don’t give you anything to work with. For weeks. Then, they want to know why it isn’t done already.
My allergies have been kicking my ass this year. Blah.
Just had a guy in Austin tell me he needed help with at least TWO loans, and that he could help me find a great car loan for my new car, which arrives on Friday. Cool!
One of my dogs ran off yesterday; someone came into the backyard while I was at church, and he’s been gone for more than 24 hours now. Hm. He was the annoying, clingy, willful one. The one that’s been driving me nuts for a few years. The one that I have very low level mixed feelings about being gone.
He will probably show up sooner than later.
Have a list a mile long of things that need doing here. Light fixtures, sheet rock repair, landscaping, pressure washing, painting inside and out, likely roof repair/replacement, pool repairs .. the list is endless. And yet, I love the house and want to keep it.
I’ve been busy with new work, which is great. New loans coming in, realtors referring me business I wasn’t expecting, all kinds of fun stuff.
People are actually returning phone calls, and wanting to move things forward, which is a huge improvement. Yowie.
That’s frequently an issue; people want you to help them with their stuff, then they don’t give you anything to work with. For weeks. Then, they want to know why it isn’t done already.
My allergies have been kicking my ass this year. Blah.
Just had a guy in Austin tell me he needed help with at least TWO loans, and that he could help me find a great car loan for my new car, which arrives on Friday. Cool!
One of my dogs ran off yesterday; someone came into the backyard while I was at church, and he’s been gone for more than 24 hours now. Hm. He was the annoying, clingy, willful one. The one that’s been driving me nuts for a few years. The one that I have very low level mixed feelings about being gone.
He will probably show up sooner than later.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Sunday night thoughts
Another typical Sunday evening - cleaned up the house, etc. Then, T&D and Chuck came over, we watched the Sopranos, which was weird. The episode, not the company. After watching half of the Chicken Run, T&D left to go work on a restaurant that they're remodeling. Chuck was working on getting my lappy to work with the print server, so that I can print from the lappy FINALLY. We sat here fiddling for a few minutes, and he popped up to see if he could figure out whether he could get the stereo working correctly.
And, an hour later, he did! Wow! Now, everything's working but for the back speakers, which I'll hook up later this week.
At that point, the theater de divo will have returned. YAY!
When I came home from church today - around 2:30 - the back yard gate was standing open, and Barney was gone. He's not been back. Jackie has been very anxious, and very affectionate all afternoon, and looks like she doesn't want to be left alone.
Strange.
There was this video cassette hanging around that was unlabeled - we plugged it into the machine to see if the VCR was hooked up, and it's .. someone's personal trip somewhere - Vegas, perhaps. I have no idea whose this is, or who's in it.
OOOOOH. It's one of Mitchell's tapes. A trip to Vegas. I can put it into his dresser drawer.
I've been thinking about switching the home office from the room it's in to the bedroom at the other end of the hall upstairs - it's about two degrees cooler in there. Then, I can put Mitch's furniture in that other room and close it off, not having to cool it.
I found the most AWESOME bed this afternoon on eBay. It's a queen sized sleigh bed, covered in brown leather and just gorgeous. I need to check them out to see if they have dining tables also. They don't. So, I'm shopping away on eBay for dining tables. Something unique, of course, since everything else in this house is.
Well, I think it's time to hit the hay. It's late, and I have a ton of work to actually accomplish tomorrow.
And, an hour later, he did! Wow! Now, everything's working but for the back speakers, which I'll hook up later this week.
At that point, the theater de divo will have returned. YAY!
When I came home from church today - around 2:30 - the back yard gate was standing open, and Barney was gone. He's not been back. Jackie has been very anxious, and very affectionate all afternoon, and looks like she doesn't want to be left alone.
Strange.
There was this video cassette hanging around that was unlabeled - we plugged it into the machine to see if the VCR was hooked up, and it's .. someone's personal trip somewhere - Vegas, perhaps. I have no idea whose this is, or who's in it.
OOOOOH. It's one of Mitchell's tapes. A trip to Vegas. I can put it into his dresser drawer.
I've been thinking about switching the home office from the room it's in to the bedroom at the other end of the hall upstairs - it's about two degrees cooler in there. Then, I can put Mitch's furniture in that other room and close it off, not having to cool it.
