Jumping to Conclusions

It is too bad that jump­ing to con­clu­sions is not a form of phys­i­cal exer­cise. If it were, Amer­i­cans would not be near­ly as out of shape as we are.

A gun­man in Nor­way? Clear­ly he must be an Al Qae­da ter­ror­ist. The after­noon of the attacks, The Week­ly Stan­dard had a post up based entire­ly on the assump­tion that Al Qae­da was behind the attacks. In the Stan­dard­’s defense, the arti­cle does main­tain the “if” stance.

Less than two hours lat­er, Jen­nifer Rubin at The Wash­ing­ton Post, fol­low­ing up on the Stan­dard­’s post, explains the pol­i­cy impli­ca­tions of Al Qaeda’s con­tin­ued existence.

Now we “know” that Al Qae­da had noth­ing to do with what hap­pened in Norway.

When Dominique Strauss-Kahn was accused of rape, every­one assumed he was guilty and the maid was a poor vic­tim of a man of wealth and power.

Then it leaks out that the maid had trou­ble keep­ing her “sto­ry” straight and has been/​is a pros­ti­tute and we all assume that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is the vic­tim of a schem­ing woman out for a chunk of his change.

If it turns out she is not a pros­ti­tute, is Dominique Strauss-Kahn now guilty all over again?

Be sure to rush to judge­ment when the next detail emerges!

When it first came out that Jus­tice David Pross­er choked Jus­tice Ann Walsh Bradley at the Wis­con­sin Supreme Court (with the added detail that he had recent­ly called Chief Jus­tice Shirley Abra­ham­son a “total bitch”) we all assumed that Pross­er was guilty.

Then it turned out that Bradley had angri­ly approached Pross­er with her fists in the air.

I have no idea what I know about that inci­dent at this point.

Final­ly, here is a sto­ry of a woman who spent sev­en months in jail hav­ing done noth­ing wrong. An ex set her up and the police assumed guilt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: