I read Hunter's hit piece on Patrick Moore. I commented a bunch but I still have more to say. A lot more.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Hunter's piece reflects the worst in political discourse. It really does.
To begin with Hunter starts his hit piece like this:
Oh, brother. The Washington Post opinion pages seem bound and determined to shed any remaining vestiges of credibility.
An opinion by definition is an one persons view of facts and one you can take or leave. If you don't like it...fine...leave it. But the Op-Ed page should not be used as a yard stick to measure the paper as a whole. Look at the
**gasp** Wall Street Journal. The Op-Ed page is with out a doubt, right wing. The rest of the paper (should you actually choose to read it without your own bias) is by and large un-biased.
Hunter continues on for page after page, relagting Patrick Moore as a shill and how the WaPo sucks for printing his OPINION (one that might be paid for, one that might not). In fact Mr. Moore states in his first paragraph how he's changed his mind over the course of 30 years. I remember reading on these pages, how a leader (Kerry) should be able to change his mind (I voted for it before I voted against it)...
However the point of Patrick Moore's is this: "We need to consider Nuclear power, here's why".
Hunter's point: "Moore is a shill, ignore what he says".
Great.
I expect that from the wingnuts, I expect a debate from our side.
Shame on you Hunter.