First Draft

Tweety Does It Again

I keep watching him.  I know better--Mr. BuggyQ refuses to condone my watching the Sunday morning shows because the vein on the side of my head bulges.  But I can't help myself.  It's like watching a train wreck--you know you'll be squicked out, but you can't stop.

Sunday, on The Chris Matthews Show:

Matthews:  It's getting on a year, Helene, since we've seen the president in prime time.  Why doesn't he use that part of the bully pulpit?  Only he can do that, roadblock all the networks.  Why doesn't he do it?

Ms. Cooper:  Well, first of all, it's not that surprising because I think with all--with past administrations and past presidents, we've seen huge blocks of time go by without them having press conferences.

Matthews: A year, almost? Since last July?

Yes, Chris.  Simple fact check, from The American Presidency Project:

Ronald Reagan didn't have his first prime-time press conference until March 31, 1982, over a year after he entered office.

George H.W. Bush had his first on June 8, 1989, then none in either 1990 or 1991.  That's over two and a half years without a prime time press conference, Chris.

Bill Clinton, the guy who loved all the attention, had his first on June 17, 1993, and his second on March 24, 1994.

And don't get me started on Dubya.

Jeebus.  Chuck Todd did make at least an effort at "Srsly?" by pointing out that the networks hate giving up the time for press conferences.  Not to mention that "prime time" as a block of time that you're guaranteed a huge audience died along time ago.  Just ask Jay Leno.  Between the cable and satellite channels and Tivo, you're lucky to get the wonks like me.

I know, I know.  Trying to educate Chris about crap like this is like trying to teach Dubya syntax.  He gets his idea for what he wants to say, then shoehorns it into the show, facts be damned.  This time, he wanted to say that Obama's scared.  (Again, Chuck Todd tried to stop him--"He doesn't hide. We see him all the time."  And Norah O'Donnell actually stepped in, too, "Obama has done 150 or more one-on-one interviews. [snip] That's three times more than Bush or Clinton did in their first year."

Tweety's response?  "It's not prime time."

Christ.  What an asshat.  New cat Jack offers the cat equivalent of facepalm:

 

Hey, I don't get to do Friday Catblogging, and I figured bringing up Tweety needed some sort of pleasant chaser.  He and Della coulda been separated at birth, couldn't they, Adrastos?  Note that the tongue is almost perpetually stuck out like that.

Great Moments in Journalism #314,159

I almost died last Friday.  I won't bore you with details, but it involved soap, a shower curtain, a razor, and NPR.  See, Scott Horsley was covering the Obama visit to Colorado to stump for Michael Bennet, and produced this little gem as I was engaged in my morning ablutions:

"One woman at the Bennet fundraiser held a sign with the number '51' on it -- as if to say, the party that had a 60-vote lock on the Senate several weeks ago, will now feel fortunate to hold onto a bare majority."

Seriously.  I think you can understand the near-death experience now, can't you?  The only thing missing was Anthony Perkins in drag.  All I know is I ended up on the bathroom floor with half the shower curtain wrapped around me, a bar of soap embedded in the ceiling, and a cat looking down at me with an expression that read, "You just had to listen to NPR.  When will you learn?"

Now's your chance to play!  What do you think Scott would make of this sign?

Mean Girl

Frank Rich's column in Sunday's Times had me scratching my head.  It was no Broder-esque droolfest, mind you, but Rich still seems to be giving Palin wayyyyyy more credit than she deserves.  What is it with these guys?  Broder I can understand being led around by his shriveled 2-inch dowsing rod, but Frank Rich?  (Yes, she's talking about Broder in this pic...)

Cunning?  Seriously?  Don't get me wrong--I get what Rich is trying to say.  But really, how much can Palin do with even the 1/3 of Americans Rich says like her?  Hell, even 52% of REPUBLICANS think she's unqualified to be president!  She can back loony right-wingers like Rubio, sure, but what good does that do?  Ask Doug Hoffman.  They still have to close the deal, no matter how much Sarah brings to the table.

Here's the thing about Palin for me.  I know her.  I've known her since sixth grade.  She's the girl who pulled down the sleeves of my elastic-topped peasant blouse in the middle of the lunchroom to show everyone I wasn't wearing a bra yet.  She's the girl who stole my best friend's boyfriend just because she could, not because she really wanted him.  She's the girl who all the teachers (especially the male ones) seemed to adore, even though every girl in school knew she was Satan in jellies and Jordache. (I feel strangely old suddenly...)

There's a great book called Odd Girl Out by Rachel Simmons.  A good friend gave it to me, and I highly recommend it if you ever experienced a moment in your teen years where a mean girl took you out at the knees with a cutting comment or a cold shoulder.  It won't help you deal with it when it happens now (and yes, they still do that as adults, trust me--it's just one of the many reasons I've been MIA lately), but at least it'll make you feel less alone.  But I digress...

Non-Teabagging women know Palin far too well to really like her (which is one reason I think Rich's 1/3 of Americans assessment is way off).  We know that girls* like Palin have a major Achilles' heel:  they can only stay Queen Bee as long as they look like they can stay Queen Bee.  The moment they show vulnerability, the sycophants will turn on them.  It's only a matter of time before Ann Coulter gets tired of Sarah being the right-wing female flavah-of-the-month and starts to recognize that there are enough disenchanted Sarah fans that she can go after Palin.  I think the bloom is already off the rose for Palin, as witness Athenae's riff on Digby's post.  The bemused guy quoted in the C&L article as saying, "I just wasn't motivated," may not know why he isn't motivated by her any more, but I do.  The Mean Girl is starting to feel the pressure of staying on top, and being the object of David Broder's "affection" can only be fun for...no...no, wait, sorry, that just wouldn't be fun, not even for a millisecond.  Ick.

*I use the term "girl" deliberately--this kind of woman is trapped in teenage behavior.

Not Dead Yet...So Watch Out, Teabaggers!

Sorry for being MIA for so long.  Suffice it to say, January always sucks for me, and this one was worse than normal.

But I'm back, and madder than ever.  My latest pet peeve?  The deficit, and the "lack of political will" (for which read "lack of balls") to do anything about it.

Let me get this straight:  We have the Tea Party Movement (not to be confused with Bowel Movement, though there are many similarities), which is chock full o' people claiming to be "patriots."  Meanwhile, we have a government that for many reasons (most of them traceable back to some guy named Dubya) is in debt up to its eyeballs.  We also have a multitude of economists who tell us that a) deficits are bad for the economy, and therefore bad for all of us, and b) that it's not really a good idea to cut spending massively in the midst of a recession because it could shoot us straight past the recession and into a DEPRESSION (something I'd really like to avoid, because I deal with the personal version of that daily, and it ain't much fun).

Am I right about all that?

Okay, so here's my thought:  If all you Teabaggers are such frakkin' patriots, here's your chance to step up.  Our elected officials believe that they can't do anything about the deficit because if they raise taxes they won't get reelected.

Tell them they're wrong.  Tell them that as true patriots, you are willing to do what it takes to get our government out of this mess.  Tell them you're okay with raising taxes with the express purpose of paying down the debt our government has racked up.  C'mon, I dare ya!

Hey, what can I say?  I needed a good laugh this morning.

But for what it's worth, I'm going on record as saying I'm patriotic enough to be willing to see my taxes raised to reduce the deficit.  I can't afford it, but I can't afford to see the economy go in the dumper because of the deficit either.  And in case any of you forgot, the economy was humming along nicely under the Clinton administration, a time of HORRIFIC TAX BURDENS according to the loony right.  I also appreciate all the stuff I get from our federal government, and I'd like to see all that continue.

So, to Betsy Markey, Mark Udall and Michael Bennett, please, raise my taxes.  I won't hold it against you. 

Screw up health care reform, however...

I need a shot of rhythm and blues

Ever have one of those days? It's been like that since before Christmas for me. One crisis after another, compounded by my home computer biting the dust. So here I am blogging from my phone, because I'm home sick with walking pneumonia. So, whatever I did karmically to deserve this, I'm frakking sorry, okay? Jeebus. Anyway, the phone doesn't have an alt key, so only one category. Pretend this is also categorized Stupid Republican Tricks.

Now, I need to earn my keep around here. I am well and truly baffled by the persistence of the Republican dominance of the national security issue. The two most successful military endeavors of American history were presided over by Democrats. The Republicans, however, presided over the end of the Korean conflict (not exactly a win) and Vietnam (essentially a cut 'n run, by Republican definitions). So why do pundits like Cokie Roberts still keep parroting the idea that it's a winning issue for Republicans?

Because Democrats keep letting them. This latest "crisis" is a case in point. There have been two nearly identical incidents of attempted bombings of planes, one under Bush, one under Obama. Come on, Democrats, grow a pair, willya?

I'd go on, but my thumbs are tired. How do kids text so much?

Why I'm Glad Health Care Didn't Die

1.  It's a giant fuck you to the teabaggers, the Michelle Bachmanns and the rest of the stupid contingent in America.

2.  Now that the stupid contingent has cried wolf (or, to be perfectly accurate, EVIL DEMON RABID PSYCHO ZOMBIE WOLF FROM HELLLLLLLL!!!!) about all the bad things the health care bill will do, when said bill does no such thing, it'll make it a little more difficult for them to get political traction with that shit in the future.

3. On the other hand, when the bill doesn't do all the things that Americans really want it to do (like give them a bloody public option), Americans are going to be pissed.  And that may make it easier to get that stuff done down the road.

4.  While getting Republicans to back the omnibus bill was impossible for obvious reasons, now that the bill has passed, it might be easier to peel off some Republican votes to support some incremental fixes in the future (see points 2 and 3).

