Let’s Spend the Weekend Together February 27, 2004February 24, 2017 Just as the IRS discloses how long it takes to fill out each of its forms (Form 6251, the Alternative Minimum Tax, is supposed to take 3 hours 56 minutes), so have I subjected a representative sample of readers to this morning’s column and determined that, while completion time will vary, you can be expected to reach the end just in time for bed Sunday night. But even if you skim much of it, I hope you might read the bolded bits. As usual, the good stuff is mainly by others. I’d hate for you to miss it. MORE More on Saddam. Your two-minute weekend movie. He is/was a horrible man. But for us suddenly to have discovered this – and urgently to have acted without taking time to build broad international cooperation or to plan well for what to do once we ‘won’ – well, take a couple of minutes to watch this and see what you think. More on the gay penguins. And why we should let them marry. (A topic I’ll get back to – you have sent some extraordinary e-mails.) But first . . . MORE NADER Dave: ‘It troubles me when you blame people for voting for Nader. I, and many others, voted for him because we felt that neither the Republican or Democratic party offered a real choice. In 2000, they both nominated corporate-sponsored rich, white, Christian men, as they always have. Nader may be rich, but at least he’s not in the pocket of special interest groups. Bush has been so very evil, though, that I (like many other Nader voters) would very much like to see someone, anyone, defeat him. But if the Democrats nominate Kerry, I will take my clearly unwanted vote elsewhere. Maybe to the Green party, maybe to the Natural Law party. I think you’re wrong to criticize people for voting for the person they believe to be the best candidate, instead of just voting for someone they believe can win.’ ☞ If you live in a state the Democrats will almost definitely win or lose, Dave, then it didn’t and doesn’t much matter. By all means make a statement. Otherwise, we definitely want your vote! Help me understand why being pro-choice and anti-choice are the same? Why being for massive tax cuts for the very best off and being against them are the same? (To me, this alone is a trillion-dollar difference.) Why being pro-stem cell research that could save your child’s life and being against it are the same? Is there really no difference between a bias toward conservation and a bias toward oil companies? Between favoring equal rights for gays and lesbians and opposing them? Between being in the pocket of, say, the tobacco lobby and being in the pocket of, say, Emily’s list? Is appointing Justices like Charles Pickering and Bill Pryor not quite different from filibustering against them? Can having all three branches of government controlled by the right wing of the Republican party possibly be the same as having veto power over Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, et al? Are funding after-school programs and defunding them the same? Imposing a global gag order is the same as lifting it? How about turning a blind eye to offshore tax shelters versus cracking down on them? Are opposing the minimum wage and opposing increases in the earned income tax credit more or less the same as favoring them? Appointing an SEC chair like Harvey Pitt more or less the same as appointing one like Arthur Levitt? How about appointing creationists to scientific panels – the same as not appointing them? Is having deep ties to the Saudi royal family the same as having deep ties to a ketchup company? Kerry is no more perfect than you or me or George Washington (though he is taller, I’ll give him that). But Nader – whom as a young man I held in the highest possible regard – turns out to be very considerably less than perfect, too. And even if he were perfect, he can’t win. So a vote for him in a swing state simply plays into Karl Rove’s and Halliburton’s hands. In the real world, Dave, ‘the perfect is the enemy of the good.’ You are choosing failure rather than accept modest, imperfect success. I totally admire your idealism, but – as we saw in 2000 – it has terrible consequences. Bruce S. Kern: ‘My wife and I were strong supporters of Ralph Nader in the last election. In hindsight it may not have been a wise decision.’ MORE MARRIAGE Todd Dyer Davis: ‘In the late 1600’s one of my ancestors (Mary Dyer of Rhode Island) was put to death (by burning) in Boston. Both sides of my family came to this country in the 1600’s to escape religious persecution in England, Ireland and Scotland. Mary Dyer was a Quaker who believed in equality of all people. One of her main goals was to obtain equality for women. The Puritans did not agree with her views. The Puritans had the opinion of the populace behind them and in the ultimate effort to shut her up, had her burned. This shows what can happen when the popular opinion is acted on. ‘Over the years we have been fortunate to have many patriotic people like Mary fight for equal rights for women, African Americans and Minorities. Now it is time for equal rights for gays and lesbians. The basis of the argument of the President is that homosexuality is a sin and sinners should not be afforded the equal rights of marriage. Sin is a religious concept (my Unitarian religion does not believe in sin). Our constitution is based on the separation of church and state with equality for all. A President that wants to revise our constitution (based on religion) to discriminate against a group of people is unpatriotic and un-American. I apologize if this message makes anyone feel uncomfortable; however I believe that I owe a good fight for equality to my ancestor Mary Dyer who made the ultimate sacrifice for the good of our country.’ Jason P: ‘I have been a dyed-in-the-wool Republican since my first conscious political thought. Growing up I would argue politics at the dinner table with my father (he leaned left). I registered to vote and affiliated with the Republican Party in the Danbury High School cafeteria on May 21, 1992. I know the exact voter registration date because I saved my elector certificate from that exciting day. ‘Over the years my GOP journey has led me to serve as chairman of American University’s chapter of College Republicans, work for the Republican Conference Committee on Capitol Hill, and campaign for Newt Gingrich. ‘My GOP journey ended today. I will not be an accomplice to the President’s attempt to defile our great charter by making permanent second class citizens out of America’s same-sex families. I will be at Town Hall to change my party affiliation from Republican to independent when the doors open tomorrow at 8:30 am.’ Two e-mails posted on Andrew Sullivan‘s website: I voted for President Bush in 2000 and planned to do so again in November. My reason: national security and the man’s seeming personal integrity. As a Jew, I had a gut-level fear of the Christian Right but (1) did not believe Bush shared its worldview and (2) saw fundamentalist Christian support for Israel as indicative that the Christian Right was not anti-Semitic. Then, in one ten day period, I saw the Christian Right go into rapture over a film that is blatantly anti-Semitic (I saw it today), saw Laura Bush both indicate approval of this film and empathy for those disgusted at the idea of gay marriage and then the President made his speech supporting the amendment. I’m straight and, to me, the Bushes – sensing defeat in November – are going to tap into homophobia, anti-Semitism and whatever else it takes to secure their base. I was never part of that base. Jews, gay Republicans, African-American Bush voters, Hispanics are not part of the base but, add our votes to that of the base, and the GOP wins. But now it loses. Jews used to be the canary people. Jews still play that role but today, even more so, that role is played by gays. You can judge a party or a leader by how he treats this group, the one group it is still safe to hate in America. Well, Bush has failed the test. I will not be part of the gay-bashing, Mel Gibson adoring, xenophobic America that the Bushes consider their base. This canary has no intention of dying from the poisonous gas of hatred. I’m 58. I have voted for every Republican nominee since Nixon and without regrets. Until now. I wish I could take back my 2000 vote. But, in any case, I will work to get out the vote for Kerry or Edwards. I will not vote for a President who secures the basest elements of his base by dividing Americans. And you know what? He is going to lose. That gay marriage announcement was the desperate act of a desperate man. Also from Andrew Sullivan’s site, from a soldier in special ops: Well … And so it now begins. My more liberal friends told me a day like this would come, and now I am forced to eat crow. Words cannot express the hurt and anger I feel for the man’s blatant constitutional and moral attack on a segment of our population. And for the still wobbly among us, make no mistake … this is an attack… I realized long ago I am (was) a Republican solely for foreign affairs. But that’s not good enough anymore. I’ve helped feed the Kurds in Northern Iraq, I’ve slept in the mud and rain to enforce peace treaties in eastern Europe, sweated in 100 percent humidity in southeast Asia, and I dodged too many bullets and remote controlled bombs in and around Mosul to count. But I gladly did this (and will do it again) to protect the rights and liberties of ALL Americans, not just those of my family. I voted for this man … despite what my family said, despite how many times I was smeared because I am African American and (was) a Republican, despite his joy in being an anti-intellectual … they warned me, they warned me and I didn’t listen … and now I am ashamed of myself. By all that I hold Holy it will never happen again! So even though the idea of allowing gay marriage was widely unpopular when all this began – around 70/30 I think – and even though it remains unpopular – 55/39 was the last poll result I think I saw, I wonder whether, now that America is thinking about it, this will be the winning issue Bush/Cheney had in mind. (Speaking of Cheney, imagine writing into the Constitution an amendment to permanently deny your daughter equal rights. That’s loyalty!) Rosie O’Donnell has had Social Security deducted from her paychecks just like you. Why, if she died, should her four kids not get the same Social Security Survivor’s benefits yours would? Why is the President so keen on discouraging families like hers? Why does her domestic tranquility threaten his own? As Americans consider questions like these, I think more and more will be open to entreaties like this one that my friend Mike Rataczak sent everyone he knew: I need your help. Tuesday, President Bush publicly announced that he will support a Constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage and ensures that marriage is defined solely as a union between a man and a woman. I’m asking for your help in fighting back against this proposed amendment to the Constitution. Let me first be clear about something: I support marriage 100%. Between my own common sense and a multitude of social surveys over the last 10 years, it’s clear that marriage – when it’s lasting and loving – only benefits society. My parents will be celebrating their 42nd anniversary this spring, and believe me: growing up in that home was a blessing that colors my entire life. Anyone who has ever visited the lake where I grew up or spent any amount of time with my parents (and many of you in this email have done so) know what I’m talking about. Honestly, I think we all have common ground on a belief in the sanctity of a loving union between two adults. However, the message coming from President Bush is that gay men and women are not worthy of marriage. Somehow, we don’t measure up. The message – stated clearly and with no ambiguity by the President – is that marriage is sacred only for heterosexuals, that the admission of gay men and women into marriage will erode the sanctity of marriage and weaken our social structure. To compound the situation, according to the New York Times, the Federal Marriage Amendment currently before Congress (and supported by the President) would specifically deny same-sex couples the “legal incidents” of marriage; and no civil union will be able to overcome that amendment should it be passed. Civil unions simply do not provide the same legal benefits that marriage does. I pay the same federal taxes as heterosexuals, but a Constitutional amendment will guarantee that I will continue to be denied the same legal benefits. You’ve all known me for years, some of you for my entire life. I’m your son, brother, brother-in-law, nephew, cousin, friend, college roommate, college and graduate school classmate, former work colleague. I’m the godparent to three of your children. I’ve been in your wedding parties; flown around the States and the world to attend your weddings; taken care of your children; pulled all-nighters with you to finish homework or a client presentations; vacationed with you and your families; celebrated your anniversaries/birthdays/new homes/new jobs/children’s’ birthdays; helped you move in and out of new apartments; supported you during a multitude of difficult times; and, throughout, have been grateful beyond description that you’re in my life. I can’t imagine not knowing any of you. It’s been an honor to be involved in all of the above, as well as the hundreds of daily little things that add up to family and friendships. And I know, given the roles you’ve asked me to play in your lives, that my being gay has not mattered to you, and that you value me in your lives as much as I value you in mine. And so I’m asking for your help. President Bush has essentially just said that I (and every other gay friend and/or family member in your life) am a marginal person in this country, and that a Constitutional amendment must be passed to prevent me from having the same rights as heterosexuals. In addition to being a violation of civil rights, this Constitutional amendment sends a message that I’m inferior and worthy of discrimination. If 1 in 10 men and women are gay, that’s a lot of Americans being sent to the back of the social and legal bus. Think of the social message being sent over time: It’s okay to welcome Uncle Mike/Mr. Rataczak/Mike into your homes but don’t allow him to be a full member of our society – it’s okay that his rights are secondary, because, at the end of the day, he’s marginal. That kind of social message allows bigotry and violence to grow and flourish. I won’t tolerate being treated like that, and I certainly don’t want my nieces, nephews, godchildren, and your children growing up in that kind of world; they deserve better, as do all of us. Bigotry damages society, for crying out loud, not marriage between same-gender couples. Essentially, I need your voices. Silence, not response, dignifies the actions that support this Constitutional amendment. Please, write to your Senators and Congressmen and women. Write to the President. And keep writing. Donate money to organizations fighting for the civil rights of gay men and women, such as the Human Rights Campaign (hrc.org) or Lambda Legal (lambdalegal.org). Speak in your children’s schools, talk to your kids about what’s happening, speak at your churches and temples, and don’t sit by quietly when you hear homophobic comments related to the proposed amendment. Participate in demonstrations against the Constitutional amendment. Pass this email onto others, if you feel it’s appropriate. I even venture to ask that you not vote for President Bush this November, but that, ultimately, will be your choice. Whatever you do, be vocal, visible, consistent. And make it as personal as you can. Many, many thanks to each of you. – Mike “Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.” – Mark Twain KERRY Bill H: ‘OK, so you kill Bush on the issue of gay marriage but don’t even mention Kerry, who is opposed to gay marriage, and knowing him like we do could change tomorrow and support and Federal marriage amendment.’ ☞ I don’t think these are equivalent. Kerry favors civil unions and opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, which he characterizes as ‘shameful.’ He sponsored the first comprehensive gay and lesbian civil rights bill in the U.S. Senate, stood up on the side of gays in the military, was one of just 14 senators to vote against DOMA (the anti-marriage bill Congress passed) and has consistently supported virtually every gay rights bill and amendment in Congress, with a Human Rights Campaign rating that has ranged from 96% to 100%. Bush, by contrast, opposed all these things. And as governor and as President he supported the Texas sodomy law that, until the Supreme Court overturned it a few months ago, allowed the state to arrest consenting adults for having sex in their own bedrooms. It’s just factually wrong to buy the Republican line that Kerry is inconsistent where Bush is steady. On this point, have you not seen the clips of Bush in 2000 telling interviewers that gay marriage should be left up to the states? Now he says that the states – and, ultimately the Supreme Court – can’t be trusted. He sure trusted it in 2000. ANDREW SULLIVAN Let’s give Andrew the last word, because he has worked so hard to support President Bush. Feel free to pass this on to any gay Republicans you may know: WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens – and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth. This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance. [I thought he and his Attorney General and the House and Senate leadership had actually accomplished this quite some time ago. – A.T.] Gay people will now regard it as their enemy for generations – and rightly so. I knew this was coming, but the way in which it has been delivered and the actual fact of its occurrence is so deeply depressing it is still hard to absorb. But the result is clear, at least for those who care about the Constitution and care about civil rights. We must oppose this extremism with everything we can muster. We must appeal to the fair-minded center of the country that balks at the hatred and fear that much of the religious right feeds on. We must prevent this graffito from being written on a document every person in this country should be able to regard as his own. This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He’s a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans – and their families and their friends – his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will. [Hey, Andrew, old pal – click here.] Monday: Polygamy!
