John Stossel is Brilliant



Patrick is a mid-40 year old geek with an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a master's degree in Information Systems. Nothing he says here has anything to do with the official position of his employer or any other institution.

Related Post Roulette

31 Responses

  1. Avatar Ethan Gach says:

    Jeez Patrick, give me a break.Report

  2. Avatar j@m3z Aitch. says:

    Ditto your ultimate paragraph.Report

  3. Avatar greginak says:

    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

    • Avatar Will H. in reply to greginak says:

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

      • Avatar Glyph in reply to Will H. says:

        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

    • Avatar j@m3z Aitch. in reply to greginak says:

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

      • Avatar greginak in reply to j@m3z Aitch. says:

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

      • Avatar Chris in reply to j@m3z Aitch. says:

        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. Avatar North says:

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

  5. Avatar Damon says:

    He drops down a few steps in my opinion…


  6. Avatar Jaybird says:

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

  7. Avatar b-psycho says:

    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

    • Avatar Will Truman in reply to b-psycho says:

      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

      • Avatar b-psycho in reply to Will Truman says:

        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

        • Avatar Kolohe in reply to b-psycho says:

          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

          • Avatar Barry in reply to Kolohe says:

            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

          • Avatar b-psycho in reply to Kolohe says:

            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. Avatar Kazzy says:

    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. Avatar BlaiseP says:

    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:

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

    • Avatar Barry in reply to Jason Kuznicki says:

      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