I’m currently dealing with a somewhat annoying person in the comments section, and also a bout of insomnia or else I probably wouldn’t bother to do this. Anyway, it has been pointed out that one story does not a trend make about the emerging fiasco. Fair enough. But what about this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this or this? Or this or this? A minor fuss was made that the nutcase cited previously was condemned by the Al Azhar, the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church has been condemned by the KKK. If that seems unfair on the Al Azhar, please look at this, this, this, this, this… you get the idea. Believe you me, I can go on like this all night.
Incidentally, none of those links are from FOX, implying which is apparently the height of intellectual sophistication from wherever this fool hails.
So much for the boring technical stuff. But there is a wider question: why would anyone, at this stage of the game, act as though the only reason you could be gloomy about the revolutions in the Middle East is a desire to be mean and nasty? Is it really beyond imagination to assume that some of us would like to have hopes for secular and democratic gov’t in that part of the world, but have had those utterly crushed by the evidence? I’m reminded of the Hitch’s comment, that the current tendency to assume that the worst possible motive is always the correct one has the virtue of turning every noisy moron into a master analyst.
I’m going back to sleep now.
