Sunday, August 03, 2008
Karaoke bar
A cute public-service ad, aiming to discourage drinking among teens, tells the story of Jason. Jason is in a karaoke bar; he gets up on stage and makes a fool of himself in a dozen ways, etc. The ad concludes: "How can you tell that Jason is wasted? First of all, he's in a karaoke bar."
Nice bit of logic.
How can we tell that Jean Duley is a false accuser? First of all, she's a social worker.
Look to the black heart of every recent witch hunt from Edenton to Wenatchee to San Angelo and you'll find a social worker. It's their job.
= = = = =
An interesting split in media coverage:
The old media like CBS and the WashPost are strongly questioning the validity of the Ivins case, featuring many of his colleagues who know what he could have done, not just what he might have wanted to do. His colleagues say that he had neither the motive nor the opportunity to commit the 2001 anthrax attack.
The cable gossip networks like CNN Headline News are simply taking Jean Duley's "testimony" as absolute fact. She claims Ivins bought a gun and a bulletproof vest. Well, did he? Should be easy enough to check, but nobody seems to have checked. She claims he wanted to "go out in a blaze of glory". Well, he didn't. He went out quietly. Nobody seems to have noticed this little difference. She claims that he strongly resented her questioning. Well, an innocent man would strongly, even violently, resent being questioned by a KGB apparatchik, would resent being sucked down into a maelstrom of falsehood.
My hypothesis at this point: Because Ivins helped to analyze the microbes after the attack, he knew something. That's why he was dangerous. ¶ 11:02 AM
Nice bit of logic.
How can we tell that Jean Duley is a false accuser? First of all, she's a social worker.
Look to the black heart of every recent witch hunt from Edenton to Wenatchee to San Angelo and you'll find a social worker. It's their job.
= = = = =
An interesting split in media coverage:
The old media like CBS and the WashPost are strongly questioning the validity of the Ivins case, featuring many of his colleagues who know what he could have done, not just what he might have wanted to do. His colleagues say that he had neither the motive nor the opportunity to commit the 2001 anthrax attack.
The cable gossip networks like CNN Headline News are simply taking Jean Duley's "testimony" as absolute fact. She claims Ivins bought a gun and a bulletproof vest. Well, did he? Should be easy enough to check, but nobody seems to have checked. She claims he wanted to "go out in a blaze of glory". Well, he didn't. He went out quietly. Nobody seems to have noticed this little difference. She claims that he strongly resented her questioning. Well, an innocent man would strongly, even violently, resent being questioned by a KGB apparatchik, would resent being sucked down into a maelstrom of falsehood.
My hypothesis at this point: Because Ivins helped to analyze the microbes after the attack, he knew something. That's why he was dangerous. ¶ 11:02 AM
