Orwell RIGL*

[Antigen]

washingtonpost.com
Answer Man: Name That Agency

By John Kelly

Monday, March 14, 2005; Page C11

When did the General Accounting Office become the Government Accountability Office? Or are they two separate entities? If it is only a name change, the new name implies a very different function. The old name makes the office sound like a bunch of accountants; the new name makes them sound like watchdogs who are on our side monitoring government spending. What's the story?

Herb Golden, Bethesda

If the typical U.S. government agency were a person instead of a government agency, it would be a simple matter to show its personal growth and maturity. For example, if the GAO was actually a person named "James," it could be known as "Jimmy" for the first few years of its life, "Jimbo" as a teenager, "Jim" as a young adult and "James" as a sober and respected middle-aged man.

For better or worse, many federal agencies go by oddly opaque names that usually end up as a clutch of initials. Sometimes the agency's mandate changes. Sometimes it's society that changes. In either case, a new name is called for.

The GAO started life as the General Accounting Office. On July 7, 2004, it officially became the Government Accountability Office.

"The old name was never really reflective of who we are and what we did," said Dave Walker, comptroller general of the United States. "And as time went on, there was an even bigger disconnect."

(By the way, isn't that a great title: comptroller general of the United States. You must do my bidding! I comptrol you!)

"We were never in the accounting business, and many people thought we were responsible for keeping the government's financial statements," Dave said.

So, what is the GAO responsible for? "Our job is to help the Congress maximize its performance and to ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people."

While it does the occasional audit, most of what GAO does is evaluate government programs and analyze policy to see what works and what doesn't. Dave said the old name scared off a lot of people who might have enjoyed working for GAO.

"We did it to help us in recruiting, especially for the attorneys, MBAs and economists who can very much relate to the word 'accountability' but not the word 'accounting,' " he said.

Sometimes a name changes to reflect a change in times. For most of our country's history, the part of the government responsible for fighting wars was called, unsurprisingly, the War Department.

"War Department" doesn't leave much doubt as to what it's all about, but it can sound a bit belligerent. So in 1947, something called the National Military Establishment was created. Two years later, it became the Defense Department, and the War Department was subsumed into the Army. "Defense" sounds, well, more defensible than "war."

Other name changes: In 2003, when it moved from Treasury to Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. They still call it "ATF," though, as opposed to "ATFE." (Answer Man has spent some time around ATF agents. They love explosives, so it's nice to see that reflected in the name.)

The CDC in Atlanta also added words to its name but kept its initials. It's now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"We had been preventing diseases for a long time, but to better reflect the expanding scope of our mission, we added the 'and Prevention' to our name in the early '90s," said the CDC's Tom Skinner.

NIH has a nice, complicated past. Its ancestor was the Laboratory of Hygiene, established in 1887 at Marine Hospital in Staten Island, N.Y., to study cholera and other infectious diseases. In 1891, the Laboratory of Hygiene became the Hygienic Laboratory, a shade of a difference that would require a Talmudic scholar to explain. It also moved to Washington that year.

In 1930, the Hygienic Laboratory was renamed the National Institute of Health. It earned its S -- Institutes -- in 1948.

Then there's the VA: In 1988, it went from the Veterans Administration to the Department of Veterans Affairs. But, said Paul Light, a scholar at the Brookings Institution and professor of public affairs at New York University, the Senate inserted a provision forbidding the agency from spending money on new signs and stationery. It could switch to the new logo only when the old stuff ran out.

"It would be politically controversial to spend a nickel on changing signs when you're cutting veterans' benefits," he said.

"In most cases, these name changes are utterly trivial in actually changing an agency's performance," Paul said. "The artist formerly known as Prince has not changed by changing his name. It's cosmetic. At the end of the day, it's their performance, whatever the name is."
Cab Call-Away

More on Answer Man's Feb. 28 discussion of the "Call 911" lights atop District cabs: Yellow Cab driver Divine Apreku says another drawback of the lights, which are meant to summon help in an emergency, is that some tourists think that's the number they're supposed to call if they want a taxi.

Julia Feldmeier researched this column. Have a question about the Washington area? Send it to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar13.html

My understanding of what the Government Accounting Office is supposed to do is to asses the cost effectiveness of federal spending. Seems to me there have been an unusually high number of government agencies changing their names, ever so slightly sometimes, just lately. This makes it difficult to locate information unless you know of the change. And isn't Accountability sort of a program word?

*Rollin' In Grave Laughin'

[nimdA]

That son of a bitch Orwell is going full out.

[Antigen]

A bill was introduced in Congress this spring to change the name of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to the National Institute on Diseases of Addiction, and the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (NIAAA) to the National Institute on Alcohol Disorders and Health.
[email protected] wrote:
The old argument -- is alcoholism and substance abuse really a disease, or is the disease concept merely a myth, supposedly helping those in recovery achieve same?

One thing is sure, if you claim that you are an 'addict,' good luck ever trying to purchase a firearm. Now a substance abuser is not so barred, so sometimes it helps to choose one's words 'wisely.'

