Saturday, May 22, 2004
Jessica Cutler and the Reliable Source
The Washington Post's Sunday, May 23, Reliable Source Column is entirely devoted to Jessica Cutler. The Hill's Sex Diarist Reveals All (Well, Some) (washingtonpost.com).
"Everything is true," Cutler told us in an interview. "It's so cliched. It's like, 'There's a slutty girl on the Hill?' There's millions of 'em," she said, laughing. "A lot of my friends are way worse than me."
. . .
[A] few hours after being sacked, she happily accepted our invitation to explain why she bared her intimate encounters for the world to see.
"If you don't like or care about your job, what's the big deal?" she said, explaining that her blog was a time-saving substitute for e-mailing friends. "I am so over it."
Sipping a strawberry Nesquik, she expressed amusement that her explicit diaries gripped the imaginations of Hill staffers and Web surfers all week. "It's amazing to me that people have any interest in such a low-level sex scandal. If I were sleeping with a congressman, maybe, but I'm a nobody and the people I'm writing about are nobodies."
You have to love her attitude that her job was way beneath her, so why bother to do real work on the job, and why care if she was fired? I'm sure that people with more conventional middle class values (a term I've been using a lot) won't appreciate her attitude.
In the world Jessica lives in, having sex, and maybe even getting married, is the surer path to an upper-middle class lifestyle than working at jobs. Why should anyone expect her to take the harder and riskier path?
She's right about everone involved being nobodies. Even F, the "Chief of Staff," is a nobody. George W. Bush appoints hundreds of people, you never hear of the vast majority of them, and this F is probably one of those nobodies you never hear of. He is probably Frank Jimenez, because his name begin's with "F" and he's a Chief of Staff of a government agency. Maybe he'll have to lose his job because of this, but that's not my problem. If Jessica lost her job, why shouldn't he lose his?
But I'm not amazed by the fact that people are interested in this "scandal". Obviously Jessica doesn't understand the cultural disconnect between the conventional middle class values of the voters, and the different values held by those who work in Washington. My goal is to write more on this aspect tomorrow.
It's too bad there's no picture with the online version of the story. Maybe it's only in the paper version?
The Reliable Source says she is 24, and I previously posted that she was 23, based upon what I read at other blogs. I guess she's really 24. Although, just because it says so in a traditional newspaper doesn't mean it's true. I once had a few paragraphs written about me in the Wall Street Journal, and they got my name wrong.
Overall, I'd say that Wonkette's interview has more details than the Reliable Source interview. This is a story where blogs are certainly taking the lead over the traditional news media.
UPDATE
I changed the link to include the version of the story that now has a color photo!
Additional Washingtonienne links
The story was mentioned in the Reliable Source column of the Washington Post on Thursday, May 20. Richard Leiby cleverly masks F's identity by referring to him as "X".
Ryan Beam writes extensively about the scandal in his blog. Including a letter he sent to his Senator complaining about the firing:
I would like to say that I think your terminating the employee know as "Washingtonienne" is not really appropriate. She may have used Senate computers to post to her blog, but if that's your standard, then you would have to fire everyone in your office. At one time or another everyone in your office has almost certainly sent a personal e-mail, made a personal phone call or talked on Instant Messenger while they were on the clock.
If this girl was performing the duties of her job then I don't think there was any need to fire her just because she liked to blog about her sex life. It's freedom of speech and she shouldn't be punished for it.
I intend to write more about the firing. I will probably wait until the article in the Washington Post comes out tomorrow.
Jessica Cutler’s blog, Washingtonienne, analyzed
I wrote about the sex scandal in my previous post, Jessica Cutler, the Washingtonienne, latest Washington sex scandal.
Her blog is so interesting, I decided to take the time to analyze it in a more detailed manner. The entire archives are available at http://washingtoniennearchive.blogspot.com.
Jessica Cutler’s first post:
I have a "glamour job" on the Hill. That is, I could not care less about gov or politics, but working for a Senator looks good on my resume. And these marble hallways are such great places for meeting boys and showing off my outfits.
This makes me feel sorry for the young women who want the job because they are genuinely interested in the political process, but they are passed over because they are not very attractive. The cute girls, like Jessica Cutler, get the jobs even though they don’t deserve them based on merit or interest.
What to hate/love about D.C.
. . .
Love how hard-up the men are. Love these easy gov jobs.
This leaves me with some feelings of sympathy for the unfortunate “hard-up” men that Jessica refers to so dismissively. Also, I note that Jessica confirms some people’s suspicions that government employees don’t work very hard.
I just got a phone call from Tortilla Coast.
Their Cinco de Mayo taco-eating contest (which I skipped) is rescheduled for 7:30pm, Thursday, May 13th.
The Tortilla Coast manager called to ensure my participation.
Whoever eats the most taco in 5 minutes wins a TV. I beat several grown men in the preliminary contest on Tuesday.
Bring it on.
This supports the theory that girls with a healthy appetite for food also have a healthy appetite for sex
A new contender for my fair hand. He works in one of the Committee offices. We will call him RS.
RS had my boss ask me out for him! She actually came in here and said, "He thinks you're hot." How junior high!
RS is Robert Ethan Steinbuch, a man who is almost old enough to be Jessica’s father, but Jessica’s boss doesn’t think there’s anything unusual about the age difference, and neither does Jessica, because she never mentions it anywhere in her blog.
The following quote refers to Mr. Steinbuch:
I put the moves on HIM. That is, I brought him back to MY place, I was the one who jumped on HIM.
What a lucky guy.
The boss who pimped me out to RS just stopped by. She asked me what happened after she left us at the bar
Interesting how she uses the words “pimped me out”.
Take cab over to W's place in Georgetown. Fuck. Get dinner someplace expensive.
W is the guy who pays her for anal sex. Comments like these will help other bloggers to out him.
I am done with W, for real this time. A man who tries to fuck you in the ass when you are sober does not love you. He should at least take you out for a few drinks to spare you the pain. Now I know that W does not care about me, only my asshole.
The whole situation depressed me so much, I turned down a free dinner and asked him to take me home. He peeled off a few hundred from that roll of cash he carries around, and put the hundreds in my hand as I was getting out of the car. I acted indignant, like I don't need his help, but I kept it: why punish myself? I should get something for putting up with his tired old ass.
More details about the shocking relationship with W. It’s clear from the blog that Jessica doesn’t consider herself to be a hooker. The hundreds are not payment for sex, they are just a fringe benefit.
F=Married man who pays me for sex. Chief of Staff at one of the gov agencies, appointed by Bush.
W=A sugar daddy who wants nothing but anal. Keep trying to end it with him, but the money is too good.
And more information about the other guy who pays her to have sex.
Shit. I'm fucking six guys. Ewww.
A moment of introspection on Jessica’s part. Once upon a time, probably when she was in high school, she bought into the conventional middle-class values which dictate that one should remain a virgin until married.
What is my position? I am a Staff Assistant, or "Staff Ass," as the men on the Hill like to say. It's the entry-level job in each office. (For those who don't know.)
Details about what it’s really like on Capitol hill, for those of us who haven’t worked there. The implicit assumption is that these jobs don’t require any special skills at all, and maybe don’t even require much work. To get these jobs, the applicant needs a college degree, and needs to be an attractive girl.
Most of my living expenses are thankfully subsidized by a few generous older gentlemen. I'm sure I am not the only one who makes money on the side this way: how can anybody live on $25K/year??
If you investigated every Staff Ass on the Hill, I am sure you would find out some freaky shit. No way can anybody live on such a low salary. I am convinced that the Congressional offices are full of dealers and hos.
This is her most quoted passage. Maybe because it shows the most disdain for her job and for conventional middle-class values.
This passage is likely to evoke different reactions in different readers. Some will think, with righteous indignation, “how dare she complain about $25K, why does she expect someone to pay her any more than that?”
Others will feel sympathy and agree that $25K in the Washington, DC area equates to a pretty lousy lifestyle. How do they all get by wearing such expensive clothes, and living in safe NW neighborhoods and not in dangerous ghetto areas? Probably, most of them have parental support. But Jessica has given us something to think about. How many of the young women working on Capitol Hill are getting paid by men to have sex? Is this rare, or are a significant percentage of Staff Assistants making extra money by doing this?
When I read about Chandra Levy, the girl who was murdered and who was having an affair with U.S. Representative Gary Condit (who I strongly suspect was involved in the murder), what I noted was that she was living in an apartment that probably cost $1500/month, which is completely unaffordable on the salary she was making. Her father is a rich doctor from California, and I’m sure her parents were paying her rent.
Isn’t it unfair that young people whose parents can afford to support them can do these resume building jobs on Capitol Hill, while those from more humble backgrounds are left out?
Will parents with conventional middle-class values (or those who feel guilty about not having them so insist on their children having them) continue to let their daughters work in DC with all these scandals?
I just took a long lunch with F and made a quick $400. When I returned to the office, I heard that my boss was asking about my whereabouts. Loser.
This is the last thing she wrote. If Jessica ever reads this post, she will probably think I’m a loser for spending so much time analyzing her blog.
Sigh. Jessica, if your goal was to entertain people, I assure you that I was entertained. Thanks.
Jessica Cutler, the Washingtonienne, latest Washington sex scandal
This is a news story that was broken by blogs, and not the mainstream media.
Jessica Cutler, a 24 year old staff assistant for Senator Mike Dewine of Ohio, kept a blog about her sexual exploits. She was fired on May, 18 when her boss found out about it. Her original blog has disappeared, but someone has kindly recreated it, and is now at this url: http://washingtoniennearchive.blogspot.com/. I think her most interesting post is the following:
Most of my living expenses are thankfully subsidized by a few generous older gentlemen. I'm sure I am not the only one who makes money on the side this way: how can anybody live on $25K/year??
If you investigated every Staff Ass on the Hill, I am sure you would find out some freaky shit. No way can anybody live on such a low salary. I am convinced that the Congressional offices are full of dealers and hos.
Others will find her sexual exploits more interesting. Especially her relationship with F, a “Married man who pays me for sex. Chief of Staff at one of the gov agencies, appointed by Bush.” $400 is how much he pays her. Who is the mysterious F?
In an exclusive interview at Wonkette, when asked about the “chief of staff guy”, Ms. Cutler said:
Someone called last night and was like, "Don't talk to anyone, don't do anything, move on." To me, it sounded like, "Please move out of town." I know he's just shitting himself now. He's more scared than I am. I mean, I know it's over for me here, he's still trying to save himself.
I’m sure that dedicated bloggers will be going over all the government agencies to see who has the initial F. Whomever he is, I’m sure he will soon be outed.
The other interesting thing here is the connection with Monica Lewinsky and Chandra Levy. What do they all have in common? They are all Jewish. At least I presume Jessica is Jewish, because my grandmother’s maiden name is Cutler, and I know my grandmother was Jewish, so I presume Jessica is too. She may even be my distant cousin. This Jewish connection is not mentioned anywhere else, so this is a Calico Cat exclusive. I was also the first blog to point out that Nick Berg was Jewish, so maybe I’ve found my niche.
In addition to the previously cited sources, I would also like to thank The Dredwerks for the photo (confirmed by Wonkette as really being Jessica), and this post at Swamp City for naming the Senator. I’ve also read posts at the following blogs: I Love Jenna Bush, and Something’s Always Wrong.
UPDATE
I overlooked the fact that Jessica claims not to be Jewish in her blog:
... I don't know. He's Jewish, I'm not. And we have nasty sex like animals, not man and wife. But we work together, so there is an incentive to stay together and avoid an awkward breakup. And after a few months, people around the office will start "hearing wedding bells."
I really just want to be a Jewish housewife with a big rock on my finger.
Jessica is talking abour RS, who according to information in the blogs cited above, is a Robert Steinbuch, who was formerly a lawyer at the Department of Justice but now works at the Senate. Searching some public records, it seems that he had (or still has) a wife named Diane who is 36, and two kids (which makes sense, why would a single guy own a four bedroom house in the 'burbs?). He's also probably in his late thirties, and she's 24; that's quite an age diffence. He bought his house in Bethesda, MD in 1998 for $283,500.
UPDATE 2
I edited this post to change Jessica's age from 23 to 24, because the May 23 Washington Post article says she is 24.
Friday, May 21, 2004
Asbestos litigation: it’s out of control. And what the heck is mesothelioma?
To answer the question posed by the title, mesothelioma is how greedy plaintiff’s attorneys turn cancer into wealth.
A more scientific answer is that mesothelioma is a cancer of the lining of the chest or abdomen. Asbestos is the only demonstrated cause of mesothelioma. However, some mesothelioma cases are not traceable to an asbestos exposure.
Because I’ve seen advertisements on television advising people to call a certain attorney if they have mesothelioma, I figured that the attorney in question must be making big money if he can afford a national advertising campaign. And sure enough, I did some research and discovered that asbestos litigation is a multi-billion dollar industry. According to the Rand Institute, $54 billion has been spent on asbestos litigation through the year 2000. It makes me wish that I went to law school. (Oops, I forgot, I did go to law school; unfortunately, I’m not seeing any of this mesothelioma money.)
You don’t even need to have mesothelioma or some other type of disease to cash in on the asbestos litigation handout. Approximately 90% of asbestos claims don’t involve any type of cancer, with many of the non-malignant claimants showing no physical impairments from asbestos exposure. Through the end of 2000, more than 600,000 claims have been filed for asbestos injury.
The story of asbestos litigation is the story of what’s wrong with our legal system and how it’s hurting our economy. We have a disease that arouses sympathy in jurors and defendants with deep pockets. Attorneys file the lawsuits in the states where the laws are the most biased in favor of plaintiffs, a tactic known as “forum shopping”. (Texas, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, and Maryland are the states most popular with asbestos lawyers.) As companies go bankrupt from asbestos litigation, attorneys seek out new defendants with deep pockets so the lawsuits can continue. The number of companies named in asbestos lawsuits increased from around 300 in 1982 to more than 6,000 by the end of 2000.
A few plaintiffs and their families get rich. In August 2001, a jury in El Paso, Texas, awarded a single plaintiff $55.5 million. In September 2001, a jury in Orange, Texas, awarded five plaintiffs $130 million. In October 2001, a jury in Mississippi awarded $150 million to six plaintiffs with asbestosis claims, and according to local media reports, none of the plaintiffs actually had asbestosis.
Only 34% of the money spent on asbestos litigation actually goes to plaintiffs. The rest goes to attorneys or is spent on other costs related to litigation. The legal system creates an incredibly inefficient insurance scheme. It’s more like a lottery instead of any sort of rational scheme to help people who have suffered injury.
Attempts to create a legislative solution to the problem have failed. Democrats, who receive a large amount of campaign funds from trial lawyers, have blocked all the legislative proposals. Earlier this month, talks in the U.S. Senate to establish a national asbestos trust fund failed again. Reuters: Asbestos Talks End Without Agreement - Source.
The RAND Institute for Civil Justice does an excellent job advocating for an asbestos trust fund:
[T]he issue is not whether asbestos victims should be able to receive compensation from some entity, but rather what entity should fairly be called upon to shoulder the financial burden. Requiring companies that played a relatively small role in exposing workers to asbestos to bear substantial costs of compensating for asbestos injuries not only raises fundamental questions of fairness but undercuts the deterrence objectives of the tort system. If business leaders believe that tort outcomes have little to do with their own behavior, then there is no reason for them to shape their behavior so as to minimize tort exposure.
I would take an even harder line than the RAND Institute. If someone has mesothelioma or some other asbestos related illness, but it’s not really anyone’s fault, then it’s not clear to me that the victim should receive any compensation at all. This is the traditional rule of tort law; there has to be negligence in order for there to be liability. I suspect that most of the truly negligent companies are already bankrupt. Nevertheless, a trust fund like the one proposed by Republicans, but blocked by Democrats, makes a lot more sense than the current system.
The quote above and most of the information in this essay comes from Asbestos Litigation Costs and Compensation, a report produced by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice. Highly recommended reading.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Ban on photography in the subways: every day we become more of a police state
Dumb news out of New York City:
Transit officials on Thursday proposed banning photography on subways and buses for their more than 7 million daily riders to deter terrorists from conducting surveillance of the nation's largest mass transit system.
1010 WINS: Transit Officials Propose Photography Ban
Dumb news, but scary. Our nation is turning into a police state because of unreasonable fears of terrorism. If terrorists wanted to put bombs in the subways, will this anti-photography rule have the least effect on their plans? Has their ever been a terrorism incident that involved the terrorists taking pictures? Do any of these unnamed "transit officials" have any kind of explanation as to how this ban would actually deter terrorists from doing anything nefarious?
Given how small digital cameras are these days, a real terrorist could easily take photos anywhere without being noticed. A guy looking at his cell phone or PDA might be surreptitiously taking photos. This ban would only prevent law abiding citizens from taking photos in a public place, which should be our right in a democracy.
the ban on photography and videotaping would not apply to journalists with valid ID cards
Only journalists certified by the government are allowed to take pictures. Bloggers and other citizens doing research are not allowed. It sounds more like the former Soviet Union than the United States.
The craziness isn't limited to the United States. Out of Canada:
Shanake Seneviratne, 20, was photographing buses and metro cars at the Sauve station that afternoon when he was stopped by transit cops and charged with impeding the flow of traffic inside a station.
. . .
Seneviratne was handcuffed, placed in a cruiser, read his rights and was told he was "a threat to national security" as he was taken to the police department's northern operations centre.
Montral Gazette: 'National security threat' just taking photos of metro
It turns out that the kid was just a college student who was doing research on public transportation for some urban planning professors. You would think that the cops in Montreal would be less facist than the ones here in the States, but I guess not.
PEOPLE TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS ARE NOT TERRORISTS!!!!!!
