Sullivan's point (which, I agree, is badly written and obscure) is especially rich coming from a guy who's forever lamenting entitlements and the nebulous ogre of "Big Government"*. But Andy never lets a little thing like intellectual coherence get in the way of his hysteria-based "logic".
* Entitlements for other people, of course. I kinda doubt that Andy's ever deigned to add up all the publicly funded basic research that made his AIDS drugs possible. -- sglover
I, too, disagree with Sullivan's hostility towards entitlements. That's a good point about AIDS research: there's a lot of public funding for that, and I think that's a good thing. I bet Sullivan does, too. We don't hear him railing against the NIH the way he rails against expenditures that benefit others.
Public health should be an area of government concern. I, for one, am glad that there is a Centrer for Disease Control. Yes, entitlements should be watched carefully, kept efficient, and be backed by revenue, rather than borrowing. But automatic hostility to anything the government does, even when it works well and is cost-effective, does not do our country any good.
3:20 AM, July 08, 2006
Anonymous said...
Thanks for the reply!
Are you by any chance in CT? If so, do you have any sense of how the debate played there? I saw segments of the event; to my mind, it was pretty much a draw -- and I think that under the circumstances, that works to Lamont's favor. But then, I'm really hoping to see Lieberman ousted, so I'm pretty biased.... -- sglover
No, I'm in California, not CT, though I lived and voted in New Haven CT when I was in college at Yale. I'm curious how the played in CT, too. No doubt the blogosphere will be a-buzz with analysis and spin. I'm sure there will be polls out shortly which should tell us something.
I too, would rather see Lamont than Lieberman as a Senator from CT.
10:24 AM, July 08, 2006
Apparently, Lieberman gets all pissy for having to debate Ned Lamont. I haven’t seen the debate, but it’s out there on PoliticsTV. The scuttlebutt seems to be that Lamont was a bit nervous, but held his own. Lieberman was polished and more experienced, but came off as pushy, interrupting Lamont often and going over his time limit a lot. Many lefty bloggers comment that Liebarman was much more vicious to fellow Democrat (but for how long?) Ned Lamont than he ever was to Republican Dick Cheney during their debate. Which is exactly why those of us in the progressive blogosphere would like to see him replaced. Note, however, that I will support whoever wins the Democratic primary: if Lieberman wins it, then good for him; I’ll support him in the general election. I only wish Lieberman himself would make this same commitment that both Ned Lamont and I have made. UPDATE: In the spirit of similar quizzes in the past, Salon has a “Lieberman or Bush?” quote identification quiz here.
Sullivan mocks Lamont for both saying that “earmarking” should be illegal and complaining that Connecticut doesn’t get as many as Alaska. (It took me a bit to get the point Sullivan was making with his food quip.) But I can understand Lamont’s position. Best option: no pork for anyone. Next best option: there’s pork, and we get our fair share of it. Worst option: there’s pork, and we don’t get our fair share. It’s like saying, “I think the Electoral College should be abolished, but barring that, I hope we win it.” I don’t think that’s a ridiculous stance to take. Indeed, it’s the stance I myself take. (By the way, eliminating the Electoral College might help distribute the pork more evenly by eliminating the additional clout-per-person that small states get.)
posted by Zachary Drake at 11:02 PM on Jul 7, 2006
"Joementum vs. Nedrenaline debate"
4 Comments -
Sullivan's point (which, I agree, is badly written and obscure) is especially rich coming from a guy who's forever lamenting entitlements and the nebulous ogre of "Big Government"*. But Andy never lets a little thing like intellectual coherence get in the way of his hysteria-based "logic".
* Entitlements for other people, of course. I kinda doubt that Andy's ever deigned to add up all the publicly funded basic research that made his AIDS drugs possible.
-- sglover
12:05 AM, July 08, 2006
Thanks for stopping by, sglover.
I, too, disagree with Sullivan's hostility towards entitlements. That's a good point about AIDS research: there's a lot of public funding for that, and I think that's a good thing. I bet Sullivan does, too. We don't hear him railing against the NIH the way he rails against expenditures that benefit others.
Public health should be an area of government concern. I, for one, am glad that there is a Centrer for Disease Control. Yes, entitlements should be watched carefully, kept efficient, and be backed by revenue, rather than borrowing. But automatic hostility to anything the government does, even when it works well and is cost-effective, does not do our country any good.
3:20 AM, July 08, 2006
Thanks for the reply!
Are you by any chance in CT? If so, do you have any sense of how the debate played there? I saw segments of the event; to my mind, it was pretty much a draw -- and I think that under the circumstances, that works to Lamont's favor. But then, I'm really hoping to see Lieberman ousted, so I'm pretty biased....
-- sglover
8:27 AM, July 08, 2006
No, I'm in California, not CT, though I lived and voted in New Haven CT when I was in college at Yale. I'm curious how the played in CT, too. No doubt the blogosphere will be a-buzz with analysis and spin. I'm sure there will be polls out shortly which should tell us something.
I too, would rather see Lamont than Lieberman as a Senator from CT.
10:24 AM, July 08, 2006