demo

Not the kind of demo I usually write about: this is demolition. This happened in my area this morning. I would have liked to have seen it!

what i'm reading: overthrow, suite francaise

I'm soon going to start Jared Diamond's Collapse - and if you still haven't read his incredible book Guns, Germs, and Steel, what are you waiting for? - but first I am combing through a pile of book reviews and movie reviews. It's really a virtual pile, as I'm mostly reading them online, with the occasional hard copy for GO train time.

This, I see, is why I need to get a newspaper delivered to my doorstep. I get my news online, but reviews and feature-y things about what's happening in Toronto don't seem to filter in. I know there are plenty of websites for those sorts of things, but my preferred method is to leaf through an actual newspaper.

We were getting the Globe And Mail for a few months - we got a free map book and a $20 Loblaw's gift card for subscribing - but stopped it before we went to Peru. Now I think we'll try the Toronto Star for a while. It's certainly more in sync with us politically, although the quality of writing in the G&M is better.

Among the stack of book reviews I've been reading, two stand out.

The first is Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer:

A senior member of a Washington research group once told me that he "could not believe" that the United States would ever help the Pakistani military overthrow a democratically elected government in Pakistan if that government refused to help in the war on terror. Now there's a man who really needs to read the latest book by the former New York Times correspondent Stephen Kinzer. "Overthrow" is the history of forcible regime changes by the United States and its local allies over the past 110 years, starting with the undermining of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, passing through Cuba (1898), the Philippines (1898), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954) and elsewhere, and ending with present-day Iraq.

Kinzer has written a detailed, passionate and convincing book, several chapters of which have the pace and grip of a good thriller. It should be essential reading for any Americans who wish to understand both their country's historical record in international affairs, and why that record has provoked anger and distrust in much of the world. Most important, it helps explain why, outside of Eastern Europe, American pronouncements about spreading democracy and freedom, as repeatedly employed by the Bush administration, are met with widespread incredulity.

What's most depressing about Kinzer's book, however, is not the drastic clash it describes between professed American morality and actual American behavior. For, after all, the historical record of other democratic imperial powers, like Britain and France, has been even worse than that of the United States. Operating in the real world as a great power is not a business for the overly fastidious.

But if you are going to use the argument that making a successful geopolitical omelet requires breaking eggs, you'd better have something edible to show for all the shattered shells lying around. As Kinzer makes clear, the problem is that all too many of the interventions he recounts were not just utterly ruthless; they were utterly unnecessary.

It should have been obvious that the damage to the countries concerned was likely to be out of all proportion to the possible gains to the United States.

The full review makes a nice capsule history lesson. Chatting with my mom and Allan last week, I was trying to remember (from Howard Zinn) what war the US started for fruit. The answer: Guatemala, 1954.

The second book is, for me, a must-read: Suite Francaise by Irene Nemirovsky.

This stunning book contains two narratives, one fictional and the other a fragmentary, factual account of how the fiction came into being. "Suite Française" itself consists of two novellas portraying life in France from June 4, 1940, as German forces prepare to invade Paris, through July 1, 1941, when some of Hitler's occupying troops leave France to join the assault on the Soviet Union. At the end of the volume, a series of appendices and a biographical sketch provide, among other things, information about the author of the novellas. Born in Ukraine, Irène Némirovsky had lived in France since 1919 and had established herself in her adopted country's literary community, publishing nine novels and a biography of Chekhov. She composed "Suite Française" in the village of Issy-l'Evêque, where she, her husband and two young daughters had settled after fleeing Paris. On July 13, 1942, French policemen, enforcing the German race laws, arrested Némirovsky as "a stateless person of Jewish descent." She was transported to Auschwitz, where she died in the infirmary on Aug. 17.

The date of Némirovsky's death induces disbelief. It means, it can only mean, that she wrote the exquisitely shaped and balanced fiction of "Suite Française" almost contemporaneously with the events that inspired them, and everyone knows such a thing cannot be done. In his astute cultural history, "The Great War and Modern Memory," Paul Fussell describes the invariable progression — from the hastily reactive to the serenely reflective — of writings about catastrophes: "The significances belonging to fiction are attainable only as 'diary' or annals move toward the mode of memoir, for it is only the ex post facto view of an action that generates coherence or makes irony possible."

