The Stuck On Stupid Dictionary #29

You know, Webster had it easy. By the time he got around to compiling his Dictionary, most of the words were already known, as were their definitions. Here at the SOS Dictionary Board, we are not only tirelessly working to keep up with new 'Stuck on Stupid' terminology, but must spend endless hours pouring over reference material in order to attempt to understand what politicians mean with the nonsense that they seem to spout in a fire hydrant-like torrent, twenty-four hours a day. But enough of the staff complaints at 'Just Blowing Smoke', which no one (including myself) pays the slightest bit of attention to. 


Now for those of you who have somehow managed to miss previous postings in this area (shame on you, now go back and read all of the postings under the title of dictionary), the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appear to mean something entirely different to those us who have come to understand the often peculiar political vernacular of Toledo and Northwest Ohio.


Draconian:
1. Something that is unusually large, severe, and of cruel intent 
2. A spending cut of $38 billion (less than 2% of the total federal budget), that actually turns out to be $352 million (less than .02%). 
3. Rules or obligations proposed on the sale piece of property owned by the City of Toledo (paid for in cash, by the way) by Toledo's City Council which insist upon specially trained workers doing any work on it (Union workers) and a business plan that none of those Council members would read or could understand if it was produced by the prospective buyers. (Those prospective buyers are now attempting to walk away from the deal as a consequence.)

Diminishing Returns

Simple interpretation of The Law of Diminishing Returns tells us that a something can be reduced by changing only one factor while holding the others constant. This is important because of all of the scrutiny being paid to the sorry bit of accommodation called the Budget Compromise of 2011. It seems that in inverse relation to the cautions spelled out on a rear view mirror, objects may in fact be far smaller than they appear. But we might be getting ahead of ourselves. 


Let's go back a few months to before the elections of 2010, when Republicans were promising budget cuts of $100 billion for 2011 if they were but given control. Of course they all but knew by then that Congress, with both houses firmly controlled by Democrats, had no real intentions of voting on a 2011 budget before the election (and as it turned out, little after). 


Flush with victory in November in the House however, these Republicans boldly announced in effect that 'there was a new sheriff in town', and things were going to change. Yeah ... not so much. Five months later we find that Republicans who controlled the House never even tried to pass a budget with the $100 billion in spending cuts promised, reducing their eventual request to some $61 billion in order to have a chance to get it passed. 


A Senate still controlled by Democrats refused to take up this weakened effort, even if only to reject it. Eventually the two sides (with the President acting as critic-in-chief), were called to the White House and Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finally agreed to some $38 billion in discretionary spending cuts. 


It appears that like many of the numbers released by elected officials and employees of the government, this number too appears to be compromised, and in a way that no one outside of Washington perhaps expected. According to an AP story in the Washington Post, the actual number might be considered to be a couple of orders of magnitude smaller. It seems that according to the Congressional Budget Office, with the lateness in the current fiscal year and the areas from which funding was proposed to be cut, only some $352 million of $38 billion will be cut through the end of September. Evidently the compromise reached in this negotiation was only on discretionary government spending and not actual government spending. 


Now apparently this was done to protect defense spending for all of the military efforts that the US is involved in around the world; and because of this protection, very little of the $1.36 trillion of government's discretionary spending was subject to the compromise agreed upon. 


If that were not enough to make smoke come from your ears, it appears that approximately $8 billion of the immediate cuts to domestic programs are being offset by equal increases in defense spending. In fact, when all of the defense spending for the year is calculated, the government will actually spend over $3 billion more in 2011 that was originally proposed. 


In another tidbit offered in NETRIGHT DAILY, "Budgeting Apples and Oranges", we find that due to the lateness of the hour in which Congress acted, some of the cuts to Washington can and will be ignored by the dedicated bureaucrats that are the real power in government. Budgets to most of these bureaucracies were already locked in to the budgetary process and will be spent regardless of cuts made. "... Labor, Health and Human Services and Education will spend $202.5 billion in 2011 even though Congress has only authorized $156.5 billion this year. The additional $46 billion was already authorized, and not subject to the CR that passed Congress. Another example is that the Transportation and HUD will spend $131.76 billion in 2011, but the CR only authorizes $55.49 billion. The other $76.26 billion was previously authorized." 


To the credit of those in the current Congress, the cuts made should in fact affect future budgets; but like so many things in Washington, that can change quickly as discussions of the 2012 budget are taken up in the days ahead. Few bows should be taken by either party however, when considering the mindless and profligate spending by a government about to once again begin discussions to raise its own credit limit (debt ceiling). 




It seems that Washington is the set of conditions that remains the same, and that the longer we look at the budget cuts of the 2011 compromise, the smaller they become. The Law of Diminishing Returns has set in with a vengeance, and wisdom dictates that we stop contemplating the sorry nature of such compromise, lest the last bit disappear entirely.

Redefining Leadership

"Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost" 
- Thomas J Watson 


Reading this quote, I was struck on how it captured the very essence of leadership; something that seems in rather short supply these days. Of course many of you finding yourselves agreeing with this sentiment are now asking who Mr Watson was, not having heard the name before. He was not in fact Sherlock Holmes trusted associate and housemate at 221B Baker Street, that was Dr John Watson. 


Thomas John Watson was the president of a company of no small import to the US and the world from 1914 to 1956, International Business Machines. When the president of IBM during its heyday says something on the subject of leadership, you might well want to listen. Certainly some of those in Washington DC could stand a bit of tutelage on the subject. How else would you describe most of what has been going on in recent days, except of as a lack of this rather critical attribute in any elected official? 


Certainly no one would say that the Democrats who controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House showed leadership for failing to pass a budget in 2010 for the first time in this country's history. Neither would many say that the President showed leadership in brokering what has become the budget compromise that brought this particular drama to a close. That is unless of course, you would call it leadership to accuse both sides in the discussion of being little more than petulant children rather than putting forward a legitimate plan of your own. 


The nation's chief executive likewise showed no signs of primacy in dealing with the situations in Egypt and in Libya, instead allowing events to unfold before attempting to take any role at all. (A role he seems content to play as the rest of the Middle East and Africa continue in turmoil.) Having finally assumed that role in Libya however, he then abdicated such responsibility almost immediately, taking a second chair position to NATO while US soldiers were (and are) put in harm's way. 


Even now as 2011's budget will set aside in favor of the beginning of discussion over raising the debt limit and trying to come up with a budget for 2012, the nation's leader appears only now ready to unveil a plan of his own for the period. While one could say that he enters the fray before Congress begins its debates on the subject, others would point out that he does so a full week after Republicans in Congress (in the person of Paul Ryan) unveiled their own vision of the future. 


Lest Republicans decide to take pride for having now assumed the mantle of leadership in the nation, let us remind them that at no time during the last Congress did any member of the GOP in either House step up and put themselves forward with a budgetary blueprint; even as the jumping off point for discussion. And while I applaud the principles put forward by Rep. Ryan's effort, many with a knowledge of what goes on in DC have said that the timing of the 2012 budget announcement was little more than political expediency to divert attention from the compromise that was eventually reached over the 2011 budget. 


Neither have Republicans, while in the majority in the House, brought any legislative pressure to bear on the ongoing military madness masquerading as the current foreign policy in North Africa and the Middle East. Nor have they chastised the president for unilaterally creating the Libyan no-fly zone without consulting or even informing Congress; or pressed the president, as their counterparts did in Iraq and Afghanistan, on defining the mission goal or devising an exit strategy for this affair before entering it.


It appears that leadership as Mr Watson defined it is in rather short supply in today's politicians in Washington. Rather than accepting the mantle of leadership granted to them by gaining elected office, they instead seem (paraphrasing Mr Watson's words) always ready to accept the stigma of conformity for fear of being called a crackpot. 


In fact, those on both sides of the aisle seem far more concerned with keeping their jobs than with doing them. Unwilling to throw the first punch in the ring of public debate, they seem instead content to circle their opponent, endlessly dancing. Instead of wading into fight that they chose by running for office, they appear instead to be waiting for an opening, ready with a counter-punch when and if the opportunity presents itself. And while this may make for good political strategy, it makes for bad government. 


Truthfully, it seems more like a football game where both sides are trying to play a 'prevent defense' in the hopes of keeping the other team from embarrassing them by executing the big play. Not only has history shown that such attempts regularly fail, but ultimately it makes we spectators the real losers, regardless of which side wins the game. 


The resulting nonsense takes on little more importance than Olympic competition of rhythmic gymnastics. While it shows skill and may be mildly entertaining at times, throwing out the high and low scores in this event normally results in an average score of little more than '0'. 


But perhaps this is how leadership shall be defined as in the 21st Century (and more's the pity). It's a sad commentary of the quality of the leadership (and of the politicians) that we are presented with these days. It seems in fact, more in keeping with the words of French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin:


"There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them."

TFP Column: Congressional Fight Club

I was working on the final notes for this weekend's blog post when they were interrupted with a conversation about the Congressional stalemate over the budget process. We soon found ourselves talking about the early days of Congress, when dueling was still in fashion, and when honor was something that had to be served. Of course the case of Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts being beaten with a cane on the floor of the Senate by Rep. Preston Smith Brooks of South Carolina over remarks that Sumner had previously made that humiliated a relative of Brooks came up as part of that discussion. (Ah, the 'good old days'.)

As is often the case, this interaction stimulated some additional thought, and I soon began to wonder if the solution to the partisan log-jam in Congress might be achieved by simply allowing elected legislators to kick the crap out of each other. After all, we're already hearing about the lack of civil discourse and the increasingly rancorous debate, why not take it up a notch and let them draw some blood.

Such thinking led not only to endless possibilities, but to many potential solutions for some of our nation's current crises. It resulted in a piece for the Toledo Free Press which literally seemed to write itself, "Congressional Fight Club".

There's much more in this weekend's TFP however, including a massive section on the Toledo Mudhens and their impending opening day on the 14th. (Of course I haven't received my invitation to the TFP Opening Day gathering, but I'm sure that this can attributed to an oversight.)

The weather appears to be warming up just in time, and it seems like the perfect weekend to enjoy it while spending a little time with Toledo's largest Sunday circulation newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

LegislativeTheory

One popular legislative theory today holds that if you create a bill that's massive and all-encompassing, you will be able to create a law so complicated that not only will no one be able to fully comprehend it (including the lawmakers who ostensibly wrote it), but no future legislature will be able to walk it back. Equally popular is another theory, that says that the best way to achieve this goal is to instead create a multitude of single purpose laws dedicated to a grand design, in the knowledge that by doing so future legislatures will find it impossible to discover and repeal all of them and allow the original purpose to be served. 


Both legislative theories have proven themselves correct, though they deserve no credit for doing so. Rather than proving to be of benefit to the governed, what they've mostly done is to pile insult upon injury. What none of these legislators and legislatures seem capable of acknowledging is their own potential fallibility.  


What in fact, would make any elected official believe that they are capable of (or required to) create a body of laws to cover every aspect of life; and protect the electorate not only from life's toil and trouble, but from themselves? The harm caused from such legislative theory is not restricted to legislatures however. There are after all three branches of government in this country, and the other two are not to be so easily kept from the party. For their part, the Executive branch at every level of government attempts to filter this fire hydrant-like stream of legislative excess (and assert their own control over the process) by selectively enforcing the bills passed into law. 


Those in control of enforcement watch and approve as legislatures across the country pass laws banning cell phone use and texting while driving, while failing to enforce existing laws against 'driving while distracted' that cover a far greater variety of equally dangerous actions. The federal government chooses which parts of immigration law it will enforce and aggressively attacks state governments who seek to enforce the rest. That same federal government selectively pursues voter intimidation law in the case of the Black Panthers in Philadelphia in spite of its own Department of Justice establishing a prima facie case. 


When legislatures fail to serve the grand design of the Executive branch's vision of the country, it simply bypasses the legislative process and resorts to 'Executive Orders' and bureaucratic regulation to get its way. 


Not to be outdone in this contest of wills, the Courts likewise take their turn in the theoretical mayhem. They decide who has standing to challenge existing law (whether they agree that such law violates state or federal Constitutions or not), thereby passively allowing bad laws to stand and good laws to go unenforced. Judges likewise make quick, indecisive, or arbitrary decisions; knowing that doing so is good 'politics' for positions that require re-election, and that regardless of their ruling, the losing side will appeal the decision to a higher level. 


The Judicial process at local, state, and federal levels has become so over-burdened and interminably slow that by the time any final determination is made, the law is firmly entrenched in society and impossible to walk back regardless of the ruling. No matter however, for whether the Judicial branch is able or chooses to rule on the rare challenge made, many more laws remain on the books long after they have become obsolete, ineffective, or just plain stupid.  


For example: In Kansas it is illegal: 
- To shoot rabbit from motorboats. 
- To fish with your bare hands. 
- If two trains meet on the same track, neither shall proceed until the other has passed. 


Ohio instead finds it is illegal: 
- To fish for whales on Sunday. 
- To get a fish drunk. 
- For women to wear patent leather shoes in public. 


In Illinois however, you may be arrested: 
- For vagrancy if you don't have at least $1 in your pocket. 
- If you fail to contact the police before entering a city in an automobile. 


In Chicago: 
- It's illegal for any business to enter into a contract with the city unless it has first checked its records and reported any dealing that it had with slaves in the era of slavery. 
- It's likewise illegal to fish while sitting on a giraffe's neck. 


In New York on the other hand, it's illegal: 
- For citizens to greet each other by putting their thumb to their nose and wiggling their fingers. 
- To throw a ball at someone's head. 
... and my favorite 
- The punishment for jumping off a building is death. 


The whole sad process often seems little more than a comedy of political errors, when not an attempt at forced behavior modification by legislative fiat. Legislatures have long sought (and failed) to establish societal morality by legislative fiat with the force of government behind them. Once you get past the pettiness, the self-righteousness, and lunacy; the only law that ultimately triumphs from these efforts is the one of unintended consequences. It is small wonder consequently that when considering the legislative theory that legislatures at every level of government use, they are held today in so little regard.

The Revolutionary View of History

On the commute to the office recently, my thoughts turned to the coverage of events in the Middle East. I couldn't help by wonder about the coverage of recent events in Egypt, in Yemen, in Bahrain, and in Libya. In what most will recognize as my typically twisted thought process, it occurred to me to wonder how the media today would look at the American Revolution.

• In light of the dangerous ideas of a colony freeing itself from European control, I wonder how the predominant media of the day in Europe would have portrayed the struggle.
• Would King George be a tyrant and evil dictator or a monarch with a duly elected legislature trying to govern an unruly mob?
• In light of the early tactics used by colonials, fighting from behind trees rather than in the conventional 'line-abreast' formation, would the soldiers of the Continental Army be viewed as an army, as freedom fighters or terrorists?
• What opinion would the world in general have of the rag-tag army of General Washington, many of whom left at the end of extremely short enlistments to return to their homes?
• How would the entertaining (and dare I say carousing) of Benjamin Franklin while attempting to negotiate France's aid to the Revolutionary cause be viewed?
• What would the world opinion have been of a Continental Congress that seemed almost constantly on the run from British troops? Who who slept in warm comfort, entertained, and dined graciously while troops in the field were starving, freezing, and marching to battle in the winter without shoes?
• What would the media pundits say of the generalship of George Washington, and of the many battles that he lost on the way to winning the war?
• What of Horatio Gates and his plots with members of Congress to subvert Washington's command of the Continental Army, or Charles Lee and his purposeful ineptitude in the field in hopes of taking Washington's role?
• What would they make of characters like 'Mad' Anthony Wayne or of the French aristocrat Lafayette?
• What would they have made of Benedict Arnold, a hero in the early battles of the war who suffered considerable personal injury, insult, and accusation before finally succumbing to the pressure and turning traitor to the Revolutionary cause?

The Founding Fathers are viewed today with a mixture of reverence and scorn, depending on your political point of view. By and large this is done by many on both sides without benefit of studying the history of the time, but instead by using images that have been planted throughout the popular culture in TV and movies. Facts seem of but little concern, as long as the characters are interesting and the plot entertaining. The trouble with doing this of course, is that unlike historians, directors aren't so much concerned with the facts as they are with telling a compelling story. This seems to be much the case these days with news as well in a world so caught up in 24 hour a day coverage. I therefore cannot help but wonder, in light of the controversy over regime changes (and possible changes) in so many lands throughout the Middle East and Africa, what coverage of those days would look like; and how tomorrow's history will view today's revolutions.

Quote of the Day

As many people know, I love a good quotation; and am proud of the fact that I have been known to come up with a witticism or two of my own. I seldom include 'Quotes of the Day' however, since I added the 'Quotes of the Week' section to the blog. Like all rules, there are always exceptions, and this one seemed particularly exceptional. I hope you find it equally interesting. 


"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our Founding Fathers used in the struggle for independence." 
- Charles Austin Beard

Winning

While certainly not caught up in much of popular culture, one would have to be blind and deaf to overlook the ongoing saga of actor Charlie Sheen. The amusing thing to me about the whole situation is the derision of his unfortunate behavior by a popular media attempting to exploit it at every opportunity for ratings and revenue.

Now it can be funny as well as tragic when you see someone with everything make a mess of things in their life. (Can you say Brittany Spears and Lindsay Lohan?) It's far less amusing when the same behavior is being exhibited by members of Congress where the ongoing budget debate is concerned however. Let's remember after all, that it was a lack of common sense, responsibility, and good judgment led the last Congress to a failure to even vote on a budget bill for the fiscal year of 2011 (the first time that this has happened in this nation's history). 


Now that a new Congress is in session and the year's more than half over, you would think there would be a desperate scramble to reach some kind of agreement. You'd be wrong however. Oh, there's something going on in DC where the budget's concerned, but not anything that makes any sense or recognizes the reality of the situation. 


To date, the Senate still has yet to find the time to vote on a budget proposal of any kind. They do however, appear to have the time to throw stones at the House for passing one that they don't like. Rather than proposing an alternative budget or trying to come to some agreement with the lower house however, they would rather demonize House Republicans for doing their jobs. 


It now begins to appear that they are finally growing tired of passing the continuing resolutions that allow things to go on pretty much as usual, and will soon allow the federal government to shut down. (Oh that we could make such a situation last...) 


Politicians it seems recognize that this shutdown may, as it did in 1995, hold political advantage for one side or the other. They are therefore are using the situation as a strategy to allow posturing for the election still 18 months off. 


Interestingly enough, in the midst of this we find the Senate's Charlie (Schumer of New York), behaving much like the star of "Two and a Half Men"; and revealing similar behavior by being caught with his political pants down. He rather idiotically outlined his party's backroom strategy on the continuing budget debate on a cell phone call without realizing the mainstream media (which were supposed to jump on the call at some point) were already listening to and recording it.  


Forced to deal with the fact that he had been caught in public in what most would consider a rather embarrassing position, like his entertainment counterpart, Chuck merely shrugged off the whole affair. After all, while his actions were shocking, irresponsible, and juvenile; they remain a 'winning' strategy. That after all, is what much of politics appears to be about these days. Not running the country effectively, attempting to deal with important issues like the runaway deficit, shrinking the size of government, or even doing the job you were elected to do. No, this is about competing with members of the other party, making the other guy look bad, and insuring your chance to do a job a couple of years from now by refusing to do it now. 


The worst thing about the whole despicable mess is that just like Charlie (Sheen and Schumer), the rest of these adolescent assholes (yes, I used a bad word) are sitting back and laughing at us while continuing to make a mess of things. But hey, enough of my words. Being a huge fan of quotations, I think the best way to end this "Tale of Two Charlies" is to share some of the wit and wisdom of one of them, and let Charlie Sheen share a few things about life in his own words:


"But you can't focus on things that matter if all you've been is asleep for forty years. Funny how sleep rhymes with sheep. You know." "I don't have time for their judgement and their stupidity and you know they lay down with their ugly wives in front of their ugly children and look at their loser lives and then they look at me and they say, 'I can't process it' well, no, you never will stop trying, just sit back and enjoy the show. You know?" "I'm dealing with fools and trolls and soft targets. It's just strafing runs in my underwear before my first cup of coffee. I don't have time for these clowns." "That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." "Boom, crush. Night, losers. Winning, duh." 


Couldn't have said it better myself ...

TFP Column: The Beam In Our Own Eye

I sat down Tuesday evening with every intention of writing my normal mid-week rant on society. (I really did!) The next thing I knew, I had penned an effort worthy of submission to my friend and hero, editor-in-chief of the Toledo Free Press Michael Miller.

I think that it was the result of the President's non-explanation of why we are shooting missiles and dropping bombs on Libya, the assumption that somehow the United States has somehow been appointed as the world's policeman (mostly by those in the US government), and the combination of ignorance and indifference to the history of this country that I see constantly exhibited these days.

The result of these efforts was some 750 words that seemed to write themselves: "The Beam in Our Own Eye". Agree or disagree if you will, but I hope at least this effort will inspire some to pick up a history book every once and a while and stop viewing the history of this country through the rose-colored glasses of a Mel Gibson movie.

Famliarity Breeds Contempt

I have been debating whether to change cell phone carriers for a couple of months now. My current phone intermittently drops its signal, leaving me to interpret the things people are trying to tell me while losing about one word in eight. It's finally reaching a level of annoyance that I am no longer willing to tolerate (besides, I think it's time I got a smart phone). My current carrier however has other ideas on the situation. They won't discuss upgrading my POS (piece of shit) flip phone until the end of summer, unless of course I want to spend $500 for the purchase of a new phone. 


Interestingly enough, it seems that many of the other carriers out there will be all too glad to give me a new smart phone if I sign a new two-year agreement with them. Of course I will have to pay a $150 fee to cancel my existing contract, but the potential net effect of this transaction is a savings of $350. While the math is simple, the philosophy causing me to use it is counter-intuitive to me. 


It seems that some of these companies are far more interested in getting your business than keeping it over the long-term. In fact I was shocked to find out from a former employee of my present carrier that the reason I was sensing that employees of this company were less than enthusiastic about retaining my business was that they could care less about it. Getting customers was something that they are measured on and get credit for, retaining or losing existing customers was not. 


Now I worked for a company about a year ago on a sales program that was very much in the same vein. It's not that they didn't give a damn about customers who had signed up with them, but interest did seem to drop off rather quickly in the weeks following sign-up. They were OK with the idea that the shiny in this relationship with their new partner would wear off quickly, as long as it lasted long enough for the sales team to take credit for the sale. (My tenure in this position did not last long, as I found such thinking incompatible with keeping a clear conscience.) 


Even in the relationships between men and women, I have found that it's much harder to maintain a relationship than it was to begin one. And while I'm sure that all of us go into any new relationship with the best of intentions, familiarity soon begins to work its evil designs on this bond as well. 


Now having twice been divorced, I have some experience at this in my own life. I cared a great deal for each of the women I wed, and I carry a fair amount of guilt for both my actions and the lack thereof contributing to the ultimate demise of these relationships. While I would hesitate to say that contempt actually entered the picture (or so I like to believe in order to protect a rather fragile ego), I think it would be fair to say that in the end, "Absence made the heart grow fonder; and the longer I was absent, the fonder they became of it". 


The one that most seems to irk me the most lately however is that with our elected officials. (Yeah, big surprise, I know). Don't we often see much the same thing from politicians at every level? It certainly appears to me at any rate, that a number of them only seem to care whether we agree with what they are doing or want to do, in the days leading up to an election. Once safely in office, they become far too familiar with their jobs, and soon seem to lose interest in the will of mere voters. 


They tell us that instead, they are 'voting their conscience'. Of course the fact that their conscience seems to be in direct opposition to the will of said voters; and identical with the views of lobbyists and major contributors to their campaign is strictly a coincidence I'm sure. 


It does in fact seem that in many cases in our life, familiarity does breed contempt. Perhaps with the time I spend writing about politics these days, my own views are simply another example of the truth of this notion. There is after all, little doubt that the more familiar I become with politics and politicians, the more I hold them in contempt.