Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Two to read

Say what you will about conservative intellectuals, at least many of them can write. And many of them are willing to take on Congress or the administration, especially when they abandon conservative principles. Andrew Sullivan, with his criticism of the torture policy is a case in point. Today's column, though, is by George Will in the Washington Post, attacking legislation aimed at subsidizing the purchase of digital televisions. To be fair, though, Will doesn't deserve too much credit; the targets are just too inviting and easy to hit.

Via Crooked Timber, I found this interview in the New Yorker with the author of an article on the evolution trial in Dover, Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, the article itself is not available online. This is, actually, my biggest gripe with the New Yorker: you can't access their content online. Of course, it is their content, and they have every right to keep the best stuff for their magazine instead of making it freely available on the Internet. Still, I live in an entitlement culture; the idea of paying to read a newspaper or magazine just seems wrong. I suppose I'll just have to subscribe, though, because I really want access to everything in the magazine; I've never read anything from the New Yorker that was less than good.

3 comments:

Redbeard said...

Will deserves little credit: blaming "a national sense of entitlement" and not the congressmen who sponsored and voted for (and brought out of cmte) the bill shows poor performance on Will's part for reinforcing personal responsibility. He'll get angry if someone else blames crime on social inequities, but now he's happy to lay responsiblity on an abstraction.

Blue Gal said...

I blogged about this article too. I'm one of those liberals who loves George Will. He's smart, funny, and while I don't always agree with him, I think unlike so many Republicans today, he's got intellectual integrity.

Nitish said...

Thanks, Blue Gal. Redbeard, you're right that Will attacks a 'national sense of entitlement', but that's not all he does. The article begins: "Feeling flush with other people's cash, the Senate..."

He also mocks compassionate conservatives: "[T]oday's up-to-date conservatism does not stand idly by expecting people to actually pursue happiness on their own. Hence the new entitlement from Congress..." and rails at Congress for not realizing that money is fungible. So to be fair, he's not purely blaming an abstraction