One giant leap in reverse for logic and public policy debate. Instapundit falls for the “man on the moon” fallacy:

Arianna Huffington … asks: “In the Age of Terror, Isn’t Busting Toe-Tappers an Insane Use of Our Law Enforcement Resources?” Put me down for a yes vote on that one.

It’s the same argument, just sideways, as the old, “If they can put a man on the moon, why can’t they ” — anything. Anything that has nothing to do with putting a man in the moon. It is a fallacious argument meant to simulate the argument a fortiori, to wit, if they can do the larger A (put a man on the moon) surely then can do the much, much “smaller” B (serve good food on an airplane, get the cable guy to come on time, whatever). Of course B does not in any way flow from such an A; the issues are unrelated; there is no such proof.

Here, too, a major and minor premise are advertised as related and one deducible from the other, but here it is in reverse: If we have time for vice squad activities by law enforcement, “all the more so” we must have already “put a man on the moon,” i.e., solved terrorism. Oh, we haven’t done B? Then what business do we have doing A?! See what a bad idea A is?

But A does not flow from B at all. They have nothing at all in common at all except for the fact that both are described under the very broad rubric of law enforcement functions. But a reduction in vice squad activity in a Midwestern city has no bearing on the resources that will actually be made available, consequently, in the activities of entirely different law enforcement agencies, in different places, involving personnel with entirely different qualifications, in fighting terrorism — just as a posited reduction in traffic enforcement, drug enforcement, zoning laws and even burglary, rape and assault investigations are utterly unrelated to terrorism. All these things are “small” B’s to the larger A, but besides being smaller and both being done by people allowed to carry guns, they are completely unrelated.

It’s a very bad faith argument, a cloak for the true argument, which is, “I don’t like public morals laws.” So then come out and say that, and make that case. But the juxtaposition with terrorism is the chicken’s way out. It not only cloaks the bad argument but wraps the maker in a cynical mantle of patriotism and concern with terrorism. I’m not surprised to see it from the phony Huffington. As to Instapundit — here Glenn is simply caught up in his libertarian disdain for public morals laws and has switched his law professor brain entirely in favor of a head full of mush.

Too bad. If Glenn is against laws that prohibit solicitation of intimate activities in public facilities, I’d like to see him make those arguments, not endorse fake ones like this. “In the Age of Terror” has no more logical force than urging your favorite policy because it’s better “for the children.”

UPDATE: A related argument, from Kim du Toit, and one from Michelle Malkin.