The Defining Moment of the Obama Presidency

The MSM is killing me - did every cable news station need to broadcast the "Beer Summit" yesterday between the President, VP, Crowley, and Gates? The press couldn't get within listening or shouting distance. So we get this for the world to see:



Thanks, MSM. That was enlightening.

On the other hand, James Fallows of The Atlantic gets to what should be the real story of this kegger.

Spygate, now Steroids

I'm waiting for someone to tell me Paul Pierce used the ball from Space Jam to steal the powers of former NBA greats and give them to the Celtics in 2008.

"A Teachable Moment"

What can we learn, as a nation, from the Gates incident? Larry Wilmore of The Daily Show:

"Don't forget your fucking keys."

Into the crystal ball

Two scenarios:

The Republican Party breaks into factionalized pieces, spends its time in the wilderness while the Democrats rule the agenda, and then comes back as a rational group with thoughts for discussion to challenge for dominance. The waxing and waning of the two party system continues.

OR

The Blue Dog Democrats' membership grows by attracting centrist and rational Republicans and shifts to the right, while the main Democratic agenda becomes more progrssive sliding to the left and the main Republican agenda follows its current dominance by its far-right wing. Ultimately, the U.S. shifts to a three party system.

Which of these scenarios is more likely to occur?

When we all lose

The end of this post by Eric Tarloff of The Atlantic is dead on:

I'd much rather be governed by a party the policies of which I deplore but one that governs responsibly, competently, and with respect for the Constitution, than by a theocratic cabal dictated to by its own most rabid supporters, mistrustful of facts, demonizing of its opponents, and scornfully dismissive of all points of view that diverge from its own. You can argue with the former, you can debate it, you can contest elections with it. Sometimes you will win and sometimes you will lose, but the victories and the defeats will be over matters of real consequence. When, instead, political battles are deliberately waged by one side over red-herrings that arouse passion and irrational anger, when they are fought over the contrived question of whether one candidate personally freed a convicted rapist for a weekend furlough, or went to Moscow as a student in order to enlist as a Soviet spy, or somehow faked his heroism in Vietnam, or is a Muslim or a socialist or an illegal alien, then we have ventured into the realms of pig-fucking. It debases all public discourse. No one finally benefits from that, not even the victors.

This is why I despise the Palins, Hannitys, Limbaughs, and ilk of the wing of the Republican party - because they are weakening my government by not actually playing the role the minority is supposed to. The Democrats failed to do this duty well during the early part of the Bush administration, and we all suffered for it. Rather than winning on issues and policy through debate, we get the Birthers getting consideration by the representatives in government as a legitimate concern. We get the Blue Dog Democrats having to play the role of Republican party that can't make a legitimate point about issues. And we get a weakened democracy because of it. I would love to see the Republican party win again on a platform of thought and reasoned ideas and policy. But they need to trim the waste first, and until then we're all the worse for it.

"A patriot is one who has a lovers' quarrel with his country." When can we get back to that? Or have we ever even really had it to begin with in this modern age?

Win Ben Stein's Credibility

Via The Daily Dish, Nixonian speechwriter and close friend of Shaq Ben Stein uses his "clear eyes" to give us some insight as to how Barack Obama is leading the U.S. to hell in a hand basket. Just sad to see what happens when people lose it, that's all.

Video of the Day

(Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan)

Gotcha

Yglesias highlights what impeccable timing the Blue Dog Democrats and House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner have in slowing down the health care reform debate to coincide with their re-election fundraising.

And not to lower the level of discourse on this blog, but just say "Boehner Beach Party" out loud a couple times and try not giggling.

Poor Old Starscream

Yglesias talks about the death of the F-22 program, which was supposed to be the next generation of versatile American flying fighters. Though, I'm sure if they had made this jet capable of transforming into a sentient fighting robot as Michael Bay envisioned, it would have been a keeper, no questions asked.

The Gates Presser

Yeah, Obama's presser last night was about health care reform. He talked about it for nearly fifty minutes. But you wouldn't know that this morning, because the final question asked the President what his thoughts were on the arrest-of-then-apology-to African-American Harvard professor Skip Gates by the Cambridge police. He admitted his bias as a friend of Gates, and thought the Cambridge police acted "stupidly." That seems to be the talk of the town this morning, but of course not just my town but the entire cable news circuit. Cable news - we know drama.

From what has been reported, Gates came home, found himself locked out of his house and broke in. A neighbor saw someone was trying to break in to Gates' house and called the police who responded to the scene. Once the police arrived, the police were presented with identification that he was who he said he was and owned the house. Apparently then words are exchanged. Gates is taken from his house in handcuffs for "disorderly conduct" towards the officers. Later, the charges are dropped and the Cambridge PD apologize to Gates. Should be over.

Of course, it isn't. Gates has said he's not going to let the issue drop because he claims it was a racially charged affair. Obama says that the Cambridge police were stupid to further. The officer says that he acted appropriately regarding the circumstances, and didn't do anything wrong. And now every Tom and Jane on T.V. wants to know why Obama isn't acting more post-racial for a black dude siding with another black dude.

Gates was right to object to any further police involvement once he proved he owned the place. The officers were doing their job, however, and when Gates started giving them push-back for investigating to find out the facts of the situation, they had it within their authority to arrest him for disorderly conduct. And Obama's right too - they were stupid for doing so. A more level-headed, smarter cop would have just left when he was being resisted, but Gates had a right to do so as it was the police coming into his house. The Cambridge PD apologized for this, and that really should be the end of it.

At the same time, Obama should have just shut up and stayed out of it. I imagine he's probably gonna have to walk back a little from the language he used last night, and he deserves it. I would have belittled the reporter (Lynn Sweet) for asking about it when the past fifty minutes of discussion has been about the health care crisis our nation is facing. Please, hack journalists, could we please, for once, try and focus the attention of the American people on the task at hand. Do it for Walter.

Listen, racial profiling goes on in our country, and it's wrong. My family has been stopped at the airport more than we care to remember because of our last name, and it is ridiculous. My mother works for the government and is Irish and French-Canadian, at least three generations removed from entering the country, and she has gotten stopped. But we need to move past trying to play thought-police with the police every time someone gets arrested and claims it was because of police bias. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Let the Cambridge PD deal with trying to find out.

Having lived in Boston, I've met my fair share of Boston-area cops. Most are very good guys just trying to do their job well. But there is always a few who have something to prove and like to strut around reminding folks he has some power. But just because you have power and authority doesn't mean you have to use it. I've also met professors who act in the same way regardless of being outside their academic setting. And I think Gates may fall into this category too.

So what we have here are some people who unfortunately ran into each other doing very innocent things, one getting into his house and the other doing his job to follow a lead. And then let their egos take over. And then some lame-ass journalist has to ask the President of the United States about it. And the President said something he's going to have to clarify.

And meanwhile, our country's health care system goes "tick...tick...tick..."

UPDATE: As I said earlier, CNN reports the accused racist Officer Jim Crowley has refused to apologize for the incident with Gates. To his defense, Crowley cites that he was one of the security guards who helped to try and tragically save African-American and former Celtics player Reggie Lewis. So like I said, maybe it's a little hasty to be calling him a racist.

Not to say there wasn't a racial element in this - the neighbor who called the police reported that there were "two black males with backpacks" trying to wedge the door on Gates' front porch according to the police report. I mean, obviously the report is biased from the perspective of the officers on the scene, but it notes that Gates played the race card as soon as Crowley approached the front door and seemed very uncooperative. It doesn't matter if you're black, white, Asian, Latino, or whatever but it's a pretty simple rule of thumb to not go out of your way to be a dick to a cop.

UPDATE II: Chris Bodenner, filling in for Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish, allows some readers with law knowledge to help the rest of us with the concept of "disorderly conduct." From what they say, it looks like the cop Crowley didn't really need to go at Gates for this except to save face for his ego (like I said earlier up top). But as one lawyer in Nevada notes:

In theory, you're free to say all manner of unpleasant things to civil servants, such as police officers. In practice, not so much.

UPDATE III: TNC (twice), Ambinder, and Yglesias all make some really good points about this whole ordeal.

The Birfers

I've been avoiding covering this "issue" because, well, it isn't one. But now, since "America's most trusted newscaster" has given it it's due justice, I think I'll just let him take it from here:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Born Identity
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

I feel for the crazies though. It must suck to think that the leader of your country and leader of the free world shouldn't have won the Presidency to begin with.

(Hat Tip: TPM)

The redeeming qualities of Alaska

Because of stuff like this. Even Sarah Palin can't ruin this kind of cool.



(Hat Tip: Chris Bodenner at The Daily Dish)

Walter Cronkite, 1916 - 2009

Via his network, CBS:

The "most trusted man in America" is gone.

Walter Cronkite, who personified television journalism for more than a generation as anchor and managing editor of the "CBS Evening News," has died. CBS vice president Linda Mason says Cronkite died at 7:42 p.m. Friday with his family by his side at his
home in New York after a long illness. He was 92.

Known for his steady and straightforward delivery, his trim moustache, and his iconic sign-off line -"That’s the way it is" - Cronkite dominated the television news industry during one of the most volatile periods of American history. He broke the news of the Kennedy assassination, reported extensively on Vietnam and Civil Rights and
Watergate, and seemed to be the very embodiment of TV journalism.

I never saw Walter Cronkite deliver the evening news live - I'm too young. But I know who he is, and certainly understand what he did. Mr. Cronkite was the captain that led television to become the dominant medium of communication and infromation diffusion for the latter half of the 20th century. His legacy represents that which is most noble about the craft of journalism - integrity, trust, and stubborn desire to bring the facts, the news, to the masses. He was the forerunner and pacesetter of the faces and names that held the anchorchairs of the "big three" networks of my youth - Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw. But he was the original mold, and in the middle of this communication revolution it is only right to remember the man that created the televised news broadcast.

"And that's the way it is."

UPDATE: Ambinder weighs in. Thinking about where I get my news today and who I trust to give me the facts, this is kind of full-circle.

Hey battah battah

(Hat Tip: Matt Salem)

Video of the Day

(Hat Tip: Rival Films)

Am I actually unemployed?

Up until about ten minutes ago, I was a definitive "yes" to this question. But now, thanks to Patrick Appel filling in for Andrew at The Daily Dish, I am still a definitive "yes," but the U.S. government may disagree. He highlights a post by fellow Atlantic correspondent Christina Davidson in response to the 9.5% unemployment the country is currently facing, and why that number does not reveal the whole picture:

If in the week prior to the survey a respondent has had more than one hour of paid employment, or has performed more than 15 hours of unpaid work, they would not be counted as unemployed. So, for example, a 45-year-old laid-off business executive I met last week, who had started mowing his neighbors' lawns and doing odd jobs for cash because he needed money to have his car repaired in order to go on any interviews for a full-time job, would be counted among the employed members of the labor force.

Who wants to go out and hit the town so I can spend my imaginary paycheck?

The "news story" that won't "Beat It"

I was watching This Week with George Stephanopoulos this morning on ABC, and right at the end of his "The Roundtable" segment (beginning with around 3:50 remaining), Stephanopoulos brought up the topic of Michael Jackson and the hoop-lah around his death. It began by contrasting the attempt by Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee (D-TX) to introduce a bill in the House honoring Michael Jackson opposed by the comments made by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) this past week commenting upon how people and the media were glorifying the death of a "pedophile" when there are people who die in noble pursuits and professions everyday. Granted, the House of Representatives held a moment of silence for Jackson already in their chamber on June 25.

The Roundtable of Stephanopoulos, George Will, Donna Brazile, Bob Woodward, Sam Donaldson, and Cokie Roberts squabbled back and forth over whether the media coverage was excessive, whether Jackson really impacted so many lives significantly to deserve such a post-mortem spectacle as his memorial service this past Tuesday garnered. A few points caught me as I listened, so I thought I'd share.

Rep. Peter King may come off sounding like a close-minded, semi-racist douche in this schpeal, but he has a point. People die everyday, some of whom are great humanitarians and selfless and have caused joy fro countless others during their lives, some of whom are creeps and pedophiles and twisted with fame and success. Michael Jackson was a mixed bag. Like with any ending of human life, it is sad for those of us who remain to be left without something that was once there and be reminded of our own mortality. I also think that his vehemence towards Jackson as a "pervert" and "child molester" were kind of unnecessary though. Sure, the guy was a little weird but not convicted of anything, so before we go blasting the questionable morals of others, Mr. King, let's not forget what (or who) our friends in the Republican party have been doing.

Shelia Jackson Lee's resolution honoring him has been deemed "not necessary" by Speaker Pelosi, and considering that there was a moment of silence held for him in the House chamber, that sounds about right. This is a political grandstanding by Jackson Lee, that's it. If he was such a great humanitarian that was in need of good press and recognition by the U.S. Congress, then why didn't you propose the resolution before Jackson's death? Hmm, yeah, that's what I thought.

The panel also discussed the concept of "synthetic grief," or that only because of the extensive and sensationalized coverage did people seem to care and grieve for Jackson. While I'm sure this is not true for some who were in fact deeply touched and influenced by Jackson's music or generous works, I think this has a pretty good chance of being true. Alex Whalen once wrote about this kind of grief on his blog relating to September 11th and how ridiculous it is when some people claim to have been more affected by 9/11 then people directly involved in the events of that day. I think this is the same kind of grief, where audio and visual overload of something via the media is bludgeoned on to one so much that one begins to feel as though they are directly involved in an event. But reality check: you aren't, I'm sorry. You can go back to living you own life now and not letting Big Brother Media project how you should think and feel.

And folks, let's be real. While the memorial service was nice and dazzling and had some touching moments, Cokie Roberts hits the nail on the head about the whole ordeal: it's about making MONEY. They sold tickets for MONEY. Buying his works on iTunes is about MONEY. The MSM has been covering it so tightly because it gets them high ratings, meaning MO' MONEY.

That got me thinking, and this will need to be something I ask of my journalist friends out there. Why did the MSM give so much attention and coverage to the death of Michael Jackson, besides that there was obviously a market for it and they played 'supply' to the people's 'demand?'

I think it might be because it's so much easier for them to write about a dead person, where the facts are constant and requires very little research, than to have to go digging and sifting through information to find the facts and build a story around it in developing news . I don't mean to be cynical (who am I kidding, of course I do), but after getting beat up by the new media about Iran a few weeks ago, being called out for it and having to step it up in response, the MSM loved the death of Jackson because it was their chance to take a breather and rest on their heels again. Why do the hard stuff when the easy stuff is a gimme?

Oh yeah, about that fake election...

Wonder Woman won. Weak sauce - her policies all involved the "Lasso of Truth" doing things to people. There is going to be a whole lot of BDSM going on in some alternate universe District of Columbia. Ouch.

Obviously the opposition was not doing their job digging up dirt on her. Otherwise a simple Google image search of "Wonder Woman" would have found them this:

and this:

Like I said, WHY WAS I NOT INVITED TO THIS?

The Unlikely Convention v. Working the System

My friend Mike Judge (not of Office Space and King of the Hill fame, but equally awesome) and I once debated the merits of the United States needing another Constitutional Convention. Granted, Mike had had a good deal of rum prior to this conversation and I had finished of the majority of a sixer of Red Stripe (in their short, ugly bottles) so it may have the same weight of a talk about politics between Captain Jack Sparrow and the Jamaican guy in the Red Stripe commercials.

But I digress. Mike argued that we, as a nation, were in desperate need of radical redesign of our country's system of governance and that I, as the comparatively more old timey conservative (I like to think of myself as a 'classic liberal') of us argued that if we wanted change in the system we had to go through the system and let democracy play itself out.

Where is this going? Today, I read a very interesting piece by Patrick over at Popehat about the creation of a third legislative house, which would act to repeal outdated, ill-conceived, or just straight-up bad federal laws. Why?

It’s not that all laws are bad. We’re not base anarchists. It’s that lawmaking no longer resides, if it ever did, with the people. Conversely, the individuals who are responsible, under the Constitution, for passing these laws seem utterly ignorant of the law themselves. The days when even an attorney could be described as “learned in the law” are long gone. Today we have attorneys who specialize entirely in such arcane niches as regulatory permitting for power plants, or nursing home standards litigation, or Medicare fraud defense. And the laws pile up.

He goes into great deal explaining how it would work and demonstrating how it would not upset/be disrupted by the checks and balances of the other legislative bodies and other branches of government. And as the title of his post suggests, this is something that should be brought up at the next available Constitutional Convention.

But as one of his commenters responds:

It’ll never happen, and never should.

This is an example of the phenomenon where someone sees a problem and fixes it by creating something completely new, rather than going back and fixing the actual source problem. You know, the same way Congress does it.

In other words, creating a completely new Constitutional branch or body to correct the excesses of the existing branches, particularly their tendencies to overlegislate by adding laws instead of repealing or reworking existing law, is ironic at the least.

And I think this is kinda right. While it's nice to imagine a whole different system that we can drop into place via Constitutional Convention, it's not going to happen. Those in power would never allow it to happen unless they were the ones who came up with the idea in the first place, and even then it's an unlikely maybe at best. The Founding Fathers got away with passing the the Constitution through each state's convention, and it just barely did. On top of that, it's right to say that if you want to fix democracy so that it remains with its power in the hands of the people, then you can't keep on adding more federal bureaucracy. It's the opposite of the goal of what is trying to be accomplished.

This is a battle that happens in government all the time, and is noticeable in recent events. We want to ensure that everyone has health care, but you can't just drop in a single-payer system when the system has been designed as a market for over half a century. We want to bring the troops home, but you can't just put all the soldiers on airplanes home and not have the Iraqi system they're supporting get significantly weaker and maybe crumble a little. Democracy and policy-making isn't meant to happen overnight, but beaten up and tested to see that it can stand up on its own. You can't just roll up the dough again and make whatever you want when you've already started cooking for over 200 years, which is what this idea of a third chamber proposes to do.

Play needs to happen in the boundaries of the rules. You can't be playing basketball and all of the sudden drop the rules of football in like they apply and think you're still playing hoops. The rules can be bent - gradual changes can be made. That's what amendments are for, not just ground-shaking redefinitions of suffrage or attempts to ban gay marriage. If you want to tweak the rules, let's see some Representatives and Senators with a little gall to do their jobs and find a way to make the U.S. work with the rules in play.

Congress already has the power to repeal laws - make legislators use them to trim the fat rather than creating a new legislative body to do it for them. Or have them create an amendment limiting how long bills can be in effect, creating term limits for laws they pass. Good laws, like legislators, will be renewed; bad or outdated ones get the boot. Want to make the federal government more accountable? Give some power pack to the states to limit the federal government, such as repealing the 17th Amendment and making Senators electable by state legislatures.

At one time, a younger me would have argued vehemently against anything limiting the approach to a more direct democracy. But as I've learned more about our Constitution, the Founders' intent via The Federalist Papers and other primary documents on their thoughts, and that democracy is not the perfect solution for all of the world, I can see what I missed when I was younger.

People have a right to be stupid and ignorant, just as much as one has a right to call them stupid and ignorant for being so. I don't recommend being uninformed, but it's their prerogative. The Founders made the system outlined in the Constitution to limit that, to protect everyone from enough stupid people to do dangerous things with power. It is a living document, for sure - but it is how we, the People, use it that makes it come alive. It works, just a lot more slowly then we would like it to in this digital age of instant communication and 24-hour news. If we want to fix things that we think are wrong, then patiently, methodically, let's get things done. Every mistake that has been done can be undone, with time. We don't need an unlikely Constitutional Convention or radical proposals to change things. There is no instant fix. All we need to have is what has been granted to us - time - and the all-American value of stubborn persistence.

(Hat Tip: The Atlantic Ideas blog)

Mayors in Spandex

The New Organizing Institute (NOI) BootCamp 2009 has been running a mock campaign to elect the new mayor of Washington, D.C.. The candidates? Superheroes. Pretty cool stuff, teaching those involved how to lead and run electoral, policy, and non-profit campaigns.

Besides the fact that I'm ticked that I was not made aware of this sooner, or that

I DIDN'T GET AN INVITATION DESPITE MY EXTENSIVE COMIC GEEK AND POLITICS CRED

today is Election Day. Polls are only open for another six hours or so (July 10, 2009 7AM-6PM), but hey, better late than never. To visit the page to cast your vote and visit the websites for each candidate, click here.

As for my vote, I'm kind of torn. Supes is always a favorite and I like what Team Superman has done marketing-wise, but I wasn't really feeling his platform on the issues. Green Lantern has a great education policy platform (that has been endorsed by Matt Yglesias), and a green jobs initiative. Impressive stuff. But Cyborg (of Teen Titans fame, not evil Cyborg Superman) has a great vision for DC as a "Silicon Valley of the East Coast" to stimulate the local economy and develop mentoring programs to help inner-city youths (like he himself once was) out of poverty. Ambitious, but feasible? Luckily it's a fake election.

(Hat Tip: Yglesias and EcoComics)

(Photo Credit: Alex Ross)

Welcome Home, Old Friend

Tonight, former Red Sox shortstop Nomar Garciaparra made his first return to the park and home of the ballclub where he learned to play big league ball, turning him into an all-star multiple times over. Prior to the Sox getting smoked 6-0 by Oakland, Nomar gave this emotional confessional in the press room, via NECN:



I think I'd like to see him come home and wear the old No. 5 one more time. This was a long awaited first step today.



Good to see you're still the same stand-up guy I idolized as a kid, Nomar. Welcome home.

Sounds of the Day

Happy Independence Day everyone.

What is Sarah Palin's game?

Former-VP candidate Sarah Palin is resigning her post as governor of Alaska, claiming not only that she will refuse re-election but also leave office before the end of the month, turning control of the government to her Lt. Governor. Video of her speech this morning, via TPM:




Jerell is loving it. Andrew is stunned but not shocked, and has a good round-up of how the sphere has reacted here and here. Most seem to think she's doing this to free herself up for 2012. And most also seem to think that she has just cost herself any legitimacy she had in thinking she should be in that race. As Matt Cooper at The Atlantic Politics blog sees it, there are three possible scenarios that could play out.

As much as I want to agree with nearly everyone else that the Wicked Witch of Wasilla is dead, I think I'm with Ambers here - if there is no scandal to follow this up, I think she wants to get away from the pressures of actually governing in a tough situation to go and insulate herself in the radical-right cocoon that adores her. The B.S. she fed today jives entirely with the theory that she embellishes the events of her life to create whatever narrative she wants for herself (well documented over at The Daily Dish). As much as I wish it were otherwise, I'm afraid this is not the end of Sarah Palin.

Damn it.

UPDATE: Andrew has more rounding up thoughts across the web here, and Matt Cooper still can't figure out what she's doing here. Josh Marshall and his commenters follow suit. Yglesisas respects her because she had the audacity to ruin the Fourth of July weekend for a lot of folks. For those who haven't read Todd Purdum's recent Vanity Fair piece on her, check it out here.

About those voices in your head...

I was going to post this video the other night, but I couldn't find words to express how I reacted to it. Luckily, Jon Stewart has:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Osama bin Laden Needs to Attack America
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

(Hat Tip: TPM)

UPDATE: In a radio interview with Alan Colmes, apparently Michael Scheuer, the former CIA operative that was being interviewed by Beck, also thinks Obama doesn't care about protecting the U.S. from terrorists.

This is my fault - I should have elaborated earlier. You're supposed to ignore the voices in your head, not give them another microphone.

Keeping it Short and Sweet

Two interesting ideas coming out from The Economist - Democracy in America blog today about the legislative process.

The first post highlights another post by Bob Gale, suggesting that we pass a 28th Amendment limiting the written length of bills in state and federal legislatures to 2000 words or roughly five pages. His reasoning is simple - look at the Constitution:

I found the Constitution online and copied it into a Word document, in Times New Roman 12 point type. So how long is it?

Including the preamble, all signatures and all 27 amendments, it’s 20 pages.

Without the signatures and amendments, it’s 11 pages.

Think about that. The entire foundation of our country - the complete design for our entire government — is clearly explained in only 11 pages.

No single Amendment is a full page. Many are only a single sentence.

But as many have pointed out, there are a few flaws with this reasoning. First, the Constitution and the statutory laws that are passed by legislatures are two entirely different creatures - the Constitution is broad and encompassing, whereas statutory law is meant to be specifically applied. They are passed in very different manners and under very different circumstances for this reason. Second, despite what Bob Gale may suggest, shorter is not always better. Sure, it will make it more likely that legislators will do their elected duty and READ IT BEFORE THEY SIGN IT, but limiting length limits the specificity needed in statutory law, making it far more ambiguous, opening the door to interpretation and potentially giving judges the unconstitutional power to legislate from the bench.

That being said, I like that at least some people are trying to think of innovative ways of preventing corruption and "trimming the fat" from legislation beyond more oversight. I think some serious work and study would need to go into how to limit the wording of bills, but I like the ingenuity here. More of this kind of discussion needs to happen in both the public discourse and the halls of Washington.

The second post admits to having being inspired by the first, proposing that legislatures rid themselves of the practice of naming bills (aka, "The Patriot Act" or "Defense of Marriage Act"). It elaborates why not, and what to do instead:

No bill should be an advertisement for itself; it should stand or fall on its content, not on its title, which allows politicians to send out innocent-looking mailers saying, "Did you know that my opponent opposed the American Service-Members' Protection Act?" Let bills be known by their numbers—it's not so hard, and it's done at the UN. Or let them be known by their sponsors, like Waxman-Markey or McCain-Feingold. But no more American Values Act, Let's Have a Stronger Military Act, or Making Sure Grandma Gets Her Medications Act.

Amen. The bills already have numbers - use them rather that the ridiculous, self-aggrandizing names that legislators issue to bills that sometimes vaguely relate to what they are advertised as. Or, as the poster suggests, simply use the names of the bill's sponsors to describe it in everyday speech. But there's no need to continue the practice of naming bills after people or to help to promote it anymore than what one gets from the content of the bill.

The content. Meaning, legislators, that you read it. The whole thing. Not the Spark Notes talking points another legislator or lobbying group have given you.

A rose, by any other name, is still a rose. So too this applies to crappy legislation.