We can now see that Némirovsky achieved just such coherence and irony with an ex post facto view of, at most, a few months. In his defense, Fussell had not heard of "Suite Française," and neither had anyone else at the time, including Némirovsky's elder daughter, Denise, who saved the leatherbound notebook her mother had left behind but refused to read it, fearing it would simply renew old pains. (Her father, Michel Epstein, was sent to Auschwitz several months after her mother and was consigned immediately to the gas chamber.) Not until the late 1990's did Denise examine what her mother had written and discover, instead of a diary or journal, two complete novellas written in a microscopic hand, evidently to save scarce paper. Denise abandoned her plan to give the notebook to a French institute preserving personal documents from the war years and instead sent it to a publisher. "Suite Française" appeared in France in 2004 and became a best seller.

From a purely aesthetic standpoint, the back story of "Suite Française" is irrelevant to the true business of criticism. But most readers don't view books from such Olympian heights, and neither, for that matter, do most critics. If they did, publishers' lists wouldn't be so crowded with literary histories and biographies, those chronicles of messy facts from which enduring art sometimes springs. In truth, "Suite Française" can stand up to the most rigorous and objective analysis, while a knowledge of its history heightens the wonder and awe of reading it. If that's a crime, let's just plead guilty and forge ahead.

These books are tangentially related, but I'll leave it to you to determine how.

kids

In case you missed it in comments here, Redsock sent this news item, which notes:

The Interior Ministry yesterday identified the two Saudi detainees who died Saturday in Guantanamo Bay as 29-year-old Manie ibn Shaman ibn Turki Al-Habardi Al-Utaibi and 22-year-old Yasser Talal Abdullah Yahya Al-Zahrani, who was detained at the age of 17.

Twenty-two years old, imprisoned at age seventeen. I'm so disgusted and infuriated, I can hardly express my feelings.

This is truly America's eternal shame.

hurrah

The weather forecast has been revised; thunder storms and rain pushed back to Sunday. Not that I'm worrying about the weather, mind you.

"stunned by the lack of interest"

We once had a lengthy debate on this blog about the media's role in keeping the US ignorant and right-wing. To my and Allan's utter astonishment, a commenter felt that the media has little or nothing to do with it. I can't find the post now, and it's just as well, as I don't want to single out the person who espoused that view. We felt that he simply must be unaware of what the media is like in the US. There seemed no other plausible explanation.

I was reminded of that when I read this in Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s article, Was the 2004 Election Stolen?:

The mounting evidence that Republicans employed broad, methodical and illegal tactics in the 2004 election should raise serious alarms among news organizations. But instead of investigating allegations of wrongdoing, the press has simply accepted the result as valid. "We're in a terrible fix," Rep. Conyers told me. "We've got a media that uses its bullhorn in reverse -- to turn down the volume on this outrage rather than turning it up. That's why our citizens are not up in arms."

The lone news anchor who seriously questioned the integrity of the 2004 election was Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. I asked him why he stood against the tide. "I was a sports reporter, so I was used to dealing with numbers," he said. "And the numbers made no sense. Kerry had an insurmountable lead in the exit polls on Election Night -- and then everything flipped." Olbermann believes that his journalistic colleagues fell down on the job. "I was stunned by the lack of interest by investigative reporters," he said. "The Republicans shut down Warren County, allegedly for national security purposes [which has been shown to be a cover story] -- and no one covered it. Shouldn't someone have sent a camera and a few reporters out there?"

In a way, this serves as an addendum to my two posts about the Conspiracy Theory label. There are factors for which no actual conspiracy is necessary. The media's complete "lack of interest" - to quote Keith Olbermann - in this story doesn't mean that each and every outlet was "in on" the conspiracy, merely that looking the other way serves their own agenda. Bland media that doesn't rock the boat is more pleasing to corporate sponsorship, which has a stake in maintaining the status quo. It's also easier and cheaper to refrain from boat-rocking, and it hedges against the possible withholding of access to the courts of power of said boat-rockers.

There have been actual bribes and payoffs - that's been proven - and it's likely that there have been many more that we'll never discover. Many of us are certain the 2004 election was fixed, and the media isn't necessarily to blame for that.

However, the public's ignorance of this treasonous act must be largely laid at the feet of the US media.

fret

This weekend the weather is beautiful - brilliantly sunny, cool, and breezy.

The forecast for next weekend - the wmtc party - is hot and humid, with thunder storms.

I'll hope the forecast changes during the week. One nice thing, if it rains and we have to be inside, it will look like a lot more people showed up! Our backyard is much bigger than our little house.

It's just a minor fret, though. I'm not worked up over it.

I wrote enough yesterday to keep you guys busy through Monday. So I'll leave it with this for now.

beyond belief

My head just exploded.

Three men who were being imprisoned indefinitely and illegally at the US's concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay have committed suicide.

This is a portion of the US's response:

Military officials on Saturday suggested that the three suicides were a form of a coordinated protest.

"They are smart, they are creative, they are committed," Admiral Harris said. "They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."

People in a state of hopelessness, frustration and despair choose death, seemingly their only exit. And they are waging war against us.

And you want to know why I moved to Canada.

two words, part two

Not all conspiracy theories are true. That much should be obvious. But just because a set of ideas is a conspiracy theory does not make it false. Yet, for many people, the CT label is a stop sign. Look no further. This is a set of false assumptions, wacky ideas and suppositions, topped off with a healthy serving of paranoia. If you believe [insert alternative theory here], next thing you know, you'll be putting on your Reynolds Wrap and taking messages from the mother ship.

So anything that challenges the Official Version is labeled a CT. And once a set of ideas wears the CT label, the standard responses to it are irrational non-arguments.

A theory is not disproven because some people you don't like believe it to be true.

A theory is not disproven because a person who supports it once supported another theory, now disproven.

A theory is not disproven because you can't imagine it happening. That may be nothing more than the limits of your own imagination.

There may not even be a fully formed theory. There may only be unanswered questions, questions that the Official Version ignores or ridicules, or responds to with implausibilities, at best. Those questions should signal us to look further, to dig deeper. Instead, the questions are labeled CT and dismissed.

One of the stupidest, albeit understandable, responses to allegations of election fraud, US foreknowledge of (and complicity in) the September 11th terrorist attacks, and just about anything else involving this US administration is "But they wouldn't do that!" Stupid, because history shows us that powerful people with great resources at their disposal will stop at nothing to achieve their aims, be they Alexander the Great, Ferdinand and Isabella, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot (or Dick Cheney). Understandable, because you have a conscience, and sometimes it's hard to believe what people will do when they don't.

If you think something couldn't happen because people "wouldn't do that," open a history book. Chances are people have already done it.

One fallacy about conspiracies holds that they can only be promulgated by a very small number of people, because "it's hard to keep a secret". Daniel Ellsberg knows a few things about conspiracies, and about secrets. If the name doesn't ring a bell, Ellsberg is the former US Defense Department, State Department and defense/security/weapons/strategy analyst who worked on a top secret study of U.S. decision-making in Vietnam (1945-68), which came to be known as "the Pentagon Papers". In 1969, Ellsberg photocopied the 7,000-page study and gave it to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Two years later, he gave it to the New York Times, Washington Post and 17 other newspapers.

The revelations - that, early on, the US government knew the war in Vietnam was unwinnable and would lead to many times more casualties than they were publicly admitting, and that that same government cared neither for public opinion nor the US servicepeople who would bear the cost of their decisions - helped end the war and bring down the Nixon White House. Ellsberg risked his career and his freedom (the 12 felony counts he was charged with carried a potential sentence of 115 years) to expose these secrets.

In his memoirs, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg writes:

It is a commonplace that "you can't keep secrets in Washington" or "in a democracy," that "no matter how sensitive the secret, you're likely to read it the next day in the New York Times." These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well.

Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn't in a fully totalitarian society. Bureaucratic rivalries, especially over budget shares, lead to leaks. Moreover, to a certain extent the ability to keep a secret for a given amount of time diminishes with the number of people who know it. As secret keepers like to say, "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead."

But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders."

I'd like to juxtapose this with the thoughts of someone else who has, judging from this quote, thought a lot about the CT label. I'm not familiar with this person's website or his work, I just thought this essay was excellent.

It is currently standard practice in America to simply dismiss any piece of information that punches a hole in any widely accepted explanation of a disturbing event. In many cases, especially when a serious crime is in question, the "conspiracy theory" tag is immediately attached to any new discovery about the event. Information related to such important topics such as 9/11, election fraud, the new world order, secret societies, or globalization is too often ignored as part of a baseless conspiracy theory even before any of it is ever presented, discussed, or evaluated.

There seems to be no set criteria for dismissing information as a foolish conspiracy theory. The only prerequisite for information to be so categorized seems to be the desire to reject it. The reason for the rejection does not seem to matter. It appears that anything people do not want to believe is simply set aside as not believable. It almost seems that if you set some people on fire they would dismiss the flames as non-existent, simply because they did not want to believe what was happening. The pain and damage done by the fire, no matter how devastating, would not be evidence enough to convince these people that the fire was real. Their need to believe otherwise would win out. In the same vein, people dismiss information and apply the conspiracy theory tag to anything they chose to disbelieve at their own discretion, regardless of any hard evidence that accompanies the "theory."

It's time to put an end to this nonsense once and for all. It's also time dispense with the name calling and understand the dynamics of what is happening when new information is rejected. We have to deal with the resistance to any tampering with accepted "truths." And we have to find ways to convince people to seriously consider the new information, new discoveries if you will - that so many refuse, under any circumstances, to acknowledge.

It is absolutely accurate to say that conspiracies exist all around us every day of our lives and and in all walks of life. Conspiracies are a very common part of life. Children conspire to play jokes on their friends, football teams conspire (in the huddle) to outmaneuver their opponents; the rich conspire with one another to get richer and governments conspire about virtually everything.

. . .

When new facts are brought out about controversial issues, something strange happens. Minds close and battle stations are taken. A confusion arises between unfounded theories and actual facts, discoveries, clues or evidence that may or may not support existing beliefs about those issues. We have to make a serious effort to distinguish between the expression of an unfounded theory and the disclosure of verifiable information and facts.

Today there is an ongoing battle between those in possession of newly discovered information and those who do not want to even consider the validity of that information. Real evidence and factual information are being lumped with baseless theories.

This is not always the fault of the person to whom the information is presented. In many cases, the presenters offer unpopular conclusions too quickly that alienate their audience. This is often the case when new information about the events of 9/11 are revealed. When people are involved in discussions about the attacks, they are prone to dismiss verifiable evidence because they are offended or distressed by greater ramifications that arise. This is both unproductive and dangerous. Information has to be examined and evaluated, regardless of its wider implication. That is the responsibility of the recipient. But there has to be a way to clearly present valid, tangible, verifiable and often undisputed information so that it is more readily accepted. That responsibility belongs to the presenter, who must deal with facts rather than conclusions.

Another thing to keep in mind is the possibility that a simple discovery can disprove a great deal of what is previously accepted as truth. At the same time, however, it may not completely prove the validity of an alternative theory. It only proves that an existing belief is wrong. [Emphasis mine.] This is the case regarding the mountains of evidence uncovered by the independent 9/11 researchers. What they have discovered easily disproves the official version of the events and the Kean Commission findings. What it does not prove conclusively is what actually took place.

There is also another factor to deal with when dealing with the truths, half truths, and lies that surround events not clearly resolved in the minds of the public. Holding on to half truths is often easier than accepting that one has been fed a truckload of lies in the first place. [Again, emphasis mine.] Suffice it to say there is a large segment of the American population that continues to dismiss every one of the verifiable findings of the independent 9/11 research community. They absolutely refuse to accept even the most convincing proof because they dare not admit to themselves that they have been lied to by officials in whom the placed their trust. Betrayal by those who lead the country they love is simply too painful to accept. Denial is too often the best defense of the deceived.

. . .

When researchers, history buffs, truth seekers, conspiracy nuts or whatever you want to call us, present newly discovered, yet verifiable information to the public, we are directly attacked as promoters of a conspiracy theory and lambasted with the usual assortment of insults. This is totally unacceptable. We can no longer allow the conspiracy theory tag to be indiscriminately used whenever anyone has new discoveries to reveal. There has to be a concerted effort to clarify the goals of those with information to impart. Presenting new evidence can not be perceived as an attempt to establish a forgone conclusion. At the same time, new information must be dealt with in isolation of any other ramifications or another resistance relating to its possible reality.

9/11 remains the perfect example with which to illustrate my concerns. A massive amount of valid evidence exists to show that elements of the official story (itself a conspiracy theory because it is not verifiable), are false. It is not possible, however, to use the newly discovered evidence as the basis for a conclusion about what actually happened and who was responsible. At least not yet. . . .

In conclusion, let me summarize two "conspiracy theory" problems that must be dealt with:

Those who opt to disclose new discoveries must clearly separate the theoretical elements of their presentation from the information they disclose.

Those to whom information is presented must deal with their personal unwillingness to hear new facts. They must become more receptive to new evidence and avoid dismissing verifiable evidence simply because the ramifications are distressing or difficult to conceive.

We have to discourage the misuse of language that wrongly labels and categorizes people with information to share. Hostile or incorrect terminology only serves to interfere with our mutual and communal education. It is vital that we examine evidence and discoveries for what they are. We must be careful not to expand evidence beyond its empirical reality. Facts must not be confused with folklore, but must be presented within the limits of their validity. By doing this, we may convince the skeptics among us to listen with less resistance and to end the practice of dismissing evidence solely because it disproves their initial beliefs. If we deal effectively with these obstacles, we all may become better informed about the things we need to know. And perhaps one day we will come to know the reality that continues to evade us to this day. [Read this essay, by Jesse, the editor of TVNNewsLies website.]

I've watched the 9/11 Truth Movement struggle for mainstream media attention, and watched with my head shaking in dismay as alternative news sites have shut them out. As I said recently in comments, it's bad enough when the mainstream media ignores you. But when progressive websites like Democratic Underground and Daily KOS won't allow an open discussion, it's very depressing. I don't know all the facts, that's for sure, but I know we should always ask questions.

Again, I'd like to limit comments and discussion to the idea of conspiracy theories - the label itself, the use and misuse of it, our response to it - as opposed to hashing out facts and arguments about any number of theories out there. Thanks in advance.

two words, part one

I want to talk about two words - two overused, misused, misunderstood words. I want to talk about Conspiracy Theory.

It seems like any ideas that people haven't heard before, don't know about, and haven't read about it in any mainstream sources - any story that challenges an Official Version of events - is labeled "conspiracy theory," and discarded, unexamined.

Governments, of course, will always dismiss challenges to their own versions of events. They have every reason to defend their Official Story and deride - censor, harass, imprison, or kill - anyone who challenges it. I'm not talking about that. And I'm not talking about wingnuts who, for whatever authoritarian, fascist reasons, feel obligated to defend everything their government says and does, and generally oppose rational discourse of any kind.

I'm talking about otherwise open-minded people who, when faced with an alternative explanation, or even with questions about the Official Version, simply shut down, and refuse to even consider another version of events. They apply the "CT" tag, and that's the end of the story.

I would rather we didn't discuss the specifics and validity of any alternative theory - of anything. The only people who are qualified to do that are those who have actually studied them - not people who've heard a snippet of information here and there. I'd like instead to discuss the label of CT itself: why people use it, what it means. And what conspiracies really are.

My Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines conspiracy as "the act of conspiring together, an agreement among conspirators," and offers the word "plot" as a synonym. Following down the page to conspire, we find "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of a secret agreement".

Therefore, an event such as the terrorist attacks of September 11th was a conspiracy. Did people conspire? Certainly. Did they join in a secret agreement to commit a wrongful act? Absolutely.

Yet when citizens who have studied the details of the event say, 'You know, the Official Version leaves many important questions unanswered, we should really dig a little further,' they are dismissed as Conspiracy Theorists. That is, nuts. Wackos. Tin-foil heads.

Again, from the government and the wingnuts? Sure. But why this response from otherwise progressive people, who know full well that the government deals in lies and propaganda for its own purposes, who normally don't believe a word issued from either government or mainstream media sources...? Why are so many progressive and liberal people so willing - seemingly determined - to accept the Official Story, to swallow it whole with no questions asked, and equally determined to shut out - and attempt to silence - anyone who challenges that version?

I'm not only referring to 9/11. I recently heard a progressive American dismiss the idea that the 2004 presidential election was fixed by labeling it a conspiracy theory. He seemed to feel that because Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s article is refutable - whether or not the refutation is accurate and factual** - the stolen election is, therefore, a conspiracy theory.

