The nearly unanimous inability for anyone, be it the media, army command, law enforcement or this nation's political administration, to identify the Fort Hood massacre as a terrorist attack is symptomatic of the free ride that Islam gets, like some societal lamprey, on the body of functional cultures.
Most disgusting of all is how vigorously almost everyone involved ignores, like with that dog that catches the car, how Islam is totally incapable of administering a productive society of any sort, much less the global caliphate it lusts after.
Part IV of Dittmar's essay has been up at The Oil Drum for the last few days. I've been reading it as fast as I can stomach it.
To say that I'm disgusted by that tripe is a gross understatement. I am bitter, locked in disputes with the editors over the rebuttal to Chapter I which has been finished for a month but has still not been rhetorically neutered to their specifications. My co-authors are as frustrated as I am.
I am now certain that I will not be allowed to put my opinion of Dittmar's work in the key post itself, so I will put it here: it is blatant propaganda. It is full of lies. It has just enough truth to fly under the radar (and BS detectors) of the general public without being caught out, and too few will see the rebuttals and corrections in the comments to offset the damage it is doing.
The editors don't want to do anything about this. The editorship of TOD has either been played, or is behind the propaganda. They say they have no expertise in these matters and value my input, but what value can they possibly be placing on advice when they ignore it? I had hoped to get the remaining chapters vetted for accuracy before publication as a way of raising the quality of TOD, but my input has been disregarded. The editors do not want to get into peer review. I have been in favor of pre-publication peer review as a way of raising the quality of posts at TOD and turning it into more of a scientific journal; the actions of the editors seem to be heading more toward the Sokal hoax which made "Social Text" a laughingstock. The difference is that Dittmar wants his nonsense to be taken seriously.
I will finish the rebuttal to Chapter I. After that, I don't know. Lots of feelings have been hurt here, and it is very hard to see where to go.
Visits since 2006/05/11: