Dear person who forwarded me this article:

Here's a hypothetical situation to ponder.

Let's say I publish a story about being in a hospital and witnessing a child paying for stitches with a sock full of pennies because his parents don't have insurance. And I overheard a man in a suit laughing, who I assumed was the owner of the hospital laughing at how disadvantaged that poor child is. Therefore, we need universal healthcare.

Is my point worthwhile? Perhaps. But is my story true? No, but at some point in someone's life, a similar situation perhaps could have possibly seen by someone somewhere, so it's true enough.

In an instance, Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter and Joe Scarborough and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity would all scream HOAX! That Arlo, he thinks rich people hate the poor. And that situation never could have happened. Arlo is a liar.

Well, I could never write that article. It is not forgivable or valid to lie in order to make a conclusion. Any logic and philosophy class will teach you that. Nor can I throw out a generality about guys in suits in hospitals. My boss' boss is in the hospital, he went straight from the office to the hospital, so he was there in a suit. Does that mean he was there to steal insurance from children? I could never make any of these claims, and the right wing, if they knew who I am, would never forgive me.

So this woman brings up a loophole in airline security. A worthy discussion. Pundits can feel free to make the argument that there are still holes in airline security. That's a tangible and important discussion to have. However, you cannot forgive someone because they're point is good if she is being a lying, unethical whore.

The article carries a lot of latent racism and unverifiable claims. It's obviously the work of conservative wingnuttery. It may not be a hoax*, per se, but it's pretty damn close. It is certainly truth stretched super-duper thin to the point of fabrication, and then passed along as spontaneous gonzo journalism to foster support for a particular viewpoint that is based on old-fashioned bigotry.

So fuck this bitch in her ear with a shoe bomb.

I enjoyed this take, despite its scattershot writing style.

Granola may be good for you, but not if you dunk it chocolate and coat it with marshmallows -- stuff that's not good for you. So it goes with the truth.

Yours truly,
Arlo ;->

*UPDATE [7/22/04]: Kelly pointed out this definition of "hoax":

Hoax: -n- (a) An act intended to deceive or trick. (b) Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

I guess it is a hoax, after all. Thanks, Kelly. I hate the bitch even more now.