The stars these days in Washington seem to range from
partially to totally nude, and given that politics is Hollywood for ugly
people, I’m not happy about it.
First we have Massa, who was apparently only nude in the
snorkel area. Why do I know that? Because
the art of innuendo is lost on political reporters.
Then we have Reille Hunter, who is partially nude and
shocked about it. Apparently she
believed pants would be airbrushed on.
And finally we have the healthcare bill, which is totally
nude, but to protect the legitimacy of the process we will pretend that the
bill is wearing some substance.
Why does nobody care that we do not know what is in the bill yet, or
even the subject of negotiation?
Is the public option in the skeleton bill a real public option or are
the drafters “just kidding”? Is this
real clothing or is this the emperor’s new clothes?
I don’t need to know whether Massa was naked, I don’t care whether Hunter is naked, but I need to know the substance of the health care bill. And I care very much how much it will cost. Because nothing is ever so expensive as when it is “free.” Just like nothing is ever so clear as when it is “transparent”—I of course mean the word as the current usage. Reform might be ugly, but that’s no reason to shunt it in a back room. After all, it can’t be nearly as ugly as the naked Massa.
