The point I'm making is that this article is an editorial based on cherry-picked information. Journalism is a discipline that holds the pursuit of objectivity as a baseline standard. The article you shared is not journalisms since it disregards all of the compelling information that conflicts with the weak argument being presented. Carl Sagan predicted this moment prior to his death. Watch his last interview on Charlie Rose. It's an amazingly prescient set of accurate predictions. We've traded our freedom to form an opinion in on the notion that we have a freedom to choose on own facts based on preconceived biases. As a society we've evolved to a very dangerous place where we assume that anyone with access to Google can gain expertise over a few minutes of clicking. This isn't true. Education is real. Expertise is real. Science is real. Facts are are real. Denying those truths to serve a bias is dangerous business. Of course I can't blame those who believe the pitch, but I am disgusted at those who seed and propagate the alternate reality. Russian interference in our last election is a hard established fact established by reams of data. It's not in doubt. Trump's subversion of the constitution in service of his personal interest is also not in doubt. Ideology is up for debate, as are economic structures, degrees of personal freedom, levels of taxation, etc. Sadly facts are not what we should be debating. The earth is round. The planet is warming. Trump is a despot. Facts. I'll probably bow out soon, as masses stumble in to talk about how the planet can't be warming because its chilly in Maryville today, and how the New York Times is a liberal propaganda machine run by George Soros. Theres no chart that will make me believe those things. I would suggest watching that final Charlie Rose/Carl Sagan interview. It's good stuff. In the interim, Go Vols. Beat Everybody.