Has anyone else noticed the excessive shock and disgust with which our talking news heads have reported Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s liberal use of the F-word? In the first couple days of the scandal, Blagojevich’s (and his wife’s) potty mouths received more attention than their actual deeds.

Senate seat, a children’s hospital, editorial writers: Everything is for sale. The Blagojevichs are the Baltimore Ravens of the pay for play world. (Should someone check on their kids?) So why the media preoccupation with style over substance? Are Chris Matthews, Lou Dobbs, and Sean Hannity (to name a few) as truly offended as much as they claim? Or could it be they’re just trying to keep the “pure” in puritanical?  

I love words. I’m attracted to their etymology, to the complexity and simplicity–and to their inevitable malleability. Of course, I have my limits. I will never accept impact as a verb or aggravate as a synonym for irritate. I literally hiss when I hear the wince inducing “revert back.” But the F-bomb, used in art, literature, or private conversation does not offend me. In fact, it can, in the right circumstances, be quite effective. Powerful.

Let me just stop here and say that I would not use the F-word in front of your mother–or even mine, most of the time–at a formal professional function, or in my classroom. More than once, though, I have wished that I could create a lesson around the word fuck. Fuck can be quite illustrative in discussing parts of speech.  

Fuck as noun

Examples: Fat Fuck, Lazy Fuck, Stupid Fuck. Sure, one could substitute Ass in each of those instances. But it loses power. One exception is Dumb Ass.  That just works.  

Fuck as adjective

Examples: Fucking ridiculous, fucking great, or, most popular, fucking bullshit. Once again, substitutes dilute meaning and emotional impact.

Fuck as exclamation

Examples: Fuck! Fuckin’ a! Do I really have to explain this?

Fuck as verb

Examples: OK, I don’t want this to be awkward. But we’re all adults here, right? We can probably agree that a throatily whispered,” Make love to me” has its time and place. But if I’m in the throes of the act I am much more likely to scream something else that I want you to do to me.

Our culture has accepted the transformation of other words; spam, gay, and the previously mention verb impact come to mind. Why not fuck?  There are times when it is actually less offensive than the term it is supplanting. Isn’t “fucktard” more sensitive than that word that so many teens use? And how about borrowing from across the ocean and using “For fuck’s sake,” instead of taking the Lord’s name in vain, which greatly bothers some of my Christian friends.

The millenials seem to get it. But then, they also seem to use the C-word with some regularity. So I guess I’ll have to ponder that.

As for Rod Blagojevich? What a Dumb Fuck.  

Crossposted @ www.vermontbloggernaut.blogspot.com

This started out as a comment, but I decided it was worth expanding and building upon.

I was embarrassed this week to see Jim Douglas, governor of Vermont giving testimony in Washington. It seemingly amounted to nothing more than a beggar looking for handouts. Maybe if he surrounded himself with able, qualified, intelligent, outside-of-the-box thinking people in his administration instead of this cronies, Vermont might have more options. His appearance did not make me proud to be a Vermonter, we take care of our own, and are in much better of a position to do so than the Federal government at this point.

Hopefully this will get a few others to chime in with their thoughts. If you don’t learn history, you are doomed to repeat it. We’ve been through hard economic times before, and we need to do what we know works. It’s time for the 2009 New Deal For Vermont, there is no better time to invest in Vermont and Vermonters.

Vermont has one of the best bond ratings of all the states in the union. It’s time we take advantage of that to secure funds to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. Put Vermonters to work rebuilding, and preparing our state for the next 100 years. We INCREASE state goverment, the biggest employer in the state of Vermont IS already the state of Vermont.

Run with this for the short term, and turn the whole state into a massive public works project to put people to work and prepare us for the future. Put forth a massive concerted effort to rebuild our bridges, roads, and telecommunications. Also of priority would be environmental conservation projects aimed at waste and pollution reduction, recycling and reuse, controlling/eradicating invasive species, and assisting Vermont communities with growth center and economic development. From working on the facilities at state parks, to turning wastes into resources, or building new businesses, there is very little we can’t do.

Today’s Freeps ran with an article that 2,ooo more Vermonters just signed up for unemployment benefits last week, bringing the total to more than eleven thousand receiving benefits. They may have to up the unemployment costs to businesses because here’s more money going out than coming in, ad that’s not going to help businesses already struggling with payrolls. We’re gonna be spending the money whether we get some bang for our buck or not. Let’s get these people some work to do! Vermonters are a hardy lot, and would rather do something than nothing.

This is not nearly a complete picture or plan, but it’s a start. Dialogue and Yankee ingenuity can and will get us through these hard times. We all need to sit back, look at the big picture, and say what can I do to help Vermont get through this, we’re in it together. Right now Vermont’s future is being decided for us, let’s take a stand, invest in Vermont and Vermonters!  

That's what we keep hearing, right? That the UAW has pushed wages and benefits up so high that the American manufacturers can't make a profit on the cars they sell. We hear that the labor costs for Ford are $71 and hour, whereas the Japanese companies, even for plants here in the United States, are only paying $49 an hour. And that's supposed to be outragous, right? After all, how many of the people who hear these statements are getting paid $71 an hour? Therefore, the problem must be the UAW.

Yeah, but no.

When you look at the figures, you see a totally different story. It's true, the all-in labor cost of Ford (or “Ford's”, if you work in production) is about $71 an hour, $22 an hour more than what the Japanese companies are paying. That's a big gap, and would seem to support the claim that the American companies are overpaying their workers. The components of that difference, though, are significant. Ford pays a little more in hourly wages, benefits, and health care. The big difference is the “legacy costs”, benefits, especially health benefits, paid to retired workers.

Why such a difference? Three reasons. First, the retired UAW workers have a union bargaining on their behalf, so they get benefits the Japanese companies aren't paying. Second, the Japanese companies don't have the same number of retired workers in the United States. They haven't been here that long, so if you look at the total number of workers the company has ever employed, the American companies have hundreds of thousands of retired workers, while with the Japanese companies with plants in the United States, almost all the workers they've ever employed are still working for them. The Japanese companies do have retired workers, of course; they're living in Japan.

The big difference is that the retired auto workers living in Japan, like the current auto workers living in Japan, are covered by national health. They aren't imposing a financial burden on their auto companies because they are covered by a public system. That component of the cost is just taken right out of the cost of a Japanese car, wherever it was made. In other words, what we learn from this is that decades of our refusal to consider national health are causing a major drag on American industry.

This isn't the whole story, of course. Primarily, this doesn't address the question of how the American companies will get to the point of building cars Americans want to buy, and that is a crucial point. Still, if we take out the legacy costs and focus on the questions of design and marketing, we can see that it's not the UAW that's causing the problem, but management. Therefore, we can't fix the problem by following the Republican prescription of beating up on the unions.

How’s this for an alternative stimulus package:

The feds will pick up health care insurance cost for all citizens.  There will be no more employer paid programs.

On the surface this sounds (OK – – I’ll say it) – – stupid.

But the more I think about it, the more it seems like this approach may have merit.

Consider a basic plan for all of us.  It would cost say, $5,000 a person.  This is a total of 1.5 trillion +/-.  However, the gov’t is already paying the medical cost for all its workers, the military, and the various aspects of medicaid and medicare.  So, as a guess, let’s say it costs half that amount.  

The basic idea here is that at some point we really need to divorce health care from the work place.  This is the major anti-competitive factor in the US economy.  To turn this massive ship around will take many $$.  So while we’re spending the $$ anyway, let’s do it here.

Consider the benefits:  businesses will no longer shoulder the burden of health care costs.  This helps out those businesses, non-profit organizations, and, of course, all those people paying for health care themselves along with those that didn’t have any health care at all.

But whose going to pay?  Well, who is paying for the other suggested bailouts?  We borrow the money.  At some point, taxes will have to be raised to pay these costs.  This is as it should be.  General taxes should be paying for basic health care costs and not businesses and organizations.

I think divorcing health care from work will result in a surge of entrepreneurism because people will no longer need to work for a company because they provide health care insurance.  

Is this a way to go or what???

PJ

We've been enjoying the farce in Illinois as much as the next guy. You know, the Tony Soprano quiz, the comparisons to the Abscam defendant asking if there was any money sticking out of his pockets, the fishwife of a first lady picked up on tape as she screams in the background. I mean really, even though he's a Democrat, and we want him out, this is right up there with Duke Cunningham or Ted Stevens in entertainment value.

Still, I am concerned about the latest move by the Illinois Attorney General to get the Illinois Supreme Court to remove him from office on the pretext that he has become incapacitated by the criminal charges. Here's what the Illinois Constitution says:

(b)  If the Governor is unable to serve because of death,
conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify, resignation or
other disability, the office of Governor shall be filled by
the officer next in line of succession for the remainder of
the term or until the disability is removed.

They also have a gubernatorial succession statute: § 1. (a) In the event that the Governor, for any of the reasons specified in Article V, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, is not able to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of his office, such powers and duties of the office shall be exercised by the officer next in line of succession . . .

The constitutional and statutory provisions are the basis for the A.G.'s action in the Supreme Court. Her argument is that “these criminal allegations strike directly at Mr. Blagojevich's decision-making process, and specfically at at his capacity to separate his personal financial and other interests from the exercise of his public, executive authority.”

My question is this: how is this different from any other case in which corruption of a public official is alleged? Every time he tries to sell his gubernatorial power, whether for the appointment of a new senator, or approval of a construction permit, isn't it clear that he has failed to separate his personal financial and other interests from the exercise of his public, executive authority? If the A.G. is able to prevail on this basis, doesn't it swallow up the impeachment process entirely?

It seems to me that it does. There are times, and this is one of them, where the passion to rectify some obvious evil overwhelms our commitment to the rule of law, and to following the established procedures and practices to achieve the public interest. In my view, though, these are exactly the times when we are most in need of adhering to our established laws and practices.

So to the degree it's any of my business, as someone who doesn't live in Illinois, I want this guy out, and the sooner the better. If he is impeached, great. If he sees the writing on the wall and resigns (although his ability to see the writing on the wall seems to be pretty seriously impaired). What shouldn't happen, though, is that somehow people decide that Governor X or President Y has to go, and they pursue some illegitimate, ad hoc, process to get rid of him.

Even with that haircut.

This is mainly a reposting of my own comment. It was one of the last in a comment string on odum’s Wednesday diary entitled “More on the Reporter Shortage.” Since it was buried at the very end of a string, I thought I’d make it a separate diary and see if it prompts any discussion.

The context: a discussion of the dwindling Vermont press corps, and how it helps the Governor drive the agenda. My idea, if you’ll pardon the conceit of quoting myself:

Maybe the Vermont Democratic Party should find enough resources to HIRE a reporter or two. Not to write press releases or be communications flacks — but to do actual journalism. Dig, poke, prod, do all the other stuff reporters used to do. Then, when they find something, they can release it to the mainstream media — with the documentation to back it up. That might make the stories more credible to the MSM than a Party press release or leadership news conference.

The Progs could do this too, of course, but the Dems have greater resources. Do they have enough to create a “press bureau” of their own? Don’t know. But it might be the kind of thing that could attract financial support. Might even (I’m way out of my depth here, so grain of salt, folks) set up a nonprofit specifically for the purpose of doing investigative journalism in Montpelier, which would make contributions tax-deductible.  

It’s an idea. As traditional media continue to diminish (even the mighty NPR is laying off people and canceling shows), we will have to find new models for effective journalism.  

Given the decline in actual journalism jobs, there ought to be some qualified candidates for such a position.

This could be seen as a refinement of “opposition research,” except that instead of targeting a politician’s record of public statements (and personal life), it would explore the track record of a political officeholder, and that of the government s/he oversees.

I dunno, might be outlandish. But it could be a very effective way of combating the incumbent’s edge in driving the public policy discussion. And a way to help compensate for the diminishing presence of traditional journalism.  

(Thanks for writing this up. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Mydog’s recent post on the rhetorical magic of our 4th term governor inspired me to dig up the VPR radio story “Douglas meets Obama, makes case for bailout of states” When I heard it last week, I knew something did not compute. Here’s Jim explaining that any federal bailout will not effect the need for the Legislature to cut $64 million from the budget:

“We have about a 37 million dollar shortfall this fiscal year to deal with in the General Fund but we also have 27 million dollars of additional pressures for new spending so we’re going to continue to have a significant problem that will require adjustment of our state budget regardless of how much the federal government comes through.”

Note the word “adjustment” instead of something more honest like “cut.” The word “adjustment” sounds so actuarial, so responsible, so accountant-like. And such a word leaves room to think that maybe the governor is proposing a package that would include some cuts but also some more revenue.

Douglas then reinforces the idea that maybe he is going to do the tough work of coming up with more resources for the budget when he says:

We can’t expect the federal government to do all the heavy lifting we have to make the tough decisions we have to make some choices and exercise budgetary restraint so I don’t expect the federal government to come through with all the resources that states need we’re going to do our part too

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that Douglas is proposing the state by “doing our part too” means help the feds “come through with all the resources.” But he really means that the feds will come up with the resources and he will try to push as many budget cuts as he can through the Legislature. Jim will collect the check from the Obama administration and propose only cuts. He’s hoping to play Santa and Scrooge all at once. Now what if the federal bailout of the states includes stipulations that the states put up some money to get more money? Will Jim propose that we forego assistance because his definition of “adjustments” is “cuts”?

I dont know if Bob Kinzel intended the irony when he ended the story, but his closing really underlines the “resources”=”cuts” equation:

(Douglas)… so I don’t expect the federal government to come through with all the resources that states need we’re going to do our part too.”

(Kinzel)Douglas says he’s hopeful that a preliminary list of budget cuts can be drafted by the middle of next week.

Five days ago I posted the following in this thread discussing the hopes for seeing progressive politicians in Obama’s cabinet:

Bet the Senate Republicans …

aren’t afraid to exercise their constitutional responsibility and right to advise and consent (unlike some party named the Democratic Party).

Don’t hold your breath waiting for real progressives to get a fair hearing.

To which someone responded with a rating of “Meh”.

Okay then … how’s about this?

“We’re not going to get to the finish line,” Reid said after the [auto makers/workers financial assistance] plan collapsed. “That’s just the way it is. There too much difference between the two sides.”

(Bipartisan rescue plan dies in Senate, UPI, 12/11/08)

The Senate Democrats in DC have proved themselves afraid of doing a filibuster, and the Senate Democrats in DC have proved themselves afraid of doing anything about a Republican filibuster.

If the Repubs can kill a $15 billion plan for Detroit shortly after helping pass a $700 WALL STREET BAILOUT … what makes anyone think a real progressive (not some in name only like war hawk Clinton) will ever make it into Obama’s cabinet?

Yeah …. another

              dangling

                   ques

                        ti

                          o

                          n

Governor Douglas testified today before the House Appropriations committee on the impact of the recession in Vermont and the need for federal assistance .Things are bad here in Vermont,but they may appear harsher the further one gets from Vermont .The Free Press Twitteringsblog reports that Gov.Douglas’s  Chief of Staff is having trouble sleeping .(The same post has an enlightening discussion with Neale Lunderville about when a state fee should be considered a tax)The Douglas press release about today’s testimony points out how bad things are but not in the very stark almost alarming terms the Governor used before the committee .If the situation is this bad and people are suffering shouldn’t we be looking for revenue here at home ? Here is some of what he said when asking for money which is not included in the five paragraph press release available here in Vermont. I think he sounds amazingly like Bernie when in Washington .

“The use of our food banks are up over 30 percent in client usage,” said Vermont Gov. James Douglas. “Applications for unemployment is so large that we had to shift 150 people out of other departments to actually deal with the ongoing crisis of servicing those that are applying to unemployment,” said Douglas. “It is time for us all to pull together, join hands together, be partners, address this, not only to stimulate the economy but to service the basic core needs of our communities.”

http://talkradionews.com/2008/…

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

I just received a copy of this pdf file which documents some changes with respect to Vermont’s Child Care Subsidy program.

I know a lot of you aren’t familiar with the ins and outs of the Vermont Child Care Subsidy program, so I’ll explain the basics:

When a family is found eligible for support in paying for child care, there is a bit of a complex formula that will determine exactly what dollar amount of coverage is going to be paid by the state.  This may or may not cover the actual cost of care, even if the subsidy rate is determined at 100% (it’s 100% of state rates, not what the provider charges, so if the state rate is $100/week for a given category of care and the provider’s is $125, the payment is 100% of state rates, even if that only comes out to 80% of the provider’s rate).

Not everyone can pay that amount over and above (the “copay”) and there are a lot of reasons that parents will request variances for the state to cover those extra costs, some of which are granted, some of which aren’t.

In many cases, the parent needs child care in order to seek employment or start a new job.  Parents who can’t find care may have to curtail their work search or work shorter hours in order to provide care of their own.  Even a short-term (3-4 week) variance to cover a single mom who’s just getting back into the work force can make a huge difference.

What’s worse is that a lot of child care providers who are registered home providers (see a prior piece I wrote for details on the different types of providers) will just let those co-pays go when the parents can’t find variances, because they know that the families can’t afford it, so they suck it up and lose the extra income themselves.

This has the effect of encouraging providers to not be interested in taking kids who receive subsidy because they can make more money off of the ones who don’t.  It’s not that they want to do this, as much as that they are often living hand to mouth themselves and need to cover their own expenses for care as well as take care of their own families as well.  Being a child care provider is a pretty difficult life as it is, and we don’t need to make things worse for them.

One more note: the pdf I’ve linked here has a couple phone numbers and contact people whom you can call with questions.  Please don’t call them to complain about this.  This isn’t a decision that was made by them, and they can’t control it.  If you want to change this, talk to your legislators and ask them if it’s a better allocation of our tax dollars to increase the subsidy budget or to make sure that Governor Douglas has a high-paid replacement for Jason Gibbs.