In response to Anita regarding Islamic "hate crimes" : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

From another (long) thread:

"Flint: You asked for comparison data. My searches revealed that there were more hate crimes enacted on Arab Americans in the three days after 911 than the entire last year. You and Ken sit there and say, "Well, it wasn't as bad as I THOUGHT it would be." Well, it IS/WAS to the Arab American community."

"Yesterday, Anita, I ate more lox than I had for the entire previous year. Of course, since I had eaten only one bite previously... an entire bagel was an enormous jump in lox consumption. C'mon, Anita, I heard far better distortions during the Y2K debate. According to the FBI, there were 150 anti-Islamic "hate crimes" between 1992 and 1998. During the same period there 7410 anti-Jewish "hate crimes" and 19,968 anti-Black "hate crimes." In 1998, there were 21 anti- Islamic "hate crimes." To exceed a year's total in three days, one would need 22 "hate crimes." WOW! Twenty-two crimes! I think a multi-agency task force in order. (chuckle) Personally, Anita, I think the African-American community would be delighted to trade places with the Islamic community... even after 9/11."

I started a new thread because: 1) the old thread was really long; and 2) the exchange reminded me of Y2K. Hey, folks, there's a ton of information on the Internet. When someone uses a phrase like "more hate crimes enacted on Arab Americans in the three days after 911 than the entire last year," it's a dead giveaway there's more to the story. The FBI and Department of Justice keep extensive records on "hate crimes" and mundane offenses like murder, kidnapping and arson. When you read a slippery comparison, take a moment and check the data.

For the record, 22 crimes against any group are 22 crimes too many.

-- Ken Decker (, December 07, 2001


Don't forget "hate crimes" by various persons of color against honkies.

-- (, December 07, 2001.

LOL. I'd already read your reply on the other thread, Ken. You want me to do WHAT? Dispute that you ate more lox today than in the previous year?

I visited the site of Arab-Americans [maybe the counterpart to the Rainbow Coalition for complaints in the Black American community] and THEY were VERY concerned. They keep track of this stuff and some of their E-mails from folks who think Arab-Americans should all be killed would curl your hair. I also visited a site that I think was called THIS site consisted of primarily Indian- Americans who've found themselves in the crossfire of this whole thing when they had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it. They DO wear Turbans, though, so they've been killed by the ignorant.

-- Anita (, December 07, 2001.

I would ask you to do a bit of research, Anita, but you've already admitted a lack of motivation.

If you are going to cut-and-paste, Anita, at least try to find a higher quality of distortion. The "more hate crimes enacted on Arab Americans in the three days after 911 than the entire last year" is shoddy work, even by the Y2K standards.

Not much better is the hand-wringing about "concern." People are concerned about flying, even though other means of travel are far more dangerous. If you'd like, I can provide the citations. The fact that people are concerned does not make the fear of flying legitimate. In a similar vein, the fears of Arab-Americans are not justified by the data. Period.

Oh, and I respectfully suggest that murder is generally an act committed by the ignorant.

-- Ken Decker (, December 07, 2001.

So can we kill this thread now, Ken? [I really do get offended when people start new threads with my name in the title.] What I do with MY free time is what I do with MY free time. Wouldn't you agree? I neither need to research more at your command, nor provide you with information from threads before your entry here.

-- Anita (, December 07, 2001.

Oh, and I respectfully suggest that murder is generally an act committed by the ignorant.

Gawd, Ken plans to kill someone. ;o))) HEHE.

Best Wishes,,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, December 07, 2001.

Shit that was funny Z!

-- Uncle Deedah (, December 07, 2001.


Of course, you don't "need" to do anything at all. But when you present distortions and wimp out when called on them, this says something fairly important about you. At the very least, it says that you start with your conclusions, craft support for them with great care and selection, and conclude that your conclusions were correct after all!

But you should realize that it's on such non responses that your reputation is built and on your reputation that your subsequent opinions get dismissed or viewed as unsupportable.

-- Flint (, December 07, 2001.

All it takes is your name in the header to offend you, Anita? I had no idea you were so thin-skinned. I am not offended so easily, but am quite amused. If you want to keep a flawed conclusion, keep it to yourself or share it with only those who agree with you. I'm certain there are liberal fora where eager heads wait ready to nod in agreement. If you want to engage in discourse here, bring a thicker skin, some solid data and decent logic. At the very least, admit defeat gracefully.

-- Ken Decker (, December 08, 2001.

Hey quit picking on anita!

-- (ya@big.bullies), December 08, 2001.

Flint gets the award for unintentional irony on this thread:

"At the very least, it says that you start with your conclusions, craft support for them with great care and selection, and conclude that your conclusions were correct after all!"

