An Example of How Not to Write

I have given up on Left in the West ever since Matt Singer moved on.  I really do wonder sometimes if he regrets passing it on to Jay Stevens (who is no longer in Montana) or now, Montana Cowgirl.  But like a bad car wreck, every once in a while, I will look at what they are writing.  Most of the time, it is innocuous partisan, unthinking tripe.  Red meat for the masses who have decided that they are the self appointed elites of the State.But then, we have the clearest example of crap writing I have seen in a long time.

To begin with: Even Montana's small conservative papers have acknowledged that the drunken boat wreck in which Montana's lone Congressman Dennis Rehberg got wasted, let a friend drive drunk, and ran up an estimated $1.5 million tab for health care and work comp claims for himself and his staff is a campaign issue.(Emphasis added)

So, let's try this a little at a time.  Cong. Rehberg got wasted?  And your evidence would be . . . ?  'Let a friend drive drunk?'  Feeling a little passive aggressive are we? At least you do put "estimated" in front of the bill.  Not that it really matters. Why not say an estimated $15 Billion?  It would certainly be based on the same amount of facts as the author used here.

In the next paragraphs, the author used the old strawman argument.  Specifically:

So, Montanans don't want us to do anything about drunk driving and boating?  I beg to differ.

Actually, if you look at what Denny said:

I believe that folks should be held accountable for their own actions, and not punished for the actions of others. That's the Western style of individual responsibility that has made Montana such a special place to live.

 Again, there is nothing there, but Cowgirl marches blindly forward into the machineguns of facts.  You could admire it if it weren't so pathetic.   Next, Cowgirl used pseudo-science to try and extrapolate what Rehberg's blood alcohol was at the time of the accident.  Aside from the fact that retrograde extrapolation is perfectly useless for substantive information, she proceeds forward nonetheless.  But she forgets one important point:  Even assuming that she is correct, what is the legal limit of being a passenger? 

Finally, Cowgirl closes with this:

Rehberg is telling us here that if we don't believe his version of the story, that we aren't smart enough to know better.  We deserve better than a Congressman who can't take responsibility for his actions when responsibility is called for, or even own up to his mistakes afterword.

Trying to count the logical fallacies would certainly consume more time and effort than I wish to expend here.  But once again, I appreciate that she has reminded me of why I don't spend any time at her site.