« Apologies for Light Posting | Main | Bad Analysis - Sensationalizing Homicide Statistics »

*** Excellent piece at Blog P.I (via Instapundit) quoting John Aravosis on the British terror plot.

Maybe terrorists haven't had much luck with blowtorches or crop dusters, but for Aravosis to leave out all previous terrorist attacks involving planes in favor of other, lesser examples of terrorist attempt or intent, while blithely dismissing those and mangling the facts, sure, it's fair to say that John Aravosis, for one, is not very serious about terrorism.

I will at least allow that he is serious about his opposition to Bush because he disagrees strenuously with his national security policy. I just don't think Aravosis has any idea what to replace it with, and he's not above sticking to bad conclusions that make Republicans out to sound as bad as possible.

An example of this, not pointed out by the author of the original piece, can be found in this statement by Aravosis:

Do I sound as if I don't believe this alert? Why, yes, that would be correct. I just don't believe it. Read the article. They say the plot had an "Al Qaeda footprint." Ooh, are you scared yet? What that really means is that they found NO evidence whatsoever that the plot had anything to do at all with Al Qaeda, but the plot simply made them think "gosh, this is something Al Qaeda would do." That's what a footprint means. Nice, but no cigar.

Here he speculates, apparently incorrectly, that the authorities "found NO evidence whatsoever that the plot had anything to do at all with Al Qaeda", and that there was just a similarity in aims. And for some reason, this is supposed to imply the alert is an overreaction. Let's simplify his statement: "I don't believe (this alert). Ooh, are you scared yet? ...the plot simply made them think "gosh, this is something Al Qaeda would do." Gosh, like maybe a major terrorist attack? Isn't that what the alert level is for? Lack of seriousness indeed.

*** What harm can do conspiracy theories do? For one woman, the effect was quite direct.

They have visited Mrs. McClatchey's office and called her at home, posting satellite maps of her property and accusing her of digitally altering her photo to insert a fake smoke plume. The bloggers have picked apart her story, highlighting inconsistencies in different news accounts and questioning her motives. Others have described her as "surly," "hostile," "irate" and "defensive." People have called her at home, accusing her of being anti-American and of "holding the photo hostage."

*** "Ahmadenijad, leader of Iran. Member of a sect that some, like the Ayatollah Khomeini, consider too extreme. But is he really that bad a guy? Mike Wallace has the questions other journalists are too smart to ask."

*** A privacy nut's nightmare. AOL releases search logs of 650,000 users. The user's names were replaced with random ID numbers, but it's still possible to track down the actual ID, especially since some of the users did searches on personally identifying information. This story is scary on several levels. If you thought you had weird Google searches in your referrers, the raw data is even freakier. A lot of disturbing searches. (If your husband likes "steak and cheese" and/or "poop", I recommend you follow that link.) Some have looked through the search logs and found some rather amusing series of searches. The NYT identify one woman through her searches; I have not confirmed if these were actually part of her search logs. (Bill, I think they've got your search logs. NSFW, obviously.)

*** Computer assisted passenger screening. Very interesting. Andy's last paragraph describe my own feelings better than I could myself. Chamomile smells great. (Oh yeah, I agree with the civil libertarian stuff, too.)

*** On a lighter note: Thinking of buying a Blu-ray HD-DVD disk drive? The first ones available are going to have just an itty bitty teensy weensy little technical problem. They won't be able to play Blu-ray movies. (Granted, this is only for a PC disk drive, not a Blu-ray player, but still...)

Posted by Dorkafork at August 11, 2006 11:34 PM | TrackBack (0)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2695

Comments

Posted by: SarahW at August 12, 2006 02:27 PM

Posted by: dorkafork at August 13, 2006 12:10 AM

Posted by: cheap viagra at November 20, 2006 12:28 AM

Posted by: Kimadio at December 3, 2006 07:30 PM

Posted by: xomihnft bjkosfih at March 9, 2007 08:57 AM

Posted by: Cellphone at April 12, 2007 11:20 PM

Posted by: Nico Chamberlain at April 16, 2007 07:30 AM

Posted by: Nico Chamberlain at April 16, 2007 07:31 AM

Posted by: Chaz Clifford at April 16, 2007 04:49 PM

Posted by: Chaz Clifford at April 16, 2007 04:49 PM

Posted by: Corbin Shockley at April 17, 2007 03:01 AM

Posted by: Corbin Shockley at April 17, 2007 03:02 AM