Albert Ruesga unleashed. He has a PhD, I believe, from MIT in analytic philosophy and decades of experience as a philanthropic thought leader. In a think tank world, I can imagine Congress passing an act that subsidizes Albert to forgoe thinking, as farmers are paid sometimes to let their fields lie fallow. Sophistry is a joy for philosophers; they revel in it, as play. The difference, from think tank thinkers, is that a philosopher turns the sophistry into satire while the think tank thinker proffers it as truthy-enough as he or she heads to the pay window to collect the wages of shame.
As one satirist to another, I would only suggest to Albert that he keep his eye not just on the sophistry, but on the visage of the sophister. Satire is a moral tradition, a form of vigilante justice. It's success is determined not by scoring intellectual points alone but also by the moral reform of men and women like, well, whomever you wish to mention. We are in the business of salvation, Albert, saving those who would otherwise be damned from their own mouths.
In debating social policy with think tank thinkers. I recommend Enrique The Gay Philosopher as a model worth emulating. Wasn't it Nietzsche who wrote that philosophy is the gay science? Life is a masquerade. Maybe we could organize a Cake Walk at the Big House for Hudson? Then the poor might speak for themselves, if only in dumbshow.