John Stossel is Brilliant

31 thoughts on “John Stossel is Brilliant”

1. Jeez Patrick, give me a break.Report

   1. Too easy of a target?Report

      1. Wasn’t that his catchphrase back on 20/20?Report

   2. I’ve often enjoyed Stossel’s “aren’t these goverment people ridiculous” style of libertarianism.Report

2. Ditto your ultimate paragraph.Report

3. I remember seeing Stossel on 20/20 for years and thinking he was pretty good. Then i watched some special he did ( this was years ago) about India and Hong Kong. His entire thesis was HK has limited gov so they are doing great while India has big bad evil gov so they are doing poorly. While i’m not an expert on either place he never mentioned the very different histories of each place which might lead them to be rich and poor. I was gobsmacked, it was such a shallow piece of ideology he was pushing. Everything since then from him has been ideology and nothing much else.Report

   1. The Geraldo Syndrome.
      Use-ta be a serious telejournalist.
      Now, just trying to fill the void left by Art Bell.Report

      1. Geraldo is exactly who Stossel reminds me of in the “shameful clown” department, I thought it was just the mustache that was causing the association.

         At least Geraldo went pretty much the entertainment route; Stossel seems to think he should be taken seriously.Report

   2. Stossel is shallow libertarianism at its finest (if “fine” is in any way appropriate here).Report

      1. But his stache is fantastic and powerful. Sadly for Stoss, Tommy Friedman is already the Mustache of Understanding in the centrist world.Report

         1. There’s nothing special about ’70s porn mustaches, greg. Nothing.Report

            1. In 2013 i think it reflects on all libertarians everywhere. (insert smiley face here)Report

      2. I remember watching him as a kid on 20/20, and then when I was in high school (I think, maybe early college), he did a special on the virtue of selfishness, the gist of which was that rich people shouldn’t give their money to charity, and I remember thinking, “This is why they shouldn’t let people read Rand.” I don’t think I’ve seen a thing he’s done since.Report

4. Whoof, that was so vitrolic I wouldn’t be surprised if his mammy felt it. Pretty good tho.Report

5. He drops down a few steps in my opinion…

   Bummer.Report

6. I am pleased to say that the comments at Reason are intemperate.Report

   1. I think that’s really cool.
      The bad part is, you got me wondering how many misanthropes are over at People.
      I don’t know how long I can hold out.Report

   2. Their usual decorum has been violated?Report

      1. Part of me was worried that they’d go “well, you have to understand, he does have a point hidden in there…”

         To worry is to borrow trouble.Report

         1. Not to worry, they’re all blaming Moochelle.Report

         2. My fav comment from Reason: “It will be hard to watch his next show on the really important libertarian issues such as food trucks or taxi licenses.“Report

7. Why the hell is Reason of all places publishing shit like that? “yeah, big whoop privacy, TERROR!!” sounds more NRO or Weekly Standard’s beat.Report

   1. Isn’t Stossel a semi-regular contributor on Reason? I’d assume it’s because of their business relationship, rather than an endorsement of what Stossel was saying in this particular piece.Report

      1. I know he contributes sometimes, I thought they picked what to include of his. If I ran Reason this wouldn’t be one of them.Report

         1. Yes, it’s would be better if reason only published items that towed to the party line, because FSM help us if any website on the internet shows a diversity of opinion from different contributors.Report

            1. Well, when Reason publishes articles by liberals urging a particular government regulation, then that would be a valid argument. As it is, Reason has a particular political viewpoint. This article is in contradiction to it.Report

            2. If it was included in sense of internal debate that’s one thing. Internal debate is fine. But for the argument Stossel offered to just sit there unchallenged is pissing on their audience. Have other Reason writers directly responded to it?Report

8. Re: “It doesn’t work”

   Even if it did work, they’d need to demonstrate that it was the only thing that would work.

   Cutting off my arm will effectively eliminate the pain I experience from a hangnail. It “works”. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right course of action.Report

9. Taking the Truly Cynical View, we look at Stossel issue every caveat in the book:

   Yes, it’s probably illegal (no it’s not, and it’s been that way under the Third Party Doctrine since long before PATRIOT Act, see Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735)

   — and it’s intrusive, (yes it is) and Google has all your data anyway (and does a better job of collecting and securing it than NSA which is why the Feds are turning to GoogleMSFTYahooEtAl to get at that data)

   — and the private firms target you with ads (which I don’t have to click and some of which are actually useful to me, such as Google’s recommending of Mule ESB)

   Instead, let’s worry about Safety Gear. Stossel, you ignoramus, the insurance firms demand safety gear because it actually works and reduces injuries and therefore payouts — which saves everyone’s fingers and eyes and money too — jackass! What bug climbed up Stossel’s ass like that horrible Cordyceps fungus which takes over an ant’s brain so it can grow a stalk out of the wretched ant’s head?

   Stossel was never any good. He’s been an Alarmist Ninny since earliest days. A waste of space.Report

10. He may be coming around:

    https://twitter.com/FBNStossel/status/345183521998000128

    But honestly, this shouldn’t have been a hard call.Report

    1. Jason, on this incident I’ve noticed that some unlikely suspects are rushing to be first in line crying ‘I’m a good reporter! I’m against unauthorized leaks!’.Report

Comments are closed.