fail.

something that is really pissing me off about this whole bailout/stimulus argument is the complete lack of actual thought in the public discourse. can anyone tell me anything about these hyped bills besides the amount of money they may cost and a blanket statement about investing in infrastructure?

when our newspaper of note—the one best known for its political coverage—is getting quotes from the house minority leader like this:

a bill that was supposed to be about jobs, jobs, jobs has turned into a bill that's all about spending, spending, spending.

our "public servants" and media are doing us a disservice. it really appears that they're doing their absolute best to obfuscate the contents of the bill. and not only that, but the GOP seems to be on a tear to make it seem as if spending isn't necessary to create jobs. surely they, of all groups, would adhere to the adage "you gotta spend money to make money."

when items on the bill are enumerated in articles like these, it always seems purely superficial—area of the project and dollar amount. the bill, at roughly 1000 pages, i would hope contains more than a list of projects sitting next to a dollar amount, but there's no analysis of the projects themselves. $15 billion to clean water and environmental protection? great. how's that money going to get spent on those projects? are they going to buy 80 million britta water filters? are they tightening regulations on industry? are they putting money toward invasive plant removal? i'm not looking for anything really in depth in a four-to-eight column report, but the type of information being passed along does not make readers particularly informed about what's happening. is that not the point of newspapers? to inform us of historical events, major political decisions—why and how those decisions are being made?

blarg.

in other news: