David Kirkpatrick

November 19, 2008

Stay classy, al Qaeda

Filed under: et.al., Politics — Tags: , , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 11:47 pm

Actually there’s nothing classy about those stone-age morons, but this is so stupid it’s painful. Who knew that along with being hate-filled, sharia-lovin’ buffoons, al Qaeda is also quite racist.

In case you’ve missed the news on the latest missive from the cave:

Indeed, the only thing I have a really strong blogometric opinion about today is the letterAyman Al-Zawahiri has issued, in which the terrorist calls the President-elect a “house slave.” If this isn’t disinformation–and it would be nice if our intelligence community were clever enough to have forged the statement–it is fabulous news for reasons most succinctly described by Richard Clarke:

“Obama’s election has taken the wind out of al Qaeda’s sails in much of the Islamic world because it demonstrates America’s renewed commitment to multiculturalism, human rights, and international law. It also proves to many that democracy can work and overcome ethnic, sectarian, or racial barriers.”

August 10, 2008

Asbahi, Islam and the current US political climate

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 8:14 pm

This is a great insider’s view of an odd, and disconcerting in many ways, subject. The linked 538.com post is on Mazen Asbahi resigning as national coordinator for Muslim American affairs from Obama’s campaign. The real meat is the political climate in the United States toward all Muslims fostered by the Bush 43 regime.

First a bit from the intro of the post:

A Perspective on Mazen Asbahi

 

Earlier this week, Mazen Asbahi, whom the Obama campaign had appointed on July 26 to be their national coordinator for Muslim American affairs, announced that he had resigned his position.

Rany Jazayerli, my friend and colleague at Baseball Prospectus, knows Mr. Asbahi, and wrote me a long e-mail detailing his perspective on the matter. I asked him whether he’d be willing to share his perspective with the readers of FiveThirtyEight, and he graciously agreed. The following are Rany’s words, unedited, and pulling no punches.

Here’s part of Rany’s essay. It’s worth the time to hit the link and read this entire piece. He has a strong point and makes it well. Asbahi resigned after the Wall Street Journal and other media outlets tied him to Jamal Said and made insinuations Said was tied to Islamist terrorism:

“The Justice Department named Mr. Said an unindicted co-conspirator in the racketeering trial last year of several alleged Hamas fund-raisers, which ended in a mistrial. He has also been identified as a leading member of the group in news reports going back to 1993.”

Pardon my Arabic, but what the f**k is an unindicted co-conspirator, and why is our government using this phrase? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? And whatever happened to the notion that indictment is just the first step towards a guilty verdict? A prosecutor is supposed to be able to indict a ham sandwich, so what does it say that they’ve never been able to indict Said? (Maybe that’s his secret: Muslims don’t eat pork.)

In that racketeering trial – which, again, ended in a mistrial – the government listed close to 300 Muslim organizations as “unindicted co-conspirators”, which is tantamount to saying “we think some of them are terrorists, and since we don’t know who, we’ll just blame them all.” So much for innocent until proven guilty. This isn’t even guilty until proven innocent – it’s guilty with no recourse to prove you’re innocent. How can you defend yourself against an indictment which doesn’t exist? Said is guilty by association. Which makes Mazen, apparently, guilty by association with someone who’s guilty by association. It’s McCarthyism squared.

July 30, 2008

little green footballs vs the Discovery Institute

And the winner is? Charles Johnson and lgf by KO.

If you want to decide for yourself, here’s the latest salvo between the right wing anti-Islamist blog and the Christianist-shill, pro-creationism “research organization.”

Here’s Johnson’s intro from the first link:

Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute says I made false claims about them, but he doesn’t actually dispute a single fact in my LGF article. I was going to ignore this post at their anti-evolution blog, but on second reading it struck me as a pretty good example of the kinds of misdirection the Discovery Institute commonly employs, so we’ll go through it to see how many obfuscations we can spot.

Johnson added this Corner post from John Derbyshire as an update, and I think it serves to sum this whole thing up very tidily. I’m pretty biased in this debate — if you couldn’t tell from my description of the Discovery Institute — and Johnson goes way overboard on a regular basis at lgf, but he’s dead on about the Discovery Institute. If nothing else lgf is dogged, right or wrong. Johnson’s been right quite a bit as well. I bet his targets wish that wasn’t the case

From Derbyshire’s post at the Corner:

What a Tangled Web We Weave   [John Derbyshire]

I have banged on here at NRO about the corroding dishonesty of the Intelligent Design project, arguing that it arises from the very nature of the thing: pretending, in hopes of winning the occasional church/state lawsuit, to be one thing (a pure-science research institute), while in fact being a different thing (a Christian-proselytizing lecture agency, pressure group, and publisher). There is nothing wrong with being either of those things: the corruption stems from being the one while pretending to be the other. Not only is this dishonest in itself, it does no good to either cause.

Charles Johnson over at Little Green Footballs has been doing a few rounds with the Discovery Institute, in which the DI sleaze tactics come through loud and clear. It makes for entertaining reading. Plenty of links to follow.

(Hat tip: Panda’s Thumb)