"The drama of the legislative process is never in the broad strokes," journalist Matt Taibbi writes, "but in the bloody skirmishes and power plays that happen behind the scenes." That is where the Republican leadership, bolstered by an army of lobbyists, sinks its teeth into the arm of democracy.

Taibbi exposes the spectacular corruption of the current Republican Congress in a shocking, maddening and revelatory report in this month's Rolling Stone magazine. Luckily, Taibbi has an expert tour guide: maverick Independent congressman and soon-to-be-Senator Bernie Sanders. Taibbi charts how over one month Sanders introduces four amendments, all of which pass floor votes by comfortable margins. None of them become law. "How Tom DeLay and his cronies subvert the popular will," could have been story's subhead.

Sanders' first two amendments target a controversial provision in the Patriot Act that allows the FBI to search libraries and bookstores without a warrant. The first amendment permanently outlaws such searches; the second denies the Justice Department the funds to conduct them. Sanders wins a vote on the latter by a margin of 238-187.

Unfortunately, the measure must clear the powerful House Rules Committee, the official gatekeeper of the legislative process. "If Rules votes against your amendment, your amendment dies," Taibbi writes. "If you control the Rules Committee, you control Congress." Nine Republicans and four Democrats sit on the Committee, which is chaired by DeLay ally David Dreier. The House leadership convinces Arizona's Jeff Flake, previously one of the Patriot Act's harshest Republican critics, to sponsor an amendment requiring the FBI director to sign off on library searches, effectively subverting Sanders. Flake's amendment, along with the rest of the draconian Patriot Act, easily passes Congress. Only twenty of the sixty-three amendments passed survive the Rules Committee. Members aren't even given enough time to read the new legislation before they vote.

The third amendment seeks to block the government's Export-Import Bank from giving the British energy company Westinghouse $5 billion to build four nuclear power plants in China as part of the Foreign Operations budget. Lobbyists from Westinghouse and Ex-Im hastily lobby Congress, even though "technically speaking, government agencies aren?t allowed to lobby," a Sanders staffer says. The amendment passes 313-114. As a testament to Sanders' legislative know-how and coalition building, Oklahoma right-winger Tom Coburn agrees to sponsor a similar bill in the Senate. But Bush threatens to veto the entire Foreign Op bill, and the Senate resoundingly defeats Coburn's amendment 62-37.

The fourth Sanders amendment would cancel a $1.9 billion contract the Federal Aviations Administration awarded defense contractor Lockheed Martin to privatize regional Flight Service Stations. The House easily approves the amendment, by a 238-177 vote. Yet Sanders cannot find a Senate sponsor. Lockheed Martin spent $2.1 million on political contributions last year, more than any other defense contractor. Two-thirds went to Republicans. Their return on investment certainly beats Sanders'. Bush has once again threatened a veto if the Sanders amendment is attached to the Transportation budget.

"Nobody knows how this place is run," Sanders tells Taibbi. "If they did, they'd go nuts."

Comments (62)

1. Well, I'm sorry...but isn't THIS line rather "telling"?--

   "Yet Sanders cannot find a Senate sponsor." There are 44 Senate Democrats from Barak Obama to Dick Durbin to Hillary Clinton to John Kerry. And NONE of them want to sign onto Rep. Sanders' proposal.

   Why?

   Posted by Mask at 08/15/2005 @ 10:36am

2. The truth (and I am speaking as a non-partisan) is that most Republicans and Democrats in Congress are bought off. Corporations give to nearly everyone,AIPAC gives to both parties, and the only congress members I trust are the Progressive Caucus in the House. Our government is of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. The word for that is plutocracy.

   Posted by philbq at 08/15/2005 @ 11:12am

3. This is a good question MASK. Even if no Democratic Senator thought the bill would pass, to show something akin to party unity (maybe?!) there should have been a sponsor. I think this is a perfect example of the problem, the Democrats are just too disgustingly disorganized, unfocused and (dare I say it) mismanaged. Even at the local level the Repugnicans are lock step organized, in focus, on message, every time. This is the reason I quit donating to the DNC, just throwing good money after bad.

   Posted by tcohan0117 at 08/15/2005 @ 11:19am

4. MASK: are you really that ignorant?? Bernie Sanders is in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, not the SENATE!

   Posted by philbq at 08/15/2005 @ 11:20am

5. Enough of both parties are bought so that the system almost always works in favor of the highest bidders.

   Posted by wgilwood at 08/15/2005 @ 11:55am

6. PHILBQ

   Bernie's bill started in the House and would then move to the Senate. Without a sponsor in the Senate (where Bernie doesn't Legislate), it's practically dead in the water. MASK is hardly ignorant and that's a great question.

   Posted by BSF at 08/15/2005 @ 12:00pm

7. A couple of you mention the problem of money influencing politics too much. You're right on, and campaign finance reform is the obvious solution. The problem with campaign finance reform, however, is that it runs up against the right of freedom of expression.

   Posted by wereverywhere at 08/15/2005 @ 12:10pm

8. PHILBQ: It states in the article that Sanders couldn't get senate sponsorship.

   Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/15/2005 @ 12:14pm

9. Certainly overuling amendments that pass with large majorities in the general House assembly, from within the "Rules Committee", would seem to constitute "obstructionism". It would seem to constitute the use of parliamentary tactics to overrule a democratic majority.

   Of course, this is a banal complaint; all Congresses have done this sort of thing, across party faction lines. It's just that the Republican faction has made such noise lately about "obstructionism" in Congress whenever the minority party has attempted to check some of the more excessive overreaching from the Republicans.

   You'd think the Republicans wouldn't be THIS obviously hypocritical.

   Posted by Zero at 08/15/2005 @ 12:27pm

10. Yes, Philbq, the country is controlled by a rapacious, hegemonic plutocracy. Both parties are part of that.

    It probably isn't fixable, either. Something is just going to have break before any positive changes come to pass.

    Posted by Zero at 08/15/2005 @ 12:28pm

11. ZERO

    Like Bernie Sanders maybe?

    Posted by BSF at 08/15/2005 @ 12:32pm

12. Hey Zero, Packed your bags yet for Syria???

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 12:34pm

13. Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders = Independent Ideas = No inherent support from the Democratic party

    Posted by ALTADOFF at 08/15/2005 @ 12:37pm

14. Bernie Sanders = Hero

    Posted by BSF at 08/15/2005 @ 12:45pm

15. Bernie Sanders is one of the biggest nutbags in congress period

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 12:47pm

16. ALUDRA

    What (besides and inferiority complex) makes you say that?

    Posted by BSF at 08/15/2005 @ 12:48pm

17. Heh! Don't expect specifics to that question. That'd be like Bush not serially flip-flopping!

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 1:06pm

18. Folks, This is the fault of the electorate. We need to elect better people.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 1:16pm

19. Altadoff's equation is right on. One of the great things about Sanders is that he is free to form coalitions as each issue comes to the fore. However, he has no definite allies since he is an Indy. Democrats have a much easier time ignoring him than they would have ignoring even someone as left as Kucinich. Dems don't often work with as much discipline as the 'Pubs, but when there is an opportunity to make a bad decision, they are usually just as reliable.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/15/2005 @ 1:26pm

20. TO MASK: I am sorry- I didn't read the part where Bernie got no Senate sponsorship. But the issue was privatization of cetain FAA functions with the contract going to Lockeed. I don't know anything about the issue, but Lockeed is a great example of corporate socialism: they live off the federal government. They have no non-govt. business. (Actually, the entire military-industrial complex is corporate socialism.)

    Posted by philbq at 08/15/2005 @ 2:16pm

21. " I don't know anything about the issue"

    Is that surprising...most of you silly LIBS dont know your ass from a hole in the ground

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 2:44pm

22. Can someone get rid of this creep please?

    Posted by Zero at 08/15/2005 @ 3:12pm

23. GO TO HELL ZERO...YOU DETESTABLE FREAKAZIOD

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 3:13pm

24. A LOVELY TWIST OF IRONY

    AUGUST 15--The next well-wisher approaching Cindy Sheehan at her tent encampment outside President George W. Bush's Texas vacation home may actually be a process server. That's because the California woman's husband--in a curious bit of timing--filed for divorce Friday afternoon (below you'll find a copy of Patrick Sheehan's complaint, lodged August 12 in Solano County District Court). With Sheehan, 48, entering a second week outside Bush's Crawford retreat, her husband's divorce petition cites "irreconcilable differences" for the demise of the couple's 28-year marriage (the Sheehans, the document states, have been separated since June 1). Along with a Vacaville home, Patrick Sheehan listed other "community assets" as "any and all benefits payable as a result of son's death," including a Prudential insurance policy and "benefits from the U.S. Government." From her roadside outpost, Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son Casey, an Army Specialist, was killed last year in Iraq, has become the face of the U.S. antiwar movement, telling reporters that she will not budge until Bush meets with her and explains "why our sons are dead." Noting that Bush has referred to the war as a "noble" pursuit, Sheehan told Reuters, "If it's such a noble cause, why aren't his daughters over there?" Patrick Sheehan's lawyer, Glen DeRonde, did not return a TSG call, so it is unclear whether the divorce complaint will be delivered to her in Texas or when she returns to her home east of San Francisco.

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 3:20pm

25. Can someone please delete/remove ALUDRA's 3:20pm post as it is completely off topic?

    Posted by thejman at 08/15/2005 @ 4:06pm

26. CAN WE SAY "CENSORSHIP???"SOUNDS LIKE A COMMIE TACTIC TO ME

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 4:08pm

27. ALUDRA,

    If you can tell me the relevance of your 3:20pm post I will gladly take my last comment back.

    Posted by thejman at 08/15/2005 @ 4:16pm

28. To the topic currently under discussion, I mean.

    Posted by thejman at 08/15/2005 @ 4:16pm

29. The answer is plain and simple..... TERM LIMITS.

    Posted by bbrizzy at 08/15/2005 @ 4:19pm

30. to ILOVEPHYSICS: yea, we gotta elect better people, but the problem of the influence of big money in politics will still remain, and likely corrupt any good people we (both Dems, Reps, Indy, and whatever else) elect. And elections are won by well-organized, well-funded campaigns more often than not, regardless of how good thier message is.

    Sanders is obviously good at something (I'm only vaguely familiar with his politics)..he's collecting up votes from both sides of the aisle. I don't understand why a committe has the right to block popular initiatives.

    Posted by wereverywhere at 08/15/2005 @ 4:20pm

31. I don't know if TERM LIMITS is the answer. I'd argue that the real problem is private money from organizations with vast resources (unions, corporations, etc.) have more influence and access to our lawmakers than just us plain folks. I have no problem with organizations peddling thier votes because in the end an individual can still vote any way he pleases and does not answer to anyone for it. I don't think anyone in this string would argue that we have a serious problem with corruption in our government. And the polits aren't going to fix it as long as they're getting the perks.

    What about a petition to the feds? We can start it right here, right now. Anyone care to take a crack at posting the language?

    Posted by wereverywhere at 08/15/2005 @ 4:26pm

32. The whole Sanders story is proof enough that change will probably need to start at the local & State level before coming to Washington.

    Posted by thejman at 08/15/2005 @ 4:44pm

33. SINCE REPUBLICANS RULE MOST OF THE STATEHOUSES IN THIS COUNTRY I WOULDNT HOLD MY BREATH FOR YOUR KINDA CHANGE

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 4:49pm

34. Yes. It indicates that the system needs an overhaul. I mean...a f__king COMMITTEE holding up something that both sides of the aisle agree on?! I suppose the republicans and dems knew they were free to vote as they pleased since it would be shut down in committee...but still...

    Posted by wereverywhere at 08/15/2005 @ 4:52pm

35. Still...repairing the way the fed govt is run, as far as all there committees and lobbyists would do much to get things that actually matter to the electorate on the table, rather than...well, any other bull__it.

    Posted by wereverywhere at 08/15/2005 @ 4:59pm

36. I'd rather not remove posts unless it's absolutely necessary. If you don't like someone's comment, please just ignore it. Thanks.

    Posted by Ari Berman at 08/15/2005 @ 4:59pm

37. I will take your advice Ari. I was just hoping that maybe people would begin to respect the wishes of The Nation & "refrain from straying off topic..." & keep it relevant. I probably wouldn't remove posts either, were I in your postion.

    Posted by thejman at 08/15/2005 @ 5:02pm

38. Philbq wrote:. I don't know anything about the issue, but Lockeed is a great example of corporate socialism: they live off the federal government. They have no non-govt. business. (Actually, the entire military-industrial complex is corporate socialism.)

    Phil, I've asked the question before (but I'm not sure it was directed to you), regarding the complaint about corporate socialism on military contracts; would you rather that the government also own the design, development, and manufacture of all government procured items? That would not only be on the level of a pure communist state, but would put so much power in the hands of the government there would be no opportunity (and you worry incessantly about government power under Bush?) for the citizens to rise up against tryanny.

    I've said before that we should eliminate all subsidies including corporate ones, but that is a far cry from turning over all of industry to the government.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/15/2005 @ 5:27pm

39. To quote (or paraphrase, I'm not sure) George Carlin: Ignorant, greedy voters get ignorant, greedy politicians.

    Posted by waynels6 at 08/15/2005 @ 5:38pm

40. PHIL,

    Apology accepted. My early morning post on Mr Sanders wasn't a personal attack, except in that it shows his "relevance" in the Congress. With many strong liberals in the Senate, Sanders couldn't get ONE Senate co-sponser?

    This doesn't bode well for him, as the presumptive Democratic nominee for the Vermont open Senate seat next year. (Along with Howard Dean's flubbed review of Sanders on "Meet the Press" (("He's a progressive...ok, a socialist...no, he's a liberal Dem"))).

    Frankly Sanders is atleast HONEST in his convictions. However, without a true "mass movement for reform", which is probably atleast 2-4 years away...his kind of reforms are not likely, even if he becomes the new Senator from Vermont.

    Posted by Mask at 08/15/2005 @ 6:22pm

41. Ari,

    Thanks for the great report and the link to the Rolling Stone article. You're blog is a great example of using the Internet as a massive education tool. It would be so great if some of the daily's and tv/cable sources would follow your (and The Nation's) leadership and begin to develop a more critical relationship with government and purveyor's of power, rather than continue along the current largely propagandist positions.

    Posted by rob.olywa at 08/15/2005 @ 8:45pm

42. plug for my blog [rightleftwrongright.blogspot.com]

    Posted by rob.olywa at 08/15/2005 @ 8:52pm

43. Posted by WEREVERYWHERE 08/15/2005 @ 4:26pm: "I have no problem with organizations peddling thier votes because in the end an individual can still vote any way he pleases and does not answer to anyone for it."

    Well, I do have a problem with it because the congressperson who receives money from an organization knows that if the payer doesn't get the legislation he/she/it wants, then the congressperson's opposition will be getting the cash in the next election!

    Solution: It is time for some 19th-century judicial activism to be reversed. Corporations should not have "free-speech" protection for their campaign donations.

    However, I won't be holding my breath for that one....

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 9:05pm

44. Sanders, as I understand it, is a very effective local politician.

    He is probably a pretty good guy.

    But the way things are done in washington, you gotta understand.

    It is hard to add amendments, and rightly so. Because amendments make it harder to pass legislation.

    The people who vote for his amendmants get a "free pass".

    He did win one, though.

    The Flake amendment was probably entirely as a result of his efforts.

    It wasn't everything he wanted, but it was better than nothing.

    They know perfectly well, that the amendment has no legs. So they vote for or against it, depending on what will play well in their district.

    Because it won't make it through comittee.

    They know that.

    Not 100 %. But maybe 70 %

    I'm not saying everything they do is for show. But quite a bit of it is pure theater, on both sides of the Aisle.

    Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 9:45pm

45. "Politics is the skilled use of blunt instruments." W. Churchill

    Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 9:45pm

46. Rough Quote:

    Legislation is like sausage. You don't want to know how it was made.

    Otto Von Bismark (I think)

    Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 9:46pm

47. That Sanders has such a tough time shouldn't be such a big surprise. He isn't from a state likely to swing and he IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH A PARTY. Is it a surprise that he cannot get backing from the democrats? Were he to tone down some of his socialist rhetoric and play 'the game' I'm sure he'd have no trouble finding at least one senate sponsor in the future.

    And of course Congress is influenced by money/lobbying. That's been the case throughout its entire existence. Now it's just not outright bribes.

    As for Ex-Im 'lobbying' they most certainly are able to brief congress on the merits of the proposed legislation and project. Every federal agency which is subject to legislative changes can convey their side of the story...relying on a sanders staffer to 'prove' something is rather mute, perhaps you could choose someone with less of a conflict.

    As for the FAA regional stations, they are very small and inefficient offices. These are not stations for large passenger flight control operations. Allowing them to be privately managed, as long as the FAA supervises it, could yield some cost savings. The FAA doesn't exactly have a stellar track record either and I would include the employees in with that. Notice their commercials trying to reassure people that they can in fact deal with all the traffic on antiquated screens. Amusing.

    Sanders is interesting and has some good ideas, but he can't rely on the support that affiliation could bring him. Instead he basks in the notoriety of being an independent congressman. Oh, and how has he done for his state? He's effective, but he probably could have gotten more pork if he were affiliated.

    Posted by semivoid at 08/15/2005 @ 10:10pm

48. If the republicans had just invented this sort of activity, that would indeed be news and a unique scandal. The problem is, this is just business as usual on Capitol Hill. Both parties have been equally culpable over time. That fact is the real scandal, not this instance of business as usual.

    Posted by JosephD at 08/15/2005 @ 11:36pm

49. It sounds to me like Aldura is "making personal attacks" repeatedly. This is not helpful in the generation of new ideas or distinctively creative observations. It is a type of unnecessary violence that we do not need to subject to our eyes and minds. I vote for pulling such violations simply by following the editorial rules set forth here. Nothing wrong with a little editing. It is not censorship.

    Posted by Delmark.G at 08/16/2005 @ 01:12am

50. Every appropriations bill in Congress becomes a Christmas tree, even now under a "conservative" government. There are few who don't wallow in the pork. Ten years ago, the Republicans were calling for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Now that Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have created astronomical record budget deficits, the Republicans have gone silent on a balanced budget amendment. I'm not surprised...If there were a balanced budget requirement, they would have to make the tough choices that they won't make now(farm subsidies, bloated Pentagon,Export-Import Bank,foreign aid to Egypt and Israel,etc.) So as a progressive,I support a balanced budget amendment- it's the only way to bring some sanity to the budget.

    Posted by philbq at 08/16/2005 @ 01:54am

51. .

    A Democracy In Name Only

    Taibbi exposes the spectacular corruption of the current Republican Congress in a shocking, maddening and revelatory report in this month's Rolling Stone magazine.

    Matt Taibbi is a psychopathic, egomaniacal and rancid deviant, a hopped up druggie, one of the most malicious of swamp creatures. From such a reptile Ari Bergman draws his truths.

    If the US is not a democracy will Bergman be good enough to specify what political system governs this country? Let him consult his guru.

    Taibbi will come up with something. He always does. He has, from his lofty moral and professional perch, denounced the shabby journalism of foreign reporters in Russia, found Tom Friedman an abomination for his mixed metaphors, and chastised CNN for showing Palestinians celebrating 9/11. This is one of the silliest gibberers around. He is capable of every form of dishonesty and triteness.

    Why am I not surprised to learn that Taibbi is a frequent contributor to The Nation?

    .

    Posted by nacl at 08/16/2005 @ 05:05am

52. to ILOVEPHYSICS:

    Yes..money is a powerful motivator. But it opens the door for corruption. If money is the primary reason (as opposed to something being good legislation) representatives legislate, what laws are we left with? Tax breaks for those with money, permission for those with money to use govt-controlled resources, etc.

    Wouldn't votes also be a powerful motivator? If an organization cannot deliver an election, then the representative is GONE. Of course the response won't be as immediate as money given to support a representative...but isn't that money primarily used for campaigns anyway?

    Can you enlighten me as to what 19th-century judicial activism you are referring to?

    Posted by wereverywhere at 08/16/2005 @ 08:52am

53. NACL - I don't know anything about this Taibbi guy, but it sounds like you've formed your opinion. You opinion sounds a lot like my opinion of the far right commentaters and "reporters" that the far right and even moderate right folks have somehow legitimized. Do you hold the same opinion of the zombie news celebrities on the far right?

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/16/2005 @ 09:21am

54. "Oklahoma right-winger Tom Coburn agrees to sponsor a similar bill in the Senate. But Bush threatens to veto the entire Foreign Op bill, and the Senate resoundingly defeats Coburn's amendment 62-37. "

    Wait a minute, did I read this right? Is Ari actually saying MY congressman Tom Coburn actually did something that progressives like? Did Ari just in a round about way give Coburn a compliment? Or did I just not understand the passage?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 10:21am

55. NACL: It's Berman. At least learn how to spell.

    Posted by Ari Berman at 08/16/2005 @ 11:11am

56. A Democracy In Name Only

    NACL Your description of Taibbi is a more accurate description of the "mouth for money" man Rush

    Posted by bbrizzy at 08/16/2005 @ 11:21am

57. WEREVERYWHERE AND ALUDRA:

    I have the breakdown of who controls state legislatures handy, and it's closer than Aludra seems to think:

    "Before the [2004] election, Republicans had a 21-17 lead in control of state legislatures; 11 states had split control. After the November 2 balloting, Republicans maintained a razor-thin margin of 20-19 over the Democrats with 10 state legislatures with split control. Republicans control 50 chambers; Democrats 47; one chamber is tied."

    "Analysis of the 2004 elections give Democrats a slight edge in gaining political ground, picking up a few more legislative chambers than the GOP. They also caught Republicans in total state legislators. Before the election, Republicans had 64 more legislators. It's now tied at 3,657, pending one undecided New York Senate seat and recounts."

    http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2004/pr041103a.htm

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/16/2005 @ 11:23am

58. .

    BLUETEXAN

    I don't know anything about this Taibbi guy, but it sounds like you've formed your opinion. You opinion sounds a lot like my opinion of the far right commentaters and "reporters" that the far right and even moderate right folks have somehow legitimized. Do you hold the same opinion of the zombie news celebrities on the far right?

    The above post is all I know about you; but it is enough to conclude that a demitasse would fit your head like a ten-gallon hat.

    Moreover, I'm unaware of any zombie news celebrities on the right or left. But I am aware that Matt Taibbi was the deep thinker who, as Pope John II lay dying, wrote the compassionate essay: "The 52 Funniest Things About The Upcoming Death of The Pope."

    That is an example of the good sense on which Ari Berman grounds himself.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 08/16/2005 @ 11:25am

59. .

    ARI BERMAN

    NACL: It's Berman. At least learn how to spell.

    That you are unaware, Bergman is the right spelling and Berman is the misspelling, is the least of your problems.

    Moreover, while I generously, even if unasked and inadvertently, threw in that extra g, you have not had the goodness to answer my direct question: if, as you contend, this country is not a democracy, what is it?

    .

    Posted by nacl at 08/16/2005 @ 11:38am

60. NACL,

    I think Berman knows how to spell his own name. He doesn't need your help on that one.

    WEREVERYWHERE, I am not sure what you were talking about in your last post. To answer your question, in the 19th century corporations received recognition as "persons" from US courts, with all the attendent Bill of Rights protections that human citizens have. So corporate donations to political campaigns are protected as free speech. For more info on this, watch the documentary film "The Corporation"

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 11:53am

61. NACL,

    I can answer your question. Technically the US is not a democracy, it is a republic.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 11:55am

62. .

    ILOVEPHYSICS

    I think Berman knows how to spell his own name. He doesn't need your help on that one.

    Berman does not know his ass from his elbow, and needs plenty of help, most of all in speaking the truth. Unless you are a mortician you are in no way equipped to help him out.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 08/16/2005 @ 12:17pm