Achenblog: Daily Humor and Observations from Joel Achenbach
リンク: Achenblog: Daily Humor and Observations from Joel Achenbach.
The word "lobbyist" has become a pejorative in Washington, and at the rate things are going it will someday be synonymous with "criminal." That's one reason why lobbyists like to mention the fact that what they do is specifically protected by the Constitution. You remember that little thing we call the First Amendment: Congress won't make any laws prohibiting "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Okay, so it doesn't say, "petition the Government for questionable tax breaks and regulatory relief for their corporate clients," but close enough.
Everyone knows that there's too much money in politics. And hardly anyone likes it. The politicians don't like it, and, believe it or not, many of the lobbyists don't like it. If you're a politician you have to grovel for money, constantly. But if you're a lobbyist, you have to hand it over. Just maxing out on your own contributions isn't enough, because often you will be on the hooks to raise money from others. They put you down for a certain amount, raised by a certain date. It's a big shake-down. A top Republican lobbyist told me recently that he'd like to see a law passed forbidding any registered lobbyist from donating to a political campaign. For one thing, it would save him a lot of money. Tom Delay aggressively pushed the Pay For Play rule. To be a lobbyist in Washington you have to whip out the checkbook faster than Eastwood drawing his revolver in those spaghetti westerns.
The big news, obviously, is that Jack Abramoff, man in black, has pled guilty to a number of felonies, and has started cooperating in a sweeping probe of Washington corruption. Congressman Duke Cunningham wore a wire before his own guilty plea. The mandarins of Washington are gulping Paxil by the fistful. But simply catching the flamboyant criminals like Abramoff and Cunningham won't be enough to reform the Washington game. Even the legal stuff -- what they call business-as-usual -- has to be reformed.
And that's not going to be easy. For one thing, it's hard to keep the public's attention. Look at this past week: Abramoff was a big story, but there were so many other things happening, including the mine tragedy in West Virginia, Sharon's medical crisis, and new eruptions of bloodshed in Iraq. Today we have the Alito hearings, and the vice president was rushed to the hospital. Even a news junkie may find it hard to keep track of Russ Feingold's latest proposal for lobbying reform.
There are some fundamental obstacles to change, including that darn Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech; George Will didn't make that up. And the sums of money flowing through Washington -- the subject of vigorous legislative maneuvering and attendant lobbying -- are enormous. The mere tweaking of a tax code when no one's looking can save companies and industries many millions of dollars. The complexity of legislation is such that no single person can keep track of what's actually inside one of these fat appropriations bills. Earmarks accumulate by the thousands. Legislation is literally passed in the middle of the night, when only a handful of lawmakers and staffers (and lobbyists) are still in the building. When a crisis hits, like Katrina, lawmakers are so desperate to do something quickly that they will call a lobbyist and say, in essence, "Write this bill for us." They take legislation right off the shelf at the Lobbyist Supermarket.
Yes, lobbying is legal and constitutionally protected. But most of us don't have a lobbyist. Who's yours?
[Continuing now with previous topic, the origin of life: ScienceTim writes, "The oldest microfossils that are generally agreed to represent the presence of microbial life are about 3.7 billion years old." Actually, it's hard to find anything in this field that isn't controversial. There's some evidence of chemical signatures of life in Greenland rocks dating to about 3.85 billion years ago, but it's ambiguous. When I wrote my aliens book, I argued that the early appearance of life on Earth cuts both ways in the debate about the possible existence and abundance of extraterrestrial intelligence. You can argue that a very early appearance of life on Earth suggests that life will probably appear fairly quickly on any rocky planet; but it also means that it may take a very long time for life to evolve from something simple to something that we'd call intelligent. (This is all extrapolating from just one example, of course.) When I researched the book, Bill Schopf held the record for the oldest fossils, having published findings that the Apex chert in Australia contains fossils from 3.5 billion years ago. But the Hazen books describes in detail the more recent face-off between Schopf and Martin Brasier, who claims the Schopf fossils are just random inorganic blobs. Hazen doesn't really take sides, but he writes: "Appearances can be deceiving. Lots of inorganic processes produce round specks and enigmatic squiggles. It's all too tempting to see what you want to see in an ancient rock."]
January 9, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Please email us to report offensive comments.
Nice oblique approach to the inside the beltway topic de jour;can't call you a partisan hack.
Posted by: ILL-logical | Jan 9, 2006 10:20:33 AM | Permalink
Achenbach's middle name is oblique.
Posted by: Dolphin Michael | Jan 9, 2006 10:30:48 AM | Permalink
My neighbors on both sides are lobbyists, covering three companies and a trade association.
They are great people, very generous, and charitable, draving fearsome cars. It pains me to think of them as slimey, but they sure do a lot of the fundraising events and take a lot of pricey trips.
Posted by: melvin/a | Jan 9, 2006 10:34:20 AM | Permalink
Science Tim, I hope you'll keep posting on the Origin of Life Kit. You (we?) were just gettting started when the new kit appeared.
Posted by: Nani | Jan 9, 2006 10:34:43 AM | Permalink
Cassandra S, I agree with your point of view (quite a few boodles ago) that these white-collar, $1500 suit-wearing criminals are no better than drug dealers on the street. (You said it much better)
Posted by: Nani | Jan 9, 2006 10:40:33 AM | Permalink
Joel writes/asks:
"Yes, lobbying is legal and constitutionally protected. But most of us don't have a lobbyist. Who's yours?"Mine was Diane Dorman of NORD at the National Organization of Rare Disorders, she formerly a lobbyist with the generic drug industry, but it's been ages since I received an e-mail from Dorman's Washington office, so I wonder if her position still exists anymore.
At one point, I took it on myself to lobby my congressman in person. Rep. Henry Bonilla was speaking at a Republican Women's of Bexar County gathering in town. Being new to town, the women didn't know my political leanings, so I decided to accept their invitation. The lunch was held at a big San Antonio McMansion with a huge pool, a large buffet table sagged under the amount of food on it, and no expensively dressed or coiffed woman there was particularly outgoing or friendly, as I recall.
Bonilla spoke poolside, and after his conclusion I approached him with several pieces of legislation near and dear to the rare disorder community. He was on a run to his limo, but he took my papers when I challenged him by saying, "Don't you think there are some issues that transcend partisanship?"
The way he treated me, you'd have thought that I had something contagious--like smallpox.
Since the time I spoke with Joanne R. at NORD and discovered that my rare genetic disorder is not on NORD's database (NORD was kind enough to refer me to the Genetic Alliance in Washington, D.C. and it was very helpful), I remember Joanne's words of wisdom: "You are your own best advocate."
Shortly thereafter, NORD brought on its own lobbyist, to unite the people with any of the more than 6,000 known rare genetic disorders. And NORD multiplied the power of one many times over, and more monies began to be appropriated for research, and important rare genetic disorder legislation began to be passed. And the citizen's group effort was a lot of work for all involved, but the incremental results were worth it--if not for me personally, then for those who suffer much more than I.
This, I think, is lobbying at its best.
Posted by: Loomis | Jan 9, 2006 10:41:37 AM | Permalink
I say it every time I get an opportunity: The real scandal is always what is perfectly legal.
Posted by: yellojkt | Jan 9, 2006 10:42:10 AM | Permalink
As a public service, I'd like to try and tie a few matters together with one question.
What do we know on the origin of lobbying? If there was a primordial ooze long ago, when something we'd call life started bubblin' to the surface, was someone there to start lobbying? Or did that come later? Did lobbyists evolve or were they the work of a creator?
I could go on. But as a public service, I'll stop.
Posted by: Bayou Self | Jan 9, 2006 10:44:23 AM | Permalink
Are lobbyists the result of the selfish gene or the cooperative one?--to play off Bayou Self for a moment...
Posted by: Loomis | Jan 9, 2006 10:48:51 AM | Permalink
If there is a lesson, it is that voters have to be more than single issue people. Their lives are totally at the mercy of those who are willing to be bought off.
John and Jane Q. Public have to know so much when they go into the voting booth. If they actually believe, without any research, that their representatives are there in Washington DC to serve them, they are PROBABLY wildly off base.
I agree with yellojkt. Our laws may very well not be designed to favor the average American. Though the two of us may have widely differing opinions on our governance, his statement there is so on the mark.
Again, everything that a candidate believes should be taken into consideration.
Posted by: Dolphin Michael | Jan 9, 2006 10:52:52 AM | Permalink
If we do someday contact life elsewhere in the universe, will they also turn out to have lobbyists?
Posted by: Bayou Self | Jan 9, 2006 10:56:05 AM | Permalink
For some inexplicable reason, Bayou Self's line of lobbyist evolution brings to mind the theme from "Beverly Hillbillies." To wit:
"Up from the ground come a-bubblin' crude..."
Posted by: Scottynuke | Jan 9, 2006 10:56:17 AM | Permalink
Well Joel, as a matter of fact, my lobbyist is:
American Rivers
1025 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 720
Washington, DC 20005
Why don't you send them a few bucks? They'll put them to good use.
OT for a minute (but speaking of personal freedom) what do you all think about this ite?
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/08/AR2006010801330.html
Yeah, I know. It ain't cosmic, but it does illustrate the frequent disconnect between the concepts of freedom and responsibility in the minds of many.Posted by: kurosawaguy | Jan 9, 2006 11:05:57 AM | Permalink
My (admittedly limited) view of lobbyists is this--there are ones that truly believe that they are serving that purpose stated in the 1st Amendment by being advocates in Washington for groups with specific interests, which are often very noble (I'm thinking Americans with Disabilities and the like). Then there are those who are just doing it because the money's good and they don't mind selling their souls (say, the tobacco industry lobbyists). But unfortunately there's only one way to get heard in Washington, and therefore no matter who they represent, lobbyists have to work in that huge grey area of political contributions.
Posted by: jw | Jan 9, 2006 11:11:26 AM | Permalink
Sorry Nani, I'm a flighty guy, always going to the latest Kit. But I'd be happy to continue talking about origin-of-life stuff here.
Science is driven by strong opinions, which can change in a heartbeat, as soon as solid evidence is presented. We may be opinionated, but we're not (mostly) fools. The origin of life, as Joel says, is a topic with very little solid evidence, so it's the province of opinion until hypotheses will have been tested and found wanting. My opinions are particularly strong, since I am an outsider to the field, so I'm not so intimately involved with the mass of data pointing in 17 directions at once.
My bit of genuine professional knowledge about the history of life (as opposed to my dilletante's knowledge of dinosaurs and whatnot) is from developing a high school chemistry activity on banded iron formations (BIFs). Nothing teaches like teaching. BIFs are very easy to understand, so long as you don't sweat being actually correct. Once you start investigating the little details that don't quite work, you find that there have been a succession of good hypotheses for the deposition of BIFs, each of which has good points and bad points. My personal favorite so far is the theory that iron dissolved into the oceans from the bottom, through volcanic vents, and not so much from continental erosion; furthermore, there were bacteria that directly consumed the dissolved iron as a food supply, consuming free oxygen in the process and thereby limiting the availability of oxygen in the atmosphere. The eventual decrease in sea-floor volcanism, as the Earth continued to cool and sort itself out (internally differentiate), eventually killed this ecosystem and permitted free oxygen to develop in the atmosphere. But there are other theories. Probably they all have some level of correctness. The question is whether there was a dominant mechanism in BIF formation, or a bunch of competing mechanisms of roughly equal significance.
Certain facts are accepted with certainty -- the Earth's primordial atmosphere was oxygen-free; between 2.2 and 1.7 billion years ago (roughly) there was a lot of chemistry and biochemistry going on that could only take place in low oxygen concentrations; after about 1.7 billion years ago, the Earth's atmosphere contained oxygen. Since then, I have read in passing, oxygen levels have varied from about 5% to as high as 30-some%, going both up and down. There is nothing sacrosanct about the current ~23% oxygen.
Posted by: ScienceTim | Jan 9, 2006 11:15:46 AM | Permalink
Carl Hiaasen is all over the Abramoff story, of course:
"Now that Abramoff is squealing, orifices are puckering from K Street to Pennsylvania Avenue."
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/13567376.htm
[Abramoff is not just a lobbyist. He has mob connections and is "involved" in a murder case. He is a Very Bad Man.]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092700980_2.html
Posted by: Reader | Jan 9, 2006 11:17:39 AM | Permalink
I guess this item on my blog might be timely again...
http://www.10thcircle.com/10/wp-content/AskaRep_02.html
The big question is: how many ways can we make politics pay?
bc
Posted by: bc | Jan 9, 2006 11:18:39 AM | Permalink
these kits sure do move quickly - not easy to keep up...
i read somewhere (stephan hawkins?) that theoretically we could see our past, since the light from our planet keeps on going and going. you'd *only* need a very fast space ship to fly 5 billion light years away and then have a look back at the earth. (i would suggest the bugatti car company build it).
okay - i'll let science tim take over now...
Posted by: ot | Jan 9, 2006 11:31:54 AM | Permalink
Lobbying has its dangers, but I'm certain that those dangers were realized 200-some years ago, as well. In my history and classics courses in college, we encountered complaints about the corrupting influence of money in politics going back thousands of years. Ever since wealth became portable, it has been possible to buy favorable political outcomes. This is one of those cases for "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." So, don't get too shocked (shocked!) that political money in the hands of lobbyists can have a corrupting influence. It's something we just have to deal with as a consequence of being social creatures, like enduring the bad breath of others. You find ways to cope, and you get on with life.
The genius of the U.S. Constitution is that it assumed that all politicians were corrupt, venal, ambitious, and self-centered. It assumed that there would be a lingering fog of corrupt, venal, ambitious, and self-centered money-handlers who would follow the politicians. The Constitution finds ways to make the vile and wretched characteristics of politicians and their sycophants work for the good of all, by pitting ambitions against each other, so that only by achieving common good is it possible to advance very far. The peril in the current situation is that the kleptocrats are seizing control of all the levers of power at once (darn them!), so that no one's ambition to power is getting a fair challenge from someone else's. A mono-party state is never a good idea for very long.
Posted by: Tim | Jan 9, 2006 11:34:56 AM | Permalink
Tim,
I think that is why our founding fathers used to have a system of checks and balances in place.
Posted by: Dolphin Michael | Jan 9, 2006 11:38:07 AM | Permalink
Now, now, Reader, you shouldn't go jumping to conclusions just because the three individuals in question have Italian surnames, are listed as consultants in a casino deal, have ties to the Gambino crime family, and look like they would kneecap a nun without batting an eye doesn't necessarily make them members of the mob. There's one vital piece of information missing. Where are the nicknames? Now, if these three were called Anthony "Boom Boom" Moscatiello, Anthony "Tony the Crunch" Ferrari, and James "Jimmy the Weasel" Fiorillo, why then we'd know.
Posted by: kurosawaguy | Jan 9, 2006 11:39:26 AM | Permalink
Randy "Duke" Cunningham
Tom "The Hammer" DeLay
Jack "Red Scorpion" AbramoffOn the other hand,
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
just doesn't cut it.Posted by: Tim | Jan 9, 2006 11:42:29 AM | Permalink
And then, there's "Turd Blossom."
Posted by: Tim | Jan 9, 2006 11:43:31 AM | Permalink
"Lobbying ... has to be reformed. But it won't be easy."
Sure it will, Joel! All they need to do is raise taxes (a teensy bit) and create a new Department of Homeland Elections, and all will be well. Better yet, we could turn our elections over to the U.N. So long as we stay away from that dangerous option of returning money and power to states and individuals...
And while we're thinking about money in politics, who wants to raise their hand and announce their preference for the post-Watergate reforms (including recent reforms) that led to Abramoff? The more power given to "regulation" of campaigns by the federal government, the worse things have gotten.
Say you become a millionaire based on this blog, Joel. Or gee, say you make a middle class income. Why is it now against the law for you to donate more than $2000 to a candidate who wants to challenge a corrupt incumbent? Why can you give more money to a stripper, or a charity, or a gardener, than to a political candidate who isn't a lobyist sell-out? George Will may say money is speech, but the Supreme Court has allowed it to become regulated speech.
Posted by: Kane | Jan 9, 2006 12:12:14 PM | Permalink
"Lobbying ... has to be reformed. But it won't be easy."
Sure it will, Joel! All they need to do is raise taxes (a teensy bit) and create a new Department of Homeland Elections, and all will be well. Better yet, we could turn our elections over to the U.N. So long as we stay away from that dangerous option of returning money and power to states and individuals...
And while we're thinking about money in politics, who wants to raise their hand and announce their preference for the post-Watergate reforms (including recent reforms) that led to Abramoff? The more power given to "regulation" of campaigns by the federal government, the worse things have gotten.
Say you become a millionaire based on this blog, Joel. Or gee, say you make a middle class income. Why is it now against the law for you to donate more than $2000 to a candidate who wants to challenge a corrupt incumbent? Why can you give more money to a stripper, or a charity, or a gardener, than to a political candidate who isn't a lobyist sell-out? George Will may say money is speech, but the Supreme Court has allowed it to become regulated speech.
Posted by: Kane | Jan 9, 2006 12:12:59 PM | Permalink
Sorry for the dual post. I was assaulted by the typepad spam cop bot, and got confused...
Posted by: Kane | Jan 9, 2006 12:14:01 PM | Permalink
K-guy:
I thought "Jimmy the Weasel" *belonged* to Fratianno? Now you say Fiorillo? The "agent who loved me" was very much involved in Abscam. (Joe Conforti and the Mustang Ranch were also on his list.) The Abramoff scandal feels very much like Abscam, only lots bigger.ALADENA "JIMMY THE WEASEL" FRATIANNO - Jimmy the Weasel had been (according to his own account) the acting boss in Los Angeles at one time. In that capacity, Fratiano had been loaned by the Chicago Outfit to Los Angeles. Fratiano dealt frequently with the top guys in the Chicago Outfit, given the considerable influence Chicago had in Los Angeles.
Posted by: Loomis | Jan 9, 2006 12:14:20 PM | Permalink
May 26, 2002
Victor Morales [Morales being a former history teacher and the Democratic contender who challed Republican Sen. Phil Gramm, and who drove around Texas campaigning from the back of his pick-up truck] renounces Democrats, according to this story:Victor Morales, who lost the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, said he will not run for office again as a Democrat.
"At this point in time, I am independent," Morales said, citing what he called lousy treatment by established members of the Democratic Party.
"I wouldn't run as a Democrat again," Morales told the San Antonio Express-News for a story posted on the paper's Web site Friday.
I'm sorry that Victor thinks he was treated poorly by the Democrats. The state party certainly didn't roll out the red carpet for him. They believed that for all his populist appeal, Morales was never going to be an electable candidate, so they never supported him.
Thinking about Victor Morales and his three failed attempts to win office via Democratic nominations led me to ponder what the role and responsibility of the major parties is. The Democrats, especially now that they are the minority party in Texas, are in the business of finding candidates they think can be elected. Given that Texas isn't and probably never will be a state with a lot of liberal/populist types in it, that means candidates who are pro-business, pro-death penalty, anti-gun control, and generally anti-tax. That includes former Governor Ann Richards, still a darling of the old-style liberals around here, who never once granted clemency in a capital case during her time in Austin. You can represent certain districts as an unreconstructed liberal (Congressional District 18, home of Sheila Jackson Lee, comes to mind), but you'd have a better chance of opening a strip club inside the Alamo than winning a statewide ballot.
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/000502.html
Posted by: Loomis | Jan 9, 2006 12:23:43 PM | Permalink
is there a limit on the number of words that a poster, for example, Loomis Linda, can post in one day?
Posted by: valkyrie | Jan 9, 2006 12:47:57 PM | Permalink
The limit should be zero words on this Blog..
It STINKS!!!!!!!
Posted by: The Lonemule | Jan 9, 2006 12:57:04 PM | Permalink
Fact is that most of us have several lobbyists. Do you belong to the Sierra Club? Are you in a job that has a professional trade association? Are you a member of AARP? AAA? etc.... Part of the explosion of lobbying is the explosion of "special interest" groups, but many of those are entities that have organized the interests of everyday middle class people. It probably explains why it is easier to block initiatives then turn them into law.
Now I am not sure whether those lobbyists are doing a good job on our behalf, although I prefer gridlock right now.
Posted by: LG | Jan 9, 2006 1:02:35 PM | Permalink
For someone who seems to dislike this blog, Lonemule certainly monitors it closely. Perhaps the answer is anosmia!
Posted by: | Jan 9, 2006 1:05:55 PM | Permalink
How about nicknames for us boodlers?
Bayou Babyface Self
Lucky Loomis
Kurosawa Pretty Boy Guy
Science The Shark Tim.
(Where's Curmudgeon when you really need him?)Posted by: Nani | Jan 9, 2006 1:07:09 PM | Permalink
Can we all please focus on the important point here: Abramoff's black fedora. The WashPost speculated at great length whether it was gangster or Glatt Kosher. I am in the latter camp, as I believe Jack wanted to rebut the charge that his lobbying tactics were unorthodox.
Posted by: jmullen | Jan 9, 2006 1:13:29 PM | Permalink
Your "Who is your lobbyist?" question in pretty naive. As someone retired from the military and over 55, I have at least 2 lobbyists - The Military Officers Association and AARP. I'd bet that many people have lobbyists, and just don't think about it.
Posted by: spike77 | Jan 9, 2006 1:19:30 PM | Permalink
Actually Nani I think names from Snow White would be more appropo. Tim is "Doc", Mo is "Happy", mostlylurking is of course "Bashful", Curmudgeon is "Grumpy", I claim dibs on "Dopey"!
Posted by: kurosawaguy | Jan 9, 2006 1:22:40 PM | Permalink
long time scroller, first time commenter...
Joel referenced the "money is speech ruling" which is so ridiculous it makes me want to retch. Money is not speech. Money is money. You can't buy influence with speech. If one guy stands on a
street corner and says vote yes and another guy goes on TV and says
vote no, who has the most influence? Speech is speech. Money is volume. I don't want to deny anyone the chance to petition, but worthy causes without funds too often get drowned out. It's gotta stop.I shall now descend from my soapbox.
Posted by: | Jan 9, 2006 1:24:34 PM | Permalink
Who are my lobbyists? My elected Representatives and Senators, that's who. And it's up to us to make them work for us and not anyone else. Did everyone forget about that?
Folks, unless you are paying the bill for "your" lobbyist group, they are not yours. Your elected officials are.
Posted by: ACitizen | Jan 9, 2006 1:28:45 PM | Permalink
The problem isn't lobbying, it's the tieing together of lobbying and "campaign contributions." In other words, the problem is that congresspeople KNOW who gives them a lot of money, and it just HAPPENS that those lobbyists who give a lot of money get their interests into legislation, in the middle of the night, etc.
To me the solution is therefore clear: make it impossible for the congresspeople to know who is giving them money. Not illegal to give money (cuz that's protected by the Constitution) and not illegal to lobby (cuz that is protected by the Constitution) but illegal to tie together the giving and the lobbying. That's a bribe.
So, make ALL contributions anonymous. Pass them through accounts set up at the Federal Elections Commission, so only the FEC has the information of who is giving to whom. Make it illegal to tell your congressperson (or any candidate for federal office) that you've given them money.
People will still give to those who they think reflect their interests and will work towards policies that will benefit them, but that can't make that connection explicit. They'll have to trust that congresspeople will do in office what they say they'll do on the campaign trail. A benefit, I think, will that candidates will be more honest. Cuz if they say one thing and do another, their contributors won't give again.
Win win all around. And I bet you'd see the money in politics drop like a stone, which would make it easier for challengers to compete against incumbents.
Posted by: Cal Gal | Jan 9, 2006 1:32:07 PM | Permalink
For a nickname, I'd appreciate Bayou "Damn" Self.
If necessary, I'll hire a team of lobbyists to press my case. Yes, a team. There's be a quarterback, point guard and pitcher on my team, just to make sure we have the major sports covered. And a goalie. You have to have a good goalie. If they can't get something past you, then they can't beat you.
Posted by: Bayou Self | Jan 9, 2006 1:40:06 PM | Permalink
Too bad the folks who live in D.C. don't have those lobbyists on the Hill, ACitizen.
I do like Cal Gal's idea, though.
T "the B" G
Posted by: TBG | Jan 9, 2006 1:43:04 PM | Permalink
Way off topic. LindaLoo - tell me you don't already know this. Pola Negri, ballerina (until TB cut short her dance career), famous stage actress, vamp, silent screen star, born in Poland on New Year's Eve in 1894, retired to San Antonio, Texas in 1941 where she lived until her death in 1987 at age 93. The "talkies" ended her film career because of her heavy Polish accent. Anyway, Ms. Negri lived in one of those big mansions with the spanish tile roofs and it was said that she never appeared in public again. The city bus to the downtown library passed her home and I always hoped to catch a glimpse of her in a window. I wanted to meet her but Mother wouldn't allow us kids to knock at her door and invade her privacy.
Posted by: Nani | Jan 9, 2006 1:45:45 PM | Permalink
Sort of off-topic, but I don't have much time to read the kaboodle today.
I am a terrible person. This morning, while listening to NPR and putting my clothes on, I heard them say that Dick Cheney had been rushed to the hospital due to shortness of breath...and I smiled. I mean, a real smile. When later they expanded on it by saying it had nothing to do with his heart problem, but was due to some medicine he was taking, I felt a twinge of disappointment. Does admitting these evil feelings absolve me of the guilt of being glad that someone I dislike is in poor health? Does it make me a patriot?
Posted by: TA | Jan 9, 2006 1:49:13 PM | Permalink
Aboard M/S Maasdam, at sea, approx. 100 miles due east of Miami; seas calm, wind approx. 5 knots, air temp. approx. 75 degrees.
Here I am, Nani! Just logged in a minute ago in the ship's Internet Room, have a lot of catch-up reading to do, and at $.40 a minute I'm not too crazy about having to put up with Lonemule again. Sure, I'll go with Grumpy, although I'm still getting over my cold, so maybe Sneezy is more appropriate. Unfortunately the sauna aboard is out of order, but I've made due with the steam room, the hot tub, and the saltwater pool on the Lido Deck (good for my leg). Mrs. Curmudgeon has already had one hour-long Swedish massage, and a thorough briefing on the jewelry store situation in St. Thomas (I fear for my bank account, meager thing that it is); I foresee baubles in our future. The food aboard is excellent, and just down the corridor is the casino, which I have cased several times but not yet attempted (perhaps tonight). We're still 600 miles away from St. Thomas, so there's plenty of time. The good news is, none of the children nor the neighbors nor the police have called us even once. The bad news is, the transmission in the van crapped out in Williamsburg on our way to the ship (at Norfolk). That's gonna cost me.
Waiting for the ship's departure Staurday (she was five hours late leaving, due to an engine problem) I was able to see the entire Redskins game in the bar at the Norfolk Marriott, except the last four minutes. I'm ecstatic that we won, but I think we were damn lucky. But against the number-ne-ranked defense, I guess that performance was to be expected. I think we can take Seattle.
Gotta run--got a lecture on Columbus exploring the Caribbean at 2, followed by another visit to the steamroom to bake out my cold,
We return you now to your regularly scheduled Boodle.
Posted by: Curmudgeon | Jan 9, 2006 1:49:27 PM | Permalink
SCC: Made do. Even at sea that Nyquil is malicious.
Posted by: Curmudgeon | Jan 9, 2006 1:50:52 PM | Permalink
...oh and I meant to ask K'guy if he is familiar with silent films and if he'd ever seen any of Pola Negri's work?
Posted by: Nani | Jan 9, 2006 1:51:42 PM | Permalink
OK, the nicknames have me laughing. Thanks, kguy, for bestowing "Bashful" on me - definitely a good fit. At one time the group I worked with had so many Daves we used the 7 Dwarfs names to distinguish them. One guy got very offended when Sneezy somehow morphed into Sleazy (but it was so appropriate!).
Bashful
Posted by: mostlylurking | Jan 9, 2006 1:56:18 PM | Permalink
I nominate Curmudgeon's boodle-addicted posting for 'boodle of the week.' Forty cents a minute; that's devotion.
Posted by: TBG | Jan 9, 2006 1:58:47 PM | Permalink
To heck with all this lobbyist jazz. I just read the really big news of the day on Space.com, from a paper at the American Astronomical Society meeting here in DC (I didn't go, because we planetary-types have our own specialist meeting):
Black Holes are for real.
All through grad school, it annoyed me that astrophysics-types casually assumed the reality of black holes, as if the problem needed no further work. The truth is, the evidence for black holes has, until now, been extremely circumstantial. "My imagination is insufficient to think of anything else, so I'll say that it's because of a black hole, even without any further evidence." They have now furnished the evidence.
Stuff (matter) collapses onto dense objects like neutron stars and black holes. When the stuff builds up enough on the surface of a neutron star, it detonates in a burst of nuclear fusion, in the process of which the collected matter converts a lot of its contents into neutrons, increasing the actually neutron-ish part of the neutron star.
Black holes, however, lack a surface on which stuff can build up. Instead, they have an "event horizon." At the event horizon, and closer to the center of the object, it is impossible for any information to escape outwards into the external universe. Once a bit of matter has passed the event horizon, it is simply gone.
The new evidence for the existence of real event horizons is that objects suspected to be neutron stars accreting matter actually do exhibit detonations. Objects suspected of being black holes, which also are known by their property of accreting matter, do not exhibit detonations. The only way that the black hole can avoid producing detonations similar to those of the neutron star is if the matter just ... disappears. That is the definition of a black hole.
Black Holes are real.
But White Holes and wormholes are fantasy.
Posted by: ScienceTim | Jan 9, 2006 1:59:32 PM | Permalink
mostlylurking,
Thanks for the Brownlee/Stardust update at the end of the last Boodle. You are so current!http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/exploringtheuniverse/stardust.html
Posted by: Loomis | Jan 9, 2006 1:59:45 PM | Permalink
It certainly seems that way, TBG.
Fantastic; absolutely fantastic.Posted by: Tom fan | Jan 9, 2006 2:00:45 PM | Permalink
TA, I hadn't heard the news about Cheney, and while I can't say it brought a smile to my face, I wouldn't mind if his health problems caused him to resign. I believe he's the evil in this administration - at least a large part of it.
Posted by: mostlylurking | Jan 9, 2006 2:01:56 PM | Permalink
Cal Gal,
That is a fantastic idea, I had never thought about requiring anonymity in campaign contributions. Have any reformers ever suggested such a thing?Posted by: TA | Jan 9, 2006 2:15:24 PM | Permalink
I do not believe the Court ruled that money equals speech in every circumstance. George Will either used shorthand or (gasp) deliberately misrepresented the ruling. If money always equals free speech, then laws against bribery are, to use Abu Gonzales' term, "quaint."
Posted by: smedlock | Jan 9, 2006 2:18:46 PM | Permalink
I want my Mafia nickname, which can also be my hip-hop nickname, to be
"Voracious"
Posted by: Reader | Jan 9, 2006 2:19:27 PM | Permalink
Your are missing the point. If Congress has less responsibility and less money to dole out, few would be lobbying for them to do it. They are the crooks, taking a little from the majority to graciously give to the minority. The bigger government gets, the more money and they are able to dish out in these mammoth appropriation bills. It's so funny that big government fans never seem to understand that.
Posted by: Jon Redden | Jan 9, 2006 2:22:05 PM | Permalink
Taking the money out of politics would be like taking the drugs out of the music industry:
1. It's ifficult to imagine how to do it effectively.
2. How would it affect quality?Consider the opposite approach (that I alluded to in the old 11:18 blog item above)?
Why not treat our representatives in the legislative and executive branches like corporations?
Some can be privately held (usually smaller ones), some sold to shareholders and traded on regulated markets.
The SEC has regulatory powers over the financials (so all the books are public), and the shareholders and elected Boards of Directors manage the representatives and their staffs. Lobbyists have reduced powers, because they're now stockbrokers and investment analysts...
Existing term limits still apply where applicable, and the Corporate BoDs and Shareholders would vote as to whether a candidate representative has earned the right to support for public election (or relection, as the case may be). Bylaws of the corporate party would include provisions for removal or sanction as part of their Annual Contribution Review process.
Come to think of it, this may not be too far from the existing situation (you DO send financial contributions to Your Party of Choice, don't you?), except that Citizen Shareholders can have a higher degree of control over individuals that they're supporting, and that *all* of the transactions would be regulated and a matter of public record.
"The DemoPublican Party: A knowledgeable citizen is our best Customer."
bc
Posted by: bc | Jan 9, 2006 2:27:21 PM | Permalink
Most reformers push the idea of full disclosure under the assumption that knowing who owns your politicians is better than not knowing. I'm not quite sure of the corruption deterrent value of that. You don't who the bad guys are until Enron collapses or someone get caught on video stuffing rolls of bills down their pants.
According to my web sources it was Jess Unruh that said, "If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, sleep with their women, and vote against them, you don't belong here."
How about making politicians buy their own food, booze, and sexual favors?
Posted by: yellojkt | Jan 9, 2006 2:32:29 PM | Permalink
Great blog. Great analysis. This guy is one of washpost's best.
Posted by: Ace | Jan 9, 2006 2:32:47 PM | Permalink
How about getting rid of the Achenbuttcut?
Posted by: DC law | Jan 9, 2006 2:36:34 PM | Permalink
Nani I love good silents. The late great Ernie Kovaks used to host a program called Silents Please which I loved as a kid. Love Chaney, Swanson, Von Stroheim's stuff, Zazu Pitts in Greed, Keaton, Chaplin, Garbo, anything by Fritz Lang, anything by Eisenstein. Never saw Negri in anything but The Moon Spinners with Hayley Mills when Negri was an old woman.
Posted by: kurosawaguy | Jan 9, 2006 2:37:56 PM | Permalink
