The week, as noted, was uninspired but productive. We got into the office on Monday, Jack and I, with our boss Dave and our "supervisor" Stan gone down to Zimbabwe. We sat down at our desks, and I found that I had little or no capacity for work. I did, however, have the capacity for a morning cup of coffee and all the solemn joy that ensues. That hurdle passed, with aplomb I might add (get it, aplomb rhymes with...), I stared down the remainder of the day: a desolate wasteland of sitting in a cold office trying not to get caught looking at the web. Jack and I had sent off our report on the impact of WBR on the RAPIDS HIV/AIDs program and were in between appointments on our next project with nowhere really to go on it that particular day. It was a horrible feeling. I don't mind sitting in an office all day if I am working. I hate sitting around looking at the internet. Listen to me complain about having to sit in the office for a day, when every other day has consisted of visiting villages or working on projects I am genuinely interested in... WBR is spoiling me rotten.
Anyways, this lack of purpose led me to my go to site, Realclearpolitics.com, a metamedia site that basically accumulates the best political articles around and puts them on a webpage for one to link to. Much like the drudge report of huffington post. Insert markets or sports for politics in the url to fit your tastes. After lapping up the excretions (its a theme) of our nations op-ed writers I have come to a few conclusions about the Obama Administration, the healthcare debate and those who cover it. Let me preface these comments by saying I have a very superficial understanding of our healthcare system.
1. People who write about this stuff, on both sides, don't seem to be familiar with "the issues":
I suppose this isn't a revelation for most folks, but it dawned on me after I read my 56th article about the healthcare debate. I had no more understanding about the nuts and bolts of the situation than I did before I read all these articles. Sure, now I know about "the public option", a phrase bandied about with either awed regard or frenzied disdain. I know that the plan will "ration" healthcare. Depending on who is writing the article you will find that the plan "increases competition" or kills it, will either save money or mortgage our future. My mind is filled with a bunch of other buzzwords and knowing references to things the plan includes, or will do or wont do. But I am still ignorant. Ignorant of the overall structure of what the new plan would be and also embarrassingly ignorant to the realities of our current plan. So too, I believe, are most of the people writing these articles. These folks were writing about 9/11 8 years ago, then al qaeda, the economy the next year, the iraq war, then immigration, then Afghanistan, then north korea and Iran, then China, the environment, then the "new economic paradigm" ("derivatives negate risk we will never have another recession" was a common refrain), then the campaign, then sarah palin, then joe bidens dumb ass, the crisis ("derivatives are the devil, we will never have positive gdp growth again, some body must do something nowww" etc) the spectacle that was Barak Obamas 100 days ("the most important event in the history of mankind" is how I refer to the event) and now healthcare. This is their job, writing about the cause du jour. And I am not criticizing them personally. But I am saying that such breadth of coverage must come at the cost of depth. And I see almost nothing of import in the op-eds that I ravenously digested this past monday, except when I read George Will. I love that guy. Rather than discuss what is being proposed, attention surrounds whether what is being proposed will succeed. Its like a football announcer who constantly repeats the score to the viewer, expecting that statement of fact and a handful of inane truisms to properly elucidate the picture. John Madden may have made a career of it, but that doesn't mean it impresses me when anybody else does it (we all need to admit it was impressive when Madden did it).
2. I will say it. I DONT LIKE OBAMA.
I say this at pain of exile from my generation. However, I need to make known a feeling that has been brewing in me ever since I watched the guy get sworn in. I supported him during the campaign, I even volunteered at his head quarters in Bozeman this past fall making calls. I believed he represented me, that he was at heart a practical moderate. I believed he supported the basic tenets of capitalism, but also (and reasonably) held that we did needed backstops and programs for honest people who lose their jos or lose their way. I believed, basically that he wasn't a big government liberal. I was wrong. Soo wrong. And once I realized that, well, my opinion on him changed pretty quick. I have been disappointed in the stimulus, in his approach to the bailouts (coughing up the dough while impotently moralizing at bank/insurance execs), his weasly treasury secretary, his moronic VP, in Peter Orszag, in his tough talk on unions followed by coddling, and now in his handling of healthcare. Most of all, I have been disappointed by his fat ass press secretary. Where the hell does that asswipe get off... doing anything? He is a true slob. But I digress. Its not necessarily even that I always disagree with what he does... Its more his disingenuous, professorial way of having his cake and eating it too. He describes massive extension of the government as "increasing competition" and argues that the monstrous health care bill will cut cost... Really? Just tell me what your plan is buddy! Don't lie to me! This thing needs to be fixed. Maybe a public option will help. Maybe spending money now will improve healthcare... fine. Tell me that, don't lie and tell me that spending money... is making us spend less money, because.... its impossible. The fact of the matter is if he was calling it like he saw it, I would disagree so it makes no difference.
I suppose the main point here is DO NOT READ AYN RAND AND EXPECT YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS TO REMAIN MODERATE. A related piece of advice would be do not read Ayn Rand in Africa... it just doesnt mesh. None the less, that is exactly what I am doing.
TBC
No comments:
Post a Comment