In truth, it is. Those of us who believe the 2004 election was fixed do indeed believe that people conspired to fix it. And we are indeed dealing with theories, as we don't have a video tape showing people in the act of throwing the election. But the CT label means more than that, of course. And for some, that label is all it takes. It's a conspiracy theory - meaning, it's supposition, it's exaggeration, it's wishful thinking, it's paranoia.

Think of everything this US Government has done, all it has lied about. WMDs, the occupation, mission accomplished. The Plame case, the fake news reports. Katrina. Abu Ghraib. Spying on US citizens. The Patriot Act in bookstores and libraries. The Medicare prescription mess. Stem cell research, and lack thereof. Attempts to privatize social security. Shall I go on? There's so much more. And you believe they would do all that, and way more, but they wouldn't fix an election? And if they didn't do it themselves, that some of their lackeys and corporate sponsors wouldn't fix it for them? And we're wackos?

Why? Why are people unwilling to even entertain these ideas?

Perhaps I can take a stab at a partial answer to this question by examining my own feelings and behavior at a particular time. It wasn't long after September 11th that Allan, my partner, became interested in the questions that were circulating about 9/11. And it wasn't long after that that he became an activist in what I'll call the 9/11 Truth Movement: people who have dug deeper into September 11th and find the Official Version of events non-credible.

Although many of the questions Allan early on raised were very valid, I dismissed them offhand. For me, it was too soon. I was still crying. I was still mourning. I couldn't process it. In addition, when I looked at the information he would bring to my attention, it was often attached - by association, on the same website - to ideas that were offensive (anti-Semitism) or ridiculous (Area 51) to me. I especially disliked what I called the "woo-woo" aspect of the theories: loaded, biased language, full of dark innuendo, as if the truth couldn't even be spoken.

Allan and I had some bitter arguments about this. He thought I was being close-minded - the only real sin in our household - and I thought he was being gullible. In fact, I was the gullible one. Why was I willing to believe the government's version of events, when I don't trust or believe a word they say about anything else?

We both learned from these arguments, in a very practical sense. When Allan helped edit Paul Thompson's 9/11 Timeline (also a book), he encouraged Thompson to omit the "woo-woo" and stick to the facts - to use cool, straightforward language - to seek light, not heat.

For my part, I'm proud to say Allan was right. The more I opened my mind, the more I set aside my fear or scorn or whatever it was that was blocking my mind, the more I saw that questions about 9/11 were valid, and should be asked, and had to be asked.

More relevant to this post, I also saw how people who knew almost nothing about these events - who only knew the Official Version - were ready and willing to pounce on and dismiss anyone who questioned that version.

Is my initial reaction to the key, the reason that otherwise open-minded people won't listen? Is it too much to think about? Too upsetting, too damaging to their world view? Is it, as journalists say, ok to rock the boat, but never ok to say the entire ocean is in trouble?

Or are they more concerned with PR than with the truth? So fearful that they'll be tainted by association, they make a preemptive strike of their own, labeling the truth-seeker a wacko. And rather than seeing if the wacko might actually have something worthwhile to say, they stop up their ears and shut the door.

Who do you think knows more about a topic: the person who has read about it daily, examined multiple sources, compared details, sifted through conflicting versions of events? Someone who has made this a prime interest for three, four, five years? Or a person who has only heard accounts on CNN and read The New York Times?

If the topic was stem cell research, or MP3s, or contemporary painting, the answer would be obvious. But if the topic is voter fraud or 9/11 - or anything else for which there is an Official Version of events - the knowledgeable researcher becomes a Conspiracy Theorist.

Next: "two words, part two" - commonly held, mistaken beliefs about conspiracies.


** [Kennedy responds to Salon's Manjoo here, and election fraud author and activist Robert Fritakis responds to Manjoo here (I can't find the original source, but this is the entire column).]

shame

I'm amazed at how many people find it perfectly acceptable to celebrate the death of another human being. If they are told that person is their enemy, then the death is cause for happiness.

From a letter to The New York Times:

Whatever else is going on in the world, whatever you dislike about the American government, it deserves credit for removing this barbaric murderer.

Am I the only person who finds this sentence ironic?

Someone else, from the Bronx, New York, says:

Don't get me wrong: I am glad to hear the news that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed. It is to be hoped that his death will result in the saving of American and Iraqi lives.

But I think that the reported euphoria is somewhat unbecoming. It reminds me of the television footage of Iraqis celebrating the deaths of American soldiers.

He's almost got it, but not quite. Yes, the euphoria is unbecoming. But what of that first sentence?

Do these people really believe that the death of this one person will save the lives of many? Or is it just that those saved lives are more important, because they're American and Israeli?

regression

Former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has this to say from Stockholm:

During the Cold War, it proved possible to reach many significant agreements on disarmament. Why does it seem so impossible now, when the great powers no longer feel threatened by one another?

Almost all the talk these days is about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to states like Iran and North Korea, or to terrorists. Foreign ministers meet again and again, concerned that Iran has enriched a few milligrams of uranium to a 4 percent level.

Some want to start waving the stick immediately. They are convinced that Iran will eventually violate its commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to forego nuclear weapons.

While it's desirable that the foreign ministers talk about Iran, they don't seem to devote any thought to the fact that there are still some 27,000 real nuclear weapons in the United States, Russia and other states, and that many of these are on hair-trigger alert.

. . .

A report with 60 concrete recommendations to the states of the world on what they could do to free themselves from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, worked out by an independent international commission of which I was the chairman, is now available at WMDCommission.org.

Apart from proposals for measures to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction to more states and terrorists, the report points to two measures that could turn current concerns about renewed arms races into new hopes for common security. In both cases, success would depend on the United States.

A U.S. ratification of the comprehensive test-ban treaty would, in all likelihood, lead other states to ratify and bring all such tests to an end, making the development of nuclear weapons more difficult. Leaving the treaty in limbo, as has been done since 1996, is to risk new weapons testing.

The second measure would be to conclude an internationally verified agreement to cut off the production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons purposes.

This would close the tap everywhere for more weapons material and would be of special importance if an agreement on nuclear cooperation with the United States were to give India access to more uranium than it has at the moment.

Read Blix's essay here.

quiet again

Another mom visit successfully completed!

We're getting the hang of this long-distance thing. We used to live right across the Hudson River from each other - a 5-minute drive or a 40-minute walk. We would meet for lunch or coffee, and if one day didn't work out, another was just as good. The three- or four-day visit, planned in advance, is a big change for us. But so far it's gone well.

My mother said that all her friends - and she's got a million of them - ask her, How do they like it up there? How do they like living in Canada? She said, "I tell them, they love it!"

What can I say. It's true.

question

Tuesday is my birthday. We have tickets to the next play in our Soulpepper subscription, Tom Stoppard's The Real Thing (which I've seen before and like a lot).

I'd like to go out to dinner beforehand, but not in the Distillery District where the theatre is. Some place we haven't tried yet (easily done), where we can have a nice early dinner and get to the play comfortably by 8:00. Doesn't have to be very high-end, but not some place extremely casual like a pub or Chinatown. We like all kinds of food, but especially love bistros or casual French dining.

Recommendations?

arrests

A few people have asked me my thoughts on the recent alleged terrorist arrests in the Toronto area. I don't know that I have any interesting thoughts to share; all I can offer is a series of hopes.

I hope, since these men have been presumed guilty, that they really are.

I hope that Stephen Harper doesn't use this as excuse to ramp up a war machine. I hope, if he does, there is widespread public sentiment against it. And, if he does, I hope that someone didn't frame the men to give him that excuse.

I hope Canadians will not use this as an excuse for intolerance and bigotry, or to turn away from multiculturalism. It can't be a coincidence that, a few days after the arrests, the Globe And Mail's online poll asked, "Is multiculturism the proper course for Canada in the 21st Century?"

Many bloggers have pointed out that Harper's platitudes after these arrests recycled W's famous post-9/11 blather. I first saw it at The Gazetteer:

"We are a target because of who we are and how we live, our society, our diversity and our values - values such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The values that make Canada great, values that Canadians cherish."

Stephen Harper, June 3rd, 2006

"Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber - a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

George W. Bush, Sept 21, 2001

The Gazetteer's post on this is very good, and very simply sums up my feelings on the matter. What are yours?

a new family moves in

Allan told me he's been seeing this lovely family, always in the same cove at the end of our street. Last night on the way home from dinner, the three of us looked for them, and found them busily pecking the grass for insects. When I crept too close, one of the parents hissed me back.

This morning on my walk with Cody, I took my camera. They don't let you get any closer than this - if you approach on the shore, they paddle away.

that's better

Grouchy demands occasionally work. My recent post prompted several replies.

I must admit - getting a bit more personal than I normally do - I had been seriously disappointed that more people couldn't or wouldn't attend.

On the one hand there are our friends and family in the New York/New Jersey area. Since everyone says they'll come up and visit "one day," I thought throwing a party would offer an opportunity and excuse to make good. But no. It was bad timing for most. (The very wonderful and happy exception is wmtc reader Mkk and our nephew D, recently relocated from New Mexico, who we can't wait to see.)

On the other hand there's the wmtc crowd. Of course many wmtc readers don't live anywhere near us, and I didn't expect cross-continental treks for a backyard get-together. But many who live in and around T.O. are choosing not to show their faces in person.

I'm so used to meeting online friends in person that it's very natural to me. The internet is a great way to meet people, and we've met online friends in cities all over North America. So I forget that for some people, making that leap from internet to physical life is scary and unwelcome.

And then of course there are a million conflicts - weddings, family barbecues, and other happy events like book signings. And the expected guest list shrinks from 45-50 to 20-25 people.

So that's my sob story, and if it's the worst one I have this summer, I'm a lucky girl. I gave myself a good talking to and remembered we'll have a really fun day with whoever shows up. At the very worst, we'll have a small, quiet gathering, where we eat lots of good food and enjoy each other's company, and that sounds pretty nice.

today

You know what today is, right? 06/06/06! 666! Have a devilishly good day.

And take pause at 6:06 to enjoy the full effect. You 24-hour-clock people missed the boat this morning.

Boy, I'm really posting challenging material lately.

rsvp

What's the big deal? It's a yes or no question: can you come or not? Send an email. I'm assuming if you haven't RSVP'd by now, you aren't coming, but would it kill you to let me know? How can I plan? For chrissake's, come on already.

You don't have to apologize for your lateness, you don't have to give an excuse. A simple yes or no - I will be there or I cannot attend - will suffice.

People who give parties regularly tell me this is always the case, that it's like pulling teeth to get people to RSVP. Geez.

seen

Seen on the New York State Thruway:

Open 24 Hours
Til 11 pm
Mon-Sun

I spent eight hours in the United States and all I got was this illiterate signage.

right side of the dial

I've always been surprised - and flattered - to find wmtc on the blogroll of The DCeiver, who writes cogently and entertainingly about music, politics and Washington DC, among other topics. The Deceiver recently unfurled a series of excellent music-and-politics posts that kept me chuckling throughout the day.

From the intro:

The National Review unloaded a summer's worth of cognitive dissonance on the world last week by identifying what they consider to be the Fifty Greatest Conservative Rock Songs of all time. Looking at the list, it's hard to say whether the adjective "greatest" is meant to modify the conservativeness of the songs or the rockingness of the songs. I'm left to conclude, mainly, that it chiefly refers to the level of wishful thinking going on.

The Deceiver then goes on to skewer the entire list, song by song: first, in Through A List, Dubiously, then in Part Two. Did you know "Won't Get Fooled Again" is a conservative anthem? Surprised, eh? I was, too!

And finally, DCeiver offers you the opportunity of your very own to make your own list of conservative rock songs.

As shown by the National Review, it takes only a few ingredients to turn that rebel rock song you've been pissing your parents off with into a down-home paean to the redistribution of a nation's wealth into the hands of degenerate fatcats. All it takes is the following:
1. Extreme cognitive dissonance.
2. The willingness to ignore anything fact-esque.
3. The ability to discard the truth of an author's intent while savoring the delicate morsel of truthiness you manage to construct.

I have only two (very minor) questions for Mr DC. Has he really never heard Bob Dylan's song "Neighborhood Bully" or "My City Was Gone" by the Pretenders? Seems hard to believe he missed both, but then, the Dylan canon is large, and not everyone loves Chrissie Hynde as much as I do. In any case, take my word for it: Chrissie was not lecturing on urban planning. She was just saying, "I went back to Ohio ... and my city was gone." You know how it can be.

Go take a look, it's great stuff.