I would point out that in these regards Jim did, in fact, counter the essential arguments being made by Heritage
I don't really think he did, not thoroughly at least. He provided quite a few links, but most of them didn't really address the issue more than tangentially. For example finding examples of slow speeds, or no broad band at all, in various rural jurisdictions doesn't actually make any case for government subsidies of broadband, it might be a start (obviously if everyone was perfectly served without subsidies the call for subsidies doesn't make much sense), but its no more than a start.
but it's difficult if not impossible to refute, never mind quantify, comments that are couched in innuendo, as evidenced in the original reference article, without resorting to same
I don't really see that as a reasonable characterization of the original article. It doesn't vaguely hint at negative things about the character. To the extent it makes attacks its attacking a policy or a set of policies and programs, not people, and its doing so pretty directly, not trying to present itself as somehow neutral or even positive about such subsidies, while indirectly digging at them or subtly portraying them in a negative light. |