Getting Rich Slow, Quick, and Til Death Do (Some of Us) Part February 25, 2004January 21, 2017 YET *ANOTHER* FREE SERVICE FROM THIS SITE! Have you got some blogs you like to follow – but wish you could have just the new stuff delivered to you automatically, when it’s posted? Well, from the same folks who brought you Quickbrowse.com (which has a small but enthusiastic following), now comes the beta of trackle.com. Sure, even with trackle, you’ll still spend a lot of time googling. What would life be without Google? (Or TiVo, or olives, but I digress.) But now, you can set yourself up to be trackled, as well. BOREALIS UPDATE Some of us have taken a few dollars we can truly afford to lose and bought shares of Borealis, the preposterous little stock I have written about so many times that will surely go to zero – but that is now around 5 or 6 (so the whole thing is valued at about the same as an 8-bedroom Palm Beach mansion I saw featured in last Friday’s Wall Street Journal). Some of you have recently asked, what now? My advice is to just forget about it for two or three years until it’s worthless or, conceivably, worth way more. PCL Peter: ‘You recommended PCL at $26.50 in August – and I did pick some up. Looking to get more now. Do you still like it today at $30.69? I also noticed analysts don’t like it much. (See: here. And the scorecard at quicken.com looks bleak as well.)’ ☞ I like that it’s up 15%, and has paid its dividend along the way. Even at this higher, less attractive price, I think it’s a solid long-term holding for pretty much the reasons I laid out in that first column. Could it go down by a third in a tough market? Absolutely. But are the trees likely to keep growing, and is the price of their wood likely to outstrip inflation over the long run? I think so. If you might need the money in a year or two, this isn’t the place for it – and neither is any other stock. If you’re investing for the next decade or three, I think PCL is quite a good place for some of your money . . . and at the end of the day, it won’t matter that much whether you paid $31 or $26 to buy it. MARRIAGE Americans are watching thousands of committed, loving couples get married in San Francisco . . . and they are trying to sort it all out. Many find these unions disturbing. Yet, at the same time, they want to be fair. They are troubled to think that if a gay person dies – even though she had Social Security deducted from her paycheck every week just like everybody else – her surviving partner and children will not get the same survivor’s benefits everyone else’s would. They are troubled that partners – even if they have been together for more than 50 years, like the first couple to get married in San Francisco – don’t have the same inheritance rights as everyone else. Looking at the joyful faces in San Francisco, many Americans are beginning to wonder whether America’s cherished ‘equal protection under the law’ and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” might not require county clerks to issue civil marriage licenses to gay couples after all. Into the breach rides George W. Bush, urging swift, virtually irrevocable action to halt this creeping evolution of equal rights once and for all. Rather than risk that judges will interpret the United States Constitution in a way he doesn’t like, he calls on the country to amend the Constitution itself. Rather than champion equal rights, he would move decisively to prohibit gay couples from enjoying the same civil benefits and obligations as straight couples (lest we follow the path of such barbarous nations as Canada and the Netherlands, who have already gone down this path). Imagine this: It is 2006 and an anti-gay marriage amendment has been put on the Massachusetts ballot. In the two years since May, 2004, when gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, the good people of Massachusetts (let’s just say) have decided it was a nonevent. Life has gone along fine, straight husbands have not decided to leave their straight wives. Teenagers who once would have been obsessed by women’s breasts have not lost interest – they are still obsessed by women’s breasts. And so, seeing that it’s made a lot of people happy . . . and boosted marriage license revenue to the state and catering business and tuxedo rentals (for both the men and the women) . . . and harmed no one . . . they reject Massachusetts’ anti-marriage constitutional amendment, in effect affirming the decision of the Massachusetts Court for gay marriage. At which point, if George W. Bush’s federal amendment has passed, the federal government tells the people of Massachusetts that, no, they can’t decide this for themselves. Their will is overruled. The gay marriages are invalid. Only straight partnerships are worthy of equal treatment under the law. Why is this good? Either George Bush truly believes it is necessary to amend our most sacred document to prohibit people like his own Vice President’s daughter from ever receiving a civil marriage license . . . or, far more likely, he and his handlers see this as a way to energize their base for the upcoming election and shift the focus of debate away from jobs, health, education, and the way we have squandered the world’s good will post 9/11. Either way, it’s un-American. To quote Bob Barr, of all people – the conservative Georgia Republican who wrote the Defense of Marriage Act – ‘A Constitutional amendment is both unnecessary and needlessly intrusive and punitive.’ (Washington Post, August 21, 2003.) Kate: ‘This is a letter from dearmary.com which is urging Cheney’s daughter to speak publicly about the Constitutional amendment. I’m not sure I approve, but many of the letters there are thoughtful and thought-provoking. As a heterosexual married person, I don’t experience the problems gay couples run into. I and my other legally married counterparts ought to at least understand those problems – and this one presented a new situation to me. I thought it was heartbreaking and might push any undecided person to understand why marriage really has to be a matter of love and not government. Here it is: Dear Mary: I’m a 28 year old American woman living in exile. Two years ago I left my hometown of Miami Beach, FL with my partner of 6 years (a German citizen who had been studying in the States) because her studies were over, her student visa had run out and there was no possible way for her to stay in the US legally. We had just heard the news that in Germany the laws had changed and we could get “married” there and she could sponsor me for a residency permit as her “spouse,” something that I could only dream about doing for her in the States…so knowing that I could not imagine my life without her, I decided to give up everything I had at home and leave the States to chase the simple dream of being married to the one I love. I quit my job, sold almost everything I owned and we moved to Berlin to marry. That was 2 years ago and I can’t say I’ve ever looked back with regret. Life for me has never been more serene or free. I am living my dream and learning to love a new culture and life. My parents are getting older though, Mary. And sometimes I wonder who will take care of them if they become ill in their old age…Sometimes, I am afraid that a point will come when they will need me to be there again, more permanently, when I may have to move back to care for them… What will become of my marriage then, what kind of life could my wife expect to lead in the States? She wouldn’t even be recognized as my wife; I couldn’t even sponsor her for a green card, so that she could work. What would we do? Would we have to live apart during this time? What would happen to the children that we are bound to have? I just need to know why your father thinks it would be OK to break up my home, to tear through my heart? We have never hurt anyone by being in a loving and committed union. If anything we’ve only brought beauty into the world through it. Someday, I want to come home, Mary, with my wife by my side. I want to walk quietly, but proudly with her hand in mine down my beloved stretch of beach at home, where before I had always dreamed that our wedding would someday be. Please, Mary, ask your father and his friends to reconsider. It’s urgent. Best, Anna in Berlin, Germany Here’s one that trackle.com sent me from the blog of conservative (gay) columnist Andrew Sullivan yesterday. (Andrew’s been getting some e-mail, too.) Empasis, mine: Another gut-wrenching email: “I organized my life around four institutions: my family, the Presbyterian Church, the Boy Scouts and the Republican Party. They summed up what seemed to me a sensible view of life and the world, embodying loyalty, unconditional love, a quiet, thoughtful exercise of faith, a commitment to ethical behavior, and a limited government that did the things it needed for the public good but otherwise left people alone to be all they could become and savor the victory of having done so. ‘Then I came out, and one by one those four institutions turned their backs on me. My parents were embarrassed by me and stopped nearly all communication, though they said they loved me and in some way considered me part of the family. ‘Then my church got a new minister who had hardly arrived before he started preaching on the marriage issue and rooting out gay staff members. Commissioned a Stephen Minister, I was told I would never be assigned anyone to walk with in their troubles. But of course the church loves me and in some way considers me part of the family still. ‘Then the Boy Scouts went to court and said that even though I am an Eagle Scout, people like me are not good role models for the program and cannot be leaders. But of course they consider me a Scout still and are happy to ask me for my money. ‘And now the head of the party I’ve stuck with through thick and thin for 36 years says the prospect of my being able to marry is so threatening to society they have to ban it in the Constitution. But the president says God loves me and I got an email from him today telling me about his campaign kickoff speech. So I guess in their compassionate conservative way the administration still thinks of me as sort of a Republican. ‘I don’t. You can only feel the love of people and institutions who fend you off with a barge pole for so long. Today I changed my registration from Republican to independent.” – 8:21:11 PM A SHIFT? Another emailer puts his finger on it: “We’ve witnessed a shift in Republican politics. The Republican establishment used to pay lip service to religious conservative interests while openly courting independent voters with moderate policies because it knew it could get the religious conservative vote regardless (who were they going to vote for, Clinton!?). But now, it seems Bush is paying lip service to independent interests while openly promoting religious conservative policy. Who are we going to vote for, Kerry? Well, yes.” He’s not alone. Enough conservatives, here’s what Ted Kennedy had to say (again, bolding the key points): By endorsing this shameful effort to write discrimination back into the Constitution, President Bush has betrayed his campaign promise to be “a uniter, not a divider.” The Constitution is the foundation of our democracy. It reflects the enduring principles of our country. We have amended the Constitution only seventeen times in the two centuries since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Aside from the Amendment on Prohibition, which was quickly recognized as a mistake and repealed thirteen years later, the Constitution has often been amended to expand and protect people’s rights, never to take away or restrict their rights. By endorsing this shameful proposal, President Bush will go down in history as the first President to try to write bias back into the Constitution. Advocates of the Federal Marriage Amendment claim that it will not prevent states from granting some legal benefits to same-sex couples. But that’s not what the proposed amendment says. By forbidding same-sex couples from receiving “the legal incidents of marriage,” the amendment would prohibit state courts from enforcing many existing state and local laws, including laws that deal with civil unions and domestic partnerships and other laws that have nothing to do with such relationships. Just as it’s wrong for a state’s criminal laws to discriminate against gays and lesbians, it is wrong for a state’s civil laws to discriminate against gays and lesbians by denying them the many benefits and protections provided for married couples. The proposed amendment would prohibit states from deciding these important issues for themselves. This nation has made too much progress in the ongoing battle for civil rights to take such an unjustified step backwards now. We all know what this issue is about. It’s not about how to protect the sanctity of marriage, or how to deal with “activist judges.” It’s about politics – an attempt to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country, solely for partisan advantage. We have rejected that tactic before, and I hope we will do so again. The timing of today’s statement is also a sign of the desperation of the President’s campaign for re-election. When the war in Iraq, jobs and the economy, health care, education, and many other issues are going badly for the President and his re-election campaign is in dire straits, the President appeals to prejudice in this desperate tactic to salvage his campaign. I’m optimistic that Congress will refuse to pass this shameful amendment. Many of us on both sides of the aisle have worked together to expand and defend the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Together, on a bipartisan basis, we have fought for a comprehensive federal prohibition on job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We have fought together to expand the existing federal hate crimes law to include hate crimes based on this flagrant form of bigotry. I hope we can all agree that Congress has more pressing challenges to consider than a divisive, discriminatory constitutional amendment that responds to a non-existent problem. Let’s focus on the real issues of war and peace, jobs and the economy, and the many other priorities that demand our attention so urgently in these troubled times. BLAME IT ON STEVE GILBERT (I DO) Stephen Gilbert: ‘You and I exchanged e-mails less than four years ago in which I said there was no difference between Bush and Gore. I even voted for Nader then. Okay, here it is: I WAS WRONG. But unlike Ralph Nader, I am capable of change.’ ☞ And so is the country, which makes Steve a great man and America a great country.
Trust the CEO? February 24, 2004February 24, 2017 The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 52 percent view Bush as ‘honest and trustworthy,’ down 7 points from the previous poll, 19 from his peak in the summer of 2002. You may already have seen the story from Sunday’s New York Times that interviewed Bush voters in Ohio who plan to switch over. (‘Bill Flanagan a semiretired newspaper worker, happily voted for George W. Bush. But now, shaking his head, he vows, ‘Never again.’ ‘The combination of lies and boys coming home in body bags is just too awful,’ Mr. Flanagan said, drinking coffee and reading newspapers at the local mall.’) Clearly, Bush was misleading us when, as a candidate, he looked into the camera and insisted, of his tax-cut proposal, that ‘by far, the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.’ This was a trillion dollar lie. By far the vast majority of the cuts have gone to the top few percent. (Why not just come out and tell us? ‘Vote for me, and I’m going to give a huge tax cut to the rich.’) Clearly, he was misleading us when he promised a ‘humble foreign policy’ – yet was planning long before September 11 to ‘do’ Iraq. (Why not just tell us? ‘Vote for me and my very first National Security Council meeting will focus on Iraq. Just 11 days after my Inauguration, its agenda will include a ‘Political-Military Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq Crisis.”) There have been so many instances of his saying one thing and doing another, one hardly knows where to start. Just one recent post from the Daily Mislead: BUSH TALKS JOB TRAINING IN ADDRESS, BUT CUTS FUNDS President Bush is visiting Ohio today to trumpet a $500 million job training/education proposal announced in his State of the Union address. But the president has recently proposed to cut almost $700 million out of the same job training and education programs he is now touting. As part of his new proposal, Bush said last night “I propose increasing our support for America’s fine community colleges.” Last year, however, the president sought to cut $230 million out of vocational/community college education, along with “eliminating funding for technical education.” When lawmakers tried to restore the cuts in April, Bush was adamant that the cuts be preserved, and his allies in the Senate voted down the funding. The president also recently eliminated all $225 million in funding for youth job training grants. The other key piece of Bush’s proposal involves college funding. The president said last night, “I propose larger Pell grants for students.” But he did not mention his recent decision to “cut the Pell Grant program by $270 million” — a move his own Education Department admits will cut off 84,000 students, and reduce grants for “an additional one million students. Why not just tell us? ‘Don’t look to us for help in taxing the rich. Those days are over! Just go out, work hard, and make yourself rich, like I did.’ We were told during the last campaign that anything he did before the age of 40 (the first 75% of his life) was off-limits, and the so-called liberal press pretty much went along. But this Alabama National Guard thing nags. Not so much on the substance – hey, I didn’t go to Vietnam, either. But the truthfulness of it. Which, based on this report, seems to be exactly how some of his fellow Alabama National Guardsmen feel: Bush a No-Show at Alabama Base FedEx pilot Bob Mintz, backed up by a Carolina colleague, recalls no Dubya at Dannelly AFB in 1972 by Jackson Baker – February 19, 2004 Two members of the Air National Guard unit that President George W. Bush allegedly served with as a young Guard flyer in 1972 had been told to expect him and were on the lookout for him. He never showed, however; of that both Bob Mintz and Paul Bishop are certain. . . . “There’s no way we wouldn’t have noticed a strange rooster in the henhouse, especially since we were looking for him,” insists Mintz, who has pored over documents relating to the matter now making their way around the Internet. One of these is a piece of correspondence addressed to the 187th’s commanding officer, then Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, concerning Bush’s redeployment. Mintz remembers a good deal of base scuttlebutt at the time about the letter, which clearly identifies Bush as the transferring party. “It couldn’t be anybody else. No one ever did that again, as far as I know.” In any case, he is certain that nobody else in that time frame, 1972-73, requested such a transfer into Dannelly. Mintz, who at one time was a registered Republican and in recent years has cast votes in presidential elections for independent Ross Perot and Democrat Al Gore, confesses to “a negative reaction” to what he sees as out-and-out dissembling on President Bush’s part. “You don’t do that as an officer, you don’t do that as a pilot, you don’t do it as an important person, and you don’t do it as a citizen. This guy’s got a lot of nerve.” Though some accounts reckon the total personnel component of the 187th as consisting of several hundred, the actual flying squadron — that to which Bush was reassigned — numbered only “25 to 30 pilots,” Mintz said. “There’s no doubt. I would have heard of him, seen him, whatever.” . . . “I never saw hide nor hair of Mr. Bush,” confirms Bishop, who now lives in Goldsboro, N.C., is a veteran of Gulf War I and, as a Kalitta pilot, has himself flown frequent supply missions into military facilities at Kuwait. . . . Bishop voted for Bush in 2000 and believes that the Iraq war has served some useful purposes — citing, as the White House does, disarmament actions since pursued by Libyan president Moammar Khadaffi — but he is disgruntled both about aspects of the war and about what he sees as Bush’s lack of truthfulness about his military record. . . . “It bothered me that he wouldn’t ‘fess up and say, ‘Okay, guys, I cut out when the rest of you did your time.’ He shouldn’t have tried to dance around the subject. I take great exception to that. I spent 39 years defending my country.” . . . Would he consider voting for the president’s reelection? “Naw, this goes to an integrity issue. I like either [John] Kerry or [John] Edwards better.” And who would Mintz be voting for? “Not for any Texas politicians,” was the Memphian’s sardonic answer. Copyright 2004 The Memphis Flyer (Here‘s one from the Dallas News that has a Retired National Guard Lieutenant Colonel charging that Bush’s 1997 chief of staff told the National Guard chief to make certain nothing would embarrass the governor – and that, days later, he saw documents from the Bush file discarded in a trash can.) One older couple the New York Times interviewed for the story quoted above – a judge and a teacher – ‘reluctantly divulged their secret: though they are stalwarts in the local Republican Party, they are planning to vote Democratic this year. ‘I feel like a complete traitor, and if you’d asked me four months ago, the answer would have been different,’ said the judge, after assurances of anonymity. ‘But we are really disgusted. It’s the lies, the war, the economy. We have very good friends who are staunch Republicans, who don’t even want to hear the name George Bush anymore.” ‘I voted for him,’ says another of the interviewees, ‘but it seems like he’s just taking care of his rich buddies now.’
Science, Schmience February 23, 2004January 21, 2017 If God had intended man to fly, he would have given him wings. And if he had intended us to enjoy the benefits of stem cell research, he would have put someone other than George Bush in the White House. Imagine if research into antibiotics had been banned the way the Bush administration has already shut down stem cell research here at home (outsourcing an entire leading-edge industry), and the way it is now working to shut it down entirely, worldwide. Vaguely apropos of which, did you see this last week? ‘A group of more than 60 top U.S. scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and several science advisors to past Republican presidents, on Wednesday accused the Bush administration of manipulating and censoring science for political purposes.’ We have Ralph Nader to thank for this, of course. All he had to do in the final days of the last campaign was urge his followers in swing states to vote for Gore. If you should have a loved one suffering from Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s who might have benefited from the fruits of stem cell research – but now might not – thank Ralph. (Thank, also, Katherine Harris. If you’ve never seen her video, click here.) It’s fine, I guess, that Ralph is running again. He’s a multi-millionaire who can afford to put what he sees as ‘the perfect’ ahead of what most others see as the practical good. (Among the wisest of old saws: ‘The perfect is the enemy of the good.’) One presumes that this time he will ultimately urge his supporters in swing states not to play into Karl Rove’s hands . . . and that even if he again fails to, this time they won’t. Because if anyone thinks it doesn’t matter who wins (‘so you may as well vote for Nader’), it seems to me he need look no further than the issue of stem cell research. America can do better than this, folks. Tomorrow: Trust the CEO?
Betting on Bush February 20, 2004February 24, 2017 Yesterday, you learned how to convert pounds into dollars. But wait! Why not bet your pounds on Bush? STEP #1 Click here and fill out a questionnaire to see whether you really want to vote for him. Time matches your answers with theirs and shows you which candidates would likely please you most. (It takes about 2 minutes to complete.) STEP #2 David Durst: ‘The trade-betting houses in London have ‘Bush to Win’ trading at 70 cents (out of 100). Today, I shorted 2500 Bush ‘futures’ at 70. This means that if held to election day and Bush wins, I lose $7500 (each contract point is 10 cents, so 2500 of them is $250, and if ‘Bush to Win’ goes from 70 to 100, and I’ve shorted it, that’s 30 points times $250 = $7,500). But these things trade like futures – so if at any time during the year, the market perceives this to be a 50/50 toss-up (say around the time of the Convention??), then the futures will be trading at 50 and I can take the bet off for a profit of $5000 . . . or let it ride (in whole or part) for an eventual zero expiration (when Bush loses) and I take in $17,500 profit. ‘I think that its a ‘gimme’ that at some point in the next 9 months this is going to look very close. You can trade these on margin so you don’t even have to tie up the cash – and there is less ‘credit’ risk that way, in case ‘the house’ disappears. ‘There are 2 betting exchanges that I use, tradesports.com and betfair.com. They basically work the same way – though at the moment, there is a lot more liquidity on tradesports for the Presidential futures, and they also allow margin, which is great because, as I say, it reduces your risk if they disappear. I have been fairly active with them for a couple of years now and so far no problems. In January, 2003, I bought year-end Dow 10,000+ futures at 9 cents and they paid off nicely in December – no problems. That was a couple of grand. ‘Of course, when dealing with these houses, you must realize that one day you might type the url into your browser and get a blank screen after they run away with all our money. I don’t expect that to happen – but I will not be completely surprised if it does! Good luck!’ ☞ Good heavens. You can even bet on the election outcome in each individual state. Or on the chances Hillary will get the nomination or that Richardson will be the VP. Will Galway: ‘This kind of thing intrigues me. (I’m a mathematician, so perhaps a bit of a frustrated ‘quant.’) Is it legal? If so, how are winnings taxed? 3.) How trustworthy are the various websites, like intrade.com?’ ☞ Intrade appears to be almost identical to Tradesports, and comes within three digits of the same toll-free number (866-303-1927 versus 866-303-1930), and so is presumably the same Dublin, Ireland outfit. Is it legal for U.S. citizens to gamble? When I asked the Irish tradesports.com representative, she said she thought it was for residents of some states but not others, and she didn’t know which. Even if it is legal, gambling is, at best, never a great idea (though even if it’s not legal, it’s hard to imagine your being prosecuted). The answer to the second question is simple: gambling winnings are taxed as ordinary income (i.e., fully subject to ordinary income tax). I doubt the IRS would agree to treat these as futures contracts subject to potentially more favorable tax treatment. As to trustworthiness, I have no clue.