5.  In the meantime, maybe we can get something done about the most egregious Blue Dogs and egomaniacs.  Get Joe effing Lieberman out of the picture and the whole thing gets a lot easier.  And given the fact that most Americans do support the public option, and Joe wasn't all that popular before all this went down, well...  He could pull that "Connecticut, you love me!" thing once.  Now they realize that they're just not that into him.

I'm not all that happy about the bill.  The lack of a public option is offensive, the Nelson amendment is worse than offensive, and there are still a lot of holes.  But I do believe this is better than not getting the bill passed at all.

Depressing

The lede of the AP story about Georgia House Speaker Glenn Richardson's resignation last week: 

"Georgia's powerful House speaker resigned Thursday after a suicide attempt and allegations by his ex-wife that he carried on an affair with a lobbyist."

Ohhhhkayy.  Let me get this straight--there are two elements to this story.  One, the attempted suicide three weeks ago.  And then there's the second one, that he'd subsequently been accused of having an affair, and it was that revelation that led to his resignation.

 

But what did AP (and NPR, which is where I first heard about it last week) go with as the primary part of the story?

 

I thought about this for several days, and I'm still worried I'm a little sensitive here since this is an issue that hits very close to home.  But I decided it was still worth discussing.  The story here is that another politician is resigning because of an extramarital affair.  The only thing that raised this one to national attention is the fact that the politician also happened to attempt suicide.

 

Why?

 

Generally, I'm all in favor of piling scorn on philandering politicians, especially if they're Republicans in southern states.  But I have a real problem with this one, because a suicide attempt is a serious thing.  It's clear this is a guy who was suffering from significant depression, and that is not a political issue.  The AP could easily have left the suicide attempt out of the lede and just gone with the second paragraph mention.  I'm certainly not saying they should ignore the suicide attempt.  But leaving it to the second paragraph would have put the emphasis on what really caused Richardson's downfall.

 

Depression is a big deal in our country.  I had hoped we'd gotten past the days when revelations that a politician suffered from depression could destroy a career.  I had hoped we were at least approaching the point where a Thomas Eagleton could still run for major office, but this whole Richardson brouhaha has made me question that.  And that's depressing.

Worst Decade Ever

So I got Time in the mail yesterday.  (Stop:  before we go any further, I realize that Time still employs Joke Line.  I only got it because I was too mushy to tell the adorable clerk at FYE not to sign me up for fourteen thousand not-so-free offers that I'm still paying for.)  Anyway, the cover story is about how awful the Aughts or the Naughties or whateverthehell we're calling it was.

I'm a little reluctant to call truly awful solely because it's the decade in which I got married, and despite the hostilidays video I posted, Mr. BuggyQ is really quite divine.  But I totally understand Time's point of view--it also was the decade of George Dubya Bush, which should really just end the argument.  And that's without bringing up 9/11 (shut up, Rudy).

Whatever you may think about the decade, however, there is one group that will, I think, rue this decade for a long, long time:  the Republican Party.  I remember when the Republican Party was awful, but not insane.  When 9/11 happened, however, America had a collective panic attack.  (For me, it had as much to do with who was in charge as with what had happened, but the point stands.)  We all went a little nuts for a while, and Dubya was able to ram through Iraq and rendition and wiretapping, etc...

But here's the thing:  the Republican Party hasn't gotten over it.  While the rest of us realized that yes, there was a terrorist attack and yes, it was awful and horrific, we're still here, and we're still pretty much okay, and maybe we don't really need to kill all the brown people, the Republicans are still looking for the boogeyman in the closet [insert self-hating gay Republican joke here...]  This is why people like Michelle Bachmann are the stars of the Republican Party today, where in 1993, she'd have been an obscure, ranting backbencher if she got elected at all.  Keep in mind that while Athenae is right that the Republican Party always accepted Pat Buchanan, he never was able to finish more than a distant third as a presidential candidate in the Republican primaries.  Yet through most of this decade, Extreme Loony Pat^tm (watch for the action figure--the hair pops off when Rachel Maddow talks) was actually a voice of reason in the Republican Party.  Yeah, think about that one for a minute.  Athenae said Pat "hasn't gotten any nuttier the past couple of years, just louder about it."  And that's true--but why did he have to be so quiet about it before?  Part of what made him unsuccessful in the presidential races was that his more extreme views were known, and were unpopular.  The Republicans always had the nutty uncles, but in this decade, they let the nutty uncles out of the attic and put them on the floor of the House.  Hell, even Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly aren't as loony as Glenn Beck, and look who's winning the ratings these days!  They may have set the stage for the craziness that is the teabagger movement, but I don't think they expected it to get quite this crazy.

I'm not a fan of prognosticating the end of the Republican Party, and I'm sure there'll be a resurgence for them.  After all, there are a lot of still-panicking Americans out there.  The election next year will probably bring in more Republicans, just because there are a lot of contrarian independents out there who'd vote against the party in power no matter who it was.  But methinks the sane independents aren't going to be running back into the arms of the Republicans any time soon.  At least not as long as Michelle Bachmann and Virginia Foxx and Glenn Beck are running the show.

So there's a silver lining to the Worst Decade Ever.  Remember, that which does not kill us...

Lightweights

Bad Christmas videos?  Here's the BuggyQ equivalent of a thermonuclear strike:

The saddest part is I'm actually related to the artist known as GMark.  This is the cross I bear.

And A, this is what you get for giving us the keys...

Stupid

In the midst of all the woo-hooing over the cloture vote, an unnamed senatorial chief of staff sent this little ditty to Josh Marshall.

 

I get it--I do.  I understand what he/she's trying to say.  I'm delighted that we've gotten as far as we have on health care reform, and I know that it's in large part due to a lot of deal-making to hold onto the 60.  And for the most part, I'm cool with that.  So thanks for all your efforts, Mr./Ms. Chief of Staff.  Seriously.  Anybody that had to suck up to Joe Lieberman to get his vote gets my sympathetic shudder and heartfelt thanks.

 

But you couldn't leave well-enough alone, could you?  Because your last sentence really got me:

"Blasting their elected Democratic officials, the vast majority of whom will vote for the Senate bill (and would also support a more robust public option if we didn't need 60 votes to achieve cloture), may make folks feel good, but is both short-sighted and stupid."

Stupid....  Sigh.  At the risk of repeating every lefty blogger that ever put pixel to screen, fuck you.  Stupid.  Really?  Stupid?

 

Your Stupid:  Let Me Show  You It 

 

I know that making bills into laws is like sausage-making--you don't want to see it done.  Well, dear CoS, let me extend that metaphor to the breaking point, just so your tiny little reptilian brain can make sense of it.  When we blast our elected Democratic officials, it isn't to make us feel good, it's to make sure that as little melamine makes its way into the sausage as possible.  The whole point of us blasting our elected Democratic officials, buddy, is so they know exactly where we stand, that where we stand is as public as possible, and that therefore, we can push back against the myriad forces trying to stick lye and dust and rat shit in our sausage.  Do you honestly think that if we shut up, you'd magically be able to get a "robust public option?"  If you think so, you're far more stupid than you seem to think we are.  A huge part of why you've been able to get this far with the public option is our vocal support of it.

 

So what exactly is it costing you to have us yelling at you?  Have you lost an election yet?  Have you lost donations?  Dude, we haven't even started to mess with you yet.  All we're doing at this point is telling you what we want you to do.  If you screw this up, then  yes, we'll take it out on you bigtime.  But if you do the right thing--even in a losing cause--we'll reward you.  So your little whinefest up there is premature at best.  And pissing off people who can do you a whole lot of good down the road?  Man, that little "stupid" comment was projection on a scale I haven't seen since our local drive-in closed.

 

As far as I can tell, the only possible reason for wanting us to STFU right now is that you want to stick dead kittens in our sausage.  So, no, I'm not going to STFU.  I'm not going to make it easier for you to cave on the public option.  I'm not going to make it easier for you to let all of us get fucked by the Blanche Lincolns of the world.  I'm not going to let you off the hook.

 

Because the fact is, the majority of Americans want a public option, in damn near every poll out there.  Even Americans from Arkansas, which makes caving to Blanche Effing Lincoln even more stupid.  So if you want to stick dead kittens into this bill in place of good, wholesome meat, you'll have to do it with us screaming at you to stop.

 

Man up, you pathetic worm.  Having people yell at you is part of your goddamned job.

Justice

This is Justice.  He's my dog-nephew.  My brother acquired this walking tongue several years ago.  He's a bull mastiff, and the tongue thing is due to his jaw being malformed--his mouth just isn't big enough to hold his tongue.  He has a tendency to acquire dust-bunnies and other detritus on it--kinda like a Swiffer.  He's really popular with the special needs kids my brother works with, and with good reason.  He's just about the sweetest giant I've ever met.

So why am I talking about Justice?  Because he needs help.  I wasn't going to ask.  I felt weird about asking for help for a dog at a time when everybody is hurting.  But I love my brother, and he's desperate to save this wonderful dog.  So here I am, asking for help.

Justice has cancer.  He was diagnosed about three weeks ago.  I found out when my brother posted this update on Facebook:

"Things were starting to look up-but the rest of the labwork came back positive for lymphoma. Justice has cancer, and I don't know what to do."

It broke my heart.  After a lot of talking to the oncologist and careful weighing of all the options, my brother decided that he just couldn't give up on Justice.  So they're going ahead with chemotherapy.  The problem is, my brother is now facing upwards of $10,000 in expenses by the time they get through it all.  The vet is being very helpful--they've fallen in love with Justice, as does anybody who meets the Hippo (as he's affectionately known).  But they can't just donate that much care.

Which is where you all come in.  I know money is tight--it was tough for me to scrape together my own contribution to the cause.  But even if you can't donate, if you could spread the word to your pet-loving friends, I'd appreciate it.  I figured that I might not be able to pay for it all myself, but I could at least get the message out to as many people as possible and hope that a lot of little donations would do what I couldn't.

You can read more about Justice on Facebook.  My brother created a group called Justice For All, and he's giving regular updates on Justice's progress.  The plan is that any donations that are raised above what Justice needs will go to help other pets in need.  Donations can be made through PayPal, by clicking the Send Money button and entering HealJustice@aol.com as the recipient. The email is linked, via PayPal, to Justice's medical fund account at Chase Bank.

Thanks to all of you for anything you can do.  And especially thanks to Athenae for giving me access to the biggest soapbox I could hope for in this kind of situation.

And if you're inclined to comment that this is a lot of money to spend on just a dog, hey, that's cool.  I'm not asking everybody to be okay with this.  This is a plea only to those people who understand.  The rest of you can go on about your lives.

An Open Letter To Betsy Markey

Dear Congresscritter Markey,

Enjoy the salutation, because that's as civil as this letter is likely to get.

Nice work there on the health care reform vote.  You must be proud to be the only member of the Colorado Democrats in Congress who voted no.

Let me tell you what you've won with that vote:

1)  A demoralized base wondering if you're worth voting for, let alone walking the pavement for like many did in the last election.  I was one of them--three Saturdays in a row before the election, walking door to door, despite my decrepit knees.  Yes, I was mainly doing it for Obama, but I was doing it for all the Democratic candidates.  People like me won you that election.  And we can lose it for you, too.

2)  The votes of probably ten independent voters who might have been swung by this vote.  The others probably would have voted for you over the Republican or the Republican over you no matter what.

3)  A Democratic leadership who will remember this vote the next time you have something you need for Colorado.  Thanks a lot, Betsy.  You gave us two fuckings for the price of one.

4)  If I have anything to say about it, you've won a primary challenge that will make your ears bleed.  It's just not enough for you to be better than Marilyn Musgrave.  (Hell, that's like being better than getting shot with a nail gun, or better than living on Venus, or better than...oh, hell, fill in your own blank: ______________________________________________________________________________)

5)  A lifetime supply of Rice-A-Roni, though you'll have to talk to Nancy Pelosi to get it.

Remember this:  you cannot win this district without the enthusiastic support of the Democrats living here.  When Karl Rove is telling Democrats they need to run to the middle, you know that's political suicide.  You blew this one, Betsy.  All you can do now is hope that you get a shot at redemption so you don't end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear:  Americans want health care reform.  They want a public option.  They want this, and if you give it to them, they'll reward you.  If you stand in the way, they will punish you.  It's that fucking simple.

A concerned constituent, a.k.a. BuggyQ

Just Say No to Joe

  I admit it--this post is purely an excuse to celebrate the hotness that was the movie Witness.  I mean really, Harrison Ford, Alexander Godunov and a very young and very adorable Viggo Mortensen?  Three men who could actually make those silly hats look sexy...

But I actually do have a point.  I remember there being this sort of renaissance of interest in all things Amish after this movie came out.  Suddenly quilting, woodworking and homemade lemonade were all the rage.

I think they missed the best part of all things Amish, however, at least in terms of usefulness:  shunning.  We don't really practice it in our society, but if it were used judiciously, there are times when it would be really, really useful.

Yes, I'm looking at you, Holy Joe Lieberman.  The best response to an attention whore like him is to deny him that which he most craves.  I realize this is an unlikely thing--lord knows, I'm not exactly practicing what I preach here--but it's time for Democrats everywhere to stop pandering to the poop.  So, Harry Reid, when somebody asks you about something Holy Joe says, it's time for you to say, "Joe Lieberman is irrelevant."

Or, even better, "Joe who?"

And if you appreciated the gratuitous Harrison pic, feel free to signal your favor by donating to First Draft.  (Hey, if our local PBS station can air Pink Floyd concerts non-stop during pledge week, why should I remain pure?  "Money...it's a gas!")

Is Writing Dead?

Dateline:  Monte Cassino, in the year of our lord, 583

At left, a Benedictine monk at work--but for how much longer?

Abbot Bonitus of the monastery of Monte Cassino is one of a growing number of abbots questioning the wisdom of teaching writing in this modern world.  "There just aren't that many jobs out there for people who can write any more.  After all, who's going to hire a scribe when there's no one to read what he writes?"

Graduates of the Monte Cassino school are finding it difficult to get work.  Brother Godulf of Saxony has been sending out resumes for months.  "How am I supposed to find a job in an industry that's laying off scribes right and left?" he says.  Godulf doesn't blame the low literacy rate, however.  "It's all about the money," he says.  "Monasteries used to hire scribes by the hundreds, but ever since the money stopped coming in, what with the fall of Rome and all, they're so worried about the bottom line."

Abbot Bonitus acknowledges the drop in income, but maintains the monastic business model is still viable.  "We just need to figure out a way to compete with non-literate forms of information dissemination.  Word of mouth is just so much faster than the printed word, even though everybody knows how unreliable the spoken word is."

