OK, I sometimes use this space to criticize something TorgoX writes, since he won't allow comments, and I wish to reply. But this time, I pretty much agree with what he wrote.
Stossel is an egomaniacal blowhard (or at least he plays one on TV, and in print). I agree with much of his political views, but not his style.
However, I guess I should point out that there is a legitimate case to be made, I think, for Stossel taking the money. It reminds me of something William F. Buckley says, when criticized for being on PBS all those years, being funded by tax dollars, while saying tax dollars should not pay for his show or shows like it: as much as he disagrees with it, the people have chosen to have it done this way, and there's a lot more hubris in materially denying the will of the people than in simply arguing against it.
Can you find me liberals who think we should increase taxes on people like themselves, who voluntarily pay more taxes, or who don't take deductions? They are surely few, and far between, and I don't have a problem with it: you abide by the law as it stands.
Although, Stossel's action seems worse than those two examples somehow. But I can't put my finger on why that is.
Re:House was in harms way
pudge on 2006-03-23T17:09:33
Yeah, maybe it is because he took a specific risky action that resulted in the government giving him money, whereas WFB working on PBS and rich liberals who take income tax cuts are just... doing what normal people do.