Converting Pounds to Dollars February 19, 2004February 24, 2017 Andy M. asked: ‘How could one transfer approximately $100,000 in British Pounds (in London) into a US dollar denominated bank account (in NY) at the least expensive rate? I can’t find any way to do it that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg. Lloyds bank, for example, offer me a $1.76 exchange rate when the actual spot rate of the $ / GBP is close to $1.86! I figured your readers in their brilliance might have a suggestion for how people do this.’ In your brilliance, you replied: Jay Glynn: Two options for transferring the $100,000: 1) Have both a sterling account and a dollar account at Citibank in London. They quote competitive spot rates for transfers. 2) Alternatively, Citibank Global Transfers allows the instant transfer of funds between Citibank accounts, even in different currencies. I transferred a small amount (less than $1,000) from dollars to pounds in early February and got a rate of $1.861. The spot rate was around $1.83. The English banks are notorious for ripping off retail customers for large transfers. They tend to have a higher minimum transfer to qualify for spot rates. The American banks are more reasonable.’ Jack Kouloheris (ever ingenious): ‘What about this: Avoid the banks. Use the pounds to buy some stable, highly liquid security for which the spread and daily movement will be limited (Treasury money market shares?), then journal the shares over to a US brokerage account and sell. Deposit in a US bank.’ Paul: ‘I live in Switzerland and would like to know of any good answers to Andy M’s question. The best I’ve heard of so far for doing a transfer from Europe to the US is the following I saw on a Swiss consumer bulletin board: 24-Jul-03 Keith kwpinwdc My partner and I had the same problem, as bank fees were becoming way too expensive to transfer money to/from the States. But we’ve found a free method that’s completely electronic. . . . Sign up for Paypal. This works best if you have electronic banking with both your Swiss and U.S. banks. There are a few steps to get started [grayed, because most readers will skip them]: Sign-up as a Swiss resident (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_international-register), using your Swiss address. You will then need to add the details of your Swiss bank account. Important: Choose the option for a Personal account, not the Premier account. With the Premier account, you can earn interest on your Paypal balance and you get an ATM/debit card, but then you will also be charged a % fee on all funds received. There are no fees with the Personal account. Additionally, add the details of your United States checking account. Paypal will deposit two small amounts into your checking account (like 49 cents and 23 cents for example). This is how they verify that you are the account owner. You then login to Paypal and enter these amounts from your statement (easier if you have online access to your statements) to have the account included. Your Swiss address needs to be verified in a similar manner. You have to have a Swiss credit card and a small amount is credited to the credit card. Once you have this amount from the statement, you enter it online to become verified. You can then add funds to your Paypal account from either your U.S. or Swiss bank accounts. It’s a bit easier from the United States account. All you have to do is choose to add funds from the account and the funds will appear in your Paypal account within 2-3 days. To add funds to Paypal from the Swiss account, you will need to order a bank transfer from the Swiss Account to the Paypal bank account (which is Bank of America in Geneva). You have to enter a unique code into the memo section of the transfer to be sure they can credit the correct Paypal Account. This code is generated on Paypal when you request to add money from a Swiss account. We do the transfer online through our bank (Basler Kantonalbank) and the transfer is free of charge. Once you have funds in your Paypal account, you can add them to either your Swiss or U.S. bank accounts. The funds will be transferred within 3-4 days. So the money transfer works either direction. There is a 50 cent charge to add money to a Swiss bank account, but it’s free to add to a U.S. account. So, it takes about 5 days to get money from one point to another, but if you’re not in too much of a hurry, there are no fees (other than 50 cents). And the exchange rate that Paypal uses is the same, if not better than any bank’s. Brad Hurley: ‘A couple of friends of mine have reported good experiences with the online currency exchange service XeTrade. However, my brother found the best way of all to convert pounds to dollars. A few years ago, when my brother was trying to lose some weight, his boss came up with a plan: instead of giving him a end-of-the-year bonus, he offered my brother $20 for every pound he could lose during the year. If he gained the weight back, he’d have to pay back the money. My brother lost 40 pounds and kept it off, and made $800.’ Tomorrow: Betting on Bush
More on Marriage, Pounds to Dollars February 18, 2004February 24, 2017 Gay marriage takes more than a little getting used to. But at the end of the day it’s hard to imagine that the institution of marriage would suffer from allowing more committed couples to embrace it. FROM YALE From Michael Kavey, a recent Yale graduate, in a letter to the New York Post: [The Post] claims that the Massachusetts court, by requiring gay marriage, turned “several-score centuries of venerable social practice tradition squarely on its head.” It was not long ago that commentators said the same of courts that overturned laws discriminating against racial minorities, interracial couples and women. The Post should not confuse what is traditional with what is commendable. There is nothing more traditional and longstanding in this world than discrimination, oppression and prejudice. FROM ANDOVER Andover, like Yale, is also the alma mater of the Bushes. Look what the kids there are saying now (truncated and bold-faced for your convenience). ‘Not bad for an 18-year-old Republican,’ writes the proud godfather who went it to me. ‘It’s only a matter of time before he sees the light and joins his fellow Democrats.’ To wit: By Alex Thorn, Andover, ’04 “Activist judges have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard.” So spoke President Bush on the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that allows gays to marry in his State of the Union Address this year. However, Bush’s demand that the “people’s voice must be heard” shows his clear misperception of the nature of Civil Rights. There is no “majority rules” on issues of civil rights. If there were, the whole purpose of civil rights would be undermined. The Court is in place to, among other things, protect the rights of minorities, not to adhere to the will of the people. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka Schools that segregation of public schools was a violation of the children’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, despite intense support for segregation from Southern whites. In his inaugural address in 1963, Governor of Alabama George Wallace, one of the chief spokesmen for school segregation, said “I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” Yet, despite intense opposition of integration from the majority of southerners, including Governors, Senators and Representatives, the Supreme Court did its job and upheld the principle of civil rights: protect the minorities from the tyranny of the majority. . . And so did the Massachusetts Court succeed within its boundaries when it upheld the rights of gays to marry. The decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court represents not activism, as Bush would have us believe, but the most conservative of principles: the Constitution says equality, so equality there shall be. The Republican Party has become distorted. When did being conservative go from a detest of slavery and desire to strengthen individual and states’ rights in the 19th century to a docket that would revoke a woman’s right to choose and oppose the rights of some to marry? When? This recent e-mailed echoes the same theme: FROM THE AIRPORT Mark Sroufe: ‘I was sitting on the plane from Columbus to Dulles this morning, waiting to take off, when I recognized Republican Congresswoman Deborah Pryce boarding. (She represents my congressional district.) So when we landed in Dulles I waited for her and introduced myself as a constituent. I then told her ‘I want you to know I am leaving the Republican Party because I believe that the radical religious right has taken over the party.’ (How would she know I’m an independent? And I wanted to see how she would respond to a member of her own party.) Without missing a beat she said in a disappointed voice (and a bit vehemently), ‘You’ve got that right!’ That floored me enough, but then she said ‘I wish there was someplace to go so I could leave it too!’ And she walked off (I had to wait for my bag plane-side). I had expected her to stand up for her party. To defend the Republican Party’s actions and integrity. Quite the opposite. ‘If a moderate, respected Republican can be so forceful, so honest, so plain speaking to a complete stranger in an airport, it shows how true and how thorough the takeover of the party by the religious zealots is, and how disenfranchised the moderates have become. It’s not enough that John Ashcroft holds office prayer meetings every morning where employees feel it is necessary to attend so their careers won’t be stalled; it’s not enough that they’ve voted to channel millions and millions of tax dollars into churches under the guise of ‘faith-based initiatives’ and, soon, ‘Marriage Counseling’ (let’s not even go into the judicial appointments they are making); it’s not enough that they plan to introduce an amendment to America’s constitution that, for the first time in history, would weave discrimination into the very fabric of our nation . . . they have effectively marginalized and silenced the moderates of their own party. ‘This is clearly no longer an election that merely pits one party against another . . . It is a battle for the very essence of what the United States was founded upon in the first place: A secular government versus a government guided by one specific religion’s adherents who aim to codify their beliefs into law.’ ☞ To Deb Pryce’s comment – ‘I wish there was someplace to go so I could leave it too!’ – I’d say to my moderate Republican friends (especially those who don’t like huge budget deficits) . . . welcome to the Democratic Party! Unlike Representative Pryce, you don’t have to give up your chairmanship of the House Republican Conference to make the switch. You don’t even have to register as a Democrat. Just begin inching our way. We have a big tent. As former DNC chairman Joe Andrew used to say with such enthusiasm, ‘Black or white, rich or poor, straight or gay, you are welcome in the Democratic Party!’ FROM SAN FRANCISCO My friends Jeff and Ken got married in San Francisco the other day. A lawyer-turned-entrepreneur and an architect, they have been together for 19 years now, and thought maybe they should have the same rights as any other married couple. When I saw them and their marriage licenses the next day, they were beaming. And this comes from a friend of ‘Mickey and Mike’ – whom I don’t know – who also got married in San Francisco last week: Dear Marty, Hey! Sorry we couldn’t wait for you, but the threat of lawsuits by (out-of-state) family values groups made it imperative that we act immediately. Mike and I got married this morning at City Hall. We were there at 7:30, the doors opened at 8:00, and we were #54. There were several hundred in line behind us by the time we left (at 10:00). Mike noticed that everyone looked so “normal.” There were no beach bunnies, no leather queens, no diesel dykes, no drag queens – just a lot of very conventional-looking couples. It was a delight. Since we needed a witness, we asked the couple behind us to act as witnesses, and we did the same for them. And it turns out they live only a few blocks away from us. The woman performing the ceremony was very sweet. She got tears in her eyes each time she read the vows. A lesbian couple we know were married yesterday, alerted by someone who had an inside track at the mayor’s office. They appeared on several newscasts and their picture was on Yahoo.com. They had the first “public” ceremony. The first four ceremonies were held privately. I guess people wanted it kept as quiet as possible so a lot of couples could marry before some judge imposed a stay on the mayor’s order. Mike and I heard about it yesterday morning, but he was reluctant to take off from work since there was only one other person working with him. Since he was off work today, we went for it. So, whether it is recognized by any other authority whatsoever, we is hitched – and at least the City of San Francisco and (implicitly) the State of California have it on record. Whew! Love and kisses, Mickey Ask your friends who oppose gay marriage whether what’s happened in Massachusetts, and now San Francisco, has made them want to leave their husbands or wives. Is it possible that most straight people just feign attraction to the opposite sex? Or might people be like penguins (in case you saw that recent New York Times story) – most straight, some gay, so what? (There is a third category — ‘waverers,’ as I think the church calls them – who would probably lead gay lives if there were not so much pressure not to. But in a land dedicated to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, where is the harm in letting individuals find their own way in life and make their own choices?) I repeat: Gay marriage takes more than a little getting used to. But at the end of the day it’s hard to imagine that the institution of marriage would suffer from allowing more committed couples to embrace it. Tomorrow, Finally! Pounds to Dollars, Betting on Bush
Buy! Sell! Marry! February 16, 2004January 21, 2017 STOCKS The CICI we took a flyer on December 23 at 35 cents remains at around 90 cents. I’ve suggested selling two-thirds and holding the rest. The high-yielding NLY suggested here about 15 months ago, is up slightly (plus the now-reduced yield) – I’m selling. Stephen Leeb’s new book predicts oil will be $100-a-barrel ‘at a minimum by the end of the decade and possibly sooner,’ so I’ve bought some TXCO, a speculative little exploration company, around $4.50. There’s a very good chance Leeb will be wrong or that, even if he’s right, this particular oil company will come up dry. But one never knows. (As usual: never invest money you can’t afford to lose.) The prospect of $100-a-barrel oil has me itching to buy a Toyota Prius, at 50 miles to the gallon. But I drive so little it’s hard to justify trading in my 1996 Saturn. As for Toyota stock, it’s no hidden value. The market, perhaps having a better sense of the importance of fuel efficiency than the Bush administration, already values it at double GM and Ford combined. Finally, while I’m pretending to know something about stocks, I would suggest you consider a few shares of SYM (‘at Syms, an educated consumer is our best customer’), not because I predict an upswing in clothing sales, but because some smart people think the Manhattan real estate it owns is worth twice what the stock is selling for, and that this might be the year, or at least the decade, in which that value is realized. JANE FONDA You may have seen the photo of John Kerry standing at a podium with Jane Fonda that has been making the rounds. I’m told it is completely valid except for the Jane Fonda part – she was Photoshopped in. More widely circulated has been the – legitimate – photo of John Kerry two or three rows behind Jane Fonda at some kind of anti-war rally. Writes Thomas M. Cleaver (like Kerry, a Vietnam vet who wound up opposing the war): It was taken TWO AND A HALF YEARS BEFORE Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam. When she went there, John Kerry, as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against The War, CONDEMNED her actions, as did ALL members of VVAW. THE TIMES ON PRIVACY From a New York Times Valentine’s Day editorial: ‘[T]he Bush administration has gone beyond its campaign to destroy women’s reproductive rights and has attacked the privacy rights of all Americans . . .’ MAHER ON MARRIAGE This was written before thousands of gay and lesbian couples got married in San Francisco over the weekend. It’s by the straight-talking, if politically incorrect, Bill Maher. Valentine’s Day, That Great State Holiday By Bill Maher NEW RULE: You can’t claim you’re the party of smaller government, and then clamor to make laws about love. If there’s one area I don’t want the US government to add to its list of screw-ups, it’s love. On the occasion of this Valentine’s Day, let’s stop and ask ourselves: What business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses, and eventually stop having sex with each other? And why does the Bush administration want a constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, birthdays are important, too — why not include them in the great document? Let’s make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake – you know, to send the right message to kids. Republicans are always saying we should privatize things, like schools, prison, Social Security — OK, so how about we privatize privacy? If the government prohibits gay men from tying the knot, what’s their alternative? They can’t all marry Liza Minnelli. Republicans used to be the party that opposed social engineering, but now they push programs to outlaw marriage for some people, and encourage it for others. If you’re straight, there’s a billion-five in the budget to encourage and promote marriage — including seed money to pay an old Jewish woman to call up people at random and say “So why aren’t you married, Mr. Big Shot?” But when it comes to homosexuals, Republicans sing “I Love You Just the Way You Oughta Be.” They oppose gay marriage because it threatens or mocks — or does something — to the “sanctity of marriage,” as if anything you can do drunk out of your mind in front of an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas could be considered sacred. Half the people who pledge eternal love are doing it because one of them is either knocked-up, rich or desperate, but in George Bush’s mind, marriage is only a beautiful lifetime bond of love and sharing — kind of like what his Dad has with the Saudis. But at least the right wing aren’t hypocrites on this issue — they really believe that homosexuality, because it says so in the Bible, is an “abomination” and a “dysfunction” that’s “curable”: they believe that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus, he’ll stop being gay — — because the theory worked out so well with the Catholic priests. But the greater shame in this story goes to the Democrats, because they don’t believe homosexuality is an “abomination,” and therefore their refusal to endorse gay marriage is a hypocrisy. The right are true believers, but the Democrats are merely pretending that they believe gays are not entitled to the same state-sanctioned misery as the rest of us. The Democrats’ position doesn’t come from the Bible, it’s ripped right from the latest poll, which says that most Americans are against gay marriage. [Where is the] Democrat who will stand up and go beyond the half measures of “civil union” and “hate the sin, love the sinner,” and say loud and clear: ‘There IS no sin, and homosexuality is NOT an abomination’ — although that Boy George musical Rosie O’Donnell put on comes close. The only thing abominable about being gay is the amount of time you have to put in at the gym. But that aside, the law in this country should reflect that some people are just born 100 percent outrageously, fabulously, undeniably Fire-Island gay, and that they don’t need reprogramming. Happy Valentine’s Day everybody! Bill Maher is host of “Real Time with Bill Maher.” NOTE TO GLBT READERS Want to help register and educate gay voters? The DNC’s Pride at the Polls program has already signed up 600 volunteers. Click here to make it 601. Wednesday: Moher on Marriage, Converting Pounds to Dollars, Betting on Bush
Golly, Miss Molly! February 13, 2004January 21, 2017 NO, WE REALLY SHOULDN’T HELP POOR KIDS Dave Bilthuis: ‘If that fictional lady wants to go have 6 kids even though she doesn’t have any readily apparent means to support them, that is her right, she doesn’t have to go through any ‘means testing’ as Larry suggests. Mike’s point is that just because she chose to have those 6 kids, doesn’t mean that it is now society’s responsibility to help her raise (pay for) them. Yes, that is very unfortunate for those kids to now have to live in the conditions a $65/day domestic worker paycheck can provide; that’s life unfortunately. No, it is not the kids’ fault for choosing irresponsible parents, as you point out. But it is also not society’s fault that she had 6 kids that she could not support. I have two children and when they were brought into this world, I accepted 100% responsibility for raising them. I do not expect anyone else to do so, why should she? People should be held responsible for their actions and decisions no matter how ‘unfair’ you all seem to think that is. What a ridiculous and illogical argument you and Larry are making in defense of this scenario.’ ☞ Well, it’s probably worth pointing out that I said (as Mike noted) that my fictional lady GETS UP at 6 and feeds the kids – not that she HAS 6 kids. It’s actually tough to get by on $65/day with even just one or two kids. Indeed, I venture to say I’d have trouble living comfortably on $65 a day even if I had NO kids. But your point, and Mike’s, is that even if she does have just one, that’s one she shouldn’t have had if she can’t afford to care for him/her. And while I might agree with you . . . or at least take your point . . . (she should have known her man would walk out on her or lose his job!) . . . let us assume we are now stuck with the fact that she has a child. You say that’s her tough luck – and the child’s tough luck. Welcome to the Republican Party. Tax cuts for the wealthy come ahead of health insurance for poor kids or raising the earned income tax credit. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. But please note that, apart from issues of basic human decency, there’s the issue of our own self-interest: Helping a child grow up to be a productive member of society instead of, say, a prisoner, offers us taxpayers a phenomenal return on investment. IMMINENT Don’t miss Molly Ivins‘ February 10 column. It’s worth being 5 minutes’ late to work. Click, read, and seethe. # There WILL Be a column Monday. Maybe even tomorrow. Converting pounds to dollars, betting on Bush, marriage . . . so many topics, so little time. Don’t walk under any ladders today.
Bonds, Priceline Refunds, Treasury Secretaries, Returning Vets February 12, 2004February 24, 2017 WILD AND CRAZY BOND GUY From Steve Martin’s wonderful novella The Pleasure of My Company: I was now purchasing a newspaper every day and perusing the financial section. I diligently followed bonds, mutual funds, and stocks and noted their movements. Movement was what I hated. I didn’t like that one day you could have a dollar and the next you could have eighty cents without having done anything. On the other hand, the idea that you could have a dollar twenty thrilled me no end. I was worried that on the day my dollar was worth eighty cents I would be sad, and on the day it was worth a dollar twenty I would be elated, though I did like the idea of knowing exactly why I was in a certain mood. But I saw another possibility. If I bought bonds and held them to maturity, then the fluctuations in their value wouldn’t affect me, and I liked that their interest trickled in with regularity. This meant that my mood, too, would constantly trickle upward and by maturity, I would be ecstatic. PRICELINE TIP Yaakov Har-Oz: ‘I actually got a refund from Priceline! Well, not because Priceline showed any flexibility. But after I hit the wrong keys by accident and ended up with a hotel room on the wrong dates, I called the hotel (the Drake in New York City – what a wonderful credit manager; I really must stay there next time!), and they agreed to cancel the reservation, at which point Priceline had no choice but to give me a refund. So the moral of the story is, don’t even try to negotiate with Priceline – but if you go straight to the hotel, you *might* stand a chance. PS: I got a room at a different hotel for the right dates – the Stanhope Park Hyatt, a $300+/night hotel room – for $150. Priceline’s great, but you have to be *very* sure before you click, because correcting a mistake can be a nightmare, and may not even be possible.’ VIEWS FROM THE TREASURY Tom Riengold urges us to read this review of former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin’s new book. So that’s two recent former Treasury Secretaries’ books for your list – Paul O’Neill’s being the other. That one, by Pulitzer-prize winning author Ron Suskind, is based in part on 19,000 documents O’Neill provided him . . . many of which are now available for your perusal. It’s fascinating to see actual copies of the kinds of papers that circulate at the very top of our government. Here, for example, is the agenda of a January 31, 2001 meeting with the President. It was 11 days after the Inauguration, and already Iraq was high on the agenda. Take a look. (Curiously missing from the agenda is any mention of Osama bin Laden, even though it was just 24 days earlier, on January 7th, at Blair House, across the street from the White House, that the President- and Vice President-elect were told by CIA director Tenet that Osama and Al-Qaeda posed a ‘tremendous’ and ‘immediate’ threat to the United States of America. According to Bob Woodward’s generally pro-Bush book, Bush at War, that tremendous, immediate threat was ignored until September 11.) HOW THE TROOPS ARE TREATED WHEN THEY RETURN Tom Keller, immediate past commander of Disabled American Veterans’ Ohio chapter, is quoted this way in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette column: I have my own feelings about why the Bush administration is bringing the casualties back to the States in the middle of the night and wants to keep organizations like the DAV away from them. I believe the administration wants to keep the American people in the dark about the number of troops being wounded, the severity of the injuries they are receiving and the types of illnesses that may be surfacing . . . If you can make time, read the whole thing. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to take note. Tomorrow: How to Bet on Bush (Really)