What's In A Name?

Having recently had parts of The Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act (better known as McCain-Feingold) struck down by the Supreme Court, you would think that Congress would hesitate to once again attempt to institute controls in campaign finance mostly designed to insure re-election of incumbents. 


Proving once again that no bad idea should be abandoned however, such an effort recently saw the light of day in the form of The DISCLOSE Act. Congress claimed yet again that election spending must be both restrained and transparent lest the entire electoral process implode from rampant abuse. (Would that Congress could turn the same careful scrutiny on its own hidden and unrestrained spending.) Debate on the issue was blocked in the Senate however by a Republican minority that is often accused of the most heinous abuses in this area. 


The demand for restraint and transparency called for by Democrats might seem ironic however, considering the lack of either behavior on the part of the sitting President (also a Democrat, by the way) in the last election; even though the supposed protections afforded by McCain-Feingold were in place (though it must be conceded in all fairness that such behavior was not strictly required of him under its provisions, since he took no federal matching funds). 


There was little redeeming in this latest failed legislative effort, excepting perhaps for its name (or more accurately, its acronym): Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Election. Even those of us who believe that such legislation is misguided at best, and an abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly in this country at worst, had to admit that the name was a damned good one. For all of its failings, Congress it appears is quite good at the business of adroitly labeling its sometimes odorous pieces of tripe in order to disguise their maleficence. 


Take for example the recently passed health care reform legislation, known in Congress as The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As we are only now beginning to discover (you have to pass it to know what's in it), this cleverly named bit of legal maneuvering apparently provides little in the way of a true patient bulwark, and even less in the way of affordable care (unless perhaps, through the potential affordability that rationing provides). It proved a very clever alias though, if what you were attempting was to obscure the legislation's inherent deficiencies. 


Yet another example might be recently passed financial reform, known in the Capitol as The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. Although little was done in this edict to prevent banks from the risky investments or the mortgage industry from the abuses that triggered the fall of Wall Street (and encouraged Congress to spend trillions in bailout money), and though it might be considered questionable to saddle this law with the names of two members of Congress who failed in their oversight responsibilities during the crisis that brought its supposed necessity; the name of this law admirably performed the required function of concealing its failings. 


The Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (better known as the Stimulus Bill) was yet another classic example of a well-named wolf in sheep's clothing; performing apparently little in the way of actual recovery (a topic still argued by economists attempting their own financial recovery through articles, books, and mainstream media appearances) and even less in the way of spending that could be called real reinvestment (excepting of course, investing in the growth of government). 


One cannot help but look at such practices and hearken back to the heady days of the 2008 election, when then candidate Barack Obama said: "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig." in order to characterize the program of legislative changes proposed by his opponents. Both candidates (and their running mates) went on to make "lipstick on a pig" iconic for the attempt to cover up something awful through the application of external enhancement to hide its true ugliness. 


And while it often seems that Congress is incapable of doing anything of real value for the country with the exception of taking frequent recesses, credit must be given where it's due (probably to creative staff members) for perhaps proving that the lipstick rule has exceptions. Even when their legislative efforts are intrusive, onerous, or downright dangerous; Congress has managed to artfully disguise their true intent to regulate, restrain, and defraud the American people through appellations that are little more than the masterful application of surface decoration to porcine labium. (See, I can do it too!) What's in a name? When it comes to the naming of legislation by Congress, apparently far more than legislators attempting to perform the function of cosmetologists hope we can see through.

Lipstick On A Brick

The hours are fairly crowded these days with real things that must be dealt with, so I thought that I would try and save time and take on two subjects at once (one National, one Local) that seem so simple that they shouldn't even have to be covered.  

Lipstick on a Pig  
No, I don't believe that Sen Obama meant to insult Gov Palin directly by this comment. Anyone who has survived long enough in politics and has gained the office of US Senator can't be stupid enough to think that he could get away with the insult. On the other hand, Sen Obama has proved himself what could best be called impolitic by some of his comments in the past. Pandering to an audience in the Midwest by talking about traditional values, then insulting those values to an audience on the West Coast (clinging to guns and religion) illustrates that the Senator is sometimes more concerned with a good line (what politician isn't?) than good sense or consistency. 

The McCain campaign's immediate retaliatory attack was predictable. While good political strategy (as measured these days), it is just another example of a claim of the very victimization that Gov Palin wants to prove to us she is above. The response has generated a lot of attention, but probably could have been done better. For example: At Gov Palin's next speech, she wipes the lipstick from her face dramatically, laughs lightly, and says, "The Republican Party needs no lipstick to tell Sen Obama and the American people that change is only good if it is change for the better. You can call your change another New Deal or The Great Society, but that won't make it anything other than an expansion of the welfare state."  

The Toledo United Way Building 
This issue continues to be a lively one in Toledo, with a couple of politicians and the newspaper at odds with the owners of the building and some of the other media. 

The owners, United Way, would like to tear a building down that no longer meets code, that they can no longer fill and that they cannot afford to maintain or upgrade, to build a more affordable building on the same site. Those in opposition to this demolition and reconstruction are supported in this effort by some of the local electronic media The Mayor, a county commissioner, and the newspaper. They would like to see the building remain, perhaps with a new owner. They are joined in their effort by a couple of preservation groups (that I at least have never heard of) and the original architect (big surprise there). 

In other words, in a city where there are lots of empty buildings, there are some people who want to make sure that one more is added to the list. They would like to prevent the group that had a building designed and built for its use, a building that they still own and which no longer fits that use, from tearing it down and building something in its place that they want and can use. That which they seek to tear down is not on any historical register of buildings, nor is its architectural design of any real significance. Its only claim to fame or survival is that it has been there for a while. Oh yeah, and that some "very important people" want the building to remain.  

What They Say About Us 
The Obama / Palin furor simply points out the continual dumbing down of American Politics, and perhaps America as a whole. Hyper sensitivity to remarks regarding race, gender, and belief systems have taken over honest political debate. People are so wrapped up looking to find offenses that they lose track of the issues being debated. The "Downstream Media", in a feeding frenzy to play some part, exacerbates the situation by endlessly streaming video and soundbites in a 24 hour buffet for our consumption. 

My advise is quitting whining "He hit me first", and get back to the issues. This country is in crisis and we don't need the two choices for our next leader acting like a couple of 6 year-olds (no insult intended to 6 year-olds). 

The United Way building points to comparable childish behavior on the local level. Not content to do their own jobs, "important people" in both the public and private sector would like to interfere with everyone else doing theirs. This is almost laughable on the part of elected officials who feel that we can make good choices by putting them in office, but feel that we lose that ability the first time that we disagree with them. And as for the newspaper, you have other things that need your attention. It's not your building that's crumbling around your ears (at least as far as I know), but the business itself. Concern yourself with that if you need something. 

Perhaps the only way to live with these situations (borrowing from both) is to put lipstick on a brick. Maybe the only way to draw enough attention to these as nonsense, idiocy, and hypocrisy is to mix the metaphors. Grow a thicker skin, leave your neighbors to their own business, and stop getting caught up in the petty bullshit people! There are serious times ahead and we need you to focus.