Riba Rambles:
Musings of a Mental Magpie

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:40 PM

I normally disdain attempts to differentiate between "porn" and "erotica" as subjective value judgments drawing lines based on personal preferences. When viewed critically, they often boil down to "erotica is what I like; what I disapprove of is porn."

But I've finally found a definition I can accept:

Written by Dan Goodman in a comment to Elizabeth Bear:

[M]y distinction between porn and erotica:

If the bad style gets in the way of the story, it's porn.

If the elegance of the style gets in the way of the story, it's erotica.

Anyway, we're going to Topsfield Fair this afternoon. I may have a few more short posts for this evening...

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:50 AM

From her latest column:

BOSTON -- If I had my druthers, this election would have turned on the war in Iraq. I hoped that when the voters finally got it, "it" would have been the disaster that's turned this war zone into a recruiting ground for terrorists.

Instead we have the self-described party of family values caught enabling or at least ignoring a sick puppy of a congressman, Mark Foley, who was sex-talking electronically to teenage pages. Instead we have Speaker Dennis Hastert dismissing such an exchange as merely "over-friendly" and White House press secretary Tony Snow describing the messages as "naughty." We even have right-wing Webmaster Matt Drudge blaming the teenagers themselves as "16- and 17-year-old beasts."

This scandal is what has registered on the political Richter scale. This is what voters are asking their representatives about. Well, I wouldn't have chosen to play on this field, but I will take it.

The late political scientist James David Barber once said that nobody understands the word "deficit," but everyone understands the word "adultery." Maybe nobody knows what to think about solving the problem of Iraq, but they know what to think about the Florida congressman, Maf54, instant-messaging a teenage page: "how's my favorite young stud doing?"

That's more or less the sentiment Ian and I were trying to express earlier this week.

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:48 AM

So here's a YouTube video of three bengal cats on an exercise wheel.

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:35 PM

Regarding the GOP Congressmen's defenses that they just learned of Foley's problems within the last week, an instructive tidbit in The St. Pete Times' mea culpa on why they *didn't* break the story:

Our decision not to publish was a close call. We decided to hold off. Why?

I led deliberations with our top editors, and we concluded that we did not have enough substantiated information to reach beyond innuendo.

We were unsuccessful in getting members of Congress who were involved in the matter or those who administer the House page corps to acknowledge any problem with Foley's ambiguous e-mail or to suggest that they thought it was worth pursuing.

<snip>

The Miami Herald had the same e-mails. In Washington, several other mainstream news organizations apparently have had the ambiguous e-mails (which had been making their way around the Capitol corridors for some months), yet took a pass on publication. That's absolutely not an excuse from our perspective. It simply reflects that our judgment, agree or disagree, was not an unusual one.

So, journalists have been raising questions about Foley to Republicans in Congress since at least November (when the Times got the e-mails).

And the GOP claims this week is the first they've heard of it?

I don't think so!

PS: I thought the response by some Republicans of just abolishing the page program altogether seemed like collective punishment for the victims.

But publically outing the victim's identity as an attempt to discredit him and/or scare others from speaking up? That's low.

How low? Even Michelle Malkin thinks it's over-the-line.

I don't know how that former page and his family are coping, but in response to dismiss the charges as a 'prank', three more former pages have come forward to ABC News.

Posted by Lis Riba at 8:45 PM

First, via Bear, My Truth: the autobiography of a woman who claims to be Kit Marlowe reincarnated.

She also has a blog, which includes book excerpts, media quotes, and even a poem.

Ditto to Bear's comment: This is not to be construed as an invitation to go dogpile on the woman; rather as an opportunity to satisfy your curiousity about the author.

I'm trying to decide whether to list this in my Marlowe in Modern Fiction List; I suspect the author might take offence.

On my drive home, All Things Considered aired a fascinating story on a forthcoming book: An Incomplete History of the Art of the Funerary Violin by Rohan Kriwaczek.

I wish you could hear the story unsullied as I was, but NPR's landing page has a partial summary.

It describes funerary violin as "a previously unknown musical genre that was virtually extinguished by the mid-19th century in the Great Funerary Purges, said to be ordered by the Vatican."

The publisher picked it up for a song at the Frankfurt Book Fair.

Only one problem -- historians and music scholars say none of it is true.

The publisher has no regrets, says it's a great book (although difficult to categorize) and is still releasing it on schedule.

The NPR story concluded with the following disclaimer:

Author Kriwaczek issued a statement Thursday, in which he writes that to call his work a hoax is to misunderstand his intentions. He says he wanted to "expand the notion of musical composition to encompass the creation of an entire artistic genre, with its necessary accompanying history, mythology, philosophy, social function, etc."

I'll confess, I'm still intrigued by the book; possibly more so by the revelation.

More on this from The New York Times.

PS: Great simile from another story on the show, by photographer Al Devine:

"I wasn't a writer. I still type like a pumpkin."

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:30 PM

Last week, I blogged about a survivor of Idi Amin's Uganda.
The blogger asked him "What do you think will happen to America?" and he replied:

"What do you mean WILL happen? What hasn't happened yet? You torture in secret. You invade for what? The government reads your e-mail and listens to your telephone and makes you take off your shoes and pull out your computer. For what? Who do you need to protect yourself against? Is your computer going to attack you? Who should you be afraid of? Your government is more scary to most people than any terrorist. I feel for you really. Because I don't think you have any idea how far down the road you already are."

TalkLeft pointed out a lawsuit filed against a Secret Service officer.

The legal complaint itself has the best summary of events:

6. On June 16, 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney was in Beaver Creek, Colorado, as was Plaintiff, Steven Howards.

7. Mr. Howards was walking in Beaver Creek with his young son who was going to a piano lesson, when he saw Mr. Cheney surrounded by people, shaking hands and posing for photographs in an outdoor mall area.

8. Mr. Howards and his son walked to where Mr. Cheney was standing and Mr. Howards, who was approximately 2-3 feet away from Mr. Cheney addressed the Vice President by saying "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible" or words to that effect.

9. Mr. Howards and his young son then walked away to go to the piano lesson where he joined his wife and his other young son.

10. This encounter with the Vice President occurred in plain view of dozens of citizens and numerous Secret Service agents.

11. Approximately five to ten minutes later Mr. Howards and his other son began to return through the same area.

12. As Mr. Howards and his son approached the area where the initial encounter occurred, they were intercepted by the Defendant who asked Mr. Howards if he had assaulted the Vice President.

13. Mr. Howards, in shocked amazement, denied that he had assaulted the Vice President.

14. At that point, Mr. Howards, in the presence of his young son, was placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County jail where he was searched and detained for several hours.

<snip: Howards was told he was "going to be charged with assaulting the vice-president" but all charges were dismissed>

18. At no time during these encounters did Steven Howards ever violate any law, federal, state or local.

19. Mr. Howards was arrested without probable cause to believe that he had committed any offense whatsoever.

<snip>

30. In criticizing the actions of the Vice President and the Bush administration in pursuing the war in Iraq, Mr. Howards was engaging in the constitutionally protected activity of free speech and petitioning his government for redress.

31. Mr. Howards's speech was related to matters of public concern.

32. The Defendant's acts of intimidating, threatening, searching, and falsely arresting Mr. Howards were motivated by Mr. Howards's exercise of constitutionally protected conduct.

33. Defendant's actions caused Mr. Howards to suffer injuries that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in such constitutionally protected activity.

According to the New York Times,

The suit joins two others — in West Virginia and another in Denver — charging that Secret Service agents or White House staff members violated the law in keeping people with opposing political views away from President Bush or Mr. Cheney.

Posted by Lis Riba at 6:54 PM

Ragnell has found a discussion on a comic-book board about chores people refuse to do "As a MAN":

One repeated answer amazes me. In a community where it is not only perfectly acceptable to dress in tight spandex with a felt mask, but encouraged by picture-taking, we have a bunch of men who are embarassed to go to the store and buy tampons.

Not only that, but its a thread full of men desperate to flaunt their virility and tampons are one of few purchases that prove without a doubt that you live with a real, live woman.

You know, it might be fun to subvert traditional gender roles by trying to transform the buying of feminine hygiene products into a macho thing.

'Yeah, right. If you've really got a gal, how come we never seen you gettin' her rags?'

But I'd rather break down traditional notions of machismo, rather than providing yet another arena for competition.

Still, it's an amusing daydream.

The downside would be stigmatizing men in same-sex relationships, with post-menopausal partners, or with women who otherwise don't have regular periods (hysterectomy, contraceptives, disease).

Also, this market could lead to a wholly different kind of one-upmanship. A lot of (written) porn fetishizes women for being "tight" -- so would sales of ultra-slims skyrocket? Likewise, because macho men must believe they're tougher than their women, no shopping trip would be complete without some Midol for his baby.

Any other ideas how this might play out?

Fine, it's not Gloria Steinem's "If men could menstruate" [*] but amusing, right?

PS: Does it make me a bad person that her handle makes me want to filk Aerosmith's "Rag Doll"?

Ragnell, has a predeliction:
Call it heroine addiction.
So fine, has me readin' comics with a new eye, yeah!

Posted by Lis Riba at 6:50 PM

My father frequently forwards me articles from The Borowitz Report.

If you enjoy The Onion and/or The Daily Show, he writes along those lines.
His latest headline? "Foley Blames Behavior on Postpartum Depression"

Well, last night I caught a radio interview with Andy Borowitz discussing current events and his new book the book he found and is publishing -- The Republican Playbook, detailing the ways Republicans win election.

He claims that despite all the aura of GOP brilliance, Rove isn't a genius, and Republicans really only have five or six tricks that they use repeatedly.

For example, how many times have we seen them try to shame opponents as flip-floppers? That kind of thing was used against McGovern! Of course outside politics, changing one's opinion is more favorably perceived as "learning", but somebody sold voters a bill of goods that stubborn obstinancy == steadfastness.

Borowitz also isn't quite so sanguine about the midterm election predictions of a Democratic pickup, even with the Foley scandal damaging the GOP. Republicans are masters of distraction, and have a lot of tools at their disposal. Several bloggers (e.g.) think Foley's problems increase the likelihood of an attack on Iran.

Dems need to be prepared out-of-the-gate for such tactics, but too many campaigns aren't.

This reminds me of The Ferrett's recent post, describing:

The Most Brilliant Strategy Ever

A child can win any argument with other children with just two words. It's such a powerful debate strategy that even tiny younglings pull back instinctively from using it, since they know that it will destroy their opponents so thoroughly that it's hardly worth fighting any more.

Witness the power in action:

"I went to see an R-rated movie the other night."

"Nuh uh!"

The brilliance of the "Nuh uh" approach is that it immediately strips all facts from the equation. The "Nuh uh" does not attempt to dismiss the issues one by one — no, the "Nuh uh" is a global strike that calls the speaker a liar and calls everything he says into question.

The details are irrelevant. There's nothing to debate, because the speaker hasn't actually told you why you're wrong. You just are.

There are only two ways of countering the "Nuh uh," and neither usually works:

• The emphatic "Yuh huh!" Sometimes this works, but it depends entirely on your status in the community (are you someone who has something to be gained by lying?) and how complicated an issue it is (can you be believed?).
• A detailing of the facts ("No! Dude! Ask my mom, if you want!"), which only works if you have slam-dunk physical evidence right at hand. Otherwise, listing the reasons why you're not a liar makes you sound defensive and whiny.

The brilliance of the Bush administration, of course, is that they have fully harnessed the power of the "Nuh uh."

<snip>

It's impossible to debate with the man, because he steadfastly refuses that there is anything to debate. Things are fine. Our plans are working. We've always thought this way. Where'd you hear that study, it's from people who are clearly biased!

In the Bush world, nothing is wrong. Most arguments involve finding at least some scrap of common ground, a crack in which to thrust a piton so you can haul yourself upwards, but Bush never relinquishes one inch. It doesn't matter how bad things are, he'll tell you that the facts don't actually exist.

Now, keep in mind that this is simply a discussion of Bush's tactics; I'm not dismissing the whole of conservative thought. I've heard some well-thought-out arguments from righties discussing why Iraq isn't as bad as it seems, and why the economic indicators are better than you think, and how terrorism really is being held in check slowly.

