Here's an interesting article in the BBC Online, about hate crimes in the US against Muslims.

The writer heads off with this paragraph:

Hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims in the United States increased by 1,700% in 2001, according to crime statistics compiled by the FBI.

Then a few paragraphs later says it this way:

"In 2000, the FBI received reports of 28 hate crimes against Muslims and Arabs in the US. In 2001, that number increased to 481."

I was interested to know if the bulk of those in 2001 were post-9/11, but he doesn't say. I think he also chose to lead off with the first paragraph mostly because 1,700% seems much bigger than from 28 to 481.

I would have preferred a more detailed analysis of hate crimes against Muslims, with possibly a few personal stories, and some indication of how, if anything, the climate has changed this year.

Instead, the article meanders quite a lot, and has patently absurd sections such as the following:

While members of the government including President Bush made very public statements of support for Muslim-Americans, the government focussed its anti-terrorism efforts on Arabs and Muslims.

Um, what am I missing here? Who exactly should we be focusing on? Brazilians? 80 year-old black women? Or everyone equally?

Look, we have a certain amount of anti-terrorism resources. The idea that every person, in every country, merits equal scrutiny is just stupid and ridiculous. With this sort of logic a Peruvian 5 year-old girl is as likely to commit an act of terrorism as a twenty-five year old man from Saudi Arabia.

Live in such a delusional world if you like, but please don't suggest that American law enforcement, airport security, and counter-terrorism agents apply the same level of scrutiny and attention to everyone, because such an idiotic mindset squanders limited resources, endangering the lives of potential victims.