Not "doing a meme", making a point. There are arguments for fracking from both sides - unfortunately the pro side takes a very short term view, and the con side takes a long term view.
The length of politicians' terms fundamentally shape the direction policy takes, along with the fact that, whether it's conscious or not, there's the "well, I'll be dead by then" phenomenon.
It turned into if-by-whiskey as I wrote it. There's a difference between lolcats and discourse.
For this reader, whatever point you were trying to make was lost. There are arguments on both sides about everything, but there's no value in posting an if-by-prosecution on every Aaron Swartz story. To me, your original post reads as:
[generic topic statement]
[endorsement via obvious positive traits]
[condemnation via obvious negative traits]
[trite conclusion]
I fail to see how this format furthers discourse since there was nothing clever in its use; it's essentially a search and replace of whiskey terms with fracking terms. What you've said above about long and short term views and how this shapes policies introduced by politicians is what you should have written in the first place. That is interesting and encourages discussion.
