The Utter Racism

Bigots across the country have found a race that is acceptable in society to be prejudice against; Muslims. This is nothing new, and I doubt even a few of you were surprised at the first sentence. Ever since 9/11, conservatives have been all too giddy to connect every problem, every issue, every everything to terrorism. But seriously!?! These fucking bigots are going to blame the Holocaust Memorial shooting on Muslims?

it is because of Muslims--who are the biggest contributor to the worldwide rise in anti-Semitism to Holocaust-eve levels--that neo-Nazis feel comfortable--far more comfortable!--manifesting their views about Jews.

Everyone got it? Muslims, not secret Muslims but invisible Muslim forces, shot up the Holocaust Memorial, not a white-supremacist. That is how delusional the neoconservatives have become. It has little to do with national security, it is pure racism. That is why Muslim terrorist need to be held off US soil, tortured, without charges, but white supremacists deserve a full and fair trial.

Debbie Schlussel, your opinion on anything relating to Islam, or Muslims in general, no longer counts you bigot.

Tell me this: does anyone believe a white supremacist was influenced in his racism by Muslims? That is what we call well outside the realm of realistic probability. What is far more likely, is that the rapid increase of chatter at white supremacist websites made this man more "comfortable" acting out his hatred.

PS: It was not long ago I was writing about the racist war on terror re: Redstate.com.

NY Times Correction, More Reasons Young People Don't Read Newspapers

The New York Times ran an article titled "1 in 7 freed detainees rejoins fight, report says" which I used to explain a major reason young people do not read newspapers. The article regurgitated a claim by the Pentagon without the slightest bit of questioning or investigative journalism. I, and many others, questioned the legitimacy of this claim, but the reporters that brought us the news did not. Today they had to clarify.

But the article on which he based that statement was seriously flawed and greatly overplayed. It demonstrated again the dangers when editors run with exclusive leaked material in politically charged circumstances and fail to push back skeptically.

And Jill Abramson, the managing editor for NY Times' news, went on...

Abramson said, “The whole game of leaks can be problematical if you aren’t given a document or the time to look at it in a full way.”

Ah yes. No document to back up the claims. This is a completely ridiculous excuse. Two days after the article first appeared, I contacted the Pentagon to ask for a clarification of how they determine whether or not a detainee has rejoined the fight. I received this pdf, which clearly demonstrates that the 1 in 7 number was an "unverified" statistic.

The lack of truth (the lies), in this article were not due to the pentagon withholding the relevant "document" at all. In fact, the Pentagon was more than willing to provide a document relating to the news. And had they bothered to read the document, they would have seen this part:

Definition of “Suspected” — Significant reporting indicates a former Defense Department detainee is involved in terrorist activities, and analysis indicates the detainee most likely is associated with a specific former detainee or unverified or single-source, but plausible, reporting indicates a specific former detainee is involved in terrorist activities.

"Unverified"

In other words, the entire point of the article, the title, was unverified. And yet, the investigative journalists, that we are supposed to bend over backwards saving, did not even take the time to ask for relevant documents. They were not given to them, so they assumed they did not exist. That is why I laugh in the face of anyone that says the death of the newspaper means the death of investigative journalism.

The New York Times needs to run another clarification:

We did not bother to take the time to ask questions of the Pentagon, or to even ask how they determine that a detainee has returned to the fight. Instead, we took the lazy way out. We ran with what they gave us. We owe better than that to our readers.

This Was Fun, the Celebrate-Ignorance-Conservative

So, I'm on twitter. Just messin' around with the good old #tcot folks (if you don't know what that means, google "hashtags"). Anywho, I get into one discussion like so:



A simple question. If you claim that waterboarding saves lives, any rational person would assume that you have seen some type of evidence to lead you to that conclusion. But there you underestimate the power of the celebrate-ignorance-conservative. This is in no way directed at all conservatives, just the 21%'ers. The real whacko, neocon, gone crazy from losing to Obama, crowd. And the conversation continues:



Still yet to provide one piece of evidence to back up the claim. Just another claim that he or she "could" provide more evidence that torture saves lives than I could about abortion saving lives. Evidence #1. There. Me: 1. Jackass: 0 as of yet.




So classic. The celebrate-ignorance-conservative will be quick to straight out lie about what he just said. The statement was not, in any way, that interrogation saves lives. And then, this:




So nice. You would have thought that this person would walk away, conceding my point. But no. Alas, the celebrate-ignorance-conservative will just delve farther into nonsense when proven wrong.



And more nonsense:



And then, the explosion of nonsense.



So let's get this straight:

Water torture saves lives. No wait. I didn't say that. I said interrogation saves lives. Fine. Interrogation saves lives, water torture doesn't. Well wait. Water torture, is interrogation, so it does save lives. (sticks fingers in ears) BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!