Oregon's Dumbest Glibertarian, cont.

I wish this wasn't part two of a continuing series.

Oregon's Dumbest Glibertarian is at it again, with another column in today's college paper.

I can't be arsed to do a full-fledged analysis, so I'll just go through a few of the lowlights in the first few paragraphs. You can read the rest on your own if you have the brain cells to lose.

Recently, the sequester has been a big topic. Congress has been debating the sequester in an effort to strike a deal to avoid the “catastrophic” problems we would otherwise face. The political left says without an agreement, cuts would send us into another recession and people wouldn’t be able to eat. The right says that without coming to an agreement, the military would face huge cuts, leaving us vulnerable to attacks.

Ok, other than the scare quotes around "catastrophic" that's not all that bad to start. For bonus points, try to predict where he's going based on this opening paragraph. Anyway, continuing:

But the sequester isn’t alone in topics debated by Congress this year. As the calendar approached Jan. 1, Congress was debating the debt ceiling to avoid the fiscal cliff. We technically went over the fiscal cliff since a deal wasn’t made by Jan. 1. When we “went over the fiscal cliff,” nothing happened. The earth didn’t collapse inward. The sun didn’t burn out. And with the sequester, we don’t have anything to worry about either.

Ah, that's more like it! I especially love the exceedingly grand straw man cliff he fights. And "going over the fiscal cliff" now means "technically, the calendar went past fiscal cliff day and even though the issues were dealt with the next day before we had a chance to hit the ground at the bottom of the cliff, we still totally fell over that cliff." That is exactly the same thing as if the evil useless government did nothing 'cause they're a bunch of know-nothing poopyheads covered in poop.

Continuing directly:

But the real questions and debates shouldn’t center on whether Congress will make an agreement in time, or which side is correct about the repercussions if a deal isn’t made. The real question we should ask is, “Why does the decision of only 535 congressmen in Washington, D.C., control what happens to all 300 million people in the country?”

Wow. He may have managed to outdo the stupidity with this. He actually does not seem to know that our wacky system of government consists of a "representative democracy" where "we the people" elect "representatives" to "represent" us in the decision making process. Really, he doesn't understand this. Read the rest of the damn article if you don't believe me — that is the article's entire point.

He says some other really stupid shit and manages to get a bunch of stuff wrong about The Great Depression and economics (as usual) too, but I don't have the energy to go into that.

At this point I should really start taking bets on which wingnut welfare publication hires him.