Wednesday, November 11, 2015

About that "swastika"

Powerline does a nice job pointing out that the "evidence" for a fecal swastika is, to put it mildly, some pretty thin gruel.  There are no pictures, no samples taken, and it was claimed to have been found at 2am on a Saturday morning, suggesting that if it actually existed, alcohol may have been more involved than racism.

Plus, if they'd decided it was racism, pretty odd that they didn't keep a sample.  You can track who "donated" it by DNA, and even if you didn't find the perpetrator (to punish for a threat to public health if nothing else), you could easily figure out what race he was from his DNA. 

And of course, there are all kinds of questions about why one would neglect such an obvious way of figuring things out.  It's almost as if there was a narrative going on that was more important than actual justice.  I can't prove it, but I have to wonder if this whole deal is a coup d'état and not a real set of racial incidents (though one use of ethnic slurs has apparently been corroborated now).

No comments: