Sully’s Childish Righty Side Revealed

In typical sniping form, Andrew Sullivan has framed a snipped from an interview with a NYC improv comic as the reason “Why Americas Hate Government.”

In a wonderful profile of an improv comedy performer in New York City, this excerpt struck me:

When I ask him what he’s doing for money, he starts telling me about his new job as a driver for Van Leeuwen’s Artisanal Ice Cream trucks, which doesn’t start till the weather warms up, but which he’s already excited about because it meant he got to spend yesterday at the Department of Consumer Affairs learning about all the forms one has to fill out to get certified to handle food in New York. “I like the bureaucracy of it because I don’t have that in my life at all,” he says, sounding like an excited child. “You have to do this up here and then you have to wait six days and then you have to go downtown and check with somebody at an office and then you have to wait for something in the mail and then bring that and do other things that other people have sent you and then you have to get them in triplicate and make sure you have a proper proof of ID, and proof of address, which can be a number of different things …”

All that to sell ice cream.

I’m sorry but I take offense at such a childish, shallow snipe.

You’re damn right ALL THAT JUST TO SELL ICE CREAM. Would he prefer to simply let anyone off the street drive an ice cream truck and sell ice cream to the children of New York City. Would he prefer that one of these guys do it? How else would he suggest we vette the goods being sold to our children? Is an ID and background check that big of a deal when you actually think about the consequences were it not done?

Please, this right wing idea that g0vernment and bureaucracy is always bad is simply bogus on it’s face and needs to be called out at every turn. Other wise I wish you good luck living in a world where sex offenders sell cheap Chinese imported ice cream to our kids.

2 Responses to “Sully’s Childish Righty Side Revealed”

  1. daniel noe says:

    Hi, I’m patrolling the internet trying to learn different ways of thinking and I’m a little confused about this one.

    The consequences were it not done:

    The vast majority would continue to sell perfectly safe ice cream and would not run over anybody.

    The few we have to worry about will continue doing what they have always done. The only difference is that they will be breaking one less law.

    What did I miss? How does the law make things better?

    Do customers ask to see a valid license to sell ice cream before buying? If they did, I might agree with you, but I can’t picture this happening. How does this work out in practice?

  2. Clearly oversight is intended to ensure that more than just “the ‘vast’ majority” of situations are covered.

    Let me enumerate just a few situations where a lack government oversight and bureaucracy led to unsavory consequences.

    The Great Depression
    The Chicago Tylenol murders
    The current collapse of the housing market
    The subsequent recession
    9/11
    The Gulf Oil disaster
    While we are talking about the Gulf, the failed response to Hurricane Katrina

    Do I need to go on?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook