» What is Rees' Position on the Smokefree Workplace Law?
JonathanRees is a candidate for the Ward 3 seat on the Council of the Districtof Columbia, yet he refuses to tell voters any of his positions on theissues. He will not respond to candidate questionnaires, participate inforums or debates, or answer direct questions on issues.
Rees sent the following message to Smokefree DC in response to their candidate questionnaire:
Rivera is an often used alias of Rees and the email was sent from Rees' personal account jrrees2006@verizon.net.
Settingaside that Rees was never in danger of recieving an endorsement fromSmokefree DC, ratings are of course not endorsements and it is standardfare for groups to publicize every candidate's views, in their ownwords, as Smokefree DC plans to do.
However, Rees has posted a number of times on smokefree indoor workplace bills. Below is a sampling.
"WhileI am not a smoker, I see anti-smokers and their current cause in DC asbeing on the same mental wave length as abortion clinic bombers."
August 30, 2005 9:48 pm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tenleytown/message/3154Thereis nothing wrong with the concept of having a smoking ban in DC butwhat is slowing it down is the abrasive approach many have taken.Theanti-smoking ban was not tabled for the reasons we think it was but itwas tabled because campaign contributors mainly corporations threatenedcertain council members that if they pass it, kiss any campaigncontributions in 2006 goodbye. That spelled political suicide for sometop, heavy contenders! So it was tabled under a diusguise and a promiseto re-visit but that too will get postponed until after November 2006.Corporate contributors behind the scenes want a compromise in the formof a ban but a way out, namely, bars and restaurants can get off thehook if they become a private establishments with 100 paid members.Snicker at some of the things I say but "I" not "you" sit down and talkbehind the scene with our council members, their staffers and the likeso I have been privy to a lot of stuff that would shock most of you.How many of you anti smokers give money the political campaigns ofourmayor or council members? Well? Guess what, corporate DC gives tons ofit so who do you think your beloved leaders will listen to.
August 30, 2005 10:00 pm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tenleytown/message/3155Rees, using one of his better known aliases posted thess pro-smoking messages to a smokers Yahoo Group:ABOLISH ALL TOBACCO TAXES
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecigarettesmoker2/message/1055
July 12, 2005Writing for himself, he urged the repeal of the new law:ARE YOU A CIGARETTE SMOKER?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecigarettesmoker2/message/1081
May 9, 2006Here he claims to be the Pro-smokers' candidate:Take another good look at Jonathan Rees for DC Ward 3 City Council.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecigarettesmoker2/message/1083
May 24, 2006
Here is a telling exchange with Rees on DCist. http://www.dcist.com/archives/2005/11/28/mayoral_forum_o.php
It goes on with additional ranting by Rees on other subjects, but these are the relevant posts:…By the way Mr. Rees, you will get nowhere with voters if you continueto reek of cigarettes. No wonder you are against the smoking ban.
Joe
[9] Posted by: Joe November 29, 2005 07:35 AMWhat'sup with Rees? I've read the previous posts about him completelydisinterested in the past, but now he has become incredibly annoying.
Jonathan,is this an Andy Kaufman style social experiment or are you justoperating in a different plane of reality that none of us cancomprehend?
[10] Posted by: lb November 29, 2005 09:48 AMHere's my favorite Jonathan Rees quotation:
"WhileI am not a smoker, I see anti-smokers and their current cause in DC asbeing on the same mental wave length as abortion clinic bombers."
[11] Posted by: Sandra November 29, 2005 11:07 AMAndisn't it interesting how his posts (under his own and assumed IDs) hereand elsewhere always center on rumor and hearsay: "People are saying""I saw Rees talking to So-and-so" "I hear that Rees is getting highgrade from...."So-o-o sad.
[12] Posted by: =--- November 29, 2005 11:47 AMJoe,
Youare a dumb ass. The American Cancer Society and the people behind theefforts for a no smoking ban know that I am in favor of the ban. GodJoe you are a dumb ass and talk shit too much and do it out of somementally ill bias you hold. Why don't you finally shut up and know whatyou are talking about before you talk out of you ass again.
[13] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 29, 2005 11:58 AMItis amazing that if anybody says anything nice about me then they areautomatically assumed IDs. I thought bloggers had a brain but I guess Iwas wrong.
I have learned that bloggers are hateful people who havenothing better to do that bad mouth people but never offer anythingconstructive or what the mainstream wants to hear that is why thesefreaks have their own little hole in the wall so they can impress eachother with their nonsense.
[14] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 29, 2005 12:02 PMSandra,
Myquote about stays as it is as I feel that while a no smoking ban ispossible, the anti-smokers have to be more flexible and by that I mean,they have to allow some exceptions because if they don't, Council mightnot pay anything and then there is Congress.
I believe Congress willstrike down any smoking ban the DC Government erects just as fast as itwould strike down any law granting the right to same sex marriage.
[16] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 29, 2005 12:09 PMLet'scall it correctly, Mr. Rees. You say the anti-smokers need to be moreflexible, but what about those of us who choose not to pollute ourlungs with crap. We are not anti-smoking, we are pro-pink lungs, andprefer not to have to smell the stench of old cigarettes near us, or tohave to breathe in someone else's filth.
If people want to consumecancer sticks in their own cars and in their own dwellings, that'sfine. I have no problem with enriching the medical community and thetobacco growing shareholders. However, when it comes to the air Ibreathe, the clean streets (how many times have we seen smokers flicktheir butts out the window?) and other issues associated with smoking,the government should be able to intervene to protect the public healthand welfare.
However, when it comes to public places and placeswhere non-smokers and small children are present, it is both courteousand safer to not have cigarette smoke present.
If you want to put that on the same pedestial as abortion clinic bombers, go for it.
I hope your opponents use this quote against you as they should.
Bobby[18] Posted by: Bobby November 29, 2005 12:24 PMBobby,
Yousee it one way and say you want to preserve your healthy lungs, thesmokers say they should be allowed to have a place for their own butthe anti-smokers say no way and when I say flex, the smokers are moreflexible than the anti-smokers and as long as the anti-smokers won'tflex, I think the Council will not budge and Congress will shoot downsuch a ban.
CASE IN POINT (RAVEN BAR & GRILL). They are clearlyan all smokers' place and they want the right to remain that way underan exception if a ban is passed. Six of the council members agree andsee the anti-smokers has having a right but not a right to rule the day.
[19] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 29, 2005 12:41 PMMy plan would be to pass a no-smoking ban that applies to all.
Thereafter,if any establishment wishes to allow smoking, it must apply for anexception as a private bar and/or restaurant, pay an annual exceptionfee $2,500.00, hold a set number of paid members and have to place asign outside warning the public this is a smoke friendly establishmentand attendance is by membership only or guest of a member.
[20] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 29, 2005 12:50 PMThesale of liquor kills more Americans every year than tobacco. There is aproven link to your use of alcohol and the death of others more thanthe use of tobacco by a smoker that kills a non-smoker.
More Americans die every year from the use of alcohol than from the use of tobacco.
Should we also ban the sale and use of alcohol in public establishments?
Carol Schwartz had a good point here.
Let's ban all cigarette smoking in public places and the use of alcoholic beverages.
[21] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 29, 2005 01:04 PMRees,
Are you a smoker? I'm unclear about that from what you've written.
[23] Posted by: Naomi November 29, 2005 01:45 PMHe claimed in one listserver email to not be a smoker, but stank of cigarettes last night.
John[24] Posted by: John November 29, 2005 02:00 PMThat is untrue. I have never claimed to be a non-smoker! I am a Sicilian. Be nice or I'll smoke you.
[25] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 29, 2005 02:18 PM
His profile on a dating website says that he does smoke: http://www.thousanddates.com/adt_membersprofile_home.asp?UserId=1127390&UserName=jrrees
Reesis obsessed with Sam Brooks, but more so with his own ego. In this postRees brags about all of the endorsements and score cards he was aboutto recieve. These were posted in November 2005:ThankMartin for your article today as my website went up 489 hits since 5 PMtoday or was that the positive press I got in a local medicalnewsletter stating they will endorse me over Sam Brook! They will alsoendorse Linda Cropp, Phil Mendelson but this is an organization thathas 2,800 members in Ward 3.
Their report card will be released to the Wash Post on November 17.
Afterthat, Sam you and Martin can go have one of your famous beers togetherat the Hawk & Dove where I heard you two have had drinks beforetogether.
[15] Posted by: Jonathan R. Rees November 8, 2005 11:47 PM
http://www.dcist.com/archives/2005/11/08/war_of_words_in.phpSam Brooks is angry young man who is motivated by two things, and they are:
1. My team has already blanketed every possible home in Ward 3 with mycampiagn literature; and
2. Sam Brooks is being ignored by the most prominient organozations in DC that could offer an endorsement or support.
E.G.
Onething you might want to look into is the fact that many powerfulorganizations in DC will be holding their annual meetings this monthand next and that while I have been invited to their parties and thereleasing of their report cards on the candidates with possibleendorsements, Sam Brooks has not gotten any invites and he is deeplyupset over the fact that organizations he wants their endorsement fromare ignoring him and inviting me.
Brooks never told any of you how upset he is that he has been stepped over to these events.
[29] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 9, 2005 11:44 AM http://www.dcist.com/archives/2005/11/08/war_of_words_in.phpRees, also posing as his daughter "Anita" further explians that no one cares about issues:If voters paid attention to issues then Sam Brooks would have probably beaten Brazil and Brown back in 2004.
Unfortunately,most political experts say that less than 3% of all voters payattention to issues or care about them because voters have tunes out asthey are tired of hearing the same old better schools, betteraccountability, etc.
Voters when chosing to vote look at three things in deciding and the issues is not one of them.
Sam Brooks lost out for those three reasons political scientists cite as the major cause why good candidates lose.
What are they? Can anybody answer this question since we have so many brainiacs online?
[85] Posted by: Anita Rees November 10, 2005 12:58 AM
http://www.dcist.com/archives/2005/11/08/war_of_words_in.php
Atvarious stages during his campaign, Jonathan Rees has claimed that hereceived the endorsements of the DC Medical Society, DC Dental Society,and the DC Hospital Association. Rees also claimed that he was endorsedby the Apollo Deli on Wisconsin Avenue. None of it was true, of course.It seems that once it became clear to Rees that he could not get any endorsements, he started to say that he never wanted any.
Rees sent the following message to Smokefree DC in response to their candidate questionnaire:
July 6, 2006
Dear Sirs and/or Madams:Rees for city council has campaigned on a pledge that he would not to seek
contributions, endorsements, or ratings from any "special interests groups" and
Mr. Rees will not break that pledge to voters.As such Ress for DC City Council respectfully declines to participate in
your Candidate Questionnaire.Sincerely,Ramon Rivera
Rivera is an often used alias of Rees and the email was sent from Rees' personal account jrrees2006@verizon.net.
Settingaside that Rees was never in danger of recieving an endorsement fromSmokefree DC, ratings are of course not endorsements and it is standardfare for groups to publicize every candidate's views, in their ownwords, as Smokefree DC plans to do.
However, Rees has posted a number of times on smokefree indoor workplace bills. Below is a sampling.
"WhileI am not a smoker, I see anti-smokers and their current cause in DC asbeing on the same mental wave length as abortion clinic bombers."
August 30, 2005 9:48 pm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tenleytown/message/3154Thereis nothing wrong with the concept of having a smoking ban in DC butwhat is slowing it down is the abrasive approach many have taken.Theanti-smoking ban was not tabled for the reasons we think it was but itwas tabled because campaign contributors mainly corporations threatenedcertain council members that if they pass it, kiss any campaigncontributions in 2006 goodbye. That spelled political suicide for sometop, heavy contenders! So it was tabled under a diusguise and a promiseto re-visit but that too will get postponed until after November 2006.Corporate contributors behind the scenes want a compromise in the formof a ban but a way out, namely, bars and restaurants can get off thehook if they become a private establishments with 100 paid members.Snicker at some of the things I say but "I" not "you" sit down and talkbehind the scene with our council members, their staffers and the likeso I have been privy to a lot of stuff that would shock most of you.How many of you anti smokers give money the political campaigns ofourmayor or council members? Well? Guess what, corporate DC gives tons ofit so who do you think your beloved leaders will listen to.
