To borrow Brit Hume’s judgment, John Hinderaker has “eviscerated” the posts by Washington Post reporters Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin on Koch Industries and the Canadian tar sands. Mufson and Eilperin work full time for the Post. Yet it took both of them to produce the farrago of misinformation and vacuity on display in their two posts. You’d think one of them could have handled it all by himself (or herself).
Between the two of them, however, subject-verb agreement remains elusive. In their justification of their original post, they write: “The Powerline article itself, and its tone, is [sic] strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothers’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year.”
The next sentence concludes their second post: “That’s why we wrote the [original] piece.” Yet John hadn’t asked why they wrote the piece. He figured that out on his own without any help from Mufson or Eilperin. He challenged their purported facts and implications.
Mufson and Eilperin prefer not to join issue with John on the substance of their original post. Nevertheless, even the inane motive they ascribe to themselves for writing the article is an obvious falsehood.