OK, Rex Rammell is stupid

But some of the columns against him are even stupider. Timothy Egan in the New York Times is discussing wolf hunting. For the record, I'm against it, as is he. But he sets up a typical rhetorical BS strawman is describing his opponents:

"For those who hate wolves and long for the era when they were wiped off the map, and for those who welcomed back this call of the wild"

In Egan's world, there is no middle ground. In his simplistic world, all in favor of wolf hunting hate wolves and want to wipe them off the map. Egan is unwilling or unable to discuss the matter civilly with them, so he dismisses them as genocidal haters. Does this technique sound familiar?

Egan goes on to condemn Rex Rammell who joked about issuing "Obama tags", that is, permits to hunt Obama. A bad joke. But by Egan's own works Rammel is a "fringe candidate", and the "Idaho Republican establishment came down hard on Rammell".

In conclusion, I'm not sure what the point of the editorial is. Egan is against wolf hunting, and against bad jokes about hunting the President. Fine points, but he brings no real insight about the American West (his specialty), no intellectual discussion, no nothing. I guess he had a bad day and a deadline to make.