Opinion : The law to end all pathetically-named laws

The latest congressional circus involving the laws to regulate Internet piracy is just one more reminder of how out-of-touch Congress has become.

But there's a very simple solution.

The two bills under consideration, SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PROTECT-IP (To prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property) are examples of how silly the lawmaking process has become.

There are two things about these laws that demand our attention.

First, former Senator and one-time Presidential candidate Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) is leading the attempt to get current congressional members to change the law on behalf of his employer, the Motion Picture Association of America.

You can be sure that the MPAA did not hire Dodd because of his acting or directing ability. They hired him because as a long-time member of the Senate, he has the ear and the respect of other members. That means they look at him and say, "Wow! Soon, if I resign my seat, I could be making as much money as Dodd makes, without working nearly so hard!"

It's legal, of course for Dodd to do this, but only because Congress still makes the laws governing Congress. Dodd, who left the senate only a year ago, is now lobbying for laws on behalf of people who pay him much more money than he made as a Senator. He is not technically a lobbyist; he is the chairman of the MPAA. But nobody even tries to pretend that he is not involved in the legislation.

As long as Congressmen and Senators like Dodd (and many others from both parties) can leave Congress and start getting paid to lobby Congress, our hope for reforming that institution (and that institution's hope of earning more public respect) is next-to-none.

The second problem with this and many other laws is the arrogant way that members of Congress have learned to define and name those laws.

They don't just write a law; they spend countless hours naming it with some fancy acronym that makes that law sound better than it actually is, thus trying to create pressure on others to pass that law. Some of the worst examples are the USA PATRIOT ACT and the DREAM ACT.

While I generally support much of both acts (although forcing 90-year-old World War II veterans heading to DC for the Honor Flight to be scanned in their wheelchairs is hardly patriotic), I don't need a name to convince me that a bill should become law.

The next time you see a member of Congress, ask him to tell you what the letters in the USA PATRIOT Act stand for; chances are that he or she will say, "Ummm, well, ah…" instead of "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism."

In addition to its historical failings (a patriot is someone who supported independence from Great Britian), the title also has moral and ethical failings. It implies that if you do not support this law, you are not a USA patriot.

And while I support some of the changes in the another proposed law, the one that is designed to acknowledge that some illegal aliens (many who came here because many times, the U.S. government failed to enforce immigration laws) have been here long enough, doing the things that a good citizen would do, that they deserve a chance to become part of our county.

One example: Dr. Q -- brain surgeon and cancer pioneer Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa -- is not ashamed to tell anyone that he came to America by "jumping the fence." He spent a year or more living in a pickup topper and working as a migrant agriculture employee. He eventually went to college (yes, at taxpayer expense) and is now one of the most-respected brain surgeons in the world.

There are many potential Dr. Qs among the 12 million or so illegal immigrants living in the U.S. And many of them have been here for years, working hard, raising their families and staying out of trouble (yeah, I know: we have seen many in Vinton who have been the opposite; breaking more laws; for those people I support a fast track back to Mexico).

The DREAM Act would give some of those people a chance. But calling it the "DREAM" act does not make it more appealing.

The same with the PROTECT-IP law.

It's just one more example of Congress using a clever, important-sounding name to impose on America something that only a lobbyist wants.

I have a solution. Congress should pass one more law. This law would prohibit the use of acronyms in legislation. It would also require that every lobbying group who wanted a law to be clearly identified, both in the text of the legislation, and in signs posted on the walls of the congressional offices, campaign offices and vehicles used by everyone who votes for that law. Imagine how refreshing it would be if Congress was as open about its sponsors as NASCAR drivers are.

I could call my new bill: END PATHETICALLY NAMED LAWS (Envisioning a New Dimension Precluding Attempts Tainted with Hideously Excessive Theatrics, Including Coddling Attorneys and Lobbyists, Leading to Yes and No Answers, Making Every Day Life Advance With Simplicity).

But, yes, I know. It would never pass. Congress can't envision that kind of change. It relies on the theatrics, lobbyists and confusion to keep its power.