August 30, 2005 10:00 pm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tenleytown/message/3155Rees, using one of his better known aliases posted thess pro-smoking messages to a smokers Yahoo Group:ABOLISH ALL TOBACCO TAXES
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecigarettesmoker2/message/1055
July 12, 2005Writing for himself, he urged the repeal of the new law:ARE YOU A CIGARETTE SMOKER?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecigarettesmoker2/message/1081
May 9, 2006Here he claims to be the Pro-smokers' candidate:Take another good look at Jonathan Rees for DC Ward 3 City Council.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecigarettesmoker2/message/1083
May 24, 2006
Here is a telling exchange with Rees on DCist. http://www.dcist.com/archives/2005/11/28/mayoral_forum_o.php
It goes on with additional ranting by Rees on other subjects, but these are the relevant posts:…By the way Mr. Rees, you will get nowhere with voters if you continueto reek of cigarettes. No wonder you are against the smoking ban.
Joe
[9] Posted by: Joe November 29, 2005 07:35 AMWhat'sup with Rees? I've read the previous posts about him completelydisinterested in the past, but now he has become incredibly annoying.
Jonathan,is this an Andy Kaufman style social experiment or are you justoperating in a different plane of reality that none of us cancomprehend?
[10] Posted by: lb November 29, 2005 09:48 AMHere's my favorite Jonathan Rees quotation:
"WhileI am not a smoker, I see anti-smokers and their current cause in DC asbeing on the same mental wave length as abortion clinic bombers."
[11] Posted by: Sandra November 29, 2005 11:07 AMAndisn't it interesting how his posts (under his own and assumed IDs) hereand elsewhere always center on rumor and hearsay: "People are saying""I saw Rees talking to So-and-so" "I hear that Rees is getting highgrade from...."So-o-o sad.
[12] Posted by: =--- November 29, 2005 11:47 AMJoe,
Youare a dumb ass. The American Cancer Society and the people behind theefforts for a no smoking ban know that I am in favor of the ban. GodJoe you are a dumb ass and talk shit too much and do it out of somementally ill bias you hold. Why don't you finally shut up and know whatyou are talking about before you talk out of you ass again.
[13] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 29, 2005 11:58 AMItis amazing that if anybody says anything nice about me then they areautomatically assumed IDs. I thought bloggers had a brain but I guess Iwas wrong.
I have learned that bloggers are hateful people who havenothing better to do that bad mouth people but never offer anythingconstructive or what the mainstream wants to hear that is why thesefreaks have their own little hole in the wall so they can impress eachother with their nonsense.
[14] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 29, 2005 12:02 PMSandra,
Myquote about stays as it is as I feel that while a no smoking ban ispossible, the anti-smokers have to be more flexible and by that I mean,they have to allow some exceptions because if they don't, Council mightnot pay anything and then there is Congress.
I believe Congress willstrike down any smoking ban the DC Government erects just as fast as itwould strike down any law granting the right to same sex marriage.
[16] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 29, 2005 12:09 PMLet'scall it correctly, Mr. Rees. You say the anti-smokers need to be moreflexible, but what about those of us who choose not to pollute ourlungs with crap. We are not anti-smoking, we are pro-pink lungs, andprefer not to have to smell the stench of old cigarettes near us, or tohave to breathe in someone else's filth.
If people want to consumecancer sticks in their own cars and in their own dwellings, that'sfine. I have no problem with enriching the medical community and thetobacco growing shareholders. However, when it comes to the air Ibreathe, the clean streets (how many times have we seen smokers flicktheir butts out the window?) and other issues associated with smoking,the government should be able to intervene to protect the public healthand welfare.
However, when it comes to public places and placeswhere non-smokers and small children are present, it is both courteousand safer to not have cigarette smoke present.
If you want to put that on the same pedestial as abortion clinic bombers, go for it.
I hope your opponents use this quote against you as they should.
Bobby[18] Posted by: Bobby November 29, 2005 12:24 PMBobby,
Yousee it one way and say you want to preserve your healthy lungs, thesmokers say they should be allowed to have a place for their own butthe anti-smokers say no way and when I say flex, the smokers are moreflexible than the anti-smokers and as long as the anti-smokers won'tflex, I think the Council will not budge and Congress will shoot downsuch a ban.
CASE IN POINT (RAVEN BAR & GRILL). They are clearlyan all smokers' place and they want the right to remain that way underan exception if a ban is passed. Six of the council members agree andsee the anti-smokers has having a right but not a right to rule the day.
[19] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 29, 2005 12:41 PMMy plan would be to pass a no-smoking ban that applies to all.
Thereafter,if any establishment wishes to allow smoking, it must apply for anexception as a private bar and/or restaurant, pay an annual exceptionfee $2,500.00, hold a set number of paid members and have to place asign outside warning the public this is a smoke friendly establishmentand attendance is by membership only or guest of a member.
[20] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 29, 2005 12:50 PMThesale of liquor kills more Americans every year than tobacco. There is aproven link to your use of alcohol and the death of others more thanthe use of tobacco by a smoker that kills a non-smoker.
More Americans die every year from the use of alcohol than from the use of tobacco.
Should we also ban the sale and use of alcohol in public establishments?
Carol Schwartz had a good point here.
Let's ban all cigarette smoking in public places and the use of alcoholic beverages.
[21] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 29, 2005 01:04 PMRees,
Are you a smoker? I'm unclear about that from what you've written.
[23] Posted by: Naomi November 29, 2005 01:45 PMHe claimed in one listserver email to not be a smoker, but stank of cigarettes last night.
John[24] Posted by: John November 29, 2005 02:00 PMThat is untrue. I have never claimed to be a non-smoker! I am a Sicilian. Be nice or I'll smoke you.
[25] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 29, 2005 02:18 PM
His profile on a dating website says that he does smoke: http://www.thousanddates.com/adt_membersprofile_home.asp?UserId=1127390&UserName=jrrees
Reesis obsessed with Sam Brooks, but more so with his own ego. In this postRees brags about all of the endorsements and score cards he was aboutto recieve. These were posted in November 2005:ThankMartin for your article today as my website went up 489 hits since 5 PMtoday or was that the positive press I got in a local medicalnewsletter stating they will endorse me over Sam Brook! They will alsoendorse Linda Cropp, Phil Mendelson but this is an organization thathas 2,800 members in Ward 3.
Their report card will be released to the Wash Post on November 17.
Afterthat, Sam you and Martin can go have one of your famous beers togetherat the Hawk & Dove where I heard you two have had drinks beforetogether.
[15] Posted by: Jonathan R. Rees November 8, 2005 11:47 PM
http://www.dcist.com/archives/2005/11/08/war_of_words_in.phpSam Brooks is angry young man who is motivated by two things, and they are:
1. My team has already blanketed every possible home in Ward 3 with mycampiagn literature; and
2. Sam Brooks is being ignored by the most prominient organozations in DC that could offer an endorsement or support.
E.G.
Onething you might want to look into is the fact that many powerfulorganizations in DC will be holding their annual meetings this monthand next and that while I have been invited to their parties and thereleasing of their report cards on the candidates with possibleendorsements, Sam Brooks has not gotten any invites and he is deeplyupset over the fact that organizations he wants their endorsement fromare ignoring him and inviting me.
Brooks never told any of you how upset he is that he has been stepped over to these events.
[29] Posted by: Jonathan Rees November 9, 2005 11:44 AM http://www.dcist.com/archives/2005/11/08/war_of_words_in.phpRees, also posing as his daughter "Anita" further explians that no one cares about issues:If voters paid attention to issues then Sam Brooks would have probably beaten Brazil and Brown back in 2004.
Unfortunately,most political experts say that less than 3% of all voters payattention to issues or care about them because voters have tunes out asthey are tired of hearing the same old better schools, betteraccountability, etc.
Voters when chosing to vote look at three things in deciding and the issues is not one of them.
Sam Brooks lost out for those three reasons political scientists cite as the major cause why good candidates lose.
What are they? Can anybody answer this question since we have so many brainiacs online?
[85] Posted by: Anita Rees November 10, 2005 12:58 AM
http://www.dcist.com/archives/2005/11/08/war_of_words_in.php
Atvarious stages during his campaign, Jonathan Rees has claimed that hereceived the endorsements of the DC Medical Society, DC Dental Society,and the DC Hospital Association. Rees also claimed that he was endorsedby the Apollo Deli on Wisconsin Avenue. None of it was true, of course.It seems that once it became clear to Rees that he could not get any endorsements, he started to say that he never wanted any.
posted at 7:27 PM
<< Home