U.S. Leadership

Poor President Obama.  Tough couple of weeks!

First, he was sent a stunning message on Nov. 2.  Yes, the election was about Obama, but certainly not resulting (as he weakly tried to infer) from his inability to convince us or to correct our stupidity. Then totally rebuffed this week by the G-20, who increasingly realize by their own recoveries that "U.S. leadership" is an oxymoron.

Think we'll see some humility, at least humility beyond his sometime use of the formulaic "I am humbled by..."?  Hard to imagine that kind of change.

RINOs an Endangered Species

It is very exciting to watch the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) lose primary elections and establishment figures sweat. Voters continue rejecting 2008's "change you can believe in" (which didn't work out so well for them, or anybody), discovering their power to not only EXPECT change, but the KIND of change they expect.

"Scare Quotes"

Although missing from this space for some time, I was moved to write a letter to the local Champaign-Urbana newspaper, commenting on their choice and implication of a front page headline. The newspaper published this letter on March 31, after making a few small editorial changes to my original text, denoted here with strikethrough (cuts) and bold (additions):

To the editor:

Overhaul complete? Not!

Your The News-Gazette's March 26 headline on the health care reconciliation bill story, "Dems complete the overhaul", was quite the joke. Rather than a completion, we'll be watching for years as Congress attempts to: "correct" embarrassments in the currently amended law, "fix" unintended consequences, "rectify" newly perceived unfairness, and increasingly regulate one sixth of the U.S. economy. With each step we will likely dig our hole just a little bit deeper.

The strikethroughs may not be immediately noticeable above, but the editor removed the quotation marks around the three separate words in the second sentence. Perhaps I use this device too much in my day-to-day writing, but the intent is always to add some special emphasis, and especially doubt that a particular word is carrying its usual meaning. By removing the quotation marks, the editor has at least removed some of the intended sarcasm of the low word count letter, and might even introduce some ambiguity into my message, although that ambiguity is alleviated by the last sentence, which more clearly states my position.

But why did the N-G editor remove them here?  Was he or she confused by my intention, or feel that characterizing these predicted future actions as "attempts" was sufficient? Is this device not allowed in their style manual?  I feel like they follow the Chicago Manual of Style's (15th edition, 2003) directive on one of the uses of quotation marks, which reads, in part:

7.58  "Scare quotes."  Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense. Nicknamed "scare quotes," they imply, "This is not my term" or "This is not how the term is usually applied." Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused.

My use of the quotation marks certainly seems to follow this definition. That there are three uses in the single sentence should not necessarily be considered overuse - that's the point of the list. Furthermore, the quotation marks contrast those three terms with the final list item, "regulate" (without quotation marks), for which no special denoting of sarcasm or doubt is intended or needed.

Finally, "scare quotes" seems like a pretty bad name, even if it is just a nickname. The Wikipedia article considers the confusing nature of the term, noting that "In many cases an author uses scare quotes not to convey alarm, but to signal a semantic quibble." I'm going to start referring to this device as "quibble quotes."  But then, I'm a sucker for alliteration and, apparently, quotation marks.

Free Speech Only After Elections?

The recent (1/21/2010) Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case has lifted a rock to reveal all kinds of misconceptions, misrepresentations (certainly not lies!) and hypocrisies.

Let's leave aside the clarity of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law..."), and instead consider the fear-mongering in the comments from most so-called "campaign finance reform" advocates.  Where better to look than at the very top - President Obama's State of the Union speech on Wednesday (1/27/2010):

"[This decision] will open the floodgates for special interests ... to spend without limit in our elections.  I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests..."

Again, let's ignore the misrepresentation that "powerful interests" will now be bankrolling elections; the Court decision made no changes to restrictions on contributions to campaigns.  But let me get this straight.  Can Obama (and others) be suggesting that corporate involvement with issues and individual elected officials is somehow evil if performed in the context, or within so many days, of an election, but that after the election and for the rest of the year such corporations can be completely free to influence, i.e., to lobby, the decision making process of elected officials?  Are successfully elected officials somehow better able to objectively deal with "powerful interests" than are voters?  I suggest exactly the opposite to be the case.

Throughout human history, people have desired to influence those with the power to affect their lives and have made use of the tools at hand (from speech to money to armies) to wield that influence.  Restrictions on campaign finance or lobbying will not significantly deter the desire or ability of people to influence those in power.

If the problem of political corruption (not limited to corporate contributions, lobbying, or speech, as we saw with back room health care reform deals for hold-out senators) seems more prevalent, it is not because our regulations are insufficient, it is rather because the power of government has grown so much and infiltrated so many more aspects of personal and commercial daily activity.  Given that situation and maintaining our principled foundation of the First Amendment, what we should be demanding of Congress is not more restrictions on speech but rather complete openness on finance (who is contributing what), speech (who is saying what), and lobbying activities.