In Dana Milbank's reprehensible hit-piece on Senator James Inhofe last week, he calls Inhofe a "flat-earther" even though much or most new data point toward the alarmists being the deniers of reality. In this flat earth drama, maybe Inhofe is playing Columbus. I'm not saying that Inhofe is a scientist, but clearly he reads the latest science, unlike Senators Boxer, Kerry, Graham, and Voinovich. In any case, is the truth based on a majority vote? Were Galilieo or Copernicus wrong just because the church or king said they were?
Milbank sarcastically calls Senator Graham a "traitor", presumably what he believes Senator Inhofe to be thinking. But couldn't Inhofe's supposed view be right? Indeed, are Republicans who go along with what would be the biggest tax increase in US history as well as the largest increase in federal government intrusiveness into private industry in order to solve a "problem" that appears more each day to be a fiction not traitors only to what the GOP is supposed to stand for, but traitors to reason itself?
Milbank makes fun of "poor Inhofe" in a way which is, or should be, beneath a Washington Post columnist. And he characterizes Inhofe this way just before writing Inhofe's statement that the science has "already shifted" against the alarmists, which is true. Thus, the only point of Milbank's "poor Inhofe" was to poison Inhofe's opinion in the mind of Washington Post readers, to make sure they ignore Inhofe's statement, just as an official of the Catholic Church would have tried to deride Galileo: Not just in case Galileo was right, but because the existing religion, which is what global warming alarmism is, has so much to lose by being proven wrong.
Finally, Milbank suggests that if Inhofe had made a long response to Senator Kerry's droning on, the response might not have "made any sense." Again, this is nothing more than poisoning the well, trying to permanently damage the credibility of the only Senator who has the political courage to forcefully speak the truth about the issue. It's not that Inhofe's response would have been senseless, it's that it would have diverged from the religious orthodoxy which Milbank is so desperate to enforce, despite the cost -- in both dollars and freedom -- to all Americans.
Actually, Milbank isn't the Post's moron of the month. His column was technically in October. I'm sure the Post will find someone else worthy of the title in November.
|<< <||> >>|