Friday, February 18, 2005
This morning, NPR had a discussion between two experts about the current housing bubble on the coasts. Representing the view that the bubble is unsustainable was Karl Case, an economics professor from Wellesley College and a Visiting Scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Representing the view that the bubble will go on indefinitely was Bruce Karatz who is . . . wait for it . . . the CEO of KB Homes, one of the largest homebuilders in America.
You've got to be kidding me.
In recent years, the media has completely abandoned its investigative duties in favor of "objective stories" and opposing "experts." It's a deplorable state of affairs that is a direct result of the right's continuous bitch slapping of the "liberal" media. I've accepted it as the status quo, but for fuck's sake, if we're gonna play the "he said, she said, you decide" game, at least give us experts who don't have a vested interest in the outcome of the argument. Presenting a home builder as an expert on the sustainability of high housing costs is like presenting Michael Jackson as an expert on the benign effects of child abuse. Clearly, both have much more than an academic interest in being right.
In the legal world, so-called experts are everywhere, and there are safeguards to make sure that not just any jackass can hold forth on specialized topics. An expert witness must demonstrate he is an actual expert with, like, education and publications and stuff before he can take the stand. Even then he can and will be attacked if he has an economic interest in the case.
If the quality of "expert" testimony is important in our private disputes, shouldn't it be important in our public discourse, too?
You've got to be kidding me.
In recent years, the media has completely abandoned its investigative duties in favor of "objective stories" and opposing "experts." It's a deplorable state of affairs that is a direct result of the right's continuous bitch slapping of the "liberal" media. I've accepted it as the status quo, but for fuck's sake, if we're gonna play the "he said, she said, you decide" game, at least give us experts who don't have a vested interest in the outcome of the argument. Presenting a home builder as an expert on the sustainability of high housing costs is like presenting Michael Jackson as an expert on the benign effects of child abuse. Clearly, both have much more than an academic interest in being right.
In the legal world, so-called experts are everywhere, and there are safeguards to make sure that not just any jackass can hold forth on specialized topics. An expert witness must demonstrate he is an actual expert with, like, education and publications and stuff before he can take the stand. Even then he can and will be attacked if he has an economic interest in the case.
If the quality of "expert" testimony is important in our private disputes, shouldn't it be important in our public discourse, too?
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Every time I sit down to write, I am frozen with angry indecision. Do I write about the attempted rape of social security? The continuing violence in Iraq? The blatant partisan manipulation of the White House Press Corps? The administration's elevation of rank incompetence and hypocrisy? Every day it seems a new rock is turned over and a new abomination crawls into the light.
I have a friend who is doing good things on Social Security. Another who's got an insightful blog on Gonzales and his deplorable ascension to Attorney General. These guys are focused and writing well about important topics. All I can do is type 'fuck' over and over in some sort of electronic primal scream. I've never been a great writer, but I've never struggled so hard to say so little.
I thought after the election this blogging thing would be easy. I knew, with Republican control of the entire government, there'd be a wealth of things to rail against. I didn't anticipate that such a target rich environment would cause me to freeze up, changing my aim with every new possibility but never pulling the trigger.
How can you write about anything when everything is so fucked up?
I have a friend who is doing good things on Social Security. Another who's got an insightful blog on Gonzales and his deplorable ascension to Attorney General. These guys are focused and writing well about important topics. All I can do is type 'fuck' over and over in some sort of electronic primal scream. I've never been a great writer, but I've never struggled so hard to say so little.
I thought after the election this blogging thing would be easy. I knew, with Republican control of the entire government, there'd be a wealth of things to rail against. I didn't anticipate that such a target rich environment would cause me to freeze up, changing my aim with every new possibility but never pulling the trigger.
How can you write about anything when everything is so fucked up?
