a semi-regular column of Truths, Half Truths, and Mostly Truths by Semi.
Volume I, Issue 10 · posted April 3, 2001
A point of order, before I begin my usual diatribe...
Though I did not think I was being remotely subtle about it, I received a few different questions regarding my last issue, all of which can be summed up by the same answer:
Semi Truths breaks into the double-digits with this issue, and I am moved to indulge in a little introspection.
When I started this column, I had no particular direction in mind other than a forum in which to express my peculiar viewpoint on the more curious aspects of This Modern Life (not coincidentally, also the title of my first column). The origins of this column actually began a few months earlier, when I found myself sending long diatribes to a captive audience: family and friends who had little choice regarding what was being sent to them.
I decided to formalize this outlet, make it voluntary and to give myself a semi-regular deadline to meet (so far, once a week, though not necessarily every seven days).
At that time, I did not anticipate that there would be so much politics in this column. I thought perhaps I could choose more inoffensive material -- you know, The Wacky Things on TV, Kids Say The Darndest Things, Funny Headlines -- but I find myself returning to the rich vein of American Politics in the 21st Century.
I grew up in California in the 1960's, an inherently political place and time. My father was both a journalist and a politician. As a mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper (well, anyway, a local rag), he wrote impartially about regional events. But the desire to do something, not just report on news, overtook him and he put aside his journalistic objectivity and ran successfully for local office. The Boy That I Was asked him once why he was so interested in politics ("it's so boring", I'm sure I said, engrossed in my four-color world of super heroics).
"Politics is everything" he replied. "There is no one thing you can name that does not somehow involve politics."
He was right, of course. Every aspect of our life -- the roads we drive, the foods we eat, the air we breathe and the words we read -- comes to us through some kind of political process. We talk about Office Politics, Church Politics, Family Dynamic -- it all comes down to the same thing: Politics is Humanity, with all the grandeur and all the flaws that such a conceit entails.
Politics is also perception: when I write about the horrifying events that brought GWB to the White House, I make no effort to be objective. I also understand that there are many people out there who actually voted for this guy and genuinely felt that he was a better choice than the alternative ... not as many people who voted for Al Gore, of course, but a reasonable number.
Similarly, I know many people who think that the previous occupant of the White House was quite possibly the most objectionable human being on the face of the planet (personally, I reserve that particular distinction for my seventh grade gym coach) and they cannot conceive of how anybody could have voted for her husband.
Every week when I sit down to write this column, I am faced with a blank sheet of paper (okay, a pre-formatted text object with embedded HTML code, if you want to be technical about it) and I start gathering the ties that have been floating around in my subconscious. Inexorably, perhaps inevitably, my mind turns to Current Events. I am frequently and deliberately provocative, writing not just about those things that amuse me, but those that anger me. This accomplishes two things: it helps to defuse some of the pain, and it gives me an opportunity to work out many of the genuine conflicts that I feel. In the process, I hope that I am both entertaining you and giving you something to think about. I welcome your comments and any opinions that are contrary to my own, and I will try not to take advantage of this rather one-sided forum to always give myself the last word.
"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a
typewriter and open a vein."
--Red Smith
Thank you for being part of my grand incision.
If Politics is Everything, then Money is All.
Despite the distractions of otherwise Big News events, such as the implementation of our new Asian Defense Policy ("we may not be able to hit a missile with a missile, but watch us sink fishing boats with submarines and knock down fighter jets with spy planes"), the Bush Administration has stayed on target with plans to push its $1.6 trillion tax cut through Congress. Not one to have his thunder stolen, Bush's onetime rival, Arizona Senator John McCain, is forging ahead with his own campaign promise to implement Campaign Finance Reform.
(And what a contrast: John McCain keeps his campaign pledges even though he lost the election. GWB, on the other hand, repeatedly breaks his campaign pledges despite having lost the election.)
It's an interesting time. Just a few days after we are greeted with multi-billionaires appearing on Capitol Hill begging the Congress not to rescind the Federal Estate Tax ("please, don't stop us from giving you all of our money!"), we are witness to Congressional debate advocating legislation to stem the flow of dollars into election campaigns ("please, stop us from accepting all of your money!").
Why am I not comforted by this?
Let's face it, efforts to close the loopholes that allow buckets of money to flow into campaigns, though well-intentioned, will produce results that are certain to be evanescent. All that money will simply find somewhere else to go, and we'll be right back to attack ads disguised as issue advocacy campaigns.
I have my own suggestion to the Campaign Finance Reform movement. Campaigning is competition, so let's give our candidates the same perquisites that we give professional athletes: open corporate sponsorship.
The political parties have already opened the door with convention sponsorship. During the year 2000 conventions, for example, corporate and local government sponsorship approached $100 million combined! Not included in the official tally is the cost of the hundreds of "invitation only" events. These are among the most-coveted tickets for convention-goers and there are no laws that necessitate revealing how much money was spent or who paid the tab.
I say we open up the books and let the businesses openly sponsor their hand-picked candidates. Let them hit the campaign trail in their hats and jackets emblazoned with corporate logos! It's certainly more honest.
If we start now, we can have the laws in place in time for the 2004 election. Can't you see it? "GM presents the Smith-and-Wesson Republican Party candidate for the Archer-Daniels-Midland President of the United States, George `Dubya-Dubya-Dubya-dot-Amazon-dot-com' Bush."
Washington might also look to Hollywood for another revenue generating idea: product placement. I'll give you an example: do you remember Al Gore's acceptance speech in Los Angeles last year? (For that matter, do you remember Al Gore? I'm thinking of publishing a title based on the old "Where's Waldo?" series of children books. Called "Where'd Al Go?", hours of fun could be have poring over a picture of, say, Coney Island on the Fourth of July, as you comb through the illustration of hundreds of beachgoers trying to spot the tall man in the dark blue suit and tie. But I digress...)
During his speech, Al said "We sent a man to the moon in a capsule with less computing power than we now carry in a Palm Pilot!" At this point, the Veep could have whipped out his own Palm Pilot and checked his task list ("Accept nomination ... check!"). Or when he declared that the GOP's proposed tax reforms "would leave the poorest of our citizens with just enough money at the end of the week to buy a Diet Coke", he could have popped open a can of Diet Coke and, before an audience of millions, gulped down a satisfied swig. ("Ahh...") Sales would have shot through the roof!
All this talk of campaign finance reform is predicated on a single presumption: that we stupid voters are only going to vote for the guy who has the most money anyway. If that is the case, let's eliminate the election all together and just have each candidate come out and stack all his money into a big pile. Whoever has the higher stack will win! Then the Democrats can take that money and set about paying back the national debt, restoring public education and helping out the working class, and the Republicans can hand all their loot back to the rich people.
As usual, all definitions have been liberated from Dictionary.com. This week's words all have to do with money money money...
emolument \e*mol"u*ment\, n. the profit arising from office, employment, or labor, perquisites (from Latin emolumentum, or gain, originally a miller's fee for grinding grain)
lucre \lu"cre\, n. gain in money or goods, often in an ill sense; related to lucrative (profitable).
pelf \pelf\, n. money or gain, generally conveying the idea of something ill-gotten or worthless; it has no plural; related to pilfer (to take by petty theft; to filch)
This week, I have my first homework assignment for you:
Boasting such luminaries as Edwin Meese and William Bennet on its staff, The Heritage Foundation is a powerful conservative think tank that has influenced Washington policy since it was founded in 1973.
On their website, you will find the Heritage Tax Calculator, which "will allow you to simulate some key elements of President George W. Bush's tax plan and how those tax law changes will affect you...By entering in your income and a few other bits of information, you can quickly get an idea of how much money the President’s tax cut plan will save you."
If you're interested, go ahead and plug in your own numbers (but for the love of Mike, please don't tell them I sent you). I'll do the same, and in a future column I'll discuss the calculations (or, you know, maybe not...)
http://www.heritage.org/taxcalculator/
"Want
as much money as you like, but be careful not to need it"
--Leonardo
Sciascia, advice to writers
All Contents (except the stuff I stole) Copyright © 2001 S.M.
McCord.
Redistribution allowed, provided you cite http://www.semitrue.com.
URI: http://www.semitrue.com/pages/2001.04.04.html