Here are the particulars:
President Obama's nominee to be the State Department's legal adviser has ignited a fury among conservative critics who say his views are a threat to American democracy -- an accusation the White House on Tuesday called "outrageous" and "completely baseless."
Former Clinton administration official Harold Koh, who has been dean of the Yale Law School since 2004, once wrote that the U.S. was part of an "axis of disobedience" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Koh also has long held that the U.S. should accept international law when deliberating cases at home.
Obama nominated Koh on March 23 to become the State Department's legal adviser -- an appointment that, if confirmed by the Senate, will give Koh far-reaching influence over the extent to which international norms affect U.S. law.
"This is not a desk job. This guy will be the face of American international law around the world," said Steven Gross, legal expert and fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
"The top legal adviser at State travels extensively and is involved in international legal negotiations, treaties and in major United Nations conferences.
"The president should have the right to choose the most conservative or liberal legal advisers to give them advice, but this is much more than that. The concern is that he cares as much about -- if not more about -- international law and integrating that into the American judicial system than he does about protecting American prerogatives and American sovereignty," Gross said.
The White House vehemently defended Koh's nomination on Tuesday, telling FOXNews.com that he is "one of the most respected members of the legal community."
Koh "earned wide bipartisan praise as assistant secretary of state and he's universally respected by legal scholars," White House spokesman Reid Cherlin told FOXNews.com. "The president looks forward to working with him at the State Department. He's a strong believer in the Constitution, and the president nominated him because of his firm defense of the Constitution."
State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid also offered praise for Obama's nominee.
"Dean Koh is universally respected for his legal scholarship and previously served as an assistant secretary of state -- and was praised for his work by Republicans and Democrats alike," Duguid said. "President Obama and Secretary Clinton strongly believe he's the right person for the job."
Know what I find interesting? That Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not quoted here. I mean, it just seems to me that if Koh is going to be the Legal Adviser to the State Department, maybe someone should have asked her what she thought. Ahem.
There is more:
Koh, like Obama, is a strong opponent of the Iraq war and the use of harsh interrogation techniques that some consider torture. He has fiercely criticized former President George W. Bush for invading Iraq in 2003 and has accused the Bush administration of trying to "block public release of more Abu Ghraib type pictures."
"We should resist the claim that a War on Terror permits the commander in chief's power to be expanded into a wanton power to act as torturer in chief," Koh wrote in an article published in May 2006 in the Indiana Law Journal.
Koh also advocates a "transnational legal process" and has criticized the U.S. for its failure to "obey global norms."
In an article published in the Berkeley Journal of International Law in 2004, Koh wrote, "What role can transnational legal process play in affecting the behavior of several nations whose disobedience with international law has attracted global attention after September 11th -- most prominently, North Korea, Iraq and our own country, the United States of America? For shorthand purposes, I will call these countries 'the axis of disobedience.'"
And in a Stanford Law Review article published in May 2003, Koh wrote that supporters of the International Criminal Court should bring pressure to bear on U.S. opinion "with an eye toward persuading U.S. officials that the ICC actually serves U.S. interests."
I believe the US does have to work well with the international community, and that international law is important. But what REALLY concerns me is this:
A March 21, 2007, blog posting on National Review's Web site shows a letter written by New York attorney Steven J. Stein to Koh, challenging Koh for supposedly saying during a speech to the Yale Club of Greenwich that year that Islamic law could apply to disputes in U.S. courts.
"In your discussion of 'global law' I recall at least one favorable reference to 'Sharia,' among other foreign laws that could, in an appropriate instance (according to you) govern a controversy in a federal or state court in the U.S.," Stein wrote in his letter addressed to Koh.
Cherlin said Stein's version of events is "not accurate," and that the host of the event in question disputed the account. Stein could not be reached for comment.
Koh's critics insist his legal views undermine the U.S. Constitution and American sovereignty.
And that's just it. Sharia law can be imposed here in the US?? SERIOUSLY?? Holy freakin' cow. Every woman in this country should be shaking in her boots at that thought. I am not kidding you. Following this article is a video interview of an Arab woman describing in more detail just what Sharia law is. I can sum it up here: it is scary shit.
And then there is this concern, also no small matter:
John Fonte, senior fellow and director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institute, told FOXNews.com that Koh's views have "a very big practical effect on American foreign policy and on American democracy.
"This is international imperialism. Under Koh's plan, the Constitution would become secondary and international law would take precedence regardless of what Americans said about the matter."
See, I have just a wee problem with subsuming our Constitution. I realize that Obama has been hell-bent on that from the get-go when he refused to provide his actual birth certificate, or ANY documentation about his background, not to mention when he engaged in bullying, intimidation, and fraud to get his way. Oh - and firing the CEO of a privately held company has to be a problem. Then there is his connection with ACORN and its receipt of US Taxpayer dollars to engage in partisan politics as well as voter fraud (if you didn't see the Lou Dobbs video I posted recently on this, here is the LINK). So, yeah - I realize he does not seem to hold it in high regard, his minions claims of him being a Constitutional Scholar notwithstanding (just because someone CLAIMS to be an expert doesn't mean they ARE an expert, after all).
And for the other side:
Supporters tout Koh as a leading expert on public and private international law, national security law and human rights.
He served as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor from 1998 to 2001, and previously had served on the secretary of state's Advisory Committee on Public International Law. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and testified before Congress dozens of times, and he's received more than 30 awards for his human rights work, according to Yale's Web site.
Cherlin described Koh as "an American success story." (His brother, Howard Koh, was tapped by the president two days later for a position in the Health and Human Services Department.)
"He's the son of immigrants. He's a dedicated teacher and professor, and does great work. We don't have any question whatsoever about any of these issues raised by critics who are sworn opponents of the administration," said Cherlin, who said the conservative critics' opposition was "ideologically driven."
So, because he is the son of immigrants, we should just throw the Constitution and our laws aside? Because he's such a nice guy, it's okay that he doesn't mind Sharia Law imposed here? I'm sorry, but that's just a smokescreen to attack his critics with a broad brush without dealing with the issues raised, and they are serious issues, indeed.
As promised, here is the video mentioned above:
While Harold Koh may be a great teacher and all that, it does not make up for his willingness to supersede US law in a State Department position. Once again, Obama is pushing a candidate who is not the best choice, not for the country, or for the Constitution. And most definitely, not for women.
17 comments:
Hi Amy,
I hope you are doing well, that your knee has progressed its healing, and that you are packing for your vacation!
I posted a lengthy comment to your article on No Quarter today, but naturally, Susan deleted it almost immediately, as she does almost anything I post. So I'll try to reconstruct it as best as I can.
"Harold Koh, former dean of Yale Law School, seems to think that (sharia) is A-Okay in the US of A."
Really? That's quite an accusation. Where did it originate?
"A March 21, 2007, blog posting on National Review’s Web site shows a letter written by New York attorney Steven J. Stein to Koh, challenging Koh for supposedly saying during a speech to the Yale Club of Greenwich that year that Islamic law could apply to disputes in U.S. courts.
'In your discussion of ‘global law’ I recall at least one favorable reference to ‘Sharia,’ among other foreign laws that could, in an appropriate instance (according to you) govern a controversy in a federal or state court in the U.S.,' Stein wrote in his letter addressed to Koh."
_______________________________
Oh, I see. So this originates in a post on the virulently right-wing, pro-GWOT, pro-Iraq War, Bush-worshipping, sexist, gay-bashing National Review website. So there is no actual quote from Harold Koh here supporting "Sharia law". There is no recording of such a quote. There is just quote from a lawyer in a post on the National Review website claiming that he "recalls" a "favorable reference to 'Sharia' from Koh.
That's really not enough to tar someone with such a thick brush, Amy. Not the Dean of Yale Law School. Not someone who won the Human Rights Award of the Cuban-American Bar Association in 1994, the Justice in Action Award from the Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund in 1993, and the Human Rights Award of the American Immigration Lawyers' Association in 1992 for his work. Not a man whose ACTUAL quotes reveal a profoundly progressive view of international law, human rights, laws against torture, laws in support of due process--in other words, laws that are the very antithesis of "Sharia".
And it's really not enough when Koh and the White House are vehemently denying any of the fearmongering claims of the clinically Islamaphobic National Review. There is no evidence that Harold Koh remotely said any such thing. And yet you've already jumped to the conclusion that this American legal expert actually wants to impose Sharia on the United States, based solely on evidence-free accusations brought to us by the biggest cheerleaders of the torture-loving, anti-choice, gay-bashing Bush Administration of the last 8 years.
________________________________
"Know what I find interesting? That Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not quoted here. I mean, it just seems to me that if Koh is going to be the Legal Adviser to the State Department, maybe someone should have asked her what she thought."
That's an odd statement, Amy, considering that the very FOX news article you quoted at length from contained the following passage:
"State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid also offered praise for Obama's nominee.
'Dean Koh is universally respected for his legal scholarship and previously served as an assistant secretary of state -- and was praised for his work by Republicans and Democrats alike,' Duguid said. 'President Obama and Secretary Clinton strongly believe he's the right person for the job.'"
_________________________________
Now, unless you think Secretary of State Clinton is so weak bureaucratically that she is unable to either choose her spokespeople or what they say on her behalf, I would say that she supports Harold Koh. I would also imagine that his tenure during the Clinton Administration as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, would encourage you to believe that Secretary Clinton has known about and trusted the views of Harold Koh for many, many years. And I would hope that her support of this outstanding human rights legal scholar and administrator would be enough for you to reconsider your position.
In an ideal world, I think you owe him a retraction, until further evidence comes in that actually supports these very serious and currently unfounded accusations.
We reported back just after the election that people from Harvard were running a seminar for Treasury Dept. employees about Sharia investing. It was on Bush's watch, but who's surprised that we now have Obama on the same sort of track.
Not good.
Arturo, Susan doesn't delete comments willy-nilly, and she never does without telling someone why. I am pretty sure this comment made it in there.
The apam filter at NQ is very sensitive. I've even had to rescue my own comments from there before. So don't it personally, and please don't cast aspersions against Susan. I have a basis on which to present this post - and you don't in your accusations against Susan.
That being said, until Koh himself comes out and says he never said this, I stick by it. If he does, I will gladly present that.
No, Clinton is not at all weak, and I would hope she has good spokespeople. But unlike what Gates and Obama did to her recently abt North Korea, she isn't in the habit of undermining people. Which is to say, I would assume she would make any concerns she had privately. That she herself did not personally speak up is telling, I think.
The knee is coming along, thanks. Still doing lots of rehab. I hope yours is doing well...
Insight, thanks - interesting context. It seems that many of the same players are involved from Bush to Obama. More on this later! :-)
Thanks for replying to my comment, Amy. As usual, you are a fair partner in our ongoing discussion and debate. To your points:
"Arturo, Susan doesn't delete comments willy-nilly, and she never does without telling someone why. I am pretty sure this comment made it in there."
Yes, she does delete comments she doesn't like, repeatedly, throughout the day. Anyone (with occasional exceptions) who strays from the "Barack Obama is the source of all evil" line is deleted, then if they continue to post unpopular opinions, Susan has their I.P. address permanently banned. I have the highest regard for you and your website that you have never treated me in this manner. I have visited NQ regularly throughout the past year, and have been a constant witness to this behavior.
"please don't cast aspersions against Susan. I have a basis on which to present this post - and you don't in your accusations against Susan."
But I actually do. The first time I was banned (for an innocuous post about a year ago, curse and anger-free, disagreeing with NQ's position to support the Republican nominee), I wrote Susan a lengthy email questioning the validity of a site that bans unpopular opinions and supports an echo chamber. Susan wrote me back saying that she and Larry had discussed my email, and agreed that they wanted me to come back. I replied that I wasn't interested. She wrote me again asking me to reconsider. I did, and wrote back that I didn't want to be monitored and censored when I wrote comments, and declined her offer. She wrote me back AGAIN, this time saying there would be no strings attached, I could write whatever I wanted, and I would never be banned going forward. More as a result of her persistence than any real interest on my part, I accepted her offer.
The very next day, on NQ, I saw "Uppity Woman" call Frank Rich "hyperbolically gay" in one of her comments, which I found offensive. When I politely expressed disagreement in my first and only comment since Susan had invited me back, Larry personally jumped in and BANNED ME IMMEDIATELY. When I wrote Susan asking what was going on, I got the cold shoulder.
Susan and Larry have a sick sense of humor. All of her emails to me were nothing but a prank on an unsuspecting visitor to their website. They just wanted to hurt my feelings, to trick me into coming back so they could ban me all over again. I'm sure Susan is very nice to people like you who agree with her politically. But if you disagree, you will find yourself toyed with in this bizarre way that only people like Larry and Susan could find enjoyable. It's one of the strangest experiences I've had on the web!
If you don't believe me, I will be more than happy to forward you the email chain that went on between Susan and I. I certainly don't assume that any of this matters to you. I just wanted you to know that I do in fact have a basis for making these claims as to Susan's quite broad banning habits.
_____________________________
"That being said, until Koh himself comes out and says he never said this, I stick by it. If he does, I will gladly present that."
Glad to hear it. I'll let you know if I come across any public statements of Koh's regarding this controversy.
"No, Clinton is not at all weak, and I would hope she has good spokespeople. But unlike what Gates and Obama did to her recently abt North Korea, she isn't in the habit of undermining people. Which is to say, I would assume she would make any concerns she had privately. That she herself did not personally speak up is telling, I think."
I see your point about how back-channel discussions are not always represented in what officials' spokespeople have to say. That said, officials like Secretary Clinton are also quite aware of the need to never back themselves into a rhetorical corner. I think it would be more telling of doubts about Koh if her spokespeople said nothing. Instead, they are offering their support. Clinton isn't going to do that if she assumes this guy is gone in a couple weeks.
Thanks again for listening.
Wow, Arturo. Let me say that I appreciate your perspective, and your taking the time to write this up.
Perhaps Uppity changed it, but I could not find that phrase for Rich at her site. I would be VERY surprised if she DID say something like that, unless she was being ironic, because that it NOT in character for her.
NQ was not pushing the Republican candidate a year ago - it was a Pro-Hillary site all the way. Not to quibble, or anything, but that is true, and the how I ended up there. Larry Johnson was a huge Hillary supporter. Many of us are still, as you no doubt gathered from my posts.
There has been a number of different responses/concerns/questions abt banning, so I cannot say for CERTAIN that a comment of yours was NEVER banned. It could have been.
Typically, no one is banned unless they are attacking the writers personally, using abusive language, etc. - the same kind of thing I don't allow here (no sexist, homophobic, or racist comments, no ad hominem attacks). If you go and look at the comments some guy was making at my post at NQ last night, you will see there is WIDE latitude (he was not playing nicely).
Here's the thing, Arturo - if I click on your name, it comes up to an anti-Larry Johnson site. Why is that? What in the world has Larry ever done to you? He has his opinions, and is entitled to them, same as you, so why the hate? This is a man who has stood by Valerie Plame when the White House was out to destroy her - and succeeded at destroying her career, that effectively ended the career of her husband, and all the while, Larry was there for them. He and I don't agree on everything, but we don't HAVE to in order to treat each other with respect. In fact, Larry has been very kind to me personally.
So, why do you harbor such animosity toward him? I am really just curious - no need to answer if it is too personal.
Honestly, Arturo, I would LOVE to be wrong abt the potential legal counsel to the State Dept - that's a mighty important job. Just like I deplored Bush's Attorney General for his legal take on too many issues (torture being just one), I cannot accept someone who believes international law should supersede US law, and who is reported to have made such a comment abt Sharia law. So, I hope I am wrong on that.
Oh, one last thing abt the comments - I am not kidding you when I tell you my comments have gotten stuck in there. I approved a whole bunch earlier that had NOTHING in them the least bit offensive - I have no earthly idea why the filter even threw them IN there - it was bizarre! Just so you know! :-)
Oops - just caught a typo - I meant "had," not "has"...
Hi Amy,
Just wanted to stop by to answer some of your questions.
"Perhaps Uppity changed it, but I could not find that phrase for Rich at her site. I would be VERY surprised if she DID say something like that, unless she was being ironic, because that it NOT in character for her."
Perhaps she was being ironic. I never got a chance to find out, because I was booted so quickly.
________________________________
"NQ was not pushing the Republican candidate a year ago - it was a Pro-Hillary site all the way. Not to quibble, or anything, but that is true, and the how I ended up there. Larry Johnson was a huge Hillary supporter. Many of us are still, as you no doubt gathered from my posts."
No doubt that No Quarter spent the primaries as fervent Hillary supporters, and no doubt that Hillary is still highly regarded at the site (although it is interesting how many commenters there now refer to her as a "traitor"). But once it became clear that Hillary was not going to be the nominee, No Quarter began actively campaigning for John McCain. That's just the truth of it. Every single post was dedicated to tearing down Barack Obama, and building up John McCain. Particularly galling was that not only did the party position change, the POLICY positions changed too. Suddenly, after a primary season where NQ writers were accusing Obama of being a closet conservative, you now had many of the same NQ writers calling him too liberal, and praising supply side economics, and lower tax rates on the wealthy. I can understand that NQ members could be so personally put off by Obama that they just couldn't support HIM. But when Larry and many of the others (not you, I might add) began openly supporting the policy tenets of the Republican Party platform, well, I think someone revealed their hand.
_______________________________
"Here's the thing, Arturo - if I click on your name, it comes up to an anti-Larry Johnson site. Why is that? What in the world has Larry ever done to you?"
Well, I think I kind of already described my personal feelings about Larry and Susan with the story I told about the emails back and forth btwn Susan and I, and Larry's eventual banning of me. So that's the personal side.
But my real gripe with Larry is the "whitey tape". You and I have already debated the particulars, so I won't drag us through that again. Suffice to say, I believe that what Larry did: tossing a racially charged nuclear bomb like that into the midst of a presidential campaign that included the first viable African-American nominee in American history (and what a sordid history it is), with no evidence to support his claim whatsoever, was quite dangerous to our country. Larry failed in his rumor-mongering to get much traction other than with the already converted. But what if he hadn't failed? What if white voters across this country became convinced of the existence of that tape, sans evidence, and voted against Obama because of the racial ugliness involved? Can you imagine how far back that would have set race relations for our country? Again, if Larry had produced EVIDENCE, I would not have had any problem with the factual truth being released. But he didn't, and he went and spread the rumor anyway, because the rumor was all he had, and the rumor was all he wanted to spread.
It's no different than the people who have spread the evidence-free "Hillary is a lesbian" rumor, just to gain traction with bigots. I will never forgive Larry and Roger Stone for trotting "whitey" out. Our country is just lucky that they failed.
"In fact, Larry has been very kind to me personally."
That's nice. When I emailed Larry directly, he sent me back an endless stream of curse words and name-calling. Other writers (far more prominent, like Dave Weigel at Reason) have reported the exact same reaction. He has a real temper problem, and it's marginalized him considerably. His first response to disagreement is to bully the person away.
Anyway, that's that with Larry. Thanks again for your time, Amy. And aren't we happy about IOWA today!!!!! Woo-hoo!!!!!
Hey, Arturo -
YES, very happy abt Iowa! Honestly, who would have thought tat would be the next state?? But I am DELIGHTED abt it!
Arturo, I have to say, I have seen VERY few people at NQ who refer to Hillary as a "traitor." I think most of us feel that she is the one shining light in this administration, and are happy that she is the one dealing with so many foreign powers. She is clearly well received by the foreign leaders she meets, and her brilliance shines through at every speech and press conference. She is one heckuva woman. So, I have to say - I go to NQ A LOT, and rarely do I see people trashing her, unless they are Obama people.
That is not to say some aren't disappointed, or fear that her chance to be president has passed. Sure, some are angry that she joined the Administration after the crap Obama said to/abt her, and I, personally, did NOT want her in the Administration. But, now that she is, well, she continues to show why so many of us supported her in the first place.
Abt the whitey tape, I don't have anything new to add, except what I have already said - Larry never, ever claimed he had them in his possession, that he was told abt them by two people on both sides of the country and aisle who HAD seen them (and who were considered to be reputable in the political arena - oh, wait - is that an oxymoron??), and that the existence of the tapes had been acknowledged by the Obamas. They came from their church, in fact. So, Larry never had them to produce. He reported comments made by first-hand informants.
And Uppity - if you could find that comment somewhere, I'd be interested in seeing it - I could not find it at her site anywhere. It does not seem at ALL like her, though, certainly not anything I have ever seen from her.
Well, gotta start getting ready for this big, long-awaited trip. Stay well.
"Larry never, ever claimed he had them in his possession, that he was told abt them by two people on both sides of the country and aisle who HAD seen them (and who were considered to be reputable in the political arena - oh, wait - is that an oxymoron??), and that the existence of the tapes had been acknowledged by the Obamas."
______________________________
Not to quibble Amy, but back when we were last debating this issue, I asked you for a single quote of either of the Obamas specifically "acknowledging" the existence of the tape. That request still stands.
BTW, Dave Weigel's breakdown of Larry's endlessly shifting account of what he knows of the "whitey tape" is a must-read for anyone who believes this tape actually exists.
http://reason.com/blog/printer/126883.html
Arturo, why would I go read some other guy's site when I have been reading LARRY'S site, and read every post he has made on this issue?? I'm supposed to go read someone else when the person in question has written abt it himself? Um, no.
Here's a link in which Larry talks abt this whole thing, and the API acknowledged existence of the tape: http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/21/whitey-tape-api-phil-berg-and-andy-martin/
"Arturo, why would I go read some other guy's site when I have been reading LARRY'S site, and read every post he has made on this issue?? I'm supposed to go read someone else when the person in question has written abt it himself? Um, no."
That's like someone saying "why would I read No Quarter or Reverend Amy's critique of Barack Obama's speeches, when I can just read Barack Obama's speeches on their own? The person in question has written about it himself. In fact, why do these No Quarter and Reverend Amy websites even bother analyzing the president's words at all?!"
_____________________________
"Here's a link in which Larry talks abt this whole thing, and the API acknowledged existence of the tape: http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/21/whitey-tape-api-phil-berg-and-andy-martin/"
Thanks, I actually read this column by Larry awhile ago, and had a good laugh. Talk about covering your tracks ("here's all the ridiculous smears of Obama that were coughed up in this campaign season, some of which I personally invented. Damage Control!")
Also, the "Obama campaign" never spread the "why'd he" rumor. That was originated by an old friend of Larry's--Booman--who thought the tape might be legit and was trying to sort out a different reason for its existence:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/6/1/235757/2325
The above link is the origin of the silly and unnecessary "why'd he" analysis. It did not come from the Obama campaign.
And I'm all ears for those quotes from Barack or Michelle Obama "acknowledging" the existence of the tape.
Arturo, it is clear that no matter what I say, no matter what Larry has said/written, you are not going to accept HIS version, yet you continue to hold him accountable for something he NEVER, EVER said.
I have been able to find the link before on the Obama's acknowledgment of the tapes, which I think I told you. I assume you can find it, too, if you refuse to accept the API version.
Bottom line, it doesn't matter what I say abt this - you are not going to accept what Larry has consistently said. I don't know why, but I'm tired of discussing it.
Peace out.
Hey Amy,
The last thing I want to do is get into a pointless argument over ancient history. I've probably been pushing a little too hard on this stuff. Enjoy your trip abroad!
Arturo
LOL, no worries, Arturo, but thanks! And thanks for continuing the conversations!
Take care - hope you have a good couple of weeks, too!
I mostly remember Amy as the most delighful person who had this weird Yankee thing about studying in her room with all the windows open in the middle of the Boston winter with a freezing and damp breeze blowing off the Charles River. She didn't feel right unless it hurt.
Oh, and she was sarcastic too. I have never been known for my housekeeping and certainly not as a 23 year old grad student. One day I emerged from my room so proud! I had the whole room spotless! I said to the 3rd Fl. Rock. Hall residents: "guess what? I cleaned-up my room! It looks beautiful".
Amy said "oh, my! You must be EXHAUSTED!"
I still love Amy. I visited her home. Her family were Quaker oil barons or something. It was a GREEN sign, I remember this. Amy had a little brother and they took him to Martha's Vineyard or some super Waspy vacation site. He saw Mr. Roger's and got so excited the family was concerned that he would hypervent. at least according to Amy.
Guess what Amy? I just inherited money too! Tobacco cash and thank you for smoking. I am issuing an offer to you and The Rev. Dr. Karen D. Wood, Th.D. What do you want?? You deserve something. U R lovelier now more than ever.
Guess who?
Tyler -
I enjoyed your comment, and while I am sarcastic, you may have me confused with another UU minister named Amy. Believe it or not, but there were three of us going through the ord. process at the same time.
I'm from the South, my family have never been Quakers, and definitely not oil barons(!), I've never been to Martha's Vineyard (though I'd love to go), but I am a neat freak, so there's that! :-D
And congrats on your inheritance (I don't smoke - haven't for years), though I am sorry for your loss...
Regardless of the mistaken identity, thanks for coming by! I hope you'll be back.
Post a Comment