Also, is someone who has ever been a substance abuser ALWAYS going to be a substance abuser? Buddhist psychology, which was and is very developed when compared to Western psychology, is of the view that even the worst 'habits' are no longer habits after a complete abstinence of 7 years, which strongly suggest that such a person is then 'curred.'

The disease model, however, suggest that one is never cured from either alcoholism or addiction. Or perhaps we are just 'toying' with words that are a distinction without a difference, maybe.

In the New Testament, with respect to the miracles performed by Jesus, the translated term 'healing' is used instead of 'curing.' Thus Jesus and the 12 go everywhere [except for His home town 'that knows better'] HEALING, not curing. Of course, we have no idea whatsoever if Jesus HEALED anyone, for no one ever goes back and does any follow-up. What we are told is that Jesus [cures] many people, namely, he usually touches them accompanied by a command [be well and return to community.] but do they ever relapse thereafter -- no one knows.

Does the woman taken in adultery 'go and sin no more' as is commanded? No one knows. What we do know, is that for at least the moment, 'she is curred' and if she stays out of harms way, she likely remained 'curred.'

And so it is with alcoholism and 'addiction.' [1] Stop hurting yourself and [2] go and sin no more [be it a sin, no sin, or whatever and RESTORE YOURSELF TO COMMUNITY.]

So are alcoholism and addiction a disease Does it really matter !!! [except perhaps for compensation statutes.]
8/28/2007 3:55:25 AM
   
Report Abuse  Discussion Policy
User Image    
macdoodle1 wrote:
lets face it it was seen as a big problem needed funding and became a disease.
im disbaled and hiomless and choose not to use. i come form a family of addiction.
its about choices i always made the harder ones. i tired but failed. mpostly becasue of the socsil services programs sayinghtings like th esuytem is broiken and you fell through the cracks whewn they pushed..
when i've been tols i ahve too many medical consditons to get help or wrong disablities or...
i love a good wine. homless it would destry my budget to even survie at all adn my chances.

seen the situation form the gorund i also see there is more than one kind of addict. the one whos also a gambler. the one who was a bad persona dn needs to live with him/herself, the one who had bad expereince and needs to live without it.

one of the reaosns for the 50-80 % failure rate sinthe prograsm is they stop short of dealing with alcohol as a symptom except in dual diagnosis. alchoholism is in most cases ive ever seen a symptom . in most cases its a personal;ity issue or disorder but you wont find people commikng in for reahb itf thats publicly stated.
it simiar tyo the pheneominon of add and now adhad
bad parenting syndrome. treatring it was afailure when the parents were asked to be accountable.responsible.
homless miserable and hungry
i can figure this out
why cant any one else?

duh.




8/28/2007 10:00:48 AM
   
Report Abuse  Discussion Policy
User Image    
macdoodle1 wrote:
im disbaled so cant type
and hit button accidental before any spell check.

but really like sugary snacks they become "addcitng" after the body gets used to it...
but in near all cases substances are about drowning denial of feelings symptoms of many dfifering things.

it makes me crazy no pun intended that psychologyand medicine too tries to make things simple and black and white. no one and nothing is.
8/28/2007 10:07:26 AM
   
Report Abuse  Discussion Policy
User Image    
ExDem wrote:
What the "experts" always fail to realize is that everybody's very different. There is no one-size-fits-all.
8/28/2007 2:40:01 PM
   
Report Abuse  Discussion Policy
User Image    
TabLUno wrote:
The DSM-IV TR remains a good standard by which to evaluate dependency on drugs and alochol as it includes seven symptoms (two physical and five psychological) and the combination of three or more of these over a 12-month period strongly suggests dependency. It takes into account both the disease model as well as a psychological model. A disease model may help to reduce the stigma if drug dependency is considered similar to such diseases as heart disease, diabetes, and lung disease over which people have no control over as such and is treated with medicine, exercise, dietary changes. Such diseases do not result in moral judgments. Even the psychological definitions which can cover sex addiction, shoplifting, and gambling can have important treatment implications for identifying people who seemingly have out of control behavior. The issue of disease versus moral weakness is one of societal perspective on a serious problem. As treatment providers, the real issue is one of accommodating the individual's unique genetic, cultural, family history, moral upbringing factors and educating the public about the various possible causes and current research and evidence-based treatments. More and more of the public is becoming personal touched by stories of significant others or relatives or friends who have experienced these problems. Hopefully, the public will become much more open to needed, wanting to hear about this serious individual and social issue confronting our Country.
8/28/2007 2:55:51 PM
   
Report Abuse  Discussion Policy
User Image    
ricinro85212 wrote:
What a constructive article. I do not know enought to agree or disagree with any particular view but to offer people with me a grand overview and then end it with a prescription to "git-r-done" in a compassionate yet effective way seems to mesh perfectly with the movement to end prohibition (to deny crime) and the probable end to the epoch of faith based misinformation. To whowever picks articles: more like this and less from Bush flunkies!
8/28/2007 3:07:59 PM
   
