Society evolves, and the standards of culture move in ways not always pleasing.

On the television programs of my youth, a Victorianism ruled to the point of being ridiculous. Even as a kid, I thought something looked amiss when Rob and Laura Petrie slept in twin beds on “The Dick Van Dyke Show.”

In those times, television programs stayed away from certain words. As time went on, objectionable words slipped in during shows deemed artistically groundbreaking. They came on later in the evening.

Then, the slippery slope led the words to shows in the 7 p.m. hour. Some of those shows made it into syndication, so the words and themes landed in the after-school hours. In a generation or so, the unacceptable became accepted. As it turns out, this phenomenon also goes in reverse.

Take the word “earmark.”

Time was when no member of Congress hesitated to use the word, especially in the context of landing one for the home district. An earmark, plugged into the federal budget for a specific purpose at a specific place, meant free money and something good about to happen with it.

These days, “earmark” is a seven-letter word that rolls off the tongue like a four-letter word.

It is the villainy required for goodness to shine. The bearer of earmarks used to be a cowboy bringing supplies to snow-bound pioneers. Now, in the public eye, they are reckless characters looking to pull a fiscal fast one.

The Republican presidential nominee John McCain holds these sorts in particular disdain. In his convention speech, he said, “The first big-spending, pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. I will make them famous, and you will know their names.”

A transcript proved necessary for the end of those remarks because wild applause drowned them out that particular night. The sentiment still gets an ovation at McCain campaign events.

Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, also believes the earmarking system needs reform. He advocates a law that would disclose “the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before (approval).”

Evangelizing against earmark deviltry means some politicians must choose their words carefully. During a Lee’s Summit rally this month, Mr. McCain chastised the earmarking process shortly after an introduction by Missouri Sen. Kit Bond, a top-flight earmark practitioner. And he stood on stage with fellow “maverick” Sarah Palin, who as mayor of an Alaskan city hired a lobbying firm to seek out federal earmarks.

That practice sounds familiar. In St. Joseph, local tax dollars go toward a Washington lobbying firm that works to get money from federal appropriations for local projects.

So, how evil can it be if we’re doing it?

Locally, federal dollars allowed the construction of the Riverside Road southern extension. Is that a filthy earmark or a smooth ride that will allow for job growth?

If the city gets money to fix the rail crossing nightmare at Alabama Street and U.S. 59, would that be a lifesaver or a congressional abomination?

People clap at the thought of eliminating earmarks. But do they boo when earmarks come their way?

Ken Newton’s column runs on Tuesday and Sunday.