HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Commentary - Aug 29, 2005 - Printable Version
- I Am Not a Kook
by Robin Buckallew
Lately, whenever I open my magazines, check my e-mail, it's the same old story - conspiracy theories everywhere. Then, of course, there are the articles that are condemning the conspiracy theories as tripe and nonsense. So, what gives? Why are perfectly ordinary, everyday, seemingly sensible people going around with conspiracy on their lips? Aren't conspiracies for the aluminum foil hat crowd? Has the whole Faulking world gone nuts? Am I surrounded by kooks, or what? There are many people that have a reflexive instinct to automatically reject anything that smells of conspiracy theory, and it is to those people that I would like to address these comments. I understand. For many years, there have been conspiracy buffs everywhere, seeing alien abductions in perfectly innocent (or maybe not so innocent?) trysts keeping people from returning home when expected. They have believed that the government has been hiding aliens in the desert for 50 years. The right wing has been shouting giant left-wing conspiracy for about a century now, without stopping to consider that the left wing lacks suitable discipline and cohesiveness to pull together a good conspiracy. And we all remember how foolish Hillary Clinton was made to look when she claimed a vast right-wing conspiracy was out to get Bill. No one wants to be seen as paranoid or silly. So, many intellectuals and skeptics everywhere automatically reject all conspiracy theories out of hand. But how legitimate is that? Well, I will tell you - it's not legitimate, in fact it's dangerous. Much more dangerous than wasting a little bit of precious manpower chasing after evidence on every nutty conspiracy theory that turns out to be half-baked. Let me explain.
I would like to tell you a story. This is a story of our recent history, history that probably most of our readers can remember. Once upon a time, there was a news reporter for the AP (that's right, the AP, not the National Enquirer) who discovered something he found a little shocking. He also found evidence for it - not enough evidence to prove it, or to convict anyone, but enough to render it worthy of substantial investigation. His editor was pleased as punch, asked him to continue investigating, sure the story would win the Pulitzer Prize. The next day, after the story ran, the skeptics hollered "CONSPIRACY THEORY!" The editor, deciding wisdom meant caution, killed any further story. A year and a half later, another paper finally broke the story, and investigation was begun in earnest. It turned out to be true. In fact, it turned out to be bigger than the original reporter had realized. But meanwhile, because he was shouted down by a knee-jerk rejection of conspiracy theories, agents of the United States government continued to sell arms to our enemies for an additional year and a half, using the money thus illegally gained to support an illegal war in South America that Congress had decided not to support. That's right, I'm referring to Iran-Contra. You may remember, there were many indictments handed down from this conspiracy. There were many convictions. Evidence indicates that it probably went all the way to the top - POTUS himself. It almost certainly involved the VEEP, later to become POTUS - one George H. W. Bush. This is why I believe ignoring all conspiracy theories as a matter of course is foolhardy and very dangerous.
For those of you who are protesting that one example doesn't make a case, I would like to say a few words: I began with Iran-Contra, and I would like to add Watergate. Abscam. Enron. In fact, for those who are opposed to the idea of conspiracy theories, I would like to ask you one question: do you or do you not believe that on 9/11/2001 19 men hijacked 4 airplanes, flew 2 of them into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and crashed one in Pennsylvania? If you believe this, than the only viable explanation is conspiracy. Unless, of course, you believe that by chance, 19 separate individuals made their plans, coincidentally boarded the same 4 planes with identical weapons and identical targets. Then, once aboard, they happened to discover that they had fellow passengers who had the same idea, and just decided to join forces at the last minute. Ridiculous. So, I would suggest, you yourself are a conspiracy theorist. As are we all who believe that 9/11 occurred, no matter what we consider the reason or the background.
But, that aside, isn't it ridiculous to think that our GOVERNMENT, our PRESIDENT, our CABINET MEMBERS might be involved in conspiratorial actions? I thought long and hard about that - after all, I am not a kook. I don't want to get so paranoid that I find myself waking up in the middle of the night one night in an alley with a tin foil hat. Here's what I realized. During my lifetime, every Republican president (with the exception of Eisenhower, and he was only president for 3 months of my life, so I don't count him) has been in some way or other involved in a conspiracy. Many of Nixon's men were convicted of felonies (quite a few of them are now advisors to the current president). Many of Reagan's men were convicted of felonies (most of them are now advisors to the current president). The older Bush was involved in the Reagan scandals up to the top of his Ivy League head. In addition, there have been hints of conspiracies and conspiracy accusations against nearly all the Democratic presidents that have served in my lifetime. Anyone remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? Some feel that was a conspiracy. It seems only natural, with such a history, that when things are going badly, people would begin to believe there was a conspiracy. Especially when you begin to see things like the Downing Street Memo, and the Project for a New American Century website. In fact, I would submit that it is not paranoia or irrational belief to consider the possibility of a conspiracy. In the face of all the conspiracies that are known to have occurred in the past few decades, the irrational belief is to deny the possibility of conspiracy. In fact, for those of you who have forgotten your history, the very foundations of this country rest upon a conspiracy. The men who assembled in Philadelphia to declare us a country in our own right were conspirators, conspiring to commit an act of treason. If we had lost the American Revolution, they would all have been hanged. Many of them did suffer loss of life and property as a result of their participation. We, the people, are the descendents of a conspiracy. You say our government is unlikely to commit a conspiracy? I say our government is a conspiracy - a successful conspiracy, to be sure, but a conspiracy none the less.
Oh, one more thing. That vast right-wing conspiracy Hillary complained about? Turns out she was right. I don't know how vast it was, but it was certainly right-wing, and it was certainly a conspiracy. A very well-funded conspiracy known as the Arkansas Project. It was participated in by such big names as Richard Mellon-Scaife and Rupert Murdoch. This fact is rarely questioned anymore. Has anyone apologized to Hillary for ridiculing her? Of course not - after all, she was a silly conspiracy theorist. Apparently, being right doesn't make you any less wrong in the minds of the conspiracy deniers.
This article is not meant to be an endorsement of any particular conspiracy theory, or necessarily even of conspiracy theory at all. It is meant to be a plea to be sensible and responsible. After all, for years the Air Force has spent time and money chasing after and investigating vaguely evidenced UFO claims. Our government spent millions during the 1990s investigating a stain on a blue dress. Surely we can spend a little time and money in a serious, hard hitting investigation of the various questions that are being asked about 9/11 and the Iraq War. If a good, thorough investigation vindicates everyone in the government, and shows that the conspiracy theorists were off base, we can all breathe a sigh of relief, forget about it, and go on with our lives. But in the light of all our historical lapses of judgment that have led us into bigger and bigger messes (Watergate, Vietnam, Iran-Contra, Enron, Abscam..), I think it would be a big mistake to simply dismiss out of hand all conspiracy theories just because they are conspiracy theories. Don't pretend that conspiracies never happen. We know they do. And besides, just think how many man hours would be needed to do the investigation. Seems like there are a lot of unemployed Americans out there right now who could use the work.
For the past couple of days, I have been heartsick to the point of losing sleep. You see, for years I had been struggling with a dilemma. I had been trying to decide which I thought was the worse phenomenon – folks who went around all the time believing every conspiracy theory in the absence of any supporting evidence, or the people who dismissed every bit of news of duplicity or fraud, no matter what the evidence, by ridiculing it as “conspiracy theory”. Recently I made my decision. Convinced that the people who allowed fraud to continue unchecked were totally dangerous, and people who saw conspiracy around every corner were mostly harmless kooks, I settled my dilemma. I decided we were far better off investigating bogus conspiracy claims than allowing others to ridicule the evidence of true and terrible wrongdoing as just another conspiracy theory. I was wrong. And for that, I am truly apologetic.
ADDENDUM:
The Rational Middle
By Robin Buckallew
Sept. 15, 2005
It was with heavy heart that I read the stories alleging that the levees were blown up with explosive devices to make them fail during the recent hurricane events in New Orleans. I feel this story is the most dangerous conspiracy theory I have heard in a long time. The tragedy that befell New Orleans was truly a tragedy, and our government truly did have a hand in it, but the name of that hand was apathy, not conspiracy. For years, the engineers have been aware that the levees were unlikely to withstand the force of a Category 5 storm. In fact, many engineers predicted they would be unable to even withstand a Category 3 storm. In 2002, a researcher with Louisiana State University predicted that New Orleans would suffer through a killer storm within the next 50 years. I am sure he is horrified to find out how soon his prediction was proven right. The failure of the levees was no mystery. It did not require a conspiracy. It simply required that the human mind ignore a looming tragedy that was many years in the making. Now, it frightens me to think that a belief in a conspiratorial governmental bombing directed at the New Orleans levees would lull people into a false illusion that the levees themselves might have been safe, leading to a repeat of the recent tragedy, or perhaps even a worse tragedy. The levee system itself was to blame for this tragedy, not some nefarious plot cooked up in the boardrooms and inner chambers of our national leaders. Our leaders were responsible for apathy. They were responsible for underestimating the risk. They were responsible for the slowness of their response. But there is little evidence to indicate that they were responsible for bombing the levees. I fear that the acceptance of such a conspiracy theory could potentially lead to tragedy and disaster far worse than that we have already witnessed.
Yes, I advocate the investigation of evidence of government wrongdoing or even conspiratorial behavior. There is little to convince me that it is irrational to look at such bits of evidence that indicate that our government might lie to us, and engage in international adventures that are not in the best interests of peace and prosperity in the world. We should investigate evidence of corruption and malfeasance, even up to the highest levels of our government. These investigations should be undertaken with the utmost of care that we follow carefully the appropriate methodology of science, history and law, and that we should not allow our emotions and our passions to run away with our sense. We need to be highly circumspect in what we accept as evidence, and not run wild accepting every possible eyewitness account that appears to validate our beliefs, while ignoring all evidence that runs counter to what we accept.
I urge, in short, for the rational middle. Most of the time, the conspiracy theories I hear are harmless and possibly foolish (no, our government is not hiding aliens in a fort in the desert, but I suppose no one has yet been hurt by that rumor, and Roswell, NM, has gotten quite a bit richer on it); however, there are at least a handful of conspiracy theories that are unsubstantiated by much more than wild suspicion, and are at their core quite dangerous. On the other hand, for those of you who are so skeptical of anything that smacks of people getting together and planning some dastardly doings, keep in mind that there are times in this world where bad things happen not just because someone made a “bad decision”, but because someone planned them that way. History has shown that sometimes this can include people we have entrusted with the highest powers in the land. Most of these plans have been uncovered through sheer hard work and solid evidence gathering, not through wild speculation. For the most part, the reaction of the people who gather the most damning evidence is initially one of utter disbelief. Check yourself. If your first reaction to a wild conspiracy theory is automatic acceptance, you may want to back up, take a deep breath, and reconsider it in the rational light of day. On the other hand are the folks who automatically reject well researched, thoroughly documented investigations as just another “conspiracy theory”. There is great danger in the extremes.
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).