I haven’t done a “Debunking the Threat” post in awhile. Rolling Stone (I thought) had tamed their ridiculous Threat Assessments, but I was wrong. In the newest issue (#1112, September 2, 2010 – the one with the naked & blood-spattered cast of True Blood on the cover) on pages 44-45, we find RS’s newest Threat Assessment, which gives us some insight into how effed-up the magazine’s priorities are. On the red side of the Threat Assessment (remember red=conservative, and therefore, bad & “against us”), we have, in order from bad to worse: “Civilian casualties in Afghanistan jump by 31 percent this year,” followed by “Pentagon bans troops from reading Wikileaks,” followed by, “Unprecedented heat, fires, smog kill thousands in Russia.” And the absolute WORST thing that’s happening right now? The BIGGEST threat to civilization as we know it? “Bats in northeastern U.S. in danger of extinction.” Yes, you read that correctly. The possible extinction of bats is worse than an increase in civilian casualties in Afghanistan and worse than thousands of Russians dead from out-of-control wild fires. Also, the Pentagon ordering soldiers not to read Wikileaks is worse than increase of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. Why is censorship and the death of bats considered worse than the death of thousands of human beings in Afghanistan and Russia? If anyone has an answer as to why RS hates the human race so much, could you share it please?