Tuesday Hurrahpertif – Open Thread

By Meteor Blades

Thanks to Roxanne for reminding us about the American Library Association's Banned Books Week for 2005.

Unlike 50 years ago, today we live in a society, so far, where these books aren’t banned; indeed, each is readily available to anybody with the money to buy it, who possesses a library card or lives near a bookstore where they let you read for free and drink your coffee in that seat over by the window.

But there are plenty of people who, given the go-ahead, would yank these books right out of your hands. This year’s selection:

• "The Chocolate War" for sexual content, offensive language, religious viewpoint, being unsuited to age group and violence

• "Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers, for racism, offensive language and violence

• "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" by Michael A. Bellesiles, for inaccuracy and political viewpoint

• Captain Underpants series by Dav Pilkey, for offensive language and modeling bad behavior

• "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" by Stephen Chbosky, for homosexuality, sexual content and offensive language

• "What My Mother Doesn't Know" by Sonya Sones, for sexual content and offensive language

• "In the Night Kitchen" by Maurice Sendak, for nudity and offensive language

• "King & King" by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland, for homosexuality

• "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" by Maya Angelou, for racism, homosexuality, sexual content, offensive language and unsuited to age group

• "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck, for racism, offensive language and violence

Captain Underpants? Some bluenoses really do have sticks up their butts.

Citizens for Ethics released a report that captured all-too-little attention yesterday – the 13 “most corrupt” members of Congress. Recognize any of these names?

Sen. Conrad Burns (Republican of Montana); Sen. Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee); Sen. Rick Santorum (Republican of Pennsylvania); Rep. Roy Blunt (Republican from Missouri’s 7th District); Rep. Bob Ney (Republican Ohio’s 18th District); Rep. Tom Feeney (Republican from Florida’s 24th District); Rep. Richard W. Pombo (Republican from California’s 11th District); Rep. Maxine Waters (Democrat from California’s 35th District), Reps. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (Republican from California’s 50th District); and William J. Jefferson (Democrat from Louisiana’s 2nd District); Rep. Charles H. Taylor (Republican from North Carolina’s 11th District), Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave (Republican from Republican from Colorado’s 4th District); and Rep. Rick Renzi, Republican from Arizona’s 1st District).

In the interest of fairness, it should be pointed out that each of the above tribunes of the people has denied, vehemently denied or ferociously denied allegations of corruption.

Comments

[Meteor Blades]

The trouble with lists of "most corrupt" is that we don't usually find out who really is most until somebody is indicted, and that, frankly, happens all too rarely.

[emptypockets]

Maxine Waters is a no-goodnik?

"The objection is in writing, and I don't care that it isn't signed by a member of the Senate."

[DemFromCT]

This Abramoff thing stinks to high heaven. Tip of the iceberg stuff, the Watergate of the 21st century. This story has everything, even murder.

[DemFromCT]

Terry Neal calls the scandals 'broadening' - a good descriptor.

Is it 1994 all over again?

Dark and ominous clouds are gathering over the Republican party these days, with a series of ethical and legal scandals that threaten to further damage a White House and Congress already reeling from a sharp drop in public approval ratings.

Rep. Tom, Delay (Tex.), Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.), and a top administration official (David Safavian, chief of staff of the General Services Administration) have all been ensnared in highly embarrassing ethics scandals recently.

The latter two scandals touch, in some way or another, on a broadening scandal involving a former top lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, who was thoroughly connected among GOP politicians and activists.

[Meteor Blades]

I guess if scandal of the Abramoff type helps weaken or even topple Team Bush, I'm down with it. But I'd sure like to get these guys for their other criminality.

[DemFromCT]

Kick them when they're down, MB. Their friends will desert them when they're hanging from a limb.

[hamburglar]

I want to use this open thread to thank you all -- all amoung my favorite contributors from dkos past -- for this website. Keep up the strong work.

[Mimikatz]

It's not 1994; it's 1973, but we don't have Congress. So the question is how much we can get out there so we can get Congress in 2006 so that 2008 = 1976 and we gwt back the WH.

[rj]

Much to my amazement, Mimikatz, it actually seems increasingly to be getting out there. Was it Fineman (!) who said that what Katrina did was to prompt people to "rewind" the Bush presidency and take a new look at everything since 2001? I think -- I hope! -- that's happening some in the media as well (if they're taking their cue from the poll numbers, it should be). But while this sure is looking like the Republicans' 1973, the country needs it to be more like our 1931. We need Watergate to lead to the New Deal, not just a quick housecleaning followed by yet more antigovernment wolves in sheeps' clothing.

[texas dem]

That's a great expression of what I fear rj: a 4 year interregnum of Carter, followed by twelve more years of the same shit, sold by a new and improved salesman.

Beating them on narrow grounds like Plame and Abramoff is not going to cut it. Beating them on broad grounds -- undermining the CIA and experts generally, and being power-mad above all other principles including "fiscal discipline -- will do them lasting and richly deserved damage.

We can use narrow scandals to get our hooks in, but we have to keep our eye on the big sins.

I'm afraid the press won't be there, our institutions will be weak and unfocused, and this will be like Iran-Contra or even less.