I had planned on writing a snarky entry about the rather long-lasting and unpleasant consequences of having eaten a large portion of turnips last night. I was going to opine that perhaps I was unreasonably contributing to global warming.

Then I came across this.

Coincidence? Perhaps. Then again, to quote my friend Paulie, maybe I have “ESPN”.

Today is Cousin Jack’s birthday

Jack, who got me started with this curious hobby, left Jersey many years ago to head west to attend Stanford Law School. After having spent some time at a fancy-schmancy law firm in Portland, he switched gears to become a well-known and highly respected Tax Law Professor. He also became the family liberal, but we don’t hold that against him. 🙂

Small World Department: A couple weeks ago, Jack posted a picture of his 1966 grammar school graduating class from St.Aloysius school in Newark (Down Neck). One of the Usual Suspects (The Original Bill) took a look at the picture on Jack’s Blog and immediately recognized one of his relatives. Turns out that the relative he recognized married the brother of a guy I have know for years.

As Dax would say, “Just Damn!”

You might want to drop by Jack’s place to wish him a Happy Boitday.

Update: I fixed the link to Jack’s post containing the photo of his grammar school graduating class. Sorry for error.

Can you imagine the following?

Joe Lobbyist: “Good morning, Senator. Thanks for seeing me.”

RepubDem Senator: “Good morning. What can I do for you?”

Joe Lobbyist: “As you know Senator I am with the Association of XYZ, and our members have a particular interest in the passage of Senate Bill No. 3233, which provides for increased subsidies to our members.”

RepubDem Senator: “I’m familiar with the Bill. I’ve scheduled you for twenty minutes, so why don’t you tell me why you think I should vote for this Bill.”

Joe Lobbyist: “It might take longer than that, Senator, and that’s why I would like to invite you to spend a weekend in Aruba with me and some of our members. Of course, airfare, hotel, meals and a round of golf or two are all included. It will give you an opportunity to learn more about the Association of XYZ and how passage of this bill would be good for our members and good for America. Oh, and you can bring your wife too.”

RepubDem Senator: “No thanks. I don’t accept trips. Why don’t you just tell me what’s on your mind.”

Joe Lobbyist: “OK. I understand that your schedule might be a little tight. How about you join us in our box on Sunday for the Redskins game? Afterward, we can do dinner, and we can talk.”

RepubDem Senator: “No thanks. Please get to your point.”

Joe Lobbyist: “Lunch? At my club? We can talk then.”

RepubDem Senator: “No thanks. I don’t accept gifts of any kind from lobbyists. I believe you have about ten minutes left.”

Joe Lobbyist: “Senator, it is a complicated issue, and I think the Aruba thing would give us plenty of time to fairly present all the issues to you in a more relaxed stetting.”

RepubDem Senator: “I believe I’ve heard enough. Good day, sir.”

Is it really too much to expect lawmakers to simply say “No” when people with an interest in legislation offer them things of value?

Isn’t it a damned shame that we can only imagine ethical behavior from our legislators, when we have every right to expect it?

It’s about time that we demand it from all of them. [/soapbox]

I attended a small meeting tonight at the Post as a member of a committee that is putting together a dinner-dance to be held in a couple months. We discussed the usual stuff: menu, bar, music, and tickets. When the discussion had just about wound down, one of the guys said, “Wait, I just thought of something else.”

Everyone stopped talking and looked in his direction, and he said, “I think it’s important that we make sure that the D.J. makes an announcement about the location of the exits and the rest rooms.”

After a moment of silence, a couple guys said, “Why do we need to do that?”

More silence.

Then I said, “Obviously, so people don’t shit on the floor and try to leave the building through the men’s room.”

The poor guy will get his stindeens busted over that one for at least a year.

I see that TJ has gotten back to the keyboard. I am may be biased, but I think that’s a good thing.

Another giant step has been taken towards the Californication of New Jersey. In a matter of days, Acting, and soon to be Former Governor Codey will sign this piece of Nanny-State Legislative Crap into law. Yes, it’s New Jersey’s very own Anti-Smoking Law.

The new law bans smoking in virtually all indoor places with public access or in which people are working. It includes restaurants, bars, and even private clubs that serve liquor (including fraternal organizations and veterans’ Posts**). It comes on the heels of a similar law that passed in New York City in 2003.

I said my piece about the New York City Legislation here, and there is no point in repeating it, except to point out that, as was the case for the New York law, the ultimate hook on which the Jersey law hangs is a stated “concern for the workers” who are exposed to secondhand smoke.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that secondhand smoke poses a significant health hazard (and, once the hysteria is stripped away, this is far from clear), and further assuming that exposure to secondhand smoke is any more dangerous than working in a bus garage, the stated health concern was bogus in New York and even more so in New Jersey.

Both the New York and New Jersey laws have an exemption for Cigar Bars. Where’s the concern for the health of the people who work in Cigar Bars? Don’t bother looking; it’s not there. However, New Jersey goes one better in proving the “concern for workers” rationale to be pure baloney, in that the New Jersey law contains an exemption for casinos. I can tell you that there are legions of people who work in Jersey’s casinos. What about their health? Ooopsy!

Here’s the deal. As for the cigar bars, as I noted in the post linked above, the beautiful people who want to dictate how everyone else should live enjoy a cigar with their cocktails. And, as for the casino exemption, I needn’t remind anyone that, in this state, one does not fool around with casinos and casino revenue. Know what I mean? In addition, I suspect that the aforementioned beautiful people also like to smoke while they gamble.

Look, I can fully understand and appreciate why many non-smokers prefer to eat and drink in a smoke-free setting.. In fact, the majority of good restaurants in New Jersey are already smoke free (I heard the figure 67% in a radio newscast), but they are smoke-free because the owner determined that being smoke-free is good business. Why should a business owner who decides that, for him, permitting smoking on the premises is good business be prohibited from making that choice? The economics would sort all this out, without the “help” of government dictating matters of personal choice.

Instead of the sledgehammer approach taken by New Jersey, I would propose a simple law that would require every restaurant and bar to conspicuously post one of following three signs at the front door:

This is a smoke-free establishment; or
This establishment offers a smoking section; or
Smoking is permitted in this establishment.

Simple. Everyone would be free to choose where to eat and/or drink, based on his or her smoking or non-smoking preference or (as is the case with many people) his or her indifference to it all. And, the owners’ choice of which sign to post would be dictated by the dollars or lack thereof that would be a consequence of those collective choices.

**There may be some wiggle room in the statute for private clubs when used by members and staffed entirely by volunteer members, but that remains to be seen.

Last night, one of our PRS Operatives caught up with Senator Ted Kennedy just as he was about to enter O’Hara’s Tavern. The following is a transcript of the interview:

PRS: “Senator Kennedy, I’m from PRS. Might you have a minute or two to answer a few questions?”

Kennedy: “PRS? Isn’t that some kind of female thing?”

PRS: “No Senator, that would be PMS. I’d like to ask you ….”

Kennedy: “Well hurry up about it. You’re cutting into my drinking time.”

PRS: “I will, sir. But, if you don’t mind my saying so, it appears that you may already have had a few.”

Kennedy: “BLOOD LEVELS, sonny boy!”

PRS: “Excuse me?”

Kennedy: “Blood levels. One has to keep the blood levels up. Obviously you don’t know shit about farkamology.”

PRS: “No, I suppose I don’t. But, I did want to ask you some questions about your questioning of Sam Alito.”

Kennedy: “Who?”

PRS: “Sam Alito. Judge Sam Alito.”

Kennedy: “Oh, the guy with the glasses – the Ginzo?”

PRS: “I certainly would not describe Judge Alito in that fashion.”

Kennedy: “Fine! What is it you want to ask me? I can feel my hands starting to shake here. My liver is barking.”

PRS: “Frankly, Senator, some of our readers were quite upset by your attempting to paint Judge Alito as a racist. I would like to know whether, in your heart, you really think that Judge Alito is a racist?”

Kennedy: “Personally, I don’t give a shit whether he is or isn’t. The only thing I know about the guy is that Bush nominated him and that’s enough reason for me to be against him.”

PRS: “In that case, Senator, don’t you think that making a charge as serious as racism is way over the top?”

Kennedy: “Listen Mr. PMS … PRS …whatever … I’m Ted goddamned Kennedy, and I can say whatever I want and do what I want in this town. Don’t screw around with me.”

PRS: “So, are you saying that you had no basis to make the charge, but you made it anyway, simply because you know you can get away with it?”

Kennedy: “You know what? I think that you’re the goddamned racist.”

PRS: “Pardon me?”

Kennedy: “You heard me. (shouting in the direction of two tall black men) “Hey Darrell, or Darnell, whatever it is, and your friend there, Whatshisname … Come here.”

Darnell: “What’s up?”

Kennedy: “This guy here is a goddamned racist. He just called you two guys ‘big dumb n**gers.’”

PRS: “He’s out of his mind. I never said that.”

Darnell: “Don’t worry. We work in the Senate Office Building, and we know him. He says stuff like this a lot, mostly when he is half ripped, which is most of the time..”

Darnell: (to Kennedy) “Hey Senator, maybe you should lighten up.”

Kennedy: “’Lighten up?’ Who the hell are you to talk to me like that? You obviously hate white people. You’re a goddamned, filthy racist!”

Darnell: “Senator, if I were you, I’d take a pass on O’Hara’s tonight and go directly home before someone not as nice as I am, or that fella is, shows up and hangs a beatin’ on your ass.”

PRS: “Thank you for your time, Senator.”

You’ve Got Questions? I’ve got Answers.
Because I’m Very Smart, and You’re … Very Not.

Dear Mrs. Clinton:

I know that you are probably too busy doing really important things to spend much time watching television. But, I cannot help but wonder if you ever get any time to watch TV, and, if so, what is your favorite show?

Anna Schmendrick

Dear Anna:

P.S. Fooled ya!! I’ll bet you thought I was going to say that Geena Davis thing. She’s not really, really smart like me, and I’m much better looking.

Dear Senator Clinton:

I am a senior in college, and I am working on a term paper that deals with the Clinton Years in the Whitehouse. I have read things that imply that your behavior before and after the death of Vincent Foster (and the behavior of your staff after his death) suggest that you know more about the circumstances surrounding Mr. Foster’s death than you have disclosed to date. It would be very helpful to me and my academic future if you would clear this up.

Rachel C. Davidson

Hey Rachel,

Who is this Vincent Foster of whom you speak? Being a really, really important person, I meet lots of people, and I cannot be expected to remember everyone’s name, now can I? Wish I could be of more help. Have you tried Google?

Dear Mrs. Clinton:

I have read that, when you lived in the White House, you didn’t get along well with your staff and that you don’t get along well with your present staff either. Senator, I just want to let you know that I don’t believe that for a second, because I’ve seen you on TV many times, and you seem to me to be a very nice person.

Stephanie Gluckstein

Dear Steph:

Thank you for this excellent question. People have been saying these awful things about me … like…for-EVER! It is true that I have had to let a few staff members go over the years, but that’s because they failed to follow a few simple rules. You have rules where you work, don’t you Steph? Most of those who were let go violated Rule Number One, which simply states that, because I so really, really important, everyone on my staff must avert their eyes in my presence. Now, I ask you, how hard is that? And yet, some of these bastards (pardon my French LOL) actually insisted on looking at me when they spoke to me. Can you imagine that? The fact is that I get along very well with my staff members who follow the rules. But, there are always a few smart asses who think the rules don’t apply to them. I can tell you this, girlfirend: If someone violate Rule Number One, they’ll be out on the street faster than you can say, “I feel your pain,” and a few days later, the IRS will be on them like white on rice. You don’t mess with a really, really important person. ROTFLMAO!!!

Today, all the Christmas decorations, including the tree and the outside lights were taken down and packed away. I kinda hate that.

Anyway, I’m beat, and I am need of seeing the Usual Suspects at the Post for a few laughs, so that’s where I’m headed.

Later, maybe.

UPDATE: I thought I had posted this earlier in the day (check the timestamp). I have since returned from the Post (the entire crew was there) and put the finishing touches on my letter that will go out to the plagiarist’s blogging host tomorrow morning. I think I’ll stick to reading other people’s stuff tonight.

After doing the Google search that resulted in this post (the one about the increasingly widespread use of the term “farookin’), I was looking over the search results in more detail for shits and giggles. Not surprisingly, I found many of my own entries. However, I came across one of my entries, but the problem was it was not posted on my blog.

WTF?

I clicked on over to the site in question, and, sure enough, my December 9, 2005 post about Caviar appeared on the site in question in a December 18, 2005 post. As you can see from the screenshot, it was lifted word for word. I frankly was surprised at how angry it made me. I don’t claim to be Hemmingway, but if I write it, it’s mine.

I immediately fired off a comment in which I pointed out the blogger’s plagiarism and demanded that the post be removed.*** I also left a similar note on one of those message type boards that the site had in the left sidebar.

I looked at numerous other entries, and some of them seemed familiar to me. It turns out that the blogger in question has also lifted a considerable amount of content from my Helen Blogmeet buddy, Evil White Guy. I shot him an e-mail to alert him to the problem.

He responded today indicating that he had checked the site, verified that a good deal of his content had been lifted and that the blogger in question was also hotlinking his images. He noted that he anticipated taking action with the blogger’s hosting service.

As of this writing, the offending posts are still up (The blogger also lifted my “Happy New Year” post, which esstially consisted of one sentence), but the “Message Board” has been removed, comments have been disabled, and there appears to be no way to send the blogger an e-mail.

For the present, I would like to assume that the blogger in question (from Singapore) is simply not aware of the etiquette and the law that deal with plagiarism – not to mention the tackiness of it all. However, my comment, my note in the now-removed “Message Board” (both of which specifically identified the plagiarism), the disabling of her comments, and her failure to remove the offending material suggest otherwise.

Developing.

*** I was so angry when I wrote the comment that I misspelled the word “plagiarism,” which proves the rule that one should never write things one cannot change when one is very angry.