The Wall Street Journal has pointed out that employment benefits are so high that some people are making more money while unemployed than while working. Economists argue that these benefits might sound great, but it makes it hard to get the economy moving again once the stay at home restrictions are off.
State Sen. Sylvia Allen and James T. Harris discussed this point on a recent show and naturally the Republic's Laurie Roberts took the opportunity to mock them. I was planning to point out some obvious fallacies from her column when I realized that her column didn't have any actual arguments. It was comprised entirely of fallacies--ad hominem attacks, name calling, irrelevant points that she thinks are rebuttals, fabricated quotes and invented ideas that she "speculates" are in Sylvia Allen's head.
Then I realized that the current column is not the exception. It's a model column. Everything from the name calling, terrible profile picture, fake quote, references to irrelevant prior stories--they are all standard Laurie Robert's points. What's sad is that I don't think that she realizes that she's just listing together a string of fallacies and irrelevancies. I think that she actually believes that she has made an argument, or at least written something coherent. I'm not offended because Laurie is Liberal. I'm offended because she simply can't write. She's an embarrassment to the paper.
Here's her entire column with my narration. For you journalists out there, how do you think this would do as a Cronkite school midterm project. What grade would you give it? Here's the original column. Click here a PDF of my response.