Paul Zarembka wrote:
Listening to Cindy tells me that she calls things as she sees it (Bush as
a 'boil' for a much larger 'infection').
Listening to Cindy tells me that she is capable of deciding for herself
whether 9-11 was an inside job. She doesn't need to depend upon either
your nor my opinion about it, nor if and when to use any knowledge gained.
clearly, you _want_ her to embrace your theory. That's what I was addressing.
In any case, don't you think any major personality who, in full public
view, calls our government 'fascist' has already called down upon herself
a certain negative reaction (a "GOP shitstorm", in your expression), and
that political expediency isn't in her dictionary? And if she is morally
outraged about murder under our governmental auspices in Iraq, why should
she be less morally outraged at home?
The war itself -- whether or not it was engineered using a modern-day
Reichstag fire -- implies a lot of good reasons to be morally outraged
"at home." Stuff like the new restrictions on civil liberties.
I think it was a mistake for her to use the word "fascism" (though I
can't think of anyone else who could get away with it). But I don't
see why she should double her difficulties.
P.S. Jim, you still refer to 'conspiracy theory' as if only opponents of
the Bush administration are guilty of it, but not Bush himself. I assert
to you that Bush has a 'conspiracy theory' about 9-11. Is it a sound
theory, academically or legally? If you think it is sound, then I'd like
to hear what evidence you find convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.
it really doesn't matter if the President uses conspiracy theory,
bogus facts, weak logic, bad syntax, etc. since he's got a lot of
troops, unlike his critics on the left. As Stalin allegedly asked
about the Pope, "how many divisions does he have?" Well, Bush has
many. We do not, so we have to care _a lot_ about our credibility.
Sure, it's our intellectual obligation to poke holes in his theory,
point out his lies, parse his illogic, ridicule his grammar, etc. In
practice, that might help build up support or even keep up morale. But
that doesn't mean that we should embrace poor or incredible theories,
lie, become illogical, speak incorrectly, etc.
By Bush's conspiracy theory, do you mean the idea that al-Qaeda was
behind 911? didn't they take credit for it? I think it's perfectly
reasonable to give them credit (blame). After all, the broadly-defined
violent-Jihadi network (which coalesced around and into al-Qaeda)
bombed those embassies in E. Africa, the USS Cole, tried to bomb the
WTC circa 1990, etc. So it's reasonable to assume that they were
behind 911, too. And it's reasonable to assume that the Bush crowd
took advantage of 911 to milk as much benefit for themselves and their
allies as possible.
I wrote:
Then [Sheehan would] have to pepper her talks with long lists
> of individual facts (and "facts") and long lists of possible logical
> connections between the facts in order to prove her case. People don't
> absorb this kind of thing well (except for those of us with Asperger
> syndrome).
I should explain this. The reference to AS at the end is not an
insult, since such worthies as Al Einstein and Bill Gates seem to have
had it.
My experience with conspiracy theory is that folks with AS (such as my
16-year-old son, and to a lesser extent, myself) love the kind of raw
material that goes into conspiracy theories. My son knows all of the
details about "Star Wars" (the movies, not the SDI) and the novels of
Terry Pratchett. He easily can list them. This, plus all sorts of
reasonable and borderline-unreasonable logical links make up
conspiracy theories. Typically ignored are problems of information
(flowing up with complete accuracy to the conspiratorial elite but not
going outside of the cabal), motivation (getting underlings and
minions to do exactly as they're told, even though the acts are
illegal, immoral, or simply evil), and coordination (despite secrecy),
along with the temporary nature of most alliances, etc.
I was once highly impressed by a JFK conspiracy theory (I forget which
one). Then, I started to forget some of its elements. And I found that
it was no longer convincing, that it was much too dependent on small
pieces.
--
Jim Devine / "Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the
sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The
fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the
unfortunate." -- Bertrand Russell