For my money, this is exactly what Mr. Flint did in Cherri's thread that slagged Chris Matthews, when he stoutly maintained that the thread was slagging President Bush - because Cherri posted it!

-- Little Nipper (, December 08, 2001.

Well, geeze. Being tag teamed by Ken and Flint can't be any kind of fun. You guys both have Big Brains, okay? I'm not too insecure to admit mine isn't as big. I enjoy your commentary, but would be highly unlikely to engage in debate on the opposite side of both of you at the same time. If the point of this thread is to discourage others from expressing their opinions (even if, as you say, the logic is flawed), I think it's an overwhelming success. I hope your big brains don't get in the way of at least considering the possible ramifications of what I'm trying to say.

-- (just, December 08, 2001.

What ARE you trying to say anyway?

-- (im not@gettin. it), December 08, 2001.

Ah...the appeal to emotions. Why does this remind me of my mother saying, "Don't walk away when I'm talking to you, young lady."

As far as I'm concerned, the last thread was completed for me after I'd done a comparison data check. Flint had a good point when he asked for that. My local news station spent a good three days discussing Arab hate crimes. The President gave a speech wherein he said that Arab women were afraid to go shopping. He got together with Arabs to state that the US was NOT at war with Islam, and he would NOT tolerate increases in hate crimes against Arab Americans. Ashcroft did pretty much the same. So was the press and the Administration overreacting, or were there indeed more problems after 911 than previously?

I did the check and I was done with the subject. Ken wasn't done. The hate crimes [even after the increase] didn't compare with hate crimes afforded other minority groups. Nobody ever said they did.

Perhaps "offense" was the wrong term to use, Ken. You, obviously, thought you'd presented a very intelligent response to the previous thread, even though *I* felt it contributed nothing to the thread at hand. I think we all know that 3 x 0 = 0. You and Flint didn't see anything in YOUR parts of the US, and YOUR local news, perhaps, didn't mention it. The only things you saw out of the ordinary were countless flags and a few liberals excoriated for speaking up. A thread with a mere 48 responses isn't long, Ken. You started another thread, IMO, because you'd gotten no response from the previous one and wanted everyone to see your fine response so ignored. Charlie did this all the time on Debunkers and Poole's. Some of us even received those responses in E-mails, lest we miss the intellectual beauty of it all.

I'm not responsible for your self-esteem, Ken. I'd appreciate my name being kept out of your quests for attention. I'm not inclined to respond to Ray's old chant regarding, "Got no answer? Ya know I'm right, dontcha?", although I did find the comparison amusing.

-- Anita (, December 09, 2001.


On the Matthews thread, it took me a while to recognize that you were being serious. When I decided you were, I dug in in some detai, showing that your assertions has no basis at all in Cherri's posted material. I *also* noticed that as soon as I did, so, you vanished.

And NOW, having ignored the refutation, you repeat your conclusions. Rather than either of us refer to what I'm sure we both see as unintended irony, why not return to the offending thread and support your case with something more substantive than "for my money". After all, you've been coining this same money whenever you choose, and it has yet to buy you a clue.

-- Flint (, December 09, 2001.

"I *also* noticed that as soon as I did, so, you vanished."

Ah, yes. Here we have a reprise of Flint in his famous role of Sherlock Holmes, citing the case of the dog that didn't bark in the night. This is the famous 'last word' argument - whoever stops first loses. Sorry, Flint. This is just another playground debating tactic dressed up in a tuxedo.

The sole reason I "vanished" was because I had argued my point and presented my evidence more than once already and had nothing further useful to say. This may not prevent you from harrowing the same field yet another time, but I dislike wasting my time in such pursuits.

I am satisfied that anyone reading that thread has enough information to make up their own minds on the relative merits of our respective arguments. If they decide I have failed, that's when "I lose".

-- Little Nipper (, December 09, 2001.


For the effort you spend dodging and weaseling, you could have addressed the original case on its merits. After all, I had dropped it for the same reason you did -- I'd presented my case, recognized that any readers' conclusions would match their political preferences, and let it go.

NOW, in this thread, YOU choose to exhume that old issue, only to retreat in a clould of pious accusations when I take you up on it. If you can't reply, why raise the subject? Who do you think you are fooling?

-- Flint (, December 09, 2001.

However unlikely it may be, if anyone has an interest in seeing for themselves what Flint and I are sniping about, it is in this thread. Enjoy!

(Uh, that may not be the exact word I was looking for, but...)

-- Little Nipper (, December 09, 2001.

I must say, Flint certainly knows the proper buttons to push to get me to reply. It's easy. All he has to do is characterize my actions and motives to place me in the worst poossible light. I feel strangely compelled to defend myself. Why, I cannot imagine.

The question in that thread was whether the article posted by Cherri constituted an attack on Bush. Flint took the position that it was. I took the opposite side of that question. The whole article was available to examine. We each made our arguments.

If anyone wishes to determine whether I am weaseling, dodging, or hiding from Flint's reasoned arguments die to my inability or unwillingness to address them, or whether my arguments actually had "no basis", I refer them to the thread linked in my previous reply. It's all there in American English.

If any of you judge that I am being falsely pious, clueless or any of the other assertions, characterizations, insinuations made by Flint, then I wish you would tell me. I don't quite trust Flint's judgment in this matter.

-- Little Nipper (, December 09, 2001.

All he has to do is characterize my actions and motives to place me in the worst poossible light. I feel strangely compelled to defend myself. Why, I cannot imagine.

LOL. I think you're "catching on". All you need to do now is ignore the compulsion.

-- Anita (, December 09, 2001.

Ah, the reason this group is so much fun! I feel like I just came home.


-- Maria (, December 10, 2001.

"My local news station spent a good three days discussing Arab hate crimes" And what exactly does this prove, Anita? Nothing. All you've provided is anecdotal evidence of concern. Concern, Anita, is a human emotion... and lousy evidence to support an argument. The data demonstrates this concern is unfounded.

Of course, the President, the Attorney General, etc. spoke out against "hate crimes" although the deterrent value is suspect. How many ignorant persons bent on committing a hate crime paused upon hearing the Attorney General? "Gosh, I won't burn that mosque because John Ashcroft convinced me otherwise." (laughter) The real reason for the pro-Islam rhetoric was to shore up political support among the coalition. The administration wanted to show "friendly" Arab nations we can tell the difference between a terrorist and a "good Muslim." Frankly, Anita, America needs the assistance of the moderate Arab nations to fight this conflict.

Imagine the diplomatic nightmare if CNN was running tapes of American protestors in Des Moines firing AK-47s in the air, burning Osama bin Laden if effigy and shouting anti-Arab slogans.

Your "check" was lazy, Anita. You found enough anecdotal evidence to confirm your foregone conclusion. Then, you were finished. The factual data demonstrates that anti-Islamic "hate crimes" were miniscule before September 11. In the aftermath there have been TWO indictments for anti-Arab "hate crimes" motivated by September 11. Two. Throughout a nation of nearly 300 million persons, there are a couple hundred FBI investigations of possible anti-Arab "hate crimes" since September 11. Stop the presses.

I don't think my response particularly insightful, Anita. I'm only considering FACTS rather than relying on my brother's friend works with this guys who knows or "I heard on the news." I know enough, Anita, to realize my personal impressions are not relevant when analyzing a national public policy issue. I am smart enough to realize what I "saw" was not nearly enough to draw any conclusions.

This was the great Y2K problem... people who built a few anecdotes into a case for catastrophe. When I pointed out the errors, the reaction of the Y2K doomsayers was quite similar to yours.

-- Ken Decker (, December 10, 2001.


What was most interesting (to me) was the reactions of those who had built cases (you'll pardon the expression) the way Anita has here, after rollover was a few months back in the rearview mirror and there had been no bumps in the road.

A very few admitted they had got it wrong. About half simply vanished without a trace. The rest continue to plead the Paula Gordon defense - - that they were right all along, and that everything they can find wrong, real or (usually) imagined, is proof that The End Of The World happened, and the evidence to the contrary is Yet Another Example of a coverup or whatever.

Now, if such a stunningly unambiguous refutation of an absurd position can't change people's minds, imagine less clear-cut issues without deadlines. I also observe (with a level of irony that should send Nipper into paroxysms of delight) that brighter people are no less victims of their preferences, they simply find subtler and more sophisticated ways of kidding themselves.

So if there's no good way to escape this, what remains is one's willingness and ability to defend one's position and approach to that position. The Running Away Defense, especially during the discovery or clarification of terms phases, typically looks bad. So I can only laugh when someone feels their entire case is so independently airtight that refutation or at least rebuttal must be without merit and beneath reply.

Intelligent people can legitimately disagree. The challenge is to determine what is really being disagreed about and why.

-- Flint (, December 10, 2001.

What IS being disagreed about and why...?

-- helen (lead@balloons.flying.all.over), December 10, 2001.

Near as I can tell, the disagreement is about the definition of the term "rather calm." One side says that the nation has been "rather calm" to Arabs/Muslims compared to what could have happened. The other side says that things are not "rather calm" compared to the treatment of Arabs/Muslims before 9/11.

As Flint said in this thread, this is a case of "compared to what." What's interesting, though, is that both sides are engaging in the comparison.

-- (what@i.think), December 11, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