Wonkette : Important Editorial: If Stephen Hawking Lived In The U.K., He Would Be Dead
I have a very simple requirement for my primary sources. I can account for bias, and if one source leaves out an "inconvenient" fact, I'm sure I'll be able to find it somewhere else. But what I absolutely cannot tolerate is being lied to, and if it's done in a way that could easily set me up for personal embarrassment and ridicule for days afterward... well. That source gets roundfiled.
You know where Stephen Hawking has lived for 67 years? England. Again: England. England. And this is why an editorial from the “Investors Business Daily” about Obama trying to kill Trig Palin for having Down Syndrome, one that was cited favorably in a Human Events press release today, has become the stuff from which humor-jokes are made on the Internet: “People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.” [IBD, Atlanta J-C, Ezra Klein]
After all, if I have to fact-check every freakin' link before trusting it, what's the point in even reading it?
Just imagine how many thousands of FORMER WND readers were gleefully ambushed at the water-cooler when they plopped out this rhetorical gem to "prove" how "Evil Socialism" would have killed Steven Hawking, had he suffered from Evil Socialist Health Care. In England. Where He Lives.
One fave twitter comment I saw in passing... "But he doesn't have an English accent!"
Let this be an example of why stupidity is so fucking dangerous. Well, if the burning pain of personal humiliation can illustrate WHY you need to have reliable and trustworthy information sources, perhaps it's done some good.
But not the "good" they had in mind. Which, you know, is better known as "evil."
Now, a rhetorical question. This is supposedly a site that gives out financial advice. They are stating as facts a number of lies and distortions that, should you believe it, would tend to be of gigantic financial benefit to the insurance and pharma sectors.
What are the chances that their direct investment advice is more honest, unbiased and truthful?
That's a rhetorical question, by the way. If you have to ask someone that sort of question, there's no point in believing the answer.
Illustration: citation needed by Anisotropy