'Better than it was before' not a valid argumentYou'll have to read the whole thing. But have your daily shot and beer before you make the attempt. Otherwise you'll have no excuse for the resulting sense of bewilderment.
By John McFerrin, The Charleston (WV) Gazette
Of all the claims made by the proponents of mountaintop removal strip mining, the suggestion that it leaves the land “better than it was before” is the most bizarre.
That the coal industry is necessary to support the state’s economy? Questionable, but someone could still say it with a straight face. That we have become addicted to the electricity that coal provides? True in the short run, although there are better ways to deal with an addiction than continuing to do the thing that caused the addiction. But better than it was before? Can anybody say this with a straight face?
Like beauty, better is in the eye of the beholder. (blah, blah, blah)
Mr. McFerrin goes on to ... well, I wish I knew where he went off to. But there is one telling passage in this tortured missive that is illuminating, one that says a lot about this "columnist," I think:
Anyone who wants to argue about mountaintop removal mining can argue that coal mining is necessary for the economy. Argue that we are addicted to it. Argue that Britney Spears has judgment or that Paris Hilton has underappreciated talents. Argue the former Reds catcher Ernie Lombardi was a base stealing threat. Just don’t argue that mountaintop removal mining makes the land better. It makes you sound like a flake.Gimme that again?
Get the feeling this guy knows a flake when he sees one?