Report Abuse  Discussion Policy
User Image    
Morgwan wrote:
Using a drug is a choice, cancer and or auto-immune diseases are not. There is a difference. Nobody chooses a disease; one has a choice to try a drug for the first time knowing the possibility of becoming addicted. It's another way for the pharmaceutical companies to receive funding. Giving drug addicts an excuse for their addiction to be a disease is another way of promoting bad choices.
8/28/2007 3:37:32 PM
   
Report Abuse  Discussion Policy
User Image    
oldman999 wrote:
Perhaps addiction is neither disease (Volkow's view)or a serious lack of self-control and morality (Peele's view). Perhaps addiction is merely someone trying to self-medicate away the pain (physical or pyschological) and society's inability to deal with the negative effects that self-medication has on the individual. Think about it, anything can be overdone with deleterious effects to themselves and their families/friends. A workaholic still isn't home to nuture his/her children and spouse. But we don't perceive workaholics as addicts because society doesn't usually have to deal with the negative effects on that individual; in fact, society may benefit from that individual's "addiction to work". Negative effects on the workaholic's family are perceived by society to be few or in the best interests of the family. (Sure, maybe the children would be better off if they saw their father more, but look at all the things the money he makes buys them that enhance their life: bigger house, better car, better vacations, less financial stress, etc on the family). Society perceives the benefits to outweigh the negatives to the individual workaholic and his family.
But consider the heroin addict, society sees only the negatives here: he can't hold down a job or he spends a significant portion of his income obtaining drugs AND taking AWAY from his family's financial well-being. But what if the addiction to heroin holds back the addict's pain to such and extent that he is able to live, what if lack of the drug caused the individual to commit suicide? Society wouldn't see that as a negative because what's one less addict.
The more important question is why we place such emphasis on the addict when every study suggests that a very small fraction of people who use drugs actually abuse them. To use a study that the author cited on heroin abuse: what if 50 percent of the soldiers in Vietnam exhibited sypmtoms of diabetes after eating Vietnamese cabbage (because they cooked the cabbage rather than eating it raw the traditional Vietnamese way - which explains why none of the Vietnamese poeple ever developed diabetes from eating their cabbage and they ate it because the cabbage made them feel better) and only 10 percent of those soldiers who ate cooked Vietnamese cabbage continued to do so after they got home and just 1% of them refused to stop eating cooked Vietnamese cabbage even after it they had diabetic symptoms and had to go on insulin. Would we be treating Vietnamese cabbage as a scourge worthy of spending billions of dollars on to prevent it's cultivation? Would we dump tons of pesticides on the fields of Vietnamese cabbage farmers - even though it doesn't give them diabetes (sort of like Columbian coca farmers chewing on coca leaves). Would we look on the cooked Vietnamese cabbage eaters as having serious character defects? Or would we simply see them as (unexplainable) oddities who are doing themselves the biggest disservice of all but not really worth all the hullaballo because it only effected a very small percentage of the population.
Seriously, drug addiction effects a very small percentage of the population - less than 1% in most instances - and there's very little to suggest that any more than 1% or the population would ever become addicted to any drug. Are individual lives going to be screwed up - yes, but it's not a societal problem, it's an individual problem. And the solution, like the problem, must be individual. That's why you can send an addict to rehab hell and back and he still won't not be an addict until he himself decides that the addiction is causing him more grief than any good he gets from the drug. It's why the majority of "addicts" quit without benefit of rehab. The calculation is intensely personal and cannot be forced - it comes from within the individual, just like the addiction did. And so perhaps addiction is neither disease or moral failing but a part of an individual's unique make-up, a PART of what makes him different from his brother but by no means the only thing; a part of what makes him who he is.
8/28/2007 3:39:41 PM
   
Report Abuse  Discussion Policy
User Image    
Spectator wrote:
Agreed. Sensible, worthwhile article on a topic worth exploring continually.

Wonder if there is not a cultural dimension to addiction? Americans have this propensity for "all you can eat".

I have noticed many European/Asian tobacco smokers seem to have much more restraint in their smoking habits than to Americans.
8/28/2007 3:40:32 PM
   
Report Abuse  Discussion Policy
User Image    
itsagreatday wrote:
I know people who are recovering from alcoholism via a 12-step program, but there are obviously others who find other methods of recovery. It depends on the individual - YMMV - your mileage may vary.

There are people who are addicted to alcohol from the first drink. Or, drug addicts from the first toke, pill, etc. Others can use and in time walk away.

I have a former spouse who was a compulsive gambler. In later years, long after we were divorced, he got into alcohol and has been in and out of rehab. He's also been treated for clinical depression for 18 or so years now. That makes me wonder how much depression of any degree is relevant to addictive behavior.

It's a very complex issue and we know little.
8/28/2007 4:04:59 PM

Go there and chime in if the spirit moves ya!