I found the most AWESOME bed this afternoon on eBay. It's a queen sized sleigh bed, covered in brown leather and just gorgeous. I need to check them out to see if they have dining tables also. They don't. So, I'm shopping away on eBay for dining tables. Something unique, of course, since everything else in this house is.
Well, I think it's time to hit the hay. It's late, and I have a ton of work to actually accomplish tomorrow.
You really need to be aware of this
This is why you aren't hearing about the democrats having taken bribe money. It's because they didn't. The bribers figured that there was no point to bribing a party that couldn't even stop a bill from becoming law. Over the last six years, the Democrats could only use rules of procedure tricks in the Senate to slow something down - spending money on a House Democrat since 1994 would have been like burning money in the yard; same is true for a Senate Democrat since 1996. That isn't to say that no Democrat got campaign money; just none made agreements to influence legislation in exchange for illegal contributions - because they COULDN'T INFLUENCE LEGISLATION.
All of this information is public. It's been in the public domain for months (notice the dates on the two earlier articles - Dec. 2005 and Jan 2006.)
What's going to be more difficult is the information that's coming to light now about Mitch Wade and MZM - this is why the CIA director just resigned (partly) because he was on these illegal, paid by MZM hooker visits in hospitality suites at the Watergate hotel (along with five other as of yet unindicted Republican Congressmen.)
Mara Liasson, Please Stop Lying!
By mcjoan on so called media
This is the media fallacy that refuses to die, no matter how many wooden stakes we drive into its heart. This morning we had Timmy dragging out the old, debunked story about Reid and Abramoff and the Maurianas Islands, trying vainly to paint Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the Abramoff corrupt corner.
Then we have NPR and Fox's Mara Liasson falsely claiming that Democrats received tainted Abramoff money, too. Via Thnk Progress:
I think every time you hear another one of these kind of bipartisan scandal stories, where it's Democrats, not just Republicans taking money from Abramoff, it underlines a feeling that people tell pollsters over and over again, that everybody does it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show.
This is not "fair and balanced" reporting, Mara. This is a lie.
Update [2006-5-7 16:31:11 by mcjoan]: Want to know how clueless Mara Liasson is? Even Deborah Howell admits this is a Republican scandal.
My mistake set off a firestorm. I heard that I was lying, that Democrats never got a penny of Abramoff-tainted money, that I was trying to say it was a bipartisan scandal, as some Republicans claim. I didn't say that. It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal, and that's why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms.
Bloomberg article
Howell column
The Firestorm Over My Column
By Deborah Howell
Sunday, January 22, 2006; Page B06
All of this information is public. It's been in the public domain for months (notice the dates on the two earlier articles - Dec. 2005 and Jan 2006.)
What's going to be more difficult is the information that's coming to light now about Mitch Wade and MZM - this is why the CIA director just resigned (partly) because he was on these illegal, paid by MZM hooker visits in hospitality suites at the Watergate hotel (along with five other as of yet unindicted Republican Congressmen.)
Mara Liasson, Please Stop Lying!
By mcjoan on so called media
This is the media fallacy that refuses to die, no matter how many wooden stakes we drive into its heart. This morning we had Timmy dragging out the old, debunked story about Reid and Abramoff and the Maurianas Islands, trying vainly to paint Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the Abramoff corrupt corner.
Then we have NPR and Fox's Mara Liasson falsely claiming that Democrats received tainted Abramoff money, too. Via Thnk Progress:
I think every time you hear another one of these kind of bipartisan scandal stories, where it's Democrats, not just Republicans taking money from Abramoff, it underlines a feeling that people tell pollsters over and over again, that everybody does it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show.
This is not "fair and balanced" reporting, Mara. This is a lie.
Update [2006-5-7 16:31:11 by mcjoan]: Want to know how clueless Mara Liasson is? Even Deborah Howell admits this is a Republican scandal.
My mistake set off a firestorm. I heard that I was lying, that Democrats never got a penny of Abramoff-tainted money, that I was trying to say it was a bipartisan scandal, as some Republicans claim. I didn't say that. It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal, and that's why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms.
Bloomberg article
Lobbyist Abramoff's `Equal Money' Went Mostly to Republicans
Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President George W. Bush calls indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff ``an equal money dispenser'' who helped politicians of both parties. Campaign donation records show Republicans were a lot more equal than Democrats.
Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats.
Bush's comment about Abramoff in a Dec. 14 Fox News interview was aimed at countering Democratic accusations that Republicans have brought a ``culture of corruption'' to Washington. Even so, the numbers show that ``Abramoff's big connections were with the Republicans,'' said Larry Noble, the former top lawyer for the Federal Election Commission, who directs the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.
``It is somewhat unusual in that most lobbyists try to work with both Republicans and Democrats, but we're already seeing that Jack Abramoff doesn't seem to be a usual lobbyist,'' Noble said.
Abramoff, 46, is under investigation by a Justice Department-led task force; he has already been indicted in Florida in a separate case involving the purchase of a casino boat company. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has set up a Web page, dubbed ``Glass Houses,'' featuring pictures of Democratic senators and a tally of funds they took from Abramoff or his associates.
In the last week, two Democrats have said they're returning donations from Indian tribes represented by Abramoff and from his associates. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota -- the top Democrat on a committee investigating the lobbyist -- gave back $67,000. Senator Max Baucus of Montana is returning $18,893.
Mostly Republicans
Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff joined with his former partner, Michael Scanlon, and tribal clients to give money to a third of the members of Congress, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, according to records of the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service. At least 171 lawmakers got $1.4 million in campaign donations from the group. Republicans took in most of the money, with 110 lawmakers getting $942,275, or 66 percent of the total.
Of the top 10 political donors among Indian tribes in that period, three are former clients of Abramoff and Scanlon: the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of California. All three gave most of their donations to Republicans -- by margins of 30 percentage points or more -- while the rest favored Democrats.
Directing Donations
Abramoff faces allegations that he bilked the casino-owning tribes out of millions of dollars and attempted to corrupt public officials. E-mails released by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee during a year of hearings offer evidence that he directed the tribes to donate funds to specific lawmakers.
Abramoff's tribal clients continued to give money to Democrats even after he began representing them, although in smaller percentages than in the past.
The Saginaw Chippewas gave $500,500 to Republicans between 2001 and 2004 and $277,210 to Democrats, according to a review of data compiled by Dwight L. Morris & Associates, a Bristow, Virginia-based company that tracks campaign-finance reports. Between 1997 and 2000, the tribe gave just $158,000 to Republicans and $279,000 to Democrats.
The Republican senatorial committee is sending information out to state campaigns and to all Republican press secretaries on Capitol Hill about the Democrat-Abramoff connections, spokesman Brian Nick said. The cover sheet asks, ``They Don't Know Jack???'' in red ink and features a picture of Abramoff surrounded by Democrats including Dorgan and Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
Reid's Response
Reid spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said the senator is still considering whether to return the $60,000 in donations he received from Abramoff associates and clients. The money includes contributions that came from Abramoff's former employer, Greenberg Traurig LLP, a lobbying and law firm with multiple issues in Congress.
Bush, in the Fox News interview, said of Abramoff: ``It seems to me that he was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties.''
White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said yesterday that Bush was making the point that Abramoff's links weren't exclusively Republican. ``The president was referring to press reports showing Mr. Abramoff, his clients and associates have contributed to both Democrats and Republicans alike,'' Healy said.
`Bending Over Backwards'
``Republicans are bending over backwards to exaggerate the links'' between Democrats and Abramoff, said Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. ``This is a Republican scandal that involves Republican lawmakers doing favors for a Republican lobbyist.''
Scanlon, Abramoff's former partner, has pleaded guilty to attempted fraud and corruption of public officials and is cooperating with the Justice Department's investigation. His plea agreement refers to efforts to corrupt U.S. lawmakers, including a ``Representative No. 1,'' identified by lawyers in the case as Ohio Republican Robert Ney.
The other names most frequently mentioned in connection with Abramoff are both Republicans: DeLay, a one-time friend who has cut off contact with the lobbyist, and Senator Conrad Burns of Montana. Burns, who is facing criticism in his home state for being the top recipient of Abramoff-related donations, said on Dec. 16 he planned to give back to the tribes about $150,000 in contributions from Abramoff, his associates and tribal clients.
In the Florida case, in which Abramoff has already been indicted, prosecutors allege that he and partner Adam Kidan conspired to defraud lenders when buying SunCruz Casino Ltd. in 2000. Kidan pleaded guilty Dec. 15, and his lawyer said he's willing to testify against Abramoff.
Howell column
The Firestorm Over My Column
By Deborah Howell
Sunday, January 22, 2006; Page B06
Nothing in my 50-year career prepared me for the thousands of flaming e-mails I got last week over my last column, e-mails so abusive and many so obscene that part of The Post's Web site was shut down.
That column praised The Post for breaking the story on lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings, for which he has pleaded guilty to several felony counts. The column clearly pointed out that Abramoff is a Republican and dealt mainly with Republicans, most prominently former House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas.
I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.
My mistake set off a firestorm. I heard that I was lying, that Democrats never got a penny of Abramoff-tainted money, that I was trying to say it was a bipartisan scandal, as some Republicans claim. I didn't say that. It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal, and that's why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms.
But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties. Records from the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff's Indian clients contributed money to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats between 1999 and 2004. The Post also has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with his personal directions on which members were to receive what amounts.
Michael Crowley of the New Republic said in his blog that "while for all practical purposes this is indisputably a Republican scandal, the narrow liberal-blogger definition of whether any Democrats took money 'from Abramoff' -- which neatly excludes contributions he directed his clients to make -- amounts to foolish semantics.''
These facts have been reported many times in The Post and elsewhere. So why would it cause me to be called a "right-wing whore" and much worse?
Witness three printable examples:
"Yes, the WAPO needs an enema, and Howell should be the first thing that gets medicinally removed."
"You Deborah Howell, stop lying about Democrats getting money from Abramoff. Democrats do not control anything in Washington, so why would he waste money bribing them. Think and do your research, and stop being an idiot."
"This rag must be something that I pulled off a barscreen at a sewage treatment plant. Howell is simply a paid liar. How this creature endures itself is something I don't understand. What a piece of flotsam."
There is no more fervent believer in the First Amendment than I am, and I will fight for those e-mailers' right to call me a liar and Republican shill with salt for brains. But I am none of those.
My career has been a public one in journalism. You can find my biography and much of what I stand for on the Internet. You can ask anyone who worked with me in Minnesota and at Newhouse News Service what kind of journalist I am. I have spent my life working for rational reporting and passionate and reasonable opinion.
So is it the relative anonymity of the Internet that emboldens e-mailers to conduct a public stoning? Is this the increasing political polarization of our country? I don't know.
What I do know is that I have a tough hide, and a few curse words (which I use frequently) are not going to hurt my feelings.
But it is profoundly distressing if political discourse has sunk to a level where abusive name-calling and the crudest of sexual language are the norm, where facts have no place in an argument. This unbounded, unreasoning rage is not going to help this newspaper, this country or democracy.
I didn't ask washingtonpost.com to shut down an area reserved for comments about me, as it did on Thursday night. And I know the decision is being greeted with great disdain.
Jim Brady, editor of the Web site, said that when the site was set up, "there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we've decided not to allow comments for the time being. It's a shame that it's come to this."
But I'm not totally pessimistic. I am grateful for an e-mail I got from San Antonio. Mark Kelch's first e-mail said: "I'm sure you are making your conservative handlers happy but journalistically it makes you look like a fool. In the end it shows you have a lack of integrity. Does that mean nothing to you?"
I wrote him back. Kelch answered: "I took some time and read an interview (online) with you, among other things. When I finished, I shuddered a little bit because it made me think I may be exhibiting an attribute that in others I despise. My e-mail to you was a cheap shot at your integrity and for that I am sorry. I sincerely hope part two of your article knocks them dead."
Going forward, here's my plan. I'll watch every word. I'll read every e-mail and answer as many legitimate complaints as I can. The vast majority of my work takes place outside this column. But I will reject abuse and all that it stands for.
To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind.
Keep smiling. I will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)