Let's say you're interviewing someone for a job, and you notice a lack of relevant experience on his resume. When you ask him about it, he says, "This place is too constrained by the old way of doing things. I've never done anything like this job -- in fact, I haven't even worked in this industry before. I know virtually nothing about it. Wouldn't I be a breath of fresh air?" You'd probably say, "Well sir, you may be right about the problem with the old way of doing things. But good luck in your job search, because you won't be working here."
According to a poll released today by TheWashington Post, people who are angry about health care are also angry about pretty much everything:
The health-care debate has generated intense levels of frustration among the bill's opponents, and those who say they are outright angry almost universally believe that the country is going in the wrong direction -- some say toward an America they no longer recognize. ...
In follow-up interviews, many went beyond health care as they spoke of their deep misgivings about the country's leadership and the changes taking place around them.
Yesterday, Tim noted that Rep. Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has banned the committee's staff from contact with Peter Roberson, a former staffer who went from writing legislation on things like credit-default swaps to working for a company that handles credit-default swaps. Tim is skeptical that such a ban will have much of an impact on the influence of lobbyists, and I agree. Like most well-intentioned process reform ideas, it comes off sounding like, "This isn't really going to help much, but we might as well try." And in the end it usually doesn't help much.
To follow up on Tim's discussion of Nate Silver's takedown of Veronique de Rugy's bogus study claiming to find that the stimulus has been distributed in a partisan way, this is yet more evidence that the Internet is awesome.