Gee, anyone else stunned that Arturo would defend The Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank?
ArturoBandini wrote:What specific criticisms do you have of any of those douchebags, other than Koch? Or is this a case of guilty by association?
Guilt by association is good enough in this case. We're talking about the Kochs here, after all. But I really don't want to debate with you the relative douchiness of such deep thinkers as Howard Rich because what's the point? Just opinions, right?
But then, that's my point -- that's all think tanks do. They write opinions. Nothing inherently wrong or bad about that, of course, but the issue is that people (and let me be clear here, folks of ALL political stripes do it) treat what they say as if they'd actually conducted some sort of valid scientific research, but the reality is they're basically just writing editorials with more math and footnotes.
I don't give a rat's ass how many "good" or "bad" things Cato (or any other think tank) has sided with over the years. The fact is, they've routinely distorted the truth, misrepresented facts, gotten their math wrong, and issued blatantly biased "studies" which are then commented on and cited as if they were actually scientific. But they aren't, and they should not be treated as such or given even close to the same weight (and it's why I won't waste time responding to your link wherein they refer to the work of others as "junk science", as nothing they've ever published suggests to me they're qualified to make such an assessment.)