... it is certainly now the nicest casino in southwestern Louisiana (and I ought to know; I've driven Mom to all of them in recent years for some slots-o'-fun). We came over here today for her 79th birthday, and now I'm sitting in the Fairfield Inn in Beaumont getting a little business done before returning to H-Town tomorrow.
But as we gambled and then hit the buffet, and I marveled at the Tahoe-like rustic quality of their sprawling, spanking-new facility, I couldn't help but chuckle sadly thinking about how badly the Coushattas just up the road in Kinder were screwed by Michael Scanlon and Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay's butthole buddies.
Those TRMPAC indictments haven't shown up yet, but it's just a matter of time ... =)
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Dear MasterCard:
Effective May 1, 2005, any compromise of my data will result in a $50 liability for you, the card issuer, owed to me, the card holder.
Cashing the payment check I sent you last month (which you did) shall constitute your acceptance of this agreement. Subsequent security breaches will compound the fee. I will spell out the terms of just how much these fees and related costs will escalate as soon as I find a typeface that is small enough.
Failure to comply with these changes will result in finance charges, compounded monthly and based on the average daily balance of the amount lost to fraud.
By the way, I recently incorporated myself in South Dakota, which means I can now engage in usury as much as you can. Therefore, I have selected an annual percentage rate of 28.7 percent. However, failure to make payments will force me to raise this rate to 73.9 percent, just because I can.
And one more thing. I expect my payment to be on my desk by 12:37 p.m. on the day it's due. I'm usually at lunch at that time, so I will consider it late if it's not there by 11:24 a.m. After that, all the previously listed finance charges will apply. The date the payment is mailed is irrelevant.
Also, given the widespread nature of the security problems, I am going to share information with my fellow consumers. If I determine you failed to secure their private account information, I may be forced to enact the terms specified in this agreement even though you did not violate the agreement with me. Call it universal default in reverse.
More at the link in the title.
I just tapped out that bit about
the forum I attended last night regarding the Halliburton shareholder's protest/police action.
It's here and also at Houston Indymedia, but I can't link to it at the moment because their server is down (as well as their rather odd justifying seems to prohibit paragraphs, so it's hard to read there).
Update: They're live again over there, and Renee Phillips of KPFT has posted her 7 1/2 minute mp3 audio account of the forum. (Clicking on the link starts the audio in your default media player.)
It's here and also at Houston Indymedia, but I can't link to it at the moment because their server is down (as well as their rather odd justifying seems to prohibit paragraphs, so it's hard to read there).
Update: They're live again over there, and Renee Phillips of KPFT has posted her 7 1/2 minute mp3 audio account of the forum. (Clicking on the link starts the audio in your default media player.)
Meme'd
Charles hit me with this dart, and it keeps me from working on a post that requires much thinking (or blogging about the NBA Finals or the Astros) ...
1. How many books do you own?
I don't really know. I have one floor-to-nearly-ceiling built-in bookcase and it's so full that books are crammed on top of books. There's no more room in it, and I have a few books on the coffeetable in the living room and a stack on the floor next to my desk here that looks like it's about three feet tall.
When we moved from Midland, TX to Treasure Island, FL in 1992 we gave away probably a couple of hundred or more to friends and neighbors and the literacy project there (Midland Need to Read, where I had been a tutor). That was a nice library too; an autographed copy of Tom Landry's biography given to me by my younger brother was part of that collection.
2. Last book read.
The Broker, by John Grisham.
3. Last book purchased.
Amy Goodman's Exception to the Rulers, signed by the author. I just offered to trade it to one of my friends, as a reciprocation for the book she's going to send me, so I'm glad she didn't take me up on that ...
4. Name five books that mean a lot to you.
1. See Dick Run. Probably the first book I ever read. Seminal. Seriously, though ...
2. The Little House, by Virginia Lee Burton. I can still see some of the pages in my mind's eye.
3. Moby Dick. We read it aloud in my eighth-grade language arts class right before school let out for the summer, and I still remember some of Melville's best work from it:
And for my big finish, I'll list 4. A Bright Shining Lie, by Neil Sheehan, and 5. Liars' Club by Mary Karr, because they represent two genres that I enjoy the most, which are historical and biographical topics, and novels with some local flair ('local' in this case defined as any place I've actually lived or visited). I have bios and autobios of LBJ, Jimmy Carter and the Clintons, but also a few of Elmore Leonard's and Jimmy Buffet's books because of that year I spent living in and traveling around Florida.
Mary Karr is about my same age, grew up in Port Arthur, and went to a bunch of the same places my crew went, so I'm kinda surprised we didn't bump into each other at a high school football game or something. I knew girls just exactly like her, though ...
5. Five people to tag.
Sarah, Charles, Joe, Lyn, and Lisa, you're it.
1. How many books do you own?
I don't really know. I have one floor-to-nearly-ceiling built-in bookcase and it's so full that books are crammed on top of books. There's no more room in it, and I have a few books on the coffeetable in the living room and a stack on the floor next to my desk here that looks like it's about three feet tall.
When we moved from Midland, TX to Treasure Island, FL in 1992 we gave away probably a couple of hundred or more to friends and neighbors and the literacy project there (Midland Need to Read, where I had been a tutor). That was a nice library too; an autographed copy of Tom Landry's biography given to me by my younger brother was part of that collection.
2. Last book read.
The Broker, by John Grisham.
3. Last book purchased.
Amy Goodman's Exception to the Rulers, signed by the author. I just offered to trade it to one of my friends, as a reciprocation for the book she's going to send me, so I'm glad she didn't take me up on that ...
4. Name five books that mean a lot to you.
1. See Dick Run. Probably the first book I ever read. Seminal. Seriously, though ...
2. The Little House, by Virginia Lee Burton. I can still see some of the pages in my mind's eye.
3. Moby Dick. We read it aloud in my eighth-grade language arts class right before school let out for the summer, and I still remember some of Melville's best work from it:
"And he piled up one the whale's white hump the sum of all the rage felt by his whole race. If his chest had been a cannon, he would have shot his heart upon it."
And for my big finish, I'll list 4. A Bright Shining Lie, by Neil Sheehan, and 5. Liars' Club by Mary Karr, because they represent two genres that I enjoy the most, which are historical and biographical topics, and novels with some local flair ('local' in this case defined as any place I've actually lived or visited). I have bios and autobios of LBJ, Jimmy Carter and the Clintons, but also a few of Elmore Leonard's and Jimmy Buffet's books because of that year I spent living in and traveling around Florida.
Mary Karr is about my same age, grew up in Port Arthur, and went to a bunch of the same places my crew went, so I'm kinda surprised we didn't bump into each other at a high school football game or something. I knew girls just exactly like her, though ...
5. Five people to tag.
Sarah, Charles, Joe, Lyn, and Lisa, you're it.
"DeLay Factor", finally
This workshop from the DemFest weekend just past was greatly anticipated, well-attended, and without disappointment.
Panelists Lou Dubose, Chris Bell, Richard Morrison (you already ought to know who they are) were joined by Sue DuQuesnay, whom you may know better as Juanita Jean HerOwnself, owner of The World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon.
The two men who have taken on Tom DeLay mano y mano in the past year talked about that experience. Bell is celebrating the one-year anniversary of the filing of the House ethics complaint against the Majority Leader, an action that was heartily discouraged by even Democratic House leaders, but which has slowly revealed the enormous and tangled web of influence peddlers, former House staffers, corrupt children's foundations and PACs and more that The Hammer has spent many years painstakingly weaving together.
Morrison spoke of his campaign in the last cycle which was viewed by everyone but him in the early stages as quixotic, but which resulted in an extraordinarily narrow margin of victory for La Cucaracha Grande.
Both men talked about how it's all about the money. It got DeLay the power he craves so greedily, it keeps him there in his position of influence by intimidation, it has purchased for him dozens and dozens of sycophants masquerading as House Republicans, and will ultimately be his downfall.
Morrison noted that DeLay outspent him by a factor of nearly 7 to 1 in the fall, 2004 campaign. This illuminates the value of having a high-profile Democratic candidate in the next cycle, one that can both raise his own dough as well as draw national funding. Having exposed the Bugman's vulnerability, it also creates a race that the DCCC and others will now target. So if DeLay calculates that he must again raise and spend to the same advantage to be re-elected in 2006, and if Nick Lampson can raise $2 or $3 million compared to Richard's $600,000 ... well, you can do the math.
More importantly even than that, believe it or not, is that DeLay will have considerably fewer dollars to send to his cronies and lickspittles, which means a more level playing field for Dems in House races around the country. With his lawyers still clamoring for payment, with his legal troubles still on the rise, with something stupid coming out of his mouth every time he opens it ...
... there's just a lot of schadenfraude still to look forward to.
On the news over the weekend that KBH wouldn't be running for governor, that CKMcCRS would, and that TRMPAC indictments are imminent, Chris Bell felt like he had hit the trifecta. "I think I'll go to Vegas," he said.
And Juanita Jean? Well, she had to apologize for something she said at the forum, but no, it wasn't for calling anyone a Nazi. Scroll down to the June 20 entry.
I'll have a post-mortem on the weekend including the social events and the get-togethers of kindred spirits and links to some photos "shortly".
Panelists Lou Dubose, Chris Bell, Richard Morrison (you already ought to know who they are) were joined by Sue DuQuesnay, whom you may know better as Juanita Jean HerOwnself, owner of The World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon.
The two men who have taken on Tom DeLay mano y mano in the past year talked about that experience. Bell is celebrating the one-year anniversary of the filing of the House ethics complaint against the Majority Leader, an action that was heartily discouraged by even Democratic House leaders, but which has slowly revealed the enormous and tangled web of influence peddlers, former House staffers, corrupt children's foundations and PACs and more that The Hammer has spent many years painstakingly weaving together.
Morrison spoke of his campaign in the last cycle which was viewed by everyone but him in the early stages as quixotic, but which resulted in an extraordinarily narrow margin of victory for La Cucaracha Grande.
Both men talked about how it's all about the money. It got DeLay the power he craves so greedily, it keeps him there in his position of influence by intimidation, it has purchased for him dozens and dozens of sycophants masquerading as House Republicans, and will ultimately be his downfall.
Morrison noted that DeLay outspent him by a factor of nearly 7 to 1 in the fall, 2004 campaign. This illuminates the value of having a high-profile Democratic candidate in the next cycle, one that can both raise his own dough as well as draw national funding. Having exposed the Bugman's vulnerability, it also creates a race that the DCCC and others will now target. So if DeLay calculates that he must again raise and spend to the same advantage to be re-elected in 2006, and if Nick Lampson can raise $2 or $3 million compared to Richard's $600,000 ... well, you can do the math.
More importantly even than that, believe it or not, is that DeLay will have considerably fewer dollars to send to his cronies and lickspittles, which means a more level playing field for Dems in House races around the country. With his lawyers still clamoring for payment, with his legal troubles still on the rise, with something stupid coming out of his mouth every time he opens it ...
... there's just a lot of schadenfraude still to look forward to.
On the news over the weekend that KBH wouldn't be running for governor, that CKMcCRS would, and that TRMPAC indictments are imminent, Chris Bell felt like he had hit the trifecta. "I think I'll go to Vegas," he said.
And Juanita Jean? Well, she had to apologize for something she said at the forum, but no, it wasn't for calling anyone a Nazi. Scroll down to the June 20 entry.
I'll have a post-mortem on the weekend including the social events and the get-togethers of kindred spirits and links to some photos "shortly".
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
With all the material I have to blog about...
... two or three more lengthy things to say about Dem Fest; a rather flabbergasted report on a public forum I attended this evening about the Houston police brutality visited on Halliburton protestors last month -- with HPD in the room; Frist's flip-flop on Bolton and Durbin's weak-kneed apology for invoking Godwin's Law just today, and the only thing I want to post is:
"Adios, Mofo."
Oh yeah, it seems there are quite a few rumors floating around online that Rehnquist has resigned and no one with official knowledge will admit it.
"Adios, Mofo."
Oh yeah, it seems there are quite a few rumors floating around online that Rehnquist has resigned and no one with official knowledge will admit it.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Religion, Democracy, and the Common Good
Even though I did not attend this workshop I found its topic and the reports of others to be one of the most fascinating of the weekend.
Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock, author and scholar and director on the national boards of the Christian Church and the United Churches of Christ, opened the discussion by saying that progressives need people of faith as equal partners. Progressives and liberals, and by extension the Democratic Party, have been cast as secular by the opposition, and specifically the 'secular left' -- a right-wing frame you hear coming out of the mouths of pastors in pulpits these days -- is considered "weak" in comparison to the conservative, fundamentalist conviction of Christian faith. In order to win the battle of phraseology, progressives need to emphasize the aspects of love in their practice of faith as well as in everyday life, and to contrast it with the "theo-fascists' war against love". Indeed, Brock noted, some secularists tend to feel isolated from the social aspects inherent in the practice of organized religion (in my own Church of Christ upbringing this was called 'fellowship'). In order to mitigate that sense of isolation, they can seek out an "agency" in order to align their associations with their core values; in short, find others who share their beliefs and hang out with them on a regular basis (just as so many of us did this weekend).
Dr. Davidson Loehr had probably the most interesting bio on the panel: Unitarian Universalist minister, author of the forthcoming America, Fascism, and God: Sermons from a Heretical Preacher, former combat photographer in Vietnam, former professional musician. He reminded us again that the left has lost the vocabulary as it relates to nationalism and patriotism, religious conviction, and moral and personal responsibility. His call to action was to reclaim the words like "morals" and phrases like "high ideals" to communicate the goals of progressives. And to likewise use language that casts the opposition unfavorably, just as the Republicans have for so long; for example, the "plutocracy currently being implemented leads to imperialism, and fundamentalism is a natural extension and dangerous ally of the two". Plutocracy, of course, also results in undesirable things like "control of the media, and thereby control of the masses". (Now we just have to dumb this down a bit for the Southerners who haven't gone to college.)
Andy Hernandez, co-author of the Almanac of Latino Politics 2002-2004 and widely respected for his expertise on Latino political strategy, spoke about the fallacy that people cast votes relative to their moral values. We all recall the MSM beating us over the head in the first week of November, 2004 about the 'moral values' voters, right? Well, the statistics are that twenty-two percent of voters in the presidential election indicated they cast their ballot based on 'moral values', and 80% of that 22%, naturally, voted for George W Bush. But in 2000 that number was 35%, and it was 40% in 1996 (and who was elected President in '96, again?). So this choice has actually waned in importance by nearly 50% in two election cycles, at a time when our media is telling us just the opposite. It's important just in terms of one issue -- abortion -- that we begin to say something like this:
"Conservatives aren't pro-life; they're just pro-birth. Liberals are pro-life."
And finally Dr. Paul Woodruff, a professor of ethics at the University of Texas and author of Reverence: Renewing a Forgotten Virtue and First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea said that when it comes to ethical behavior, winning is way down the list of priorities. Too much winning, in fact, leads to a swollen head. The Greeks had a word for it: hubris. Indeed, as Brittanica conveys, "in classical Greek ethical and religious thought, overweening presumption suggesting impious disregard of the limits governing human action in an orderly universe" was "the sin to which the gifted were most susceptible". The opposite of hubris is reverence; not religion, not the Diety, but reverence in terms of ethical behavior and integrity. Using the word 'reverence' when progressives speak of caring for the elderly (Social Security), the sick (healthcare), and the environment is an important distinction; one can reap moral value -- i.e. strengthening character -- by losing, for example. And we've had more than enough of that ...
(Aside from me: Boy, I want to hear some Democratic Senator who voted for the war say something like, "I revere the sacrifice our men and women of the armed forces have already made in Iraq, and I feel strongly about this: they have sacrificed enough. It's time for us to bring them home.")
The last postulate on this topic was actually forwarded not in this seminar but by Molly Ivins during our lunchtime forum, where she and Jim Hightower and Glen Maxey and Glenn Smith shared Texas political war stories. She made reference to the "red print" Christians to whom the left can and must appeal.
What are "red print" Christians?
Those of you familiar with the 1970's-era King James versions of your Bibles may recall that the words of Jesus in the New Testament always appeared in red. The New Testament, of course, spoke quite a bit of love, compassion for others, especially those less fortunate, and forgiveness (through the Son of God and his apostles). The Old Testament, by contrast, deals in moral absolutes -- an eye for an eye and so on -- and also speaks about smiting one's enemies and plagues and adultery and sodomy and the consequences of these (usually a painful death).
Sound like any grand old political party you know?
Somewhere there's bound to be some statistics on the percentages of "red print" Christians to the whole, and how many of them don't vote GOP. I would hazard a guess that there are several million votes just in that subgroup that the Democratic Party needs to ask for (and receive).
I'll post about "The DeLay Factor" seminar tomorrow.
Update: Jon Lebkowsky, at his creatively-named Weblogsky, has a report on this seminar as well, and he found a few things I missed.
Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock, author and scholar and director on the national boards of the Christian Church and the United Churches of Christ, opened the discussion by saying that progressives need people of faith as equal partners. Progressives and liberals, and by extension the Democratic Party, have been cast as secular by the opposition, and specifically the 'secular left' -- a right-wing frame you hear coming out of the mouths of pastors in pulpits these days -- is considered "weak" in comparison to the conservative, fundamentalist conviction of Christian faith. In order to win the battle of phraseology, progressives need to emphasize the aspects of love in their practice of faith as well as in everyday life, and to contrast it with the "theo-fascists' war against love". Indeed, Brock noted, some secularists tend to feel isolated from the social aspects inherent in the practice of organized religion (in my own Church of Christ upbringing this was called 'fellowship'). In order to mitigate that sense of isolation, they can seek out an "agency" in order to align their associations with their core values; in short, find others who share their beliefs and hang out with them on a regular basis (just as so many of us did this weekend).
Dr. Davidson Loehr had probably the most interesting bio on the panel: Unitarian Universalist minister, author of the forthcoming America, Fascism, and God: Sermons from a Heretical Preacher, former combat photographer in Vietnam, former professional musician. He reminded us again that the left has lost the vocabulary as it relates to nationalism and patriotism, religious conviction, and moral and personal responsibility. His call to action was to reclaim the words like "morals" and phrases like "high ideals" to communicate the goals of progressives. And to likewise use language that casts the opposition unfavorably, just as the Republicans have for so long; for example, the "plutocracy currently being implemented leads to imperialism, and fundamentalism is a natural extension and dangerous ally of the two". Plutocracy, of course, also results in undesirable things like "control of the media, and thereby control of the masses". (Now we just have to dumb this down a bit for the Southerners who haven't gone to college.)
Andy Hernandez, co-author of the Almanac of Latino Politics 2002-2004 and widely respected for his expertise on Latino political strategy, spoke about the fallacy that people cast votes relative to their moral values. We all recall the MSM beating us over the head in the first week of November, 2004 about the 'moral values' voters, right? Well, the statistics are that twenty-two percent of voters in the presidential election indicated they cast their ballot based on 'moral values', and 80% of that 22%, naturally, voted for George W Bush. But in 2000 that number was 35%, and it was 40% in 1996 (and who was elected President in '96, again?). So this choice has actually waned in importance by nearly 50% in two election cycles, at a time when our media is telling us just the opposite. It's important just in terms of one issue -- abortion -- that we begin to say something like this:
"Conservatives aren't pro-life; they're just pro-birth. Liberals are pro-life."
And finally Dr. Paul Woodruff, a professor of ethics at the University of Texas and author of Reverence: Renewing a Forgotten Virtue and First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea said that when it comes to ethical behavior, winning is way down the list of priorities. Too much winning, in fact, leads to a swollen head. The Greeks had a word for it: hubris. Indeed, as Brittanica conveys, "in classical Greek ethical and religious thought, overweening presumption suggesting impious disregard of the limits governing human action in an orderly universe" was "the sin to which the gifted were most susceptible". The opposite of hubris is reverence; not religion, not the Diety, but reverence in terms of ethical behavior and integrity. Using the word 'reverence' when progressives speak of caring for the elderly (Social Security), the sick (healthcare), and the environment is an important distinction; one can reap moral value -- i.e. strengthening character -- by losing, for example. And we've had more than enough of that ...
(Aside from me: Boy, I want to hear some Democratic Senator who voted for the war say something like, "I revere the sacrifice our men and women of the armed forces have already made in Iraq, and I feel strongly about this: they have sacrificed enough. It's time for us to bring them home.")
The last postulate on this topic was actually forwarded not in this seminar but by Molly Ivins during our lunchtime forum, where she and Jim Hightower and Glen Maxey and Glenn Smith shared Texas political war stories. She made reference to the "red print" Christians to whom the left can and must appeal.
What are "red print" Christians?
Those of you familiar with the 1970's-era King James versions of your Bibles may recall that the words of Jesus in the New Testament always appeared in red. The New Testament, of course, spoke quite a bit of love, compassion for others, especially those less fortunate, and forgiveness (through the Son of God and his apostles). The Old Testament, by contrast, deals in moral absolutes -- an eye for an eye and so on -- and also speaks about smiting one's enemies and plagues and adultery and sodomy and the consequences of these (usually a painful death).
Sound like any grand old political party you know?
Somewhere there's bound to be some statistics on the percentages of "red print" Christians to the whole, and how many of them don't vote GOP. I would hazard a guess that there are several million votes just in that subgroup that the Democratic Party needs to ask for (and receive).
I'll post about "The DeLay Factor" seminar tomorrow.
Update: Jon Lebkowsky, at his creatively-named Weblogsky, has a report on this seminar as well, and he found a few things I missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)