How to make bullshit without feeding bovine
Mark Potok, editor the the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report sees “a resurgence of right-wing hate groups and radical ideas” linked to the ascendence of America’s first Black President. Recent reports put out by the Department of Homeland Security and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms seem to corroborate that claim. With unemployment and deficit spending on the rise and Americans full of fear about their own economic futures, we should be careful not to fall into the same old trap of racial scapegoating. It is easy. We’ve mastered it. It might even allow some of us to sleep more soundly at night. But it is utterly and ultimately the most self-dstructive response we can have to our present predicament.
See there, we have 3 sources on this. Mark Potok, a report from DHS based on Mark Potok, and some guy at BATF who talked to Mark Potok. If only I could find a common link to these three sources.
Nope, seems rather logic proof to me. Well played Mark Potok.
This isn’t the blog you were looking for….you can go about your business. [/insert super awesome Potok-Jedi mind trick here]
Category: Politics
Don’t you know it’s the seriousness of the charges and not the nature of the evidence?
As an intelligence analyst, I’m just freaking stunned. This is insane. No, I repeat NO, analysis shop or production control would have allowed this through. This has to be political, in the extreme. There really is no other explanation for it. I’m heartily disappointed in DHS, using open-source circular reporting to self-corroborate. It’s the worst rookie mistake, and seeing as how they aren’t rookies, the only possible explanation is that it was forced through, because the analysis itself was obviously not the goal. Demonizing the right wing was…Terrible.
The good professor responds:
Hah. No. Sorry. I don’t think anyone here has a problem with your opinions. What we have a problem with is that you call yourself a professor of something or other, and yet are such a sucky writer. Seriously, you’re writing for the “Chronicle of Higher Education,” and can’t write out a decent argument with proper support. As far as I can tell, this is the only criticism made on this blog. Your writing has the verbosity and impenetrability of Noam Chomsky, sprinkled with a diarrhea-like mis-use of unnecessary “quotations.”
Next time you post something, have one of your TA’s run through it first.
Yours,
Uber Pig