Which is true?
Oh honestly.
I saw this on Twitter but didn’t feel like doing another seen-on-Twitter post, so I’m grateful to the Evening Harold for doing a parody.
Eminent scientist turned huffy, proselytizing sideshow, Richard Dawkins, has had his motives for taking to Twitter to heap shit on a fourteen year old boy questioned, with many believing that he knew exactly what he was doing and that it was a pre-meditated attack carried out purely for attention.
“Assembling a Twitter rant is fine. Making it look like it was done as part of some great crusade for truth, and isn’t a famous 74 year old man picking on a boy is not fine. Which is true?” said the first villager we found in the Squirrel Lickers, Phil Evans.
Wait, what, you’re thinking – he didn’t, did he? Yes, he did. He did it repeatedly. He defended it.
What’s his objection? That Ahmed Mohamed called his clock an invention when he may have simply disassembled and reassembled an existing clock.
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins 12 hours ago
Assembling clock from bought components is fine. Taking clock out of its case to make it look as if he built it is not fine. Which is true?
Why do you ask?
Ah well. He has a right to his own opinion and to self-expression. We have a right to our own opinions too.
Personally, I wouldn’t shit all over a 14 yr old who has been having a difficult week but then I’m not a self-important jackass who loves nothing more than the sound of my own voice.
But that’s just me.
Well, to be entirely fair, Ahmed was only hauled off in handcuffs and held for hours; it’s not like someone took his jar of honey away from him.
What does it matter? Even if it’s the latter, dismantling and reassembling a clock is still really neat for demonstrating electronics skills.
I’ve been wishing for a long time that Dawkins would just stick to biology and counter-apologetics.
I just read the allegation on Gawker that this attack on Ahmed Mohammed was motivated by Dawkins’s own Islamo-bigotry (can’t get down with calling it a “phobia”). That never occurred to me but it seems plausible. He can’t even admire Malala Yousafzai without dissing the fact that she believes in Islam.
Next week on the Dawkins Grouch Hour: Richard patrols the city streets in search of puppies to kick.
That’s odd. I didn’t know Dawkins was the one making this objection.
I first heard of this claim yesterday from a notorious and unrepentant right-wing racist who claims “African genes are inferior” and says all Muslims should be killed off… he said that sites he reads like Breitbart.com and other far-right hate sites “were the ones to ‘reverse engineer’ (his term) the clock and discover this terrible plot, and that “liberals have egg on their faces.”
So… the “deport all Mexicans, even if they are citizens” and “kill all Muslims” guy apparently gets his “news” from the same places Dawkins does.
Does Dawkins read Breitbart.com and Stormfront, etc?
Or do they read HIM?
You heard it yesterday, and by today it had trickled down to Dawkins.
I guess some ideas just resonate with him.
(actually, because of my odd sleep patterns, technically it was late Friday when I heard it.)
Perhaps checking the facts of clockgate before expressing an opinion might be a good idea. Just saying. What with scepticism and all that…
I’m no electronics expert but I’ve made a few things out of soldered-together circuit parts. I’m pretty sure no one with any familiarity with assembling electronics was ‘fooled’ into thinking he ‘invented’ a clock; he assembled some premade components. I think he even said it only took him 20 minutes. People (e.g. NASA) weren’t congratulating hem because they though he was a genius who made a clock from scratch, they were encouraging him because he showed interest in taking things apart and seeing how they work in his spare time. So the right wing backlash that ‘liberals were fooled by an old clock without a case’ is way off the mark.
Using the word ‘invent’ is just an excited, imaginative kid speaking imprecisely.
Join us next week when Dawkins courageously takes on the serious issue of all of these people wearing “World’s Greatest Dad” T-shirts or using coffee mugs with the same title. Plainly they cannot ALL be the world’s greatest. And what authority issued these awards, and what was their methodology?
lol
So, imagine a child was suspended for bringing a copy of “The Communist Manifesto” to school. She claimed she wanted to show her teacher an essay she had written. Would Dawkins think it was relevant the essay was only a book report and only worthy of a C grade?
So, the clock doesn’t qualify as an invention and isn’t particularly creative according to Dawkins. Um, and this means… what, exactly? I could point out the Texas is neither on the Pacific nor Atlantic Coast. Is that relevant? I don’t like the way Dawkins parts his hair.
I mean *how* could this be relevant? I can’t possibly imagine where the quality of the clock or the language a 14-year used to describe it can in any way have anything to do with analyzing the arrest.
Dawkins says he’s a stickler for ferreting out the truth but, um, what they heck did he think the issue was? Did he actually think we were talking about what grade Ahmed should receive? Seriously, what does Dawkins think we are talking about?
Police today took a teenager into custody for using the word “invent” inappropriately. The Police Chief told reporters, “There’s been a lot of talk about policing language, so we decided it was time for literal action.” Next on their agenda is following up on reports of a biology writer using the term “inner fish”. “Unless he’s referring to the tuna sandwich I had at lunch,” said Constable Pedantic, “I don’t have any fish inside me.”
Sources report that the Satanic Temple have launched a counter campaign, arguing that all taxonomic frameworks should be considered equally under the law.
“Language is descriptive, not prescriptive,” said Satanic Temple co-founder Lucien Greaves. “By some phylogenetic taxonomies, humans would be considered a sub-species of lungfish, which makes Constable Pedantic’s position as a state representative untenable.”
However, the Satanic Temple’s campaign is having difficulty finding pro-bono legal representation. “We’ve been in contact with the ACLU, but we’re once again disappointed at their lack of support on this critical civic freedom issue,” confided Greaves. “If we can’t find pro-bono legal support, we may need to turn to donations to finance the campaign.”
Please have a look at this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=CEmSwJTqpgY
@piero – not sure if you think that video provides evidence for the assertion that Ahmed didn’t really build a clock or didn’t really build a clock, or didn’t build a real clock or whatever, but I find this assertion (and all the associated tangential deconstruction) to be ridiculous.
I’ll put my credentials up against those of the video maker: I’m an electrical engineer, married to an electrical engineer. Both my father and father-in-law were electrical engineers. I have 2 (now adult) kids who were raised in a “maker” culture before that was a Thing. I have spent 30 years as a volunteer teaching electronics to kids from kindergarten through highschool.
Saying that to *really make* a clock requires hand wiring a protoboard, and also complaining about the extra components is a silly objection. If no one in the household is an engineer or electronics hobbyist, there is not likely to be such equipment around the house – true ingenuity is demonstrated by what one can make out of available parts and equipment. I could just as well complain that the guy on the video used prepackaged integrated circuits instead of discrete transistors (and to be a true proper Maker, he really should have harvested some sand from the beach to grow his own silicon wafers to make the components).
I also find it odd that both the video maker and Dawkins have opined that the project would have been more authentic if Ahmed had assembled a clock from a kit of parts. But it seems to me that there is rather more understanding of theory and practice required to put together a working clock from bits and pieces vs assembling a kit from specified components according to detailed specifications and instructions.
@Theo:
My point is not that the kid did or did not “build” a clock. My point is that he took a commercially available clock (a Micronta, see it here:http://www.ebay.com/itm/MICRONTA-Large-Red-Display-Digital-Alarm-Clock-w-Battery-Backup-63-765A-VINTAGE/291565559523), disassembled it and threw it into a case so that the clock’s display was hidden from view.
Also, he placed the trasformer in the case without any safety measures, so that the device is actually very dangerous: if it is plugged to the mains and somebody touches the transformer terminals the consequences could be fatal.
So I have some questions to which you perhaps can provide answers:
Why would someone interested in science and technology dismantle an existing clock and put it in a different case? What would be the point?
Why would someone choose a case that mimicks a birefcase?
Why would someone want to build a clock whose face remains hidden?
Why would someone build a clock that needs low-voltage DC and leave an AC transofrmer that represents a hazard?
Why was the kid told by a teacher not to show the closk around?
Why did the clock’s beeper go off during English class?
Who has benefited the most from this story?
Good on the boy for trying to get away with minimum effort. He could have messed around with arduinos for a month, instead he took the innards out of an actual clock, lol. He’s the next Malala Yousafzai, isn’t he?
The boy makes me smile. What makes me scoff cynically is the big business and institutions preying on the story to look good. Microsoft sending him free shit, facebook inviting him over, and let’s not forget the white house:
>“This episode is a good illustration of how pernicious stereotypes can prevent even good-hearted people who have dedicated their lives to educating young people from doing the good work that they set out to do”
Let’s let everybody know we’re not as racist as that teacher! This kind of righteous posturing makes me barf.
@piero: you have benefited the most, as it has enabled you to wank yourself to orgasm over your fantasies of dangerous brown people.
Honestly, your first question is: “Why would someone interested in science and technology dismantle an existing clock and put it in a different case?” – well, because people interested in science and technology want to know how things work and the number one way you do that is by taking things apart and putting them back together again! And then you ask, why choose a case which is case-like… this is pitiful.
@20: actually, it’s good to show that you’re not as racist as the bunch of idiots who arrested and handcuffed a boy because he had brown skin and a clock.
I’ll attempt to answer your questions, but first I’ll ask you (and the lurkers):
Have you lived with clever quirky creative teenagers? They often do things that they think might be interesting and fun, just for the heck of it. Recent studies in cognitive science have shown that teens’ brains demonstrate some adult characteristics (logic, reasoning etc) while still being undeveloped in the area of thinking through consequences of their actions.
>> Why would someone interested in science and technology dismantle an existing clock and put it in a different case? What would be the point?
One of the best ways to learn how something works is to disassemble it, with bonus points if you can re-assemble such that there are no parts left over and it still works.
>> Why would someone choose a case that mimicks a birefcase?
AFAIK, it *was* a briefcase, not mimicking a briefcase – I would guess that was the case he had available which was a convenient size and shape to put his creation in (and had a handle to carry it). Arguably better than a cardboard box, and perhaps there was not a spare Tupperware of suitable size available to him.. I’ve seen lots of electronics, model train layouts and other things in a brief case. (Reminds me of the family stories about my 30-something father-in-law assembling a television from parts on a tea trolley in the 1950s – not only were there lethal high voltages required for the TV components, but as it was in England the mains power was 240V)
>> Why would someone want to build a clock whose face remains hidden?
Well, a clock that you need to open to see the time would be a bit like a giant retro pocketwatch.
>> Why would someone build a clock that needs low-voltage DC and leave an AC transofrmer that represents a hazard?
This sort of clock actually needs AC to run. Given its vintage, it probably also used the 60Hz for time synchronization, and the amount of power needed for those large LEDs would have exhausted that 9V battery in a few minutes. The “battery backup” on these things is usually just for remembering the time in case the power goes off. Agreed it was a bad idea to leave the 120V exposed, but I would attribute that to ignorance (and lack of education) rather than malice – when almost everything electronic these days works on low voltages, a lot of people are unaware of the potential dangers of mains power.
>> Why was the kid told by a teacher not to show the clock around?
I have no idea what was in the mind of the teacher – perhaps it was simply that they wanted to get on with the subject matter and not have the class distracted. But as has been pointed out by others, it clearly was not seen to be a real danger since it was simply placed in a drawer.
>> Why did the clock’s beeper go off during English class?
Maybe Ahmed planned that for attention (I never said he was perfect), or maybe it was a random occurrence – not sure why this is relevant.
>> Who has benefited the most from this story?
Well, perhaps you are suggesting that Ahmed was devious enough to plan for the end result of fame and funding, or that there was some broader conspiracy of the electronic illuminati*. But it’s hard to imagine that the experience of being handcuffed and questioned and taken away by police would have been anything but terrifying for the kid, regardless of how it came out in the end.
* We do illumination with multicoloured LEDs, and prefer to be called the e-luminati
SAWells: The quote refers to the teacher, not the police.
@Theo:
Thank you for your answer.
Indeed, everything I mentioned can be given a plausible-sounding explanation. But you should recognize that what you are doing is essentially the same a believer does when the miracle does not materialize: maybe God was angry, or I didn’t pray hard enough, or I wasn’t pointing directly to Mecca.
When are coincidences too many? I think in this case the number of coincidences is excessive:
– date of the events
– exterior appearance of the case
– components taken from a known commercial clock, put together in such a way that the main purpose of the clock (showing time) is defeated
– cables and transformer visible and accessible (and hazardous)
– beeper going off during an unrelated class
– advice to not show the clock around disregarded by the boy
– Ahmed’s statement to the effect that he tied a string on the case lock because it might look suspicious
To me it there are only three reasonable explanations for the events:
-Ahmed wanted to play a prank on his classmates and scare them with a fake bomb
-Ahmed was induced by his family to play the victim of racial discrimination and reap the benefits
-Ahmed was induced by his father to play the victim of racial discrimination in order to boost his (the father’s) public exposure.
Piero’s idea of “reasonable” is not like our Earth concept of reasonable.
@piero: What you call “reasonable” I call conspiracy theory aided by the common human propensity for detecting patterns where there are none.
With respect to your “only reasonable explanations”:
1) If the kid is smart enough to make a fake bomb, wouldn’t you think he would want to include something that looks like explosive (it would be so easy to make that using toilet paper tubes)
2/3) You are suggesting that the family would deliberately subject their child to something that had the probable result of emotional trauma at the very least, with a real potential for serious injury or fatality? Really? (And you think my explanations are implausible?)
@Theo:
Conspiracy theory? No, nothing so grand as that; I just took the hypotheses that better fit the facts. You, on the other hand, have not provided any good explanation for the amazing coincidences.
1. Making a fake bomb does not require a particularly talented kid. Indeed, any fool could make a “Hollywood prop”-type bomb with, as you say, toilet paper tubes. It takes a bit more cunning to make something that can look enough like a bomb to have the intended effect while at the same time having a plausible resemblance to “just a clock”. Obviously, if Ahmed had included the fake dynamite sticks he could not have claimed it was a mere clock. On the other hand, had he put the display outside the case, it would have been too much like a clock to scare anyone. Also, you conveniently omit from your analysys Ahmed’s own statement concerning the clock’s appearance. Tell me: why would a kid who has assembled a clock tie the case with string insted of using the case’s own lock because otherwise it would have looked suspicious? Why did he not modify the clock’s appearance, if he was aware of this? Why show it around even after being told he should put it away? Why did such a smart kid allow the beeper to go off in class?
2. Ahmed would not be the first nor, unfortunately, the last child to be used as a pawn in his/her parent’s power games. Perhaps you know about a few children who have blown themselves up. What makes you think that Ahmed’s family is beyond reproach in that area?
Of course, I know you won’t change your mind because the narrative you’ve chosen to believe is just too good to be true: why, here are these stupid privileged (probably white, cis and hetero too) teachers blaming a brown-skinned Muslim for bringing to school a science project! When the facts are shown not to fit the narrative, then no problem: just change the facts.
@piero
I’m with Theo on this. I haven’t seen anything that couldn’t be explained by youthful enthusiasm mixed with a 14 year old’s naivety. Maybe he wants to be the new Steve Wozniak. To head off any objections, Woz did not invent the circuit board or transistors in his garage, he took existing parts and arranged them to suit what he needed. The whole uproar about this event is becoming ridiculous.
@Vall:
I think you are missing the point. I’m not trying to establish whether Ahmed is or is not a bright kid. The point is that no 14 year-old of my acquaintance (including my daughter and myself at that age) could fail to realize that his clock looked like a bomb. Why then bring to school an item that was not requested by any school project, that had no original work of any kind put into it, that was suspicious-looking enough for a teacher to have advised the kid not to show him around and for Ahmed to tie it with a string to make it look more innocuous, and that Ahmed himself plugged in during Englih class, with the result thst the beeper went off and caught the English teacher’s attention?
Maybe your experience is different, but at 14 you have to be amazingly dumb to do all that. Perhaps it’s a cultural thing; I’m from Chile, and no Chilean in his/her right mind would regard Ahmed’s clock as anything but a bomb mock-up. It’s just obvious from looking at its picture.
Sorry for the mistakes in the post above:
“his clock” shoud be “his/her clock” (got carried away thinking of myself at age 14)
“show him around” should be “show it around”
“dumb to do all that” should be “dumb to do all tht unless you intended to”.
And just one more thing. Vall, you said:
“I haven’t seen anything that couldn’t be explained by youthful enthusiasm mixed with a 14 year old’s naivety”
That’s some naivety! But it is not really the point either. The Ptolemaic model was every bit as accurate as the Copernican one (actually more so initially), but the Copernican one fits Newtonian gravitation better. In other words, for any given set of facts there is an infinity of theories that explain them, but usually the more parsimonius one is right.
The bomb hoax theory is not the most parsimonious explanation.
piero, your two paragraphs @32 contradict each other. Vall’s hypothesis — explain it with a 14-year-old’s enthusiasm and naivety — is the most parsimonious answer, hands down, game over. Everything else is anomaly hunting. Or, better stated, overly-suspicious-fueled anomaly hunting. Unless you have some actual evidence that can’t more honestly be classified as paranoid speculation, you are really flailing here.
@piero
A lot of people are saying that the device that Ahmed assembled/reassembled/whatever looked like a bomb.
It didn’t look like a bomb to me. If I’d seen that picture without context, I would have interpreted it as a student’s electronics project. When I was in Uni I was mates with a bunch of electronics engineers that used to carry around stuff like that all the time when they were working on their assignments. And most tellingly, there’s no obvious charge.
People are calling Ahmed naive because he’s 14. But if Ahmed’s naive, so am I: It would not have occurred to me that anyone could look at some electronics in a case and immediately think ‘bomb’.
Granted, I live in New Zealand, and the lack of security-theatre-mainia over here may contribute. But the main reason I don’t see a bomb when I look at that device is because I have a passing familiarity with electronics… So I just see electronics.
The people who jump to the conclusion of ‘bomb’ do so because they don’t have a passing familiarity with electronics. They aren’t aware that the inside of that case looks pretty much exactly the same as the inside of every other electronic device with which they surround themselves daily. So it looks strange, and strange is frightening, so they jump to a frightening conclusion.
It wouldn’t occur to me to jump to that conclusion because electronics aren’t strange to me.
It is reasonable to believe that Ahmed would see things exactly the same way. He knows it’s just harmless electronics. It looks like harmless electronics. Why would anyone think it’s scary? It’s just electronics.
I accept that it’s true that no 14 year old of your acquaintance would be capable of accurately identifying harmless electronics, and I can even accept that every 14 year old of your acquaintance would leap to the erroneous, unjustified and ignorance-based conclusion that the device Ahmed created was a bomb. As have many adults.
I accept this because familiarity with electronics is not a commonly held skill.
But that doesn’t mean that Ahmed was malicious or purposeful or stupid or even naive when he failed to realize that many other people would leap to an erroneous conclusion. That can just be attributed to the curse of knowledge: Once you know something, it’s easy to forget that other people don’t know what you know.
There’s no reason yet presented to believe that Ahmed did anything wrong.
The people who did wrong were the police and school administrators who completely overreacted. I can understand them taking steps to ensure that the device was safe. But the moment they realized that the device was safe, given that Ahmed said all along that it was just a clock, that should have been the end of it.
If they hadn’t frogmarched the kid off in handcuffs, there’d be no scandal. And I believe that if Ahmed had been a white Christian named John Smith, this never would have happened.
Many accusations of Islamophobia are spurious attempts to shut down sound criticism of Islam. However, in this case, Islamophobia fits the bill perfectly. It’s the simplest explanation for how the police and school administration reacted. It wasn’t that they thought the device looked like a bomb. It was that they thought Ahmed looked like a bomb-maker. Because he’s brown and Muslim. Which was a disgusting example of racism and xenophobia.
No other explanation is needed. Your conspiracy mongering and attempts at poisoning the well for Ahmed are entirely moot.
Here’s a pencil box of the type Ahmed used. It’s not anywhere near as big as a briefcase, it’s the size of a thick trade paperback book, like an O’Reilly manual of 300 pages or so.
Scroll down a couple of screens and there’s a photo of it with an iPod for scale.
Now Dawkins is claiming that it would never get through the airport X-ray. I dunno—I’ve gone through bag screening with a laptop, an iPad, a smartphone, a bunch of charger cables and power supplies, headphones, batteries, a power strip in case the hotel doesn’t have enough outlets where I want them, etc. all crammed into my carry-on and never had the bag opened except for the time I had a little bitty Swiss Army Classic knife in there. I guess he still misses his little pot of hunny.
I’ve gone through airport security with a mess of wires and bare circuitboards cobbled together (homemade Raspberry Pi powered motor driver, still attached to a prototyping breadboard) in my carryon and TSA didn’t even ask me about it. If you’re the kind of person who thinks random electronics ‘looks like a bomb’, the thing I was carrying looked way sketchier than Ahmed’s clock. But I’m a 30 year old white guy so I don’t trigger suspicion.
piero, your questions are ridiculous:
“Why would someone interested in science and technology dismantle an existing clock and put it in a different case? What would be the point?”
The point is to dismantle it and put it back together. I’ve done it many times. I’ve done it with things that were broken just to see how they worked before they went to the trash. It’s a great way to learn, and really interesting if you’re into that kind of thing.
“Why would someone choose a case that mimicks a birefcase?”
Because it was available.
“Why would someone want to build a clock whose face remains hidden?”
Because the purpose wasn’t to build a useful clock, it was to take the thing apart and play. It doesn’t matter if it’s ultimately less useful than the original item. Personal anecdote again, I’ve spent days working on hacking an e-reader to get to the base Android operating system so I could use it for more than just reading, only to realize when I finished that I didn’t actually WANT to use it for anything other than reading and it was better at that before I started, so I reset it to factory specs. It’s ‘this seems interesting, let’s see if I can do that and make it work’.
“Why would someone build a clock that needs low-voltage DC and leave an AC transofrmer that represents a hazard?”
Because he didn’t want to remove a part if he didn’t know what it was or whether it was needed? And you’ve obviously never spent time around people who like to make things if you think leaving something dangerous exposed is suspicious.
“Why was the kid told by a teacher not to show the closk around?”
Who cares? You’re talking about the teacher’s motivations now, not the kid’s.
“Why did the clock’s beeper go off during English class?”
You’ve never hear someone’s alarm go off in the middle of a class or meeting when they didn’t expect it, because they set it wrong or forgot to turn it off? It happens all the time.
“Who has benefited the most from this story?”
The reactionary right using it as an opportunity to whip up their base with wild conspiracy theories, would be my guess.
I’m sorry to say that I’m beginning to agree with Piero (and even Dawkins!) about all this.
I was quite upset when I first heard about the incident. It all seemed so black (well, “brown”) and white. But I’m beginning to see that Ahmed was either a misguided prankster or hugely naive for a 14-year-old (I was a university undergraduate before my 17th birthday). My brother was a big customer of Heathkit and Dynaco so I am not unfamiliar with electronic innards and what I see is nothing that “looks” like a clock. Where is the “clock” face (digital or analog)? Isn’t the point of a clock to tell time? Ahmed’s English teacher told him to put the thing away for evident reasons. He didn’t. The alarm went off. In today’s climate I can no longer see the incident as a simple case of “islamophobia”.
This Daily Beast article echoes what I now feel:
For some electronics experts, Mohamed’s windfall is unfair to students that actually invent things. Bryan Bergeron, an author of electronics books and editor in chief of the magazine Nuts & Volts, said that Mohamed’s project “would be ‘cute’ for someone age 7. But even then, not ‘inventive.’” “The problem with giving this 14-year-old—whom I have nothing against; I really know very little of him—kudos for being inventive, is that there are tens of thousands of 11-year-olds out there actually designing circuits, building them from scratch and ‘innovating,’” Bergeron told The Daily Beast.
Bergeron said Mohamed’s special treatment was “political” and in reaction to the public backlash over the teen’s arrest, an idea that will probably not be disputed by anyone following the story—Mohamed has received more attention than other young inventors because he was put in cuffs and other young inventors were not. Bergeron continues, “This treatment does a big disservice to the tens of thousands of pre-teens out there doing REAL innovative things with electronics and technology.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/nerds-rage-over-ahmed-s-clock.html
Well he was put in cuffs, so I think the special treatment is a good thing. I don’t think it does a disservice to the kids who don’t get it, because it’s not about that.
Shorter Helene: WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE WHITE CHILDREN?!!!!!
@Screechy Monkey
You get bonus points for making me read that in the voice of Helen Lovejoy. :P
Screechy Monkey,
Not that it should matter, but (if you had read some of my comments when Ophelia was still on FreethoughtBlogs)…
1. I am brown.
2. I am an ex-Muslim (who once wore a hijab).
And, again, not that it should matter, I ran my comment by my (equally brown) brother and he concurs.
@Helene: You ask “where is the clock face?” Well, it’s a digital clock, and all the photos I have seen show a bank of large 7-segment LED digits prominent at the top of the lid.
As for Ahmed, I don’t think anyone is saying that he is over the top exceptionally brilliant (I’m certainly not saying that) – for me, I’ve spend a fair amount of time simply explaining how (and why) a reasonably bright boy or girl would think of making such a device.
Helene, quoting article:
Ophelia Benson
I’d go further than Ophelia.
I think that the special treatment aimed at Ahmed does a service to all the young tinkerers and innovators out there. If the way in which Ahmed was mistreated were to be tolerated, that precedent have a chilling effect on tinkering and innovating by other young people. Particularly by non-white young people.
The strong show of support across from so many prominent individuals sends a very strong and encouraging message to counter the one that would have existed in the absence of such support.
The Daily Beast is basically pulling a Kayne West Objection: Yo, Ahmed, I’m really happy for you, I’ma let you finish, but these other innovators have the best inventions of all time! The best of all time!
Like PieterB said above in #36, Ahmed’s case was a Vaultz pencil box. The page I linked shows they look like fun for schoolboys and schoolgirls. Last week in a parallel universe a white blonde schoolgirl was handcuffed and taken for fingerprinting for putting clock parts in a pencil case with a pink pony on it.
Seriously, I can understand some people feeling worried about the device and calling the police, but then:
• The school authorities knew it was not a bomb because they waited with Ahmed and his clock for the police to come.
• The police knew it was not a bomb because they drove Ahmed and his clock to the police station.
The people who arrested Ahmed knew it was not a bomb, they were just giving him shit.
Helene,
You’re right. It shouldn’t matter. And doesn’t.
When you hear about some kid with cancer getting a visit from his favorite baseball player, do you stamp your feet and demand to know why all the other kids who are much more knowledgeable about baseball than the stupid cancer kid aren’t getting personalized visits? Did you demand to know whether Batkid knows what happened in Detective Comics #325? Hint: it’s not the fucking point.
As Ophelia, Theo, and Daniel have all explained to you, Ahmed isn’t being rewarded for being the Smartest Kid Ever, or the Best Young Scientist Ever! People are reaching out to him and offering him internships, visits to the White House, etc. as a way of saying “sorry for how you were treated. But those assholes in Irvine, Texas don’t speak for the rest of us.” They’re praising his interest in science or offering science-related rewards BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT HE LIKES.
Screechy Monkey,
You have a nice way of (deliberately?) misreading my comment.
I am entirely in favor of encouraging tinkering. Especially among brown kids. But I am beginning to wonder if there is more to Ahmed’s “clock” than simple “tinkering”. If Ahmed was concerned enough about the project looking “suspicious” to tie its case shut with a cord, why would he have continued to keep it in class against his teacher’s orders? And have left the alarm on? It just doesn’t add up. There are far more innocent and less “suspicious” ways of demonstrating his interest in electronics.
If that’s all it was. (It would also be helpful if someone could come up with some previous project that Ahmed built.)
@Helene
This is a pet peeve of mine, Helene. So forgive me if I’m getting pedantic.
You’ve said that Screechy Monkey has misread your comment. But you haven’t been clear about what Screechy specifically said that was a misreading.
Vague accusations of ‘misreading’ and ‘misrepresentation’ of that form annoy the crap out of me. Their vagueness mean that they don’t actually make a concrete case. And because they don’t make a concrete case, there’s nothing that anyone can actually say to counter them.
If you could refer to something specific that Screechy said (by quoting them) and also refer to something specific that you yourself said earlier that counters what Screechy said, then talk about those two quotes a bit, then that would lend your claim of being misread substance.
Right now, to my most fair reading, Screechy seems to have you bang to rights. I’m not deliberately trying to misread you or anything. That is genuinely how it seems to me.
So, to this reader, your claim that Screechy has misread you seems utterly without substance.
Oh Daniel,
I’m so sorry for “annoying the crap” out of you.
Against my better judgment… I’ll try to spell it out in block letters:
Ahmed wasn’t praised for his ingenuity (it seems clear there was none) but because he was a poor downtrodden brown kid bullied by big bad “islamophobic” rednecks. He is the equivalent of the kid with cancer.
Well, he may be brown (and Muslim), but he is (materially and otherwise) a very privileged kid and needs nobody’s condescension. He was apparently well integrated in his school, not bullied, etc. It was his publicity savvy father (twice a candidate for the presidency of Sudan) who brought the whole matter to the attention of the press. Had Ahmed been a white kid named Chris in similar circumstances I doubt very much he’d be invited to Washington. Of course, you might then argue that he wouldn’t have been arrested by the police but there are elements of the entire affair that are – to borrow Ahmed’s own word – a bit “suspicious”.
More than a bit, in fact.
Helene,
You quoted with approval (saying it echoes what you now feel) this part of a Daily Beast article:
In other words, it’s so unfair to all the OTHER kids out there that Ahmed gets an invite to the White House and they don’t. As if this is that “reverse racism” that conservatives whine about: lucky minority Ahmed gets this special treatment, what about all the kids out there who REALLY deserve it.
So I think that “won’t someone think of the white children” is a fair — if snarky — summary of that view. If that’s not what you were trying to communicate, then perhaps you shouldn’t quote right-wing talking points quite so glowingly.
And your subsequent comments aren’t any better. You’re all over the map, logically:
Ah, so tying the case shut, is suspicious because it looks like he’s hiding something. Ok.
By the way, can you direct me to an account that says a teacher ordered him not to keep it in class? All the versions I have read said merely that the engineering teacher said not to SHOW it to any other teachers, not that he shouldn’t have it in his backpack.
And leaving the alarm on is suspicious because it means he wasn’t hiding anything. Uh….something doesn’t add up here, all right, but it’s not Ahmed’s reasoning. Your own “grounds” for suspicion are contradictory.
DUN DUN DUN!!!!
Ooo, what else do you think it was?
By the way, if you think that Ahmed was out to create a bomb hoax, or to “trap” the idiot school officials into overreacting, why do you think he would start by showing the thing to the one teacher (engineering) MOST LIKELY TO REALIZE THAT IT’S NOT A FUCKING BOMB? How does THAT fit into your musing, Sherlock?
Which way would that cut?
If Ahmed has never done any such projects before, does that make you:
1) MORE suspicious, because clearly he’s not REALLY interested in this stuff; or
2) LESS suspicious, because now his not-terribly innovative “invention” is more understandable.
And if it turns out he has done similar projects before, does that make you:
1) MORE suspicious, because clearly he’s been trying to pull something like this off, and OBVIOUSLY added the alarm this time to be sure he got caught; or
2) LESS suspicious, because it’s consistent with the he likes to tinker explanation.
Are you willing to commit yourself to a position now, or would you like to wait for whatever “dirt” Breitbart and The Daily Beast dig up and then adapt your theory to fit?
@Helene
I asked you to quote what Screechy Monkey specifically said that you think is a misreading of what you wrote.
You said you’d spell that out for me in block letters. But you didn’t.
Hi Screechy, let’s see how you distort this:
“There are thousands of truly ingenious brown kids who don’t have Ahmed’s dad to handle press relations and will never get invited to Washington.”
I don’t need to distort anything. I’m happy to let your contempt for a father who stands up for constitutional rights speak for itself.
By the way, I note you didn’t answer any of my questions.
Do you acknowledge the contradiction between your claims that it’s suspicious that the case was closed, and simultaneously suspicious that the alarm was on?
If Ahmed was “up to something,” why did he show the clock to the one teacher most likely to know it wasn’t a bomb?
Is it more suspicious or less, in your mind, if Ahmed has built projects before?
@Helene
You condescended at me by telling me you’d address my concerns in block capital letters. But you didn’t. You didn’t quote Screechy Monkey specifically to show where and how he misread you. You just asserted that he misread you, without justification.
Screechy Monkey is correct that you have been ignoring their questions.
You’re presenting things very very vaguely. You’re avoiding tying yourself down with anything specific.
Specifically, look at your use of language here:
So you think there’s something “susupicious” going on. But you’re not actually being specific and clear about what’s going on. Also: Note how I have quoted you specifically as an example to make the focus of my criticism clear – this is Argumentation 101.
You are going out of your way to speak as vaguely and non-specifically as possible. Then you are complaining about being misread. These two things are directly linked.
I think you speak vaguely because you lack confidence in the substance of your argument. By speaking vaguely, you can shift your argument around any criticism and claim to have been misread. You continue to ignore questions for clarity and elaboration, and just persist in a torrent of formless vague threat.
You’re also coming off disingenuous. Two examples this time:
You sure as hell don’t sound particularly sorry. I understand you’re being sarcastic or hyperbolic or whatever. But it continues your general pattern of dancing around the issue rather than stating your position clearly.
You think there is something suspicious going on. Something like this: You think that Ahmed decided ahead of time to create an electronic device that would be convincing enough to be mistaken for a bomb to get him arrested, but not convincing enough to actually pass for a bomb. Or maybe you think Ahmed’s father put him up to it? Or they worked on it together?
See, it’s already unclear what you actually think, because you won’t spell it out.
And you think that in turn they did all of this because they forsaw support from President Obama, Zuckerberg, and invitations to visit NASA.
So you think Ahmed willingly put himself in a position to be arrested then later released… Or you think his father put him up to it… Or you think they were in it together… Or something. All for this rather tenuous payoff that, while it may have earned Ahmed his 15 minutes of fame and some good networking contacts, doesn’t really amount to anything all that huge.
And you think they did this in a context and country in which the police have been known to shoot non-white people without warning just because they’re holding a plastic gun, and that the possible risk to Ahmed’s life from the police…
All for what? A big pat on the head, before the news cycle moves on and Ahmed goes back to being some obscure kid again?
No matter how I try to frame your argument in my head, it always comes out sounding disjointed and ridiculous.
Therefore, I presume that the framing in my head is wrong, and you’d argue it is a misreading of what your argument actually is.
However, because you won’t be clear about what your argument actually is, it follows that the rest of us are going to be stuck trying to piece it together.
I am occasionally prone to arrogance, but let’s put that to bed right now. Let us both assume that I am completely ignorant, but that I am doing my best to understand your argument, and thus far have been unable to do so. The only thing that I know is that I know nothing.
Teach me how to read, Helene. Be clear, and tell me what your argument actually is, in such a way that it isn’t vague and stands a fair chance of actually being understood by a fair-minded reader. Because you’ve not done that yet.
Also: Actually giving some straight answers to the questions you’ve been asked wouldn’t hurt either.
Daniel above, FWIW I think you’re adumbrated Helene’s point adequately; in short, the suspicion that it was a publicity-seeking stunt rather than an unexpected outcome.
Does it matter even if it were? Not really: Known events remain the same and appear to be kabuki security.
(Intent ain’t magic and all that)
Why did Ahmed climb the mountain?
Because it was there, or to secure a better vantage point to witness the final stage of his nefarious plan?
One thing that is odd to me is the presentation by some of the people of 14-year-olds. Yes, there are 14-year-olds out there that would “know” this was a bad idea, and there are 14-year-olds out there who wouldn’t. As for invention (the word Ahmed used), I remember being 14 (though it was many, many years ago) and thinking my thoughts were original, and that no one ever thought them before. I was “discovering” something! I had great ideas that needed to be listened to! That’s really because we don’t know all that much yet, we are still learning, and our experiences aren’t that broad. Then, as we grow older, we learn that all those wonderful thoughts on saving the earth, or making new inventions, or whatever, were actually old hat to the adults around us, ,which is why they weren’t as impressed with our ideas as we were.
And 14-year-olds can veer from genius to incoherence so fast it will make your head spin. They are still young, and still developing.
Which some people understand at some level, which is why they bring in the nefarious father. Now we’ve got an adult brain manipulating and using him, so we can overcome the objections that 14-year-olds might just think this was an invention, be proud of it, and not realize the possible consequences. Sounds like special pleading to me. Show me some evidence that the father planned this (other than the father getting outraged about his son’s treatment; that simply is acting like almost any father would in the circumstances). Evidence for your contentions? None. Speculation? Lots.
Without evidence, this looks to me just like the thousands of “coincidences” around the Kennedy assassination, the “coincidences” around vaccinations causing autism, and not like actually anything but “I don’t understand how there could be so many coincidences, so there couldn’t be so many coincidences”. This is an argument from ignorance, and as such has a lot of limitations (and Dawkins should know better; he’s been arguing AGAINST this type of argumentation for years).
Helene @49: “He was apparently well integrated in his school, not bullied, etc.”
I’m stunned that with all the detail you’ve accumulated about Ahmed Mohamed that you came to that conclusion. Very early on in the kerfuffle he stated the opposite.
I think this discussion has become unnecessarily confused with the introduction of several side issues which do not really contribute to establish what happened.
I’ll list some facts that apparently are not as well-known as I though they were.
1. Ahmed was not arrested; he was detained. If you think that’s nit-picking, think again, because it does make a huge difference, especially to the child’s perception of the incident.
2. Ahmed was not detained for carrying a bomb or even for suspicion of carrying a bomb. As Dave has already mentioned, everybody, the police in particular, knew full well it was not a bomb. Ahmed was detained for possession of a device that might cause alarm, which is also punishable under Texas law. However much anybody might disagree with that law, it is still the law, and the teachers and police involved in the incident were bound by it. Therefore, Dave’s comment to the effect that “the people who arrested Ahmed knew it was not a bomb, they were just giving him shit” misses the point. By some miles. It has been established beyond doubt that Ahmed himself thought the clock looked suspicious; you can listen to Ahmed himself saying as much in one interview (widely available on YouTube in several iterations).
3. A 14-year-old is not, as some people here apparently believe, a complete idiot. If you take the time to google “developmental psychology” you will no doubt come across some interesting facts concerning discernment, moral responsibility, capacity for abstraction and language. A 14-year-old, especially one who – according to some comments here – shows such a remarkable degree of interest in science and technology, knows exactly what an invention is, and how to distinguish it from repackaging or merely fiddling around with components. A 14-year-old today has access to tons of information, knows about the legal wrangling between Apple and Samsung, knows that some Chinese manufacturers have copied both Samsung’s and Apple’s designs, and so on. Of course, it could still be argued that Ahmed did not use the word properly, and that to him it meant “make”; at the price of making Ahmed seem either an extremely immature or a not very bright kid. Somewhat related is musubk’s point that “the point is to dismantle it and put it back together”; I agree, it can be a useful and fun thing to do; the only problem is that Ahmed did not even do that, but merely took the clock innards and put them in another case. That’s neither fun nor useful. As someone has remarked, what Ahmed did “would be cute for a 7 year-old”.
4. The policemen who detained Ahmed have described his attitude during the questioning as “passive aggressive”. It should be said (though I wish it shouldn’t be) that one of the officers was black.
5. No other details are known about Ahmed’s interrogation because his father has not consented to their disclosure.
6. A clock is not a set of components thrown together in a box, just as a car is not an engine and four wheels wrapped in cellophane. Thus, to say that “Ahmed was arrested for bringing a clock to school” is simply a lie: first because he was not arrested, and second because what he brought to school was not a clock. But then the headline “Ahmed detained for bringing to school the electronic components of a clock inside a case” has no real punch; it could actually force people to think a bit before rushing to conclusions, and as we all know, most people like their conclusions to be arrived at by others on their behalf, so that no thinking is required.
7. The “clock” has been named as a bomb by 14 adults I’ve shown its picture to (including myself). When I have pointed out that in fact it is a dismantled clock thrown inside a different case by a schoolboy, most of them asked: “Why would anyone want to do that? That kid is asking for trouble.”
8. The fact that the clock was not a bomb is wholly irrelevant. When someone is scared by a device that looks suspicious, the last thing they will do is get closer for a careful assessment. What is relevant is that it resembled a bomb enough to make at least one of Ahmed’s teachers recommend that he did not show it around. This point seems to have flown over the head of some. Someone even retorted: “Who cares? You’re talking about the teacher’s motivations now, not the kid’s.” Obviously, I am not in the least interested in the teacher’s motivations, but in the fact that the device looked enough like a bomb for one of Ahmed’s teachers to advise him against showing it to others.
9. The teacher who advised Ahmed not to show the clock around was, as Screechy Monkey astutely noted, “the one teacher most likely to know it wasn’t a bomb”. I don’t really know what to make of this comment, because it only makes sense if Screechy was defending Ahmed against the charge of actually carrying a bomb to school. It has been established that Ahmed was not detained for that reason, so I fail to see its relevance. Unless, of course, Screechy’s reasoning goes something like this:
a. Ahmed knowingly carried the bomb-clock to school in order to create alarm
b. If he intended to do that, it would have defeated his purpose to show it first to the teacher who was most likely to know it was not a bomb.
The above would only make any sense if we add the premise “And the teacher concerned would immediately contact everybody else in school that day and one by one tell them: ‘Oh, by the way, what Ahmed is carrying is not really a bomb'”.
I leave the conclusion to the reader as an exercise.
Miscellaneous points:
-““Why would someone choose a case that mimicks a briefcase?”
-Because it was available.”
Maybe. Its, however, rather unlikely. I’m sure there are plenty of boxes and containers in any household that are more suitable and cheaper and easier to attach the components of a clock to. Unless you are not very bright and want to put the display inside because… well, I cannot think of a reason dumb enough. Or because the case just looks right, just as they show them in the movies.
-““Why would someone want to build a clock whose face remains hidden?”
-Because the purpose wasn’t to build a useful clock, it was to take the thing apart and play.”
Wrong again, musubk. Obviously Ahmed also had the purpose of bringing it to school and showing it around. Unless he was an exceedingly conceited or extremely silly boy, he wouldn’t have shown it to the technically savvy teacher in order to be praised, because he must have known he wouldn’t get it for such a hackjob. So why show it to the teachers, and why keep showing it even after having been told he shouldn’t? So far no answer has been forthcoming.
Anyway, as I said, I do not expect, nor would I want, to convince anyone who takes his/her conclusions pre-digested. It is, however, an interesting exercise to watch the loony left in action, and the degree to which their logical contortions mimick the worst creationist hogwash. Keep at it.
piero @60, I see you’re sticking with the unevidenced paranoid speculation instead of the parsimonious answer. And everyone else is loony, huh? That’s rich.
piero,
Please enlighten us on what you think is the material difference between “detained” and “arrested.” Legal citations would be appreciated. Was he or was he not deprived of his liberty, handcuffed, and interrogated without parents or counsel present?
Gosh, a cop didn’t like the “attitude” of someone who they questioned for hours but failed to charge with a crime? Golly. Better lock that kid up before he gets any funny notions about having legal rights.
You and the 14 adults you showed the picture to must be absolute fucking morons. Bear in mind that even the Irvine Police Department and D.A.’s office didn’t think they could make a legal charge stick here.
The point I was making about showing the clock to the engineering teacher was in response to Helene, who (although it’s hard to tell exactly what she’s been saying, given the evasiveness Daniel has noted) appeared to be peddling the “Ahmed was trying to get himself arrested” conspiracy theory, in which case it makes no sense to show it to the teacher least likely to overreact. Sorry, I can only deal with one paranoid idiot theory at a time.
Speaking of people spouting obviously contradictory nonsense: how can you simultaneously claim that (1) you and 14 other adults thought this thing was a bomb; and (2) it was an obvious hackjob that even a naive 14-year-old couldn’t possibly think was worth showing his teacher?
And why do I suspect that if Ahmed’s father consents to the release of the interrogation details — and don’t worry, they’ll all come out in the civil lawsuit — you’ll revert to accusing him of exploiting his son for publicity?
Instead of doing the Just Asking Questions routine that we rightly mock 9/11 Truthers for, why don’t you just come out and detail for us your nefarious theory of What Ahmed Was Really Up To (which appears to be: he was intentionally trying to create a bomb scare, risking criminal conviction and expulsion from school, in the hopes of … getting some praise on Twitter?), and we can organize a debate between you and Helene while the rest of us settle in with some popcorn?
piero –
Reference? If that really is a Texas law, it would allow the cops to arrest anyone for anything, because any device might cause alarm.
Aha, I see it.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150916/18421332279/how-texas-law-enforcement-can-legally-turn-digital-clock-into-criminal-charges.shtml
It’s a ridiculously overbroad law.
Piero, I am pretty certain that nobody here has stated that a 14-year-old is a complete idiot. What we have said is that a 14-year-old might be somewhat naive. This is a true statement. At 14, the brain is still developing, the life experiences are still limited, and it is totally possible for a 14-year-old to think they have “invented” something when it has not been invented at all, but just tinkered with. I frequently hear similar words used by much older individuals (like my 80-year-old father) in much the same way. Very few people are totally precise in their use of language, and might use a word the wrong way, whether 14 or 80. Saying that is not saying “A 14-year-old is a complete idiot”. In other words, I’m suggesting that you did the same thing Ahmed did – used language imprecisely.
piero @60:
“Maybe. Its, however, rather unlikely. I’m sure there are plenty of boxes and containers in any household that are more suitable and cheaper and easier to attach the components of a clock to.”
When did you perform this survey of the materials available in Ahmed’s room?
Are you really not getting this? The price or ease to obtain a case like this is irrelevant if he had one lying around that he either 1. Wasn’t using for anything else, or 2. Just liked a lot so he wanted to use it.
I can’t believe you’re still trying to argue it makes no sense to put the display inside the case. I think you’re just being muleish because you don’t want to admit your reasons are grasping at straws.
“Wrong again, musubk. Obviously Ahmed also had the purpose of bringing it to school and showing it around.”
‘Also’ is inclusive; even if you’re right right that this was his intended purpose from the very beginning, it doesn’t exclude ‘he just wanted to take it apart and play’ as a reason. And anyway, showing it off is part of the playing.
“Unless he was an exceedingly conceited or extremely silly boy, he wouldn’t have shown it to the technically savvy teacher in order to be praised, because he must have known he wouldn’t get it for such a hackjob.”
Why? It doesn’t have to be brilliant to be worth showing off. Maybe he found electronics interesting and wanted to get noticed by the engineering teacher he looked up to, but he didn’t have much hands on experience with electronics so he built it to the best of his limited ability. Maybe he thought steampunky electronics were just cool even if it wasn’t ‘difficult’ to build. Maybe he was just a weird kid.
You’re so invested in this wild conspiracy, and you’re calling the rest of us loons.
The kid was arrested.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/arrest-vs-detention-how-tell-whether-you-ve-been-arrested-simply-detained.html
If young Ahmed’s nefarious plan was to create a bomb scare, then he failed pretty spectacularly.
If he’d wanted to create a hoax bomb, Ahmed could have ditched that cool circuit board and foregone the tinkering. All he needed was the pencil case/briefcase, or an old suitcase, or a brown paper package. Any of those things, left in some central area, would cause concern.
Of course, if he’d wanted to create a hoax bomb, he probably wouldn’t have marched up to a teacher, first thing, and said, “Look at this clock!” About a gadget that, billy-be-damned, turned out to be just what he said it was!
@Ophelia:
“It’s a ridiculously overbroad law.”
I concur. It is, neverheless, the law.
@musubk:
“When did you perform this survey of the materials available in Ahmed’s room?”
I did not say “Ahmed’s room” but “Ahmed’s household”. If we accept that Ahmed is just a regular kid, then he lives in a household where boxes are not precisely scarce. I would estimate the ratio of “briefcase-lookalikes” to “unremarkable containers” at about 50:1.
@musubk:
“he built it to the best of his limited ability”
You are now saying that Ahmed is not very bright. What is the basis for your assumption?
@Lady Mondegreen:
“If young Ahmed’s nefarious plan was to create a bomb scare, then he failed pretty spectacularly.”
Of course. But he wasn’t. As I said before, there are three possible explanations:
1-Ahmed wanted to play a prank on his classmates and scare them with a fake bomb (which is certainly not the same as “creating a bomb scare”.)
2-Ahmed was induced by his family to play the victim of racial discrimination and reap the benefits
3-Ahmed was induced by his father to play the victim of racial discrimination in order to boost his (the father’s) public exposure.
In view of recent developments, such as the setting-up of a fund by Ahmed’s family in order to receive donations, it appears that 2 is the most likely one.
“I would estimate the ratio of “briefcase-lookalikes” to “unremarkable containers” at about 50:1.”
This assumes that (i) the case is a “briefcase lookalike”, which it isn’t, it’s just a small case with a handle; (ii) that a briefcase-like object is not an “unremarkable container”, which it is, I carry things in my unremarkable briefcase every day; and (iii) that it makes more sense to carry things in cases that don’t have handles rather than cases which do, which is just idiotic. Honestly, a person put something he wanted to carry into a small box with a handle on it, and you have managed to turn this into evidence of sinister intent. I estimate the ratio of “actual facts” to “paranoid speculation” in your writing at about 50:1.
A minor but remarkable point in this controversy is the Vaultz pencil box does not have a handle (as our links above at #36 and #45 show). I’m fascinated how the image of a briefcase — implicitly with a handle — has become widespread in people’s minds, despite the photographic evidence, or maybe even based on the photographic evidence.
piero @ 69 –
That’s an annoyingly glib and curt response. I didn’t say it wasn’t. My point was, with a law that overbroad, how can anyone even know how to obey it? Anything might cause alarm, so it’s unclear how to proceed, for everyone.
@Ophelia:
“Anything might cause alarm, so it’s unclear how to proceed, for everyone.”
Precisely. That’s why I think the policemen had little choice: they are more or less forced to err on the side of caution, and treat practically everything as a potential threat or potential alarm.
@musubk:
“You’re so invested in this wild conspiracy, and you’re calling the rest of us loons.”
@SAWells:
“I estimate the ratio of “actual facts” to “paranoid speculation” in your writing at about 50:1.”
@Screechy Monkey:
“[…]why don’t you just come out and detail for us your nefarious theory of What Ahmed Was Really Up To (which appears to be: he was intentionally trying to create a bomb scare, risking criminal conviction and expulsion from school, in the hopes of … getting some praise on Twitter?)”
I am not defending the hypothesis of a conspiracy. What I am claiming is that the episode warrants a cautious response. I am not 100% certain that Ahmed, or his family, or his father, planned the whole thing, but in my view there are a number of pointers in that direction. I might be completely wrong, and will be the first to admit it on the face of contrary evidence. The reaction of the press and many left-leaning bloggers – including Ophelia, I’m afraid – was an overly enthusiastic appropriation of the “Boy arrested for making a clock” narrative in what I regard as an irrational manner.
@iknklast:
“In other words, I’m suggesting that you did the same thing Ahmed did – used language imprecisely.”
I beg to differ. Not only did I use language precisely, I conveyed exactly what I meant, namely “A 14-year-old is not, as some people here apparently believe, a complete idiot.” So we disagree on that point, and on the more substantial one of the intellectual abilities and moral discernement that can be expected of a 14-year-old. Nevertheless I thank you for your response: it was civil and informative, though unconvincing.
piero @74. Forgive me; you were saying exactly what you mean. You simply weren’t accurately assessing what the rest of us said, as we have not said that a 14-year-old is a complete idiot. To suggest that a 14-year-old brain is not fully mature is fully in line with the science, and is not the same thing as saying that a 14-year-old is a complete idiot. Those are two totally different concepts.
No one I meet, including myself, uses language precisely at all times. Saying “invent” is very common in situations where the person saying it hasn’t actually invented anything new, just as “theory” is often mistakenly used when one means “hypothesis”. Since I rarely see adults with fully matured brains and reams of life experiences using language so precisely at all times, I do not think that suggesting a 14-year-old boy might also use language in a somewhat less than precise manner is at all extraordinary or in opposition to what is known about 14-year-old brains.
As someone who spends my entire career teaching teenage and young adults, I find that the behavior exhibited by Ahmed is not at all suspicious. His use of language and his behavior is similar to that which I would observe in my 20-year-old students on many occasions, though not in all circumstances, as individuals vary in their mannerisms, their attitudes, and their use of language. Since the human brain does not fully mature until 25, I think you are mistaken in assuming that someone 11 years younger than that would use sophisticated, precise language all the time.
I hope you are able to revisit your assumptions, and take a closer look at what everyone here is saying, as many of the posters are making a lot of sense.
piero @73: “That’s why I think the policemen had little choice: they are more or less forced to err on the side of caution, and treat practically everything as a potential threat or potential alarm.”
That is utter nonsense. Remember, their own actions demonstrate that they did NOT view the device as a potential bomb, so there was no issue of public safety. Nor do they have to treat every incident of stuff-that-isn’t-a-bomb-but-some-excitable-idiot-might-think-it-was as a potential violation of a vague and overbroad statute. Police are entitled, and indeed expected, to exercise judgment and discretion. They don’t pull over every driver who is one mile over the speed limit.
and @74: “What I am claiming is that the episode warrants a cautious response.”
What has been incautious about the response of the “I stand with Ahmed” folks?
Have the dreaded “online lynch mobs” been hanging people again? Have witches been hunted down and burned at the stake? Has Ahmed been issued a top secret security clearance and handed the nuclear launch codes?
Or is it just that some people have offered sympathy and praise to a 14-year-old boy who was handcuffed and interrogated in violation of his legal rights by officials in a community with a well-documented record of bigotry against Muslims?
Me, I think arresting and interrogating the kid was “incautious,” to put it mildly — it did real harm to an actual person, while saying “nice clock” or “I stand with you” or “sorry about the way you were treated” is not really a big deal — even if the loony conspiracy theories prove true, what has been lost? What is the appropriate level of “caution” to exercise before saying something nice to a kid who’s been through a tough experience?
Like, if you bump into someone on the sidewalk apparently by accident, do you say “pardon me,” or do you need to do a detailed investigation first to confirm that the other person didn’t deliberately step in your path? My gosh, what if your “sorry about that” proved to be unnecessary? You’ll never get it back!!!!
Sorry, one additional thought to the last post:
Conversely, shouldn’t one be a LOT more cautious before engaging in innuendo about potential criminal conspiracies and fraud and hoaxes? Or is it all ok as long as you phrase it as a “possibility” rather than a direct accusation? Are Glenn Beck-style tactics (“I’m not saying that Barack Obama is a Kenyan socialist Muslim plotting to herd us all into FEMA death camps, I’m just saying we should investigate the possibility”) really A-OK?
Piero,
Kudos for your patience. Mine has run out. Some people here seem to have too much invested in the “poor brilliant black kid picked on by islamophobic rednecks” narrative to tolerate the possibility that far from being an “invention” the disassembled clock was merely a stunt. I first heard of the incident after Obama’s invitation and I shared the popular outrage, but as more details emerged it seemed to me that at some level there was manipulation involved. I read that Ahmed’s dad had threatened a lawsuit. Let’s see if he goes through with it.
” I read that Ahmed’s dad had threatened a lawsuit. Let’s see if he goes through with it.”
What conclusions will you draw from that decision?
If he doesn’t, it will strengthen my suspicions. If he does I will gladly allow the courts to dispel them. But for some squealing primates, I suppose it’ll always be: “Who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”
@iknklast:
Once again, I’m grateful for your response. I must say at this point that my whole working life was spent as a secondary school teacher and university lecturer. I am also a father. So I know teens and young adults pretty well. Perhaps, as I said in an earlier comment, it’s a matter of culture: we Chileans are a sly bunch. I could tell you some stories involving Chileans, Greeks and the university library, but I won’t because it’s embarrassing.
Anyway, I don’t think it matters that much, really: whether he was being dishonest or merely careless in calling the device an “invention” is a side issue which is not essential for my argument. Just to be clear, I’m not interested in exposing Ahmed as a fraud, nor in any way trying to disparage him. If you have a look at the three possibilities I’ve listed as explanations for the events, none of them attributes malicious intent to the kid. That’s why I stressed that a prank is not in the same league as a bomb scare: if he was trying to play a prank on his classmates, it certainly would not make him a terrorist or a criminal.
That said, it seems to me that he was following a script, and not one of his making. Amongst other reasons, because on Real Time (Bill Maher’s programme) a guy called Mark Cuban said he had talked with Ahmed over the phone and could hear his sister giving him the answers. I know nothing about this Mark Cuban guy other than he is billed on the programme as an entrepreneur, so I have no reason to believe he was lying, nor can I think of any reason for him to lie. Perhaps other commenters, or yourself, have more information on who this guy is and whether it is a good idea to trust him. The segment I’m referring to starts at 1:08 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGit-XltUB4
@Screechy Monkey:
“Remember, their own actions demonstrate that they did NOT view the device as a potential bomb, so there was no issue of public safety”
I know. I have said so several times already. I know there was no bomb scare, and I know the police knew it, and I also know the teachers knew it. As I also said before, Ahmed was not arrested (after giving the matter some thought I’m starting to agree with Lady Mondegreen) for having a bomb, but a device that could cause alarm. If you leave unattended in the airport a bag full of dirty socks, you will be charged with causing alarm even after it has been conclusively shown to contain only dirty socks. Because it can cause alarm. Because people do not know it contains only dirty socks. Just as someone may be alarmed at the sight of Ahmed’s clock, because it looks suspicious and not at all like a clock, And Ahmed himself says as much in this video, starting at 1:30:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mW4w0Y1OXE
“What has been incautious about the response of the “I stand with Ahmed” folks?”
For a start, AHmed’s teachers and the policemen involved have been accused of bigotry, racism, Islamophobia and general moral turpitude. Then there’s the effect on Ahmed. You may thnk that being the object of so much good will and attention can only be good; I think it is bad, as in really, really bad. Think about the message he is getting from the media and from bloggers: you are a genius; you were the victim of white cis hetero WASP Christian privilege; because you were victimized, now all the doors are open to you. Well, unfortunately there is a thing called reality which has a way of showing us how wrong we are in judging our own abilities, and Ahmed is bound to crash int it sooner or later; and worse still, he has learnt that the victim card pays.
Helene,
Thank you for finally committing yourself to a position. I’m relieved to hear that if Ahmed files suit, you won’t claim that it “confirms” that he was seeking money and publicity all along.
piero,
Well, it’s good to know that kids like Ahmed have you around to keep them from getting too uppity.
Screechy,
My guess is that Ahmed’s dad’s threat to sue is a bluff. A court isn’t as easy to convince as a zealous blog commenter.
piero @69
In the eyes of the law, it is.
Sec. 46.08. HOAX BOMBS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly manufactures, sells, purchases, transports, or possesses a hoax bomb with intent to use the hoax bomb to:
(1) make another believe that the hoax bomb is an explosive or incendiary device; or
(2) cause alarm or reaction of any type by an official of a public safety agency or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies.
and again @81 you write
Yes, it would. See above. He could also conceivably be charged with a violation of TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 22.07 : Texas Statutes – Section 22.07: TERRORISTIC THREAT. It’s long, so I won’t copy/paste. Violation of section (a)(2) is a misdemeanor, violation of (a)(5) is a felony.
@Screechy Monkey:
“Well, it’s good to know that kids like Ahmed have you around to keep them from getting too uppity.”
Ah, if only… Unfortunately the tide of lunacy has already swept him away.
@Helene:
Thank you. I’m glad I am not alone in my perception of the events.
“My guess is that Ahmed’s dad’s threat to sue is a bluff. A court isn’t as easy to convince as a zealous blog commenter.”
If sueing means he has to waive his right to veto the disclosure of Ahmed’s interrogation, I don’t think he will follow through.
@PieterB:
I was referring to Ahmed’s likely motivation, not to his legal position. As I said, I agree with Ophelia that the law is far too broad. But as you can see, the police and teachers acted according to that law, which is what police officers and teachers are expected to do.
Oh nonsense, piero. The teachers and police could have used some sense.
@Ophelia:
“Oh nonsense, piero. The teachers and police could have used some sense.”
The problem is that we know nothing about their side of the story. Which is in itself a bit weird.
@piero
Thank you for acknowledging the fact that he was arrested.
As Pieter has pointed out, scaring people with a fake bomb is certainly the same thing as creating a bomb scare. It’s the same thing legally and existentially.
And as I have pointed out, if that had been his purpose, I doubt his first action would have been what it was: showing the thing to a teacher and naming it what it was. Which was a clock.
“Play the victim”
The child was interrogated for an hour and a half, handcuffed, arrested, and fingerprinted. Over a clock he’d tinkered with. A clock he told his teacher and his interrogators was a clock that was in fact a clock.
Then suspended from school for three days.
Now you explain to me why you think Ahmed’s father, or family, were wrong to talk about that. Or do you think they engineered the whole fiasco, because, cunning manipulators that they are, they foresaw the whole thing?
Ahmed isn’t “playing the victim.” He is a victim, a victim of security theater and of implicit and explicit prejudices against brown children.
And Muslims.
@Helene
That’s projection on your part, Helene. I believe that you’re the one that’s too invested in the narrative that Ahmed and/or his father have dubious yet nonspecific motives. You refuse to commit to specifics because if you did, they wouldn’t hold water. Because your argument is specious at best.
The only reason you flounce now is that we’ve been asking you to be specific about what those motives were, and specific about how you know this. You can’t do either. So you get defensive and project your own investment and bias back onto us.
Don’t get me wrong: By all means, leave the conversation if you’re over it and that’s what you want. You don’t have to come back to it to defend yourself here. You’re under no obligation to continue, implied or otherwise.
However: Please consider that for all of us here, including me, including Screechy Monkey, including Ophelia Benson, including Piero, and including yourself… We are all vulnerable to bias. It’s part of being human.
That you have failed to commit to specifics is a red flag that your bias may is in play. By being vague about the specifics of your argument, we cannot criticize them directly, and you can just continually claim to have been misread without ever having to justify how and why. This is not an argumentative style employed by someone who is confident in their argument.
Please consider checking yourself for bias. I expect you likely have already had a knee-jerk reaction of how wrong and pompous and arrogant I am. If so, please put that to the side and engage some sound skeptical self-doubt. Consider that it is remotely possible that I may be correct, and that you are in denial. How could you verify that for yourself? Ask yourself why you haven’t been answering simple questions that should have been trivial to answer if your argument was sound. Ask yourself why you have evaded every opportunity given to you to clarify and elaborate on the specifics of your argument. And pay attention to the answers to these questions.
My bias could be in play too, of course. So there’s no need for you to call turnabout and ask me to check on mine; I already have, I am doing so now, and I will continue to do so. I’m already on it. :)
@piero
Let’s break that down, shall we?
you are a genius
I don’t think anyone is saying that. Of course, someone may be, I don’t know everything on the internet. But that’s not the tone being directed at Ahmed as I see it.
I’m going to use Zuckerberg as an example of what I think is the general tone of the positive attention that Ahmed has been receiving.
You’ve probably seen the story about Ahmed, the 14 year old student in Texas who built a clock and was arrested when he took it to school.
Having the skill and ambition to build something cool should lead to applause, not arrest. The future belongs to people like Ahmed.
Ahmed, if you ever want to come by Facebook, I’d love to meet you. Keep building.
Note Zuckerberg doesn’t call Ahmed a genius. He doesn’t even call him intelligent, smart, or even clever.
He acknowledges the fact that Ahmed had the skill and ambition to work on an electronics project, and that this should be celbrated. Not cause for arrest.
It’s positive. But not calling him a genius.
Shit Piero. Defensive much?
The argument has been that Ahmed is the victim of racist and religious bigotry, combined with a culture in law enforcement that views sensible and context-appropriate deescalation as a loss of face and a sign of weakness.
Why bring ‘white cis hetero WASP Christian privilege’ into it, when we didn’t table it? Guilty conscience, much? If you’re getting that defensive without direct provocation, maybe you should take a good look at yourself, and think about whether or not you’ve got something to be defensive about after all.
People have stood up and shown support for someone who was treated unfairly. That’s a good thing, and it should happen more often.
He’s not being given a treat because he was victimized. He’s being reassured that how he was treated is not representative of how he deserved to be treated.
The support is undoing the damage done by the overreaction of law enforcement and the school administration that freaked out over a harmless electronics project. And that’s a good thing.
In part, this is actually fair enough. If Ahmed goes in for a NASA job interview later in life and he doesn’t measure up? Well yeah. He might be in for disappointment. But that would be true anyway.
As for the ‘victim card pays’ thing… What, exactly, do you think Ahmed and his father should have done differently in reaction to Ahmed being arrested despite his innocence.
To be clear: Ahmed is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. He hasn’t been proven guilty. He hasn’t even been charged with anything. Therefore, Ahmed is to be presumed innocent.
The reason for the upwelling of support is that a student that takes it on themselves to investigate an electronics project on their spare time should be encouraged and nurtured. Not arrested under suspicion of creating a hoax bomb despite asserting the entire time it was just a clock. That’s incredibly discouraging. The support Ahmed has received has been proportionately encouraging so as to offset that discouragement.
Furthermore, the support for Ahmed is more than just support for Ahmed. It’s also support and encouragement for any other technologically-keen kid who might want to tinker with science and technology in their spare time. Because in turn, that offsets the chilling effect that this story could have had on any kid that identifies with Ahmed. As I would have done if I were that age today.
For these reasons, I think the level of support Ahmed has received has been justified and appropriate.
For these reasons, I think that your objections to the level of support Ahmed has received has been unjustified and inappropriate.
Helene & Piero, you’re speculating about motivation, and preferring malice over foolishness.
I could speculate on your motives as you speculate about others’, but it’s a fruitless endeavour.
Daniel,
I have no “investment” in any of this. You seem to. I was disturbed when it appeared to be a blatant incident of racial (and/or religious) prejudice but I soon changed my mind when I learned – among a host of other small things – that the “invention” was nothing more than a disassembled clock, that Ahmed decided to keep it in school despite knowing that his wired package looked highly suspicious, and of the behaviour of his father. Those are some of the “specifics” I see and, frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn that you may see others. I don’t owe you any justification for my skepticism, or any self-examination (my skin is nearly as dark as Ahmed’s and I once wore a hijab), so go peddle your “bias-checking” shtick with someone else.
Yes, Helene, we believe you.
@John:
“I could speculate on your motives as you speculate about others’, but it’s a fruitless endeavour.”
Couldn’t agree more, as you don’t seem to be the mind-reading kind, and you have no information to base any speculation on. Of course, you could also try addressing my arguments; alas, you don’t appear to be the type either.
@Daniel:
“Shit Piero. Defensive much?”
Not at all. It may come as a surprise to you, but those are conceptions I only ever come across in US sites. As I fortunately don’t live there, I have nothing to be defensive about.
@piero
Then why did you raise it, given we didn’t table it?
@Daniel:
“Then why did you raise it, given we didn’t table it?”
Are you serious? Can you tell me with a straight face (or its equivalent in writing) that your reaction to the incident would have been exactly the same had Ahmed’s name been Cyril Fotheringay-Phipps?
Oh no you don’t. That does not address your ridiculous use of the phrase “white cis hetero WASP Christian privilege.”
@piero
The words you used were: “the victim of white cis hetero WASP Christian privilege”.
I believe the fact that Ahmed is brown and Muslim are contributing factors to why he was arrested. So that’s a part of the social response, sure.
Had Ahmed been a white Christian guy named John Smith, I believe he would have been arrested. But if he had, I believe there still would have been a public show of support for John. Racism and xenophobia wouldn’t be a part of that scenario, so the show of support would be slightly different in tone. But I do still think there would be one.
But what gives with “the victim of white cis hetero WASP Christian privilege”? We didn’t table any of that.
Saying that Ahmed was targeted in part on racist and xenophobic grounds isn’t the same thing as invoking adjective-adjective-adjective privilege. Who brought up cis? Who brought up hetero? Who brought up WASP? Who brought up Christian?
You did.
So why get all defensive over something no-one was tabling?
Had Ahmed been a white Christian guy named John Smith, I believe he would not have been arrested.
@Daniel:
“So why get all defensive over something no-one was tabling?”
Screechy Monkey:
“Shorter Helene: WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE WHITE CHILDREN?!!!!!”
Nuff said.
Piero,
The depressing thing about this thread is that people who are supposed to be open-minded and skeptical refuse to tolerate (and I use that word advisedly) the possibility that the narrative of an ingenious brown boy arrested for inventing an electronic clock might not be quite as perfect as we first heard. In my case I went from being understandably outraged to curious, then puzzled and finally plainly skeptical. I am still willing to entertain the possibility that the original version is the correct one (minus the “invention” part) but I haven’t yet seen anything to assuage my skepticism. But saying this has invited a torrent of outrage and abuse and and even a suggestion that I psychoanalyze myself. The kind of reaction, in short, that one more normally gets from obdurate godbotherers… Shades of Ophelia’s ordeal on the Freethoughtblogs.
That’s funny. The only thing in this thread that reminds me of “obdurate godbotherers” is your cries of persecution.
Sure, Ahmed was handcuffed and interrogated by police for hours without counsel or parents present — and now gets bashed because a cop claims he was “passive-aggressive” during it — but you were CRITICIZED ON THE INTERNET! I don’t know how you’ve endured, you’re a marvel to us all.
Give it a rest, you’ve been dishing it out at least as much as you’ve been taking it.
piero @102,
Nice non sequitur. Everyone has acknowledged that race was an issue in this matter from the start. The question Daniel asked you was:
Jesus Fuckin’ Christ, Helene, who said the “brown boy” is perfect? Not subscribing to your conspiracy-addled mind-change on the subject indicates not a single thought about the perfectness of a dopey 14-year-old; we just don’t share your heinous, fear-driven opinions. I would love to know, though, why any of us should give a living fuck about whether or not your skepticism is assuaged?
To show how little I respect your views: If you suddenly agreed with me, I would have to seriously consider another opinion.
@piero
Even if we grant a clearly hyperbolic quote as a valid response to my question (and I don’t), that still leaves cis, hetero, WASP, and Christian into the mix. All of which I asked you, directly, multiple times. And all of which you have ignored. Multiple times.
You’re very transparently not arguing in good faith. Ask yourself why.
You’re very transparently not arguing in good faith. Ask yourself why.
And if you need any professional help, here’s my card. Call my secretary for an appointment.
Greetings everyone.
I can see that it took quite a while for comments to degenerate into ad hominems, but it finally happened, SInce no further arguments have been submitted, I rest my case.
Piero, it rests in peace. ;)
Any bets on the likelihood of him sticking the flounce?
@piero
He’s engaging in Helene’s trick of not giving specific examples of the thing he’s complaining about.
There’s a general misunderstanding about ad hominems. The thinking is that anything said against the speaker is always a sign of an ad hominem. But that’s not always true.
An ad hominem is of the form: The speaker is a big poopy-head. Therefore, the speaker’s conclusion is wrong.
I have not seen that form used against piero. What I have seen is: Piero is wrong, for the following reasons. [gives reasons]. Therefore, piero is wrong. Also, he’s kind of a whiny poopy-head.
That second form is not an ad hominem. But there’s a temptation to interpret it as an ad-hominem and dismiss it as such, because it means that the reasons can be blithely ignored.
I think this second form is what’s happening here when piero complains of ad hominems.
However, it’s impossible to be confident in this. Because, of course, piero didn’t refer back to what piece of text he believes demonstrates an ad hominem against him. So I can’t be confident that the sections of text I am attributing to his opinion on this are at all accurate.
Vagueness is a defense that only benefits people who lack confidence in their arguments.
—————-
ALSO: It’s a bit rich that piero is complinaing that ‘no further arguments have been submitted’ given how many arguments piero’s been ignoring.
In #92 I presented piero with four arguments:
1) No-one is saying Ahmed was a genius. Examples and reasons given.
2) No-one is tabling “white cis hetero WASP Christian privilege”.
3) Asking for support when you are mistreated is not ‘playing the victim card’, and showing support for people who are mistreated is a good thing.
4) Support for Ahmed isn’t just support for Ahmed: It’s also support for students who identify with Ahmed and for whom Ahmed’s spurious arrest would have otherwise had a chilling effect.
Piero ignored three of these. Then complained that there are ‘no further arguments’.
What’s the point in presenting new arguments if piero’s just going to neglect to engage with them anyway?
Should we just repeat the arguments piero is ignoring over and over again, until he engages them or we all die of old age, whichever comes first?
And it’s particularly rich given that piero hasn’t been able to offer an updated argument to any of our criticisms. He just keeps on asserting vague conspiracy theories, without any kind of hard evidence, dismisses our criticisms and disagreements as closed minded (because, of course, only closed-minded people would disagree with piero!) and without engaging with those criticisms and disagreements, then turns around and just asserts the vague conspiracy theory again!
Piero has had only two arguments: Ahmed and his father are in a nonspecifically nefarious conspiracy, and we are all too closed-minded to realize it.
Piero’s been drowsing in a plethora of counter-examples and counter-arguments. But he won’t engage them. And then he accuses us of being the ones with a dearth of argumentation!
Projection’s a jerk, huh?
@PieterB
Depends on whether or not the thread dies. If it keeps going, I expect the urge to get another last word in will be too strong. But if the thread dies off, probably not.
In other words, “person who called me a poopy-head is being mean to me. Therefore, I’m right.”
Which is a fallacy of irrelevance. Kind of an ad hominem, when you think about it.
P.S. Even if anyone had commited ad hominem, that fact would not render their entire argument wrong (unless their entire argument rested on the ad hominem.)
The fallacy fallacy is my favorite fallacy of all.
I agree!
The illustration I usually give of an ad hom is the classic “Al Gore is fat, therefore global overheating* is a big ol’ hoax.” We’ve all seen it, so I think it makes a good example.
* we’re past “warming,” and “climate change” was selected by a Frank Luntz focus group as the least threatening way to describe the crisis that’s going to make my grandchildren’s lives much like Hell on earth, so I refuse to use it.
PieterB,
Heh. I actually saw noted skeptic “leader” Penn Jillette make exactly that argument at The Amazing Meeting, except I think it was just “I hate Al Gore, therefore….”
(Ok, to be fair, this was in the context of Jillette acknowledging that maybe, possibly, he might have overstated the case against global warming, but gosh, he couldn’t help himself because Gore’s such a poopyhead! But still pretty astonishing, because he didn’t seem the least bit embarrassed about that thought process.)