And misfiring marketing, to boot. Starting with the (non-acronymic) name of an agency/activity: "Homeland Security". To many of us that name sounds ominously like something established in Central Europe in mid-1930's.
I was mulling this "craze" about a month ago, and decided that if I were a legislator, I'd make it very clear that I would consider any bill with a cutesy name - either a silly acronym (like "the RAVE act" or "the CLEAN-UP bill") or one named after a person or people ("Megan's Law", "Scott and Laci's bill") - to be extremely suspect at best.
Not that I would never possibly vote for it, but that it would have to overcome a significant hurdle.
But legislators don't vote for what they believe, do they? They vote for what they think will get them either a) reelected or b) a position of more influence within their little segment of the political biosphere. Or, best of all worlds, c) all of the above.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Are you sure there's a difference?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Not that I would never possibly vote for it, but that it would have to overcome a significant hurdle.
no subject
no subject
Some day it would be funny if they slipped up and made a bill that could be acronymed as a very naughty word. :P