Bonitus blames the town crier model for turning many away from the written word.  "Those criers just stand on their street corners yelling anything.  There's no fact checking, no editorial control.  People even turn to them for the word of God, but do they really know what they're getting?"  Bonitus is worried that the town crier model is drawing too many untrained people.  “Next thing you know, there’s going to be some guy yelling that the end is near, and how many people will panic as a result?  It’s irresponsible.”

Felix of Aquileia scoffs at such concerns from his post in the town square.  “Look, the problem is guys like Bonitus just aren’t producing quality work any more, and they’re blaming guys like me.  But who reported on the Lombard/Burgundian brouhaha last year?  It wasn’t Bonitus—it was Joshua Martialus, one of these dirty street corner criers like me.  Where was Bonitus?  Sitting up there in his monastery drinking wine and thinking deep thoughts.  He's terrified that he won't get to be the gatekeeper for knowledge any more--and he should be.”

But Felix doesn’t want to see the monastic model fail.  “We depend on them for a lot of great information.  They’ve got the connections to get information from all over.  I’m a guy on a street corner.  I’m just tired of them blaming me for the problem.  It’s not me—it’s them.  If he wants the monastic model to survive, Bonitus ought to be looking at why people are turning to people like me.  People out here are crying for information.  I’m just giving one more avenue for them to get it.  And even if our particular model doesn't succeed in the long run, there will always be upstarts finding ways past the gatekeepers.  Knowledge can't be suppressed."

----------------------

Picture from the University of Oxford, from a 2001 lecture on the history of the book by the librarian of the Bodley, Reg Carr.  http://tinyurl.com/ykrxsbd  It's a cool article, with lots of fun pics.

p.s.  Thanks for all the good wishes for last week everybody!  My chorus placed fourth, which was lower than we had hoped, but we're still the 4th best in the world, so I'll take the big honkin' medal that goes with it.  We had a ball, but now we're back to work so we can get back there again and do better.

BuggyQ's Rules for Living

I was a little out of it last week (hence my being MIA last Tuesday) with a cold, so the whole Peace Prize thing has taken a while to sink in.  Here's my take:

I have a few basic rules I try to live by:

1.  Avoid people who don't like domesticated animals.

2.  Wear comfortable shoes.

3.  Yield to merging traffic--literally and metaphorically.

4.  Notice sunsets.  (Sunrises are optional)

5.  Enjoy music--either by making it or listening to it--as often as possible.

After last week, I've decided to add one:  If Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are all doing something, don't do it.  (You can think it, but doing it in public is a bad idea.)

Why the Census Matters

So a Census worker was attacked, killed, and left with the word "FED" marked on his chest.

Aside from the obvious, why is this a big deal?

First, you know there are a lot of Census survey forms that go out, but in many cases, the actual face-to-face contact by Census workers is crucial to getting anything close to an accurate count of people in this country, especially those who are most in need of government services.  I'm not just talking about the decennial census, but also the various surveys like the American Community Survey that Bill Sparkman was working on when he was killed.

Those various counts have very, very far-reaching consequences.  The most obvious is in congressional representation--representatives are apportioned among the states on the basis of population as determined by the decennial census.  An undercount in one area means potentially fewer representatives for a given state.  Add to that the issue of setting district boundaries, with the attendant potential for gerrymandering, and you can see it's a big deal.

But that's just the glamorous side of Census.   Census data is used by many federal, state and local government agencies to plan services.  The data are used to determine if agencies are serving the various demographic groups proportionally (one of the ways I use Census data regularly is to see if my college is attracting hispanic students in proportion to the local population, an issue which can dramatically affect what kind of federal grant funding we can get).  

Incidentally, census data are also used extensively by businesses to target advertising, plan expansion, locate new businesses, and many other things.  So this isn't just a government program that benefits DFHs.

Obviously, there are those in political circles who believe their interests are best served by having the Census undercount certain population groups.  Hence, Michelle Bachman's obnoxious tirade back in June about the Census being used to put Americans in "concentration camps."  Does anybody really believe she has a deep and abiding concern for the rights of Japanese-Americans?

Which brings me back to the issue at hand.  As horrific and tragic as the story of Bill Sparkman's death is on its own, it has even more far-reaching effects when it comes to the outcome of the 2010 Census.  Any kind of intimidation of Census workers has the potential to suppress the count, not just in the area where the intimidation occurs, but everywhere.  Ultimately, when it comes to the impact on the Census, it doesn't even really matter who did the killing.  How many of us would be willing to work as a Census field worker now, whether it was right-wing paranoiacs or drug dealers?

Well, up till the anti-ACORN brouhaha, ACORN workers might have.  Thanks a lot, Darryl effing Issa.

Yes, I know--right now there are a lot of out-of-work people who would take this on in spite of the real or imagined danger.  But I think the point still stands--the right wing attacks on ACORN aren't just about hating on that organization for the sake of hate.

Anyway, consider this the BuggyQ PSA--when the time comes, please fill out your Census forms as thoroughly as possible, and return them early.  And encourage everyone you know to do the same.  The more of us who do, the fewer Census folks who have to go knocking on doors and putting themselves in potential danger.

I Me Me Mine

I was reading Athenae's post about the RedState Morans, and it all circled around back to a theme I'd been thinking about for some time.

We all have the "As long as I get mine" gene.  I know that.  There are situations where I would be all for saving the women and children first 'cause I have boobies and I'm kinda short.  But when First Drafters raised $700 to send a soldier we've never met a bunch of cool stuff, well, it was a good reminder that we aren't always slaves to our baser instincts.

How many of those teabaggers screaming about socialized medicine look at Jerry's kids and say, "You're on your own, kid"?  I'm serious.  I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of folks on that side of the great health care divide that do donate to charities like that.  Why is it so different when it's the government acting as the go-between?  I get that poor people don't always look like moon-faced cherubs in wheelchairs, which is why the poster child got invented in the first place.  But jeez, are we really that shallow as a nation? (Don't answer that--it's too depressing...)  Why is it we can be so generous on an individual level, but somehow collectively we turn into Mr. Potter?

I mean, if every American chipped in $20 a month, that'd cover 80% of the plan the President wants.  (July 2008 Census count of American population = 304,059,724, multiply that by $240, and you get nearly $73 billion a year.  The President wants a plan that costs $900 billion over ten years.)  I could manage that, and I'd be happy to chip in $20 a month for a couple of good friends who are without coverage right now and can't afford it.  $60 a month to get guaranteed health coverage, no questions asked?  Hell, yeah!

In World War II, we went on rationing.  We had to give up a lot of comforts as a nation so that we could fight and win that war.  And when it was framed in that way--that this was your patriotic duty--people did it.  Sure, there was grumbling, sure there were people who tried to get around it, but by and large, people did it.  And there was the expectation that if you didn't go along with it, you were a slacker, you were helping the enemy, you were a bad person.  I know the good old days were never that good (just watch a Preston Sturges movie and you'll see that), but at least then patriotism actually meant supporting something that was for the good of the whole freakin' country.  When did that mentality get turned on its head?  When did we start demonizing the guy who wants to help everybody else?

I think the problem is the "everybody else" part.  That's a little daunting.  So put it in simple terms.  What would you do to help somebody you know who needs health insurance but can't get it?  Would you give $20 a month?  $40?  More?

In case you want an ear worm, here's the title track.

Get Over It

Okay,  I was fine with chilling out on the Joe Wilson Dopapalooza.  I was actually okay with no censure vote.  I could have let it go.  Really.  The most I was going to do was a nice, civil post about why the "you  lie" accusation was dangerous because it undermines the idea of good faith negotiation in Congress (which is, incidentally, why the British Parliament has rules about that--you cannot accuse an MP of lying, even in the free-for-all that is Question Time).

And then a friend told me it wasn't a big deal.  That Democrats should just get over it.

Sigh.

BuggyQ SMASH!!!!

Just like we should get over the theft of the 2000 election.  Like we should get over the lies that got us into Iraq.  Like we should get over the outing of Valerie Plame.  Like we should get over the torture in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.  Like we should get over the politicization of the Justice Department.  Like we should get over the use of terror threats to game the 2004 election.  Like we should get over warrantless wiretapping.

Like we should get over Katrina.

Fuck that shit.  You know what?  I'm not getting over it.  Ever.  I'm not forgetting the crap they've pulled on us.  I'm not letting it go.  You know why?  Because they never stop doing it.  Every time we roll over, they stomp on us again.  Every time we cave in the interest of civility, they spit in our faces again.  Not just the Bush administration, all of them.  The Glenn Becks, the Rush Limbaughs, the John Cornyns, the Katherine Harrrises, the David Addingtons, all of them.

Is this the hill I want to die on?  No.  But how many hills do we give up?  We've given up the fucking Himalayas already.

Let's fight back.  Censure his ass, and then get his opponent elected.  From here on, my goal is to make a teabagger cry every fucking day. 

WOLVERINES!!!!

(Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation, Jude.)

Top Ten Things I Would Like to See Happen Tomorrow Night But Won't

10.  "Hello, America!  There's a black man in the White House.  To those of you who just puckered, get the fuck over it."

9.  "Max Baucus, if you don't want to wake up one fine morning with a horse head in your bed, stop sabotaging the public option."

8.  "Glenn Beck can kiss my black ass."

7.  "With regard to Van Jones...if you want good government, you need good people running it.  The Republicans and their noise machine seem hell bent on driving every last good person out of government.  What does that tell you?"

6.  "A majority of Americans elected me.  They elected a majority of Democrats in the Congress.  So why the fuck are we worried about keeping the Republicans happy?  THEY LOST!"

5.  "To the parents who were freaking out about my speech to their kids:  if asking your kids to stay in school freaks you out, then pull your kids out of school.  Get rid of the morons, and we'll help a lot of schools improve their test scores."

4.  "To the so-called liberal media:  Last week it was "death panels."  This week it was the freakout over my speech to the kids.  Next week it will be that my toe jam is causing mesothelioma.  The week after that, it will be my supposed responsibility for the crucifixion of Christ.  When the fuck will you stop treating this as news and start treating it as a potload of whiny, paranoid ranting by people who deserve about as much attention as that guy on the corner screaming, "BUNNIES ARE EATING MY EAR HAIR!"?

3.  "Health care reform:  You want it.  You know we need it.  So why the hell are you listening to the people who told you that if the government throws a bunch of money at rich people, you'll get some when they poop on your head?"

2.  "To the Democrats in the Senate:  grow a pair.  Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone deserve nothing less.  And Paul has been waiting for far too long."

1.  "You compromise when the middle ground is acceptable.  Giving up the public option is not acceptable.  On that I will not compromise."

I really, really wish I'd hear that last one, but I don't plan to hold my breath.  I wish I could crack van with y'all, but I have a prior engagement.  Somebody make a few random kitten noises for me, 'k?

Fun with teh First

I was listening to the radio as I was waking up this morning, and I have this hazy recollection that there was a story about a lawsuit over cigarette advertising.  Sure enough, turns out that the second and third biggest tobacco companies are suing over the new restrictions on advertising imposed by the new law giving the FDA regulatory powers over tobacco.

I'd been thinking about doing a post on the free speech clause of the First Amendment anyway, and this seems an appropriate topic to start that off.

As you are all well aware, there are limits to freedom of speech:  the classic "you can't yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater" idea is the obvious one, but there are lots of others.  One of my favorites, though, isn't properly a limitation on freedom of speech: the infamous  Hays Office (officially the Motion Picture Production Code) which made sure that Maureen Sullivan didn't show her belly button in Tarzan movies, among many other crimes against nature.  The Hays Office was only possible because the Supremes had initially ruled in 1915 that the First Amendment didn't apply to movies (later reversed in a series of rulings in the 1950s and 60s), and because the film industry agreed voluntarily to submit to it.

But I digress.  We talked a while back about the issue of election reform, and how to prevent money from having such a corrosive effect on public policy.  But that runs smack into the first amendment.

So here's the question for the day:  how far should the government be able to infringe on freedom of speech?  I have trouble with this one, because I see myself as a liberal in both the classical and the contemporary senses.  I'm big into civil rights and avoiding overbearing government involvement in my life, so I'm not a big fan of censorship (slippery slopes and all that).  On the other hand, I believe that the government has a responsibility to protect citizens--even from themselves in some cases.

In the tobacco case, in spite of my disgust for all things tobacco, I find myself leaning more toward supporting the tobacco companies.  (I doubt they'll want my support, though, because I feel that cigarettes in their current form ought to be banned.  At the very least, the adulterations the tobacco companies have done to make their product more addicting should be banned.  If the product is really so dangerous that it needs a warning label covering half the product, why the hell is the product on the market?  But that's another issue...)  As far as the First Amendment issue is concerned, I think the restrictions on advertising are extreme.  But I'm not set on that idea--if somebody has a different take, feel free to persuade me.

As for campaign finance reform, my feeling is there's no way to avoid having money influence elections without damaging the first amendment more than I'm willing to accept.  What do you all think?

And for the record, there's a very big part of me that would be just fine with censorship of Joke Line, under the aegis of the "protecting the citizenry" idea.

The Senate: Appendix or Brain Stem?

One of the more interesting themes to come out of last week's discussion of possible amendments to the Constitution was the idea that the Senate is a crummy institution and ought to be done away with.  I can certainly understand that these days, what with Max Baucus holding health care reform hostage to his monumental ego.

I know the Senate has always gotten a bad rap--it's hard to overcome the idea that it was designed to keep the hoi polloi like you and me from screwing up the government.  But given some of the wacky things that have made it to the floor of the House of Representatives over the years, I have to say I don't mind the stodgy old Senate too much.  To put it in perspective, I offer the ultimate wacky thing that made it to the House:

 

So, is it wise to have a branch of the legislature that by its nature acts as a brake to slow down a rush to bad legislation?  Or is the Senate an inherently conservative body that prevents good legislation from getting passed?  (I know, I know--the world isn't black and white.  But for the sake of argument, it's much easier to pose the question in that way, and allow the middle ground to come out in the discussion.)

For my part, I will say this:  an institution is only as good as the people running it.  My feeling is there isn't a problem in the Senate that couldn't be solved by electing better Senators.  Whether that is possible, however, is an entirely different question.  But it does lead to another question:  is there a way to improve either the electoral process or the structure of the Senate that might help overcome some of the biggest problems in that body?

And more important, is there anything we as citizens can do to help fix it?