Reason Writers Around Town

In the Washington Post, Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie smack Congress around for its meddling in the steroids debate.

Comments

[Other Matt]

I make it a point to not read the Washington Post. Am I going bonkers, or was there an abortion article up here earlier that has since gone by the wayside?

[Taktix?]

...was there an abortion article up here earlier that has since gone by the wayside?

I seen it!

[Radley Balko]

It'll be back up later.

[Taktix?]

It'll be back up later.

No-knock thread-pull, perhaps?

[h-dawg]

Damn, WaPo. I wonder if their readers will be able to process any part of that article?

[joe]

I think you're wrong, but congrats for getting into the Post.

And kudos to the Post for giving that space to your point of view.

[Skip Oliva]

Gillespie and Welch destroy their credibility in an otherwise fine article by openly endorsing antitrust.

[Doner-joe]

Yeah, that's it. Joe Public is reads this, and thinks "I agree with everything they have to say abour drugs and sports, but DAMN, how could anyone support anti-trust laws? What a couple of kooks!"

[joe]

Whoa, where'd that come from?

[jackanapestarian]

"this is a promise not a threat"

Which means it's a threat. Invertebrates all.

[Other Matt]

No-knock thread-pull, perhaps?

Or, just something to make me think I was losing my mind?

[David]

The best part of the steroid hearings is that they expose how little our lawmakers actually know about the topics that they grandstand, moralize, and try to legislate on. Their strongest argument in this case are nostalgic emotional appeals, and they can't even get those right. The science is already stacked against them.

If only more writers would call them on it instead of gushing about the strong stances that Waxman, Davis, Shays, et al. are taking, it might give the public pause when considering the other areas that these uniform fools wag their fingers about. Well, probably not, but I'd like to read some takedowns anyway.

[LarryA]

Tierney and other elected officials have argued that baseball's exemption from federal antitrust legislation gives Congress the right to meddle in the game's affairs. That exemption, based on a 1922 court decision that ridiculously found that pro baseball did not constitute interstate commerce, has caused more harm than good by allowing owners to collude against players and prospective competitor leagues and by allowing cartel arrangements and restraints on trade unimaginable in other industries. While it should be repealed, it hardly gives Congress a warrant to micromanage MLB the way George Steinbrenner has his New York Yankees.

Empasis added. This is an endorsement or support for anti trust? RTA.

[P Brooks]

Nice work, gentlemen. I particularly liked the decription of Congressmen as being among the most out-of-touch members of American society.

You could have added "aside from those forcibly institutionalized for their own protection."

[Kolohe]

I make it a point to not read the Washington Post.

That's mighty close-minded of you.

*insert standard disclaimer # whatever here*

[Kolohe]

Although the random hyperlinking is kinda annoying

[T]

Can we just smack Congress around for meddling? We don't really need to specify what for, do we?

[economist]

Relax, guys. If Congress spends enough time screwing around with this crap, then they can't pass laws to screw up important things. Though I would like that Iraq timetable that Nancy Pelosi said the Democratic Congress would implement to get passed sometime soon. Just saying.

[joe]

Congress passed that ten months ago.

[economist]

joe,
Uh, no, they didn't.

[joe]

House passes spending bill with Iraq deadline
POSTED: 8:49 p.m. EDT, March 23, 2007
Story Highlights? NEW: President Bush says House has "abdicated its responsibility" on Iraq
? House passes war spending bill by 218-212 vote; Bush repeats veto promise
? Legislation includes 2008 deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq
? Two House Republicans vote for bill; 14 Democrats vote against it
Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush slammed Democrats on Friday after the House narrowly approved a supplemental war spending bill that includes an August 31, 2008, deadline for combat troops to leave Iraq.

First link when googling "Congress bill Iraq deadlines."

Is is physically painful to be that stupid, economist, or is it sort of a numb feeling?

[joe]

Here's the link.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/23/iraq.funding/index.html

Please, fuck with me a little more. It keeps turning out so well for you. Cute little joke you left up on the Malaria thread. Ho ho ho.

[GILMORE]

while i thought it was a good piece, it will be like a fart in the wind over the whole 'steroids' boogyman. I've been polling people around the country on this for he last 2-3 years, and the feeling that there's "cheating" going on is nearly universal - and few people have the mindset of "limited government". They think there's a problem, and if MLB hasnt done their job, then thats when the government steps in. You cant debate people about the details of the issue because its a nearly religious issue for them. Arguing that the gov should stay out falls on deaf ears since the common thought is, "well they should but if they dont this will never be addressed" Actually arguing that it's not really a problem make people think you're a crackhead. The worst are retirees... i got a bunch of retirees in Boca Raton talking about it and man they were like insane over the thing. I never realized the issue resonated that strongly with seniors.

I think it's part of this kind of "when i was a kid, we played fair" mentality that they might have. Maybe these politicians saw this stuff popping in polls with them old folks who vote, and they thought, "easy money!"

[Matt Tievsky]

Uh, joe, I do believe the Senate rejected the timetable. Hence "Congress" never passed it.