Seriously.  Why are people talking about killing flies?  I don’t think I need to bother to link to any video excerpts, they’re all over the internet and undeserving in the first place.  Our Commander-in-Chief killed a fly.  Last time I checked, he wasn’t a buddhist so I doubt this is any serious breach of personal ethics.

But here’s the bigger point.  Last week, I made the point that Congress needs to focus on important, essential work, rather that petulant, petty politics.  The media needs to hear the same message.  Since Obama’s inauguration, the media has felt the need to make every ‘first’ a parade-worthy news item.  The fact is, the ‘first insect-killing by an African-American President’ isn’t news worthy.  It’s barely YouTube worthy. (Sidenote: At the time of this writing, despite the video of the fly assassination being listed as a “Hot Topic” on the front page of The Baltimore Sun’s web page, it isn’t anywhere on the front page of YouTube).

We rely on the media to keep us informed on important events.  Spending time on grading the first 100 days of the Presidency (or any other arbitrary chronological mark), the adoption of a first dog, or the smashing of a small insect, takes away from coverage of important issues like Obama’s announcement of benefits for same-sex partners, Iranian election controversy, or any other world news event that could possibly affect the lives of the people engaged by the media.  I mean, really, I know American Idol is over but I promise there is still news-worthy material out there.

CNN reports today that several Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, are dissatisfied with the scheduling of confirmation hearings for Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. This includes whining that the timeframe is the “shortest” of its kind, and that the proper Republicans were not consulted in scheduling the process. First of all – boo hiss. The times they are a-changin’, and you’re not going to get to choose the icing on your cake all the time. That being said, CNN disproves the claims on record speed of confirmation hearings with a list of the timeframes for many of the most recent Court nominees. If you’re going to bandy about superlatives, make sure you’re accurate.

But more importantly (because we all know public figures exaggerate to make a point even when they know fact checking will subsequently prove them wrong) there is an essential flaw with the logic espoused here by the Senatorial-Right. The lack of efficiency in government is often maligned, not just by the public at large, but by those who clamor for fiscal conservatism. Here is the rub: Public Officials – we expect you to work, not just hobnob over cigars and scotch and bang interns. This means doing things quickly. We all go to work, sometimes work overtime, to get things done. Especially during crunch time. If you hadn’t noticed, this is crunch time in America.

Now, I’m not advocating glossing over things that are important (read: not off-hand remarks about where your character comes from). This could potentially be the reverse of what Democrats and Republicans argued about with Sarah Palin’s vetting process (too long, too short, etc.). In this case, however, confirmation hearings are a very public finale to a vetting process. Rather than whining about time frame, get to work preparing for it if you want to raise holy hell during that process.

But all of this boils down to one point: Senators (and Representatives, too) we elected you to esteemed positions to represent us in Washington, and to do what you can about the most important of issues. Stop wasting your time – and our tax dollars – at this crucial junction in history, and get to work on what will actually change the course of events.

Let’s all say it together, children:  “Beggars can’t be choosers.”

It’s a simple enough lesson, really.  More than likely, most American children probably hear the phrase by a fairly early age.  Probably even earlier in the current economic times.

Apparently, no one mentioned that to South Carolina’s governor, Mark Sanford.

Sanford has been refusing to accept federal bailout money because of his qualms over the responsibility of the bailout.  He doesn’t agree with the policy, thinks it’s detrimental to the financial health of his state, the nation, etc.  It took a South Carolina Supreme Court ruling to convince him that he might be acting a wee bit stubborn.

This isn’t the time or the place in American history to be making political statements by refusing money.  The Obama administration isn’t selling child pornography, or running guns to vigilante countries, or distributing drugs on playgrounds, or any other heinous act that would require a stand against a helping hand.  And I can’t imagine anyone in South Carolina is doing so well that they can refuse $700 million to help their state*.  The fact of the matter is that South Carolina has two Senators and a handful of Representatives in Washington that cast their votes to represent the opinions of their hometown Carolinians, and Sanford needs to respect that and do his own job.  Want to be fiscally responsible?  How about not wasting your state Supreme Court’s time with trivial nonsense like this.

California sure wouldn’t turn down the cash.

*This line corrected.  It originally read “$7 billion.”