But those arguments do not come from Bush.

The Democrats, those poor intellectual bastards, don't know how to deal with the "Nuh uh." They keep throwing up walls of facts, which as I said rarely works because things are complicated and then Republican mouthpieces can muddy the waters by arguing every last detail. And when things are hard to understand, people tend to go with the person who sounds the most confident.

<snip>

But however they do it, Democrats have to develop a "Yuh huh" for 2008. And fast.

PS: Hey Dad!

According to his website, Andy Borowitz will be in St. Pete on Saturday, October 28th:

Andy performs at 1:45 at the St. Petersburg Festival of Reading and will sign copies of THE REPUBLICAN PLAYBOOK. University of Florida at St. Petersburg, 140 7th Avenue South.

You should go!

[Also in attendance, Charles C. Mann, author of 1491 : new revelations of the Americas before Columbus; I've heard nothing but good about this book, from people I trust -- and it's available on CD, for listening on road trips...]

Posted by Lis Riba at 6:32 PM

Warning: Don't follow the link if you are in any way disturbed by descriptions of large bugs. No pictures, but lots of talk about large and possibly traumatising critters...

Now, with that out of the way, this thread on Feministe has some quite entertaining comments, particularly the exchange starting here by Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon:

What do you say, readers? Any interest?

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:54 AM

Why am I seeing this on the New York Times' front page (web) but not in either the Globe or Herald?

Police to Start Inspecting Bags on Boston Subway

BOSTON, Oct. 4 ? The police will begin inspecting passengers' bags on the Boston subway system in the next few days, Gov. Mitt Romney said on Wednesday.

The inspections will be random for the most part, but could be mandatory at some stations, Mr. Romney said in an interview. The program was not in response to a specific threat against the transit system here, he said, but to the general threat of terrorism. ...

Boston was the first American city to randomly inspect bags on its subways. At the Democratic National Convention in 2004, police officers inspected bags on the subway and searched the bags of people standing in lines near the convention site.

ooh yay. Another Boston first.

I really can't stand our posturing self-promoting governor...

A few more details from the Times:

Rather than conduct visual searches, Boston police officers will swab a bag, its seams and its handles with an electronic device that checks for traces of explosives. They will search a bag if they think there is probable cause.

In addition, behavior-recognition teams will be dispatched throughout the subway and bus system as part of the program. Those officers will be authorized to search a person's bag if they believe it is warranted. ...

[S]earches would be short and would be done in public and with advance notice.... Mr. Romney said there would be no pattern to where police officers were stationed or how many of a person's bags would be searched.

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:50 PM

Alas, now LJ had a 500 read timeout parse error, so it will be another three hours before LJ subscribers can see my posts, at which time they'll be inundated with 8-10 new posts. Sorry for cluttering your friend page; it's LJ's fault for not reading my feed as I updated it...

Anyway, Kos is writing that U.S. Rep. John Shimkus, chairman of the three-member House board that oversees the page program, refuses to step down, saying he acted properly given the evidence he had.

"I don't know of a single thing I would have done differently," Shimkus told The State Journal-Register editorial board during an hour-long Wednesday meeting.

For the record, here were his introductions (and one concluding remark) when Foley spoke before the departing page classes:

June 7, 2001:

  I wanted to mention that I graduated from West Point. It is supposed to be a leadership school. One of the best pieces of advice I ever received was you go through 4 years of interacting with a lot of different people. The advice was, take what you saw, what was good and remember that; and the interactions that you did not think was very good, kind of pledge not to respond that way, not to use that type of a model. Use the good role model.
  I think that is sound advice because we all are very diverse individuals who come from diverse backgrounds with diverse personalities. I mention that as an introduction to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) who I am going to ask to come up who I know has a vested interest in taking time out to make sure he talks with you and visits with you and he gets to know you. That is a personal trait that you should emulate. He has been successful, and I know it is from his heart. So I am glad he joined us again.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

June 7, 2001 (after Foley's remarks):

  Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley). I do not know if he did a Freudian slip. He called the Clerk of the House the clerk of the court. Maybe it was probably true for some of his dealings with you all, as I am beginning to understand.

June 6, 2002:

  Now someone who spends a lot of time with you also, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), would like to say a thank you.

June 3, 2004:

  Mr. Speaker, now I would like to ask my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), who, as many of you know, has been very involved in following your progress and lack thereof throughout this year, to address you all.

You know, maybe he really was ignorant.

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:30 PM

Chyron

Quoting Wikipedia,

Chyron can mean:

• The Chyron Corporation, which makes character generator graphics equipment for television broadcasters.
• A synonym for lower thirds, the graphics generated by character generators, whether the equipment is made by Chyron Corporation or not (a genericized trademark).

Never heard the term before, but today I'm hearing it all over...

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:20 PM

Still just a hair too long-winded for LiveJournal (15 posts must be under 150meg)

A quick quote from Crooks and Liars, before I pick Ian up from work:

One key point really caught my attention in Keith [Olbermann]'s timeline tonight. There are now reports that Republican members of Congress knew about this 11 years ago. That would put this in 1995. Now what other "sex scandal" has happened in Washington since then? Oh yeah - Monica Lewinsky. So the Lewinsky incident was so severe to merit a multi-million dollar investigation and the attention of both halls of Congress, yet a Republican congressman having possible illicit contact with pages under the age of 18 doesn't get any attention by the GOP? There you have it - the perfect definition of hypocrisy.

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:50 PM

Been meaning to post about this for a couple days.

On Sunday's Meet The Press, Tim Russert described multiple polls that show most Iraqis -- a strong majority -- want the US out of Iraq.

Here's how Republican Senator Mike DeWine replied:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator DeWine, if they want us out, and they're in favor of attacking us, why are we still there?

SEN. DeWINE: Tim, I was shocked by that as well. But you know, on reflection, this is their country. There's a lot of things going wrong. You blame someone who is there. Still does not change that we're not in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis. We're in Iraq for us. We're—have to do what we have to do, and it goes back to what the three generals—three military leaders said. It would be a total disaster for us to leave. It is in our self-interest, the interest to protect American families, that we are in Iraq. That's why we're there.

Official transcript

Gary has more, but I want to highlight that central quote.

(A) How many reasons for invading Iraq does that make?

(B) If that is the case, what incentives do Iraqis have for cooperating with us?

The only other blogs with this story are linked to Gary's post. So, if you're not reading Amygdala, you should.

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:30 PM

My RSS feed is still too large for LiveJournal's limits.

Salon's Video Dog feature is on hiatus.

In its last entry for several weeks, it links to cute dog and cat videos.

You've probably seen many of them before, but hopefully some will be new.

Posted by Lis Riba at 8:20 PM

This morning's Boston Globe devoted an entire article in clarifying differences between the Nobel prize winning Smoot and the bridge marker. [My post yesterday.]

The article gets straight to the point in its opening paragraph:

George F. Smoot, a co- recipient of this year's Nobel Prize in Physics, was an avid prankster during his student days at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But he was not the 5-foot-7-inch Smoot who was rolled end-over-end to measure the length of the Massachusetts Avenue bridge.

Of course, the Globe has better resources than this isolated blogger, and adds a few more details:

"There was this guy in our hall who was pretty obnoxious," [physicist George Smoot] told the Globe during a 1992 interview. "We knew he was going away, so for two weeks everybody on the hall saved newspapers. We filled his room with newspaper -- filled it completely up. Then we took his refrigerator and laid it on its back and filled it with Jell-O, congealed it, then turned it upright.

"This wasn't science," he said, "this was war."

For the record, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reports that George Smoot is about 6 feet tall.

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:50 PM

Another short entry, responding to this comment on this morning's post, which begins:

> To compare the Mark Foley scandal with the Monica Lewinsky scandal is not right.

I think we actually agree, and I just worded things poorly.

I by no means equate the severity of the current Mark Foley scandal with what happened between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky: the former is pederasty (not pedophilia), the latter/earlier involved adultery with a consenting adult. [And before anybody raises the matter of perjury, read this essay I wrote between the House impeachment vote and the Senate trial.]

The point was simply that there are plenty of more serious reasons we want the GOP to lose majority control of Congress.

But if it takes a sex scandal to get the nation's attention and achieve that goal, then we'll use that.

Likewise, Ian analogizes: "Why did Republicans impeach Clinton over a blowjob? Because that's what they had to work with."

Does that clarify matters?

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:15 PM

And, of course, those last two posts made my syndicated feed too big for LiveJournal to read.

Good news, bad news for Boopsie yesterday.

Good news:

We found Boopsie's missing catnip toy

Bad news:

She pissed on the bed yesterday and soaked her newer toy of the same model. We threw it in the laundry, but now it smells more like tea.

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:07 PM

Mind you, my original reason for searching the Congressional Record (which led to the previous post) was this ABC News story:

Former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) interrupted a vote on the floor of the House in 2003 to engage in Internet sex with a high school student who had served as a congressional page <snip>
This message was dated April 2003, at approximately 7 p.m., according to the message time stamp. <snip>
The House voted that evening on HR 1559, Emergency War Time supplemental appropriations.

First of all, I want to contrast that revelation with this statement by Foley's lawyer:

Mark Foley was never under the influence of alcohol while he was a public servant. Based upon all of the information that I have, Mark was under the influence of alcohol at the time that he sent inappropriate e-mails and IMs, alleged e-mails and IMs that I have been advised of.

(1) So which is it? Was Foley drunk while voting on emergency wartime supplemental appropriations, or did he type those messages sober?

(2) ABC provides excerpts of the IM transcripts (PDF). Two time-stamps seemed particularly relevant:

• Maf54 (6:25:50 PM): we are still voting
• Maf54 (7:19:21 PM): ok..i better go vote..

I don't know for certain whether the local time on the transcripts is Eastern Time Zone -- it's possible Foley was chatting with someone elsewhere in the country.

The House voted on that bill Thursday April 3rd, 2003. And Thomas provides a list of all floor actions for that bill, which ran from 11:42am until nearly 11pm, with debate over amendments really starts heating up around 4:20. Here's just an excerpt, showing what Foley was supposed to be doing at those times:

4/3/2003 4:51pm:

H.AMDT.34 Amendment (A005) offered by Mr. McGovern. (consideration: CR H2764-2769, H2807-2808; text: CR H2764)
Amendment sought to decrease Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities funding and Andean Counter-Drug Initiative funding for Colombia by $61 million and increase funding for the Office for Domestic Preparedness by $34 million.

...

4/3/2003 6:03pm:

H.AMDT.39 Amendment (A010) offered by Mr. Flake. (consideration: CR H2776-2777; text: CR H2776)

4/3/2003 6:07pm:

H.AMDT.39 By unanimous consent, the Flake amendment was withdrawn.

4/3/2003 6:12pm:

H.AMDT.40 Amendment (A011) offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee (TX). (consideration: CR H2777-2778; text: CR H2777)
Amendment provides up to $10 million of Immigration and Customs Enforcement funding for the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System.

Maf54 (6:25:43 PM): i miss you
Xxxxxxxxx (6:25:47 PM): ya me too
Maf54 (6:25:50 PM): we are still voting
Maf54 (6:25:59 PM): you miss me too

4/3/2003 6:26pm:

H.AMDT.40 On agreeing to the Jackson-Lee (TX) amendment (A011) Agreed to by voice vote.

4/3/2003 6:27pm:

H.AMDT.41 Amendments (A012) offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee (TX). (consideration: CR H2778-2780; text: CR H2779)

4/3/2003 6:33pm:

H.AMDT.41 By unanimous consent, the Jackson-Lee (TX) amendment was withdrawn.

4/3/2003 6:36pm:

H.AMDT.42 Amendment (A013) offered by Mr. Crowley. (consideration: CR H2782-2783; text: CR H2782)
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: \ Sec.__. Of the amount provided in chapter 4 of title I, in the item relating to "FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM", not more than $100,000,000 may be made available to Pakistan.

4/3/2003 6:52pm:

H.AMDT.42 By unanimous consent, the Crowley amendment was withdrawn.

4/3/2003 6:52pm:

H.AMDT.43 Amendment (A014) offered by Mr. DeFazio. (consideration: CR H2783-2785; text: CR H2784)
An amendment that would extend unemployment benefits to airline employees.

4/3/2003 6:56pm:

H.AMDT.43 Mr. Young (FL) raised a point of order against the DeFazio amendment (A014). Mr. Young stated that the amendment violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The Chair sustained the point of order.

4/3/2003 7:07pm:

H.AMDT.44 Amendment (A015) offered by Mr. DeFazio. (consideration: CR H2785-2787; text: CR H2785)
An amendment which states that none of the funds in this Act may be used to initiate or launch military actions except as authorized by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Consttution.

4/3/2003 7:15pm:

H.AMDT.44 On agreeing to the DeFazio amendment (A015) Failed by voice vote.

4/3/2003 7:15pm:

H.AMDT.45 Amendment (A016) offered by Mr. DeFazio. (consideration: CR H2787-2788, H2808; text: CR H2787)
Amendment sought to reduce funding for the Economic Support Fund and the allocation within that amount for grants for Turkey by $207 million and apply that funding to establish National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams.

Maf54 (7:19:21 PM): ok..i better go vote..did you know you would have this effect on me
Xxxxxxxxx (7:19:28 PM): lol i guessed
Xxxxxxxxx (7:19:38 PM): ya go vote...i dont want to keep you from doing your job
Maf54 (7:19:44 PM): can I have a good kiss goodnight
Xxxxxxxxx (7:19:50 PM): :-*
Xxxxxxxxx (7:19:55 PM): <kiss>

4/3/2003 7:24pm:

H.AMDT.46 Amendment (A017) offered by Mr. Rothman. (consideration: CR H2788; text: CR H2788)
An amendment that the Transportation Security Administration shall place into effect flight restrictions, that prohibit general aviation aircraft within a 15 mile radius of the City of New York, New York.

4/3/2003 7:33pm:

H.AMDT.46 By unanimous consent, the Rothman amendment was withdrawn.

4/3/2003 7:34pm:

H.AMDT.47 Amendment (A018) offered by Mr. Hoekstra. (consideration: CR H2788-2792; text: CR H2788)
Amendment sought to delete $64 million provided to the Corporation for National and Community Service.

4/3/2003 8:00pm:

H.AMDT.47 On agreeing to the Hoekstra amendment (A018) Failed by voice vote.

...

4/3/2003 8:28pm:

H.AMDT.52 Amendment (A023) offered by Mr. Rodriguez. (consideration: CR H2796-2798; text: CR H2796)
Amendment sought to transfer $90 million to to the Department of Veterans Affairs for veterans health care and for the establishment of medical emergency preparedness centers.

4/3/2003 8:41pm:

H.AMDT.52 On agreeing to the Rodriguez amendment (A023) Failed by voice vote.

...

4/3/2003 9:01pm:

H.AMDT.55 Amendment (A026) offered by Mr. Kennedy (MN). (consideration: CR H2799-2806; text: CR H2799)
An amendment to provide that none of the funds made available in the bill for reconstruction efforts in Iraq may be used to procure goods or services from any entity that includes information on a response to a Request for Proposal (RFP) that indicates that such entity is organized under the laws of France, Germany, the Russian Federation, or Syria.

4/3/2003 10:06pm:

H.AMDT.55 On agreeing to the Kennedy (MN) amendment (A026) Agreed to by voice vote.

...

4/3/2003 10:32pm:

H.AMDT.34 On agreeing to the McGovern amendment (A005) Failed by recorded vote: 209 - 216 (Roll no. 106).

4/3/2003 10:39pm:

H.AMDT.45 On agreeing to the DeFazio amendment (A016) Failed by recorded vote: 113 - 312 (Roll no. 107).

4/3/2003 10:40pm:

The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1559.

4/3/2003 10:40pm:

The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.

4/3/2003 10:41pm:

The House adopted the amendments en gross as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

4/3/2003 10:57pm:

On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 414 - 12 (Roll no. 108).

4/3/2003 10:57pm:

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

Now, it is possible Foley was IMing with a teen in a different time zone, which would make the inserted excerpts one or two hours off, though I'll point out that Foley did participate in all three recorded votes.

Still, hopefully this will help put things into context.