Just because half of Instapundit post remarks end with "I don't know if I'd go that far..." doesn't mean that some baseless conciliatory gesture in your own writing makes you Mr. Reasonable or something. And as much as you want it to, it doesn't make you as smart as Glenn Reynolds.
Here's the standard line start from conservative and libertarian leaning blogs right now:
"While there were plenty of problems at the federal level... " and then blah blah blah, ranging from Nagin stinks to Blanco stinks to whatever.
The problem is, prepending that statement onto things doesn't make you somehow more reasonable or reasoned at all. It doesn't present any proof, and thus it's worthless and misinformed.
In other words, when you throw out a blanket accusation at the federal response, it would be nice if you had at least one fact to start with. Something empirical would be especially nice, like "Compared to previous federal responses, the Katrina response time, from the moment of the request, was 2 days slower."
The reason you don't see those statements is because it's not true. It's just convenient, and it sounds nice to people that like to think they sound reasonable by being "moderate".
And by the way, people, if you're so anxious to agree with everyone, what are you writing for at all?
No comments:
Post a Comment