Oh, nope. I got that wrong. It’s the Obama Administration!
Was the Bush administration ever actually held in contempt of court? I can’t remember if it was, but it was pretty noisy back then, considering all the attempts to sue somebody over something. There was the certainty that Karl Rove would be “frog-marched” out of the White House, but that never happened.
And remember, this oil drilling ban itself was also anti-science too. So this is a two-fer! Maybe Glenn Reynolds IS right when he says: “Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss”.
Today I came across this statement concerning a notice that Republicans were trying to change the definition of rape:
…can’t support anything that comes from moveon.org as that’s a left-wing propoganda machine just as bad, if not worse as the right-wing propoganda machines.
This is a classic Appeal to Motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer. This type of argument is a diversion. It’s dismissing the veracity of the assertion, not based on whether the facts behind it are true or not, but on a prejudice against the source. The left does this all the time, noting that a story “can’t” be true because it’s on “FAUX” news. It’s also wrong when the Right does it, which you here every day on Rush / Hannity / Beck etc. concerning the “main stream media” ( or as Sarah Palin calls it, the “Lame Stream Press”). Facts are facts, and it doesn’t matter what the source is. That doesn’t mean you can’t take the info from a source with a HUGE Manhattan sized grain of salt. That’s fine. But, just because a story is from a source you don’t like, does not mean the story is automatically bogus or false. Just remember to filter out opinionated slants from actual statements of fact, and you’ll do OK. It’s wrong when global warming hard-liners dismisses an article simply because it has appeared on “Watts Up With That” and it’s equally wrong when global warming skeptics dismiss something that appears on Tamino’s blog, because, well, it’s Tamino’s blog.
I am not a big fan of World Net Daily, and I admit I don’t trust that source. BUT, I won’t dismiss a story from that site just because it’s presented on that site. I will, however, based on the ease of refuting the crap they pedal, not buy a story from them unless it’s independently verified by a more reliable source. But I don’t automatically assume they are full of shite, even though I’ve found that to mostly be the case.
Oh, and as far as changing the definition of rape… They’ve backed off.
Politics / Law Stuff, Stupid Government | Sonicfrog February 3, 2011 | 
Comments (1)