Monday, April 17, 2006

what makes a good senator?

Time magazine, in listing its top ten senators (and bottom five), inspires as many questions as it answers. The report seems to indicate that no matter a senator's personal beliefs, their ability to agitate for their causes is what makes or breaks them. No judgement!, adds Time, as it more or less evenly distributes its accolades between the parties. (Republicans claim 3 of the 5 slots for "worst" senators. But the report is so careful it still gives all five points for trying hard and for being really super people. E for effort!)

The root of the problem might be that "best" is a word so bland as to be virtually meaningless. If Time really means "most effective," wouldn't saying that be -- well, most effective? Because John Kyl (R-AZ) is not the "best" anything, except possibly "target for a much needed ass-kicking from the Hispanic community."

And John McCain, his companion from AZ? What, is consistency no longer a value in our leaders? Who the fuck knows what McCain stands for anymore besides getting elected to higher office and, possibly, not torturing people? Is that the standard we're holding senators to now, besides?: they denounce something as repellent as TORTURE and we swoon?

I'd like to see categories like "most entertaining representatives" -- you'd have to include the House -- ; "highest moral fiber"; and the Aaron Sorkin award for most convincing and passionate speech given on the floor of either chamber. They could give out the awards on C-Span!

Well, until that happens, I'll have to be satisfied with continually revisiting the website for Conte, where I've just had a poem published. Try to guess which one. Because virtue is rewarded only in the next world, it's spiteful and hostile, while my poems about bunnies and flowers languish in a metaphorical drawer. Oh, life.

I also may have been the only unemployed 23 year old girl in all of New York City setting up an IRA this morning. It is distinctly possible.

No comments: