Conspiracy
What is wrong with our society today, that we are so quick to jump on conspiracies that seem outlandish or flat out impossible, but have become so jaded that we can't even work up the energy to even comment on conspiracy theories which might actually be true?
Case in point (and I don't for a second mean to suggest I think this is true, it is merely the thing I was reading that led me to this thinking), Arianna Huffington has a new blog "Huffington Post" (www.huffingtonpost.com), on which famous people on both sides of the political spectrum have been invited to blog.
So far, it seems to be largely liberal, but I suspect that's for the same reason that I come across as mostly liberal: Most outspoken criticism is going to be against the party in power. Since that party is almost universally conservative right now, there's just not a whole lot of liberal shenanigans to rail against.
Anyway, this article was one that I read on the site:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/biggest-story-of-our-live.html
My initial thought was "Hmmmm. That's interesting." and I continued on. I'm curious if the facts (with respect to both the margins of error in the 10 swing states this time, and then rarity of the margin of error being wrong in the past) are true, but I'm so jaded to the political machinations of this country and the inability of anyone to get to the "truth" or do anything about it when they do, that I almost blew right past the article without another thought.
Being a profound Bush detractor (again, I'll stress, having nothing to do with his party and everything to do with his policies and decisions), you'd think I'd care enough to get a little bit worked up. You'd think I'd want to look up the facts and if they bore out, trumpet them from the highest rooftops.
Instead, I find myself thinking "Yeah, it's probably true. What's the point? It's all lies, smoke and mirrors anyway". How do we get so jaded? How did I get so jaded?
Copyright (c) May 10, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net
posted by Liam at 5/10/2005 12:23:00 PM
24 Comments:
Liam,
The guy is crazy. The exit polls were weighted wrong to favor Kerry as were many newspaper polls. The LA Times errors were widely discussed.
I'd like to see you post on your problems with Bush. Do I infer that you like the Republican party or is that just cover for not liking Bush.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005 11:23:00 AM
Well...
I don't like the Republican party, but no more or less so than I dislike the Democrat party. I don't like either organized party, but agree (and disagree) in roughly equal measure with each. As I've said before, I fall somewhere in the middle.
My problems with Bush are myriad. I think he has damaged our country badly. I think he lied about the reasons for going to war, and continues to lie about them (Iraqi connections to 9/11 and bin Ladin, WMDs, etc). I think he thumbed his nose at the rest of the world in ways which, if done to us, would make us hate the country that did it (and thus justifies hatred OF us by those other countries). I think he's either a moron or incredibly patronizing (who uses words like "killers" and "evil doers"? The man has clearly read too many comic books.). I think that he pays lip service to the education, the environment, cleaner fuels, etc, while reducing funding for each (and then funneling huge incentives to his buddies in the OIL industry).
I think he's presided over a return to huge deficits, after we FINALLY got them under control between Clinton and the Republican congress of his era.
I think that no matter how big the problem, a good leader doesn't sit with his head in his hands for 15 minutes after being told of an attack on our country, before starting to work on the problem (if there'd been nukes on the way, by the time he'd started doing anything half of our population would have been wiped out).
Say what you will about Clinton, but his problems were in his personal life, and did not (in my view) affect his job as President (or wouldn't have, if they hadn't been made the primary focus of the nation by those who would bring him down).
I believe that of the final four options we had in 2000, McCain was clearly the best man for the job and Bush clearly the worst. I believe that of the options available to challenge Bush in 2004, Kerry was in the lower third (I can't say he was worst, he was better than Sharpton), but Bush had not risen in my estimation.
I think this administration has done a lot to lower the quality of discourse in the country, to divide rather than unite our country, and has worked to steadily erode our freedoms and liberties in the name of the war on terror.
I find almost nothing what so ever to like about this guy or the cronies with whom he surrounds himself. And I don't find it that hard to believe that he (or his people) might actually have purpetrated a voter fraud in order to get him elected, although I also don't find it that hard to believe that he DIDN'T, either. Again, my point in the whole piece was "Why have I become so jaded that I can't even care enough to look into the facts."
I've come to realize that with the world the way it is today, good leader or bad, it won't be because we elected intelligently, it'll be the luck of the draw based on who had better PR (and better hair).
And that scares the heck out of me. I'm REALLY glad this country is so well set up, to make it very difficult for one small group of people to topple it, take it over, or wildly re-make it in their own image. And I protest strongly when it is suggested that some of those very checks and balances ("activist judges" my ass) should be removed as hindering progress.
Liam.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:14:00 PM
Wow. It will take me some time to digest.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005 1:55:00 PM
No need to have an argument here in your home turf. I do like Bush and approve most of what he is doing. I like cally a spade a spade. If the folks who flew the planes into the trade center are not evil, who is? But you see it differently and that is what makes this country great.
Where I relate is this statment.
"Why have I become so jaded that I can't even care enough to look into the facts."
It seems to me that the level of discussion and argument has never been lower. Newspapers do not investigate, they indoctrinate. Facts are hard to isolate from assertions. It takes a greate amount of effort to sort this out. Most of what passes for information is propaganda and we are becomming programmed to identify with information sources with whom we agree or disagree.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005 2:11:00 PM
Calling, not cally. Sorry
Wednesday, May 11, 2005 2:12:00 PM
Liam,
You inspired me to post about your question today, mostly an expansion on my comments above but I linked to your post in the process. Thanks for the inspiration.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:05:00 PM
For anyone interested, another good link (this time from Rep. John Conyers) about Ohio. Again, I haven't substantiated any of this, but I'm not as quick to dismiss the initial post as conspiracy theorist insane ramblings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/john-conyers/ohio-2004-ignoring-the-canary.html
Liam.
Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:30:00 PM
Whoops, let me form that into a link for everyone. To go to the link referenced above, click here.
Liam
Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:31:00 PM
(activist judges, my ass) When judges and politicians talk about a living document it comes to my mind that they are unhappy with the wording and content of the Constitution. There is a remedy for this, it is called a Constitutional Amendment. These judges by pass that remedy when they find things in the Constitution that are not there ie the right to abortion. Liam, I once again have to say that you seem to be unhappy with the will of the people who elected this present administration and the majority of both houses and believe that you are willing to believe any point that re-enforces your belief. If you really don't think these judges are not activist, then I believe your thinking is being influenced by your liberalism.
Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:07:00 PM
By the way Liam, if you ask John Conyers his leanings he will tell you democrat, but if you look at his rantings you will discover he is a socialist.
Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:03:00 PM
Thanks for your comments. Let me ask you: Are you one of those crazy Republicans who, after holding up dozens of Clinton administration judicial nominations, are now screaming bloody murder about the Democrats doing the same to 10 of Bush's? Why does it seem like the Republican congress is incensed at behavior that a mere decade ago they themselves were practicing? It's the way the system works. It's checks and balances.
And I don't dispute that there are activists in every walk of life. But I don't think it's fair to label anyone who finds in a different direction than you would like an "activist judge".
A lot of people don't even understand judicial rulings. As often as not, the Supreme Court will be slammed by someone for ruling something they didn't rule. For example, the recent case of the words "Under God" in the pledge, which was widely reported as the court "upholding the words Under God". What they in fact did was rule that the plaintiff did not have grounds to bring the charge. They threw out the case without hearing it, they made no judgement either way on the constitutionality of the words.
There are some very good reasons why our founding fathers went out of their way to separate church from state, and it seems that the current fashion is to label any judge which CORRECTLY rules against government involvement in religion as an "activist judge".
The whole reason why judges are not subject to re-election is so that they are free to be a check or balance against the other branches of government, even when the constitutionality of a situation is unpopular.
For example, it shouldn't be terribly popular with most people that the KKK and other hate groups have the right to march openly, recruit members, and conduct their business in public. But nevertheless, they HAVE that right, and any judge who is following the constitution has to respect THEIR rights to assembly and free speech, and those judges can do that because they don't have to worry about being thrown out in the next election cycle by people who don't understand the constitution.
And the point of my rants is that I'm not sure we even KNOW who the "masses" elected. Neither this election nor the previous one was sufficiently a landslide to overshadow what seems to be large scale fraud on both sides. The fact is, I'm simply not sure we really know what "the masses" voted for.
Certainly when you look at Ohio, and the fact that districts with a Republican leaning had a surplus of voting machines, while more liberal leaning districts found they had significantly fewer, longer lines, etc, there are fair questions to be asked. This is the same sort of crap that was once pulled to prevent the African American (black, colored, whatever term you like) population from voting. Just make it so odious that people will give up and not vote.
I recall on election night watching one district (in a college town, traditionally a hotbed of liberalism, I'll agree), and when I went to bed at around 2am EST, there were still people waiting on line to vote, and estimates were that the last of them wouldn't get in for time measured in HOURS. But strangely I've not heard any reports of similar lines, holdups, and problems in the more conservative districts.
We don't know who the masses truly wanted, we don't even know who the masses who cared enough to TRY to vote really wanted. All we know is that we have a "screw everyone" foreign policy, a war we started under false pretenses, a failure to find the leader of the group that actually perpetrated the events of 9/11 on our soil, and yet somehow pointing this out makes me not "a concerned American" in your view, but "a Liberal willing to believe any point that re-enforces (my) belief."
You, sir, are a part of the problem, when the labels "Republican" and "Democrat" mean more to you than truth and what is best for the country.
And yes, I'm focused more in this response on the fraud on the pro-Republican side than on the other side, because in this election I agreed with anyone who felt that the Bush administration had to go, and so this time around, I was with the Democrats, and thus am more familiar with the fraud perpetrated AGAINST them. I do not dispute there is also evidence of fraud perpetrated BY them.
Liam.
Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:55:00 PM
Liam, I hate to say typical but I will. I talked about a remedy for what one doesn't like in the Constitution or would like to see in the Constitution as an amendment. Hard to get..yes,but for a reason. I pointed out that the right to abortion is not in the Constitution so a bunch of activist judges "found" it in a prenumba (shadow under a cloud).
You on the other hand did not address that situation but instead started useing all of the democratic talking points concerning the current battle between the parties on judicial appointees.
As for seperation of Church and State. That is an entirely other matter and too lengthy for me to address in this response.
Friday, May 13, 2005 8:46:00 AM
And you employ typical Republican tactics: Miss (or avoid) the point entirely, make unfounded accusations and a few barely-related statements, and then accuse the other party of not answering your points, when all the other party is doing is staying true to the ORIGINAL point of the debate.
By the way, I know what a penumbra is, and (since you've opened the door to ad hominem attacks) let me point out that *I* know how to spell it correctly. It's also not a shadow under a cloud, it's the area of PARTIAL illumination outside the area of totality during an eclipse. Oh, and so you know, "ad hominem" means attacking a person's character rather than debating his points.
But... you clearly are unable to read what I say and NOT cast a liberal spin to it, and I'm quite tired of being expected to defend myself for saying things I didn't say, except in your warped, twisted, anti-liberal mind.
I'm happy to debate Ralph, because he's polite, replies to my points (even when we disagree), and above all, seems INTELLIGENT. You, sir, are a typical conservative rabble rouser, using tired techniques of assignment-and-refutation, and I'm not going to play that game any more.
When you have something legitimate to say, I'll respond to you.
Liam.
Friday, May 13, 2005 9:11:00 AM
(I was tempted to be done with that, but so as not to leave myself open to charges that I CONTINUED to ignore your tangential point, I'll add this...)
Oh, and I should add, have you READ the Roe v. Wade decision? I have. The court did not say that Abortion was guaranteed in the constitution. It said that the plaintiff's argument in the case, that it impinged on a woman's "right to privacy" (a right found in the penumbras of several of the articles of the bill of rights, although not explicitly anywhere), and that the only legitimate argument against it was the idea that a baby's life began with conception.
It further said that there was little scientific opinion on the matter, and that the various religions assigned the beginning of "life" were in disagreement, some saying conception, some saying quickening, and some saying birth. It thus held that a law based on ONE of those definitions violated the "church and state" separations of the Constitution.
So again, as I said, many people don't even take the time to understand the workings of the court or what they're actually doing. The court does not rule based on morality, they rule based on the evidence and arguments placed before them, and if the plaintiff's argument is more persuasive in light of existing laws and precedents, they will win.
Again, I'm not saying no judge has ever made a "judgment call" not in line with what the laws actually say, we know it happens. But that doesn't mean every judge that rules in a way you disagree with is an activist. If you can demonstrate that the judge failed to apply the law properly, you can make your case (and by the way, that's why we have the appellate system, so that mistakes and bad decisions can be corrected).
Take the case of Terri Schiavo. Many people seem to believe that the Supreme Court ruled that it was right to have her feeding tube removed. What they in fact ruled was that they did not have jurisdiction, and so would not hear the case.
Liam.
Friday, May 13, 2005 9:29:00 AM
(Apologies for the various grammatical errors in the previous. I'm at work and was trying to finish up my response quickly, so I could get to my job, which is, after all, what they pay me for.)
Friday, May 13, 2005 9:30:00 AM
Hey, I'm glad I missed this one till now... although it's nice to see some other "W" fans taking you to task. I'll refrain from commenting on the miriad of issues addressed herein and offer a local story related to the original topic of this rant. Just reported this week in Milwaukee County, a predominantly Democrat County in Wisconsin near where I live,the total votes somehow exceeded the total voters by 4600. This was just one county. This number exceeds the margin of victory for John Kerry in WI...was this a Democrat conspiracy???? Hmmm???
Friday, May 13, 2005 1:36:00 PM
Sorry if you consider my remarks to be ad hominem, and I do apologize,for I do not mean for them to be, but you were the first to ask me if I was one of those crazy Republicans.
Back to matters...You stated that if I could demonstrate that the judge failed to apply the law properly, that would make my case. What law did the Supreme Court apply properly to overule every existing state anti-abortion law?
Friday, May 13, 2005 2:15:00 PM
Yes, Wader, I think it was in fact democratic fraud. As I said, above, my dislike for Bush as a person and as a President makes me focus this time on the instances of Republican fraud, but I am coming to believe the age of knowing the true will of the masses (if in fact we ever could) is over, and the elections are now won by whoever is better able to perpetrate their fraud without getting caught.
I think it's disgraceful, but it means that we don't really know who would have won in a "fair" system. And by the way, it makes me laugh ruefully when we talk about elections in a newly formed democracy, and how someone needs to monitor them for fairness and accuracy.
Physician, heal thyself.
Liam.
Friday, May 13, 2005 2:29:00 PM
Anonymous, it proves your point about the specific judge(s) involved. My problem with the term "activist judges" is it has the same broad-brush accusation quality to it as "vast right wing conspiracy" did a few years ago. It doesn't mean anything, it's just easier to tarnish the whole lot than to admit that there's a small minority of ANY group that's corrupt and apt to flout the rules.
In the case of striking down the TX abortion law (and Roe v. Wade didn't strike down ALL such laws just the TX law, although of course it DID set a precedent for future cases), the Supreme Court accepted the argument by the plaintiff that:
A) The right to privacy, while not SPECIFICALLY mentioned, occurs in the penumbra of several amendments (I think it was 2, 4, 7 and 9, but I don't have it in front of me, so those numbers may be completely off), and has generally been held to exist.
B) The rights of mother are explicit, those of fetus depend on a definition of when the fetus becomes a person.
C) There was at that time no predominant scientific opinion as to when a fetus became "alive" or "a person" or had "a soul" or whatever definition you want to use.
D) There was also no predominant religious opinion, some religions opting for birth, others for conception, and still others for "quickening" (when the mother first feels the fetus move).
E) Basing the law on protections for a fetus, when the only basis for considering the fetus worthy of rights was an opinion held by one specific religion's opinion violated the church/state separation.
Therefore, they found the law unconstitutional on that basis. Again, you may not AGREE with it, but it isn't a clear cut case, and this was the path through the legal landscape which the Court at that time felt was the most in line with constitutionality.
And again, understanding what they were in fact ruling, it makes sense to me, at least from the standpoint of following the logic they used. It wasn't merely a batch of old men sitting around saying "Hmmm. How can we give women a right they don't currently have?", which seems to be the picture the term "activist judges" is intended to paint.
Liam.
Friday, May 13, 2005 2:39:00 PM
Yes, I've been doing a lot of reading of the Huffington Post lately. Here's an article someone wrote which summarizes nicely all of the reasons why I think the "Nuclear Option" to eliminate Filibuster in the case of judicial nominations is ill advised.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/geoffrey-r-stone/the-nuclear-option.html
Enjoy!
Liam.
Sunday, May 15, 2005 8:01:00 PM
The spelling is "prenumbra"...we were both wrong....or am I still wrong on this spelling..old age and all you know.
Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:11:00 PM
Well... unless there's another word than the one I'm used to, there's only one R in it, the penultimate letter.
Penumbra. And just to check, I just checked it on www.m-w.com (Merriam Webster) and they do long list your spelling. However, if you have a dictionary which says differently, I'd be happy to look it up and learn a new word!
Liam.
Monday, May 16, 2005 6:46:00 AM
Wow, momentary brain fog. "they do NOT list your spelling" not "they do LONG list your spelling". What the heck were my fingers thinking?
Liam.
Monday, May 16, 2005 6:48:00 AM
Penultimate penumbra, the next Star Wars movie.
Monday, May 16, 2005 4:41:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home